Crop Response to Rotation and Tillage in Peanut‐Based Cropping Systems

Jordan, David L.; Barnes, J. Steven; Corbett, Tommy; Bogle, C. R.; Johnson, Peter; Shew, B. B.; Koenning, S. R.; Ye, Weimin; Brandenburg, Rick

doi:10.2134/agronj2008.0075

Cited by 22 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, when pooled across tillage systems and trials, peanut yield with the diking treatment was 3480 lb/acre compared with 3600 lb/ acre without the diking treatment (Table 3). Variability in peanut response to strip tillage compared with conventional tillage has been noted previously at this location (Jordan et al, 2008), and Sorensen et al (2010) reported no yield difference when comparing diking with a no-diking control.…”

Section: Cotton and Peanut Responses To Diking In Conventional And Resupporting

confidence: 67%

“…Lint yield, pooled across trials, was 870 lb/acre for the diking treatment and 840 lb/acre for the no‐diking treatment (Table 3). Previous research indicates that cotton response to reduced tillage is influenced by soil characteristics and seasonal precipitation (Buman et al, 2005; Jordan et al, 2008; Bauer et al, 2010). The response of cotton yield to diking also has been variable (Nuti et al, 2009; Sorensen et al, 2010).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Crop Responses to Furrow Diking in North Carolina

Foote¹,

Nuti²,

Edmisten

et al. 2014

Crop Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Furrow diking is the practice of installing earthen dams to form small basins between crop rows to reduce water runoff and improve water retention. Furrow‐diking equipment is operated shortly after planting and has been used extensively in the southern Great Plains. Research evaluating crop response to furrow diking is limited in North Carolina and other southeastern states. Experiments were conducted to determine cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) yields following furrow diking in conventional and strip tillage systems. Corn (Zea mays L.) response to furrow diking was determined only in conventional tillage systems. In the experiments where tillage was compared, variability in cotton and peanut response to tillage was observed, whereas diking did not affect yield of these crops. In separate experiments with conventional tillage only, peanut and corn yields were not affected by the diking treatment. However, in one experiment conducted at five sites in conventional tillage only, cotton yield increased by 7% when furrow diking was included. Although these results indicate that peanut and corn may be nonresponsive to furrow diking on coarse‐textured soils in the coastal plain of North Carolina, additional research is needed to make a concrete assessment of potential of furrow diking on these crops. While variability was noted when comparing experiments, cotton responded favorably to furrow diking.

show abstract

Section: Cotton and Peanut Responses To Diking In Conventional And Resupporting

confidence: 67%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crop Responses to Furrow Diking in North Carolina

Foote¹,

Nuti²,

Edmisten

et al. 2014

Crop Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Experiments initiated in 1999 (Lewiston‐Woodville) and 2000 (Rocky Mount) included factors other than the comparison of peanut in stale seedbeds versus stubble from the previous crop as reported in this article (8,9,10). The size of whole plot units allowed comparison of cultivars, fumigation with metam sodium, and inoculation with Bradyrhizobium with independent and appropriate controls for each factor (8,9,10). The treatments discussed in this article are unique in that peanut response to stale seedbed and strip tillage into crop stubble are included.…”

Section: Locations and Treatment Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Peanut pods and vines were allowed to air dry for 4 to 7 days after digging and before harvest and final peanut yield was adjusted to 8% moisture. Yield of crops other than peanut are reported elsewhere for the long‐term experiments initiated in 1999 at Lewiston‐Woodville and 2000 at Rocky Mount (8,9,10). Yield of corn and grain sorghum was not recorded the year prior to planting peanut in the experiments initiated in 2004 and 2005 at Lewiston‐Woodville.…”

Section: Data Collection and Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peanut Response to Planting in Stale Seedbeds versus Strip Tillage into Crop Stubble

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) yield when strip tilled into stubble from a previous crop can be lower than yield in conventional tillage systems. One alternative to strip tillage into previous crop stubble is preparing seedbeds at some point following harvest of a previous crop but prior to planting peanut. Research was conducted at two locations in North Carolina to compare visual estimates of plant condition, reflecting incidence of tomato spotted wilt (caused by a Tospovirus) (TSWV), and pod yield following various preceding crops when peanut was strip tilled into previous crop stubble or into beds established four to six weeks prior to planting peanut (referred to as stale seedbeds). Crop rotation and tillage did not interact for TSWV incidence or pod yield in most instances. However, crop rotation and tillage affected yield independently. Peanut following rotations with more years between peanut plantings yielded higher than peanut planted in shorter rotations. Pod yield was equal to or higher when strip tilled into stale seedbeds compared with stubble from the preceding crop. Results from these experiments indicate that peanut yield may be higher when planted in stale seedbeds rather than previous crop stubble and that response to tillage will be minimally affected by crop rotation.

show abstract

“…Jordan et al. () found that corn ( Zea mays L.) and seed cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) yields in North Carolina were not affected by rotations with peanut under conventional and conservation tillage. In Alabama, removal of peanut residues after harvest did not affect seed cotton yields or rye ( Secale cereale L.) biomass accumulation (Balkcom, Wood, Adams, & Meso, ; Meso et al., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peanut residues supply minimal plant‐available nitrogen on a major soil series in the USA peanut basin

Jani

Mulvaney

Balkcom

et al. 2019

Soil Use and Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field observations have shown that a substantial portion of peanut leaves abscise in windrows during pod curing, leading to an uneven distribution of leaves and stems when intact residues are spread during harvest. Possible differences in nitrogen (N) mineralization rates between peanut leaf and stem residues may lead to spatial and temporal variability in available N during subsequent crops. The objective of this study was to quantify N mineralization in soil amended with different peanut residue components under simulated conventional and conservation tillage practices. A 252‐day microlysimeter incubation was conducted in which peanut leaves, stems and a 1:1 mixture of leaves:stems from three varieties were incorporated or placed on the soil surface to simulate conventional or conservation tillage, respectively. Soils were periodically leached to assess N mineralization compared with a soil‐only control. Nitrogen mineralization was only affected by residue component. Averaged over variety and residue placement, soil amended with leaves mineralized 10% more N relative to the control or soil containing stems. It was estimated that leaves supplied 25 kg N ha−1 over 252 days at 0–15 cm soil depth, which would likely be insufficient to induce a yield response by a subsequent crop. This study suggests that uneven distribution of peanut leaf and stem residues following harvest causes only minor spatial and temporal variability in available N during subsequent crop growth. These results support the growing body of evidence indicating that peanut residue N contributions to subsequent crops are negligible in the peanut basin of the south‐eastern USA.

show abstract

Crop Response to Rotation and Tillage in Peanut‐Based Cropping Systems

Cited by 22 publications

References 30 publications

Crop Responses to Furrow Diking in North Carolina

Crop Responses to Furrow Diking in North Carolina

Peanut Response to Planting in Stale Seedbeds versus Strip Tillage into Crop Stubble

Peanut residues supply minimal plant‐available nitrogen on a major soil series in the USA peanut basin

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About