Row Pattern and Seeding Rate Effects on Agronomic, Disease, and Economic Factors in Large-Seeded Runner Peanut

Tubbs, R. Scott; Beasley, John P.; Culbreath, A. K.; Kemerait, Robert C.; Smith, Nathan B.; Smith, Amanda R.

doi:10.3146/ps10-19.1

Cited by 31 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although data is limited on plant stand effects on pod yield in peanut seeded in twin rows, Lanier et al (2004) reported no differences in yield between stands of 4, 8, and 12 plants/m using four Virginia-type peanut cultivars. While overall plant stands tested were higher, Tubbs et al (2011) reported a similar effect in twin rows, with a plant stand of 16.3 plants/m producing higher yields than stands of 15.7 and 13.6 plants/m across seven Runner-type cultivars.Peanut grade was also affected by plant stand. Similar to pod yield, the highest grade value was observed at 12.3 plants/m.…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating Plant Population and Replant Method Effects on Peanut Planted in Twin Rows

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Achieving and maintaining an adequate plant stand is a major priority when making planting and early season management decisions in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Unpredictable and often extreme weather and high disease pressure in the southeastern United States can contribute to poor emergence and below-optimum plant stands. When plant stand is affected, replanting may be agronomically justified. This study was designed to determine i) the effect of plant stand on pod yield, market grade, and disease incidence in peanut seeded in a twin row pattern, (ii) if replanting is a viable option in a field with a below adequate stand and, iii) the best method for replanting peanut when an adequate stand is not achieved. Field trials were established at two locations in south Georgia in 2012 and 2013 to evaluate peanut production at four plant stands (7.4, 9.8, 12.3, and 14.8 plants/m [total plants/m across both units, or 'twins' of the twin row pattern) and four replant methods (no replant, destroy the original stand and replant at a full seeding rate, add a reduced rate of seed to supplement the original stand with a single row between the original rows, and supplement with two additional rows with one between and the other next to the original rows). Replanting occurred when the stand had been established, an average of 24 days after initial planting. Pod yield at a stand of 12.3 plants/m was 6.6 and 5.8% greater than at a stand of 7.4 and 9.8 plants/ m, respectively, with no benefit from increasing plant stand beyond 12.3 plants/m. Market grade was also maximized at 12.3 plants/m. Disease incidence was unaffected by plant stand. Yield was increased by supplementing an initial stand of 9.8 plants/m in both a single additional row and in two additional rows by 8.3 and 6.6%, respectively. A full replant of the original stand always resulted in lower yield, while grade was slightly increased in the full replant treatment.While an initial stand of 12.3 plants/m was needed in order to maintain yield potential, replanting via supplemental seed addition can recover lost yield at stands below this level.Key Words: Grade, plant stand, seed, stem rot, total sound mature kernels, tomato spotted wilt virus, TSMK, white mold.There are multiple factors that a producer must consider, normally in a very short time window, when deciding whether or not to replant a peanut field with a below-optimum plant stand. The decision whether or not to replant is a difficult one to make because while poor plant stands often result in reduced pod yield and loss of revenue (Sorensen et al., 2004;Sconyers et al., 2007;Culbreath et al., 2011), replanting may lead to an economic disadvantage if costs to replant exceed the economic benefits of added yield (Sternitzke et al., 2000).Although research is lacking on replant decisions in peanut, there are numerous studies that have reported reasons why seeds and seedlings may not survive and why plant stands may be adversely affected as a result. These stand limiting factors include soilborne pathoge...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Tubbs et al (2011) reported reduced pod yield in twin rows at seeding rates of 17 and 20 seeds/m when compared to a seeding rate of 23 seeds/m. While not implicitly studied, the 17 and 20 seeds/m rates resulted in plant stands of 13.6 and 15.7 plants/m, respectively, while the 23 seeds/m seeding rate corresponded to a final plant stand of 16.3 plants/m.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Plant Population and Replant Method Effects on Peanut Planted in Twin Rows

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this experiment TSW incidence was relatively low even though yield was higher in twin rows compared with single rows. Planting peanut in twin rows is more expensive than planting in single rows because the amount of seed, in-furrow insecticide, and inoculant input costs are increased (Tubbs et al, 2011).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 4 of 6 trials, planting peanut in twin rows increased yield by 330 to 550 kg/ha over single rows regardless of cultivar (Table 3). Yield response to planting pattern can be inconsistent (Baldwin et al, 2001;Buchanan and Hauser, 1980;Hurt et al, 2003;Jordan et al, 2001;Tubbs et al, 2011). Increasing the seeding rate or planting peanut in twin row patterns is a key component of risk advisories for TSW management in peanut (Brandenburg, 2014;Hurt et al, 2003).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Planting Pattern on Pest Management in Virginia Market Type Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.)

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twelve field trials were completed in North Carolina from 2005 to 2007 to determine the impact of planting pattern on peanut yield, market grade characteristics, and pest reaction for the Virginia market type cultivars Perry and VA 98R. The first set of experiments was designed to evaluate incidence of Cylindrocladium black rot (caused by Cylindrocladium parasiticum) using a factorial treatment arrangement of two cultivars, two levels of fumigation (none or metam sodium at 112 L/ha), and two levels of planting pattern (single rows spaced 91-cm apart or twin rows spaced 18 cm apart on 91-cm centers). Visible symptoms associated with Cylindrocladium black rot were not affected by planting pattern. However, in 1 of 3 trials pod scarring as a result of feeding by southern corn rootworm (Diabrotica undecimpunctata Howardi) was greater in twin rows compared with single rows. Damage from tobacco thrips (Frankliniella fusca) was also higher in the cultivar VA 98R planted in twin rows than in single rows or for the cultivar Perry. In the second set of experiments designed to evaluate incidence of Sclerotinia blight (caused by Sclerotinia minor), a factorial treatment arrangement consisting of two cultivars, two levels of boscalid (none or boscalid at 0.44 kg ai/ha), and two levels of planting pattern was implemented. Boscalid decreased Sclerotinia blight incidence at one of 4 locations, and increased pod yield. Yield of Perry was lower when grown in twin rows versus single rows, but yield of VA 98R was higher in twin rows. Peanut planted in twin rows yielded more than peanut planted in single rows regardless of cultivar, fumigation, or disease history in most trials. Results from these experiments suggest that planting pattern can have a minor impact on response to pests and that yield and market grades are often improved when peanut is planted in twin-row planting patterns compared with single rows.

show abstract

“…Tomato spotted wilt (tomato spotted wilt tospovirus) in peanut became epidemic in the southeastern U. S. region during the early 1990's and seeding rates to produce a final stand of .13 plants/m of row were recommended to reduce losses due to the disease (Culbreath et al 2003(Culbreath et al , 2013Tillman et al 2006;Tubbs et al 2011). The premise was that dense peanut growth was less attractive to thrips vectors and compensated for early-season stand losses due to the disease.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Peanut Stand Uniformity and Herbicide Regime on Weed Management and Yield

Johnson¹,

Davis

2016

Peanut Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crop stand directly affects ability of any crop to compete with weeds. To capture this form of cultural weed control, final crop stands need to be uniform. Peanut stands are frequently nonuniform, despite the use of precision vacuum planters. Trials were conducted from 2009 through 2011 in Tifton, GA to determine the effect of non-uniform peanut stands on weed control, grade, and marketable peanut yield. Non-uniform peanut stands were established by modifying vacuum planter discs that created skips 18 cm wide and 36 cm wide at regular intervals and compared with peanut at a uniform stand. The weed control regimes chosen reflected differing degrees of residual weed control provided by flumioxazin or imazapic and addressed the need for residual weed control when peanut stands are non-uniform. Postemergence (POST) herbicides bentazon, paraquat, and 2,4-DB were chosen to test the theory that properly timed applications of non-residual herbicides will control weeds in skips without the need for preemergence (PRE) herbicides. There was no significant interaction between peanut stand uniformity and weed control regime for any parameter. Weed response to peanut stand was variable among species and inconsistent. Weed densities tended to be lower when the residual herbicides flumioxazin and/or imazapic were part of the herbicide regime. Peanut yields and percent total sound mature kernels were not affected by narrow (18 cm) skips, but were reduced two years out of three by wide (36 cm) skips. Peanut yields and grade were similar among weed control regimes that used PRE herbicides and POST herbicides with no residual weed control properties. These results indicate that weed control considerations are not a factor when peanut skips are ,18 cm. The herbicide choices evaluated are capable of controlling weeds allowing peanut to compensate for non-uniform stands and not have yield reduction when skips are ,18 cm.

show abstract

Row Pattern and Seeding Rate Effects on Agronomic, Disease, and Economic Factors in Large-Seeded Runner Peanut

Cited by 31 publications

References 22 publications

Evaluating Plant Population and Replant Method Effects on Peanut Planted in Twin Rows

Evaluating Plant Population and Replant Method Effects on Peanut Planted in Twin Rows

Influence of Planting Pattern on Pest Management in Virginia Market Type Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.)

Effects of Peanut Stand Uniformity and Herbicide Regime on Weed Management and Yield

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About