Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Advances in Agriculture
Volume 2016, Article ID 5795373, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/5795373
Research Article

Influence of Cultural and Pest Management Practices on Performance of Runner, Spanish, and Virginia Market Types in North Carolina

1North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 1060 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1060, USA
2Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620, USA
3Department of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 7903, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
4Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 7613, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA

Received 14 February 2016; Accepted 8 March 2016

Academic Editor: Tibor Janda

Copyright © 2016 Bridget R. Lassiter et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. B. Brown, Virginia Type Peanuts: Situation and Outlook, vol. 331 of Peanut Information Publication, 2014.
  2. D. L. Jordan, C. W. Swann, J. F. Spears, R. L. Brandenburg, J. E. Bailey, and M. R. Tucker, “Comparison of virginia and runner market type peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) grown in the Virginia-Carolina area,” Peanut Science, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 71–77, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  3. H. T. Stalker and C. E. Simpson, “Germplasm resources in Arachis,” in Peanut Science and Technology, pp. 14–53, American Peanut Research and Education Society, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  4. J. R. Sholar, R. W. Mozingo, and J. P. Beasley Jr., “Peanut cultural practices,” in Peanut Science and Technology, pp. 354–382, American Peanut Research and Education Society, Stillwater, Okla, USA, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  5. M. Balota and P. Phipps, “Comparison of Virginia and runner-type peanut cultivars for development, disease, yield potential, and grade factors in eastern Virginia,” Peanut Science, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 15–23, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  6. J. W. Chapin and J. S. Thomas, Peanut Varieties, vol. 588 of Peanut Money-Maker Production Guide Circular, 2009.
  7. F. R. Cox and J. R. Sholar, “Site selection, land preparation, and management of soil fertility,” in Peanut Health Management, pp. 7–10, The American Phytopathological Society, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  8. T. P. Gaines, M. B. Parker, and M. E. Walker, “Limestone and gypsum effects on calcium nutrition of ‘Florunner’ and ‘NC7’ Peanuts,” Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, vol. 22, no. 1-2, pp. 117–135, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  9. F. R. Cox, F. Adams, and B. B. Tucker, “Liming, fertilization, and mineral nutrition,” in Peanut Science and Technology, pp. 139–163, American Peanut Research and Education Society, 1982. View at Google Scholar
  10. R. J. Henning, A. H. Allison, and L. D. Tripp, “Cultural practices,” in Peanut Science and Technology, pp. 123–163, American Peanut Research and Education Society, 1982. View at Google Scholar
  11. P. D. Johnson, D. L. Jordan, and T. Corbett, “Response of the cultivars CHAMPS and Perry to planting and digging dates in North Carolina,” in Proceedings American Peanut Research and Education Society, vol. 45, pp. 39–40, 2013.
  12. D. L. Wright, B. Tillman, J. Marois, J. A. Ferrell, and N. DuFault, “Management and cultural practices for peanuts,” Tech. Rep. SS-AGR-74, University of Florida IFAS Extension Publication, 2013, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/aa/aa25800.pdf. View at Google Scholar
  13. T. H. Sanders, A. M. Schubert, and H. E. Pattee, “Maturity methodology and postharvest physiology,” in Peanut Science and Technology, H. E. Pattee and C. T. Young, Eds., pp. 624–654, American Peanut Research and Education Society, Yoakum, Tex, USA, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  14. W. D. Branch, “University of Georgia peanut breeding program,” Tech. Rep. CSS-13-0110, University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Publication, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  15. D. L. Ketring, “Physiology of oil seeds. VI. A means to break dormancy of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) seeds in the field,” Peanut Science, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 42–45, 1977. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  16. B. Khalfaoui, “Inheritance of seed dormancy in a cross between two Spanish peanut cultivars,” Peanut Science, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 65–67, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  17. D. S. Carley, D. L. Jordan, R. L. Brandenburg, and L. C. Dharmasri, “Factors influencing response of virginia market type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) to paraquat under weed-free conditions,” Peanut Science, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 180–189, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  18. P. D. Johnson, D. L. Jordan, R. L. Brandenburg, and B. M. Royals, “Response of peanut to interactions of gypsum and chlorpyrifos,” Proceedings American Peanut Research and Education Society, vol. 45, p. 39, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  19. B. N. Ang, D. A. Herbert, T. P. Mack, and R. L. Hodges, “Relationship of Pod damage by southern corn rootworm and soil drainage to peanut yield,” Peanut Science, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 68–74, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  20. J. W. Wilcut, A. C. York, W. J. Grichar, and G. R. Wehtje, “The Biology and management of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea),” in Peanut Science and Technology, pp. 207–244, American Peanut Research and Education Society, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  21. T. G. Isleib, P. W. Rice, R. W. Mozingo, R. W. Mozingo II, and H. E. Pattee, “Registration of ‘Gregory’ peanut,” Crop Science, vol. 39, no. 5, p. 1526, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  22. W. D. Branch, “Registration of “Georgia Green” Peanut,” Crop Science, vol. 36, no. 3, p. 806, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  23. O. D. Smith, C. E. Simpson, W. J. Grichar, and H. A. Melouk, “Registration of ‘Tamspan 90’ Peanut,” Crop Science, vol. 31, no. 6, p. 1711, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. T. Baughman, P. Dotray, J. Grichar et al., “Texas peanut production guide,” Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, 2007, http://peanut.tamu.edu.
  25. K. J. Boote, “Growth stages of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.),” Peanut Science, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 35–40, 1982. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  26. E. J. Williams and J. S. Drexler, “A non-destructive method for determining peanut pod maturity,” Peanut Science, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 134–141, 1981. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  27. A. C. Bennett, A. J. Price, M. C. Sturgill, G. S. Buol, and G. G. Wilkerson, “HADSS, pocket HERB, and WebHADSS: decision aids for field crops,” Weed Technology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 412–420, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. Z. A. Chiteka, D. W. Gorbet, D. A. Knauft, F. M. Shokes, and T. A. Kucharek, “Components of resistance to late leafspot in peanut. II. Correlations among components and their significance in breeding for resistance,” Peanut Science, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 76–81, 1988. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. SAS, GLM Procedure, SAS Institute, 2006.
  30. E. W. Chin Choy, J. F. Stone, R. S. Matlock, and G. N. McCauley, “Plant population and irrigation effects on Spanish peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.),” Peanut Science, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 73–76, 1982. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  31. J. P. Damicone, K. E. Jackson, J. R. Sholar, and M. S. Gregory, “Evaluation of a weather-based spray advisory for management of early leaf spot of peanut in Oklahoma,” Peanut Science, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 115–121, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  32. W. J. Grichar and O. D. Smith, “Variation in yield and resistance to southern stem rot among peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) lines selected for pythium pod rot resistance,” Peanut Science, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 55–58, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  33. G. D. Grosz, R. L. Elliott, and J. H. Young, “A comparison of two peanut growth models for Oklahoma,” Peanut Science, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 30–35, 1988. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  34. A. C. Mixon and W. D. Branch, “Agronomic performance of a Spanish and runner cultivar harvested at six different digging intervals,” Peanut Science, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 50–54, 1985. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  35. J. S. Richburg, J. W. Wilcut, and W. J. Grichar, “Response of runner, spanish, and virginia peanut cultivars to imazethapyr,” Peanut Science, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 47–52, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  36. D. S. Carley, D. L. Jordan, L. C. Dharmasri, T. B. Sutton, R. L. Brandenburg, and M. G. Burton, “Peanut response to planting date and potential of canopy reflectance as an indicator of pod maturation,” Agronomy Journal, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 376–380, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  37. M. Carroll, T. Britton, C. Fountain, M. Parrish, D. L. Jordan, and P. D. Johnson, “Peanut response to inoculation and ammonium sulfate rate in North Carolina,” in Proceedings American Peanut Research and Education Society, vol. 47, p. 55, 2015.
  38. D. L. Jordan, P. D. Johnson, J. F. Spears, B. Penny, and D. Hardy, “Response of Virginia market type peanut to interactions of cultivar, calcium, and potassium,” Journal Crop Management, vol. 9, no. 1, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  39. J. E. Lanier, D. L. Jordan, J. F. Spears et al., “Peanut response to planting pattern, row spacing, and irrigation,” Agronomy Journal, vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 1066–1072, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. D. L. Jordan, J. B. Beam, P. D. Johnson, and J. F. Spears, “Peanut response to prohexadione calcium in three seeding rate-row pattern planting systems,” Agronomy Journal, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 232–236, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. W. L. Drake, D. L. Jordan, R. L. Brandenburg, B. R. Lassiter, P. D. Johnson, and B. M. Royals, “Peanut cultivar response to damage from tobacco thrips and paraquat,” Agronomy Journal, vol. 101, no. 6, pp. 1388–1393, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. J. W. Chapin and J. S. Thomas, “Effects of chlorpyrifos on pod damage, disease incidence, and yield in two peanut fungicide programs,” Peanut Science, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 102–106, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  43. W. J. Everman, S. B. Clewis, W. E. Thomas, I. C. Burke, and J. W. Wilcut, “Critical period of weed interference in peanut,” Weed Technology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 63–67, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. D. S. Carley, D. L. Jordan, B. B. Shew, T. B. Sutton, L. C. Dharmasri, and R. L. Brandenburg, “Influence of digging date and fungicide program on canopy defoliation and pod yield of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.),” Peanut Science, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 77–84, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar