HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (19) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Johnson, W.C. Articles by Mullinix, B. G. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Johnson, W.C., III Articles by Mullinix, B. G., Jr. Agricola Articles by Johnson, W.C. Articles by Mullinix, B. G. Related Collections Weed Management Crop Rotation Systems Cotton Other Oil Crops Tillage

CROPPING SYSTEMS

Tillage and Pest Management Considerations in a Peanut–Cotton Rotation in the Southeastern Coastal Plain

^a USDA-ARS, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31793-0748
^b Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA 31793-0748

Corresponding author (cjohnson{at}tifton.cpes.peachnet.edu)

Received for publication May 15, 2000.

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Radical changes in crop production have occurred in the southeastern USA in recent years. Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) are now planted in direct rotation, and conservation tillage is commonly used for both crops. Comprehensive data is lacking on crop and pest management recommendations in those systems, so a long-term study was conducted in Tifton, GA on the effects of tillage systems on crop and pest management in a peanut–cotton rotation. Systems evaluated were conventional, reduced, and minimum tillage. Plots in conventional tillage systems were harrowed, deep-turned, and planted each year. In reduced tillage systems, plots were harrowed in the fall and planted to rye (Secale cereale L.), and crops were planted into killed rye. In minimum tillage systems, plots were neither tilled nor planted to rye and remained nontilled during the winter, and crops were planted directly into the previous crop stubble. Weed control was based on species present and tillage system. Peanut was either treated with flutolanil [3'-isopropoxy-2-(trifluoromethyl) benzanilide] for soil-borne disease control or not treated (control). Yields were sustained for 5 yr with no difference in peanut or cotton yields among tillage systems. Flutolanil controlled soil-borne diseases and increased peanut yields, working equally well in all three tillage systems. Weed densities and species composition changed, causing more intensive and costly weed control in reduced and minimum tillage systems than in conventional tillage systems. Spotted wilt (tomato spotted wilt tospovirus) incidence was 42% lower in reduced and minimum tillage systems than in conventional tillage systems and is now part of the recommended strategy to manage the disease.

Abbreviations: cfu, colony forming units • TSMK, total sound mature kernels

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
CROP ROTATIONS in the southeastern USA have radically changed in recent years. In 1985, corn (Zea mays L.) and grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] were the most common Georgia crops grown in rotation with peanut (58%) while cotton was grown in rotation with peanut much less frequently (8%) (W.C. Johnson III, unpublished data, 1986). Cotton acreage in the southeastern USA has markedly increased from 48560 ha in 1983 (Snipes and Hammer, 1987) to 554420 ha in 1998 (Bass and Messer, 1999). As a result, 55% of the peanut plantings are now grown in rotation with cotton compared with 28% rotated with corn and grain sorghum (J.A. Baldwin, personal communication, 1999). Similar trends have been observed in the region.

The primary reason for increased cotton planting is greater likelihood for profit compared with corn, grain sorghum, and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] (Taylor and Rodriguez-Kabana, 1999). Furthermore, the boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis Boheman) eradication program sponsored by the U.S. government greatly reduced the cost of cotton production (Haney et al., 1996).

Because of time and labor savings during the spring, agronomic crops grown in the coastal plain of the southeastern USA are increasingly being produced using conservation tillage. Conservation tillage is attractive because conventional tillage requires multiple tillage operations in rapid succession, which can be complicated by weather delays and shortages in skilled agricultural labor. Conservation tillage also minimizes water and wind erosion, which can be significant.

There are numerous conservation tillage variations, but the most common is strip tillage, which uses a seedbed preparation implement with in-row subsoil shanks, multiple gangs of fluted coulters to cut cover crop debris, and ground-driven crumblers that till a band approximately 30 cm wide. Crops can be seeded with planter units mounted on the tillage implement or as a separate operation.

One of the primary means of managing the numerous peanut pests is rotation with annual or perennial monocotyledonous crops (Cox and Sholar, 1995). Many fungal pathogens and plant parasitic nematodes that infect peanut are not sustained on monocotyledonous crops. A peanut–cotton rotation was not recommended in the region before the mid-1980s (Henning et al., 1979, 1982). The main concerns were physical interference of cotton stalks with peanut mechanization and increased incidence of soil-borne peanut diseases. The benefit of a peanut–cotton rotation in managing peanut root-knot nematode [Meloidogyne arenaria (Neal) Chitwood] was acknowledged (Rodriguez-Kabana et al., 1994), but at one time, cotton was considered to be an inferior rotation crop.

Cotton is now generally considered an acceptable rotation crop with peanut although not as good as perennial or annual monocotyledonous crops (Sholar et al., 1995, Taylor and Rodriguez-Kabana, 1999). Recent fungicide developments provide effective control of most soil-borne peanut diseases, which was not possible before 1994. Azoxystrobin [methyl (E)-2-2-6-(2-cyanophenoxy)-pyrimidin-4-yloxy-phenyl-3-methoxyacrylate], flutolanil, and tebuconazole {H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol -[2-(4-chlorophenyl)-ethyl]--(1,1-dimethylethyl)-±} effectively control stem rot (Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc.) and Rhizoctonia limb rot (Rhizoctonia solani Köhn) of peanut and are commonly used throughout the southeastern USA. Assuming cotton in rotation with peanut increases incidence of soil-borne peanut diseases, growers now have the means to adequately control these diseases.

Another production practice for peanut is clean tillage (Cox and Sholar, 1995; Sholar et al., 1995). Traditionally, peanut production is based on spring tillage with a moldboard plow; secondary tillage with a disk harrow, field conditioner, or power tiller to incorporate herbicides and shape seedbeds; and flat cultivation for weed control. The general intent of this tillage system was to bury pathogen inoculum found on debris from preceding crops, physically preventing contact with peanut plants. It has been widely assumed that cover crop debris in conservation tillage systems would increase incidence of soil-borne peanut diseases. While conventional tillage is the preferred approach to producing peanut, new fungicides give growers options to control soil-borne diseases.

Relying exclusively on fungicides for disease control in peanut is practically, scientifically, and philosophically unadvisable. Crop rotation and clean tillage are the cultural control practices on which integrated management of peanut pests should be based (Cox and Sholar, 1995). However, these new pest control options give growers the opportunity to grow a more profitable rotation crop (cotton) than monocotyledonous crops and streamline crop production using a form of conservation tillage.

With the increased use of a peanut–cotton rotation and conservation tillage, public-service advisors and crop consultants had no comprehensive data on which to base crop and pest management recommendations. Therefore, a multiyear trial was initiated in 1994 to study the effects of tillage on pest dynamics and crop yields in a peanut–cotton rotation.

	MATERIALS AND METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
An irrigated field study was conducted from 1994 to 1998 at the Gibbs Farm, a unit of the Coastal Plain Experiment Station near Tifton, GA. The soil was a Tifton loamy sand (fine-loamy, kaolinitic, thermic Plinthic Kandiudults) composed of 92, 2, and 6% sand, silt, and clay with 0.5% organic matter. The site had been previously managed for general peanut and cotton agronomic research. There were few weeds and nematodes, periodic occurrences of Rhizoctonia limb rot, and consistently severe incidences of peanut stem rot. In addition, this location routinely has severe epidemics of spotted wilt, which infects peanut, tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.), and vegetable crops.

The rotation sequence used in this study was peanut followed by cotton, and starting points in the rotation were staggered to separate year effects from crop effects. Three tillage systems were evaluated within each crop, and each tillage system was replicated four times and maintained as permanent plots for the duration of the trial. Plots in conventional tillage systems were seeded with rye in the fall after crop harvest, disk-harrowed in mid-March, moldboard-plowed (38 cm deep) in early April, tilled 7.6 cm deep with a power tiller to shape seedbeds and incorporate herbicides, and both crops were seeded in late April with a vacuum planter (ATI, Lenexa, KS). In reduced tillage systems, plots were seeded with rye using a grain drill after crop harvest, treated with glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] (1.1 kg a.i. ha^-1) in mid-March to kill the rye cover, and seedbeds were formed with a strip-tillage implement (Kelley Manufacturing Co., Tifton, GA) that prepared a 30-cm seedbed and planted to summer crops with a vacuum planter. Minimum tillage systems had neither rye cover crop nor tillage for the duration of the study. In minimum tillage systems, plots were treated with glyphosate in mid-March to control winter weeds, seedbeds were formed in previous crop stubble with the strip-tillage implement, and crops were seeded. Main plots were 7.3 m wide (8 rows) and 15.2 m long. All crops were seeded in 91-cm rows.

‘Georgia King’ (1994–1997) and ‘Paymaster 1220’ (1998) cotton were planted during the study at a rate of 10 kg ha^-1. ‘Florunner’ (1994–1996) and ‘Georgia Green’ (1997 and 1998) peanut were planted at 112 kg ha^-1. Georgia Green is moderately resistant to spotted wilt compared with the highly susceptible Florunner. Our use of Georgia Green parallels peanut growers' complete shift to this cultivar throughout the southeastern USA.

Peanut subplots were either treated with flutolanil (2.2 kg a.i. ha^-1) 50 d after planting or not treated (control). Subplots were 3.7 m wide (4 rows) and 15.2 m long. Flutolanil effectively controls stem rot and Rhizoctonia limb rot of peanut (Barnes et al., 1990) and is recommended for peanut disease control (Culbreath and Brenneman, 1999). All plots were oversprayed with chlorothalonil (tetrachloroisophthalonitrile) at 1.3 kg a.i. ha^-1 every 14 d to control foliar diseases. Chlorothalonil at that rate has no significant effect on soil-borne diseases of peanut.

Weed control in each crop was based on the weed species composition and density encountered. A summary of weed control for peanut and cotton is presented in Table 1. In every case, the choice of weed control was among the recommended control options available at the time to peanut and cotton growers. Excluding flutolanil treatment, pest and crop management decisions for both crops were based on recommendations by the Georgia Cooperative Extension Service.

Cotton parameters measured were seedling disease, midseason weed counts, and yield. Cotton stands were counted weekly in each plot, beginning 10 to 14 d after planting and continuing for 4 to 5 wk, and damping-off percentage was calculated. Root and hypocotyl of dying plants were surface-disinfected in 70% (vol./vol.) ethanol, rinsed in tap water, blotted dry on sterile filter paper, and incubated on water agar petri plates. Hyphae growing from tissues were transferred to potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) dextrose agar and identified. Weeds were counted in cotton using a protocol similar to peanut. Cotton yields were measured by harvesting the entire plot using a commercial two-row spindle cotton picker. Yield samples were ginned and reported as lint.

Soil assays of pathogenic fungi were conducted throughout the season each year. Ten cores, 2.5 cm diam. by 15 cm deep, were collected within the row in each plot. Cores from each plot were pooled, stored at 4 to 7°C, and processed 1 to 7 wk after sampling. Soil was assayed for R. solani AG-4 on tannic acid benomyl agar (Sumner and Bell, 1982) with a multiple-pellet soil sampler (Henis et al., 1978). Pythium spp. were assayed on P5ARP agar (Jeffers and Martin, 1986) and identified to species. Data are reported as colony forming units (cfu) 100 g^-1 oven-dried soil for R. solani and as cfu g^-1 soil for Pythium spp.

Data were analyzed using a mixed-model analysis. Degrees of freedom were partitioned to test tillage system effects and fungicide effects singularly and in combination. Densities of soil fungi, cotton stand counts, and postemergence damping off were square-root transformed for analysis. Nontransformed data are presented for clarity. Means were separated using Fisher's LSD (P 0.05).

	RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Statistical analysis showed significant year and tillage system effects on cotton damping off and population densities of R. solani and Pythium spp. in soil samples. These data are presented by year. However, there were nonsignificant year effects on the other parameters evaluated. Therefore, these data were pooled across years. Analysis showed a significant effect of tillage systems and flutolanil treatment on some peanut parameters.

Cotton Stand and Damping Off
In 1997, cotton stands were greater in conventional tillage systems than in minimum tillage systems, but in 1998, stand was less in conventional tillage systems than other tillage treatments (Table 2). Application of flutolanil to the preceeding peanut crop generally did not affect cotton stand (data not shown). However, in 1997, cotton stands were greater in minimum tillage systems following flutolanil-treated peanut. The effect was not present with conventional or reduced tillage systems.

Soil Assays and Plant Isolations
Fungi cultures were isolated from 6 to 36 dying seedlings each year. The predominant fungus isolated early in the study was R. solani AG-4, but Fusarium spp. and Macrophomina phaseolina were frequently isolated in later years of the study (data not shown). Population density of R. solani AG-4 in the soil was greater following peanut than cotton in January 1997, but there were no differences between soil pathogens following the two crops at other sampling dates (Table 3).

Peanut Disease
Spotted wilt was 42% lower in peanut across all years under reduced and minimum tillage than under conventional tillage (Table 4). This is significant considering there are no effective single control measures for spotted wilt in peanut. To date, spotted wilt in peanut is managed by an integration of partially resistant cultivars, optimum planting date, higher seeding rates, and phorate {O,O-diethyl S-[(ethylthio) methyl]phosphorodithioate} insecticide, which is characterized by the Tomato Spotted Wilt Risk Index developed by the University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service (Brown et al., 1999). Conservation tillage was recently added to the Tomato Spotted Wilt Risk Index as a risk-reducing option for managing spotted wilt. That change was based on general field observations as well as early results from this trial. These data clearly show the value of reduced and minimum tillage systems for management of this potentially devastating viral peanut disease.

Flutolanil had no effect on spotted wilt of peanut and Rhizoctonia limb rot (Table 4). This is surprising because flutolanil is routinely applied to control an array of soil-borne peanut diseases, including Rhizoctonia limb rot. The severity of Rhizoctonia limb rot (7.4 to 10.6% infection) was low. It is probable that, with greater severity of Rhizoctonia limb rot, the benefits of flutolanil in these cropping and tillage systems would be more clearly established.

Flutolanil effectively controlled peanut stem rot in all tillage systems (Table 4). The additional organic material present in reduced and minimum tillage systems had no detrimental effect on fungicide efficacy. Averaged across all years, peanut treated with flutolanil had 82% less stem rot than nontreated peanut. Stem rot levels were exceedingly high in this trial, adding relevance to the performance of flutolanil.

Nematode Damage
Peanut root-knot and lesion nematode populations in soil, sampled during each summer, were variable and generally low throughout the trial (data not shown). Peanut pod and gynophore damage from peanut root-knot and lesion nematodes were low to moderate, respectively, and did not differ among tillage systems (Table 4).

Midseason Weed Counts
The predominant weeds present at layby were yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.), ivyleaf morningglory [Ipomoea hederaceae (L.) Jacq.], spotted surge (Euphorbia maculata L.), and volunteer peanut. Common bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.], Texas panicum (Panicum texanum Buckl.), Florida beggarweed [Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DC], and cutleaf evening-primrose (Oenothera laciniata Hill) were present, but they were effectively controlled by the maintenance weed control. Weed densities and species diversity increased as the trial progressed.

Midseason yellow nutsedge and volunteer peanut densities were not affected by tillage systems in peanut (Table 5). Ivyleaf morningglory was a greater problem in conventional tillage while spotted spurge was a greater problem in minimum tillage.

High-input crops, such as peanut and cotton, give growers opportunities to judiciously increase weed management inputs in response to changes in weed density and species composition. Liebman et al. (1996) found this in reduced tillage potato production, another high-input cropping system. However, increasing weed control inputs is contradictory to current needs in weed management for peanut and cotton. We were able to successfully control these species in our trial but at a significant increase in cost. This trend of increasing weed control inputs in continuous reduced and minimum tillage systems should be part of peanut and cotton growers' long-term planning when deciding on tillage systems.

Crop Yield and Grade
Neither peanut nor cotton yields were affected by uninterrupted reduced and minimum tillage systems (Table 6). Peanut grades were not affected by tillage systems.

Although cotton may not be the optimum crop for rotation with peanut, this study was initiated to collect data on tillage and fungicide treatment because external forces have influenced the adaptation of a peanut–cotton rotation in the southeastern USA. We did not observe a significant increase in peanut diseases following cotton after 5 yr of a peanut–cotton rotation. Flutolanil effectively controlled stem rot and Rhizoctonia limb rot in peanut and can minimize the risk of soil-borne diseases of peanut following cotton.

The lack of interaction between tillage systems and flutolanil treatment for most of the parameters measured shows that reduced and minimum tillage do not mandate the use of flutolanil for soil-borne disease control. Flutolanil effectively controlled stem rot and increased peanut yields in all tillage systems. According to these data, the premise that peanut can be grown in reduced or minimum tillage systems only with the use of effective fungicides for soil-borne disease control is unfounded. Treatment decisions should be based on field history and current conditions, rather than solely on tillage system.

The effects of tillage in a peanut–cotton rotation study are of importance to growers in the region. While yields of peanut and cotton were not affected by 5 yr of uninterrupted conservation tillage, weed control costs increased by $147 ha^-1 after 4 yr of continuous conservation tillage compared with a $92 ha^-1 increase under continuous conventional tillage. However, the most important finding of these trials may be reduced incidence of spotted wilt of peanut in reduced and minimum tillage compared with conventional tillage. This disease is currently the largest detrimental factor affecting peanut production in the southeastern USA. Considering that there is no single tactic that effectively controls spotted wilt in peanut, any practice that reduces incidence may be integrated with other practices to manage the disease.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
This research was supported by peanut and cotton producers in Georgia through grants from the Georgia Agricultural Commodity Commissions for Peanut and Cotton, respectively. We recognize the technical contributions of Larry Thompson, Lewis Mullis, Jimmy Mixon, and Jimmy Laska.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS AND METHODS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 

• Barnes, J.S., A.S. Csinos, and J.E. Hook. 1990. Effects of fungicides, cultivars, irrigation, and environment on Rhizoctonia limb rot of peanut. Plant Dis. 74:671–676.
• Bass, R.T., and C.S. Messer. 1999. Georgia agricultural facts. Georgia Agric. Statistics Serv., Athens.
• Blackshaw, R.E., F.O. Larney, C.W. Lindwall, and G.C. Kozub. 1994. Crop rotation and tillage effects on weed populations on the semi-arid Canadian prairies. Weed Technol. 8:231–237.
• Brown, S., J. Todd, A. Culbreath, J. Baldwin, and J. Beasley. 1999. Tomato spotted wilt of peanut: Identifying and avoiding high risk situations. Univ. of Georgia. Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. 1165.
• Brown, S.M., J.M. Chandler, and J.E. Morrison, Jr. 1987. Weed control in a conservation tillage rotation in the Texas blacklands. Weed Sci. 35:695–699.
• Cox, F.R., and J.R. Sholar. 1995. Site selection, land preparation, and management of soil fertility. p. 7–10. In H.A. Melouk and F.M. Shokes (ed.) Peanut health management. Am. Phytopathological Soc., St. Paul, MN.
• Culbreath, A.K., and T.B. Brenneman. Peanut disease control. p. 85. In P. Guillebeau (ed.) 1999 Georgia pest control handbook. Univ. of Georgia Coop. Ext. Serv. Spec. Bull. 28.
• Haney, P.B., W.J. Lewis, and W.R. Lambert. 1996. Cotton production and the boll weevil in Georgia: History, cost of control, and benefits of eradication. Univ. of Georgia Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Bull. 428.
• Henis, Y., A. Ghaffar, R. Baker, and S.L. Gillespie. 1978. A new pellet soil-sampler and its use for the study of population dynamics of Rhizoctonia solani in soil. Phytopathology 68:371–376.
• Henning, R.J., A.H. Allison, and L.D. Tripp. 1982. Cultural practices. p. 123–138. In H.E. Pattee and C.T. Young (ed.) Peanut science and technology. Am. Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc., Yoakum, TX.
• Henning, R.J., J.F. McGill, L.E. Samples, C. Swann, S.S. Thompson, and H. Womack. 1979. Growing peanuts in Georgia—a package approach. Bull. 640. Univ. of Georgia Coop. Ext. Serv., Athens.
• Jeffers, S.N., and S.B. Martin. 1986. Comparison of two media selective for Phytophthora and Pythium species. Plant Dis. 70:1038–1043.
• Liebman, M., F.A. Drummond, S. Corson, and J. Zhang. 1996. Tillage and rotation crop effects on weed dynamics in potato production systems. Agron. J. 88:18–26.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Rodriguez-Kabana, R., N. Kokalis-Burelle, D.G. Robertson, P.S. King, and L.W. Wells. 1994. Rotations with coastal bermudagrass, cotton, and bahiagrass for management of Meloidogyne arenaria and southern blight in peanut. J. Nematol. 36:665–668.
• Schreiber, M.M. 1992. Influence of tillage, crop rotation, and weed management on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) population dynamics and corn yield. Weed Sci. 40:645–653.
• Sholar, J.R., R.W. Mozingo, and J.P. Beasley, Jr. 1995. Peanut cultural practices. p. 354–382. In H.E. Pattee and H.T. Stalker (ed.) Advances in peanut science. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Stillwater, OK.
• Snipes, L.E., and M. Hammer. 1987. Georgia agricultural facts. Georgia Agric. Statistics Serv., Athens.
• Sumner, D.R., and D.K. Bell. 1982. Root diseases of corn induced by Rhizoctonia solani and Rhizoctonia zeae. Phytopathology 72:86–91.
• Taylor, C.R., and R. Rodriguez-Kabana. 1999. Optimal rotation of peanuts and cotton to manage soil-borne organisms. Agric. Syst. 61:57–68.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Siri-Prieto, D. W. Reeves, and R. L. Raper Tillage Requirements for Integrating Winter-Annual Grazing in Peanut Production: Plant Water Status and Productivity Agron. J., November 1, 2009; 101(6): 1400 - 1408. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. L. Jordan, J. S. Barnes, T. Corbett, C. R. Bogle, P. D. Johnson, B. B. Shew, S. R. Koenning, W. Ye, and R. L. Brandenburg Crop Response to Rotation and Tillage in Peanut-Based Cropping Systems Agron. J., October 21, 2008; 100(6): 1580 - 1586. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. B. Godsey, J. Vitale, J. P. Damicone, J. R. Sholar, J. Nickels, and J. Baker Rotational Effects in Oklahoma Peanut Production: Prospects for Peanut Rotations in the Post-Quota Era Agron. J., August 10, 2007; 99(5): 1238 - 1244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. W. Katsvairo, D. L. Wright, J. J. Marois, D. L. Hartzog, J. R. Rich, and P. J. Wiatrak Sod-Livestock Integration into the Peanut-Cotton Rotation: A Systems Farming Approach Agron. J., June 27, 2006; 98(4): 1156 - 1171. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. L. Grey, G. D. Buntin, P. M. Roberts, and D. C. Bridges Potential Interaction of Pendimethalin and Systemic Insecticides for Thrips Control in Cotton Agron. J., January 5, 2006; 98(1): 141 - 147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. S. Tubbs and R. N. Gallaher Conservation Tillage and Herbicide Management for Two Peanut Cultivars Agron. J., March 1, 2005; 97(2): 500 - 504. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. J. Wiatrak, D. L. Wright, J. J. Marois, W. Koziara, and J. A. Pudelko Tillage and Nitrogen Application Impact on Cotton following Wheat Agron. J., January 1, 2005; 97(1): 288 - 293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. J. Wiatrak, D. L. Wright, and J. J. Marois Influence of Residual Nitrogen and Tillage on White Lupin Agron. J., November 1, 2004; 96(6): 1765 - 1770. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. Boquet, R. L. Hutchinson, and G. A. Breitenbeck Long-Term Tillage, Cover Crop, and Nitrogen Rate Effects on Cotton: Yield and Fiber Properties Agron. J., September 1, 2004; 96(5): 1436 - 1442. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Lanier, D. L. Jordan, J. F. Spears, R. Wells, P. D. Johnson, J. S. Barnes, C. A. Hurt, R. L. Brandenburg, and J. E. Bailey Peanut Response to Planting Pattern, Row Spacing, and Irrigation Agron. J., July 1, 2004; 96(4): 1066 - 1072. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. L. Jordan, J. S. Barnes, C. R. Bogle, R. L. Brandenburg, J. E. Bailey, P. D. Johnson, and A. S. Culpepper Peanut Response to Cultivar Selection, Digging Date, and Tillage Intensity Agron. J., March 1, 2003; 95(2): 380 - 385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Marois and D. L. Wright Effect of Tillage System, Phorate, and Cultivar on Tomato Spotted Wilt of Peanut Agron. J., March 1, 2003; 95(2): 386 - 389. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (19) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Johnson, W.C. Articles by Mullinix, B. G. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Johnson, W.C., III Articles by Mullinix, B. G., Jr. Agricola Articles by Johnson, W.C. Articles by Mullinix, B. G. Related Collections Weed Management Crop Rotation Systems Cotton Other Oil Crops Tillage