Abstract
Abstract Effects of minimum tillage (MT) production techniques on peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) root growth and yield were unknown. Field experiments were therefore conducted during 1984 near Williston and Marianna, FL and during 1985 near Williston and Jay, FL to evaluate effects of surface and subsurface tillage on peanut production. Soil types were a Zuber loamy sand (fine, mixed hyperthermic Ultic Hapludalf) at Williston, a Chipola sandy loam (loamy, siliceous, thermic Arenic Hapludult) at Marianna, and a Red Bay sandy loam (fine, loamy, siliceous, thermic Rhodic Paleudult) at Jay. The Sunrunner peanut cultivar was planted using a modified twin 23 cm row spacing and seeded at a rate of 140 kg/ha. Eight tillage systems that included combinations of conventional tillage, strip-tillage, and no-tillage with and without subsoiling or subsurface slitting were evaluated. Peanuts germinated and grew well except in no-tillage plots that received no subsurface tillage. Without surface or subsurface tillage there was not sufficient soil disturbance to insure proper seed-soil contact or seed cover. Generally, plots that received some degree of conventional tillage yielded better than plots with no surface preparation (4090 vs. 3760 kg/ha avg.). Minimum tillage plots yielded numerically less than conventional plots but in only a few cases were significant differences in yield noted. At most locations, minimum tillage plots that received no subsurface tillage developed a “lazy root syndrome” in which the few roots produced were quite shallow and grew near the soil surface. These treatments yielded less (3680 vs. 4010 kg/ha avg.) than those with conventional seedbed preparation or the minimum tillage treatments receiving subsurface tillage. Root strength and penetration measurements roughly reflect the same trends as peanut yields. The slit-tillage system resulted in peanut yields equal to or better than those obtained with chisel point subsoiling. Slitter wear and breakage problems were encountered but overall, the subsurface slit system appears to be a functional alternative to chisel point subsoiling.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Peanuts germinated and grew well except with no tillage and no subsurface tillage.
- Taxon
- Peanuts
Arachis hypogaeae0 - Treatment
- no-tillage plots that received no subsurface tillagee0
- Outcome
- germinated and grew welle0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Peanuts germinated and grew well except in no-tillage plots that received no subsurface tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Some conventional tillage yielded 4090 versus 3760 kg/ha for no surface preparation.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- some degree of conventional tillagee0
- Outcome
- yieldede0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 4090 vs. 3760 kg/ha avg.e0
- Comparator
- no surface preparatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plots that received some degree of conventional tillage yielded better than plots with no surface preparation (4090 vs. 3760 kg/ha avg.)”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum tillage yielded numerically less than conventional tillage, with significant yield differences in only a few cases.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Minimum tillagee0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Qualifier
- in only a few cases were significant differences in yield notede0
- Comparator
- conventional plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Minimum tillage plots yielded numerically less than conventional plots but in only a few cases were significant differences in yield noted”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum tillage without subsurface tillage produced few shallow roots near the surface at most locations.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- minimum tillage plots that received no subsurface tillagee0
- Outcome
- few roots produced were quite shallow and grew near the soil surfacee0
- Qualifier
- At most locationse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At most locations, minimum tillage plots that received no subsurface tillage developed a “lazy root syndrome” in which the few roots produced were quite shallow and grew near the soil surface”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum tillage without subsurface tillage yielded 3680 versus 4010 kg/ha for conventional preparation or subsurface tillage.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- These treatmentse0
- Outcome
- yieldede0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 3680 vs. 4010 kg/ha avg.e0
- Comparator
- conventional seedbed preparation or the minimum tillage treatments receiving subsurface tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These treatments yielded less (3680 vs. 4010 kg/ha avg.) than those with conventional seedbed preparation or the minimum tillage treatments receiving subsurface tillage”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Root strength and penetration roughly followed the yield trends.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Outcome
- Root strength and penetration measurementse0
- Qualifier
- roughly reflect the same trends as peanut yieldse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root strength and penetration measurements roughly reflect the same trends as peanut yields”
Claim · model-written summary
Slit tillage yielded as much as or more than chisel point subsoiling.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- slit-tillage systeme0
- Outcome
- peanut yieldse0
- Direction
- equal to or bettere0
- Comparator
- chisel point subsoilinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The slit-tillage system resulted in peanut yields equal to or better than those obtained with chisel point subsoiling”
Claim · model-written summary
The subsurface slit system appeared a functional alternative despite slitter wear and breakage.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- subsurface slit system appears to be a functional alternative to chisel point subsoilinge0
- Qualifier
- Slitter wear and breakage problemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Slitter wear and breakage problems were encountered but overall, the subsurface slit system appears to be a functional alternative to chisel point subsoiling”
t0“Peanut”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
65 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- positive
86 papers more in this group
See all 90 papers →tillage · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.