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.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Synthetic Mulches in Organic Hardneck Garlic (Allium sativum subsp. ophioscorodon) Production

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew A Carr ◽  
Kate A Congreves
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Allium Sativum ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Block Design ◽  
Cropping System ◽  
Organic Production ◽  
Soil Conditions ◽  
Vegetable Production ◽  
Soil Nutrition ◽  
Certified Organic

The demand for certified organic garlic (Allium sativum) in Canada is increasing; however, garlic can be challenging to produce organically, as it does not compete well with weeds, requires relatively fertile soils, and is grown in a biennial cropping system. Synthetic mulches have been adopted in organic production as they can be an economical method to improve vegetable production by reducing weed pressure and modifying soil conditions. We hypothesize that garlic quality and overall yield will be improved when using synthetic mulches. In 2017-18, we conducted a randomized complete block design experiment to compare garlic production of black plastic, white plastic, and Kraft paper mulch treatments to a control with no mulch at a certified organic farm in Krestova, British Columbia. We evaluated garlic characteristics associated with yield and quality, changes in soil nutrition, and weed control of the mulch treatments. We found that plastic mulches had the best weed control, and all synthetic mulches increased minimum and maximum bulb diameter, clove count, and yield compared to the control. Mulching materials did not influence soil nitrate concentrations. The results support the hypothesis that synthetic mulches increase the quality and yield of the garlic compared to the control. Our findings suggest that synthetic mulching may be a key component of improving garlic production systems.

Influence of annual forages on weed dynamics in a cropping system

2000 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison Schoofs ◽  
Martin H. Entz
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Community Composition ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Cropping System ◽  
Triticum Aestivum L ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Wild Oat ◽  
Forage Crops ◽  
Winter Triticale ◽  
Weed Dynamics

Alternatives to herbicides are needed for weed control. Field studies were conducted in 1994/1995 and 1995/1996 to investigate the nature of forage crop-weed dynamics and to test the effect of single year forage crops on the density and community composition of annual weeds in a following field pea (Pisium sativum L.) test crop. Five spring-seeded forage treatments were compared with wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grain crops (with or without herbicides for grassy and broadleaved weeds): winter triticale (Triticosecale) (simulation grazed); spring triticale (silage); spring/winter triticale intercrop (silage, then simulation grazed); alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) (hay); sorghum-sudangrass (Sorghum bicolor [L.] Moench × Sorghum sudanese [Piper]) (hay); and a weedy fallow (silage). A fall rye (Secale cereale L.) grain crop and a sweet clover (Melilotis officinalis L.)/winter triticale double crop (hay, then simulation grazing) were included in the 1995/1996 trial. All forage systems were at least as effective as the sprayed wheat control in suppressing wild oat (Avena fatua L.); however, effects on other weeds, especially broadleaved species, were variable. Biennial crops provided the best early season weed control, while long-season systems such winter triticale and the triticale intercrop provided the best late season weed control. Forages shifted the weed community composition away from wild oat and green foxtail (Setaria viridis L. Beauv.) to a similar or greater extent than herbicide-treated wheat. Forage systems that did not provide season-long crop competition tended to have more broadleaved weeds. Some forage systems increased pea grain yield the following year (relative to the sprayed wheat control); however, forages alone did not eliminate the need for herbicides in the pea crop. Annual forages may play an important role in integrated weed management, especially for wild oat, however further research to refine forage-based weed management systems is needed. Key words: Integrated weed management, alfalfa, intercropping, double cropping, organic farming

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 Evaluation of mechanical weed management techniques on weed and crop populations

2001 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 174-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.J. Reddiex ◽  
S.D. Wratten ◽  
G.D. Hill ◽  
G. Bourd?t ◽  
C.M. Frampton
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Dry Matter ◽  
Organic Production ◽  
Borago Officinalis ◽  
Management Techniques ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Organically Grown ◽  
Mechanical Weed Control

One of the main barriers for conventional farmers converting to organic production is weed control An experiment was set up to evaluate the efficacy of three mechanical weed control methods tine weeder spoon weeder and interrow hoe (only in the beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)) in four organically grown crops In borage (Borago officinalis) weed dry matter (DM) was reduced by 41 in tineweeded plots but there was no treatment effect on crop DM or yield There was no treatment effect in the peas (Pisum sativum) In linseed (Linum usitatissimum) mechanical weeding reduced weed DM by 41 and resulted in a 28 increase in crop yield In beans weed DM was reduced by 74 in mechanicallyweeded plots but the tine weeder reduced crop DM compared with the other mechanical weeding treatments

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 Herbicide-resistant crops in resistant weed management : An industrial perspective

2005 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 79-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Shaner
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Wild Species ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
Resistant Varieties ◽  
Selection Of

Some of the first products of biotechnology to reach the marketplace have been herbicide-resistant crops. Industry sees the development of herbicide-resistant varieties as a way to increase the availability of proven herbicides for a broader range of crops. However, the development of herbicide- resistant crops requires special attention to potential environmental questions such as herbicide usage, selection of resistant weed biotypes and spread of resistance from the resistant crop to wild species. Industry is actively addressing these concerns during the process of development. Proper development and use of herbicide-resistant crops in integrated weed management programs will provide farmers with increased flexibility, efficiency, and decreased cost in their weed control practices without increasing the risk of herbicide-resistant weeds. Furthermore, herbicide-resistant crops should prove to be valuable tools in managing herbicide- resistant weeds.

Weed Management with Glyphosate- and Glufosinate-Based Systems in PHY 485 WRF Cotton

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jared R. Whitaker ◽  
Alan C. York ◽  
David L. Jordan ◽  
A. Stanley Culpepper
Keyword(s):  
Weed Control ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Fiber Quality ◽  
Palmer Amaranth ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Crop Tolerance ◽  
The North ◽  
Annual Grasses ◽  
Resistance Trait ◽  
Cotton Belt

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) Palmer amaranth has become a serious pest in parts of the Cotton Belt. Some GR cotton cultivars also contain the WideStrike™ insect resistance trait, which confers tolerance to glufosinate. Use of glufosinate-based management systems in such cultivars could be an option for managing GR Palmer amaranth. The objective of this study was to evaluate crop tolerance and weed control with glyphosate-based and glufosinate-based systems in PHY 485 WRF cotton. The North Carolina field experiment compared glyphosate and glufosinate alone and in mixtures applied twice before four- to six-leaf cotton. Additional treatments included glyphosate and glufosinate mixed withS-metolachlor or pyrithiobac applied to one- to two-leaf cotton followed by glyphosate or glufosinate alone on four- to six-leaf cotton. All treatments received a residual lay-by application. Excellent weed control was observed from all treatments on most weed species. Glyphosate was more effective than glufosinate on glyphosate-susceptible (GS) Palmer amaranth and annual grasses, while glufosinate was more effective on GR Palmer amaranth. Annual grass and GS Palmer amaranth control by glyphosate plus glufosinate was often less than control by glyphosate alone but similar to or greater than control by glufosinate alone, while mixtures were more effective than either herbicide alone on GR Palmer amaranth. Glufosinate caused minor and transient injury to the crop, but no differences in cotton yield or fiber quality were noted. This research demonstrates glufosinate can be applied early in the season to PHY 485 WRF cotton without concern for significant adverse effects on the crop. Although glufosinate is often less effective than glyphosate on GS Palmer amaranth, GR Palmer amaranth can be controlled with well-timed applications of glufosinate. Use of glufosinate in cultivars with the WideStrike trait could fill a significant void in current weed management programs for GR Palmer amaranth in cotton.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document