Previous Cropping Sequence Affects Plant-Parasitic Nematodes and Yield of Peanut and Cotton More than Continuous Use of Fluopyram
by
,
Ethan Foote
1, 
David Jordan
1,*,
Adrienne Gorny
2,
Jeffrey Dunne
1,
LeAnn Lux
2,
Barbara Shew
2 and
Weimin Ye
3 1
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
2
Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Box 7903, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
3
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 4300 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Crops 2025, 5(2), 12; https://doi.org/10.3390/crops5020012
Submission received: 8 October 2024
/
Revised: 18 February 2025
/
Accepted: 10 March 2025
/
Published: 20 March 2025
Abstract
:Cropping sequence can have a major impact on diseases, pests, nutrient cycling, crop yield, and overall financial return at the farm level for crops that are grown on an annual basis. In some cases, implementing an effective rotation sequence can allow growers to avoid using nematicides to suppress plant-parasitic nematodes. Two cropping system trials were established with ten rotations each in 1997 and have been maintained through 2022. From 2013 through 2019, rotation sequences were both favorable and unfavorable for peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) plant health. Peanut (2020), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) (2021), peanut (2022), and corn (Zea mays L.) (2023) were planted in all plots to determine the residual effects of the previous cropping sequence. In 2020, 2021, and 2022, fluopyram at 0.25 kg ai/ha was applied in the seed furrow at planting in the same area of each plot to determine if the response of nematode populations and crop yield to this nematicide differed based on previous crop sequence. Differences in nematode populations in soil and yield of peanut (2020 and 2022) and cotton (2021) were observed when comparing crop rotation sequences regardless of fluopyram treatment. Increasing the number of years peanut was in the rotation or including soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] rather than corn or cotton often resulted in higher populations of nematodes and a lower peanut yield. While fluopyram occasionally reduced nematode populations in soil and root injury from nematode feeding, the yield of peanut did not differ when comparing non-treated and fluopyram-treated peanut. When pooled over crop rotation sequence, peanut yield at Lewiston–Woodville was 5970 kg/ha vs. 6140 kg/ha for these respective treatments. At this location in 2021 and at Rocky Mount in 2019 and 2020, peanut yield for this comparison was 4710 vs. 4550, 5790 kg/ha vs. 6010 kg/ha, and 6060 kg/ha vs. 6120 kg/ha, respectively. These data indicate that previous crop sequences can influence crop yield more than the continuous use of fluopyram. Therefore, fluopyram is not recommended for application in the seed furrow at planting to suppress nematodes in cotton or peanut in North Carolina.
1. Introduction
Planting crops in a rotation sequence that effectively breaks the cycle of diseases and pests is an important element of sustainable cropping systems and integrated pest management [1,2]. Pathogens and plant-parasitic nematodes can become entrenched when crops that are susceptible to these pests are included in the rotation sequence, especially for peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) [3,4,5,6,7,8]. For example, corn (Zea mays L.) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) are considered favorable crops reducing pathogen and nematode populations that can negatively impact peanut health [7,8]. In contrast, soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] is a host for several important pathogens and nematodes that negatively impact peanut [9,10]. Peanut in North Carolina is often planted following corn, cotton, or sweetpotato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.]. Increasing the number of years these crops are grown between peanut plantings reduces pathogens and plant-parasitic nematodes [6,10]. While tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) and soybean are often grown on farms that produce peanut, these crops are problematic because they are susceptible to several economically important pathogens and plant-parasitic nematodes [10]. The cost of production for corn, cotton, tobacco, and sweetpotato is relatively high compared with soybean [11]. This makes soybean attractive in a portfolio of crops on a farm. However, given the potential negative impact of soybean on peanut through the promotion of pathogens including plant-parasitic nematodes, determining how the number of years that soybean is planted prior to peanut can assist practitioners in developing effective cropping sequences.
In North Carolina, the predominant parasitic nematodes that affect peanut are northern root-knot (Meloidogyne hapla Chitwood), peanut root-knot (M. arenaria race 1 Neal), sting (Belonolaimus longicaudatus Rau), lesion (Pratylenchus brachyurus Filipjev & Schuurmans-Stekhoven), and ring (Mesocriconema ornatum Raski) [10]. Current management practices include detection and diagnosis of nematode damage and species, rotation to a non-suitable host, and chemical control [10]. Aldicarb, metam sodium, and 1,3-dichloropropene can suppress nematode populations when applied prior to or at planting [10,12]. Fluopyram can also be applied in the seed furrow at planting to suppress nematodes [10,12]. Fluopyram inhibits succinate dehydrogenase in nematodes [13], and this compound has been effective in suppressing nematodes in several agronomic and horticultural crops when applied in the seed furrow at planting, as a seed coating, and to the soil surface after planting and in some cases after crops have emerged [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. In peanut production in Alabama and Florida, fluopyram was shown to increase peanut yield and decrease root galling in the presence of plant-parasitic nematodes compared to a non-treated peanut [12,24]. These experiments with peanut evaluated the efficacy of fluopyram in a single year with peanut. Information on the efficacy of fluopyram applied sequentially over multiple years has not been defined in the literature.
Jordan et al. [25] established cropping systems trials in 1997 that included corn, cotton, peanut, soybean, and wheat (Triticun aestivum L.) to determine how to crop sequence affects peanut response to cultivar selection and chemical inputs. These experiments were used to determine the effectiveness of fluopyram applied at planting in suppressing nematodes with different field histories of nematodes due to cropping sequence. With the exception of results reported by Foote et al. [26], there are no published reports in the peer-reviewed literature that compare the efficacy of fluopyram on plant-parasitic nematodes in peanut in North Carolina and the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Interactions of cropping sequence and fluopyram have not been defined in the peer-reviewed literature in peanut in the United States or in other peanut-producing regions. The objective of this research was to compare corn, cotton, and peanut yield; visual estimates of peanut canopy health and injury to roots caused by nematodes; and populations of plant-parasitic nematodes in soil when fluopyram was applied in the seed furrow each year over a three-year period following cropping sequences that included corn, cotton, and soybean in North Carolina
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Location, Variety, Tillage, and Cropping Sequences
The experiment was conducted in North Carolina at the Peanut Belt Research Station located near Lewiston-Woodville (36.07 N, −77.11 W) on a Norfolk loamy sand soil (fine-loamy, kaolinitic, thermic typic Kandiudults) and at the Upper Coastal Plain Research Station near Rocky Mount (35.08 N, −77.25 W) on a Norfolk loamy sand soil (fine-loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Typic Paleaquults). Crop sequences and tillage systems from 1997 (Lewiston-Woodville) and (Rocky Mount) through 2022 are presented in Table 1 and Table 2. The peanut cultivar Bailey II [27] was planted at both locations across the entire test area in 2019 and 2021. This cultivar expresses resistance to several economically important diseases but not plant-parasitic nematodes [10,27,28]. Cotton (Delta Pine Bollgard II Xtendiflex, Monsanto Co., St. Louis, MO, USA) in 2020 and corn (P1847VYHR, Pioneer International, Johnson City, IA, USA) in 2022 were planted across the entire test area. Conventional tillage included disking twice, field cultivating once, and sub-soiling and bedding. The depth of sub-soiling was 25 to 30 cm. Plot size was 12 rows wide (91 cm spacing) by 15 m at Lewiston-Woodville and 8 rows wide (91 cm spacing) by 15 m at Rocky Mount.
2.2. Fluopyram Application Methodology
Four rows of each plot were planted with imidacloprid (Admire Pro, Bayer CropScience) at 0.43 kg ai/ha or with imidacloprid plus fluopyram (Velum, Bayer CropScience) at 0.43 kg/ha plus 0.25 kg ai/ha in the seed furrow at planting in the same area of each plot in 2019 (peanut), 2020 (cotton), and 2022 (peanut). Pesticides were applied in 30 L/ha aqueous solution immediately after seed drop but prior to slit closure at a depth of 5 cm. Production and pest management practices for each crop were implemented to optimize yield and were administered uniformly across all cropping sequences and in-furrow treatments based on Cooperative Extension Service recommendations [10,29,30].
2.3. Data Recorded
A single rating to assess above-ground plant health was recorded within one week prior to digging pods and inverting vines. This timing of observation most likely reflected the full impact of nematodes on plant health and subsequent yield. Visual estimates of above-ground peanut health were recorded using an ordinal scale of 0 to 5 where 0 = a yellow canopy and 5 = a deep green canopy. Peanut pods were dug and vines inverted in late September based on pod mesocarp color [31]. Injury to roots caused by plant-parasitic nematodes was determined in 2021 using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 = no injury to roots and 10 = severe damage caused by nematode feeding and the presence of galling [32]. Populations of plant-parasitic nematodes in soil were determined in peanut during 2019, 2020, and 2022 by removing and bulking 10 soil cores from each plot to a depth of 20 cm two weeks prior to digging and vine inversion. A 500 cm3 sub-sample of soil from each plot was submitted to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Nematology division for nematode extraction, identification, and quantification using standard procedures [33,34].
2.4. Experimental Design and Data Analysis
The experimental design was a split-plot design with crop rotation sequences serving as whole plot units and fluopyram treatments serving as sub-plots. Each combination of crop sequence and fluopyram treatment was replicated four times. Data for yield of peanut (2019 and 2021), cotton (2020), and corn (2022); plant condition rating for peanut (2019 and 2020), injury to plant roots caused by nematodes (2021), and populations of plant-parasitic nematodes in soil (2019, 2020, and 2022) were subjected to ANOVA by year and location using the GLIMMIX procedure in SAS Version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) considering the factorial arrangement of treatments. Combinations of crop sequence and fluopyram treatment were considered fixed effects. Replication was considered a random effect. Data for plant-parasitic nematode population in soil were transformed to the natural log of the actual nematode population prior to analysis. For plots with a 0 value of nematode population, a value of 1 was used for the natural log transformation. Tukey’s HSD test was used to separate the means of main effects and interactions at p ≤ 0.05.
3. Results
3.1. Variation in Plant-Parasitic Nematode Population Across Locations and Years
Variation in population and density of plant-parasitic nematodes was observed at both locations (Table 3). When pooled over years, locations, and both treatment factors, populations of lesion, soybean cyst, stubby, and sting nematodes in soil were relatively low and ranged from 3 to 135/500 cm3. Ring, root-knot, and spiral nematode populations were relatively high at one or more site-year combinations. Differences in populations of the nematodes listed in Table 3 will be discussed in subsequent sections for each site-year combination based on the results of the analysis of variance.
3.2. Analysis of Variance for Peanut Plant Condition, Yield, and Root Injury at Lewiston-Woodville and Rocky Mount
At Lewiston-Woodville in 2019, plant condition and peanut yield were affected by the main effect of crop rotation sequence but not the main effect of fluopyram or the interaction of crop rotation sequence and fluopyram (Table 4). In 2021, plant condition was not affected by any treatment factor while crop rotation sequence affected peanut yield. Injury to peanut roots caused by nematodes was affected by the main effects of crop rotation sequence and fluopyram but not the interaction of these treatment factors. In contrast to yield response to crop rotation sequence for peanut (2019 and 2021), previous crop rotation did not affect the yield of cotton (2020) or corn (2022). Crop rotation sequence and fluopyram affected plant-parasitic nematode population in soil for some taxa but not all. There were no cases where crop rotation sequence and fluopyram interacted to significantly impact nematode populations in soil.
At Rocky Mount, crop rotation sequence did not impact plant condition rating for peanut in either year (Table 5). Peanut yield was affected by crop rotation in 2019 but not in 2021. Cotton yield in 2020 was affected by crop rotation sequence while corn yield in 2022 was not affected by this treatment factor. Fluopyram did not affect the plant condition rating or yield of any of the crops. Crop rotation sequence affected plant-parasitic nematode population in some cases in 2019 and 2020 but not in 2021. Fluopyram had an effect on the spiral nematode population in cotton in 2020. There was no interaction of crop rotation sequence and fluopyram for any of the nematodes present in the study.
3.3. Peanut Plant Condition, Yield, and Root Injury at Lewiston-Woodville
Plant conditions in 2019 ranged from 3.8 to 4.1 at Lewiston-Woodville when peanut was planted continuously or when every other year included corn or cotton separating peanut plantings from 2013–2019 (Table 6). When peanut was grown less often in the rotation, the plant condition rating ranged from 4.6 to 4.8. Peanut yield was lowest in both 2019 and 2021 when peanut was planted continuously from 2013 through 2019 compared with all other cropping sequences (Table 6). Differences in peanut yield were noted during both years for the other rotation sequences, although the ranking of yields varied among these rotations. In 2019, the highest yields were noted when two years of corn or cotton separated peanut plantings from 2013 through 2019 or when five years of either corn or cotton were planted between peanut plantings during this period of time. The yield was also high when corn followed cotton during the two years separating peanut plantings. Including soybean in the rotation resulted in yields similar to planting peanut every other year with corn or cotton and lower than when corn or cotton was substituted for soybean in the rotation sequence. In 2021, including corn in the rotation resulted in lower peanut yields compared with cotton in the rotation when these crops were alternated with peanut from 2013–2019 or when these crops were planted for five consecutive years between peanut plantings. Injury to peanut roots caused by nematodes was the greatest when continuous peanut was the cropping sequence (Table 6). However, injury to roots with this rotation sequence did not differ from the three other rotation sequences. Eight of the rotation sequences resulted in injury to roots that was similar with a range of 2.9 to 3.5.
3.4. Peanut Plant Condition and Yield at Rocky Mount
Peanut yield at Rocky Mount in 2019 was greater when soybean was in the rotation prior to peanut for three years compared with four years (Table 7). No difference in peanut yield was observed when soybean was planted in one, two, or three of the years and when soybean was not included in the rotation from 2015–2018. Cotton yield in 2020 was lower when one of five years of soybean was planted prior to peanut in 2019 compared with no soybean in the rotation or when soybean was planted two or three times in the rotation.
3.5. Plant-Parasitic Nematode Population at Lewiston-Woodville Based on Cropping Sequence
The lesion nematode population ranged from 8 to 74/500 cm3 when comparing cropping sequences at Lewiston-Woodville in 2020 (Table 8). Ring nematode population in 2019 ranged from 54 to 641/500 cm3. Continuous peanut had the lowest population for this nematode while the rotation of peanut–cotton–cotton had the greatest population. Root-knot nematodes were found in all three years of sampling. In 2019, the highest populations were noted with continuous peanut, when the rotation consisted of corn–peanut or cotton–peanut, and when soybean was planted in one year of the corn or cotton rotation (Table 8). In 2020, the highest level of this nematode was noted when corn was planted exclusively from 2014–2018. In 2021, the rotation of cotton-peanut had a higher root-knot nematode population than all other rotation sequences.
Soybean cyst nematode population ranged from 0 to 14/500 cm3 at Lewiston-Woodville in 2020 (Table 9). Stunt nematode population varied by rotation sequence from 2019–2020 but no clear trend in response to rotation sequence was observed. For both soybean cyst and stunt nematodes, populations were relatively low.
3.6. Plant-Parasitic Nematode Population at Rocky Mount Based on Cropping Sequence
At Rocky Mount, when cotton was planted from 2014–2018 and soybean was rotated in 2015 only or in 2015 and 2016, the ring nematode population was similar and ranged from 916–1698/500 cm3 (Table 10). The root-knot nematode in 2019 varied across rotation sequences but did not exceed 123/500 cm3. In cotton in 2020, more years of soybean in the rotation sequence generally resulted in higher lesion populations compared with fewer years of this crop.
For the spiral nematode population at Rocky Mount, the population was similar when soybean was planted in all years from 2015–2018 compared with populations when soybean was not in the rotation or when a single year of soybean was in the rotation (Table 11). The population of this nematode was similar when soybean was not included in the rotation sequence from 2015–2018 to rotations with soybean in one, two, or three years of the rotation sequence. The population of the stubby nematode varied across rotation sequences but did not exceed 178/500 cm3 for both years. Stunt nematode population was similar when soybean was not planted from 2015–2018 and when this crop was included for three and four years during this period of time.
3.7. Plant-Parasitic Nematode Population at Lewiston-Woodville and Rocky Mount Based on Fluopyram Treatment
When pooled over rotation sequences, less root injury was observed when fluopyram was applied in the seed furrow at planting compared with non-treated peanut (Table 12). Fluopyram reduced the population of ring and root-knot nematodes at this location. The spiral nematode population was also lower following fluopyram treatment at Rocky Mount in cotton in 2020. Even though fluopyram reduced root injury and population of nematodes in some instances, peanut yield in 2019 and 2021 and cotton yield in 2020 were not affected by fluopyram.
4. Discussion
Considerable variation in populations of plant-parasitic nematodes was noted within years based on previous cropping sequence, fluopyram treatment, location, and year of sampling. In many instances, populations of nematodes were relatively low and were unlikely to affect crop yield even though statistical differences were observed when comparing treatments [10]. Notable exceptions were root-knot nematodes at Lewiston-Woodville and ring and spiral nematodes at Rocky Mount in some years.
Peanut response to previous rotation sequences often followed previous findings where corn and cotton were more suitable rotation crops than soybean [10,25]. Consistent with other research [2,6,7,8,25,26], increasing the number of years between peanut plantings in a particular cropping system resulted in greater peanut yields.
At Rocky Mount, the lowest peanut yield was noted when soybean was planted in all years from 2015–2018 prior to planting peanut in 2019. These results were not unexpected given soybean is a host for several diseases and plant-parasitic nematodes that adversely affect peanut [9]. However, given the lower cotton yield when only one year of soybean was in the rotation, these results are inconclusive in terms of defining how multiple years of soybean affect cotton yield.
While fluopyram reduced populations of root-knot, ring, and spiral nematodes, and minimized root damage caused by nematodes, the impact of fluopyram was insignificant with respect to crop yield. Lack of a yield response may have been associated with relatively low populations of nematodes across many of the cropping sequences and years. Under the conditions of these experiments, fluopyram most likely would not be an effective input financially. Over three years of crops (e.g., cotton in one year and peanut in two years), the lack of a yield response suggests that farmers would take a significant financial loss if they decided to use fluopyram as a component of their annual pest management strategy for cotton and peanut. Additionally, there was no measurable effect of fluopyram on corn yield after the application of this nematicide for three consecutive years. However, there was also no difference in corn yield based on the previous cropping sequence irrespective of fluopyram treatment.
As expected, rainfall and temperature patterns varied across the four years of the experiment at both locations (Supplemental Tables S1–S8). However, there was not a clear pattern in the weather data that explained the response to fluopyram or crop yield. In fact, the lack of a yield response to fluopyram for peanuts in two years and cotton in one year suggests recommendations on fluopyram use are consistent when considering typical variation in weather patterns from year to year in non-irrigated production. For example, when peanut was grown at Lewiston-Woodville, the yield for the comparison of non-treated peanut vs. fluopyram-treated peanut was 5970 kg/ha vs. 6.140 kg/ha (2019) and 4710 kg/ha vs. 4550 kg/ha (2020). At Rocky Mount, these comparisons were 5790 kg/ha vs. 6010 kg/ha (2019) and 6060 kg/ha vs. 6120 kg/ha. It is also important to note that variation in crop response, most notably peanut, was observed due to the previous cropping sequence and that no benefits from fluopyram were found relative to crop yield. This was the case even when the crop sequence resulted in relatively high levels plant-parasitic nematodes in some instances that could be yield-limiting. When these findings are combined with other research in North Carolina when fluopyram was applied in a manner similar to the current study but with crop sequence and tillage comparisons [26], fluopyram application is not warranted for peanut and cotton in North Carolina.
Other research [12,24] demonstrated that fluopyram reduced damage from the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne aerinaria adequately to protect yield. Although not documented in our study, the predominant root-knot nematode is M. hapla in North Carolina [10]. Previous research suggests that M. aerinaria can be more yield-limiting than M. hapla [35], and suppression of M. aerinaria by fluopyram could have a positive impact on peanut yield. A major limitation of our research is lack of distinction among nematodes at the species level. More detail in identification would benefit future research efforts designed to address similar issues associated with the management of nematodes in cotton and peanut.
5. Conclusions
Results from these experiments point out the impact of previous crop rotation sequences on plant-parasitic nematode populations and crop yield. Developing effective cropping sequences that break pest cycles and optimize yield has long been a key tool in crop management and a cornerstone of integrated pest management. Results from these experiments indicate that fluopyram applied in the seed furrow at planting can reduce root injury from nematodes and populations of some plant-parasitic nematodes. However, the level of suppression offered by fluopyram did not result in a yield difference for cotton or peanut when applied repeatedly in the same area over three cropping cycles. Given differences in nematode populations and crop yield were observed when comparing previous crop sequences, combined with a lack of a yield response to fluopyram, this nematicide has limited utility in the cropping systems used in the current study. While the financial viability of cropping sequences must be considered, results from our research demonstrate that crop rotation sequence is a more effective tool to manage plant-parasitic nematodes than fluopyram. Based on our findings, fluopyram is not an effective nematicide to suppress nematode populations adequately to protect cotton or peanut yield. Therefore, fluopyram is not recommended for application in the seed furrow at planting for cotton or peanut in North Carolina.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/crops5020012/s1; Table S1. Lewiston-Woodville NC 2019; Table S2. Lewiston-Woodville NC 2020; Table S3. Lewiston-Woodville NC 2021; Table S4. Lewiston-Woodville NC 2022; Table S5. Rocky Mount NC 2019; Table S6. Rocky Mount NC 2020; Table S7. Rocky Mount NC 2021; Table S8. Rocky Mount NC 2022.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, D.J.; methodology, D.J.; statistical analysis, E.F. and D.J.; investigation, D.J., B.S., E.F. and W.Y.; resources, D.J.; data curation, D.J.; writing—original draft, D.J. and E.F.; writing—review and editing, D.J., E.F., A.G., J.D., L.L. and W.Y.; project administration, D.J.; funding acquisition, D.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was supported in part by funds provided by the North Carolina Peanut Growers Association and the North Carolina Agricultural Foundation.
Data Availability Statement
Send a request for data to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
Appreciation is expressed to staff at the Peanut Belt Research Station, the Upper Coastal Plain Research Station, and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Resources for technical assistance.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Anderson, R.L.; Bailey, K.L.; Peairs, F.B. Guidelines for integrating ecological principles of pest management with rotation design. In Dryland Agriculture; Peterson, G.A., Unger, P.W., Payne, W.A., Eds.; Agronomy Monograph; ASA and SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 2006; Volume 23, pp. 195–225. [Google Scholar]
- Lamb, M.C.; Davidson, J.I.; Butts, C.L. Peanut yield decline in the southeast and economically reasonable solutions. Peanut Sci. 1993, 20, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barker, K.R.; Olthof, T.H.A. Relationships between nematode population densities and crop responses. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1976, 14, 327–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Culbreath, A.K.; Beute, M.K.; Shew, B.B.; Barker, K.R. Effects of Meloidogyne hapla and M. arenaria on black rot severity in new Cylindrocladium-resistant peanut genotypes. Plant Dis. 1992, 76, 352–357. [Google Scholar]
- Diomande, M.; Beute, M.K. Effects of Meloidogyne hapla and Macroposthonia ornate on Cylindrocladium Black Rot of Peanut. Ecol. Epidemiol. 1981, 71, 491–496. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, W.C., III; Brenneman, T.B.; Baker, S.H.; Johnson, A.W.; Sumner, D.R.; Mullinix, B.G., Jr. Tillage and pest management considerations in a peanut–cotton rotation in the southeastern Coastal Plain. Agron. J. 2001, 93, 570–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodriguez-Kabana, R.; Ivey, H.; Backman, P.A. Peanut-cotton rotations for management of Meloidogyne arenaria. J. Nematol. 1987, 19, 484–487. [Google Scholar]
- Rodriguez-Kabana, R.; Touchton, J.T. Corn and sorghum rotations for management of Meloidogyne arenaria in peanut. Nematropica 1984, 14, 26–36. [Google Scholar]
- Rodriguez-Kabana, R.; Robertson, D.G.; King, P.S. Control of nematodes in peanut and soybean with metam-sodium. Nematropica 1987, 17, 31–43. [Google Scholar]
- Jordan, D.L.; Auman, D.; Brandenburg, R.L.; Buol, G.; Collins, A.; Dunne, J.; Foote, E.; Gorny, A.; Lux, L.; Reisig, D.; et al. Peanut Information 2024; North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service AG-331: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- Washburn, D. 2025 Crop Comparison Tool; North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2025; Available online: https://cals.ncsu.edu/agricultural-and-resource-economics/extension/business-planning-and-operations/enterprise-budgets/ (accessed on 1 February 2025).
- Hagan, A.K.; Bowen, K.L.; Strayer-Scherer, A.; Campbell, H.L.; Parker, C. Evaluation of fluopyram for disease and root knot nematode control along with yield response on peanut. Crop Prot. 2024, 175, 106459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sylvia, A.; Schleker, S.; Rist, M.; Matera, C.; Damijonaitis, A.; Collienne, U.; Matsuoka, K.; Samer, K.; Habash, S.; Twelker, K.; et al. Mode of action of fuopyram in plant parasitic nematodes. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 11954. [Google Scholar]
- Grabau, Z.J.; Liu, C.; Schumacher, L.A.; Small, I.M.; Wright, D.L. In-furrow fluopyram nematicide efficacy for Rotylenchulus reniformis management in cotton production. Crop Prot. 2021, 140, 105423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaeyeong, H.; Ficca, A.; Kleczewski, N.; Schroeder, N. Effect of fluopyram on Pratylenchus penetrans on corn in thefield and in vitro. Plant Dis. 2024, 108, 342–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, X.; Li, J.; Dong, B.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, S.; Qiao, K. Evaluation of fluopyram for southern root-knot nematode management in tomato production in China. Crop Prot. 2019, 122, 84–89. [Google Scholar]
- Kammerer, C.L.; Harmon, P.F.; Crow1, W.T. Reduced sensitivity to fluopyram in Meloidogyne graminis following long-term exposure in golf turf. J. Nematol. 2023, 55, 20230048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, J.; Wang, C.; Bangash, S.H.; Lin, H.; Zeng, D.; Tang, W. Efficacy of fluopyram applied by chemigation on controlling eggplant root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) and its effects on soil properties. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0235423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myers, R.; Bushe, B.; Mellow, C.; Lichty, J.; Hara, A.; Wang, K.; Sipes, B. Yield increases in burrowing nematode-infested Anthurium with fluopyram and trifloxystrobin applications. HortTechnology 2024, 30, 603–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roth, M.G.; Jacobs, J.L.; Napieralski, S.; Byrne, A.M.; Stouffer-Hopkins, A.; Warner, F.; Chilvers, M.I. Fluopyram suppresses population densities of Heterodera glycines in field and greenhouse studies in Michigan. Plant Dis. 2020, 104, 1305–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Storelli, A.; Keiser, A.; Eder, R.; Jenni, S.; Kiewnick, S. Evaluation of fluopyram for the control of Ditylenchus dipsaci in sugar beet. J. Nematol. 2020, 52, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stucky, T.; Dahlin, P. Fluopyram: Optimal application time point and planting hole treatment to control Meloidogyne incognita. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grabau, Z.J.; Mauldin, M.D.; Habteweld, A.; Carter, E.T. Nematicide efficacy at managing Meloidogyne arenaria and non-target effects on free-living nematodes in peanut production. J. Nematol. 2020, 52, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Kemerait, R.C.; Walls, J.T.; Brenneman, T.B.; Rucker, K.; Hunt, D. Assessment of fluopyram for management of the peanut root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne arenaria (Abstr.). Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 2013, 45, 22. [Google Scholar]
- Jordan, D.L.; Corbett, T.; Bogle, C.; Shew, B.; Brandenburg, R.; Ye, W. Effect of previous rotation on plant parasitic nematode population in peanut and crop yield. Crop Forage Turfgrass Manag. 2017, 3, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Foote, E.; Jordan, D.; Gorny, A.; Dunne, J.; Lux, L.; Ahumada, D.; Shew, B.; Brandenburg, R.; Ye, W. Influence of cropping sequence and tillage system on plant-parasitc nematodes and peanut (Arachis hypogaea) response to fluopyram applied at planting. Agronomy 2024, 14, 875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anonymous. Peanut Varieties; North Carolina Crop Improvement Association: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2023; Available online: https://www.nccrop.com/varieties.php/6/Peanut (accessed on 1 February 2025).
- Isleib, T.G.; Milla-Lewis, S.R.; Pattee, H.E.; Copeland, S.C.; Zuleta, M.C.; Shew, B.B.; Hollowell, J.E.; Sanders, T.H.; Dean, L.O.; Hendrix, K.W.; et al. Registration of “Bailey” peanut. J. Plant Regist. 2011, 5, 27–39. [Google Scholar]
- Stowe, K.D.; Crozier, C.; Bullen, G.; Dunphy, J.; Everman, W.; Hardy, D.; Washburn, D. North Carolina Soybean Production Guide; North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service AG-835: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Heiniger, R.; Spears, J.; Bowman, D.T.; Dunphy, J. Corn Production Guide; North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service AG-590: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, E.J.; Drexler, J.S. A non-destructive method for determining peanut pod maturity, pericarp, mesocarp, color, morphology, and classification. Peanut Sci. 1981, 8, 134–141. [Google Scholar]
- Zeck, W. A rating scheme for field evaluation of root-knot nematode infestations. Pflanzenshutz-NachrichtenBayer 1971, 24, 141–144. [Google Scholar]
- Byrd, D.W., Jr.; Barker, K.R.; Ferris, H.; Nusbaum, C.J.; Griffin, W.E.; Small, R.H.; Stone, C.A. Two semi-automatic elutriators for extracting nematodes and certain fungi from soil. J. Nematol. 1976, 8, 206–212. [Google Scholar]
- Jenkins, W.R. A rapid centrifugal-floatation technique for separating nematodes from soil. Plant Dis. Rep. 1964, 48, 692. [Google Scholar]
- Koenning, S.R.; Barker, K.R. Relative damage functions and reproductive potentials of Meloidogyne arenaria and M. hapla on peanut. J. Nematol. 1992, 24, 187–192. [Google Scholar]
Table 1.
Cropping sequences at Lewiston-Woodville from 1997–2022.
| Cropping Sequences | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| 1997 | Corn | Cotton | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Corn | Peanut | Corn | Peanut |
| 1998 | Peanut | Peanut | Cotton | Cotton | Soybean | Soybean | Cotton | Corn | Soybean | Peanut |
| 1999 | Corn | Cotton | Corn | Cotton | Corn | Cotton | Corn | Corn | Cotton | Peanut |
| 2000 | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut |
| 2001 | Corn | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Soybean | Soybean | Corn | Corn | Cotton | Peanut |
| 2002 | Peanut | Peanut | Corn | Cotton | Corn | Cotton | Corn | Corn | Cotton | Peanut |
| 2003 | Corn | Cotton | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Corn | Peanut | Cotton | Peanut |
| 2004 | Peanut | Peanut | Cotton | Cotton | Soybean | Soybean | Corn | Corn | Cotton | Peanut |
| 2005 | Corn | Cotton | Corn | Cotton | Corn | Cotton | Corn | Corn | Cotton | Peanut |
| 2006 | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut |
| 2007 | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn |
| 2008 | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean |
| 2009 | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn |
| 2010 | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean | Wheat/ Soybean |
| 2011 | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn |
| 2012 | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton |
| 2013 | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut |
| 2014 | Corn | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Soybean | Soybean | Corn | Corn | Cotton | Peanut |
| 2015 | Peanut | Peanut | Corn | Cotton | Corn | Cotton | Corn | Corn | Cotton | Peanut |
| 2016 | Corn | Cotton | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Corn | Peanut | Cotton | Peanut |
| 2017 | Peanut | Peanut | Cotton | Cotton | Soybean | Soybean | Corn | Corn | Cotton | Peanut |
| 2018 | Corn | Cotton | Corn | Cotton | Corn | Cotton | Corn | Corn | Cotton | Peanut |
| 2019 | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut |
| 2020 | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton |
| 2021 | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut |
| 2022 | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn |
Table 2.
Cropping sequences at Rocky Mount from 1997–2022.
| Cropping Sequences | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| 1997 | Corn | Cotton | Peanut | Peanut | Corn |
| 1998 | Peanut | Peanut | Corn | Soybean | Cotton |
| 1999 | Corn | Cotton | Corn | Cotton | Corn |
| 2000 | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut |
| 2001 | Corn | Cotton | Corn | Soybean | Corn |
| 2002 | Peanut | Peanut | Corn | Cotton | Corn |
| 2003 | Corn | Cotton | Peanut | Peanut | Corn |
| 2004 | Peanut | Peanut | Corn | Soybean | Corn |
| 2005 | Corn | Cotton | Corn | Cotton | Corn |
| 2006 | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut |
| 2007 | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn |
| 2008 | Wheat/Soybean | Wheat/Soybean | Wheat/Soybean | Wheat/Soybean | Wheat/Soybean |
| 2009 | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn |
| 2010 | Wheat/Soybean | Wheat/Soybean | Wheat/Soybean | Wheat/Soybean | Wheat/Soybean |
| 2011 | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn |
| 2012 | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton |
| 2013 | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut |
| 2014 | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton |
| 2015 | Cotton | Soybean | Soybean | Soybean | Soybean |
| 2016 | Cotton | Cotton | Soybean | Soybean | Soybean |
| 2017 | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Soybean | Soybean |
| 2018 | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Soybean |
| 2019 | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut |
| 2020 | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton | Cotton |
| 2021 | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut | Peanut |
| 2022 | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn | Corn |
Table 3.
Plant-parasitic nematode taxa and average and range of population densities across all treatments at harvest at Lewiston-Woodville and Rocky Mount for cotton in 2020 and peanut in 2019 and 2021.
Table 3.
Plant-parasitic nematode taxa and average and range of population densities across all treatments at harvest at Lewiston-Woodville and Rocky Mount for cotton in 2020 and peanut in 2019 and 2021.
| Population of Plant-Parasitic Nematodes in Soil at Peanut Harvest (Range) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lewiston-Woodville | Rocky Mount | ||||||
| Nematode | Nematode Taxa | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 |
| No./500 cm3 | |||||||
| Lesion | Pratylenchus spp. | 16 (0–100) | 40 (0–220) | 24 (0–340) | 22 (0–70) | 37 (0–350) | 7 (0–130) |
| Ring | Criconematidae | 213 (0–2320) | 332 (0–1320) | 1138 (0–4840) | 1073 (0–5760) | 281 (0–1880) | 1923 (70–7640) |
| Root-knot | Meloidogyne spp. | 1063 (0–12,700) | 80 (0–2840) | 236 (0–6000) | 9 (0–110) | 84 (0–1000) | 1 (0–10) |
| Soybean cyst | Heterodera glycines Ichinohe | 3 (0–30) | 8 (0–60) | 4 (10–70) | - | 23 (0–170) | 7 (0–70) |
| Spiral | Helicotylenchus spp. | 7 (0–40) | 15 (0–240) | - | 40 (0–200) | 882 (0–7760) | 40 (0–280) |
| Stubby | Trichodorus obtusus Cobb | 7 (0–30) | 135 (0–470) | - | 12 (0–70) | 120 (0–280) | 3 (0–10) |
| Stunt | Tylenchorhyncus spp. | 33 (0–280) | 52 (0–120) | 24 (0–200) | 84 (0–400) | 86 (0–220) | 24 (0–120) |
Table 4.
Analysis of variance (F statistic and significance at p < 0.05) for plant condition rating and peanut yield in 2019 and 2021, injury to roots caused by plant-parasitic nematodes in 2021, cotton lint yield in 2020, corn yield in 2022, and population of plant-parasitic nematodes in the soil at Lewiston-Woodville.
Table 4.
Analysis of variance (F statistic and significance at p < 0.05) for plant condition rating and peanut yield in 2019 and 2021, injury to roots caused by plant-parasitic nematodes in 2021, cotton lint yield in 2020, corn yield in 2022, and population of plant-parasitic nematodes in the soil at Lewiston-Woodville.
| Peanut | Plant-Parasitic Nematode Populations in Soil | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | Plant Condition | Pod Yield | Root Injury | Cotton Lint Yield | Corn Grain Yield | Lesion | Ring | Root-Knot | Soybean Cyst | Stunt | Spiral |
| 2019 | |||||||||||
| Rotation | 4.1 * | 16.0 * | - | - | - | 1.4 | 4.1 * | 8.3 * | 0.9 | 2.8 * | 1.5 |
| Nematicide a | 0.3 | 2.2 | - | - | - | 0.8 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.4 |
| Rotation × Nematicide | 0.5 | 0.3 | - | - | - | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| 2020 | |||||||||||
| Rotation | - | - | - | 1.0 | - | 3.0 * | 1.9 | 3.2 * | 2.3 * | 2.7 * | 2.0 |
| Nematicide a | - | - | - | 2.1 | - | 4.7 * | 1.5 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 3.3 |
| Rotation × Nematicide | - | - | - | 0.2 | - | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| 2021 | |||||||||||
| Rotation | 1.3 | 4.8 * | 2.8 * | 0.9 | 1.2 | 7.4 * | 1.1 | 3.9 * | - | ||
| Nematicide a | 3.8 | 1.0 | 12.5 * | 3.8 | 11.4 * | 13.6 * | 0.1 | 2.1 | - | ||
| Rotation × Nematicide | 0.2 | 0.3 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 1.1 | - | ||
| 2022 | |||||||||||
| Rotation | - | - | - | - | 1.2 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Nematicide a | - | - | - | - | 0.1 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Rotation × Nematicide | - | - | - | - | 0.1 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
* Indicates significance at p ≤ 0.05. a Fluopyram applied at 0.25 kg/ha in the seed furrow at planting.
Table 5.
Analysis of variance (F statistic and significance at p < 0.05) for peanut yield and plant condition rating in 2019 and 2021, cotton lint yield in 2020, corn yield in 2022, and population of plant-parasitic nematodes in the soil at Rocky Mount.
Table 5.
Analysis of variance (F statistic and significance at p < 0.05) for peanut yield and plant condition rating in 2019 and 2021, cotton lint yield in 2020, corn yield in 2022, and population of plant-parasitic nematodes in the soil at Rocky Mount.
| Peanut Yield | Plant-Parasitic Nematode Populations in Soil | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | Plant Condition | Pod Yield | Cotton Lint Yield | Corn Grain Yield | Lesion | Ring | Root-Knot | Soybean Cyst | Stubby | Stunt | Spiral |
| 2019 | |||||||||||
| Rotation | 1.7 | 6.7 * | - | - | 0.8 | 2.5 * | 2.9 * | - | 5.5 * | 4.9 * | 2.3 |
| Nematicide a | 1.2 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.1 | - | 0.1 | 2.3 | 0.3 |
| Rotation × Nematicide | 0.1 | 0.3 | - | - | 0.8 | 1.3 | 0.5 | - | 2.9 | 0.8 | 1.6 |
| 2020 | |||||||||||
| Rotation | - | - | 5.5 * | - | 3.4 * | 1.4 | 6.3 * | 1.2 | 6.5 * | 2.2 | 2.3 * |
| Nematicide a | - | - | 0.4 | - | 1.1 | 0.1 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 1.9 | 4.1 * |
| Rotation × Nematicide | - | - | 0.2 | - | 0.2 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.6 |
| 2021 | |||||||||||
| Rotation | 2.5 | 2.5 | - | - | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 0.9 |
| Nematicide a | 0.4 | 0.1 | - | - | 1.6 | 0.1 | 1.6 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 2.8 |
| Rotation × Nematicide | 0.8 | 1.4 | - | - | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 0.6 |
| 2022 | |||||||||||
| Rotation | - | - | - | 0.7 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Nematicide a | - | - | - | 0.3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Rotation × Nematicide | - | - | - | 0.4 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
* Indicates significance at p ≤ 0.05. a Fluopyram applied at 0.25 kg/ha in the seed furrow at planting.
Table 6.
Influence of rotation sequence on peanut plant condition in 2019, peanut pod yield in 2019 and 2021, peanut root galling in 2021, and cotton yield in 2020 at Lewiston-Woodville a.
Table 6.
Influence of rotation sequence on peanut plant condition in 2019, peanut pod yield in 2019 and 2021, peanut root galling in 2021, and cotton yield in 2020 at Lewiston-Woodville a.
| Rotation Sequence from 2013–2022 b | Peanut Plant Condition c | Peanut Yield | Peanut Root Injury d | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2019 | 2019 | 2021 | 2021 |
| 0–5 scale | kg/ha | kg/ha | 0–10 scale | ||||||||||
| PN | CR | PN | CR | PN | CR | PN | CT | PN | CR | 4.0 b | 5180 c | 4070 dc | 3.1 c |
| PN | CT | PN | CT | PN | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 4.1 b | 5800 b | 5230 ab | 2.9 c |
| PN | CT | CR | PN | CT | CR | PN | CT | PN | CR | 4.8 a | 6700 a | 4970 abc | 3.0 c |
| PN | CT | CT | PN | CT | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 4.6 a | 6680 a | 4710 bcd | 4.1 ab |
| PN | SB | CR | PN | SB | CR | PN | CT | PN | CR | 4.7 a | 5830 c | 4770 a–d | 3.3 c |
| PN | SB | CT | PN | SB | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 4.7 a | 6010 bc | 4340 cd | 3.4 bc |
| PN | CR | CR | CR | CR | CR | PN | CT | PN | CR | 4.7 a | 6560 a | 4510 cd | 3.5 abc |
| PN | CR | CR | PN | CR | CR | PN | CT | PN | CR | 4.7 a | 6380 a | 4680 bcd | 3.5 abc |
| PN | CT | CT | CT | CT | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 4.8 a | 6780 a | 5490 a | 3.0 c |
| PN | PN | PN | PN | PN | PN | PN | CT | PN | CR | 3.8 b | 4640 e | 3530 e | 4.3 a |
a Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significant at p ≤ 0.05. Data are pooled over fluopyram treatments. b Abbreviations: CN, corn; CT, cotton; PN, peanut; SB, soybean. c Plant condition based on a scale of 0 to 100 where 0 = yellow peanut canopy and 5 = deep green peanut canopy. d Root injury based on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 = no injury and 10 = absence of roots other than the tap root with complete galling [32].
Table 7.
Influence of rotation sequence on peanut in 2019 and cotton yield in 2020 at Rocky Mount a.
Table 7.
Influence of rotation sequence on peanut in 2019 and cotton yield in 2020 at Rocky Mount a.
| Rotation Sequence b | Peanut Yield | Cotton Yield | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2019 | 2020 |
| kg/ha | kg/ha | ||||||||||
| PN | CT | CT | CT | CT | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 6420 a | 2910 a |
| PN | CT | SB | CT | CT | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 6080 ab | 1990 b |
| PN | CT | SB | SB | CT | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 6160 ab | 3070 a |
| PN | CT | SB | SB | SB | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 5630 b | 2690 a |
| PN | CT | SB | SB | SB | SB | PN | CT | PN | CR | 4970 c | 2120 b |
a Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significant at p ≤ 0.05. Data are pooled over fluopyram treatments. b Abbreviations: CN, corn; CT, cotton; PN, peanut; SB, soybean.
Table 8.
Influence of rotation sequence on lesion, ring, and root-knot nematode populations in soil at Lewiston-Woodville a.
Table 8.
Influence of rotation sequence on lesion, ring, and root-knot nematode populations in soil at Lewiston-Woodville a.
| Plant-Parasitic Nematode Population | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rotation Sequence from 2013–2022 b | Lesion | Ring | Root-Knot | |||||||||||
| 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2020 | 2019 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 |
| No./500 cm3 | ||||||||||||||
| PN | CR | PN | CR | PN | CR | PN | CT | PN | CR | 74 a | 61 cd | 2826 a | 71 b | 794 b |
| PN | CT | PN | CT | PN | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 47 abcd | 129 bc | 1697 a | 16 b | 2115 a |
| PN | CT | CR | PN | CT | CR | PN | CT | PN | CR | 40 abcd | 235 ab | 19 b | 146 b | 118 b |
| PN | CT | CT | PN | CT | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 15 cd | 641 a | 3 b | 6 b | 1 b |
| PN | SB | CR | PN | SB | CR | PN | CT | PN | CR | 35 bcd | 161 ab | 1013 ab | 12 b | 425 b |
| PN | SB | CT | PN | SB | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 48 abc | 155 bc | 2616 a | 22 b | 755 b |
| PN | CR | CR | CR | CR | CR | PN | CT | PN | CR | 8 d | 301 ab | 3 b | 499 a | 88 b |
| PN | CR | CR | PN | CR | CR | PN | CT | PN | CR | 32 cd | 305 ab | 21 b | 3 b | 140 b |
| PN | CT | CT | CT | CT | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 29 cd | 83 bc | 5 b | 6 b | 35 b |
| PN | PN | PN | PN | PN | PN | PN | CT | PN | CR | 66 ab | 54 d | 2427 a | 19 b | 554 b |
a Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significant at p ≤ 0.05. Data are pooled over fluopyram treatments. b Abbreviations: CN, corn; CT, cotton; PN, peanut; SB, soybean.
Table 9.
Influence of rotation sequence on soybean cyst and stunt nematode populations in soil at Lewiston-Woodville a.
Table 9.
Influence of rotation sequence on soybean cyst and stunt nematode populations in soil at Lewiston-Woodville a.
| Plant-Parasitic Nematode Population | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rotation Sequence from 2013–2022 b | Soybean Cyst | Stunt | |||||||||||
| 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 |
| No./500 cm3 | |||||||||||||
| PN | CR | PN | CR | PN | CR | PN | CT | PN | CR | 12 abc | 40 a | 6 b | 55 ab |
| PN | CT | PN | CT | PN | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 14 ab | 26 ab | 6 b | 60 a |
| PN | CT | CR | PN | CT | CR | PN | CT | PN | CR | 11 abc | 40 a | 0 b | 55 ab |
| PN | CT | CT | PN | CT | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 0 c | 35 a | 11 b | 40 abc |
| PN | SB | CR | PN | SB | CR | PN | CT | PN | CR | 2 c | 55 a | 0 b | 26 abc |
| PN | SB | CT | PN | SB | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 12 abc | 6 bc | 0 b | 16 bc |
| PN | CR | CR | CR | CR | CR | PN | CT | PN | CR | 4 bc | 51 abc | 0 b | 50 ab |
| PN | CR | CR | PN | CR | CR | PN | CT | PN | CR | 3 bc | 35 a | 6 b | 26 cde |
| PN | CT | CT | CT | CT | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 17 a | 35 a | 65 a | 21 bc |
| PN | PN | PN | PN | PN | PN | PN | CT | PN | CR | 7 abc | 0 c | 0 b | 0 c |
a Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significant at p ≤ 0.05. Data are pooled over fluopyram treatments. b Abbreviations: CN, corn; CT, cotton; PN, peanut; SB, soybean.
Table 10.
Influence of rotation sequence on ring, root-knot, and lesion nematode population in soil at Rocky Mount a.
Table 10.
Influence of rotation sequence on ring, root-knot, and lesion nematode population in soil at Rocky Mount a.
| Plant-Parasitic Nematodes | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rotation Sequence b | Ring | Root-Knot | Lesion | |||||||||
| 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2019 | 2019 | 2020 |
| No./500 cm3 | ||||||||||||
| PN | CT | CT | CT | CT | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 916 ab | 123 a | 20 bc |
| PN | CT | SB | CT | CT | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 1698 a | 3 b | 25 c |
| PN | CT | SB | SB | CT | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 935 ab | 10 ab | 11 d |
| PN | CT | SB | SB | SB | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 550 b | 3 b | 41 ab |
| PN | CT | SB | SB | SB | SB | PN | CT | PN | CR | 652 b | 1 b | 95 a |
a Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significant at p ≤ 0.05. Data are pooled over fluopyram treatments. b Abbreviations: CN, corn; CT, cotton; PN, peanut; SB, soybean.
Table 11.
Influence of rotation sequence on the spiral, stubby, and stunt nematode population in the soil at Rocky Mount a.
Table 11.
Influence of rotation sequence on the spiral, stubby, and stunt nematode population in the soil at Rocky Mount a.
| Plant-Parasitic Nematodes | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rotation Sequence b | Spiral | Stubby | Stunt | ||||||||||
| 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 |
| No./500 cm3 | |||||||||||||
| PN | CT | CT | CT | CT | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 843 ab | 15 ab | 96 bc | 55 abc |
| PN | CT | SB | CT | CT | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 845 ab | 9 b | 129 ab | 21 c |
| PN | CT | SB | SB | CT | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 150 b | 2 b | 39 c | 50 bc |
| PN | CT | SB | SB | SB | CT | PN | CT | PN | CR | 590 b | 7 b | 151 ab | 95 a |
| PN | CT | SB | SB | SB | SB | PN | CT | PN | CR | 1780 a | 24 a | 178 a | 70 ab |
a Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significant at p ≤ 0.05. Data are pooled over fluopyram treatments. b Abbreviations: CN, corn; CT, cotton; PN, peanut; SB, soybean.
Table 12.
Influence of fluopyram on peanut root galling and population of ring and root-knot nematodes in 2021 at Lewiston-Woodville and spiral nematode in 2020 at Rocky Mount a.
Table 12.
Influence of fluopyram on peanut root galling and population of ring and root-knot nematodes in 2021 at Lewiston-Woodville and spiral nematode in 2020 at Rocky Mount a.
| Population of Plant-Parasitic Nematodes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lewiston-Woodville, 2021 | Lewiston-Woodville, 2021 | Rocky Mount, 2020 | ||
| Nematicide b | Peanut Root Injury c | Ring | Root-Knot | Spiral |
| No./500 cm3 | ||||
| None | 3.7 a | 30 a | 763 a | 517 a |
| Fluopyram | 3.1 b | 12 b | 241 b | 116 b |
a Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significant at p ≤ 0.05. Data are pooled over cropping sequence. b Fluopyram applied at 0.25 kg/ha in the seed furrow at planting. c Root injury based on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 = no injury to roots and 100 = severe damage caused by nematode feeding and presence of galling [32].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Foote, E.; Jordan, D.; Gorny, A.; Dunne, J.; Lux, L.; Shew, B.; Ye, W. Previous Cropping Sequence Affects Plant-Parasitic Nematodes and Yield of Peanut and Cotton More than Continuous Use of Fluopyram. Crops 2025, 5, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops5020012
AMA Style
Foote E, Jordan D, Gorny A, Dunne J, Lux L, Shew B, Ye W. Previous Cropping Sequence Affects Plant-Parasitic Nematodes and Yield of Peanut and Cotton More than Continuous Use of Fluopyram. Crops. 2025; 5(2):12. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops5020012
Chicago/Turabian StyleFoote, Ethan, David Jordan, Adrienne Gorny, Jeffrey Dunne, LeAnn Lux, Barbara Shew, and Weimin Ye. 2025. "Previous Cropping Sequence Affects Plant-Parasitic Nematodes and Yield of Peanut and Cotton More than Continuous Use of Fluopyram" Crops 5, no. 2: 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops5020012
APA StyleFoote, E., Jordan, D., Gorny, A., Dunne, J., Lux, L., Shew, B., & Ye, W. (2025). Previous Cropping Sequence Affects Plant-Parasitic Nematodes and Yield of Peanut and Cotton More than Continuous Use of Fluopyram. Crops, 5(2), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/crops5020012
