Introduction

1. Observations From Other Experiments Objectives and Treatments Conclusions Introduction Surface drip (SD) irrigation of field crops in the Southeastern United States has been gaining interest (Figure 1). However, rodent damage from Hisbid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), house mouse (Mus musculus), and Eastern harvest mouse, (Reithrodontomys humulis) is one of the major obstacles for SD success. Rodent damage of SD tubing in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and corn (Zea mays) is manageable, but peanut (Arachis hypogaea) has a much more dense and low growing canopy, which is more favorable for rodent habitat. Previous experiments show 25 times more rodent damage to SD tubing in peanut compared with cotton and corn. A single hole from rodent damage causes significant pressure loss and may affect a whole SD irrigation line (Figures 3-6). No methods to protect SD tubing from rodent damage have been developed for peanut. This research documents the effectiveness of several rodent management tools for SD in peanut. • Identify a cost effective means to protect drip tubing from rodent damage • Compare repellant, insecticide, and rodenticide chemicals • Untreated • Lannate® (methomyl) 12.5 ml/L @ 25 L/ha • Ropel® (benzyidlethyl) 50 % v/v @ 25 L/ha • Orthene® (acephate) 24 g/L @ 25 L/ha • Contrac Blox® (bromadiolone) 185 units/ha • Evaluate thickness of drip tubing material for leak resistance and longevity • 0.20 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.38 mm • Drip tubing laid on the soil surface has no protection from rodent damage • Chemical treatment banded over SD tubing adds no protection • Thicker tubing was more attractive to rodents, and received 3 times the • damage of thinner tubing • Is rodent behavior linked to the typical Goldielocks Syndrome? • A light covering of soil/crop debris over SD tubing provides acceptable protection • Minimal rodent damage on SD tubing has been documented in cotton and corn • Rodent damage to SD tubing in peanut increased near grass borders • Conversely, rodent damage was reduced in plots with clean tilled borders Non -Irrigated Figure 3. Drip tubing with emitter (~1.5 mm). Figure 4. Pressurized drip tubing with water exiting the emitter. Irrigated Figure 1. Supplemental irrigation is important for peanut in the Southeast. Fig 4. Fig 3. Figure 5. Typical rodent damage on edge or fold of drip tubing. Results • Chemical treatments did not deter rodent damage to SD tubing (Table 1) • Thicker tubing received 3 times the damage of thinner tubing (Table 2) • Regardless of tubing thickness, damage was so extensive that it was more • economical to replace than to repair the tubing Field Layout and Experimental Design Table 1. Rodent damage of SD tubing with various treatments. Figure 6. Severe rodent damage. Chemical Untreated Lannate Ropel Orthene C. Blox Position 1 Holes/ha 1650 A 2370 A 1980 A 1370 A 1500 A Position 2 Position 3 Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Position 4 Chemical Treatments Table 2. Rodent damage of SD tubing with different wall thickness. Untreated Lannate Ropel Orthene C. Blox Tube Thickness 0.20 mm 0.25 mm 0.38 mm Holes/ha 800 A 1880 AB 2630 B Tubing Thickness Materials and Methods Figure 2. Surface drip tubing installation. • Clean tilled – cultivar ‘Georgia green’ – 0.9 m rows – SD tubing spacing 1.8 m • Planted 05 May; Harvested 25 September 2005 • Weed/disease control was according to accepted BMP by Univ. of GA • Tubing was installed before crop emergence (Figure 2) • Chemical treatments banded over tubing prior to canopy closure • 5 treatments, 3 tubing thicknesses, 4 field positions, 3 replications = 180 plots (Figure 7) • Irrigation was determined at 80% of IrrigatorPro recommendations for Peanut • Tubing evaluated visually prior to harvest in 40’ (15 m) lengths by position (Figure 5) • Peanuts harvested using conventional two-row equipment • RCBD; ANOVA by Statistix 8 at P<0.05 0.20 mm 0.25 mm 0.38 mm Figure 7. Rodent Management for Surface Drip Irrigation in PeanutRonald Sorensen, Russell Nuti*, and Marshall LambUSDA-ARS/National Peanut Research Laboratory; 1011 Forrester Dr., SE; Dawson, GA 39842 12 mm Mention of trade names or commercial products is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Special acknowledgement is given to Ernest Yoder for technical input and daily responsibilities involved with completing this research.