Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:43:41.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perpendicular Cultivation for Improved In-Row Weed Control in Organic Peanut Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

W. Carroll Johnson III  and
Jerry W. Davis
W. Carroll Johnson III*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Tifton Campus, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31793-0748
Jerry W. Davis
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Griffin Campus, Griffin, GA 30223
*
Corresponding author's Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Intensive cultivation in organic peanut is partially effective, but in-row weed control remains problematic. In an attempt to improve in-row weed control, irrigated trials were conducted from 2011 to 2013 near Ty Ty, GA to determine the feasibility of early-season cultivation perpendicular to row direction using a tine weeder when integrated with other weed-control practices. Combinations of perpendicular cultivation (cultivation perpendicular to row direction), parallel cultivation (cultivation in the same direction of the rows), and banded applications of herbicides derived from natural sources were compared. Perpendicular cultivation improved overall weed control and peanut yield (two years of three), but this benefit was independent of weed control from any form of parallel cultivation. Additionally, tractor tire tracks from perpendicular cultivation across the rows repeatedly crushed peanut seedlings. Parallel cultivation with the tine weeder was generally more effective than parallel cultivation with sweeps, particularly for southern crabgrass and Texas millet. Herbicides derived from natural products were inconsistent in controlling dicot weeds, ineffective in controlling annual grasses, and did not protect peanut yield from weed interference.

El cultivo intensivo es parcialmente efectivo en maní orgánico, pero el control dentro de la hilera de siembra continúa siendo problemático. En un intento de mejorar el control de malezas dentro de la hilera, se realizaron experimentos bajo condiciones de riego desde 2011 a 2013 cerca de Ty Ty, Georgia para determinar si se puede realizar un cultivo en etapas tempranas en forma perpendicular a la dirección de las hileras usando un cultivador de picos (rastrillo) e integrando esta práctica con otras prácticas de control de malezas. Se compararon combinaciones de cultivo perpendicular (cultivo perpendicular a la dirección de la hilera), cultivo paralelo (cultivo en la misma dirección que las hileras), y aplicaciones en banda de herbicidas derivados de fuentes naturales. El cultivo perpendicular mejoró en general el control de malezas y el rendimiento del maní (en dos de tres años), pero este beneficio fue independiente del control de malezas de cualquier forma de cultivo paralelo. Adicionalmente, en el cultivo perpendicular las llantas del tractor repetidamente aplastaron las plántulas de maní. El cultivo paralelo con rastrillo de picos fue generalmente más efectivo que el cultivo paralelo con cuchillas, particularmente para Digitaria ciliaris y Urochloa texana. Los herbicidas derivados de productos naturales fueron inconsistentes en el control de malezas dicotiledóneas, fueron inefectivos para el control de gramíneas anuales, y no protegieron el rendimiento del maní de la interferencia de las malezas.

Keywords

Florida beggarweed, Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DCsmallflower morningglory, Jacquemontia tamnifolia (L.) Griseb.southern crabgrass, Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koel.Texas millet, Urochloa texana (Buckl.) R. Websteryellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L.peanut, Arachis hypogaea L.Cross-cultivationmechanical weed controlorganic weed controlphysical weed controltine weeder
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 128 - 134
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

Bond, W, Grundy, AC (2001) Nonchemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Res 41:383–405 Google Scholar
Boyle, LW (1952) Factors to be integrated in the control of southern blight on peanut. Phytopathology 42:282 Google Scholar
Boyle, LW (1956) Fundamental concepts in the development of control measures for southern blight and root rot on peanut. Plant Dis Rep 40:661–665 Google Scholar
Branch, WD (2007) Registration of ‘Georgia-06G' peanut. J Plant Reg 1:120 Google Scholar
Colquhoun, J, Bellinder, R (1997) New Cultivation Tools for Mechanical Weed Control in Vegetables. IPM Fact Sheet 102FSNCT. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Cooperative Extension Service Google Scholar
Dimitri, C, Greene, C (2002) Recent growth patterns in the U.S. organic foods market. USDA-Economic Research Service Agricultural Information Bulletin Number 777. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/249063/aib777_1_.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2014Google Scholar
Foy, CL (1959) Combined use of preemergence herbicides and cross-cultivation in cotton. Weeds 7:459–462 Google Scholar
Guerena, M, Adam, K (2008) Peanuts: organic production. National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service - National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/summaries/summary.php?pub=95. Accessed June 25, 2014Google Scholar
Gunsolus, JL (1990) Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans. Am J Alter Agric 5:114–119 Google Scholar
Holstun, TJ Jr., Wooten, OB Jr., McWhorter, CG, Crowe, GB (1960) Weed control practices, labor requirements and costs in cotton production. Weeds 8:232–243 Google Scholar
Johnson, WC III, Boudreau, MA, Davis, JW (2012a) Cultural practices to improve in-row weed control with cultivation in organic peanut production. Weed Technol 26:718–723 Google Scholar
Johnson, WC III, Boudreau, MA, Davis, JW (2012b) Implements and cultivation frequency to improve in-row weed control in organic peanut production. Weed Technol 26:334–340 Google Scholar
Johnson, WC III, Boudreau, MA, Davis, JW (2013) Combinations of corn gluten meal, clove oil, and sweep cultivation are ineffective for weed control in organic peanut production. Weed Technol 27: 417–421 Google Scholar
Johnson, WC III, Mullinix, BG Jr. (2008) Potential weed management systems for organic peanut production. Peanut Sci 35:67–72 Google Scholar
Kurstjens, DA, Perdok, UD, Goense, D (2000) Selective uprooting by weed harrowing on sandy soils. Weed Res 40:431–447 Google Scholar
Organic Farming Research Foundation (2004) Final results of the fourth national organic farmers' survey: sustaining organic farms in a changing organic marketplace. http://ofrf.org/sites/ofrf.org/files/docs/pdf/4thsurvey_results.pdf. Accessed July 3, 2014Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Marketing Service (2014) Part 205–National Organic Program. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=df7e4f9c6ce8362b09dc45e1b0423fb5&node=pt7.3.205&rgn=div5#se7.3.205_1206. Accessed September 26, 2014Google Scholar
Wann, DQ, Tubbs, RS, Johnson, WC III, Smith, AR, Smith, NB, Culbreath, AK (2011) Cultivation frequency and duration effects on productivity and economics of peanut in organic management. Peanut Sci 38:101–110 Google Scholar