Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-kp629 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T06:53:15.413Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in Minimum-Tillage Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) as Influenced by Cultivar, Row Spacing, and Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Daniel L. Colvin ,
Glenn R. Wehtje ,
Mike Patterson  and
Robert H. Walker
Daniel L. Colvin
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL 36849. Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn. J. Ser. No. 3-84592
Glenn R. Wehtje
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL 36849. Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn. J. Ser. No. 3-84592
Mike Patterson
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL 36849. Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn. J. Ser. No. 3-84592
Robert H. Walker
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL 36849. Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn. J. Ser. No. 3-84592
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1982 and 1983 on a Dothan sandy loam (Plinthic Paleudult) at Headland, AL, to investigate minimum-tillage production of peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). The experiments included two peanut varieties: a) ‘Pronto’ (an earlier maturing Spanish type), and b) ‘Florunner’ (a later maturing runner type). Two row-spacing patterns were used: a) conventional 91-cm rows, and b) a modified twin 18-cm row pattern. A constant seeding rate (140 kg/ha) was used regardless of row spacing. Six herbicide systems were evaluated within each combination of variety and row spacing. The Florunner variety outyielded the Pronto variety across both years and weed management systems. Modified twin 18-cm rows outyielded conventional 91-cm rows across years and peanut varieties. Two of the six weed management systems were successful: 1) paraquat (1,1’-dimethyl-4,4’-bipyridinium ion) + oryzalin (3,5-dinitro-N 4,N 4-dipropylsulfanilamide) (preemergence), paraquat (ground cracking), naptalam (N-1-naphthylphthalamic acid) + dinoseb (2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol) (postemergence); and 2) paraquat + pendimethalin [N-(1-ethylpropyl-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine] (preemergence), acetochlor [2-chloro-N(ethoxymethyl)-6’-ethyl-o-acetotoluidide] + dinoseb (ground cracking), and cyanazine {2-[[4-chloro-6-(ethylamino)-s-triazine-2-yl]amino]-2-methylpropionitrile} (early postdirected spray). Both systems provided the best overall control of Texas panicum (Panicum texanum Buckl. ♯ PANTE), Florida beggarweed [Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DC. ♯ DEDTO], and sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia L. ♯ CASOB) and were acceptable for use in minimum-tillage peanut production.

Keywords

Panicum texanumDesmodium tortuosumCassia obtusifoliareduced tillageherbicide systemspeanut yieldPANTEDEDTOCASOB

Information

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , March 1985 , pp. 233 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Buchanan, G. A. and Hiltobold, A. E. 1977. Response of cotton to cultivation. Weed Sci. 25:132–134.Google Scholar
2. Buchanan, G. A. and Hauser, E. W. 1980. Influence of row spacing on competitiveness and yield of peanuts. Weed Sci. 28:401–409.Google Scholar
3. Chappell, W. E. and Link, L. A. 1977. Evaluation of herbicides in no-tillage production of burley tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). Weed Sci. 25:511–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Crabtree, R. J. and Rupp, R. N. 1980. Double and monocropped wheat and soybeans under different tillage and row spacings. Agron. J. 72:445–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Harold, L. L., Triplett, G. B. Jr., and Edwards, W. M. 1970. No-tillage corn–characteristics of the system. Agric. Eng. 51: 128–131.Google Scholar
6. Hauser, E. W. and Buchanan, G. A. 1981. Influence of row spacing, seeding rates and herbicide systems on competitiveness and yield of peanuts. Peanut Sci. 8:74–81.Google Scholar
7. Kapusta, G. and Strieker, C. F. 1976. Herbicidal weed control in stubble no-till planted corn. Weed Sci. 24:605–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Moody, J. E., Shear, G. M., and Jones, J. N. Jr. 1961. Growing corn without tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. of Am. Proc. 25:516–517.Google Scholar
9. Robertson, W. K., Lundy, H. W., Prine, G. M., and Currey, W. L. 1976. Planting of corn in sod and small grain residues with minimum tillage. Agron. J. 68:271–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Rogers, N. K., Buchanan, G. A., and Johnson, W. C. 1976. Influence of row spacing on weed competition with cotton. Weed Sci. 24:410–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Sanford, J. O., Myhre, D. L., and Merwine, N. C. 1973. Double cropping systems involving no-tillage and conventional tillage. Agron. J. 65:978–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Shear, G. M. 1968. The development of the no-tillage concept in the United States. Outlook Agric. 5:247–251.Google Scholar
13. Triplett, G. B. and Lytle, G. D. 1972. Control and ecology of weeds in continuous corn grown without tillage. Weed Sci. 20:453:457.Google Scholar
14. Wax, L. M. and Pendleton, J. W. 1968. Effect of row spacing on weed control in soybeans. Weed Sci. 16:462–465.Google Scholar