scholarly journals Interactive Effects of Cultivation, Insect Control, and Fungal Disease Control in Organic Peanut Production

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Carroll Johnson ◽  
Albert K. Culbreath ◽  
Xuelin Luo
Keyword(s):  
Disease Control ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Cupric Oxide ◽  
Fungal Disease ◽  
Interactive Effects ◽  
Insect Control ◽  
Insect Infestations ◽  
Peanut Production ◽  
Disease Epidemics

ABSTRACT During previous organic peanut weed management trials, maintenance pesticides were not applied and it was observed that insect infestations and disease epidemics were not problematic. This was surprising considering that conventional peanut are routinely treated with insecticides and fungicides to control common pests. It was hypothesized that components of the organic peanut production system could be integrated into conventional peanut production to reduce inputs. Structured research trials were conducted from 2012 through 2014 to determine interactions among three levels of weed control, two levels of insect control, and three levels of fungal disease control in organic peanut production using a factorial arrangement of treatments. Weed control treatments were weed-free using handweeding, cultivation with a tine weeder repeated weekly for six weeks, and a non-cultivated (weedy) control. Insect control treatments were two early-season applications of spinosad (Organic Materials Review Institute approved) and a nontreated control. Fungal disease control treatments were applications of cupric oxide plus sulfur (Cu+S) at three-week intervals, the conventional fungicide azoxystrobin at three-week intervals, and a nontreated control. The peanut cultivar Georgia-04S was planted each year of the study. The crop rotation at the research sites was corn grown in alternating years between peanut experiments. There were no interactions among the main effects. Compared to the non-cultivated control, cultivation with a tine weeder consistently reduced weed densities, and yields were equivalent to handweeded peanut two years of three. Intensive cultivation with a tine weeder did not increase disease epidemics or reduce peanut yield, which is contradictory to long-standing peanut production recommendations. Spinosad applications did not affect any of the parameters measured, including incidence of thrips-vectored spotted wilt and peanut yield. Cupric oxide plus sulfur controlled peanut diseases equal to azoxystrobin two years out of three, but peanut yields did not consistently respond to improved disease control from the conventional fungicide. We speculate that ideal crop rotations to reduce disease inoculum and modern peanut cultivars with improved disease tolerance are also factors that allow the use of reduced pest control inputs.

Weed Management in Peanuts

EDIS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pratap Devkota
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Application Rate ◽  
Good Management ◽  
Peanut Production

Successful weed control in peanuts involves use of good management practices in all phases of peanut production. This 11-page document lists herbicide products registered for use in Florida peanut production, their mode of actions group, application rate per acre and per season, and reentry interval. It also discusses the performance of these herbicides on several weeds under Florida conditions. Written by J. A. Ferrell, G. E. MacDonald, and P. Devkota, and published by the UF/IFAS Agronomy Department, revised May 2020.

Combinations of Corn Gluten Meal, Clove Oil, and Sweep Cultivation are Ineffective for Weed Control in Organic Peanut Production

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 417-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Carroll Johnson ◽  
Mark A. Boudreau ◽  
Jerry W. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Control Treatment ◽  
Clove Oil ◽  
Corn Gluten Meal ◽  
Corn Gluten ◽  
Annual Grasses ◽  
Peanut Production ◽  
Poor Efficacy

Weed control in organic peanut is difficult and lack of residual weed control complicates weed management efforts. Weed management systems using corn gluten meal in combination with clove oil and sweep cultivation were evaluated in a series of irrigated field trials. Corn gluten meal applied in a 30 cm band over the row at PRE, sequentially at PRE+2 wk after emergence, and PRE+2wk+4wk did not adequately control annual grasses and smallflower morningglory. Similarly, a banded application of clove oil applied POST did not adequately control weeds. The only treatment that improved overall weed control was sweep cultivation. Peanut yields were not measured in 2006 due to heavy baseline weed densities and overall poor weed control. Peanut yields were measured in 2007 and were not affected by any weed control treatment due to poor efficacy. While sweep cultivation improved weed control, weeds were controlled only in the row middles and surviving weeds in-row reduced peanut yield. Even when used in combination with sweep cultivation, corn gluten meal and clove oil were ineffective and offer little potential in a weed management system for organic peanut production.

Cultural Practices to Improve In-Row Weed Control with Cultivation in Organic Peanut Production

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 718-723 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Carroll Johnson ◽  
Mark A. Boudreau ◽  
Jerry W. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Cultural Practices ◽  
Canopy Closure ◽  
Seeding Rate ◽  
Control Research ◽  
Peanut Production ◽  
Narrow Row ◽  
Weed Emergence

Cultivation is a proven means of weed control in organic peanut. However, weeds present in-row often escape control. Research trials were conducted in Ty Ty, GA to modify cultural practices to help suppress weed emergence in-row. Modified cultural practices were three row pattern/seeding rate combinations; twin rows (four rows on a seedbed) seeded at the recommended (1X) seeding rate that produced 13 seed m−1in each row, twin rows seeded at the 2X seeding rate that produced 23 seed m−1in each row, and wide rows (two rows on seedbed) seeded at the recommended seeding rate that produced 23 seed m−1. Four cultivation regimes were evaluated; cultivation with a tine weeder at weekly intervals for 6 wk, cultivation with a tine weeder at weekly intervals for 8 wk, scouring with a brush hoe at vegetative emergence followed by the tine weeder for 6 wk, and a noncultivated control. There were no interactions between row pattern/seeding rates and cultivation regimes for any parameter measured. There was inconsistent response of weed control and peanut yield to row pattern/seeding rates. Weed control and peanut yields were similar with tine weeding for 6 wk, 8 wk, or with the brush hoe followed by the tine weeder. Weed management in organic peanut was not improved by altering peanut cultural practices that facilitate quicker canopy closure, and the use of narrow row patterns should not be based on attempts to improve weed control in organic peanut. Narrow row patterns provide other benefits to organic peanut production and those attributes should influence decisions on the choice of row pattern, not weed control.

scholarly journals Potential Weed Management Systems for Organic Peanut Production

2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Carroll Johnson ◽  
Benjamin G. Mullinix
Keyword(s):  
Acetic Acid ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Clove Oil ◽  
Poor Control ◽  
Early Season ◽  
Annual Grasses ◽  
Peanut Production ◽  
Four Levels

Abstract Studies were conducted near Tifton, GA to develop weed management systems for organic peanut production. Trials in 2004 and 2005 evaluated row patterns (two levels), remedial weed control (four levels), and cultivation (three levels). Row patterns were wide rows (91 cm apart) and narrow rows (30 cm apart). Remedial weed control was early-season applications of clove oil, citric plus acetic acid, broadcast propane flaming, and a nontreated control. Cultivation regimes were 1X or 2X sweep cultivation and a non-cultivated control. The experimental sites had heavy natural infestations of annual grasses and broadleaf weeds. None of the treatment combinations effectively controlled weeds season-long and resulting peanut yields were poor. Annual grasses were particularly troublesome due to ineffective control from flaming and citric plus acetic acid. Clove oil was slightly more effective in controlling annual grasses than the other remedial treatments, but annual grass control was still unacceptable. Dicot weeds were not effectively controlled by mid-season, although clove oil and flaming controlled the seedling weeds early season. The lack of residual weed control by the remedial weed control treatments resulted in heavy weed infestations by mid-season. Poor control of annual grasses, no residual weed control, and high cost of remedial treatments indicates that these systems of weed management in organic peanut production are not suited to sites with heavy weed infestations.

scholarly journals A Review of Weed Management Challenges in Organic Peanut Production

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Carroll Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Cropping System ◽  
Organic Production ◽  
Integrated System ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Annual Grasses ◽  
Peanut Production ◽  
Certified Organic ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

ABSTRACT Organic peanut production is a high-risk cropping system, largely due to difficulties in managing weeds using methods acceptable for certified-organic production. In contrast with conventional peanut production that relies heavily on synthetic herbicides, organic peanut production must use an integrated system to manage weeds. The foundation for an integrated weed management system is cultural weed control which is a system of production practices that promote uniform peanut growth to suppress weeds. Cultural weed control includes practices that promote vigorous early-season peanut growth and lessen chances for weed escapes. Mechanical weed control is based on repeated cultivation using a tine weeder and sweep cultivator to control weeds before they emerge. However, weed control consistency from cultivation is affected by rainfall that can delay scheduled cultivations and hinder implement function. Handweeding is also a form of mechanical weed control that is used to supplement other weed control efforts by controlling escapes. Herbicides derived from natural products and thermal weed control using propane flaming have limited value in organic peanut production due to limited weed control spectra, specifically poor control of annual grasses and perennial weeds. Successful weed management in certified organic peanut production will depend on an integrated system, not a single form of weed control.

Interactive Effects of Hand Weeding, Tine and Sweep Cultivation for Weed Control in Organic Peanut Production

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Q. Wann ◽  
R. S. Tubbs
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Control Method ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Interactive Effects ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Peanut Crop ◽  
Peanut Production ◽  
Amaranthus Spp ◽  
Hand Weeding ◽  
Organically Managed

ABSTRACT Previous research has shown that mechanical cultivation is the most effective and affordable method of weed control in organic peanut production. However, growers are in need of more information on specific integrated cultivation regimes for effective season-long weed control with minimal hand-weeding requirements. Therefore, field trials were conducted in 2010–2012 to evaluate the effects of various tine and sweep cultivation treatments combined with or without hand-weeding on season-long weed control, stand establishment, and yield and grade of an organically-managed peanut crop. Tine cultivation treatments consisted of no cultivation or weekly cultivations for 5 wks after planting (WAP). Sweep treatments consisted of no cultivation, weekly cultivations (for 5 WAP), cultivations at 2 and 5 WAP only, or cultivation at 5 WAP only. Hand-weeding treatments were no hand-weeding or hand-weeding of the entire plot. There were numerous significant interactions among tine and sweep treatments on weed control. Initial weed species composition greatly affected cultivation effects on overall weed control. Tine cultivation was most effective at controlling annual grass weeds. Sweep cultivation was effective at reducing weeds (Amaranthus spp., southern crabgrass, and Florida pusley), but primarily when tine cultivation was absent. Hand-weeding significantly improved weed control for every weed species every year. Additionally, inclusion of certain cultivation regimes significantly reduced the hand-weeding time requirement over the control. However, cultivation treatments did not improve pod yield or grade in any year. The most significant benefit in cultivation from these data is in the reduction in hand-weeding requirements. Based on this research, a regime consisting of weekly tine cultivations for 5 WAP, combined with two timely sweep cultivations provided the best overall balance of weed control and minimization of hand-weeding. Hand-weeding is the most critical weed control method, followed by tine cultivation, and finally sweep cultivation, which primarily served as an aid in the event of missed tine cultivations or failure.

Interactions among Cultivation, Weeds, and a Biofungicide in Organic Vidalia® Sweet Onion

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 890-896
Author(s):  
W. Carroll Johnson ◽  
Bhabesh Dutta ◽  
F. Hunt Sanders ◽  
Xuelin Luo
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Interactive Effects ◽  
Yield Response ◽  
Evening Primrose ◽  
Bacterial Diseases ◽  
Hand Weeding ◽  
Giant Knotweed ◽  
Main Effects ◽  
Weed Removal

Weed management in the organic Vidalia® sweet onion production system is largely dependent on multiple cultivations with a tine weeder. Earlier research suggested cultivation with a tine weeder did not predispose onion bulbs to infection during storage. Trials were conducted from 2012 through 2014 near Lyons, GA, to determine the interactive effects of cultivation, weed removal, and a biofungicide on weed densities, onion yield, grade, and diseases of stored onion. Cultivation twice or four times at biweekly intervals with a tine weeder reduced densities of cutleaf evening-primrose, lesser swinecress, and henbit compared with the noncultivated control, although weeds surviving cultivation were very large and mature at harvest. Cultivation generally improved onion yields over the noncultivated control, except in 2014, when baseline weed densities were high and weeds surviving cultivation were numerous. Weeds removed by hand weeding improved onion yields, but that effect was independent of cultivation. Four applications of a biofungicide derived from giant knotweed had no effect on onion yield. Cultivation had no effect on incidence of the fungal disease botrytis neck rot, with inconsistent effects on the bacterial diseases center rot and sour skin. Weed removal with hand weeding did not affect diseases of stored onion. The biofungicide had no effect on diseases of stored onion. These results demonstrate the limitations of cultivation when cool-season weed infestations are dense. With no interactions among main effects, weed control and onion yield response to cultivation and hand weeding are independent. Cultivation for weed control is much less costly than hand weeding. With no interaction between the cultivation and weed removal main effects, it is not necessary to supplement tine weeder cultivation with costly hand weeding.

Integrating cultivation using a tine weeder with herbicides in conventional peanut production

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 374-379
Author(s):  
W. Carroll Johnson ◽  
Xuelin Luo
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Integrated System ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Rainfall Events ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Annual Grasses ◽  
Peanut Production ◽  
Effective Component

AbstractResearch from the 1980s reported sweep cultivation being a cost-effective component in an integrated system to manage weeds in peanut. Previous weed management research conducted on organic peanut indicated that repeated cultivation with a tine weeder was an effective component in that production system. Studies were conducted in Tifton, GA, from 2014 through 2017 to determine whether tine weeding can be integrated with herbicides in conventional peanut production to supplement herbicides. Experiments evaluated a factorial arrangement of eight herbicide combinations and two levels of cultivation using a tine weeder. Herbicides were labeled rates of ethalfluralin PRE, S-metolachlor PRE, imazapic POST, ethalfluralin PRE + S-metolachlor PRE, ethalfluralin PRE + imazapic POST, S-metolachlor PRE + imazapic POST, ethalfluralin PRE + S-metolachlor PRE + imazapic POST, and a nontreated control. The herbicides chosen were based on knowledge of the weed species composition at the research sites and their common use in peanut. Cultivation regimes were cultivation with a tine weeder (six times at weekly intervals) and a noncultivated control. Benefits of tine weeding supplementing control from herbicides varied according to herbicide and weed species. For example, annual grasses were effectively controlled (88% to 97%) by ethalfluralin or S-metolachlor and did not need cultivation to supplement control provided by the herbicides. However, imazapic alone did not effectively control (54% to 75%) annual grasses and needed supplemental control from cultivation with the tine weeder. Similarly, imazapic effectively controlled (84% to 93%) smallflower morningglory and did not require cultivation to supplement control from the herbicide. However, cultivation with the tine weeder improved smallflower morningglory control (76% to 95%) when supplementing ethalfluralin or S-metolachlor. Peanut yields did not respond to any of the herbicide combinations integrated with cultivation using the tine weeder. During the time period when peanut was cultivated, there was greater total rainfall and more days of rainfall events in 2014 and 2017 compared with the other years. Rainfall and wet soils reduced the performance and weed control benefits of the tine weeder. This highlights the risk of depending on cultivation for weed control.

Grower Acceptance of Economic Thresholds for Weed Management in Illinois

1997 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 828-831 ◽  
Author(s):  
George F. Czapar ◽  
Marc P. Curry ◽  
Loyd M. Wax
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Insect Control ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Weed Seed ◽  
Agricultural Chemical ◽  
Economic Thresholds ◽  
General Appearance

Although economic thresholds are often used to make insect control decisions, the use of thresholds for weed management has been limited. Surveys of growers, agricultural chemical dealers, and farm managers/rural appraisers helped identify limitations to grower acceptance of economic thresholds for weed management. Most growers were concerned about harvest problems due to weeds, with 64% identifying this factor as a major limitation. Landlord perception and weed seed production were identified by 38% of the growers as major limitations, while 36% of the growers listed general appearance of the field as reasons. In contrast, 75% of the agricultural chemical dealers and 63% of the farm managers surveyed listed field appearance as a major reason limiting grower acceptance of economic thresholds for weed management. Since grower concerns involve risk management and future profitability, economic weed thresholds that address long-term costs and benefits of weed control decisions may be more fully accepted.

2012–2016 On-Farm Evaluation of Fungicide Programs for Peanut Disease Control in Hamilton County, Florida

EDIS ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith W. Wynn ◽  
Nicholas S. Dufault ◽  
Rebecca L. Barocco
Keyword(s):  
Plant Pathology ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Leaf Spot ◽  
Fungal Disease ◽  
White Mold ◽  
Stem Rot ◽  
Late Leaf Spot ◽  
Fact Sheet ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Hamilton County

This ten-page fact sheet includes a summary of various fungicide spray programs for fungal disease control of early leaf spot, late leaf spot, and white mold/stem rot of peanut in 2012-2016 on-farm trials in Hamilton County. Written by K.W. Wynn, N.S. Dufault, and R.L. Barocco and published by the Plant Pathology Department.http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pp334

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document