@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{jordan_wells_washburn_barnes_corbett_2022, title={Crop yield and estimated financial return from subsurface drip irrigation for corn, cotton, and peanut over the life of the system}, volume={8}, ISSN={["2374-3832"]}, DOI={10.1002/cft2.20167}, abstractNote={Core Ideas
Subsurface drip irrigation increased corn, cotton, and peanut yield in some (not all) years.
Financial returns over the irrigation system's life did not differ from dryland production.
Subsurface irrigation supports economic viability some years but not over the system's life.
}, number={2}, journal={CROP FORAGE & TURFGRASS MANAGEMENT}, author={Jordan, David and Wells, Randy and Washburn, Derek and Barnes, Steve and Corbett, Tommy}, year={2022} }
 @article{hare_jordan_edmisten_leon_post_vann_dunphy_heiniger_collins_washburn_2020, title={Response of agronomic crops to planting date and double-cropping with wheat}, volume={112}, ISSN={["1435-0645"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20164}, DOI={10.1002/agj2.20164}, abstractNote={AbstractPlanting date can affect crop yield and is an important management decision for practitioners. Although wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] can be effectively double‐cropped in North Carolina, if commodity prices and projected economic returns are higher for crops other than soybean, growers might consider a nontraditional, double‐crop system. Direct comparisons of major agronomic crops with different planting dates or in a double‐crop system with wheat are limited in North Carolina. Therefore, research was conducted in North Carolina from 2013 through 2017 to determine yield potential of corn (Zea mays L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench], peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.), and soybean planted at two dates within the recommended planting window for full‐season production versus planting these crops after wheat harvest. The experimental design was a split plot, with summer crop serving as the whole plot unit and planting date within a crop serving as the subplot unit. Yield of corn, cotton, grain sorghum, peanut, and soybean in full‐season production exceeded that of double‐cropping with wheat in 5, 5, 2, 4, and 5 yr out of 5 yr of the study, respectively. Estimated economic returns were generated using the 10‐yr average (2008–2017) summer crop prices with the 10‐yr average wheat price. When considering all possible combinations of years and crops (n = 25), in only 20% of the possible combinations was the economic return of the double‐cropping system greater than economic return of full‐season crop production when compared with at least one of the planting dates within the traditional planting window.}, number={3}, journal={AGRONOMY JOURNAL}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Hare, Andrew T. and Jordan, David L. and Edmisten, Keith L. and Leon, Ramon G. and Post, Angela R. and Vann, Rachel and Dunphy, E. James and Heiniger, Ronnie and Collins, Guy and Washburn, Derek}, year={2020}, pages={1972–1980} }