Hostname: page-component-59f8fd8595-gzxxv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-03-22T23:44:38.366Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Interference of Horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) with Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Neil M. Hackett
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Don S. Murray
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
David L. Weeks
Dep. Stat., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078


Duration and density experiments were conducted in the field to measure horsenettle (Solanum carolinense L. # SOLCA) interference with Spanish and runner-type peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L. ‘Pronto’ and ‘Florunner′). Spanish peanut yield generally was higher with 6 to 8 weeks of weed-free maintenance. Horsenettle interference for 6 to 8 weeks did not decrease the yield of Spanish peanuts, and interference for 6 weeks did not decrease yields of runner peanuts. Weed-free maintenance for 2 or more weeks allowed increased runner peanut yield when compared to weedy plots. Linear regression predicted a 69 kg/ha Spanish peanut yield increase for each week of weed-free maintenance. Linear regression predicted a Spanish peanut yield reduction of 40 kg/ha for each week of weed interference in 1983, the only year in which the slopes of the regressions were statistically significant Curvilinear equations with the runner-type cultivar predicted an 81 kg/ha yield increase or 96 kg/ha decrease for each week of weed-free maintenance or weed interference, respectively. In 1 of 2 yr, Spanish peanut yield was reduced by horsenettle at a density of 32 plants/10 m of row.

Weed Biology and Ecology
Copyright © 1987 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.)


Literature Cited

1. Banks, P. A., Kirby, M. A., and Santelmann, P. W. 1977. Influence of postemergence and subsurface layered herbicides on horsenettle and peanuts. Weed Sci. 25:58.Google Scholar
2. Brown, S. M., Whitwell, T., and Street, J. E. 1985. Common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) competition in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 33:503506.Google Scholar
3. Buchanan, G. A., Hauser, E. W., Ethredge, W. J., and Cecil, S. R. 1976. Competition of Florida beggarweed and sicklepod with peanuts. II. Effects of cultivation, weeds, and SADH. Weed Sci. 24:2939.Google Scholar
4. Drennan, D.S.H. and Jennings, E. A. 1977. Weed competition in irrigated cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.) and groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in the Sudan Gezira. Weed Res. 17:39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Hauser, E. W., Buchanan, G. A., and Ethredge, W. J. 1975. Competition of Florida beggarweed and sicklepod with peanuts. I. Effects of periods of weed-free maintenance or weed competition. Weed Sci. 23:368372.Google Scholar
6. Hauser, E. W. and Parham, S. A. 1969. Effects of annual weeds and cultivation on the yield of peanuts. Weed Res. 9:192197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Hill, L. V. and Santelmann, P. W. 1969. Competitive effects of annual weeds on Spanish peanuts. Weed Sci. 17:12.Google Scholar
8. Ilnicki, R. D., Tisdell, T. F., Fertig, S. N., and Furrer, A. H. Jr. 1962. Life history studies as related to weed control in the Northeast. 3—Horsenettle. Rhode Island Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 368. 54 pp.Google Scholar
9. Woodroof, J. G. 1966. Peanuts: Production, Processing, Products. AVI Publishing Co., Westport, CT. Pages 2972.Google Scholar
10. York, A. C. and Coble, H. D. 1977. Fall panicum interference in peanuts. Weed Sci. 25:4347.Google Scholar