Introduction

Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) production in the southeastern United States has traditionally been a tillage intensive enterprise utilizing both primary and secondary tillage to create residue-free raised or flat seedbeds. Peanut production typically includes preplant incorporated (PPI) and/or PRE herbicides in conventional tillage systems. However, concerns of soil and environmental quality, coupled with rising expenses associated with management and fuel costs, have led to the adoption of conservation tillage systems in peanut production. The most commonly used conservation tillage system in peanut production is strip-tillage, which is used to alleviate soil compaction commonly encountered in the southeastern US soils (Busscher and Bauer 2003; Truman et al. 2003). Benefits of strip-tillage include those of both conservation tillage and conventional systems. Strip-tillage utilizes coulters and rolling baskets that create a residue-free, smooth seedbed to facilitate seed soil contact, increased soil temperature at planting and PRE herbicide activation. Previous peanut research in the U.S. indicated higher or equivalent yields with strip-tillage compared to conventional tillage systems (Faircloth et al. 2012; Johnson et al. 2001; Tubbs and Gallaher 2005; Wilcut et al. 1987) while others report lower yields (Drake et al. 2010; Jordan et al. 2001). Finally, conservation tillage systems reduce input costs and can offer economic advantages over conventional tillage practices after several years of their successful adoption (Bowman et al. 1998).

Another important component of a strip-tillage peanut production system in the southeastern United States is the use of cover crops. Cover crop benefits include an increase in soil organic matter, water and soil conservation, and enhanced nutrient cycling (Blevins et al. 1971; Kaspar et al. 2001; Sainju and Singh 1997; Schwab et al. 2002). Cover crop residue conserves water by preventing evaporative and runoff losses and aids in soil conservation by reducing wind and water erosion (Dabney et al. 2001; Snapp et al. 2005). The presence of residue around the seedbed also reduces seedling peanut damage due to sandblasting (Wright et al. 2002). The most commonly used cover crops in peanut production are cereal grain crops such as rye (Secale cereale L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and black oat (Avena strigosa L.) because they are easy to establish and provide relatively high amounts of biomass (Price et al. 2007; Wright et al. 2002). Cover crop residue can also aid in early-season weed control through allelopathy and direct physical suppression (Creamer et al. 1997; Price et al. 2006; Teasdale and Abdul-Baki 1998; Yenish et al. 1996). Cover crops have been shown to reduce tomato spotted wilt incidence over bare ground, conventional systems (Marois and Wright 2003).

The major crop management challenge in conservation tillage systems is the loss of weed control provided by seedbed preparation and cultivation in conventional tillage systems, as well as potentially reduced weed control due to interception of PRE herbicides by cover crop residues (Banks and Robinson 1986; Isensee and Sadeghi 1994; Teasdale et al. 2005). In conservation tillage, it is common to have an increase in the weed seed bank present near the soil surface leading to germination of these seeds over a longer period of time (Kells and Meggitt 1985), requiring additional herbicide inputs. Additionally, with the adoption of conservation tillage systems, weed communities may shift over time from easy to control annual species to harder to control perennials (Barberi 2002; Cardina et al. 2002). Therefore, weed management in strip-tillage management of peanut may require more intensive herbicide inputs compared to conventional tillage systems (Wilcut et al. 1987). Weed interference is a very important factor determining profitability in peanut production. Webster (2001) reported total annual losses from weeds in Alabama and Georgia to be $11.2 and $47.5 million, respectively.

Because of the above mentioned concerns and increased adoption of conservation tillage systems utilizing high-residue cover crops by growers, further research is needed to evaluate weed control and yield under different tillage systems and herbicide intensities. Currently, high residue agriculture system literature is limited, especially in peanut. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to compare weed control provided by a high-residue rye cover crop in conventional tillage and strip-tillage systems and its effect on weed control, peanut yield and peanut grade in Alabama and Georgia.

Materials and Methods

Field experiments were conducted at sites in Alabama (2004/05 and 2006/07) and Georgia (2004/05 and 2005/06), each replicated in time for two crop years. The Alabama site was located on a Dothan sandy loam (fine-loamy, siliceous, thermic, Plinthic Paleudult) at the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station's Wiregrass Research and Extension Center (31°24′N, 85°15′W), located near Headland, AL. The Georgia site was located on a Red Bay loamy sand (Fine-loamy, kaolinitic, thermic Rhodic Kandiudult) at the USDA-ARS National Peanut Research Laboratory field research site near Dawson, GA (31°45′N, 84°26′W).

The experiment was conducted as a randomized complete block design with four replicates at both sites. A cereal rye (cv. Elbon) cover crop was seeded (100 kg/ha) in early November every year with a no-till drill. Regardless of tillage system, the cover crop was terminated in early May (Feekes’ soft dough growth stage 11.2) of each year approximately 2 weeks prior to planting peanut each year with an application of glyphosate at 1.12 kg/ha utilizing a compressed CO₂ backpack sprayer delivering 140 L/ha at 147 kPa. For preparation of strip-tillage plots, the cover crop was then rolled once with a mechanical roller-crimper to flatten residue on the soil surface resulting in a uniform residue mat. Conventional tillage plots were prepared with three passes of a disk followed by a seedbed conditioner. All plots were then strip-tilled using a subsoiler equipped with coulters, rolling baskets, and drag chains to eliminate confounding deep tillage affects. An area approximately 30 cm wide was tilled over each row with this implement. Plots were 12 feet wide by 25 feet in length.

The peanut cultivar ‘Georgia Green’ was planted with a four-row planter each year at both locations at a rate of 28 seed per meter of row. State Cooperative Extension System recommendations were used for insect and disease control and nutrient management at each experimental site. Peanut yield was determined by machine-digging followed by (fb) harvesting the middle two rows of each 4-row plot.

Six herbicide weed management schemes were evaluated. The first and second included a PRE application of pendimethalin at 1.12 kg ai/ha either alone or in combination with S-metolachlor at 1.36 kg ai/ha. Both PRE treatments were applied alone or in conjunction with a POST application consisting of a tank mixture of paraquat at 0.140 kg ai/ha plus bentazon at 0.56 kg ai/ha plus 2,4-DB at 0.224 kg ae/ha applied 21 days after emergence. The remaining two treatments consisted of a no-herbicide control and the aforementioned POST-only application. These herbicide treatment schemes were applied as a factorial with the two tillage systems yielding 12 treatment combinations replicated four times. The effectiveness of herbicide programs was determined by visual assessment of weed control on a 0 to100 scale was used where 0 and 100 indicate no control and complete control, respectively.

Mixed model analysis of variance procedures (PROC GLIMMIX) in SAS^® (SAS version 9.3, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) were used to analyze weed control, yield and grade data. Weed control data were analyzed separately for each environment due to an interaction revealed by ANOVA (experiment location x year). Herbicide treatment, tillage system and their interactions were considered fixed effects, whereas replication and their interaction with herbicide treatment and tillage system were considered random effects. Percent weed control data were subjected to the arcsine transformation to account for non-normality of residuals and heterogeneity of variances. Back-transformed means for appropriate main effects and interactions are presented with contrasts based on the transformed data. Significance of the means was tested by performing two types of comparisons. Effect of all herbicide treatments vs. most effective herbicide treatment containing pendimethalin and S-metolachlor PRE fb tank mixture of paraquat plus bentazon plus 2,4-DB within each tillage system was accomplished by using Dunnett’s test option in least square means statement of PROC GLIMMIX. Significance of the tillage system effect on performance of each herbicide regimen was tested using pdiff option in LSmeans statement of PROC GLIMMIX. Both tests utilized P = 0.01, a common standard utilized in field data sets.

Results and Discussion

Headland, AL

Smooth pigweed

All herbicide treatments except pendimethalin alone controlled smooth pigweed 77 to 99% compared with no herbicide treatment irrespective of tillage system (Table 1). Pendimethalin alone produced variable response with 13 and 78% control in conventional and 61 and 69% control in strip-tillage system in 2005 and 2007, respectively. Improved control in the high-residue system may be attributed to weed suppression by the cereal rye mulch (Aulakh et al. 2012; Price et al. 2007). Pendimethalin plus S-metolachlor controlled smooth pigweed 77% and 81% in conventional tillage system and 98% and 84% in the strip-tillage system in 2005 and 2007, respectively. A Texas study reported less than 42% control of Palmer amaranth with pendimethalin applied PPI, and 95% control with pendimethalin PPI fb S-metolachlor PRE (Grichar 2008). Tredaway-Ducar et al. (2006) reported 73% control of smooth pigweed with S-metolachlor alone PRE. Wilcut et al. (1994), however, reported good control of Amaranthus spp. with dinitroaniline herbicides such as pendimethalin and less consistent control with S-metolachlor. In our study, the tank mixture of the two herbicides applied PRE improved yellow nutsedge, common bermudagrass, and large crabgrass control in comparison to pendimethalin applied alone. These results indicate both herbicides applied as a tank mixture or sequentially can maintain the control of Amaranthus spp. A POST application following pendimethalin or pendimethalin plus S-metolachlor improved control (≥ 98%). However, the POST-only treatment was also sufficient in controlling smooth pigweed in both tillage systems in 2005 with 99% control. In 2007, the POST-only treatment controlled 85% of smooth pigweed under the conventional tillage system and 81% under the strip-tillage system.

Table 1.

Smooth pigweed and tall morningglory control as influenced by herbicide and tillage treatments at Headland, AL in 2005 and 2007.

Tall morningglory

Pendimethalin alone did not effectively control tall morningglory (<68%) in either conventional or strip-tillage during two years of the study (Table 1). Grey and Wehtje (2005) also reported lack of tall morningglory control with pendimethalin alone. Addition of S-metolachlor to pendimethalin improved the control across both tillage systems in 2005. Residual PRE treatments fb a POST application controlled tall morningglory 99% in 2005 and ≥ 88% in 2007 regardless of tillage system. The POST-only treatment also provided ≥ 96% control in both conventional tillage and strip-tillage in 2005. However in 2007, the same treatment did not control tall morningglory greater than 76% in either tillage system.

Yellow nutsedge

Strip tillage without any herbicide treatment was ineffective (<31%) in controlling yellow nutsedge (Table 2). Pendimethalin alone did not adequately control yellow nutsedge (≤ 63%). Grichar et al. (1992) also observed lack of yellow nutsedge control with dinitroaniline herbicides. Addition of S-metolachlor to pendimethalin improved control to >89 in 2005. However in 2007, the same treatment failed to control yellow nutsedge in either tillage system due to lack of rainfall to move the herbicide into the zone of tuber germination. Both residual PRE treatments fb a POST application controlled yellow nutsedge ≥ 97% irrespective of tillage system in 2005. In 2007, only the pendimethalin plus S-metolachlor fb a POST application provided ≥ 90% control of yellow nutsedge. The POST-only treatment was not adequate in controlling yellow nutsedge in either tillage system. Overall in 2007, none of the herbicide treatments adequately controlled yellow nutsedge in the strip-tillage system.

Table 2.

Yellow nutsedge, common bermudagrass, and large crabgrass control as influenced by herbicide and tillage treatments at Headland, AL in 2005 and 2007.

Common bermudagrass

Common bermudagrass infestation occurred only in 2005. Pendimethalin plus S-metolachlor PRE provided effective control (≥ 92%) with or without a POST application regardless of tillage system (Table 2). Other herbicide treatments resulted in poor control regardless of tillage. Although pendimethalin or POST-only treatments were not effective (≤ 58%) for common bermudagrass control, strip-tillage outperformed conventional tillage, suggesting weed suppression by the high-residue rye cover.

Large crabgrass

Large crabgrass infestation occurred only in 2007. Without herbicides, control was 41% in strip-tillage system (Table 2). In the strip-tillage system, treatments containing pendimethalin alone or fb a POST application provided 75 and 78% control, respectively. Pendimethalin plus S-metolachlor controlled large crabgrass ≥ 91% with or without a POST application. Previous research reported satisfactory annual grass weed control in peanut with the use of pendimethalin (Grey and Wehtje 2005; Teasdale et al. 2005; Wilcut et al. 1995). The POST-only treatment did not effectively control (≤ 33%) large crabgrass in either tillage systems.

Sicklepod

Pendimethalin alone was not effective (≤ 55%) in controlling sicklepod in either tillage system (Table 3). However, pendimethalin plus S-metolachlor PRE in strip-tillage resulted in 92% control that was 29% higher than in conventional tillage in 2005. In 2007, sicklepod control ranged from 31 to 48% with the same treatment regardless of tillage system. Control was higher (≥ 96%) in 2005, regardless of tillage system, when a POST application occurred with or without residual PRE herbicides. Brecke and Stephenson (2006) also reported > 90% control with paraquat and bentazon applied early postemergence fb imazapic. In 2007, control was higher (80%) in the strip-tillage system than in conventional tillage (39%) with the POST-only treatment.

Table 3.

Sicklepod and Florida beggarweed control as influenced by herbicide and tillage treatments at Headland, AL in 2005 and 2007.

Florida beggarweed

Control was inadequate (≤53%) without an herbicide application in either tillage system for 2007 (Table 3). Addition of S-metolachlor to pendimethalin did not improve control over pendimethalin alone irrespective of tillage system. Pendimethalin fb a POST application controlled Florida beggarweed ≥ 87% in both tillage systems. Pendimethalin plus S-metolachlor fb a POST herbicide application controlled Florida beggarweed 79 and 95% in strip- and conventional-tillage systems, respectively. A POST application for effective control of Florida beggarweed was suggested by Webster and Cardina (2004) owing to the irregular germination of this weed species. Brecke and Stephenson (2006) also reported greater than 90% control of Florida beggarweed with treatments including either diclosulam or flumioxazin PRE fb either paraquat plus bentazon or paraquat plus bentazon fb 2,4-DB. However, in our study the POST-only treatment provided ≤ 31% control. Wilcut et al. (1995) also reported variable control of Florida beggarweed with bentazon plus paraquat or paraquat alone due to the lack of residual activity of these herbicides.

PRE herbicides provided equivalent or greater weed control in strip-tillage compared with conventional tillage in 2005 likely due to additional weed suppression provided by cover crop residue. This finding is supported by increased control of most weed species observed in no-herbicide plots under strip-tillage system compared to conventional tillage system.

Dawson GA

Large crabgrass

Tillage systems alone were not effective for large crabgrass control with only 10% control in strip-tillage in 2005 (Table 4). Control was higher in conventional tillage (≥93%) than in strip tillage (≤ 72%) with pendimethalin alone or pendimethalin plus S-metolachlor PRE with or without a POST application. Johnson et al. (2010) documented 87% large crabgrass control with pendimethalin alone applied PRE in strip tillage peanut production system. The POST-only treatment controlled large crabgrass < 26%, regardless of tillage treatment. Similarly, Faircloth et al. (2008) observed no large crabgrass control in POST-only systems because of the lack of a residual herbicide.

Table 4.

Large crabgrass, yellow nutsedge, crowfoot grass, and common bermudagrass control as influenced by herbicide and tillage treatments at Dawson, GA in 2005 and 2006.

Yellow nutsedge

Strip tillage, without herbicides, did not improve yellow nutsedge control compared with conventional tillage (Table 4). Control improved significantly (≥ 96%) with addition of S-metolachlor to pendimethalin with or without a POST application irrespective of tillage system. Clewis et al. (2007) observed 70% control of yellow nutsedge with S-metolachlor alone applied PRE. In addition, the POST-only treatment was also adequate with 89 and 96% control in conventional and strip-tillage systems, respectively. The PRE application of pendimethalin alone was not adequate for yellow nutsedge control.

Crowfootgrass

No herbicide treatment effectively controlled crowfootgrass (<74) regardless of tillage system (Table 4). While a PRE application of pendimethalin or pendimethalin plus S-metolachlor (< 59%) improved control over a POST-only application (38%) in the conventional tillage system, no herbicide application had greater control in the strip tillage treatment. Earlier research has shown that effective crowfootgrass control can be achieved with pendimethalin applications when adequate rainfall occurs following application to ensure movement of the herbicide into the soil (Prostko et al. 2001). Lack of rainfall after PRE applications may have resulted in reduced control of crowfootgrass in this study.

Common bermudagrass

When no herbicide was applied, strip-tillage controlled bermudagrass 38% compared with no control in the conventional tillage system. Control was adequate (≥ 90%) only when pendimethalin plus S-metolachlor were applied with or without a POST application regardless of tillage system (Table 4). Faircloth et al. (2008) obtained only 60% common bermudagrass control with pendimethalin PRE fb paraquat plus bentazon fb imazapic. The POST-only treatment provided 32% control in conventional tillage system and 51% control in strip-tillage system.

Peanut Yield and Grade

No interaction between tillage system and herbicide treatment was observed for pod yield in any of the environments. Lower yields occurred at the Alabama location compared to the Georgia site. Impact of herbicide treatments on pod yield was significant at Headland, AL in 2005 and 2007 and at Dawson, GA in 2006 (Table 5). At Headland in 2005, the POST-only treatment produced the highest yield (3900 kg/ha) which was similar to the peanut yield produced by pendimethalin fb the POST application. Pendimethalin fb the POST application produced 30% more peanut yield than pendimethalin alone. Peanut yield in the no-herbicide treatment was 2240 kg/ha which was 20% lower than pendimethalin plus S-metolachlor fb the POST application. In 2007, pendimethalin plus S-metolachlor produced 39% higher yield than the pendimethalin plus S-metolachlor fb the POST application (2510 kg/ha). All other herbicide treatments produced significantly more yield than the nontreated control (1540 kg/ha). At Dawson, peanut yield ranged from 4710 to 5170 kg/ha in 2005, and 1930 to 3850 kg/ha in 2006 in various PRE and/or POST treatments. Johnson et al. (2010) obtained the highest pod yield when pendimethalin was applied PRE compared to the current producer standard for weed control programs that do not include pendimethalin (3480 vs. 3070 kg/ha).

Table 5.

Smallflower morningglory control as influenced by herbicide and tillage treatments at Dawson, GA in 2006.

Table 6.

Effect of herbicide treatments and tillage system on peanut yield at Dawson, GA and Headland, AL.

Tillage systems affected the pod yield in all the environments except Dawson in 2006 (Table 5). Combined over herbicide treatments, strip-tillage peanuts yielded equivalent or higher than conventionally tilled peanuts in three of the four environments. However, at Dawson in 2005, conventional tillage peanuts yields (5090 kg/ha) were higher than the strip-tillage (4230 kg/ha) peanuts.

No interaction between years was observed for grade data. Peanut grade was not affected by any of the herbicide treatments or tillage systems (data not shown). Mean percentage of total sound mature kernels (TSMK) was 71% regardless of herbicide and tillage treatments.

In this study, the strip-tillage system provided, in some comparisons, slightly higher overall weed control. However, control of large crabgrass at Dawson, and Florida beggerweed and yellow nutsedge in 2007 at Headland, was reduced in the strip-tillage system. Several researchers reported lower weed density, higher weed control, equivalent or higher yields in reduced tillage systems compared to the conventional tillage systems; however, weed control and peanut yield is dependent on many factors such as reside levels attained and available soil moisture (Knavel and Herron 1986; NeSmith et al. 1994; Putnam et al. 1983; Rapp et al. 2004; Walters and Kindhart 2002; Weston 1990). Although strip-tillage provided moderate control in the absence of herbicides and adequate control in a few comparisons when only PRE herbicides were used, weed control levels varied by species, and overall weed control was not acceptable for commercial peanut production without additional POST herbicide inputs. Thus, results indicate that the PRE fb POST herbicide system was needed to provide maximum weed control and protect yield potential. Because of current herbicide resistance management concerns necessitating complete weed control, reduction of herbicides use due to cover crop weed suppression is unlikely in most instances, depending on weed seedbank. As interest in high-residue conservation agriculture increases due to integrated weed management and economic advantages and agricultural policy (e.g. Natural Resource Conservation Service incentive payments), applied research evaluating these systems is helpful in understanding what cultural practices facilitate adequate weed control in conservation agriculture systems.

Literature Cited

Aulakh J.S Price A.J Enloe S.F van Santen E Wehtje G.R and Patterson M.G 2012 Integrated Palmer amaranth management in glufosinate-resistant cotton: I. soil-inversion, high-residue cover crops and herbicide regimes Agron 2 : 295 – 311 .

Banks P.A and Robinson E.L 1986 Soil reception and activity of acetochlor, alachlor, and metolachlor as affected by wheat straw and irrigation Weed Sci 34 : 607 – 611 .

Bàrberi P 2002 Weed management in organic agriculture: are we addressing the right issues? Weed Res , 42 : 177 – 193 .

Blevins R.L Cook D Phillips S.H and Phillips R.E 1971 Influence of no-tillage on soil moisture Agron. J 63 : 593 – 596 .

Bowman G Shirley C and Cramer C 1998 Managing Cover Crops Profitably 2nd ed Washington, D.C. : Sustainable Ag. Network .

Brecke B.J and Stephenson IV D.O 2006 Weed management in single vs twin-row peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Weed Technol 20 : 368 – 376 .

Busscher W.J and Bauer P.J 2003 Soil strength, cotton root growth and lint yield in a southeastern USA coastal loamy sand Soil Tillage Res 74 : 151 – 159 .

Cardina J Herms C.P and Doohan D.J 2002 Crop rotation and tillage effects on weed seedbanks Weed Sci 50 : 448 – 460 .

Clewis S.B Everman W.J Jordan D.L and Wilcut J.W 2007 Weed Management in North Carolina peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with S-metolachlor, diclosulam, flumioxazin, and sulfentrazone systems Weed Technol 21 : 629 – 635 .

Creamer N.G Bennett M.A and Stinner B.R 1997 Evaluation of cover crop mixtures for use in vegetable production systems HortScience 32 : 866 – 870 .

Dabney S.M Delgado J.A. and Reeves D.W 2001 Using winter cover crops to improve soil and water quality Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal 32 : 1221 – 1250 .

Drake W.L Jordan D.L Schroeder-Moreno M Johnson P.D Heitman J.L Cardoza Y.J Brandenburg R.L Shew B.B Corbett T Bogle C.R Ye W and Hardy D 2010 Crop response following tall fescue sod and agronomic crops Agron. J 102 : 1692 – 1699 .

Faircloth W.H Rowland D.L Lamb M.C and Balkcom K.S 2012 Interaction of tillage system and irrigation amount on peanut performance in the southeastern U.S. Peanut Sci , 39 : 105 – 112 .

Faircloth W.H Ferrell J.A and Main C.L 2008 Weed-control systems for peanut grown as a biofuel feedstock.Weed Technol , 22 : 584 – 590 .

Grey T.L and Wehtje G.R 2005 Residual herbicide weed control systems in peanut Weed Technol 19 : 560 – 567 .

Grichar W.J 2008 Herbicide systems for control of horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum L.), smellmelon (Cucumis melo L.), and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats) in peanut Peanut Sci 35 : 38 – 42 .

Grichar W.J Nester P.R and Colburn A.E 1992 Nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with imazethapyr Weed Technol 6 : 396 – 400 .

Isensee A.R and Sadeghi A.M 1994 Effects of tillage and rainfall on atrazine residue levels in soil Weed Sci 42 : 462 – 467 .

Johnson W. Carroll Brenneman T.B Baker S.H Johnson A.W Sumner D.R and Mullinix B.G 2001 Tillage and pest management considerations in a peanut-cotton rotation in the Southeastern coastal plain Agron. J 93 : 570 – 576 .

Johnson W. Carroll Prostko E.P and Mullinix B.G 2010 Annual grass control in strip-tillage peanut production with delayed applications of pendimethalin.Weed Technol , 24 : 1 – 5 .

Jordan D.L Barnes J.S Bogle C.R Naderman G.C Roberson G.T and Johnson P.D 2001 Peanut response to tillage and fertilization Agron. J 93 : 1125 – 1130 .

Kaspar T.C Radke J.K and Laflen J.M 2001 Small grain cover crops and wheel traffic effects on infiltration, runoff, and erosion J. Soil Water Cons 56 : 160 – 164 .

Kells J.J and Meggitt W.F 1985 Conservation tillage and weed control In: D'Itri F.M A systems approach to conservation tillage, Lewis Publishers, Inc. , Chelsea, MI .

Knavel D.E and Herron J.W 1986 Response of vegetable crops to nitrogen rates in tillage systems with and without vetch and ryegrass J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci 111 : 502 – 507 .

Lassiter B.R Jordan D.L Wilkerson G.G Shew B.B and Brandenburg R.L 2011 Influence of cover crops on weed management in strip tillage peanut Weed Technol 25 : 568 – 573 .

Marois J.J and Wright D.L 2003 Effect of tillage system, phorate, and cultivar on tomato spotted wilt of peanut Agron. J 95 : 386 – 389 .

NeSmith D.S Hoogenboom G and McCracken D.V 1994 Summer squash production using conservative tillage Hortscience 29 : 28 – 30 .

Price A.J Reeves D.W and Patterson M.G 2006 Evaluation of weed control provided by three winter cereals in conservation-tillage soybean Ren. Agric. and Food Sys 21 : 159 – 164 .

Price A.J Reeves D.W Patterson M.G Gamble B.E Balkcom K.S Arriaga F.J and Monks C.D 2007 Weed control in peanut grown in a high-residue conservation-tillage system Peanut Sci 34 : 59 – 64 .

Prostko E.P Johnson W.C and Mullinix B.G 2001 Annual grass control with preplant incorporated and preemergence applications of ethalfluralin and pendimethalin in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Weed Technol 15 : 36 – 41 .

Putnam A.R DeFrank J and Barnes J.P 1983 Exploitation of allelopathy for weed control in annual and perennial cropping systems J. Chem. Ecol 9 : 1001 – 1010 .

Rapp H.S Bellinder R.R Wien H.C and Vermeylen F.M 2004 Reduced Tillage, Rye Residues, and Herbicides Influence Weed Suppression andYield of Pumpkins Weed Technol 18 : 953 – 961 .

Sainju U.M and Singh B.P 1997 Winter cover crops for sustainable agricultural systems: Influence on soil properties, water quality, and crop yields HortScience 32 : 21 – 28 .

Schwab E.B Reeves D.W Burmester C.H and Raper R.L 2002 Conservation tillage systems for cotton in the Tennessee Valley Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 66 : 569 – 577 .

Snapp S.S Swinton S.M Labarta R Mutch D Black J.R Leep R Nyiraneza J and O'Neil K 2005 Evaluating cover crops for benefits, costs and performance within cropping system niches Agron. J 97 : 322 – 332 .

Teasdale J.R and Abdul-Baki A.A 1998 Comparison of mixtures vs monocultures of cover crops for fresh-market tomato production with and without herbicide HortScience 33 : 1163 – 1166 .

Teasdale J.R Pillai P and Collins R.T 2005 Synergism between cover crop residue and herbicide activity on emergence and early growth of weeds Weed Sci 53 : 521 – 527 .

Tredaway Ducar J.A Wilcut J.W Jordan D.L Faircloth J and Swann C.W 2006 Evaluation of diclosulam and S-metolachlor applied preplant incorporated in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Peanut Sci 33 : 137 – 141 .

Truman C.C Reeves D.W Shaw J.N Motta A.C Burmester C.H Raper R.L and Schwab E.B 2003 Tillage impacts on soil property, runoff, and soil loss variations from a Rhodic Paleudult under simulated rainfall J. Soil Water Conserv 58 : 258 – 267 .

Tubbs R.S and Gallaher R.N 2005 Conservation tillage and herbicide management for two peanut cultivars Agron. J 97 : 500 – 504 .

Walters S.A and Kindhart J.D 2002 Reduced tillage practices for summer squash production in southern Illinois Horttechnology 12 : 114 – 117 .

Webster E.P 2001 Economic losses due to weeds in southern states: Cotton, soybean, peanut, tobacco, and forestry Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54 : 260 – 269 .

Webster T.M and Cardina J 2004 A review of the biology and ecology of Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum) Weed Sci 52 : 185 – 200 .

Weston L.A 1990 Cover crop and herbicide influence on row crop seedling establishment in no-tillage culture Weed Sci 38 : 166 – 171 .

Wilcut J.W Wehtje G.R Colvin D.L and Patterson M.G 1987 Economic assessment of herbicide systems for minimum-tillage peanut and conventional-tillage peanut Peanut Sci 4 : 83 – 86 .

Wilcut J.W York A.C and Wehtje G.R 1994 The control and interaction of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Weed. Sci 6 : 177 – 205 .

Wilcut J.W York A.C Grichar W.J and Wehtje G.R 1995 The biology and management of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Pages 207–244 In H. E. Pattee and H. T. Stalker, (ed.) Advances in Peanut Science , American Peanut Research and Education Society , Stillwater, OK )

Wright D.L Marois J.J Rich J.R Sprenkel R.K and Whitty E.B 2002 Conservation Tillage Peanut Production University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, SS-AGR-185 .

Yenish J.P Worsham A.D and York A.C 1996 Cover crops for herbicide replacement in no-tillage corn (Zea mays L.) Weed Technol 10 : 815 – 821 .