• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Historic note
 Main






Group Title: Agronomy research report - University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences ; AY-83-06
Title: No-tillage peanut succeeding rye grain
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00056059/00001
 Material Information
Title: No-tillage peanut succeeding rye grain
Physical Description: 7 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Gallaher, Raymond N
University of Florida -- Agronomy Dept
Publisher: Department of Agronomy, IFAS, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 1983?
 Subjects
Subject: Peanuts -- Field experiments -- Florida   ( lcsh )
No-tillage -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Crop rotation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by Raymond N. Gallaher.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 4-5).
General Note: Agronomy research report - University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences ; AY-83-06
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00056059
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 62555759

Table of Contents
    Historic note
        Historic note
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida












Agronomy Research Report AY83-06


No-Tillage Peanut Succeeding Rye Grain


By
As: cate Raymond N. Gallaher
Asociate Professor of Agronomy, Department
S of gronomy, Institute of Food and Agricultural
Shces, University of Florida, Gainesville,
'J. \orida 32611.

A-^
INTRODLCTION


The Florida peanut (Arachis hypogaea, L.) crop is often subjected to
intensive wind and water erosion. Wind erosion can result in losses of
fertilizers, and other chemicals applied to the soil surface to keep the plants
healthy and to protect peanuts from pests. This as well as physical
sandblasting, can reduce yield and thus cause economic losses. No-tillage has
been proven over and over to substantially reduce erosion losses to near zero
under certain conditions for other crops (Langdale, et. al. 1979). Sane
research efforts have been and are presently underway to investigate herbicides
(Teem 1980-1981) and management (Gallaher 1979, 1981), (Wright 1981),
(Constello and Gallaher 1982), of no-tillage peanuts.
There are some farmers who have experimented with no-tillage planting of
peanuts including Robinson (1978-1979), Stevens (1980-1982), and Harden & Sons
(1979-1982). At least one group of farmers, the Harden's in Banks, Alabama,
have reported no-tillage peanut yield on sizeable acreage that was as good or
better than with conventional tillage. Under farm conditions it was noted that
no-tillage peanuts planted into small grain straw produced yields lower than
under conditions where the straw was removed following grain harvest.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of small grain
residue on no-tillage and conventional tillage peanuts.

MATERIALS AND NETH-DS


The experiment was conducted on the Green Acres Agronomy Research Farm
located West of Gainesville, Florida in 1981. An Arredondo fine sand (loamy,
silicious, hyperthermic Grossarenic Paleudult) existed on the site. In
November 1980, 120 pounds/acre of "Wrens Abruzzi" rye (Secale cereale (L.))
was drilled into a conventionally tilled seedbed. The rye was topdressed with
30 pounds N/acre at planting and 70 pounds N/acre in late February in 1981. In
late January 1981 two pounds active ingredient (a.i.) 2,4-D
((2,4-dichlorophenoxy) acetic acid) was broadcast over the rye for winter
broadleaf control.
Rye was harvested in late May 1981 with a Ford combine having a 12 foot
head. The overall experimental site gave a grain yield of 40 bu/acre and straw
yield of 3200 pounds/acre. This was a grain to straw ratio of 0.75. Straw was
removed off of: some plots using a forage chopper and collected in a dump wagon.









Straw on the remaining plots was spread evenly by hand.
Four tillage-residue treatments were imposed for 'planting "Florunner"
peanut in a randomized complete block experimental design with four
replications. The four treatments were 1) no-tillage into rye residue, 2)
no-tillage with residue removed, 3) conventional tillage with residue
incorporated, 4) and conventional tillage following residue removal. Peanut
plots were 15 feet wide and provided room for six-two and one-half foot rows.
Peanuts were planted in late June. The delay in planting date was due to a
lack of rainfall for good germination and water needed to sustain early growth.
Since the use of irrigation was ruled out, the later planting also helped
insure regular rainfall during the wet sumner rmnths.
Preemergence herbicides were broadcast.following planting and included two
pounds/acre a.i. glyphosate. (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine; two pounds/acre a.i.
alachlor (2-chloro-2',6'-diethyl-N-(rrethoxymethyl)acetanilide); and one and
one-half pounds/acre a.i. dinoseb 2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol).
About three weeks after emergence weeds were identified and populations
counted in each plot. Plots were then sprayed with two pounds/acre a.i.
toxaphene (Chlorinated camphene) and 0.75 pounds/acre a.i. dinoseb as an early
post emergence disease and weed control. About four weeks after emergence,
when peanut plants were about six inches in diameter over the row a post direct
application of 0.125 pounds/acre paraquat (1,l'-dimethyl-4,4'-bipyridinium ion)
plus one-half pint/acre of X-77 surfactant/100 gallons of water was made. A
second application of 2 pounds/acre a.i. toxaphene was then broadcast to
complete all weed and disease control measures. Identification and counts of
weeds were made a second time at about 100 days after emergence.
Just prior to peanut harvest, root resistance (a measure of how well the
plant was anchored to the ground) measurements were made. This was done by
tying a string around the crown of a single plant and using an autopsy scale to
pull the plant from the ground. The resistance was measured in grams/ac2. The
area factor was determined by the plant population in the vicinity of the
plants that were pulled from the plot. Five plants from each plot were
measured and averaged for comparing root resistance.
A 17 square foot area from each plot was harvested for yield. Plants were
pulled by hand and dried in an oven at 70 C for 48 hours. Pods were picked off
by hand and both the residue and pods were weighed. The pods were then shelled
by hand for hull and nut weights (Data not completed at this time). A larger
section of the plot was also harvested using a regular farm size peanut digger.
and combine. Samples were taken from this harvest for grading using U.S.D.A.
grading standards (Data not completed at this time.).
Soil samples were taken from each plot prior to planting rye in the fall
of 1980. Following extraction with double acid (0.05 N H:1 & 0.025 N H2S04)
analyses were made for P using colorimetry, K using flame emissison
spectrophotometery, and Ca, Mg, Cu, Fe, Zn, and Mn using atomic absorption
spectrophtometery. The pH was measured on a two water to one soil volume ratio
using the glass electrode.
Randomized complete block statistical analysis was performed according to
Steel and Torrey (1960) using the Radio Shack TRS 80 Model III computer and a
program written in BASIC computer language. The same unit and similar
programming was used to run Duncans New Multiple Range test on means that had a
significant F test.


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION










It is known that a good mulch will not only control soil erosion but also
help in the control of weeds (Gallaher 1978). Soon after peanut emergence it
was apparent that plots had differential populations of weeds. There was a
trend for all broadleaf weeds and sedges to be in much greater numbers in
conventional tillage plots. as compared to no-tillage (Table I). This
difference could be measured for sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) but variability
was to great to measure differences for other weeds. The sum total number of
all weeds averaged 21.75/50 square feet in no-tillage plots and 84.88/50 square
feet in conventional tillage plots. Conventional tillage had almost 300% more
weeds than no-tillage when measured soon after emergence.
As one might expect, broadleaf weeds were a bigger problem than grasses in
the early stage of peanut growth (Table 2). When all broadleaf weeds were
combined and all grasses and sedges combined, only the differences due to
tillage could be measured for the broadleaf weeds. No differences could be
measured in the broadleaf to grass weed ratio at the early count (Table 2).
Post emergence broadcast and post directed herbicide treatments eliminated
many of the early weeds. Other weeds and grasses became a problem in some
plots late.in the peanut season (Table 3). Florida beggerweed (Desmodium
tortuosum) and hairy indigo (Indigofera hirsuta), two legume plants, were not
found in large numbers in the early counts but were found in all plots by
9/21/1981. Individual and total broadleaf weeds were much lower in the
no-tillage plots that had small grain residue. This indicated that the lack of
soil disturbance and a mulch cover was reducing the weed population.
Grass weeds were equally populated over all plots on 9/21/1981 but total
weeds were much less in the no-tillage plus residue plots. The broadleaf to
grass weed ratio was also much less in the no-tillage mulched plot further
showing that the mulch was reducing broadleaf weeds more than grasses..
No differences in peanut yield of either residue or pod weights were found
among the four treatments (Table 4). There was a trend for pod yield in the
no-tillage with residue treatment to be less than other treatments. Only the
pod to residue ratio for this treatment was lower than for conventional tillage
treatments. Observations showed that peanuts tended to have poor pod-soil
contact in the no-tillage mulched plots. This raised a question as to whether
the pods would get adequate Ca under these conditions. The lower pod/residue
ratio may reflect poor pod fill for the no-tillage mulched treatment as
compared to other treatments. The trend for lower yield in the no-tillage
mulched treatment agrees with farmer observations (Harden's).
Data in Table 4 indicate, for sure, that the no-tillage treatment where
straw was removed gave equal yield to the conventional treatments. If, through
further testing, this no-tillage treatment continues to yield favorably to
conventional tillage then it or similar no-tillage treatments to grow peanut
could be recommended. The unmulched no-tillage treatment would not only reduce
erosion problems but also significantly reduce broadleaf weed problems.
From visual observations it was thought that fewer peanut plants survived
and existed in the no-tillage mulched plots but this was not measurable at the
0.05 level of probability (Table 5). However, the plants in the no-tillage
mulched plots definitely were not anchored to the soil as well as other
treatments. The low root resistance of 7.44 g/cm2 for no-tillage mulched
plants verified the visual observation that pegs were growing in the straw and
had poor soil contact as compared to.the 12.81 g/cm2 for conventional tillage
minus residue plots. It is further proposed that since a mulch tends to
conserve moisture near the surface and reduce soil temperatures, roots under
the mulch will not grow as deep into the soil. The mulch would tend to cause
roots to grow up near the surface under and in the mulch which would account
for lower root resistance when plants were pulled from the ground.










SUMWPRY


No-tillage mulched and unmulched peanuts were compared to conventioanl
tillage with mulch incorporated or removed prior to tillage. More broadleaf
and total weeds occurred in conventioanl tillage plots as compared to
no-tillage plots three weeks after peanut germination. Florida beggerweed and
hairy indigo were not a problem during early peanut growth but- became a problem
prior to harvest of peanuts. These broadleaves and total vweds were
significantly reduced in no-tillage as compared to conventional tillage.
A trend was found for reduced peanut yield in the no-tillage plus mulch
plots compared to other treatments. This nay have been due to the observed
poor pod soil contact and reduced plant root resistance. The no-tillage plots
with residue removed was definitely equal in peanut yield to conventional
treatments. No-tillage non residue management may be a way to effectively and
economically produce competitively with conventional tillage and obtain the
desired conservation benefits.

P(CKNXEDGEMENTS


The technical and clerical assistance of Mr. Sonny R. Tompkins, Mr.
Timothy 3. Sunners, Mr. Bruce A. Fritz, Mrs. Wanda E. Gallaher, and Mr. David
H. Block is very much appreciated.

REFERENCES


1. Costello, S. and R.N. Gallaher. 1982. Unpublished research data. University
of Florida, Agronomy Department. Gainesville, Fl.

2. Gallaher, R.N. 1978. Multiple cropping-value of mulch. In Proceedings of
the First Annual Southeastern No-Till Systems Conference. Ed..by 3.T. Touchton
and D.G. Cumnins. University of Georgia, College of Agriculture, Experiment
Stations. Special Publication No. 5. pp. 9-16.

3. Gallaher, R.N. 1979, 1981. Unpublished research data. University of
Florida, Agronomy Department. Gainesville, Fl.

4. Harden, 3.C., G. Harden, and L. Harden. 1979-1982. Personal communication.
Banks, Alabama.

5. Langdale, G.W., A.P. Barnett, R.A. Leonard, and W.G. Fleming. 1979.
Reduction of soil erosion by the no-till system in the southern piedmont.
Transactions of Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng. 22:82-86, 92.

6. Robinson, Raymond. 1978-1979. Personal communication. Williston, Fl.

7. Steel, Robert G.D. and 3ames H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and Procedures of
Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. New York. 481 p.












8. Stevens, Danny. 1980-1982. Personal communication. Williston, Fl.

9. Teen, D.H. 1980-1981. Personal communication. Williston, Fl.

10. Wright, D. 1981. Personal communication. AREC, Quincy, Fl.


Table 1. Weeds in no-tillage and conventional tillage
peanuts on 7/23/1981.

Treatment Weed

Sickle- Begger- morning Nut Grasses Total
pod weed glory sedge
------------- Number/50 sq ft ---------------
No-tillage
plus res. 7.75 b 2.25a 0.50a 3.75a 4.50a 19.00 b
No-tillage
minus res. 11.75 b 4.00a 0.25a 0.50a 8.00a 24.50 b
Conv-till
plus res. 25.50a 19.25a 8.25a 23.25a 4.75a 82.50a
Conv-till
minus res. 32.00a 18.75a ll.25a 26.70a 3.25a 87.25a

Values within colrums not followed by the same letter are
significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability
according to Duncans new multiple range test. Plus res.
means that rye straw from the former crop was left and
minus res. means that it was removed prior to planting
peanut. Conv. = Conventional.


Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia)
Florida beggerweed (Desmodima tortuosum)
Morningglory (Ipomeoa sp.)
Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus)











Table 2. Broadleaf versus grasses in no-tillage and
conventional tillage peanuts on 7/23/1981.

Treatment Weed

Broadleaf(B) Grasses(G) B/G Ratio

------ Number/50 sq ft ------
No-tillage
Plus res. 10.5 b 8.25a 4.24a
No-tillage
minus res. 16.00 b 8.50a 3.28a
Conv-till
plus res. 53.00a 28.00a 7.00a
Conv-till
minus res. 62.00a 29.95a 5.75a
---------------------------------------
Values within columns not followed by the same letter are
significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability
according to Duncans new multiple range test. Plus res.
means that rye straw from the former crop was left and
minus res. means that it was removed prior to planting
peanut. Conv. = Conventional.


Table 3. Weeds in no-tillage and conventional tillage
peanuts on 9/21/1981.

Treatment Weed

Begger- Hairy- Broad- Grasses Total B/G
weed indigo leaf(B) (G) Weeds ratio

-------- Number/1500 sq ft -------
No-tillage
plus res. 18 b 23 b 41 b 46a 87 b 1.08 b
No-tillage
minus res. 34ab 45ab 79ab 50a 129ab 2.50ab
Conv-till
plus res. 76a 54a 130a 50a 180a 4.11a
Conv-till
minus res. 78a 34ab 112a 39a 151a 3.48a

Values within columns not followed by the same letter are
significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability
according to Duncans new multiple range test. Plus res.
means that rye straw from the former crop was left and
minus res. means that it was removed prior to planting
peanut. Cony. = Conventional.

Florida beggerweed (Cassia obtusifolia)
Hairy indigo (Indigofera hirsuta)











Table 4. Yield variables for no-tillage and conventional
tillage peanuts in 1981.

Treatment Residue Nuts R + N N/R Nuts
(R) (N)

g Dry Matter/17 sq. ft.- -Pounds/Acre-
No-tillage
plus res. 665a 545a 1210a 0.84 b 2988a
No-tillage
minus res. 607a 629a 1236a 1.05a 3449a
Conv-till
plus res. 656a 646a 1301a 0.99ab 3542a
Conv-till
minus res. 594a 647a 1240a 1.lla 3547a

Values within collrms not followed by the same letter are
significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability
according to Duncans new multiple range test. Plus res.
means that rye straw from the former crop was left and
minus res. means that it was removed prior to planting
peanut. Conv. = Conventional.





Table 5. Root resistance of peanut plants in no-tillage and
conventional tilage plots in 1981.

Treatment Plant No Area/Plant Resistance/plant

-in .58sq M.- -an sq.- --g/an sq.--
No-tillage
Plus res. 3.50a 1658a 7.44 b
No-tillage
minus res. 4.86a 1194a 10.97ab
Conv-till
plus res. 4.13a 1406a 9.73ab
Conv-till
minus res. 4.56a 1271a 12.81a

Values within columns not followed by the same letter are
significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability
according to Duncans new multiple range test. Plus res.
means that rye straw from the former crop was left and
minus res. means that it was removed prior to planting
peanut. Conv. = Conventional.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs