ARTICLES

Variation in Yield and Resistance to Southern Stem Rot Among Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Lines Selected for Pythium Pod Rot Resistance¹

Authors: W. James Grichar , O. D. Smith

  • Variation in Yield and Resistance to Southern Stem Rot Among Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Lines Selected for Pythium Pod Rot Resistance¹

    ARTICLES

    Variation in Yield and Resistance to Southern Stem Rot Among Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Lines Selected for Pythium Pod Rot Resistance¹

    Authors: ,

Abstract

Five Spanish and seven runner peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) genotypes and five check cultivars were compared for southern blight susceptibility on heavily Sclerotium rolfsii-infested soil. Inoculum density of S. rolfsii at the test site was enhanced by continuous years of residue management. The genotypes derived from crosses with PI 365553 and PI 475871 were selected based on reaction to Pythium pod rot and agronomic performance. Variation for southern blight incidence occurred among lines in both runner and Spanish genotypes. Disease incidence was lower in four runner genotypes, Southern Runner, and TxAG-3 than in Okrun and Florunner. Significantly (p=.05) less disease occurred in one breeding line, Tx855138, than in other Spanish entries. Three-year average yields of runner genotypes ranged to 25% higher than runner cultivars, while Tx855138 averaged 50% higher in yield than Tamnut 74. Over entries, the coefficients of correlation for yield and southern blight incidence, and southern blight incidence and disease discolored pods were not statistically significant.

Full Article Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature

Keywords: Groundnut, Southern Stem Rot, soil-borne disease

How to Cite:

Grichar, W. & Smith, O., (1992) “Variation in Yield and Resistance to Southern Stem Rot Among Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Lines Selected for Pythium Pod Rot Resistance¹”, Peanut Science 19(1), p.55-58. doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-19-1-15

15 Views

4 Downloads

Published on
01 Jan 1992
Peer Reviewed

Author Notes

1Contribution from the Texas Agri. Exp. Stn., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TA No. 30526. Mention of a trademark or proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the product and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that may be suitable. This publication was made possible through support provided by the Office of Agriculture, Bureau for Science and Technology, U.S. Agency for International Development, under Grant No. DAN-4048-G-00004100. Recommendations do not represent an official position or policy of USAID.