Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:10:31.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Broadleaf Weeds on Chlorothalonil Deposition, Foliar Disease Incidence, and Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Stanley S. Royal ,
Barry J. Brecke ,
Frederick M. Shokes  and
Daniel L. Colvin
Stanley S. Royal
Affiliation:
Zeneca Ag Products, Route 1, Box 117, Whitakers, NC 27891
Barry J. Brecke
Affiliation:
West Florida Research and Education Center, 4253 Experiment Drive, Jay, FL 32565
Frederick M. Shokes
Affiliation:
North Florida Research and Education Center, Rt. 3, Box 4370, Quincy, FL 32351
Daniel L. Colvin
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at Jay and Marianna, FL in 1988 and 1989 to determine the effects of sicklepod, Florida beggarweed, and common cocklebur density on chlorothalonil deposition to peanut foliage, peanut foliar disease incidence, and peanut yield. At a density of four weed plants per 8 m of row, Florida beggarweed and sicklepod reduced chlorothalonil deposition on peanut foliage by 20%, while common cocklebur reduced fungicide deposition by 34%. At the same density, incidence of the foliar diseases early leaf spot and late leaf spot increased 10% with Florida beggarweed, 14% with sicklepod, and 20% with common cocklebur compared with weed-free peanut. The predicted peanut yield loss from a weed density of four plants per 8 m was 16 to 19% for Florida beggarweed, 23 to 25% for sicklepod, and 31 to 39% for common cocklebur. Weed biomass increased with increasing weed density.

Keywords

Chlorothalonil, tetrachloroisophthalonitrilecommon cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. # XANSTFlorida beggarweed, Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DC. # DEDTOsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barneby # CASOBearly leaf spot, Cercospora arachidicola Horilate leaf spot, Cercosporidium personatum (Berk. and Curt.) Deightonpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L. ‘Florunner.’Common cocklebur competitionFlorida beggarweed competitionsicklepod competitionweed competitionweed interferencechlorothalonilDesmodium tortuosumSenna obtusifoliaXanthium strumariumCercospora arachidicolaCercosporidium personatumDEDTOCASOBXANSTAUDRC, area under the disease rating curve
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 51 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Bente, M. K., and Rodriguez-Kabana, R. 1979. Effect of volatile compounds from remoistened plant tissues on growth and germination of sclerotia of Sclerotium rolfsii. Phytopathol. 69:802–805.Google Scholar
Boote, K. J., Jones, J. W., Smerage, G. H., Barfield, C. S., and Berger, R. D. 1980. Photosynthesis of peanut canopies as affected by leaf spot and artificial defoliation. Agron. J. 72:247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., and Brecke, B. J. 1989. Growth and development of Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum) selections. Weed Sci. 37:207–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiteka, Z. A., Gorbet, D. W., Knauft, D. A., Shokes, F. M., and Kucharek, T. A. 1988. Components of resistance to late leaf spot in peanut. Part I. Levels and variability—implications for selection. Peanut Sci. 15:25–30.Google Scholar
Cousens, R., 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowler, C. C., 1995. Weed Survey—Southeastern States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. 48:290–305.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. W., Buchanan, G. H., Nichols, R. L., and Patterson, R. M. 1982. Effect of Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum) and sicklepod Cassia obtusifolia on peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) yield. Weed Sci. 30:602–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, C. R., and Bell, D. K. 1969. Disease of peanut (groundnut) caused by fungi. Ga. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 56:5–15.Google Scholar
Miller, C. R., Kucharek, T. A., and Lipscomb, R. W. 1970. Chemical control of Cercospora leaf spot. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 30:770–774.Google Scholar
Nutter, F. W. Jr., and Shokes, F. M. 1995. Management of foliar diseases caused by fungi. In Melouk, H. A. and Shokes, F. M., eds. Peanut Health Management. St. Paul, MN: APS Monograph Series. pp. 65–73.Google Scholar
Porter, D. M., Smith, D. H., and Rodriguez-Kabana, R. 1982. Peanut plant diseases. In Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T., eds. Peanut Science and Technology. Yoakum, TX: Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. pp. 326–410.Google Scholar
Retzinger, J. E. Jr., 1984. Growth and development of sicklepod selections. Weed Sci. 32:608–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosebrock, M. M., and Coble, H. D. 1991. Determining competitive indices of weed species in peanuts in North Carolina. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:325.Google Scholar
Shaner, G., and Finey, R. E. 1977. The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the expression of slow-mildewing resistance in Knox wheat. Phytopathol. 67: 1051–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shokes, F. M., Gorbet, D. W., and Sanden, G. E. 1982. Effect of planting date and date of spray initiation on control of peanut leaf spot in Florida. Plant Dis. 66:574–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D. H., 1984. Foliar diseases. In Porter, D. M., Smith, D. H., and Rodriguez-Kabana, R., eds. Compendium of Peanut Diseases. St. Paul, MN: APS Monograph Series. pp. 5–7.Google Scholar
Walls, G. E., Harrington, D. E., Kehr, P. F., and Bramstedt, W. R. 1986. Automated analysis of agricultural samples. Am. Lab. 18:86–94.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E., and Lechowicz, M. J. 1983. The biology of Canadian weeds. 56. Xanthium strumarium L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 63:211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar