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

Lanier, James E.; Lancaster, Sarah; Jordan, David L.; Johnson, Peter; Spears, Janet F.; Wells, Randy; Hurt, C. A.; Brandenburg, Rick

doi:10.3146/pnut.31.1.0008

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results suggest that in a lowinput weed management system for peanut, more rapid canopy closure from the narrow twin row planting pattern does not effectively compensate for the restricted cultivation. Lanier et al (2004b) concluded that twin row planting can improve weed control compared with single row planting but did not eliminate the need for herbicides to protect pod yield a Single rows were spaced 91 cm apart, standard twin rows were spaced 20 cm apart on 91-cm centers, and the narrow twin-row pattern included twin rows spaced 20 cm apart on 46-cm centers.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Planting peanut in narrow rows for weed control has not been investigated in recently released Virginia market peanut cultivars. Research was conducted in North Carolina from 2007 to 2009 to determine the effect of cultivar, planting pattern, and level of weed management inputs on weed control, peanut yield, and estimated economic return. Experiments consisted of three levels of weed management (clethodim applied POST, cultivation and hand-removal of weeds, and clethodim and appropriate broadleaf herbicides applied POST), three levels of planting pattern (single rows spaced 91 cm apart, standard twin rows spaced 20 cm apart on 91-cm centers, and narrow twin rows consisting of twin rows spaced 20 cm apart on 46-cm centers), and two Virginia cultivars (‘NC 12C’ and ‘VA 98R’). Weed management affected common lambsquarters, common ragweed, eclipta, nodding spurge, pitted morningglory, Texas millet, and yellow nutsedge control, irrespective of cultivar or planting pattern. Cultivar and planting pattern had only minor effects on weed control and interactions of these treatment factors seldom occurred. Weed control achieved with cultivation plus hand-removal was similar to weed management observed with grass and broadleaf herbicide programs. Pod yield did not differ among treatments when broadleaf weeds were the dominant species but did differ when Texas millet was the most prevalent weed. The highest yield with conventional herbicide weed management was in standard twin and narrow twin row planting patterns, although no differences among planting patterns were noted when cultivation and hand-removal were the primary weed management tactics. Differences in estimated economic return were associated with weed species, and interactions of treatment factors varied by year for that parameter.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The twin-row planting pattern has also been reported to provide greater late-season control of C. esculentus (Grichar et al 1994), D. tortuosum (Brecke and Stephenson 2006; Colvin et al 1985), E. prostrata (Place et al 2010), Ipomoea spp. (Place et al 2010), S. obtusifolia (Brecke and Stephenson 2006; Colvin et al 1985; Lanier et al 2004), U. texana (Colvin et al 1985), tumbleweed ( Salsola tragus L.), and X. strumarium (Brecke and Stephenson 2006) compared with the single-row planting pattern in peanut. However, not all cultivars benefit equally from the twin-row planting pattern.…”

Section: Weed Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Competing with the competitors in an endless competition: a systematic review of nonchemical weed management research in peanut (Arachis hypogea) in the United States

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Weed interference is a major factor that reduces peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) yield in the United States (US). Peanut growers rely heavily on herbicides for weed control. Although effective, herbicides are not a complete solution to the complex challenge that weeds present. Therefore, the use of non-chemical weed management options is essential. The literature on weed research in peanut in the past 53 years in the US was reviewed to assess the achievements and identify current research gaps and prospects for non-chemical weed management for future research. More than half (79%) of the published studies were from the southeastern US. Most studies (88%) focused on weed management while fewer studies (12%) addressed weed distribution, ecology, and competitive mechanisms. Broadleaf weeds were the most frequently studied weed species (60%), whereas only 23% and 19% of the published studies were relevant to grasses and Cyperus spp., respectively. Seventy-two percent of the published studies focused on curative measures with the use of herbicides. Non-chemical methods using mechanical (5%) and preventive (13%) measures that influence crop competition and reduce the build-up of the weed seed bank, seedling recruitment, and weed seed production have received less attention. In most studies, the preventive weed management measures provided weed suppression and reduced weed competition but were not effective enough to reduce the need for herbicides to protect peanut yield. Therefore, future research should focus to develop integrated weed management strategies based on multiple preventive measures rather than one preventive with curative measures. We recommend research on mechanical weed management to focus on the role of cultivation when integrated with currently available herbicides. For successful weed management with lasting outcomes, the dominant weed communities of specific target locations should be addressed within the context of climate change and emerging constraints rather than focusing on single problematic species.

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

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

Cited by 5 publications

References 11 publications

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

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

Competing with the competitors in an endless competition: a systematic review of nonchemical weed management research in peanut (Arachis hypogea) in the United States

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About