Sage and Peanuts

— Written By
en Español

El inglés es el idioma de control de esta página. En la medida en que haya algún conflicto entre la traducción al inglés y la traducción, el inglés prevalece.

Al hacer clic en el enlace de traducción se activa un servicio de traducción gratuito para convertir la página al español. Al igual que con cualquier traducción por Internet, la conversión no es sensible al contexto y puede que no traduzca el texto en su significado original. NC State Extension no garantiza la exactitud del texto traducido. Por favor, tenga en cuenta que algunas aplicaciones y/o servicios pueden no funcionar como se espera cuando se traducen.

English is the controlling language of this page. To the extent there is any conflict between the English text and the translation, English controls.

Clicking on the translation link activates a free translation service to convert the page to Spanish. As with any Internet translation, the conversion is not context-sensitive and may not translate the text to its original meaning. NC State Extension does not guarantee the accuracy of the translated text. Please note that some applications and/or services may not function as expected when translated.

Collapse ▲

Question:

Bicep that will be applied to late planted grain sorghum such as end of June first of July (planting behind sage) will it be a problem with carryover to peanuts or will the peanuts be ok to plant behind this next year. Thanks.

Answer:

The product label states that injury from Bicep II Magnum (the atrazine part) can injure peanut the following year if applied after June 10. I don’t know if this is a real issue or if it is a very conservative listing on the label. But, a bigger issue may be the rotation of sage and peanuts. See the abstract and table below. For some reason sage is not a great rotation crop when planted the year before peanuts. So, given Bicep II Magnum in milo (planted after sage is harvested in 2015) may injure peanuts the following year (2016, see label wording) and given that peanut yields drop a bit after sage (regardless of herbicide used the previous year), my suggestions is that growers need to plant something other than peanut in 2016. And based on Bicep II Magnum label, the 2016 crop needs to be either milo or corn.

Peanut Response to Crop Rotations Including Clary Sage, Snap Bean, and Sweet Potato

Abstract

Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) rotation systems most often include corn (Zea mays L.) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). However, more diverse rotation systems can be found in some regions of North Carolina, and rotations of peanut with clary sage (Salvia sclarea L.), snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), and sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.] have increased in recent years. Research was conducted to determine visible estimates of disease expressed in the peanut canopy, plant parasitic nematode population in soil, and yield of peanut after rotations including clary sage, corn, cotton, soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). The percentage of the peanut canopy reflecting symptoms associated with a combination of Cylindrocladium black rot and tomato spotted wilt was not affected by rotation but was 8% higher for the peanut cultivar Phillips compared with the cultivar Bailey. Peanut yield was affected by rotation and cultivar but not the interaction of these treatment factors. Peanut yield following a rotation of cotton–corn–sweet potato exceeded that of cotton–corn–cotton. In contrast, yield following the rotation of snap bean-wheat-clary sage was lower than yield following cotton-corn-cotton. Rotation affected density of lesion and ring nematodes but density did not relate to differences in peanut yield. Results from this experiment indicate that peanut can be grown immediately following sweet potato but not following the rotation of snap bean, wheat, and clary sage without a reduction in peanut yield.

Table showing peanut yeild response to previous rotation.

Full text version.

Copyright © 2014. Copyright © 2014 by the American Society of Agronomy, Inc.

Article first appeared as North Carolina Peanut Note (PNNC-2015-049)