@article{jordan_buol_brandenburg_shew_wilkerson_lassiter_dunne_gorny_washburn_hoisington_et al._2022, title={A Risk Tool and Production Log Created using Microsoft Excel to Manage Pests in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea)}, volume={13}, ISSN={["2155-7470"]}, DOI={10.1093/jipm/pmac006}, abstractNote={Abstract
               Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) growers and their advisors need to address a wide range of biotic and abiotic stresses to maximize yield and financial return. Mitigating risk to yield and financial investment requires knowledge of interactions among pests and strategies to manage pests, including chemical inputs, crop rotation, cultivar selection, field pest history, planting pattern and population, planting date, and tillage systems. Using Microsoft Excel, a comprehensive peanut risk tool was developed to assist growers and advisors in identifying and selecting production strategies to minimize risk to yield based on empirical data and practical experience while providing cost estimates of production practices. Initially, the risk tool was developed for North Carolina (USA) peanut production. However, the current platform is designed to facilitate the development of similar tools for other USA peanut regions, peanut production systems in other countries, and with the capability to develop risk tools for other crops. This article discusses components of the risk management tool developed for North Carolina peanut production. Benefits of the risk tool to practitioners, extension services, genetics and breeding programs, and formal classroom instruction will be discussed. One goal of this paper is to provide an example of how the Microsoft Excel framework used for peanut in North Carolina can be used for peanut in other regions of the USA and other countries.}, number={1}, journal={JOURNAL OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT}, author={Jordan, David L. and Buol, Greg S. and Brandenburg, Rick L. and Shew, Barbara B. and Wilkerson, Gail G. and Lassiter, Bridget R. and Dunne, Jeff and Gorny, Adrienne and Washburn, Derek and Hoisington, David and et al.}, year={2022}, month={Jan} }
 @article{templeton_shane perkins_aldridge_bridges_lassiter_2014, title={Usefulness and uses of climate forecasts for agricultural extension in South Carolina, USA}, volume={14}, ISSN={["1436-378X"]}, DOI={10.1007/s10113-013-0522-7}, number={2}, journal={REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE}, author={Templeton, Scott R. and Shane Perkins, M. and Aldridge, Heather Dinon and Bridges, William C., Jr. and Lassiter, Bridget Robinson}, year={2014}, month={Apr}, pages={645–655} }
 @article{lassiter_jordan_wilkerson_shew_brandenburg_2011, title={Influence of Cover Crops on Weed Management in Strip Tillage Peanut}, volume={25}, ISSN={["0890-037X"]}, DOI={10.1614/wt-d-11-00064.1}, abstractNote={Experiments were conducted in North Carolina during 2005, 2006, and 2007 to determine peanut and weed response when peanut was planted in strip tillage after desiccation of cereal rye, Italian ryegrass, oats, triticale, wheat, and native vegetation by glyphosate and paraquat before planting with three in-season herbicide programs. Control of common ragweed and yellow nutsedge did not differ among cover crop treatments when compared within a specific herbicide program. Applying dimethenamid orS-metolachlor plus diclosulam PRE followed by imazapic POST was more effective than a chloroacetamide herbicide PRE followed by acifluorfen, bentazon, and paraquat POST. Incidence of spotted wilt in peanut (caused by aTospovirus) did not differ when comparing cover crop treatments, regardless of herbicide program. Peanut yield increased in all 3 yr when herbicides were applied POST, compared with clethodim only. Peanut yield was not affected by cover crop treatment. Response to cover crop treatments was comparable, suggesting that growers can select cereal rye, Italian ryegrass, oats, or triticale as an alternative to wheat as a cover crop in peanut systems without experiencing differences associated with in-season weed management.}, number={4}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Lassiter, Bridget R. and Jordan, David L. and Wilkerson, Gail G. and Shew, Barbara B. and Brandenburg, Rick L.}, year={2011}, pages={568–573} }
 @article{drake_jordan_lassiter_johnson_brandenburg_royals_2009, title={Peanut Cultivar Response to Damage from Tobacco Thrips and Paraquat}, volume={101}, ISSN={["1435-0645"]}, DOI={10.2134/agronj2009.0185}, abstractNote={Virginia market‐type peanut cultivars in North Carolina vary in the number of days following emergence required to reach optimum maturity, and concern over cultivar response to interactions of tobacco thrips (Frankliniella fusca Hinds) damage in absence of in‐furrow insecticide and injury from paraquat exist with respect to cultivar selection. Experiments were conducted during 2007 and 2008 to determine if cultivars vary in response to interactions of the insecticide aldicarb (no aldicarb or aldicarb applied in the seed furrow at planting) and the herbicide paraquat (no paraquat or paraquat applied 24 to 28 d after peanut emergence, DAE). The cultivar VA 98R expressed more damage from tobacco thrips than the cultivars Gregory, Perry, or Phillips. Although vegetative growth parameters varied among cultivar, aldicarb, and paraquat treatments, pod yield and market grade characteristics were not affected by the interaction of experiment, cultivar, aldicarb, and paraquat or the interaction of cultivar, aldicarb, and paraquat. Damage from tobacco thrips in absence of aldicarb affected pod yield more than injury from paraquat. The combination of tobacco thrips damage in absence of aldicarb and injury from paraquat lowered pod yield compared with aldicarb‐treated peanut either with or without paraquat regardless of cultivar. These data suggest that recommendations on use of aldicarb for tobacco thrips control or paraquat for early season weed control should not vary based on cultivar selection when considering pod yield and market grade characteristics.}, number={6}, journal={AGRONOMY JOURNAL}, author={Drake, Wendy L. and Jordan, David L. and Lassiter, Bridget R. and Johnson, P. Dewayne and Brandenburg, Rick L. and Royals, Brian M.}, year={2009}, pages={1388–1393} }
 @article{jordan_lancaster_lanier_lassiter_johnson_2009, title={Peanut and Eclipta (Eclipta prostrata) Response to Flumioxazin}, volume={23}, ISSN={["0890-037X"]}, DOI={10.1614/WT-08-050.1}, abstractNote={Research was conducted in North Carolina to determine peanut response to flumioxazin as influenced by rate and timing of application and cultivar. Delaying application of flumioxazin from 1 d after planting until peanut emergence increased injury regardless of rate. The Virginia market-type cultivar ‘NC-V 11’ was injured more by flumioxazin than the cultivars ‘Gregory’ or ‘Perry’. However, pod yield was not affected by flumioxazin even though significant injury was observed early in the season regardless of flumioxazin rate, application timing, or cultivar. Diclosulam was more effective than flumioxazin in controlling eclipta when these herbicides were applied PRE with metolachlor or following pendimethalin PPI. However, control by flumioxazin prevented yield loss when compared with metolachlor alone.}, number={2}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Jordan, David L. and Lancaster, Sarah H. and Lanier, James E. and Lassiter, Bridget R. and Johnson, P. Dewayne}, year={2009}, pages={231–235} }
 @article{jordan_lancaster_lanier_lassiter_johnson_2009, title={Weed Management in Peanut with Herbicide Combinations Containing Imazapic and Other Pesticides}, volume={23}, ISSN={["1550-2740"]}, DOI={10.1614/WT-08-041.1}, abstractNote={Research was conducted in North Carolina to compare weed control by various rates of imazapic POST alone or following diclosulam PRE. In a second experiment, weed control by imazapic applied POST alone or with acifluoren, diclosulam, or 2,4-DB was compared. In a final experiment, yellow nutsedge control by imazapic alone and with the fungicides azoxystrobin, chlorothalonil, pyraclostrobin, and tebuconazole was compared. Large crabgrass was controlled more effectively by imazapic POST than diclosulam PRE. Common lambsquarters, common ragweed, and eclipta were controlled more effectively by diclosulam PRE than imazapic POST. Nodding spurge was controlled similarly by both herbicides. Few differences in control were noted when comparing imazapic rates after diclosulam PRE. Applying either diclosulam PRE or imazapic POST alone or in combination increased peanut yield over nontreated peanut in five of six experiments. Few differences in pod yield were noted when comparing imazapic rates. Acifluorfen, diclosulam, and 2,4-DB did not affect entireleaf morningglory, large crabgrass, nodding spurge, pitted morningglory, and yellow nutsedge control by imazapic. Eclipta control by coapplication of imazapic and diclosulam exceeded control by imazapic alone. The fungicides azoxystrobin, chlorothalonil, pyraclostrobin, and tebuconazole did not affect yellow nutsedge control by imazapic.}, number={1}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Jordan, David L. and Lancaster, Sarah H. and Lanier, James E. and Lassiter, Bridget R. and Johnson, P. Dewayne}, year={2009}, pages={6–10} }
 @article{lassiter_burke_thomas_pline-srnic_jordan_wilcut_wilkerson_2007, title={Yield and physiological response of peanut to glyphosate drift}, volume={21}, ISSN={["0890-037X"]}, DOI={10.1614/WT-07-045.1}, abstractNote={Five experiments were conducted during 2001 and 2002 in North Carolina to evaluate peanut injury and pod yield when glyphosate was applied to 10 to 15 cm diameter peanut plants at rates ranging from 9 to 1,120 g ai/ha. Shikimic acid accumulation was determined in three of the five experiments. Visual foliar injury (necrosis and chlorosis) was noted 7 d after treatment (DAT) when glyphosate was applied at 18 g/ha or higher. Glyphosate at 280 g/ha or higher significantly injured the peanut plant and reduced pod yield. Shikimic acid accumulation was negatively correlated with visual injury and pod yield. The presence of shikimic acid can be detected using a leaf tissue assay, which is an effective diagnostic tool for determining exposure of peanut to glyphosate 7 DAT.}, number={4}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Lassiter, Bridget R. and Burke, Ian C. and Thomas, Walter E. and Pline-Srnic, Wendy A. and Jordan, David L. and Wilcut, John W. and Wilkerson, Gall G.}, year={2007}, pages={954–960} }