@article{jordan_barnes_bogle_marshall_corbett_crozier_mclawhorn_fisher_2005, title={Influence of cultural practices and crop rotation on kenaf yield in North Carolina}, ISBN={1543-7833}, DOI={10.1094/cm-2005-0913-01-rs}, abstractNote={Kenaf is a relatively new crop to North Carolina and its impact on cropping systems has not been clearly determined. The impacts of crop rotation on kenaf, as well as the impacts of kenaf on rotation crops were examined. Crops preceding kenaf included corn, soybean, cotton, and peanut while crops following kenaf or corn included corn, soybean, cotton, peanut, and tobacco. Experiments were also conducted to define interactions among kenaf planting dates, row width/plant population systems, and cultivars. In one of two years, kenaf yield was lower when kenaf followed peanut or soybean compared to following cotton. Peanut and soybean yield were similar when following either corn and kenaf. However, corn and cotton yield was lower in one of two years when following corn compared to kenaf. Tobacco yield was similar when planted following either corn or kenaf. The interaction of planting date, row width/plant population, and cultivar was not significant for kenaf yield. No yield differences were observed between kenaf cultivars Everglade 41 and Tainung 2. Kenaf yield was higher when planted May 15 rather than June 15 and when kenaf was planted in rows spaced 8 inches apart (total plant population of 261,000 plants per acre) compared to rows spaced 36 inches apart (total plant population of 174,000 plants per acre).}, journal={Crop Management}, author={Jordan, D. L. and Barnes, J. S. and Bogle, C. R. and Marshall, T. M. and Corbett, T. and Crozier, C. R. and McLawhorn, B. and Fisher, L.}, year={2005}, pages={1} }
 @article{jordan_barnes_bogle_brandenburg_bailey_johnson_culpepper_2003, title={Peanut response to cultivar selection, digging date, and tillage intensity}, volume={95}, ISSN={["1435-0645"]}, DOI={10.2134/agronj2003.0380}, abstractNote={reduced tillage systems often do not exceed those of conventional tillage. Determining the cause of inconsisPeanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in the United States is generally tent yield response to reduced tillage would be benefigrown in conventionally tilled systems. However, interest in reduced tillage peanut production has increased. Five experiments were concial in determining when reduced tillage systems could ducted in North Carolina to determine if cultivar selection and digging be successfully implemented in peanut production. date affected peanut yield and economic value when peanut was Cultivar selection can have a dramatic effect on crop seeded into conventionally tilled seedbeds compared with strip tillage response to production and pest management practices. into small-grain cover crop or stubble from the crop planted the preCulpepper et al. (1997) reported that peanut cultivars vious summer. In separate experiments, peanut yield and economic responded differently to the plant growth regulator provalue in these tillage systems were compared with peanut strip-tilled hexadione calcium (calcium salt of 3,5-dioxo-4-propiointo beds prepared the previous fall (stale seedbeds). Cultivar selection nylcyclohexanecarboxylic acid). Cultivars also respond and digging date did not affect pod yield or gross value when compardifferently to digging date (Jordan et al., 1998). Disease ing tillage systems. Pod yield in conventional and stale seedbed sysmanagement approaches can be affected by cultivar setems was similar in all five experiments where these systems were compared, and yields in these tillage systems exceeded those of strip lection (Bailey, 2002). Virginia market-type cultivars vary tillage into crop stubble in three of five experiments. Pod yield was considerably in pod size, maturity, and several other agrosimilar among all three tillage systems in the other two experiments. nomic factors (Swann, 2002). Although not well estabIn experiments where only conventional tillage and strip tillage syslished in the literature, pod loss can be severe if peanut tems were compared, pod yield was similar between the two tillage is dug under poor soil conditions (Beam et al., 2002). systems in four experiments, higher in conventional tillage compared It is suspected that pod loss may be greater in reduced with strip tillage in one experiment, and higher for strip tillage comtillage systems than conventional tillage systems bepared with conventional tillage in one experiment. In 16 of 17 comcause the plants may be more difficult to dig. Peanut parisons, pod yield of peanut planted in conventional tillage systems cultivars with larger pods may be more susceptible to equaled or exceeded that of peanut planted into stubble from the digging losses compared with smaller-seeded cultivars previous crop. because they have a greater surface area, which may cause increased exposure to detachment during the digging process. Practitioners indicate that pod loss from P in the United States is typically grown in smaller-seeded runner market types is less than that for conventionally tilled systems (Sholar et al., 1995). large-seeded virginia market types during the digging Peanut response to reduced tillage has been inconsiscomponent of the harvest process. However, these comtent. Research suggests that yields in reduced tillage sysparisons have not been documented in the literature. tems can be lower than (Brandenburg et al., 1998; Cox Determining if pod yield differs among tillage systems and Sholar, 1995; Grichar, 1998; Jordan et al., 2001; for cultivars with different pod sizes may help explain Sholar et al., 1993; Wright and Porter, 1995) or similar inconsistent peanut response to reduced tillage systems. to (Baldwin and Hook, 1998; Dowler et al., 1999; HartStale seedbed crop production has been successful zog et al., 1998; Williams et al., 1998) yields in convenfor a variety of row crops, including soybean [Glycine tional tillage systems. Higher yields in reduced tillage max (L.) Merr.] and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) systems have been associated with lower incidence of (Shaw, 1996). Seedbeds are prepared the previous fall tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) (Baldwin and Hook, or during the spring several weeks or months before 1998; Johnson et al., 2001; Wright et al., 2000). In most seeding directly into previously established stale seedexperiments where this disease is not a factor, yields in bed without significant soil disturbance. This approach to peanut production may be a viable alternative to both D.L. Jordan, P.D. Johnson, and A.S. Culpepper, Dep. of Crop Sci., conventional tillage systems and strip tillage directly Box 7620, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7620; J.S. into stubble from the previous crop. Barnes, Peanut Belt Res. Stn., North Carolina Dep. of Agric. and The objectives of this research were to determine if Consumer Serv., Box 220, Lewiston-Woodville, NC 27849; C.R. Bogle, Dep. of Soil Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Upper Coastal Plain peanut response to tillage was associated with cultivar Res. Stn., Box 7619, Raleigh, NC 27695 and North Carolina Dep. of selection and digging date and if peanut yield in stale Agric. and Consumer Serv., Rt. 2 Box 400, Rocky Mount, NC 27801; seedbeds differs from yield in conventional tillage or R.L. Brandenburg, Dep. of Entomol., Box 7613, North Carolina State strip tillage into crop stubble. Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7613; and J.E. Bailey, Dep. of Plant Pathol., Box 7616, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7616. ReAbbreviations: CBR, Cylindrocladium black rot; %ELK, percentage ceived 11 Apr. 2002. *Corresponding author (david_jordan@ncsu.edu). of extra large kernels; %TSMK, percentage of total sound mature kernels; TSWV, tomato spotted wilt virus. Published in Agron. J. 95:380–385 (2003).}, number={2}, journal={AGRONOMY JOURNAL}, author={Jordan, DL and Barnes, JS and Bogle, CR and Brandenburg, RL and Bailey, JE and Johnson, PD and Culpepper, AS}, year={2003}, pages={380–385} }
 @article{crozier_walls_hardy_barnes_2003, title={Tracking phosphorus response of cotton}, volume={87}, ISBN={0006-0089}, number={4}, journal={Better Crops With Plant Food}, author={Crozier, C. R. and Walls, B. and Hardy, D. H. and Barnes, J. S.}, year={2003}, pages={20} }
 @article{jordan_bailey_barnes_bogle_bullen_brown_edmisten_dunphy_johnson_2002, title={Yield and economic return of ten peanut-based cropping systems}, volume={94}, ISSN={["0002-1962"]}, DOI={10.2134/agronj2002.1289}, abstractNote={Research was conducted in North Carolina at two locations from 1997 through 2000 to determine net returns of 10 cropping systems during a 4‐yr cropping cycle that included peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], and corn (Zea mays L.). Cylindrocladium black rot [caused by Cylindrocladium parasiticum] (CBR) increased when soybean was included in the rotation sequence or when peanut was grown continuously. The CBR‐resistant cultivar NC 12C increased yield compared with the susceptible cultivar NC 7 when this disease was present. Cotton was a better rotation crop than corn at one of two locations with respect to peanut yield and gross economic value in the final year of the study. Net returns were substantially lower when peanut was marketed for export in the current federal program rather than at the quota price. However, the profitability ranking among cropping systems changed little regardless of marketing system. Crop yield and net return were influenced by crop selection, weather conditions, and commodity prices during the 4 yr.}, number={6}, journal={AGRONOMY JOURNAL}, author={Jordan, DL and Bailey, JE and Barnes, JS and Bogle, CR and Bullen, SG and Brown, AB and Edmisten, KL and Dunphy, EJ and Johnson, PD}, year={2002}, pages={1289–1294} }