Interaction of Cultivar, Planting Pattern, and Weed Management Tactics in Peanut

Place, George T.; Reberg‐Horton, S. Chris; Jordan, David L.

doi:10.1614/ws-d-10-00012.1

Cited by 10 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Crop cultivars that mature at different rates or have different competitive abilities may be used to suppress weed populations and weed growth (Froud-Williams 1988;Richards 1989). Use of competitive crop cultivars has been examined in crops as varied as vegetables and grains in organic crop production (Barberi 2002), soybean (Nordby et al 2007), canola (Beckie et al 2008;Harker et al 2003), wheat (Wicks et al 2004), peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) (Place et al 2010), rice (de Vida et al 2006;Gealy et al 2003), and potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) (Colquhoun et al 2009). Factors affecting competitive ability include height, density, leaf area, tillering, canopy type, allelopathic potential, and cultivar differences in competition for light, water, and soil nutrients (Grundy et al 1992;Lotz et al 1991;Moss 1985;Pyšek and Lepš 1991;Richards and Whytock 1993;Standifer and Beste 1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Herbicide Resistance: Toward an Understanding of Resistance Development and the Impact of Herbicide-Resistant Crops

Vencill¹,

Nichols²,

Webster³

et al. 2012

Weed sci.

263

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Development of herbicide-resistant crops has resulted in significant changes to agronomic practices, one of which is the adoption of effective, simple, low-risk, crop-production systems with less dependency on tillage and lower energy requirements. Overall, the changes have had a positive environmental effect by reducing soil erosion, the fuel use for tillage, and the number of herbicides with groundwater advisories as well as a slight reduction in the overall environmental impact quotient of herbicide use. However, herbicides exert a high selection pressure on weed populations, and density and diversity of weed communities change over time in response to herbicides and other control practices imposed on them. Repeated and intensive use of herbicides with the same mechanisms of action (MOA; the mechanism in the plant that the herbicide detrimentally affects so that the plant succumbs to the herbicide; e.g., inhibition of an enzyme that is vital to plant growth or the inability of a plant to metabolize the herbicide before it has done damage) can rapidly select for shifts to tolerant, difficult-to-control weeds and the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds, especially in the absence of the concurrent use of herbicides with different mechanisms of action or the use of mechanical or cultural practices or both.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Herbicide Resistance: Toward an Understanding of Resistance Development and the Impact of Herbicide-Resistant Crops

Vencill¹,

Nichols²,

Webster³

et al. 2012

Weed sci.

263

196

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In these trials, multiple or narrow row patterns suppressed weed growth, but not enough to reduce herbicide use. It was the general consensus that greater yields and net returns of paired row spacings compared with wide row spacings were due to optimum conditions for crop growth that increased yield, not necessarily improved weed control (Colvin et al 1985;Cox and Reid 1965;Johnson et al 2005;Place et al 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Practices to Improve In-Row Weed Control with Cultivation in Organic Peanut Production

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cultivation is a proven means of weed control in organic peanut. However, weeds present in-row often escape control. Research trials were conducted in Ty Ty, GA to modify cultural practices to help suppress weed emergence in-row. Modified cultural practices were three row pattern/seeding rate combinations; twin rows (four rows on a seedbed) seeded at the recommended (1X) seeding rate that produced 13 seed m−1in each row, twin rows seeded at the 2X seeding rate that produced 23 seed m−1in each row, and wide rows (two rows on seedbed) seeded at the recommended seeding rate that produced 23 seed m−1. Four cultivation regimes were evaluated; cultivation with a tine weeder at weekly intervals for 6 wk, cultivation with a tine weeder at weekly intervals for 8 wk, scouring with a brush hoe at vegetative emergence followed by the tine weeder for 6 wk, and a noncultivated control. There were no interactions between row pattern/seeding rates and cultivation regimes for any parameter measured. There was inconsistent response of weed control and peanut yield to row pattern/seeding rates. Weed control and peanut yields were similar with tine weeding for 6 wk, 8 wk, or with the brush hoe followed by the tine weeder. Weed management in organic peanut was not improved by altering peanut cultural practices that facilitate quicker canopy closure, and the use of narrow row patterns should not be based on attempts to improve weed control in organic peanut. Narrow row patterns provide other benefits to organic peanut production and those attributes should influence decisions on the choice of row pattern, not weed control.

show abstract

“…A review of the literature documenting studies focused on evaluation of row spacing and row configuration was conducted as a summary of the work conducted in this area over the last three centuries. Figures 1 and 2 show average yields and relative weed abundance reported across the studies found in the literature review (Hauser and Buchanan 1981;Besler 2004;Brecke and Stephenson 2006;Cardina et al, 1987;Colvin et al, 1985a;Colvin et al, 1985b;Culbreath et al, 2008;Lanier et al, 2004a;Lanier et al, 2004b, Place et al, 2010Sconyers et al, 2007;Wehtje et al, 1984;Yoder, 2003), (Scott Monfort, unpublished data, 2012. Blackville, SC: Clemson University, Edisto Research & Education Center).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single Row vs. Twin Row Digging Losses for Two Virginia Type Peanut Varieties

Kirk¹,

Massey²,

Monfort³

et al. 2013

2013 Kansas City, Missouri, July 21 - July 24, 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twin row peanut production was initially introduced to take advantage of production benefits noted in narrow, single row studies, while still accommodating typical machinery involved in peanut production. Studies on twin row peanut production have been conducted since at least the early 1980s and many report increased yields and reduced weed pressure when compared to single row studies. Because the conventional peanut harvest is a two stage process where the plants are first dug and then combined several days later, there are two opportunities for yield losses. This study compares the yield losses at digging for twin row and single row peanuts of two virginia type varieties, Bailey and Champs. Digging losses were quantified as "above ground" and "below ground" losses. Peanuts were planted and dug using RTK navigation to reduce operator induced errors. Mean above ground, below ground, and total digging losses were higher for twin row than for single row configurations across both varieties, but only statistically different for percent above ground losses and percent total digging losses in the Champs variety. Single row mean pod production was higher than that for twin row, but single row mean harvested yield was lower than that for twin row, although not statistically different. The results of this study were not statistically conclusive, but indicate that despite greater pod production and lower digging losses for single row than that for twin row peanuts. This suggests that combining losses for the single row peanuts in this study may be dominant in accounting for total harvest losses. Further study is needed to verify.

show abstract

Interaction of Cultivar, Planting Pattern, and Weed Management Tactics in Peanut

Cited by 10 publications

References 24 publications

Herbicide Resistance: Toward an Understanding of Resistance Development and the Impact of Herbicide-Resistant Crops

Herbicide Resistance: Toward an Understanding of Resistance Development and the Impact of Herbicide-Resistant Crops

Cultural Practices to Improve In-Row Weed Control with Cultivation in Organic Peanut Production

Single Row vs. Twin Row Digging Losses for Two Virginia Type Peanut Varieties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About