Components of Resistance to Late Leafspot in Peanut. I. Levels and Variability - Implications for Selection1

Chiteka, Z. A.; Gorbet, D. W.; Shokes, F. M.; Kucharek, T. A.; Knauft, D. A.

doi:10.3146/i0095-3679-15-1-8

Cited by 127 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Deighton] were rated immediately prior to harvest. The Florida 1-10 rating scale was used where 1 = no spots and 10 = complete defoliation by leaf spot, resulting in death (3). A visual estimate of plants with symptoms of tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) also was taken at this time.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response of Eight Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Cultivars to the Herbicide AC 263,222

Richburg¹,

Wilcut²,

Culbreath³

et al. 1995

Peanut Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field experiments conducted in 1992 and 1993 in Georgia evaluated the response of the peanut cultivars Florunner, Georgia Runner, Goldkist GK 7, NC 7, NC-VII, Southern Runner, Sunrunner, and AgraTech VC-I to AC263,222 applied early-postemergence (EPOST) at 71 g ha'. Visual injury, which was less than 13%, was independent of cultivar, and injury was not evident on any cultivar midseason. AC 263,222 slightly reduced canopy width consistently on all cultivars. The only significant effect on percentage fancy pods, medium, No.1, sound splits, damaged, and other kernels was the main effect of cultivar. There was a significant cultivar, AC 263,222, and cultivar-by-AC 263,222 effect on extra large kernels (ELK) and jumbo kernel percentages. Southern Runner and NC-Vll had Significantlylower percentage jumbo and ELK, respectively when treated with AC 263,222. In addition, Florunner and Sunrunner also had numerically less percentage jumbo kernels. Reductions in percentages of ELK and jumbo were probably the result of AC 263,222-induced maturity delays. However, these reductions were not reflected in peanut yields. The occurence oflate and early leaf spot, tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV),and southern stem rot was independent of both cultivar and AC 263,222.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response of Eight Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Cultivars to the Herbicide AC 263,222

Richburg¹,

Wilcut²,

Culbreath³

et al. 1995

Peanut Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Disease ratings were taken just prior to digging for early and late leaf spot using the Florida 1-10 scale (Chiteka, 1998) and just after digging for stem rot by counting the number of 30 cm long row segments with symptomatic plants (RodriguezKabana et al, 1975). Within the GG cultivar, 15 individual leaves collected at random from the upper canopy were visually analyzed in each spray treatment for early versus late leaf spot.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peanut Yield Response to Conservation Tillage, Winter Cover Crop, Peanut Cultivar, and Fungicide Applications1

Sorensen¹,

Lamb²

2010

Peanut Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strip tillage with various crop covers in peanut (Arachis hypogaea, L.) production has not shown a clear yield advantage over conventional tillage, but has been found to reduce yield losses from some diseases. This study was conducted to determine pod yield and disease incidence between two tillage practices, five winter cover crops, three peanut cultivars, and three fungicide programs. Conventional and strip tillage treatments were implemented on a Greenville sandy loam (fine, kaolinitic, thermic Rhodic Kandiudults) near Shellman, GA. Five winter cereal grain cover crops (strip tillage) and a no-cover crop treatment were sprayed at recommended (1R), half recommended (0.5R) or untreated (0R) fungicide programs. Within peanut cultivars, leaf spot (Cercospora arachidicola Hori) intensity decreased as the number of fungicide applications increased; however, stem rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) incidence was the same for the 1R and 0.5R fungicide programs but increased 0R program. Conventional tilled peanuts developed more leaf spot compared with strip tillage. There was no difference in leaf spot ratings among winter crop covers. There was no difference in stem rot incidence with tillage or winter cover crop. There was no yield difference with peanut cultivar. Pod yield was the same for the 1R and 0.5R fungicide program (3867 kg/ha) but decreased at the 0R fungicide program (2740 kg/ha). Pod yield was greater with conventional tillage and strip tillage with black oats (Avena sativa L.) (3706 kg/ha) compared with strip tillage of other winter crop cover treatments (3358 kg/ha). Conventional tillage had more leaf spot, equal incidence of stem rot, and higher yield compared with strip tillage. The 0.5R fungicide program had the same yield compared with the 1R fungicide program implying a possible 50% savings on fungicide applications on well rotated fields with lower disease risk.

show abstract

“…Plots were planted in late June and additional late evening irrigations were conducted during the last quarter of the growing season to make the environment more conducive for the development of the disease. The majority of symptoms were of early leaf spot and these were visually scored from 1-10 according to Florida scale for peanut leafspot (Chiteka et al 1988). Plots were rated at approximately 120 day after planting (DAP), and at harvest which was approximately 140 DAP.…”

Section: Field Experiments and Disease Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping QTLs for Leafspot Resistance in Peanut Using SNP-Based Next-Generation Sequencing Markers

Liang¹,

Baring²,

Wang³

et al. 2017

Plant Breed. Biotech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ABSTRACT Leafspot is one of the major diseases of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) that can cause more than 50% yield loss. The objective of this study was to identify and map quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for resistance to leafspot disease. An F2:6 recombinant inbred line (RIL) population, derived from a released cultivar Tamrun OL07 and a highly tolerant breeding line Tx964117, were used as a mapping population. A total of 90 RILs were planted for disease phenotyping in Yoakum, Texas in 2010 and 2012. A genetic map spanning the 20 linkage groups was developed using 1,211 SNP markers based on double digest restriction-site associated DNA sequencing (ddRAD-seq). A total of six quantitative trait loci (QTLs) were identified, with LOD score values of 3.2-5.0 and phenotypic variance explained ranging from 11%-24%. Major QTLs identified in this study may be used as potential targets for peanut improvement to leafspot disease through molecular breeding.

show abstract

Components of Resistance to Late Leafspot in Peanut. I. Levels and Variability - Implications for Selection1

Cited by 127 publications

References 0 publications

Response of Eight Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Cultivars to the Herbicide AC 263,222

Response of Eight Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Cultivars to the Herbicide AC 263,222

Peanut Yield Response to Conservation Tillage, Winter Cover Crop, Peanut Cultivar, and Fungicide Applications1

Mapping QTLs for Leafspot Resistance in Peanut Using SNP-Based Next-Generation Sequencing Markers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About