ARTICLES

Effect of Placement and Rate of PCNB and PCNB + Ethoprop On The Control Of Southern Stem Rot Of Peanut¹

Authors: A. K. Hagan , J. R. Weeks , K. Bowen

  • Effect of Placement and Rate of PCNB and PCNB + Ethoprop On The Control Of Southern Stem Rot Of Peanut¹

    ARTICLES

    Effect of Placement and Rate of PCNB and PCNB + Ethoprop On The Control Of Southern Stem Rot Of Peanut¹

    Authors: , ,

Abstract

Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB) 10G and PCNB + ethoprop 103G applied on 10-cm (narrow) and 25-cm (wide) band widths, respectively, were evaluated for the control of southern stem rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) and impact on yield of peanut. On-farm evaluations with PCNB were done in 1988 to 1990, while PCNB + ethoprop and diniconazole 25W were tested in 1989 and 1990. Narrow band width (10-cm) applications of the 5.6 kg a.i.ha rate of PCNB significantly reduced disease and increased yield all three years compared to the control; the 11.2 kg a.i.ha rate applied on the wide band width (25-cm) reduced stem rot incidence two of three years. The narrow and wide band width applications of PCNB + ethoprop at 5.6 + 1.7 kg a.i.ha and 11.2 + 3.3 kg a.i.ha resulted in reduced southern stem rot incidence and higher yields than the control. Disease control and yield response with PCNB + ethoprop were similar to those in plots treated with PCNB on the narrow and wide band widths. Diniconazole 25W, which was broadcast twice at 0.28 kg a.i.ha in 1989 and 1990, gave better disease control and higher yields than PCNB and PCNB + ethoprop only one of two years.

Full Article Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature

Keywords: Arachis hypogaea, Sclerotium rolfsii, Groundnut, white mold, Terraclor, Terraclor + Mocap, Spotless, quintozene

How to Cite:

Hagan, A. & Weeks, J. & Bowen, K., (1991) “Effect of Placement and Rate of PCNB and PCNB + Ethoprop On The Control Of Southern Stem Rot Of Peanut¹”, Peanut Science 18(2), p.94-97. doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-18-2-8

10 Views

4 Downloads

Published on
01 Jul 1991
Peer Reviewed

Author Notes

1Journal Article no. 18912921P of the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station. This study was funded in part by the Alabama Peanut Producers Association.