Implements and Cultivation Frequency to Improve In-Row Weed Control in Organic Peanut Production

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 334-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Carroll Johnson ◽  
Mark A. Boudreau ◽  
Jerry W. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Peanut Production ◽  
Hand Weeding ◽  
Overall Effectiveness

Weed control in organic peanut production is difficult and costly. Sweep cultivation in the row middles is effective, but weeds remain in the crop row, causing yield loss. Research trials were conducted in Ty Ty, GA to evaluate implements and frequencies of cultivation to improve in-row weed control in organic peanut. Implements were a tine weeder and power takeoff-powered brush hoe that targeted weeds present in the row. Frequencies of cultivation were at vegetative emergence of peanut (VE), 1 wk after VE (1wk), 2 wk after VE (2wk), sequential combinations of VE/1wk, VE/2wk, and VE/1wk/2wk. All plots were cultivated with a sweep cultivator to control weeds in row middles. The tine weeder tended to be easier to operate and performed more consistently than the brush hoe. Both implements performed best when initial cultivation was at VE. Delaying the initial cultivation reduced overall effectiveness. Plots with the best in-row weed control were hand-weeded once to control escapes and harvested for peanut yield. The best overall combination of weed control, minimal use of salvage hand-weeding, and maximum peanut yield resulted from sequential cultivation at VE/1wk using either the tine weeder or brush hoe, row middle sweep cultivation, and preharvest mowing.

scholarly journals Crop signal markers facilitate crop detection and weed removal from lettuce and tomato by an intelligent cultivator

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 342-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
HannahJoy Kennedy ◽  
Steven A. Fennimore ◽  
David C. Slaughter ◽  
Thuy T. Nguyen ◽  
Vivian L. Vuong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pattern Recognition ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Vegetable Crops ◽  
Vegetable Crop ◽  
Tomato Plants ◽  
Commercial Use ◽  
Hand Weeding ◽  
Herbicide Use

AbstractIncreasing weed control costs and limited herbicide options threaten vegetable crop profitability. Traditional interrow mechanical cultivation is very effective at removing weeds between crop rows. However, weed control within the crop rows is necessary to establish the crop and prevent yield loss. Currently, many vegetable crops require hand weeding to remove weeds within the row that remain after traditional cultivation and herbicide use. Intelligent cultivators have come into commercial use to remove intrarow weeds and reduce cost of hand weeding. Intelligent cultivators currently on the market such as the Robovator, use pattern recognition to detect the crop row. These cultivators do not differentiate crops and weeds and do not work well among high weed populations. One approach to differentiate weeds is to place a machine-detectable mark or signal on the crop (i.e., the crop has the mark and the weed does not), thereby facilitating weed/crop differentiation. Lettuce and tomato plants were marked with labels and topical markers, then cultivated with an intelligent cultivator programmed to identify the markers. Results from field trials in marked tomato and lettuce found that the intelligent cultivator removed 90% more weeds from tomato and 66% more weeds from lettuce than standard cultivators without reducing yields. Accurate crop and weed differentiation described here resulted in a 45% to 48% reduction in hand-weeding time per hectare.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Determining the critical period for weed control in high-yielding cotton using common sunflower as a mimic weed

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 800-807 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham W. Charles ◽  
Brian M. Sindel ◽  
Annette L. Cowie ◽  
Oliver G. G. Knox
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Growing Degree Days ◽  
Degree Days ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Planting Season

AbstractField studies were conducted over six seasons to determine the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in high-yielding cotton, using common sunflower as a mimic weed. Common sunflower was planted with or after cotton emergence at densities of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 plants m−2. Common sunflower was added and removed at approximately 0, 150, 300, 450, 600, 750, and 900 growing degree days (GDD) after planting. Season-long interference resulted in no harvestable cotton at densities of five or more common sunflower plants m−2. High levels of intraspecific and interspecific competition occurred at the highest weed densities, with increases in weed biomass and reductions in crop yield not proportional to the changes in weed density. Using a 5% yield-loss threshold, the CPWC extended from 43 to 615 GDD, and 20 to 1,512 GDD for one and 50 common sunflower plants m−2, respectively. These results highlight the high level of weed control required in high-yielding cotton to ensure crop losses do not exceed the cost of control.

scholarly journals Effects of glyphosate-based herbicides and their active ingredients on earthworms, water infiltration and glyphosate leaching are influenced by soil properties

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johann G. Zaller ◽  
Maureen Weber ◽  
Michael Maderthaner ◽  
Edith Gruber ◽  
Eszter Takács ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Organic Matter ◽  
Soil Properties ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Amaranthus Retroflexus ◽  
Water Infiltration ◽  
Soil Conditions ◽  
Soil Functions ◽  
Active Ingredients ◽  
Hand Weeding ◽  
Earthworm Activity

Abstract Background Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are among the most often used pesticides. The hundreds of GBHs used worldwide consist of the active ingredient (AI) glyphosate in form of different salts, possibly other AIs, and various mostly undisclosed co-formulants. Pesticide risk assessments are commonly performed using single AIs or GBHs at standard soil conditions without vegetation. In a greenhouse experiment, we established a weed population with common amaranth (Amaranthus retroflexus) to examine the effects of three GBHs (Roundup LB Plus, Roundup PowerFlex, Touchdown Quattro) and their corresponding AIs (salts of glyphosate isopropylammonium, potassium, diammonium) on the activity and physiological biomarkers (glutathione S-transferase, GST; acetylcholine esterase, AChE) of an ecologically relevant earthworm species (Lumbricus terrestris). GBHs and AIs were applied at recommended doses; hand weeding served as control. Experiments were established with two soil types differing in organic matter content (SOM; 3.0% vs. 4.1%) and other properties. Results Earthworm activity (casting and movement activity) decreased after application of glyphosate formulations or active ingredients compared to hand weeding. We found no consistent pattern that formulations had either higher or lower effects on earthworm activity than their active ingredients; rather, differences were substance-specific. Earthworm activity was little affected by soil organic matter levels. Biomarkers remained unaffected by weed control types; GST but not AChE was decreased under high SOM. Water infiltration after a simulated heavy rainfall was interactively affected by weed control types and SOM. Leachate amount was higher after application of formulations than active ingredients and was higher under low SOM. Glyphosate concentrations in soil and leachate were strongly affected by application of formulations or active ingredients and varied with SOM (significant weed control type x SOM interaction). Conclusions We found that both commercial formulations and pure active ingredients can influence earthworms with consequences on important soil functions. Glyphosate products showed increased, reduced or similar effects than pure glyphosate on particular soil functions; soil properties can substantially alter this. Especially at lower SOM, heavy rainfalls could lead to more glyphosate leaching into water bodies. A full disclosure of co-formulants would be necessary to further decipher their specific contributions to these inconsistent effects.

scholarly journals Weed control in soybean (Glycine max L.) through resource management strategies and its influence on yield and nutrient uptake

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 539-543
Author(s):  
Aradhana Bali ◽  
B. R. Bazaya ◽  
Sandeep Rawal
Keyword(s):  
Resource Management ◽  
Nutrient Uptake ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Climatic Conditions ◽  
Glycine Max L ◽  
Effect On Yield ◽  
Hand Weeding ◽  
Quizalofop Ethyl

A field experiment was conducted during kharif season of 2011 at Research Farm, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Chatha, Jammu to evaluate the effect of weed management prac-tices on yield and nutrient uptake of soybean utilizing different resource management strategies. The lowest weed density and dry matter of weeds was recorded with hand weeding at 15 and 35 days after sowing (DAS) which was equally effective as imazethapyr @ 75 g ha -1 (PoE) fb hoeing at 35 DAS and quizalofop-ethyl @ 40 g ha-1 (PoE) fb hoeing at 35 DAS. All weed control treatments had significant effect on yield and nutrient up-take of soybean. Among the different weed control treatments, lowest N, P and K uptake by weeds were recorded in hand-weeding (15 and 35 DAS) which was statistically at par with imazethapyr @ 75 g ha -1 fb hoeing at 35 DAS. The maximum uptake by seed and straw were recorded in weed free which was statistically at par with twice hand weeding at 15 and 35 DAS, imazethapyr @ 75 g ha-1 fb hoeing at 35 DAS and quizalofop-ethyl @ 40 g ha-1 fb hoeing at 35 DAS. The highest seed and straw yield of soybean was harvested with hand-weeding (15 and 35 DAS) followed by imazethapyr @ 75 g ha -1 fb hoeing at 35 DAS. For the first time, soybean crop has been introduced in Jammu region for research purpose. Weed management varies with agro-climatic conditions. The study would be helpful to understand weed menace in this particular climatic condition of Jammu and to manage them combinedly and efficiently.

Influence of a Rye Cover Crop on the Critical Period for Weed Control in Cotton

Weed Science ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 346-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas E. Korres ◽  
Jason K. Norsworthy
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Cover Crops ◽  
Cover Crop ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
Weed Biomass ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Presence And Absence ◽  
Weed Removal

Cover crops are becoming increasingly common in cotton as a result of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth; hence, a field experiment was conducted in 2009 and 2010 in Marianna, AR, with a rye cover crop used to determine its effects on the critical period for weed control in cotton. Throughout most of the growing season, weed biomass in the presence of a rye cover crop was lesser than that in the absence of a rye cover crop. In 2009, in weeks 2 through 7 after planting, weed biomass was reduced at least twofold in the presence of a rye cover compared with the absence of rye. In 2009, in both presence and absence of a rye cover crop, weed removal needed to begin before weed biomass was 150 g m−2, or approximately 4 wk after planting, to prevent yield loss > 5%. Weed density was less in 2010 than in 2009, so weed removal was not required until 7 wk after planting, at which point weed biomass values were 175 and 385 g m−2in the presence and absence of a cover crop, respectively.

Volunteer potato interference in carrot

Weed Science ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin M. Williams ◽  
Rick A. Boydston
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Functional Relationships ◽  
Weed Growth ◽  
Volunteer Potato ◽  
Tuber Production ◽  
Hand Weeding ◽  
Management Recommendations

Weed management systems in carrot are limited in part by a lack of fundamental understanding of crop–weed interactions. Irrigated field studies were conducted to quantify the effect of volunteer potato density and duration of interference on carrot yield and to determine relationships among weed density, duration of weed growth, and volunteer potato tuber production. A season-long volunteer potato density of 0.06 plants m−2produced from 150 to 230 g tubers m−2and resulted in an estimated 5% crop yield loss. At two volunteer potato plants m−2, the same level of crop loss was estimated with a duration of interference of 430 growing degree days (GDD), a time at which the weed had already produced 130 g tubers m−2. Volunteer potato height at the time of weed removal predicted carrot yield loss (R2= 0.77) and may be useful for timing of management strategies such as hand weeding. Functional relationships describing carrot–volunteer potato interactions provide simple information that is useful for developing weed management recommendations for carrot, a crop that relies on multiple tactics for managing weeds, and rotational crops that are negatively affected by persistence of volunteer potato.

Validation of HERB for Use in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)

1997 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 573-579 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony D. White ◽  
Harold D. Coble
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Arachis Hypogaea ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Decision Model ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Field Validation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Weed Density ◽  
Competitive Index ◽  
Peanut Production

Researchers are currently developing predictive weed management models to aid producers in maintaining or improving economic profitability of peanut production while minimizing herbicide inputs and reducing environmental impact. HERB (Version 2.1.P), a computer decision model, has recently been developed for peanut and is now awaiting validation of weed control decisions before being released to the public. Field validation trials in 1994 and 1995 indicate that the current competitive index parameters in the HERB model are invalid, and statistically estimated competitive indices were generated. Estimating new parameters improvedR2values from 0.37 to 0.61. New competitive index parameters allow the HERB model to more accurately predict the level of yield loss at a given weed density.

scholarly journals The Critical Period for Weed Control (CPWC) in Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 355-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dogan ISIK ◽  
Adem AKCA ◽  
Emine KAYA ALTOP ◽  
Nihat TURSUN ◽  
Husrev MENNAN
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Critical Period ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Control Period ◽  
Relative Yield ◽  
Yield Data ◽  
Weed Interference

Accurate assessment of crop-weed control period is an essential part for planning an effective weed management for cropping systems. Field experiments were conducted during the seasonal growing periods of potato in 2012 and 2013 in Kayseri, Turkey to assess critical period for weed control (CPWC) in potato. A four parameter log-logistic model was used to assist in monitoring and analysing two sets of related, relative crop yield. Data was obtained during the periods of increased weed interference and as a comparison, during weed-free periods. In both years, the relative yield of potato decreased with a longer period of weed-interference whereas increased with increasing length of weed free period. In 2012, the CPWC ranged from 112 to 1014 GDD (Growing Degree Days) which corresponded to 8 to 66 days after crop emergence (DAE) and between 135-958 GDD (10 to 63 DAE) in the following year based on a 5% acceptable yield loss. Weed-free conditions needed to be established as early as the first week after crop emergence and maintained as late as ten weeks after crop emergence to avoid more than 5% yield loss in the potato. The results suggest that CPWC could well assist potato producers to significantly reduce the expense of their weed management programs as well as improving its efficacy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document