Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T03:30:48.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Tillage Implements for Stale Seedbed Tillage in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

W. Carroll Johnson III  and
Benjamin G. Mullinix Jr.
W. Carroll Johnson III*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS
Benjamin G. Mullinix Jr.
Affiliation:
Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA 31793
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: cjohnson@tifton.cpes.peachnet.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted from 1995 to 1997 near Tifton, GA, to evaluate shallow tillage implements and tillage frequency for stale seedbed weed control in peanut. Tillage implements evaluated were a power tiller, disk harrow, field conditioner, and sweep cultivator. Plots for each implement were tilled once or twice prior to planting peanut. Results from midseason weed counts and peanut yield showed similar responses among implements and frequency of tillage. These results indicate no advantage of any shallow tillage implement for stale seedbed weed control, although peanut yields were generally greater in plots with tilled stale seedbeds than in the nontilled control. The implement of choice should be based on cost of operation and compatibility with the overall peanut production system.

Keywords

PeanutArachis hypogaea L.‘Georgia Runner’Cultural weed controlgroundnutDAE days after emergencePOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2000 , pp. 519 - 523
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1999. Crop Protection Chemicals Reference. 15th ed. New York: Chemical and Pharmaceutical Publ. Corp. 2,431 p.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. and Miller, S. D. 1989. A comparison of techniques for estimation of available soil seedbanks and their relationship to weed flora. Weed Res. 29: 365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, W. and Baker, P. J. 1990. Patterns of Weed Emergence Following Soil Cultivation and its Implications for Weed Control in Vegetable Crops. Brighton, UK: British Crop Protection Council Monograph 45. pp. 63–68.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Wicks, G. A., and Carlson, D. R. 1980. Control of weeds in an oat (Avena sativa)—soybean (Glycine max) ecofarming rotation. Weed Sci. 28: 46–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chancellor, R. J. 1985. Tillage effects of annual weed germination. World Soybean Res. Conf. III Proc. 3: 1105–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egley, G. H. and Williams, R. D. 1990. Decline of weed seeds and seedling emergence over five years as affected by soil disturbance. Weed Sci. 38: 504–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givan, W. and Shurley, D. 1996. Crop enterprise cost analysis—south Georgia 1997. Athens, GA: Georgia Coop. Ext. Ser. Bull. AGECON94-010-S-Revised. 33 p.Google Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L. 1990. Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 5: 114–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heatherly, L. G. and Elmore, C. D. 1983. Response of soybeans (Glycine max) to planting in untilled, weedy seedbed on clay soil. Weed Sci. 31: 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III. 1987. The Hull Scrape Method to Assess Peanut Maturity. Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Bull. 958. 7 p.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1995. Weed management in peanut using stale seedbed techniques. Weed Sci. 43: 293–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1998. Stale seedbed weed control in cucumber. Weed Sci. 46: 698–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, R. G. 1978. Control by tillage and persistence of volunteer sunflower and annual weeds. Agron. J. 70: 1053–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, L. Jr., Skroch, W. A., and Beasley, E. O. 1981. Pesticide Incorporation—Distribution of Dye by Tillage Implements. North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service Bull. AG-250. 32 p.Google Scholar
Tripp, T. N., Oliver, L. R., and Baldwin, F. L. 1988. Use of imazaquin and chlorimuron plus metribuzin in stale seedbed soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:38.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. 1998. Economic losses due to weeds in southern states: cotton, soybean, peanut, and tobacco. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 314–322.Google Scholar