Research was conducted in North Carolina at two locations from 1997 through 2000 to determine net returns of 10 cropping systems during a 4‐yr cropping cycle that included peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], and corn (Zea mays L.). Cylindrocladium black rot [caused by Cylindrocladium parasiticum] (CBR) increased when soybean was included in the rotation sequence or when peanut was grown continuously. The CBR‐resistant cultivar NC 12C increased yield compared with the susceptible cultivar NC 7 when this disease was present. Cotton was a better rotation crop than corn at one of two locations with respect to peanut yield and gross economic value in the final year of the study. Net returns were substantially lower when peanut was marketed for export in the current federal program rather than at the quota price. However, the profitability ranking among cropping systems changed little regardless of marketing system. Crop yield and net return were influenced by crop selection, weather conditions, and commodity prices during the 4 yr.
Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in the USA is generally seeded after several primary tillage operations that may include disking, chisel plowing, moldboard plowing, and bedding (conventional tillage systems). Concerns over erosion and production costs have increased interest in reduced tillage systems. Production in reduced tillage systems minimizes ability to incorporate fertilizers below the pegging zone, and residue on soil surface could impact movement of calcium sulfate (CaSO4) into the soil, reducing Ca availability to pegs. Research was conducted from 1997 through 1999 to compare peanut yield and gross economic value of virginia market type peanut planted in conventional and strip tillage systems. Preplant fertilizer did not affect response to tillage. Response did not differ among conventional tillage systems consisting of disk, disk and chisel, or disk and moldboard plow or among reduced tillage systems. Pod yield of peanut grown in the most effective conventional tillage system exceeded yield when peanut was strip‐tilled into stubble of the previous crop, strip‐tilled into a wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cover crop, or strip‐tilled into beds prepared the previous fall without a cover crop. Tillage system and CaSO4 rate affected pod yield and gross value independently. Gross value increased when CaSO4 was applied regardless of tillage system. These data suggest that preplant fertilizer at relatively low, remedial rates does not affect peanut response to tillage systems. These data also suggest that tillage system does not have a major impact on peanut response to CaSO4. Collectively, these data indicate that the highest peanut yields occur in conventional tillage systems.
Production of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in reduced tillage systems has increased in the United States during the past decade. However, interactions of tillage system and crop rotation have not been thoroughly investigated for large-seeded, Virginia market type peanut. Research was conducted at two locations in North Carolina during 1999 to 2006 to compare yield of corn (Zea mays L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), and peanut in diff erent rotations planted in conventional and reduced tillage. Crop rotation aff ected peanut yield but did not aff ect corn or cotton yield. Increasing the number of times corn, cotton, or a combination of these crops were planted between peanut increased peanut yields. Tillage aff ected cotton and peanut yield but not in every year or at both locations. Yield was similar in conventional and reduced tillage in 8 of 10 comparisons (cotton) and 6 of 8 comparisons (peanut). Crop rotation and tillage did not interact for visual estimates of plant condition of peanut as a result of disease, soil parasitic nematode populations when peanut was planted during the fi nal year of the experiment, crop yield, cumulative net return over the duration of the experiment, or bulk density in the pegging zone during the fi nal year of the experiment. Th ese data suggest that variation in response to rotation and tillage should be expected based on the crop and edaphic and environmental conditions. However, response to rotation and tillage most likely will be independent.
reduced tillage systems often do not exceed those of conventional tillage. Determining the cause of inconsis-Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in the United States is generally tent yield response to reduced tillage would be benefigrown in conventionally tilled systems. However, interest in reduced tillage peanut production has increased. Five experiments were con-cial in determining when reduced tillage systems could ducted in North Carolina to determine if cultivar selection and digging be successfully implemented in peanut production. date affected peanut yield and economic value when peanut was Cultivar selection can have a dramatic effect on crop seeded into conventionally tilled seedbeds compared with strip tillage response to production and pest management practices. into small-grain cover crop or stubble from the crop planted the pre-Culpepper et al. (1997) reported that peanut cultivars vious summer. In separate experiments, peanut yield and economic responded differently to the plant growth regulator provalue in these tillage systems were compared with peanut strip-tilled hexadione calcium (calcium salt of 3,5-dioxo-4-propiointo beds prepared the previous fall (stale seedbeds). Cultivar selection nylcyclohexanecarboxylic acid). Cultivars also respond and digging date did not affect pod yield or gross value when compardifferently to digging date (Jordan et al., 1998). Disease ing tillage systems. Pod yield in conventional and stale seedbed sysmanagement approaches can be affected by cultivar setems was similar in all five experiments where these systems were compared, and yields in these tillage systems exceeded those of strip
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.