1 Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Dept. of Agric.
A 2-yr study was conducted on a Tifton loamy sand (fine-loamy, kaolinitic, thermic Plinthic Kandiudults) soil near Sasser, GA during the 2001 and 2002 growing seasons to determine the effects of three plant row orientations (single, twin, and multi-row) and two plant populations on the pod yield, market grade, and stem rot disease incidence of peanut when irrigated with subsurface drip irrigation (SDI). Seeds were planted at the recommended rate 20 seedsm; 1.0R (recommended rate) and half the recommended rate (10 seedsm; 0.5R). Plots were irrigated daily to replace estimated daily evapotranspiration (ETa). Twin row orientation had the highest pod yield with 5407 kgha compared with the other row orientations, which averaged 4897 kgha. Market grade (total sound mature kernels, TSMK) for the twin and diamond row orientation was 1 point higher (74.7) compared with the single row orientation. Pod yield was 8.5 greater for the 1.0R seeding rate compared with the 0.5R seeding rate. Stem rot incidence was highest in the single row orientation and lowest in the diamond row orientation. Within the three row orientations, kernel size distribution characteristics showed jumbo kernels had mixed percentages, with medium and ones showing no differences. The 1.0R plant population did have 4.4 more jumbo kernels than the 0.5R plant population. This study indicates that twin row orientation and planted at the recommended rate (1.0R) had the best pod yield and market grade compared with single row orientation when irrigated with SDI.
Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature
Keywords: Arachis hypogaea L, kernel size distribution, seed density
How to Cite:
Sorensen, R. & Sconyers, L. & Lamb, M. & Sternitzke, D., (2004) “Row Orientation and Seeding Rate on Yield, Grade, and Stem Rot Incidence of Peanut with Subsurface Drip Irrigation¹”, Peanut Science 31(1), p.54-58. doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/pnut.31.1.0012