Management of Late Leaf Spot of Groundnut by Different Fungicides and Their Impact on Yield

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bharat Chandra Na ◽  
J. P. Singh ◽  
Seweta Srivastava ◽  
R. B. Singh
Keyword(s):  
Leaf Spot ◽  
Late Leaf Spot

2012–2016 On-Farm Evaluation of Fungicide Programs for Peanut Disease Control in Hamilton County, Florida

EDIS ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith W. Wynn ◽  
Nicholas S. Dufault ◽  
Rebecca L. Barocco
Keyword(s):  
Plant Pathology ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Leaf Spot ◽  
Fungal Disease ◽  
White Mold ◽  
Stem Rot ◽  
Late Leaf Spot ◽  
Fact Sheet ◽  
On Farm ◽  
Hamilton County

This ten-page fact sheet includes a summary of various fungicide spray programs for fungal disease control of early leaf spot, late leaf spot, and white mold/stem rot of peanut in 2012-2016 on-farm trials in Hamilton County. Written by K.W. Wynn, N.S. Dufault, and R.L. Barocco and published by the Plant Pathology Department.http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pp334

scholarly journals Registration of three peanut allotetraploid interspecific hybrids resistant to late leaf spot disease and tomato spotted wilt

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ye Chu ◽  
H. Thomas Stalker ◽  
Kathleen Marasigan ◽  
Chandler M. Levinson ◽  
Dongying Gao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Leaf Spot ◽  
Interspecific Hybrids ◽  
Leaf Spot Disease ◽  
Late Leaf Spot ◽  
Spot Disease ◽  
Tomato Spotted Wilt

scholarly journals Late Leaf Spot Severity and Yield of New Peanut Breeding Lines and Cultivars Grown Without Fungicides

Plant Disease ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 101 (11) ◽  
pp. 1843-1850 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian S. Jordan ◽  
Albert K. Culbreath ◽  
Timothy B. Brenneman ◽  
Robert C. Kemerait ◽  
William D. Branch
Keyword(s):  
Leaf Spot ◽  
Vegetation Index ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Organic Production ◽  
Canopy Reflectance ◽  
Cercospora Arachidicola ◽  
Early Season ◽  
Late Leaf Spot ◽  
Breeding Lines ◽  
Width Measurements

Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars with resistance or tolerance to Cercospora arachidicola and/or Cercosporidium personatum, the causes of early and late leaf spot, respectively, are needed for organic production in the southeastern U.S. To determine the potential of new breeding lines for use in such production systems, field experiments were conducted in Tifton, GA, in 2014 and 2015 in which nine breeding lines and two cultivars, Georgia-06G and Georgia-12Y, were grown without foliar fungicide applications. In one set of trials, cultivar Georgia-12Y and most of the breeding lines evaluated had early season vigor ratings, early-season canopy width measurements, final plant populations, and pod yield that were greater than those of standard cultivar Georgia-06G. In those trials, final late leaf spot Florida scale ratings were lower and canopy reflectance measured as the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), was higher all the breeding lines than those of Georgia-06G. In another set of trials, two of those same breeding lines had final late leaf spot ratings similar to those of Georgia-12Y in 2014, whereas in 2015, six of those breeding lines had final leaf spot ratings that were lower than those of Georgia-12Y. Yields were similar for Georgia-12Y and all the breeding lines in the Gibbs Farm trials. Across years and breeding lines at the Lang Farm, the relationship between visual estimates of defoliation and NDVI was described by a two sector piecewise regression with NDVI decreasing more rapidly with increasing defoliation above approximately 89%. The utility of NDVI for spot comparisons among breeding lines appears to be limited to situations where there are differences in defoliation. Georgia-12Y and multiple breeding lines evaluated show potential for use in situations such as organic production where acceptable fungicides available for seed treatment and leaf spot control are limited.

scholarly journals Resistance mechanisms of late leaf spot and rosette diseases in drought tolerant groundnut genotypes

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 012-027
Author(s):  
Khalid Elsiddig Mohammed ◽  
Nuwamanya Ephraim ◽  
Afutu Emmanuel ◽  
Enoch Wembabazi ◽  
Natasha Mwila ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Leaf Spot ◽  
Resistance Mechanisms ◽  
Late Leaf Spot ◽  
Drought Tolerant

Photosynthetic Consequences of Late Leaf Spot Differ between Two Peanut Cultivars with Variable Levels of Resistance

Crop Science ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 51 (6) ◽  
pp. 2741-2748 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maninder P. Singh ◽  
John E. Erickson ◽  
Kenneth J. Boote ◽  
Barry L. Tillman ◽  
Ariena H.C. van Bruggen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Leaf Spot ◽  
Late Leaf Spot ◽  
Peanut Cultivars

Effect of In-Furrow Application of Fluopyram on Leaf Spot Diseases of Peanut

Plant Disease ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Culbreath ◽  
Robert Kemerait ◽  
Timothy Brenneman ◽  
Emily Cantonwine ◽  
Keith Rucker
Keyword(s):  
Arachis Hypogaea ◽  
Leaf Spot ◽  
Fungal Pathogens ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Resistance Management ◽  
Feeding Damage ◽  
Early Season ◽  
Late Leaf Spot ◽  
Frankliniella Fusca ◽  
Tobacco Thrips

In peanut (Arachis hypogaea) production, in-furrow applications of the pre-mix combination of the SDHI fungicide/nematicide, fluopyram, and the insecticide, imidacloprid are used primarily for management of nematode pests and for preventing feeding damage on foliage caused by tobacco thrips (Frankliniella fusca). Fluopyram is also active against many fungal pathogens. However, the effect of in-furrow applications of fluopyram on early leaf spot (Passalora arachidicola) or late leaf spot (Nothopassalora personata) has not been characterized. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of in-furrow applications of fluopyram + imidacloprid or fluopyram alone on leaf spot epidemics. Field experiments were conducted in Tifton, GA in 2015, 2016, and 2018-2020. In all experiments in-furrow applications of fluopyram + imidacloprid provided extended suppression of early leaf spot and late leaf spot epidemics compared to the nontreated control. In 2020, there was no difference between the effects of fluopyram + imidacloprid and fluopyram alone on leaf spot epidemics. Results indicated that fluopyram could complement early season leaf spot management programs. Use of in-furrow applications of fluopyram should be considered as an SDHI fungicide application for resistance management purposes.

Applications of Mixtures of Copper Fungicides and Chlorothalonil for Management of Peanut Leaf Spot Diseases

2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. K. Culbreath ◽  
T. B. Brenneman ◽  
R. C. Kemerait
Keyword(s):  
Arachis Hypogaea ◽  
Leaf Spot ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Cercospora Arachidicola ◽  
Copper Oxychloride ◽  
Copper Hydroxide ◽  
Cercosporidium Personatum ◽  
Late Leaf Spot ◽  
Copper Fungicides

Management of early leaf spot (Cercospora arachidicola) and late leaf spot (Cercosporidium personatum) of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) in the southeastern U.S. is dependent upon multiple applications of foliar fungicides. Field experiments were conducted from 1997 to 2000 to compare the efficacy of mixtures of copper hydroxide or copper oxychloride and reduced rates of chlorothalonil with that of full rates of chlorothalonil alone or chlorothalonil + propiconazole. In all tests, rates per ha of 0.70 kg of chlorothalonil + 0.70 kg of copper oxychloride or higher provided leaf spot control that was similar (P > 0.05) to that achieved with standard rates of chlorothalonil (0.84 kg/ha) + propiconazole (0.063 kg/ha). Application of chlorothalonil at 0.56 kg/ha + copper oxychloride at 0.56 kg/ha controlled leaf spot as well as (P > 0.05) chlorothalonil alone at 1.26 kg/ha in five of six tests in which that treatment was evaluated. In three of four tests in 1998 and 1999, application of chlorothalonil at 0.63 kg/ha + copper hydroxide at 0.63 kg/ha controlled leaf spot as well as chlorothalonil alone at 1.26 kg/ha. In both tests in 2000, application of chlorothalonil at 0.84 kg/ha + copper hydroxide at 0.63 kg/ha controlled leaf spot as well as chlorothalonil alone at 1.26 kg/ha. There were no consistent yield differences among the chlorothalonil, chlorothalonil + propiconazole, or chlorothalonil + copper treatments. Accepted for publication 8 November 2001. Published 16 November 2001.

scholarly journals Registration of Early-Maturing, Rust, Late Leaf Spot, and Low Temperature Tolerant Peanut Germplasm Line ICGV 92267

Crop Science ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 2220-2221 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.D. Upadhyaya ◽  
S.N. Nigam ◽  
A.G.S. Reddy ◽  
N. Yellaiah
Keyword(s):  
Low Temperature ◽  
Leaf Spot ◽  
Late Leaf Spot ◽  
Early Maturing ◽  
Germplasm Line

Efficacy of Organically Acceptable Fungicides for Management of Early and Late Leaf Spot Diseases on Partially Resistant Peanut Cultivars

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. G. Cantonwine ◽  
A. K. Culbreath ◽  
B. B. Shew ◽  
M. A. Boudreau
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Copper Sulfate ◽  
Leaf Spot ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Disease Suppression ◽  
Yield Response ◽  
Cercospora Arachidicola ◽  
Late Leaf Spot ◽  
Cupric Hydroxide ◽  
Affect Disease Severity

Field experiments were carried out in Georgia and North Carolina to evaluate the efficacy of fungicides approved for the organic management of early leaf spot, caused by Cercospora arachidicola, and late leaf spot, caused by Cercosporidium personatum, in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) fields planted to cultivars with partial resistance to one or both pathogens. Copper treatments alone or in mixtures resulted in less disease than a non-treated control. In Georgia, sulfur provided some disease suppression, but not as much as treatments with copper sulfate. Neem oil did not affect disease severity. Mean pod yields across years were significantly greater than the non-treated control only for copper sulfate in Georgia and cupric hydroxide in North Carolina. The minimal yield response to treatments suggests that under similar situations, the frequency of copper-based fungicide applications may be reduced with little affect on yield. Accepted for publication 16 January 2008. Published 17 March 2008.

scholarly journals Management of Late Leaf Spot of Peanut with Benomyl and Chlorothalonil: A Study in Preserving Fungicide Utility

Plant Disease ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. K. Culbreath ◽  
K. L. Stevenson ◽  
T. B. Brenneman
Keyword(s):  
Leaf Spot ◽  
Fungicide Resistance ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Resistance Management ◽  
Model System ◽  
Systemic Fungicide ◽  
Cercospora Arachidicola ◽  
Pathogen Population ◽  
Late Leaf Spot ◽  
Sterol Biosynthesis Inhibitor

Recent registration of sterol biosynthesis inhibitor and strobilurin fungicides for control of early (Cercospora arachidicola) and late (Cercosporidium personatum) leaf spot diseases of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) has renewed interest in the potential for loss of disease control due to fungicide resistance. The objectives of this study were to use the systemic fungicide benomyl, the protectant fungicide chlorothalonil, and late leaf spot of peanut as a model system to compare fungicide application strategies for fungicide resistance management. Field experiments were conducted at Tifton and Plains, GA, in 1995 and 1996 to determine the effects of alternate applications, mixtures, and alternating block applications of chlorothalonil and benomyl compared with full-season applications of two rates of chlorothalonil and two rates of benomyl alone on late leaf spot of peanut and on the proportion of the pathogen population resistant to benomyl following the various regimes. Tank mix combinations of half rates of the two fungicides and alternations of the full rates of the two fungicides provided better (P ≤ 0.05) control of late leaf spot than full-season applications of either rate of benomyl alone, and were comparable to full rates of chlorothalonil alone. Neither tank mixes nor alternating sprays prevented an increase in the relative frequency of benomyl-resistant isolates compared with other treatments in which benomyl was used. Both mixtures and alternate applications of chlorothalonil and benomyl were effective for management of leaf spot in fields where benomyl alone did not provide season-long leaf spot control.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document