Influence of Harvest Management on Rhizoma Perennial Peanut Production, Nutritive Value, and Persistence on Flatwood Soils

Abstract

Rhizoma perennial peanut (RPP), Arachis glabrata Benth., has high nutritive value, is long lived, and drought tolerant; however, its growth and persistence on flatwood soils (spodosols) common in south Florida is thought to be poor. The objective of this study was to determine the influence of harvest management (stubble height, 1 vs 4 inches) and RPP entries [Arbrook Select (local ecotype), ‘ Arbrook’(released cultivar), PI 262839, PI 262826, ‘ Florigraze’(released cultivar), Ecoturf (PI 262840), and PI 262833] on above‐ground dry biomass (DB) yield, nutritive value, root mass, and persistence on better drained spodosol soils. Harvesting RPP back to a 1‐inch stubble during the initial year yielded an average of 7.8 ton/acre compared with 4.0 ton/acre DB yield at the 4‐inch stubble. However, after the third and fourth harvest years, no difference (P > 0.05) was found between stubble heights or between peanut entries averaging 3.6 (2002) and 5.8 ton/acre (2003). Forage nutritive value was not affected by stubble height and varied only slightly between entries, averaging 17.2% crude protein (CP) and 69.0% in vitro organic matter digestion (IVOMD). Continuously harvesting plants at a 4‐inch stubble produced 80% more root mass and improved ground cover (GC) by nearly 40%. These data indicate RPP can be successfully grown for hay production on better drained flatwood soils of the southern USA, particularly if a 4‐inch stubble height is maintained at each harvest.

Registration of ‘UF Tito’ and ‘UF Peace’ Rhizoma Peanut Cultivars with High Dry Matter Yields, Persistence, and Disease Tolerance

“…At Ona, UF Tito generally was not different in DM yield from most other entries in the test. Yields at this location were relatively consistent over the experiment, with only a slight decrease in DM yields over the period of the experiment, whereas other selections decreased in persistence and yield (Mislevy et al, 2007). At Citra, UF Tito generally had greater DM yield than Florigraze and Ecoturf but was not different from Arbrook and UF Peace.…”

“…Most of the research with RP over the past two decades has focused on methods for improved establishment (Canudas et al, 1989; Kelly and Quesenberry, 1993; Williams et al, 1997), utilization under grazing (Ortega‐S. et al, 1992), and evaluation of new germplasm accessions (Freire et al, 2000; Mislevy et al, 2007; Ruttinger‐Lamperti, 1989; Williams et al, 2008). The early research (Prine et al, 1981) showed that most accessions of RP produce very small amounts of seed.…”

Phenotypic Plasticity and Other Forage Responses to Grazing Management of Ecoturf Rhizoma Peanut

“…Similarly, as grazing intensity increased, Florigraze root-rhizome mass and TNC concentration decreased markedly during 2 yr (Rice et al, 1995). After 4 yr of clipping to SH of 2.5 and 10 cm, Ecoturf root-rhizome mass was twice as great for the 10-as the 2.5-cm SH, but percentage Ecoturf cover remained high at 76% for the short SH (Mislevy et al, 2007). A previous report showed that Ecoturf had greater root-rhizome mass than Florigraze under a range of grazing treatments (4450 and 3490 kg ha −1 , respectively; Mullenix et al, 2016b).…”

“…1). Previous reports include 8.3 to 12 Mg ha −1 yr −1 during a 4-yr clipping trial in north-central Florida , 10.8 Mg ha −1 yr −1 across 4 yr under clipping in south Florida (Mislevy et al, 2007), up to 13 Mg ha −1 yr −1 in northwest Florida (Dubeux et al, 2017), and 6.0 to 9.2 Mg ha −1 yr −1 during 2 yr of grazing in north-central Florida (Mullenix et al, 2016a). Herbage accumulation responses in the current study are generally within or slightly greater than the range reported in the literature.…”

“…Change for Ecoturf over a comparable timeframe in the current study was a 1.5-Mg ha −1 increase in rhizome mass for the 1-wk RI and no change for the 4-cm SH treatments. When clipped to 2.5 cm, Ecoturf root-rhizome mass was 71% greater and ground cover was 27% units greater than Florigraze (Mislevy et al, 2007). They suggested that greater residual leaf area of Ecoturf after grazing allowed it to be less dependent on stored energy and to preserve root-rhizome mass.…”