Effects of new field resistant cultivars and in-furrow applications of phorate insecticide on tomato spotted wilt of peanut

Culbreath, A. K.; Selph, A.C.; Williams, B.; Kemerait, Robert C.; Srinivasan, Rajagopalbabu; Abney, Mark; Tillman, Barry L.; Holbrook, C. C.; Branch, W. D.

doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2015.12.002

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For simplicity, only phytotoxicity results from 24 to 29 DAP are presented. Across both years and locations (EREC and PREC) and consistent with previous research demonstrating that phorate can injure peanut seedlings (Culbreath et al, 2003;Culbreath et al, 2016;Culbreath and Srinivasan 2011;Herbert et al, 2007;Hurt et al, 2005;Tubbs et al, 2015), peanut treated with phorate generally expressed higher levels of phytotoxicity than those treated with imidacloprid or not treated with insecticide (Table 3). Insecticide was consistently significant at P , 0.01.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Insecticide treatment was also significant (P , 0.02), with the exception of PREC in 2017 where insecticide was marginally significant at P ¼ 0.091. In combined data, peanut with phorate had statistically lower incidence compared to imidacloprid (Table 6) (9.9 vs. 16.5%, respectively), which reflected previous studies (Culbreath et al, 2003;Culbreath et al, 2008;Culbreath et al, 2016;Culbreath and Srinivasan 2011;Hurt et al, 2005). Susceptibility 3 insecticide affected incidence of SWP at EREC and CPES in 2017, as well as at PREC and CPES in 2018, and this interaction was moderately significant in the combined data (P ¼ 0.0547).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

“…SAP has been used in agricultural applications before (Bai et al, 2013;de Barros et al, 2017;Bhardwaj et al, 2007;Busscher et al, 2009;Campos et al, 2015;Dehkordi 2016;Ekebafe et al, 2011;Hayat and Ali 2004;Pouci et al, 2008;Sojka and Lentz 1997), but to our knowledge, this was the first study to examine its utility in the peanut -Tomato spotted wilt virus system. Spotted wilt incidence in different cultivars and treatment regimens (in the absence of SAP) has been the subject of several prior studies (Branch et al, 2003;Culbreath et al, 2000;Culbreath et al, 2016;Drake et al, 2009;Herbert Jr. et al, 1991;Lynch et al, 1984;Marasigan et al, 2018). As such, while the present study sought to examine treatment effects across cultivars with varying susceptibility, cultivar susceptibility-level comparisons were not the focus of this work.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of insecticides applied in-furrow with superabsorbent polymer on peanut cultivars infected with Tomato spotted wilt virus

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spotted wilt of peanut (SWP) ( Arachis hypogaea L.) caused by Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV; family Tospoviridae, genus Orthotospovirus) is a common disease that causes severe economic losses in peanut producing regions of the world. The causal agent is transmitted by thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Field experiments were conducted in 2017 and 2018 to determine if management of spotted wilt and subsequent productivity of peanut, including economic value, could benefit from applying a superabsorbent polymer (SAP) with standard in-furrow insecticides at planting. To determine this, two individual experiments were performed. In the first study, phorate and imidacloprid were individually applied with (2.24 kg/ha) or without SAP across cultivars susceptible (FloRun 157 or TUFRunner 511), moderately susceptible (Georgia 06G), and resistant (Sullivan or TifNV-High O/L) to TSWV. Nontreated controls were included in all experiments. The second study sought to determine the efficacy of different rates of SAP (0, 2.24, 5.6, and 8.97 kg/ha). The initial study was conducted in three locations across South Carolina and Georgia, while the second was conducted at Blackville, SC. In the first study, incidence of SWP was reduced (P = 0.0547) in multiple location-year analysis with a reduction of 9.4% observed in susceptible cultivars treated with phorate compared to untreated checks and those with imidacloprid. SAP did not affect final SWP incidence or economic value (P > 0.05) and was not consistently significant for yield. From the SAP rate study, a linear relationship of decreasing SWP incidence was observed with increasing SAP application rates for both imidacloprid and phorate in 2017 and 2018. On a means comparison basis, SWP was lower than the no-SAP check at SAP rates of 5.56 and 8.97 kg/ha, but this did not necessarily translate into increased yield. Additional experiments are needed to elucidate the relationship superabsorbent polymer may have to susceptible cultivars and phorate.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of insecticides applied in-furrow with superabsorbent polymer on peanut cultivars infected with Tomato spotted wilt virus

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As observed in our and other studies, bacterial wilt significantly reduced peanut biomass and yield [28]. Some Ralstonia species especially R. solanacearum are direct determinants of peanut wilt because of their higher ability to invade peanut plants, and cause plant wilting and necrosis [19].…”

Section: Observed Differences In Microbial Communities Between Wilt-csupporting

confidence: 82%

Soil Phosphorus Availability Determines the Invasion of Rhizospheric Microbial Networks and Peanut Infection by Ralstonia

Li¹,

Liu²,

Li³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The soil disease-suppressiveness may depend on complex interactions between pathogens and microbiome in response to limiting nutrients. However, these interactions remain poorly understood. Thus, we investigated the significance of soil available phosphorus (AP) in modulating pathogen-microbiome interactions for the emergence or suppression of peanut wilt using receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM) approaches. Results We observed significant differences in the relative abundance of pathogenic and beneficial microbes, alpha- and beta-diversity indices between disease-conducive and -suppressive soils. The pathogenic ( Ralstonia) and beneficial ( Burkholderia and Bacillus ) taxa dominated the rhizosphere of wilted and healthy peanut plants. The rhizosphere of healthy rather than wilted plants showed significantly higher microbial biodiversity. Moreover, co-occurrences between Ralstonia and microbiome species were highly positive and negative in the disease-conducive and -suppressive soil, respectively, thus predicting facilitative ( Rudaea ) and suppressive ( Burkholderia , Enterobacter , Bacillus ) role of indigenous microbes in Ralstonia invasion in soil. Moreover, both ROC and SEM analyses revealed that Ralstonia invaded rhizospheric microbial networks and caused peanut wilt, very likely by competently utilizing soil phosphorus under copiotrophic (high AP) than oligotrophic (low AP) conditions. Conclusion Our results suggest the importance of soil phosphorus availability in altering the interactions between pathobiome and beneficial microbiome. Our study concludes that feeding soil with labile nutrients could deplete microbial biodiversity and interactions while paving the way for pathogen invasion.

show abstract

“…Chemical management options for thrips in peanut, like many other row crops, are limited to a few insecticide active ingredients ( Reddy et al, 1995 ; Todd et al, 1995 , 1996 ; Herbert et al, 2007 ; Culbreath et al, 2008 ; Marasigan et al, 2016 ). The most commonly used insecticide classes include organophosphates, carbamates, phenylpyrazole, pyrethroids, and neonicotinoids ( Todd et al, 1996 ; Culbreath et al, 2003 , 2016 ; Mandal et al, 2012 ; Marasigan et al, 2016 ; Srinivasan et al, 2017 ). Newer classes of insecticides such as spinosyns and diamides, though effective, are too expensive to justify their use in peanut ( Marasigan et al, 2016 , 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resistance to Thrips in Peanut and Implications for Management of Thrips and Thrips-Transmitted Orthotospoviruses in Peanut

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thrips are major pests of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) worldwide, and they serve as vectors of devastating orthotospoviruses such as Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) and Groundnut bud necrosis virus (GBNV). A tremendous effort has been devoted to developing peanut cultivars with resistance to orthotospoviruses. Consequently, cultivars with moderate field resistance to viruses exist, but not much is known about host resistance to thrips. Integrating host plant resistance to thrips in peanut could suppress thrips feeding damage and reduce virus transmission, will decrease insecticide usage, and enhance sustainability in the production system. This review focuses on details of thrips resistance in peanut and identifies future directions for incorporating thrips resistance in peanut cultivars. Research on thrips–host interactions in peanut is predominantly limited to field evaluations of feeding damage, though, laboratory studies have revealed that peanut cultivars could differentially affect thrips feeding and thrips biology. Many runner type cultivars, field resistant to TSWV, representing diverse pedigrees evaluated against thrips in the greenhouse revealed that thrips preferred some cultivars over others, suggesting that antixenosis “non-preference” could contribute to thrips resistance in peanut. In other crops, morphological traits such as leaf architecture and waxiness and spectral reflectance have been associated with thrips non-preference. It is not clear if foliar morphological traits in peanut are associated with reduced preference or non-preference of thrips and need to be evaluated. Besides thrips non-preference, thrips larval survival to adulthood and median developmental time were negatively affected in some peanut cultivars and in a diploid peanut species Arachis diogoi (Hoehne) and its hybrids with a Virginia type cultivar, indicating that antibiosis (negative effects on biology) could also be a factor influencing thrips resistance in peanut. Available field resistance to orthotospoviruses in peanut is not complete, and cultivars can suffer substantial yield loss under high thrips and virus pressure. Integrating thrips resistance with available virus resistance would be ideal to limit losses. A discussion of modern technologies such as transgenic resistance, marker assisted selection and RNA interference, and future directions that could be undertaken to integrate resistance to thrips and to orthotospoviruses in peanut cultivars is included in this article.

show abstract

Effects of new field resistant cultivars and in-furrow applications of phorate insecticide on tomato spotted wilt of peanut

Cited by 13 publications

References 29 publications

Effects of insecticides applied in-furrow with superabsorbent polymer on peanut cultivars infected with Tomato spotted wilt virus

Effects of insecticides applied in-furrow with superabsorbent polymer on peanut cultivars infected with Tomato spotted wilt virus

Soil Phosphorus Availability Determines the Invasion of Rhizospheric Microbial Networks and Peanut Infection by Ralstonia

Resistance to Thrips in Peanut and Implications for Management of Thrips and Thrips-Transmitted Orthotospoviruses in Peanut

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About