ARTICLES

Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Cultivar Response to Leaf Spot Disease Development Under Four Disease Management Programs¹

Authors: W. J. Grichar , B. A. Besler , A. J. Jaks

  • Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Cultivar Response to Leaf Spot Disease Development Under Four Disease Management Programs¹

    ARTICLES

    Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Cultivar Response to Leaf Spot Disease Development Under Four Disease Management Programs¹

    Authors: , ,

Abstract

Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) pod yield and response to early and late leaf spots caused by Cercospora arachidicola S. Hori and Cercosporidium personatum (Berk. & M. A. Curtis) Deighton, respectively were evaluated on six runner-type cultivars under four leaf spot spray programs using tebuconazole at 0.23 kg ai/ha and chlorothalonil at 1.26 kg ai/ha. The four leaf spot spray programs included unsprayed, 14-d schedule, 21-d schedule, and 28-d schedule. With the 14- and 21-d schedule, chlorothalonil was applied at the first and last applications with a maximum of four tebuconazole applications for the middle sprays. On the 28-d schedule, tebuconazole was applied four times. Under conditions of heavy leaf spot disease pressure where no fungicide was applied, Southern Runner and Georgia Browne were slightly less susceptible (although not significantly) to early or late leaf spot than Florunner, GK-7, Georgia Runner, or Sunrunner. Less leaf spot was present in the 14-d schedule compared to 21- or 28-d schedules. Although there was no yield difference between the 14-, 21-, or 28-d schedules, the plots sprayed on a 14-d schedule yielded 43% more than the unsprayed. When averaged across all spray schedules, Georgia Browne yielded 15% more peanuts than Georgia Runner.

Full Article Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature

Keywords: chlorothalonil, Groundnut, tebuconazole, pod yield

How to Cite:

Grichar, W. & Besler, B. & Jaks, A., (1998) “Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Cultivar Response to Leaf Spot Disease Development Under Four Disease Management Programs¹”, Peanut Science 25(1), p.35-39. doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-25-1-9

16 Views

13 Downloads

Published on
01 Jan 1998
Peer Reviewed

Author Notes

1 This research was supported by the Texas Peanut Producers Board. Use of trade or common name does not imply endorsement or criticism of the products by the Texas Agric. Exp. Sta. or judgement of similar products not mentioned.