No-Till Establishment of Rhizoma Peanut

to be the biggest problem associated with stand establishment. Previous work has indicated that drought Planting rhizoma peanut (Arachis glabrata Benth.) directly into stress, particularly in the 3 mo postplanting is one of grass sod may be practical for producers [e.g., cow-calf (Bos taurus) the main reasons stands fail to establish or establish production, low maintenance roadside or turf situations, wildlife feed, etc.] who do not need the feed value of pure rhizoma peanut stands. slowly (Williams, 1993; Williams et al., 1997). The objective of this study was to determine the effects of planter The current recommendation is that rhizoma peanut (no-till vs. conventional sprig planter), ground preparation (undisbe established in a clean, prepared plantbed because turbed sod vs. rotovated), planting date (winter vs. summer), and weedy forbs and grasses compete with establishing rhiherbicide (glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine] vs. none) on zoma peanut for moisture (French and Prine, 1991). the establishment and survival of rhizoma peanut. Planter type had Additionally, the presence of forbs and grasses reduces no effect on rhizoma peanut establishment. In 1996 there was a plantthe feed value and thus market value of the crop. Several ing date ground preparation herbicide interaction due to the factors suggest that planting rhizoma peanut directly winter-planted, rotovated plots without herbicide (0.9 sprouts m 2) into an established grass sod may be a practical procehaving lower sprout counts than any other rotovated treatment at dure for some uses of rhizoma peanut (e.g., cow-calf either planting date ( 3.4 sprouts m 2). In 1997, only the main effects of planting date and ground preparation and their interaction affected production, low maintenance roadside or turf situation, sprout emergence and survival. Final sprout counts were positively wildlife feed, etc.) that do not need the feed value of correlated with bare ground (r 0.37). Herbicide suppressed grass pure rhizoma peanut stands (Sollenberger et al., 1989; in the winter planting only, but did not consistently reduce total Williams et al., 1991). The benefits of no-till planting ground cover due to increased annual forb cover. There was a ground into grass sods include potentially less soil erosion compreparation herbicide interaction on ground cover of rhizoma peapared with clean-tilled sites; fewer problems with weedy nut (rotovated herbicide, 22%; rotovated no herbicide, 13%; herbiforbs during establishment and throughout the life of cide not rotovated, 5.9%; and no herbicide not rotovated, 2%). This the stand (Bennett et al., 1995; Valencia et al., 1999); study indicates that producers can select establishment practices for higher DM yield due to the additive effect of the grass– rhizoma peanut plantings that meet their production goals (clean legume mixture (Valencia et al., 1999; Valentim et al., cultivation establishment for hay production or dairy cattle grazing and sod planting without herbicide for less intensive situations). 1986); and better matching of nutritive value of the pasture or hay to class of livestock (Williams and Chambliss, 1999). In a plantbed preparation by planting date study (WilR peanut is one of the few tropical legumes liams, 1993), no-till planting using conventional sprig that combines the desirable characteristics of high planters resulted in fewer sprouts emerging and surviving, nutritive value and long-term persistence under a wide which increases the time required to reach adequate levrange of grazing management systems (Beltranena et els of rhizoma peanut in the sward. Poor emergence could al., 1981; French, 1988; Ocumpaugh, 1990; Ortega-S et be largely attributable to failure of sprig planting equipal., 1992; Prine et al., 1981). In spite of this, expansion of rhizoma peanut hectarage has been slow since the ment to adequately cover the rhizomes after planting. release of the Florigraze (Prine et al., 1981) and Arbrook Since that time, no-till planters have been developed specultivars (Prine et al., 1986) by the University of Florida. cifically for use with rhizoma peanut and other vegetaIt is estimated that about 8000 ha of rhizoma peanut tively propagated forage species, but no direct comparihave been planted in the Gulf Coast region with most son has been made between no-till and conventional of this area occurring in Florida and Georgia (G.M. planters in sod or clean-tilled sites. The objective of this Prine, personal communication, 2000). study was to determine the effect of no-till vs. convenThe cost associated with vegetative establishment is tional planters with and without preplant herbicide supone of the greatest limitations to increased utilization pression of existing bermudagrass sod on the establishof rhizoma peanut in the Gulf Coast region of the USA. ment and survival of rhizoma peanut planted at two dates. Survival of emerging rhizoma peanut sprouts has proved MATERIALS AND METHODS M.J. Williams, USDA-ARS, Subtropical Agricultural Research StaThe study site was a former bermudagrass hay field at tion, Brooksville, FL 34601-4672; E. Valencia, Univ. of Virgin Islands, the USDA-ARS Subtropical Agricultural Research Station St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands; and L.E. Sollenberger, Dep. of Agron(STARS), Brooksville, FL (28 37 N, 82 22 W) that contained omy, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville. Joint contribution of the USDAa mixture of ‘Callie Giant’ and common bermudagrass [CynoARS and Florida Agric. Exp. Stn. Journal Series no. R-07956. Redon dactylon (L.) Persoon] and bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum ceived 7 Sept. 2001. *Corresponding author ([email protected]). Flugge). The field had been grazed the previous growing season, but received no N fertilization. The soil type at this site Published in Agron. J. 94:1350–1354 (2002).