Peanut Response to Cultivar Selection, Digging Date, and Tillage Intensity

Abstract

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

Reduced Tillage Practices for the Southwestern US Peanut Production Region

“…The only difference that was observed was in the ST treatment in 2005 when Southern blight had a lower incidence compare to CT. Also, there were trends for reduced levels of Sclerotinia blight for the NT treatment compared to CT and ST treatments. This is supported by Jordan et al (2003), who found reduced tillage decreased sclerotinia blight when considerable residue was left for ground cover prior to planting in North Carolina. However, these authors also noted a great deal of variability across peanut plots due to the residue and disease pressure.…”

“…They observed a delay in leaf spot development with reduced tillage. In North Carolina, reduced tillage decreased sclerotinia blight where considerable residue was left for ground cover prior to planting (Jordan et al, 2003). Grichar and Boswell (1987) observed that no-till systems decreased peanut yield 600 to 2400 kg ha 21 in Texas and cited a lack of weed control and compaction as the reasons for reduced yield.…”

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

“…In North Carolina, peanut plantings in reduced tillage increased from 10% to 23% from 1998 to 2004 (6). Yield of peanut planted in reduced tillage systems on finer-textured soils is often lower than yield in conventional tillage systems (6,7). Lower yield of peanut strip tilled into stubble from the previous crop compared with conventional tillage or beds prepared the previous fall can be associated with greater pod loss in the digging process (4).…”

“…Peanut growers are interested in adopting some form of reduced tillage production. Research has shown considerable variation in peanut response to tillage (3,5,6,7,16,18). Concern over pod loss and lower yield when peanut is strip tilled can be partially overcome by performing some tillage, in particular establishing beds prior to planting (7).…”

Interaction of Tillage System and Irrigation Amount on Peanut Performance in the Southeastern U.S

“…In summary, five studies have given conservation tillage a clear advantage in either yield, improved quality, or net economic returns (Brandenburg et al 1998;Hartzog and Adams, 1989;Hurt et al, 2006;Marois and Wright, 2003;Tubbs and Gallaher, 2005). Seven studies, four of which were conducted with the virginia market type, favored conventional, high intensity tillage practices that could not be considered conservation tillage Grichar and Boswell, 1987;Jordan et al, 2001;Jordan et al, 2003;Minton et al, 1991;Wright and Porter, 1991a;Wright and Porter, 1995). Not surprisingly, seven other studies showed no differences in conservation tillage systems versus conventional tillage (Chapin et al, 2001;Grichar, 2006;Grichar and Smith, 1992;Grichar and Smith, 1992;Johnson et al, 2001;Wiatrak et al, 2004).…”