1Contribution from the Dept. of Agronomy and (Agric. Research and Education Center, Jay, FL), IFAS, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series Number 8459.
Field experiments were conducted during 1984 and 1985 at Williston, Florida on a Zuber loamy sand (fine, mixed hyperthermic Ultic Hapludalfs) and at Jay, Florida in 1985 on a Red Bay sandy loam (fine-loamy, siliceous, thermic Rhodic Paleudults) to investigate the effects of conventional and minimum tillage on the grade and yield of eight peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivars. Cultivars studied included: 1) three runner-type peanuts - Florunner. Sunrunner, and GK-7, 2) four virginia-type peanuts - Early Bunch, Florigiant, GK-3, and NC-7, and 3) one spanish-type peanut - Valencia C. Conventional plots were established using a moldboard plow with repeated diskings to provide a smooth even seedbed. Minimum-tillage plots were established using a modified Brown-Harden Ro-Till®. Tillage did not affect peanut yield, and cultivars generally did not differ in response to tillage systems. There appears to be no immediate need for peanut cultivar performance testing in different tillage systems. However, in 1984 at Williston Florunner and Sunrunner yielded 20% and 12% better, respectively, in conventional tillage conditions than in minimum-tillage, whereas in 1985 Early Bunch yielded 17% less in tilled systems compared to minimum-tillage systems. This response may be related to slight plant density differences, harvestability problems or genotypic differences. Results indicate that yield and quality of peanuts, based on the data collected from the cultivars utilized in this study would be equal under conventional or minimum-tillage production.
Full Article Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature
Keywords: Arachis hypogaea L, minimum tillage, strip tillage, no-tillage, conventional tillage, Cultivars, variety, tillage comparisons
How to Cite:
Colvin, D. & Brecke, B., (1988) “Peanut Cultivar Response to Tillage Systems¹”, Peanut Science 15(1), p.21-24. doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-15-1-7