Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T15:58:05.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultural Practices to Improve In-Row Weed Control with Cultivation in Organic Peanut Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

W. Carroll Johnson III ,
Mark A. Boudreau  and
Jerry W. Davis
W. Carroll Johnson III*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Tifton Campus, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31793-0748
Mark A. Boudreau
Affiliation:
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602
Jerry W. Davis
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Griffin Campus, Griffin, GA 30223
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cultivation is a proven means of weed control in organic peanut. However, weeds present in-row often escape control. Research trials were conducted in Ty Ty, GA to modify cultural practices to help suppress weed emergence in-row. Modified cultural practices were three row pattern/seeding rate combinations; twin rows (four rows on a seedbed) seeded at the recommended (1X) seeding rate that produced 13 seed m−1 in each row, twin rows seeded at the 2X seeding rate that produced 23 seed m−1 in each row, and wide rows (two rows on seedbed) seeded at the recommended seeding rate that produced 23 seed m−1. Four cultivation regimes were evaluated; cultivation with a tine weeder at weekly intervals for 6 wk, cultivation with a tine weeder at weekly intervals for 8 wk, scouring with a brush hoe at vegetative emergence followed by the tine weeder for 6 wk, and a noncultivated control. There were no interactions between row pattern/seeding rates and cultivation regimes for any parameter measured. There was inconsistent response of weed control and peanut yield to row pattern/seeding rates. Weed control and peanut yields were similar with tine weeding for 6 wk, 8 wk, or with the brush hoe followed by the tine weeder. Weed management in organic peanut was not improved by altering peanut cultural practices that facilitate quicker canopy closure, and the use of narrow row patterns should not be based on attempts to improve weed control in organic peanut. Narrow row patterns provide other benefits to organic peanut production and those attributes should influence decisions on the choice of row pattern, not weed control.

Cultivar es un método comprobado para el control de malezas en maní orgánico. Sin embargo, las malezas presentes en la línea de siembra a menudo escapan al control. Se realizaron estudios en Ty Ty, GA para modificar las prácticas culturales para ayudar a suprimir la emergencia de malezas en la línea de siembra. Las prácticas culturales modificadas fueron tres combinaciones de patrones y de densidades de siembra; líneas gemelas (cuatro líneas en cada cama de siembra) sembradas a la densidad recomendada (1X) que produjo 13 semillas m−1 en cada línea, líneas gemelas sembradas a una densidad 2X que produjo 23 semillas m−1 en cada línea, y líneas amplias (2 líneas por cama de siembra) sembradas a la densidad recomendada lo que produjo 23 semillas m−1. Se evaluaron cuatro regímenes de cultivo; cultivo semanal con un rastrillo de púas durante 6 semanas, cultivo semanal con rastrillo de púas durante 8 semanas, barrido con azadón de cepillo al momento de emergencia vegetativa seguido por un cultivo con el rastrillo de púas durante 6 semanas, y un tratamiento testigo sin cultivo. No hubo interacciones entre el patrón/densidad de siembra y el régimen de cultivo para ninguno de los parámetros medidos. La respuesta al patrón/densidad de siembra en control de malezas y rendimiento del maní fue inconsistente. El control de malezas y los rendimientos del maní fueron similares con el cultivo con el rastrillo de púas durante 6 y 8 semanas, o con el azadón de cepillo seguido por el rastrillo de púas. El manejo de malezas en maní orgánico no mejoró al alterar las prácticas culturales que facilitaron un cierre del dosel más rápido. El uso de patrones angostos de líneas de siembra no debería enfocarse en intentos para mejorar el control de malezas en maní orgánico. Patrones angostos de líneas de siembra brindan otros beneficios en la producción de maní orgánico y deberían ser estos otros atributos, y no el control de malezas, los que influencien las decisiones sobre la escogencia de patrones de siembra.

Keywords

Crowfootgrass, Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) WilldFlorida beggarweed, Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DCpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L.sicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) H.S. Irwin & Barnebysmallflower morningglory, Jacquemontia tamnifolia (L.) Grisebsouthern crabgrass, Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koelpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L.Brush hoecultivationcultural weed controlmechanical weed controlorganic weed controltine weeder
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/AREAS
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 718 - 723
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

Branch, W. D. 2005. Registration of ‘Georgia 04S' peanut. Crop Sci. 45 :1653–1654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S., Todd, J., Culbreath, A., Baldwin, J., and Beasley, J. 2003. Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus of Peanut: Identifying and Avoid High-Risk Situations. Bulletin 1165. Athens, GA : University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service.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 :401–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., Mixon, A. C., and Wehtje, G. R. 1987. Low-cost weed control systems for close-row peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 35 :700–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colquhoun, J. and 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
Colvin, D. L., Wehtje, G. R., Patterson, M., and Walker, R. H. 1985. Weed management in minimum-tillage peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) as influenced by cultivar, row spacing, and herbicides. Weed Sci. 33 :233–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, F. R. and Reid, P. H. 1965. Interaction of plant population factors and level of production on the yield and grade of peanuts. Agron. J. 57 :455–457.Google Scholar
Guerena, M. and 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: November 8, 2011.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. W. and Buchanan, G. A. 1981. Influence of row spacing, seeding rates, and herbicide systems on the competitiveness and yield of peanut. Peanut Sci. 8 :74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, E. W. and Buchanan, G. A. 1982. Production of Peanuts as Affected by Weed Competition and Row Spacing. Bulletin 538. Auburn, AL : Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III, Boudreau, M. A., and Davis, J. W. 2012. Implements and cultivation frequency to improve in-row weed control in organic peanut production. Weed Technol. 26 :334–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2008. Potential weed management systems for organic peanut production. Peanut Sci. 35 :67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III, Prostko, E. P., and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2005. Improving the management of dicot weeds in peanut with narrow row spacings and residual herbicides. Agron. J. 97 :85–88.Google Scholar
Place, G. T., Reberg-Horton, S. C., and Jordan, D. L. 2010. Interaction of cultivar, planting pattern, and weed management tactics in peanut. Weed Sci. 58 :442–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. B. and Smith, A. R. 2011. 2011 Peanut outlook and cost analysis. Pages 8–15. Beasley, J. P. Jr., ed. 2011. Peanut Update. University of Georgia Extension Service CSS-11-0110. http://www.caes.uga.edu/commodities/fieldcrops/peanuts/2011peanutupdate/documents/2011PeanutUpdate.pdf. Accessed: January 3, 2012.Google Scholar
Wann, D. Q., Tubbs, R. S., Johnson, W. C. III, Smith, A. R., Smith, N. B., and Culbreath, A. K. 2011. Cultivation frequency and duration effects on productivity and economics of peanut in organic management. Peanut Sci. 38 :101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., Patterson, M. G., and McGuire, J. A. 1984. Influence of twin rows on yield and weed control in peanuts. Peanut Sci. 11 :88–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar