Abstract
Core Ideas Grower interest in conservation tillage and cover crops remains high for peanut. Twin rows improved yields and peanut grade compared to single rows. Peanut performance did not vary across strip tillage implements. Twin rows with strip tillage and a cover crop is a productive option for peanut. Soil degradation and rising production costs have prompted grower interest in conservation tillage with cover crops for peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.). Our objective was to evaluate single and twin row peanut production across three different strip tillage implements (KMC, Orthman, Unverferth) with and without a rye ( Secale cereale L.) cover crop in Headland, AL, and Tifton, GA, during 2012 to 2014. Surface residue cover following planting, plant populations, peanut yield, total sound mature kernels (TSMK), and soil penetration resistance (PR) for the cultivar Georgia 06G were compared across cover crop treatments, tillage implements, and row patterns. Surface residue exceeded 60% at both locations in the rye treatment. Plant populations were greater across the fallow treatment and the twin row pattern at both locations. Twin rows increased yield compared with single rows in Headland (360 kg ha −1 ) and Tifton (>1000 kg ha −1 ) and also improved grade (TSMK) at both locations. Strip tillage implements had no effect on peanut plant parameters. At planting, soil PR was greater with a cover crop only at Headland; whereas implements reduced soil PR in 2012 (Orthman) and 2014 (Unverferth). At harvest, soil PR differences were only observed in 2013. The KMC and Unverferth implements maintained less resistance compared with Orthman at Headland, whereas cover crop reduced PR at Tifton. Peanut performance did not differ in response to one strip tillage implement over the other; however, results show strip tillage with a cover crop and twin row management improves peanut production across the Southeast.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Twin rows increased peanut yield compared with single rows in Headland.
- Taxon
- Peanut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Treatment
- Twin rowse1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 360 kg ha −1e1
- Comparator
- single rowse1
- Setting
- Headlande1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Strip Tillage Implements for Single and Twin Row Peanut”
e1“Twin rows increased yield compared with single rows in Headland (360 kg ha −1 ) and Tifton (>1000 kg ha −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Twin rows increased peanut yield compared with single rows in Tifton.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Twin rowse1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- >1000 kg ha −1e1
- Comparator
- single rowse1
- Setting
- Tiftone1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Strip Tillage Implements for Single and Twin Row Peanut”
e1“Twin rows increased yield compared with single rows in Headland (360 kg ha −1 ) and Tifton (>1000 kg ha −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Twin rows improved peanut grade (TSMK) at both locations compared with single rows.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Twin rowse1
- Outcome
- grade (TSMK)e2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Comparator
- single rowse1
- Setting
- both locationse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Strip Tillage Implements for Single and Twin Row Peanut”
e1“Twin rows increased yield compared with single rows in Headland (360 kg ha −1 ) and Tifton (>1000 kg ha −1 )”
e2“also improved grade (TSMK) at both locations”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip tillage implements had no effect on peanut plant parameters.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Strip tillage implementse3
- Outcome
- plant parameterse3
- Direction
- no effecte3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Strip Tillage Implements for Single and Twin Row Peanut”
e3“Strip tillage implements had no effect on peanut plant parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant populations were greater in the fallow treatment than under the rye cover crop.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- fallow treatmente4
- Outcome
- Plant populationse4
- Direction
- greatere4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Strip Tillage Implements for Single and Twin Row Peanut”
e4“Plant populations were greater across the fallow treatment and the twin row pattern at both locations”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant populations were greater with the twin row pattern at both locations.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- twin row patterne4
- Outcome
- Plant populationse4
- Direction
- greatere4
- Setting
- both locationse4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Strip Tillage Implements for Single and Twin Row Peanut”
e4“Plant populations were greater across the fallow treatment and the twin row pattern at both locations”
Claim · model-written summary
Surface residue exceeded 60% at both locations in the rye cover crop treatment.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- rye treatmente5
- Outcome
- Surface residuee5
- Value
- 60%e5
- Setting
- both locationse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Strip Tillage Implements for Single and Twin Row Peanut”
e5“Surface residue exceeded 60% at both locations in the rye treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
At planting, soil penetration resistance was greater with a cover crop at Headland.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- cover crope6
- Outcome
- soil PRe6
- Direction
- greatere6
- Setting
- Headlande6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Strip Tillage Implements for Single and Twin Row Peanut”
e6“At planting, soil PR was greater with a cover crop only at Headland”
Claim · model-written summary
The Orthman implement reduced soil penetration resistance in 2012.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Strip Tillage Implements for Single and Twin Row Peanut”
e7“whereas implements reduced soil PR in 2012 (Orthman) and 2014 (Unverferth)”
Claim · model-written summary
The Unverferth implement reduced soil penetration resistance in 2014.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Strip Tillage Implements for Single and Twin Row Peanut”
e7“whereas implements reduced soil PR in 2012 (Orthman) and 2014 (Unverferth)”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil penetration resistance differences at harvest were observed only in 2013.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- soil PR differencese1
- Setting
- 2013e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Strip Tillage Implements for Single and Twin Row Peanut”
e1“At harvest, soil PR differences were only observed in 2013”
Claim · model-written summary
The KMC and Unverferth implements maintained less soil resistance than Orthman at Headland.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- KMC and Unverferth implementse1
- Outcome
- resistancee1
- Direction
- less resistancee1
- Comparator
- Orthmane1
- Setting
- Headlande1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Strip Tillage Implements for Single and Twin Row Peanut”
e1“The KMC and Unverferth implements maintained less resistance compared with Orthman at Headland”
Claim · model-written summary
The cover crop reduced soil penetration resistance at Tifton.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Strip Tillage Implements for Single and Twin Row Peanut”
e1“whereas cover crop reduced PR at Tifton”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip tillage with a cover crop and twin row management improves peanut production across the Southeast.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- strip tillage with a cover crop and twin row managemente1
- Outcome
- peanut productione1
- Direction
- improvese1
- Setting
- across the Southeaste1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Strip Tillage Implements for Single and Twin Row Peanut”
e1“results show strip tillage with a cover crop and twin row management improves peanut production across the Southeast”
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
- no effect
- positive
86 papers more in this group
See all 90 papers →cover crop · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 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.