Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T01:47:13.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mowing as a Weed Control Supplement to Herbicides and Cultivation in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Glenn Wehtje ,
Larry W. Wells ,
James H. Choate ,
Neil R. Martin JR.  and
John M. Curtis
Glenn Wehtje*
Affiliation:
Agronomy and Soils Department, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Larry W. Wells
Affiliation:
Agronomy and Soils Department, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
James H. Choate
Affiliation:
Agronomy and Soils Department, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Neil R. Martin JR.
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
John M. Curtis
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: gwehtje@acesag.auburn.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A 3-yr field study was conducted in peanut in which weed control systems with varying levels of herbicides, cultivation inputs, or both were supplemented with mowing to remove weeds extending above the crop canopy. Highest yield and net returns were consistently obtained with the highest level of herbicide/cultivation inputs, and mowing was of no value. However, mowing was consistently beneficial to yield and net return when the only other weed control inputs were paraquat and 2,4-DB applied at 4 wk after planting (WAP) and cultivation at 10 WAP. In the absence of any other weed control inputs, mowing was detrimental in a drought stress year, but beneficial in years with near-normal growing conditions. Although disease incidence was aggravated by the lack of weed control inputs, it was generally independent of mowing.

Keywords

2,4-DB, the dimethyl amine salt of 4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)butanoic acidparaquat, dichloride salt of 1,1'-dimethyl-4,4'-bipyridinium ionpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘Florunner.'Alternative weed controldisease occurrencedisease–weed interactionsnet returnsorganic production#ACNHI# CASOB# DEDTOWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 139 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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.)

Footnotes

1

Published as Alabama Agricultural Station Journal Series 3-986767.

References

Literature Cited

Adams, R. G. and Hunter, B. 1915. Control of Tumbling Mustard. Pullman, WA: Wash. Agric. Exp. Stn. Popular Bull. 89. 8 p.Google Scholar
Backman, P. A. and Crawford, M. A. 1984. Relationship between yield loss and severity of early and late leaf spot diseases in peanut. Phytopathology 74:1101–1103.Google Scholar
Backman, P. A. and Rodriguez-Kabana, R. 1975. The effect of peanut leafspot fungicides on the nontarget pathogen, Sclerotium rolfsii . Phytopathology 65:773–776.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C., Walker, R. H., McGuire, J. A., and Martin, N. R. 1984. Efficiency of chemical and mechanical methods for controlling weeds in peanuts. Weed Sci. 32:584–591.Google Scholar
Davis, D. P., Jacobi, J. C., and Backman, P. A. 1993. Twenty-four-hour rainfall, a simple environmental variable for predicting peanut leaf spot epidemics. Plant Dis. 77:722–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, B., Hurst, J., Miller, A., and Novak, J. 1994. Budgets for Major Row Crops in Alabama. Auburn, AL: Auburn University, Alabama Cooperative Extension Service, Department of Economics and Rural Sociology. 38 p.Google Scholar
Jacobi, J. C., Backman, P. A., Davis, D. P., and Brannen, P. M. 1995. AU-Pnuts advisory I: Development of a rule-based system for scheduling peanut leaf spot fungicide applications. Plant Dis. 79:666–671.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Kabana, R., Baumann, P. A., and Williams, J. C. 1975. Determination of yield losses to Sclerotium rolfsii in peanut fields. Plant Dis. 59:855–858.Google Scholar
Royal, S. S., Brecke, B. J., Shokes, F. M., and Colvin, D. C. 1997. Influence of broadleaf weeds on chlorothalonil deposition on foliar disease incidence and peanut yield. Weed Technol. 11:51–58.Google Scholar
Schreiber, M. M. 1967. Effect of density and control of Canada thistle on production and utilization of alfalfa pasture. Weeds 15:138–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shew, B. B., Beute, M. K., and Campbell, C. L. 1984. Spatial pattern of southern stem rot caused by Scerotium rolfsii in six North Carolina peanut fields. Phytopathology 74:730–735.Google Scholar
Shokes, F. M., Gorbet, D. W., and Sanden, G. E. 1982. Effect of planting date and date of spray initiation on control of peanut leaf spots in Florida. Plant Dis. 66:574–575.Google Scholar
Stewart, G. and Pittman, D. W. 1924. Ridding the Land of Wild Morning Glory. Logan, UT: Utah Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 189. 30 p.Google Scholar
Weeks, J. R., Mack, T. P., Hagan, A., Hartzog, D., and Everest, J. W. 1993. Peanut insect, disease, nematode, and weed control recommendations. Auburn, AL: Alabama Cooperative Extension Service Cir. ANR-360. 12 p.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Walker, R. H. 1987a. Economic assessment of weed control systems for peanuts. Weed Sci. 35:433–437.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., and Walker, R. H. 1987b. Economics of weed control in peanuts with herbicides and cultivation. Weed Sci. 35:711–715.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition, A Review. Corvalis, OR: Oregon Stale University, International Plant Protection Center. 195 p.Google Scholar