Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-16T02:38:24.952Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

G. T. Place ,
S. C. Reberg-Horton  and
D. L. Jordan
G. T. Place*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7620, Raleigh, NC, 27695
S. C. Reberg-Horton
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7620, Raleigh, NC, 27695
D. L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7620, Raleigh, NC, 27695
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: george_place@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Clethodimcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELeclipta, Eclipta prostrata (L.) L. ECLALnodding spurge, Euphorbia nutans Lag. EPHNUpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLATexas millet, Urochloa texana (Buckl.) R. Webster. PANTEyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. CYPESpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘NC 12C’and ‘VA 98R’Cultural weed controlintegrated weed managementlow-input weed managementmechanical weed control
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 442 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

References

Literature Cited

Besler, B. A., Grichar, W. J., Senseman, S. A., Lemon, R. G., and Baughman, T. A. 2008. Effects of row pattern configurations and reduced (1/2×) and full rates (1×) of imazapic and diclosulam for control of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) in peanut. Weed Technol. 22:558–562.Google Scholar
Brandenburg, R. L. 2009. Peanut insect management. Pages 77–94. In Jordan, D. L., coord. au Peanut Information. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Ser. AG-331. 132. p.Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J. and Stephenson, D. O. IV. 2006. Weed management in single- vs. twin-row peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 20:368–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, B. 2009. Situation and outlook. Pages. 20–22. in. 2009 Peanut Information. North Carolina Coop. Ext. Ser. AG-331. 132. p.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Hauser, E. W. 1980. Influence of row spacing on competitiveness and yield of peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 28 (4):401–409.Google Scholar
Callaway, M. B. 1992. A compendium of crop varietal tolerance to weeds. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 7:169–180.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Jordan, D. L., Batts, R. B., and York, A. C. 1997. Peanut response to prohexadione calcium as affected by digging date. Peanut Sci. 24:85–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiebig, W. W., Shilling, D. G., and Knauft, D. A. 1991. Peanut genotype response to interference from common cocklebur. Crop Sci. 31:1289–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guneyli, E., Burnside, O. C., and Nordquist, P. T. 1969. Influence of seedling characteristics on weed competitive ability of sorghum hybrids and inbred lines. Crop Sci. 9:713–716.Google Scholar
Haefele, S. M., Johnson, D. E., Bodj, D. M., Wopereis, M. C. S., and Miezan, K. M. 2004. field screening of diverse rice genotypes for weed competitiveness in irrigated lowland ecosystems. Field Crops Res. 88:39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isleib, T. G., Rice, P. W., Bailey, J. E., Mozingo, R. W., and Pattee, H. E. 1997. Registration of ‘NC 12C’ peanut. Crop Sci. 37:1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jannink, J. L., Orf, J. H., Jordan, N. R., and Shaw, R. G. 2000. Index selection for weed suppressive ability in soybean. Crop Sci. 40:1087–1094.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C., Prostko, E. P., and Mullinix, B. G. 2005. Improving the management of dicot weeds in peanut with narrow row spacings and residual herbicides. Agron. J. 97:85–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2009a. Peanut production practices. Pages 27–49. In Jordan, D. L., coord. au Peanut Information 2009. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Ser. AG-331. 132. p.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L. 2009b. Weed management in peanuts. Pages 50–76. In Jordan, D. L., coord. au Peanut Information 2009. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Ser. AG-331. 132. p.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Barnes, J. S., Bogle, C. R., Brandenburg, R. L., Bailey, J. E., Johnson, P. D., and Culpepper, A. S. 2003. Peanut response to cultivar selection, digging date, and tillage intensity. Agron. J. 95:380–385.Google Scholar
Lamb, M. C. 2007. The economics of organic versus conventional peanuts. Page 92. In Sholar, J. R. and Nickels, I. eds. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the American Peanut Research and Education Society. Perkins, OK APRES.Google Scholar
Lanier, J. E., Jordan, D. L., Spears, J. F., Wells, R., Johnson, P. D., Barnes, J. S., Hurt, C. A., Brandenburg, R. L., and Bailey, J. E. 2004a. Peanut response to planting pattern, row spacing, and irrigation. Agron. J. 96:1066–1072.Google Scholar
Lanier, J. E., Lancaster, S. H., Jordan, D. L., Johnson, P. D., Spears, J. F., Wells, R., Hurt, C. A., and Brandenburg, R. L. 2004b. Sicklepod control in peanut seeded in single and twin row planting patterns. Peanut Sci. 31:36–40.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E. 1997. Many little hammers: ecological approaches for management of crop–weed interactions. Page 78. In Jackson, L. E. ed. Agricultural Ecology. San Diego, CA Academic.Google Scholar
Marois, J. J. and Wright, D. L. 2003. Effect of tillage system, phorate, cultivar on tomato spotted wilt of peanut. Agron. J. 95:386–389.Google Scholar
Mozingo, R. W., Coffelt, T. A., and Isleib, T. G. 2000. Registration of ‘VA 98R’ peanut. Crop Sci. 40:1202–1203.Google Scholar
Parker, B. 2007. Organic peanut production in the US: the sheller's perspective. Page 92. In Sholar, J. R. and Nickels, I. eds. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the American Peanut Research and Education Society. Perkins, OK APRES.Google Scholar
Ramsel, R. E. and Wicks, G. A. 1988. Use of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars and herbicides in aiding weed control in an ecofallow corn (Zea mays) rotation. Weed Sci. 36:394–398.Google Scholar
Remison, S. U. 1978. The performance of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] as influenced by weed competition. J. Agric. Sci. (Camb.) 90:523–530.Google Scholar
Rose, S. J., Burnside, O. C., Specht, J. E., and Swisher, B. A. 1984. Competition and allelopathy between soybeans and weeds. Agron. J. 76:523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shew, B. B. 2009. Peanut disease management:. Pages 95–120. In Jordan, coord. au, D. L. Peanut Information 2009. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Ser. AG-331. 132. p.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G., McGuire, J. A., Walker, R. H., and Patterson, M. G. 1986. Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with paraquat. Weed Sci. 34:308–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., Grichar, W. J., and Wehtje, G. R. 1995. The biology and management of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Pages 207–224. In Pattee, H. E. and Stalker, H. T. eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK American Peanut Research and Education Society. 614. p.Google Scholar
Williams, E. J. and Drexler, J. S. 1981. A non-destructive method for determining peanut pod maturity, pericarp, mesocarp, color, morphology, and classification. Peanut Sci. 8:134–141.Google Scholar
Woolley, J. N. and Smith, M. E. 1986. Maize zea-mays plant types suitable for present and possible bean Phaseolus vulgaris relay systems in Central America. Field Crops Res. 15:3–16.Google Scholar