Row Pattern and Weed Management Effects on Peanut Production1

Colvin, Daniel L.; Walker, Robert H.; Patterson, Michael G.; Wehtje, Glenn; McGuire, John A.

doi:10.3146/pnut.12.1.0006

Cited by 12 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with other research (Hauser and Buchanan, 1981;Colvin et al, 1985;Yoder et al, 2003), results from these trials indicate that, in addition to decreased incidence ofTSWV, growers will most likely improve weed control when adopting twin row planting patterns compared to single row plantings. However, these results also suggest that use of twin row planting patterns will not eliminate the need for herbicides in peanut.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 78%

“…Hauser and Buchanan (1981) reported improved weed control when peanut was seeded in narrow rows compared with single row planting patterns. Colvin et al (1985) reported more effective control of sicklepod, Florida beggarweed [Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DC], and bristly starbur (Acanthospermum hispidum DC) in both twin row and narrow row planting patterns compared with single row planting patterns. However, enhanced weed control in peanut seeded in twin row planting patterns did not reduce herbicide usage when compared with control in single row planting patterns (Colvin et al, 1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sicklepod Control in Peanut Seeded in Single and Twin Row Planting Patterns

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sicklepod [Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin & Barneby] control and peanut pod yield with preemergence applications of dimethenamid and dimethenamid plus diclosulam alone or followed by postemergence application of imazapic were compared when peanut was seeded in single and twin row planting patterns. Sicklepod control was 9% higher when peanut was seeded in the twin row planting pattern (rows spaced 18 em apart on 9l-cm centers) compared with peanut planted in the single row planting pattern (single rows on 9l-cm centers) regardless of preemergence or postemergence herbicide treatment. Sicklepod control by dimethenamid plus diclosulam exceeded control by dimethenamid alone in 1 of 2 yr. Imazapic applied postemergence consistently increased sicklepod control over dimethenamid or dimethenamid plus diclosulam alone. Pod yield generally reflected differences noted for sicklepod control when comparing planting patterns and treatments. ' Altering plant population and row pattern can affect crop yield, quality, and pest development in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Pod yield of bunch-type peanut was 16% higher when peanut was seeded in rows spaced 46 em apart compared with yields in rows spaced 91cm apart (Norden and Lipscomb, 1974). Duke and Alexander (1964) reported pod yield that was 14% higher in narrow row plantings compared with traditional wider row patterns using large-seeded virginia bunch-type peanut. Spanish market-type peanut planted in 46-cm rows yielded higher than peanut planted in rows spaced 61, 76, 91, or 107 em apart with the same in-row plant population (Parham, 1942). Cox and Reid (1965) reported that increasing plant populations by increasing in-row seeding rate or by decreasing row width increased pod yield.Although less than 10% of peanut in North Carolina is seeded in twin row planting patterns (rows spaced approximately 18 em apart with centers of these rows spaced 91 to 102 em apart), research suggests that seeding peanut in twin row planting patterns can increase yield,

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 78%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sicklepod Control in Peanut Seeded in Single and Twin Row Planting Patterns

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The only variable with an interaction between inoculant and phorate treatments was (Colvin et al, 1985;Hauser and Buchanan, 1981;Wehtje et al, 1984) and soil temperature through shading. Excessive soil temperatures can lead to pollen sterility, reduce flowering and fruit set, and inhibit pegs from entering the soil (Kvien, 1995).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect ofBradyrhizobiaInoculant Formulation with Phorate in New Peanut Fields

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is a legume and requires nodulation by Bradyrhizobia to convert atmospheric N into a plant usable form. Peanut inoculants place large volumes of viable Bradyrhizobia near the emerging root of the plant to infect it ensuring N-fixation. Peanut seedlings are susceptible to feeding by thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), which transmit Tospovirus leading to tomato spotted wilt (TSW) and can result in yield decline. Phorate is a common in-furrow insecticide used to reduce thrips feeding on the plants, and hence reduce the risk of TSW infection. However, placing phorate in the same furrow with living Bradyrhizobia has raised concerns about phorate potentially reducing efficacy of inoculants. Experiments were designed to test liquid and sterile peat formulations of Bradyrhizobia inoculant with two peanut cultivars in-furrow at planting, both with and without phorate insecticide to determine yield, grade, and growth parameters on peanut. Research was conducted on a non-irrigated loamy sand with no prior history of growing peanut in Tifton, GA in 2013 and 2014. There were no negative effects on peanut yield or grade, or other measured parameters when phorate was included in-furrow with inoculants. Yields with inoculants were equal or greater (up to 32% more) than noninoculated peanut, and grade was improved (+1.2 to 1.4%) when using the liquid formulation instead of the sterile peat formulation or noninoculated peanut. Other indicators of improved plant performance using inoculants over noninoculated plants included the abundance and activity of nodules on the roots and time to row closure (vegetation overlap of bare soil). These data indicate there are no detrimental effects to peanut inoculant when also including phorate insecticide in-furrow.

show abstract

“…The yield benefits of a twin row planting pattern have been widely researched and published (Wehtje et al, 1984;Colvin et al, 1985;Lanier et al, 2004;Sorensen et al, 2007; ground cover, and improved light interception can be credited for this reported yield advantage. Previous research shows that a portion of the yield increase in twin rows compared to single rows is likely due to the reduction in pressure of common peanut diseases including Tomato spotted wilt Tospovirus (TSWV) (Brown et al, 2005;Tillman et al, 2006;Culbreath et al, 2008) and stem rot, caused by the fungus Sclerotium rolfsii, (Minton and Csinos, 1986, Sorensen et al, 2004;Sconyers et al, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The yield benefits of a twin row planting pattern have been widely researched and published (Wehtje et al, 1984;Colvin et al, 1985;Lanier et al, 2004;Sorensen et al, 2007;. Research has shown that a myriad of reasons including improved disease control, improved weed suppression, shortened time to full ground cover, and improved light interception can be credited for this reported yield advantage.…”

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

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

Row Pattern and Weed Management Effects on Peanut Production1

Cited by 12 publications

References 9 publications

Sicklepod Control in Peanut Seeded in Single and Twin Row Planting Patterns

Sicklepod Control in Peanut Seeded in Single and Twin Row Planting Patterns

Effect ofBradyrhizobiaInoculant Formulation with Phorate in New Peanut Fields

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About