ARTICLES

Sensitivity of Rhizoctonia solani isolates to fungicides and evaluation of peanut cultivars to Rhizoctonia limb rot¹

Authors: J. S. Barnes , A. S. Csinos , W. D. Branch

  • Sensitivity of Rhizoctonia solani isolates to fungicides and evaluation of peanut cultivars to Rhizoctonia limb rot¹

    ARTICLES

    Sensitivity of Rhizoctonia solani isolates to fungicides and evaluation of peanut cultivars to Rhizoctonia limb rot¹

    Authors: , ,

Abstract

Twenty-one isolates were made from typical Rhizoctonia limb rot lesions of Florunner peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) and one each from a peanut pod and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata Walp.). Isolates of Rhizoctonia solani were characterized for sensitivity to three sterol-inhibiting fungicides, PCNB and chlorothalonil. Diniconazole, cyproconazole, and tebuconazole were the most effective inhibitors of radial growth, with a mean EC50 of 0.028, 0.056, and 0.166 μg/μL, respectively. EC50s for PCNB and chlorothalonil were 4.06 and 4.85 μg/mL, respectively. A technique to reproduce the disease in the greenhouse was developed and used to evaluate 18 peanut cultivars for resistance to limb inoculation with R. solani. NC 6, NC 7, New Mexico Valencia A, and Florunner were the most susceptible cultivars based on lesion length. Wounding before inoculation resulted in significantly increased lesion length for 15 of 18 cultivars. In a three-year (1986-88) field trial, NC 6, Florigiant, and NC 7 were the most susceptible cultivars, while VA 81B and Toalson appeared to be the most resistant.

Full Article Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature

Keywords: Rhizoctonia solani AG-4, Groundnut, soil-borne disease, Arachis hypogaea L

How to Cite:

Barnes, J. & Csinos, A. & Branch, W., (1990) “Sensitivity of Rhizoctonia solani isolates to fungicides and evaluation of peanut cultivars to Rhizoctonia limb rot¹”, Peanut Science 17(2), p.62-65. doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-17-2-4

15 Views

2 Downloads

Published on
01 Jul 1990
Peer Reviewed

Author Notes

1The use of trade names in this publication does not imply endorsement by the University of Georgia of the products named, nor criticism of similar ones not mentioned.