Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-09T22:29:46.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrating cultivation using a tine weeder with herbicides in conventional peanut production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2019

W. Carroll Johnson III Open the ORCID record for W. Carroll Johnson III [Opens in a new window]  and
Xuelin Luo
W. Carroll Johnson III*
Affiliation:
Research Agronomist, USDA-ARS, Crop Protection and Management Research Unit, Tifton Campus, Tifton, GA, USA
Xuelin Luo
Affiliation:
Research Statistician, University of Georgia, Tifton Campus, Tifton, GA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: W. Carroll Johnson III, Email: Carroll.Johnson@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research from the 1980s reported sweep cultivation being a cost-effective component in an integrated system to manage weeds in peanut. Previous weed management research conducted on organic peanut indicated that repeated cultivation with a tine weeder was an effective component in that production system. Studies were conducted in Tifton, GA, from 2014 through 2017 to determine whether tine weeding can be integrated with herbicides in conventional peanut production to supplement herbicides. Experiments evaluated a factorial arrangement of eight herbicide combinations and two levels of cultivation using a tine weeder. Herbicides were labeled rates of ethalfluralin PRE, S-metolachlor PRE, imazapic POST, ethalfluralin PRE + S-metolachlor PRE, ethalfluralin PRE + imazapic POST, S-metolachlor PRE + imazapic POST, ethalfluralin PRE + S-metolachlor PRE + imazapic POST, and a nontreated control. The herbicides chosen were based on knowledge of the weed species composition at the research sites and their common use in peanut. Cultivation regimes were cultivation with a tine weeder (six times at weekly intervals) and a noncultivated control. Benefits of tine weeding supplementing control from herbicides varied according to herbicide and weed species. For example, annual grasses were effectively controlled (88% to 97%) by ethalfluralin or S-metolachlor and did not need cultivation to supplement control provided by the herbicides. However, imazapic alone did not effectively control (54% to 75%) annual grasses and needed supplemental control from cultivation with the tine weeder. Similarly, imazapic effectively controlled (84% to 93%) smallflower morningglory and did not require cultivation to supplement control from the herbicide. However, cultivation with the tine weeder improved smallflower morningglory control (76% to 95%) when supplementing ethalfluralin or S-metolachlor. Peanut yields did not respond to any of the herbicide combinations integrated with cultivation using the tine weeder. During the time period when peanut was cultivated, there was greater total rainfall and more days of rainfall events in 2014 and 2017 compared with the other years. Rainfall and wet soils reduced the performance and weed control benefits of the tine weeder. This highlights the risk of depending on cultivation for weed control.

Keywords

Barry Brecke, University of FloridaethalfluralinimazapicS-metolachlorsmallflower morninggloryJacquemontia tamnifolia (L.) Griseb.peanutArachis hypogaea L.Groundnutintegrated weed managementmechanical weed control
Type
Note
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 374 - 379
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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

Beasley, J, Bader, M, Baldwin, J, Harris, G, Padgett, B, Brown, SL, MacDonald, G (1997) Peanut production field guide. Athens, GA: Georgia Coop Ext Ser Bull. 25 pGoogle Scholar
Boyle, LW (1952) Factors to be integrated in the control of southern blight on peanut. Phytopathology 42:282Google Scholar
Boyle, LW (1956) Fundamental concepts in the development of control measures for southern blight and root rot on peanut. Plant Dis Rep 40:661–665Google Scholar
Boyle, LW (1961) The ecology of Sclerotium rolfsii with emphasis on the role of saprophytic media. Phytopathology 51:117–119Google Scholar
Bridges, DC, Walker, RH, McGuire, JA, Martin, NR (1984) Efficiency of chemical and mechanical methods for controlling weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci 32:584–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, CC, Brenneman, TB, Stalker, HT, Johnson, WC III, Ozias-Akins, P, Chu, Y, Vellidis, G, McClusky, D (2013) Yield gains in major U. S. field crops—peanut. Crop Science Society of America Special Publication 33Google 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 26:718–723CrossRefGoogle 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 26:334–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, WC III, Culbreath, AK, Luo, X (2018) Interactive effects of cultivation, insect control, and fungal disease control in organic peanut production. Peanut Sci 45:38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, WC III, Davis, JW (2015) Perpendicular cultivation for improved in-row weed control in organic peanut production. Weed Technol 29:128—134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newsom, LJ, Shaw, DR (1994) Influence of cultivation timing on weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with AC 263, 222. Weed Technol 8:760–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newsom, LJ, Shaw, DR (1996) Cultivation enhances weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with AC 263, 222. Weed Technol 10:502–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, DR, Coats, GE (1988) Herbicides and cultivation for sicklepod, Cassia obtusifolia, control in soybeans, Glycine max. Weed Technol 2:187–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, DR, Newsom, LJ, Smith, CA (1991) Influence of cultivation timing on chemical control of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 39:67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, CE, Walker, RH, Whitwell, T, Buchanan, GA, McGuire, JA, Martin, NR (1984) Efficacy and economics of weed control methods in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci 32:95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wann, DQ, Tubbs, RS (2014) Interactive effects of hand weeding, tine and sweep cultivation for weed control in organic peanut production. Peanut Sci 41:124–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wann, DQ, Tubbs, RS, Johnson, WC III, Smith, AR, Smith, NB, Culbreath, AK, Davis, JW (2011) Tine cultivation effects on weed control, productivity, and economics of peanut under organic management. Peanut Sci 38:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM (2013) Weed survey—southern states, broadleaf crops subsection. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 66:280Google Scholar
Wilcut, JW, Wehtje, GR, Walker, RH (1987) Economics of weed control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with herbicides and cultivations. Weed Sci 35:711–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar