<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article SYSTEM "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.2/JATS-journalpublishing1-mathml3.dtd"> <article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.2" xml:lang="EN" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">pnut</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="allenpress-id">pnut</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>The Journal of the American Peanut Research and Education Society</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">0095-3679</issn><issn pub-type="active">0095-3679</issn><publisher><publisher-name>American Peanut Research and Education Society</publisher-name><publisher-loc /></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3146/0095-3679-491-PS21-17</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">PS21-17</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>ARTICLES</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>General <italic>Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus</italic> Field Resistance among Spanish and Valencia Market Type Peanut Cultivars. </article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Branch</surname><given-names>W. D.</given-names></name><xref rid="n101" ref-type="fn"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref><sup rid="cor1" ref-type="corresp">*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Brown</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><xref rid="n102" ref-type="fn"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Culbreath</surname><given-names>A. K.</given-names></name><xref rid="n103" ref-type="fn"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Brenneman</surname><given-names>T. B.</given-names></name><xref rid="n104" ref-type="fn"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><day>06</day><month>06</month><year>2022</year></pub-date><volume>49</volume><issue>0095-3679</issue><fpage>100</fpage><lpage>104</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>American Peanut Research and Education Society</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2009</copyright-year></permissions><related-article related-article-type="pdf" xlink:href="i0095-3679-49-1-100.pdf" xlink:type="simple" /><abstract><p>During 2016 through 2020, field tests were conducted to determine general <italic>Tomato spotted wilt virus</italic> (TSWV) resistance among seven spanish and seven valencia-type peanut (<italic>Arachis hypogaea</italic> L.) cultivars.  These tests were planted early in April each year to enhance tomato spotted wilt (TSW) disease pressure at the University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA. TSW disease incidence was first assessed at about midseason (60 DAP), and total disease (TD) incidence which was primarily TSW was again assessed prior to digging. The five-year average results showed significant differences (P≤0.05) among the spanish-type cultivars.  The lowest TSW and TD incidence was found with the TSWV-resistant spanish cultivar, ‘Georgia-17SP’.  This cultivar also produced the highest pod yield, total sound mature kernel (TSMK) grade, and gross dollar value returns per hectare.  The five-year average results among the valencia-type cultivars also showed significant differences.  The lowest TSW and TD incidence was found with the moderately TSWV-resistant valencia cultivar ‘Georgia-Val/HO’.  This cultivar also produced the highest pod yield, TSMK grade, and dollar value return.  These new Georgia cultivars are not the traditional spanish and valencia-types; however, pod and seed traits meet or exceed the criteria for each market type, respectively. </p></abstract><kwd-group><title>Key Words</title><kwd><italic>Arachis hypogaea</italic> L</kwd><kwd>groundnut</kwd><kwd>high-oleic</kwd><kwd>pod yield</kwd><kwd>TSMK grade</kwd><kwd>seed weight</kwd><kwd>dollar values</kwd></kwd-group><counts><page-count count="0" /></counts></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>INTRODUCTION</title><p>In the U.S, there are four market types of peanut (<italic>Arachis hypogaea</italic> L.).  These include runner and virginia-types which represent subspecies <italic>hypogaea</italic> botanical variety <italic>hypogaea;</italic> and spanish and valencia-types which represent subspecies <italic>fastigiata</italic> botanical varieties <italic>vulgaris</italic> and <italic>fastigiata</italic>, respectively (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Hammons1">Hammons, 1973</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Krapovickas1">Krapovickas &amp; Gregory, 2007</xref>).  Plants of ssp. <italic>hypogaea</italic> generally lack flowers on the mainstem, have alternate fruiting nodes, and prostrate growth habit. Whereas, plants of ssp. <italic>fastigiata</italic> have flowers on the mainstem, have sequential fruiting nodes, and an erect growth habit. </p><p>Historically, all four market types have been grown in the southeast U.S. (Monfort and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch7">Branch, 2021</xref>).  Since the release of ‘Florunner’ (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Norden1">Norden <italic>et al</italic>., 1969</xref>), runner-types have dominated the other three market-types.  However, spanish and valencia types are still being grown but at a much smaller hectare percentage.</p><p>Since mid-1980’s, tomato spotted wilt (TSW) disease caused by <italic>Tomato spotted wilt virus</italic> (TSWV) continues to be a major peanut production problem in the U.S.  The primary source of TSW disease control is cultivar resistance in combination with other management practices (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Brown1">Brown <italic>et al</italic>., 2005</xref>).  The objective of this study was to assess currently available spanish and valencia-type cultivars for general TSWV resistance. </p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>MATERIALS AND METHODS</title><p>During five years (2016 to 2020), field tests were conducted to determine general TSWV resistance among 14 peanut cultivars (seven spanish-types and seven valencia-types).  These tests were planted early in April each year to enhance TSW disease pressure at the Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA. Maximum-input production practices as recommended by the Georgia Cooperative Extension Service were followed for weed, disease, and insect control with irrigation. Good early to mid-season insect control against thrips (<italic>Frankliniella</italic> ssp.) injury was observed each year. </p><p>A randomized complete block field design with five replications was used each year.  All plots in each test consisted of two-rows, 6.1m long by 1.8 m wide.  The soil type was a Tifton loamy sand (fine-loamy, kaolinitic, thermic Plinthic Kandidult). </p><p>TSW disease incidence (0-100%) was first assessed near midseason (60-DAP), when TSW is typically the only disease occurring at this time.  Percentages of total disease (TD) incidence were scored prior to digging, which included primarily TSW but also any soilborne disease.  A disease “hit” equaled one or more diseased plants in a 30.5 cm section of row. After digging, the percentage of white mold or stem rot [<italic>Athelia rolfsii </italic>(Curzi) C.C.Tu &amp; Kimbr.]<italic> = </italic>(<italic>Sclerotium rolfsii </italic>Sacc.) hits were also determined for each entry (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Rodriguez-Kabana1">Rodriguez-Kabana <italic>et al.,</italic> 1975</xref>).</p><p>Each entry was individually dug near optimum maturity based upon the hull-scrape method from adjacent border plots (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Williams1">Williams and Drexler, 1981</xref>).  Entries within each maturity groups were represented in these border plots for sampling to determine maturity.  After harvest, peanut pods from each plot were dried with forced warm-air to approximately 6% moisture.  Pod samples were then cleaned before weighing for yield determination.  Grade samples were presized and shelled on federal state inspection service equipment accordingly for spanish and valencia-type peanuts, respectively (Anonymous, 1998).  Gross dollar values were calculated from pod yield and grade factors based upon peanut loan schedules for each crop year. </p><p>Data from these tests were statistically analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the PROC GLM procedure in SAS 9.4 version (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC).  Waller-Duncan’s T-test (k-ratio = 100) was used for mean separation at P≤0.05.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>RESULTS AND DISCUSSION</title><p>During 2020, the global COVID-19 pandemic caused by <italic>Sars-CoV-2 </italic>virus prohibited white mold disease assessment after digging because of reduced essential personnel to work together at any one time. However, the previous four-year (2016-19) average percentage of white mold hits after digging each of the individual spanish and valencia-type cultivars showed very little disease (&lt;1%) and no significant differences (P≤0.05) among the cultivars each year. The combination of good rotation and currently recommended fungicides were highly effective in reducing disease interaction and any confounding effects for scoring TSW disease incidence. </p><p>Five-year (2016-20) average results showed significant differences (P≤0.05) among seven spanish-type for TSW and total disease (TD) incidence when planted in early-April each year (<xref ref-type="table" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-t01">Table <digit>1</digit></xref>).  The lowest TSW and TD incidence was found with the TSWV-resistant spanish cultivar ‘Georgia-17SP’ (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch8">Branch and Brenneman, 2018</xref>).   </p><table-wrap id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-t01" position="float" content-type="8col"><label><bold>Table 1</bold></label><caption><p><bold>Five-year average TSW and total disease incidence, pod yield, TSMK grade, seed weight, and dollar value of seven spanish-type peanut cultivars in Georgia, 2016-20.</bold></p></caption><graphic xlink:href="i0095-3679-49-1-100-t01.png" mime-type="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" /></table-wrap><p>‘Georgia Browne’ (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch1">Branch, 1994</xref>) and ‘Georgia-04S’ (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch4">Branch, 2005</xref>) are similar to ‘Georgia-17SP’, with regard to growth habit and later maturity compared to typical spanish-types.  These three cultivars are small-podded and small-seeded runner-types that are intended for the same spanish market, since each are similar in seed size, shape, texture, and flavor.  These Georgia cultivars were developed with interest and encouragement from major candy manufacturers.  These cultivars do not have the typical botanical characteristics of traditional spanish-types, but do have significantly higher pod yield, total sound mature kernel (TSMK) grade, and dollar value returned per hectare compared to the other spanish-type cultivars in Georgia. </p><p>Georgia-17SP is a large-seeded spanish cultivar with the desirable high-oleic trait for longer shelf-life of peanut and peanut products.  Georgia-04S and Georgia Browne have similar seed size as many other spanish-type cultivars, and Georgia-04S also has the high-oleic oil chemistry.</p><p>This study corroborates previously reported TSWV field resistance in Georgia Browne (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch1">Branch, 1994</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Culbreath1">Culbreath <italic>et al</italic>., 1994</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Culbreath2">Culbreath <italic>et al</italic>., 1996</xref>).  After tomato spotted wilt emerged as a peanut disease problem in the southeastern U.S., Georgia Browne was the first cultivar released with a moderate level of field resistance to TSWV (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch1">Branch, 1994</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Culbreath1">Culbreath <italic>et al</italic>., 1994</xref>, 1996).  <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch1">Branch (1994)</xref> indicated that Georgia Browne had resistance to TSWV but did not list cultivars to which it was compared.  <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Culbreath1">Culbreath <italic>et al</italic>., (1994)</xref> reported that Georgia Browne had suppressive effects on epidemics of tomato spotted wilt that were similar to those of ‘Southern Runner’ (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Gorbet1">Gorbet <italic>et al</italic>., 1987</xref>), one of its parental lines, with incidence in both cultivars lower than in Florunner, the predominant cultivar grown in Georgia at that time.  <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Culbreath2">Culbreath <italic>et al</italic>., (1996)</xref> also reported final incidence of spotted wilt and area under the disease progress curves of spotted wilt epidemics were similar for Georgia Browne, Southern Runner, and ‘Georgia Green’ (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch2">Branch <italic>et al</italic>., 1996</xref>), and lower for all three than in Florunner.  These results also corroborated a previous report of similar reactions of Georgia Browne and Georgia-04S to TSWV (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch4">Branch, 2005</xref>).  In contrast to the previous report, neither of these cultivars differed from ‘OLin’ (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Simpson1">Simpson <italic>et al</italic>., 2003</xref>) for mid-season TSW ratings in this study.  However, both had lower total disease ratings than OLin.  With low incidence of white mold for all entries, the field trial differences in total disease are likely due to late season manifestation of tomato spotted wilt (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-f01">Fig. <digit>1</digit></xref>).  These results are consistent with previous reports, and may serve as an indication of the stability of the moderate level of resistance in Georgia Browne, and evidence of field resistance to TSWV in this cultivar over 25 years after its release (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch1">Branch, 1994</xref>).  The lowest TSW and TD incidence was found with the newer TSWV resistant spanish cultivar, Georgia-17SP.</p><fig id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-f01" position="float"><label><bold>Fig. 1</bold></label><caption><p><bold>Field view of spanish and valencia cultivar test showing late-season TSW symptoms including stunted plants and chlorotic foliage. </bold></p></caption><graphic xlink:href="i0095-3679-49-1-100-f01.png" mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" /></fig><p>The five-year (2016-20) average results among seven valencia-type cultivars likewise showed significant differences for TSW and TD incidence when planted early in April (<xref ref-type="table" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-t02">Table <digit>2</digit></xref>).  The lowest TSW and TD incidence was found with the moderately TSWV resistant valencia cultivar ‘Georgia-Val/HO’ (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch7">Branch, 2021</xref>). </p><table-wrap id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-t02" position="float" content-type="8col"><label><bold>Table 2</bold></label><caption><p><bold>Five-year average TSW and total disease incidence, pod yield, TSMK grade, seed weight, and dollar value of seven valencia-type peanut cultivars in Georgia, 2016-20.</bold></p></caption><graphic xlink:href="i0095-3679-49-1-100-t02.png" mime-type="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" /></table-wrap><p>Georgia-Val/HO is a new high-yielding, high-oleic, large-podded, large-seeded valencia-type peanut cultivar.  It was developed from an intersubspecific (ssp. <italic>hypogaea</italic> x ssp. <italic>fastigiata</italic>) cross combination between two Georgia cultivars, ‘Georgia-11J’ (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch6">Branch, 2012</xref>) and ‘Georgia Valencia’ (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch3">Branch, 2001</xref>). Georgia-Val/HO has an atypical semi-prostrate growth habit, alternate fruiting nodes and lacks flowers on the mainstem.  However below-ground, it has typical valencia predominantly three seed per pod and the dominant red (<italic>R</italic><sub>1</sub>) testa color gene (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch5">Branch, 2011</xref>). </p><p>‘Georgia Red’ (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch9">Branch and Hammons, 1987</xref>) and Georgia Valencia are similar in TSW disease incidence, pod yield, and dollar value.  However, Georgia Valencia was also found to be similar to Georgia-Val/HO in TD incidence.  All three of these Georgia valencia-type cultivars were found to have significantly better late-season resistance to TSWV compared to all of the other New Mexico developed cultivars which had 70-80% TD incidence late in the growing season (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-f01">Fig. <digit>1</digit></xref>). </p><p>In the combined analysis (<xref ref-type="table" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-t03">Table <digit>3</digit></xref>), the seven spanish cultivars were found to have lower TSW and TD incidence (better TSWV resistance) compared to the seven valencia cultivars.  However, Georgia-Val/HO was comparable to several spanish-type cultivars in TSW and TD incidence.  Overall field performance found Georgia-17SP to be higher in pod yield and dollar value compared to all other spanish and valencia-type cultivars.  Georgia-Val/HO was also comparable to Georgia-17SP, Georgia Browne, and Georgia-04S in TSMK grade, and it produced the largest seed weight of any spanish or valencia cultivar in this study.  While these newer Georgia spanish and valencia-type cultivars are not the traditional botanical subspecies, each of these Georgia cultivars have the pod and seed trait characteristics needed to meet or exceed the criteria for each market-type, respectively. </p><table-wrap id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-t03" position="float" content-type="8col"><label><bold>Table 3</bold></label><caption><p><bold>Five-year average TSW and total disease incidence, pod yield, TSMK grade, seed weight, and dollar value of 14 spanish and valencia-type peanut cultivars in Georgia, 2016-20.</bold></p></caption><graphic xlink:href="i0095-3679-49-1-100-t03.png" mime-type="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" /></table-wrap><p>This study furthermore shows that TSW disease caused by TSWV has not diminished.  In fact, these susceptible valencia-type cultivars each year continuously averaged &gt;70% TSW incidence by late-season.  However, this study also clearly shows that progress has been made in breeding for TSWV resistance among the spanish and valencia-type cultivars similar to that recently reported among runner and virginia-types in Georgia (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch7">Branch <italic>et al</italic>., 2021</xref>).</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>Literature Cited</title><ref id="ref1"><mixed-citation><collab>Anonymous</collab>, <year>1998</year>. <article-title>Farmer’s stock peanuts inspection instructions</article-title>. <source>U.S. Dept. of Agric. Marketing Service. Fruit and Veg. Div.</source>, <publisher-loc>Washington, D.C</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Branch</surname><given-names>W. D.</given-names></name></person-group> <year>1994</year>. <article-title>Registration of ‘Georgia Browne’ peanut</article-title>. <source>Crop Sci.</source> <volume>34</volume>: <fpage>1125</fpage>-<lpage>1126</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Branch</surname><given-names>W. D.</given-names></name></person-group> <year>1996</year>. <article-title>Registration of ‘Georgia Green’ peanut</article-title>. <source>Crop Sci.</source> <volume>36</volume>: <issue>806</issue>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch3"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Branch</surname><given-names>W. D.</given-names></name></person-group> <year>2001</year>. <article-title>Registration of ‘Georgia Valencia’ peanut</article-title>. <source>Crop Sci.</source> <volume>41</volume>: <year>2002</year>-<lpage>2003</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch4"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Branch</surname><given-names>W. D.</given-names></name></person-group> <year>2005</year>. <article-title>Registration of ‘Georgia-04S’ peanut</article-title>.  <source>Crop Sci.</source> <volume>45</volume>: <fpage>1653</fpage>-<lpage>1654</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch5"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Branch</surname><given-names>W. D.</given-names></name></person-group> <year>2011</year>. <article-title>First 100 years – Inheritance of testa color in peanut (<italic>Arachis hypogaea</italic> L.)</article-title>. <source>Crop Sci.</source> <volume>51</volume>: <fpage>1</fpage>-<lpage>4</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch6"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Branch</surname><given-names>W. D.</given-names></name></person-group> <year>2012</year>. <article-title>Registration of ‘Georgia-11J’ peanut</article-title>.  <source>J. Plant Reg.</source> <volume>6</volume>: <fpage>281</fpage>-<lpage>283</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch7"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Branch</surname><given-names>W. D.</given-names></name></person-group> <year>2021</year>. <article-title>Registration of ‘Georgia-Val/HO’ peanut</article-title>.  <source>J. Plant Reg.</source> <volume>15</volume>: <fpage>285</fpage>-<lpage>289</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch8"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Branch</surname><given-names>W. D.</given-names></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Brenneman</surname><given-names>T. B.</given-names></name></person-group>.  <year>2018</year>. <article-title>Registration of ‘Georgia-17SP’ peanut</article-title>.  <source>J. Plant Reg.</source> <volume>12</volume>: <fpage>300</fpage>-<lpage>303</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch9"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Branch</surname><given-names>W. D.</given-names></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Hammons</surname><given-names>R.O.</given-names></name></person-group>. <year>1987</year>. <article-title>Registration of ‘Georgia Red’ peanut</article-title>. <source>Crop Sci.</source> <volume>27</volume>: <issue>1090</issue>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Branch9"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Branch</surname><given-names>W. D.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Brown</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Mailhot</surname><given-names>D. J.</given-names></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>Culbreath</surname><given-names>A. K.</given-names></name></person-group>. <year>2021</year>. <source>Relative tomato spotted wilt incidence and field performance among peanut cultivars as influenced by different input production practices in Georgia. Peanut Sci.</source> <volume>48</volume>: <fpage>118</fpage>-<lpage>122</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Brown1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Brown</surname><given-names>S. L.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Culbreath</surname><given-names>A. K.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Todd</surname><given-names>J. W.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Gorbet</surname><given-names>D. W.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Baldwin</surname><given-names>J. A.</given-names></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>Beasley, Jr.</surname><given-names>J. P.</given-names></name></person-group> <year>2005</year>. <source>Development of a method of risk assessment to facilitate integrated management of spotted wilt of peanut. Plant Dis.</source> <volume>89</volume>: <fpage>348</fpage>-<lpage>352</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Culbreath1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Culbreath</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Todd</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Branch</surname><given-names>W. D.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Brown</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Demski</surname><given-names>J.W.</given-names></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>Beasley</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname /></name></person-group>. <year>1994</year>. <source>Effect of new peanut cultivar Georgia Browne on epidemics of spotted wilt. Plant Dis.</source> <volume>78</volume>:<fpage>1185</fpage>-<lpage>1189</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Culbreath2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Culbreath</surname><given-names>A. K.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Todd</surname><given-names>J. W.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Gorbet</surname><given-names>D. W.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Branch</surname><given-names>W.D.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Sprenkel</surname><given-names>R. K.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Shokes</surname><given-names>F.M.</given-names></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>Demski</surname><given-names>J. W.</given-names></name></person-group>. <year>1996</year>. <source>Disease progress of tomato spotted wilt virus in selected peanut cultivars and advanced breeding lines. Plant Dis.</source> <volume>80</volume>:<fpage>70</fpage>-<lpage>73</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Gorbet1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gorbet</surname><given-names>D. W.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Norden</surname><given-names>A. J.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Shokes</surname><given-names>F. M.</given-names></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>Knauft</surname><given-names>D. A.</given-names></name></person-group>. <year>1987</year>. <article-title>Registration of ‘Southern Runner’ peanut</article-title>. <source>Crop Sci.</source> <volume>27</volume>: <issue>817</issue>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Hammons1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hammons</surname><given-names>R. O.</given-names></name></person-group> <year>1973</year>. <article-title>Genetics of <italic>Arachis hypogaea</italic></article-title>. In <person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>St. Angelo</surname><given-names>A. J.</given-names></name> (Ed.) </person-group><chapter-title>Symposium of Peanuts: Culture and Uses</chapter-title>. Pp. <fpage>135</fpage>-<lpage>173</lpage><publication-info2>. <publisher-name>Amer. Peanut Research and Educ. Assn.</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Stillwater, OK</publisher-loc></publication-info2>. </mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Krapovickas1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Krapovickas</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name> &amp; <name name-style="western"><surname>Gregory</surname><given-names>W. C.</given-names></name></person-group>. <year>2007</year>. <article-title>Taxonomy of other genus <italic>Arachis</italic> (Leguminosae)</article-title>. <source>Bonplandia</source> (Suppl.) <issue>16</issue>: <fpage>7</fpage>-<lpage>205</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Monfort1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Monfort</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Branch</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name>. </person-group><year>2022</year>. Chap. 6: Peanut varieties. Pp. 37-48. In: Peanut Production Guide. Univ. of Georgia Coop. Ext. Publ. No. B1146. Online @ extension.uga.edu/publications.html .</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Norden1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Norden</surname><given-names>A. J.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Lipscomb</surname><given-names>R. W.</given-names></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>Carver</surname><given-names>W. A.</given-names></name></person-group>. <year>1969</year>. <article-title>Registration of Florunner peanuts. (reg. no. 2)</article-title>. <source>Crop Sci.</source> <volume>9</volume>:<issue>850</issue>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Rodriguez-Kabana1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rodriguez-Kabana</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Backman</surname><given-names>P. A.</given-names></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>Williams</surname><given-names>J. C.</given-names></name></person-group>, <year>1975</year>. <source>Determination of yield losses to Sclerotium rolfsii in peanut fields. Plant Dis. Rep.</source> <volume>59</volume>: <fpage>855</fpage>-<lpage>858</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Simpson1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Simpson</surname><given-names>C. E.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Baring</surname><given-names>M. R.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Schubert</surname><given-names>A. M.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Melouk</surname><given-names>H. A.</given-names></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>Lopez</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>Kirby</surname><given-names>J. S.</given-names></name></person-group>. <year>2003</year>. <article-title>Registration of ‘OLin’ peanut</article-title>. <source>Crop Sci.</source> <volume>43</volume>:<fpage>1880</fpage>-<lpage>1881</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="i0095-3679-49-1-100-Williams1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Williams</surname><given-names>E. J.</given-names></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>Drexler</surname><given-names>J. S.</given-names></name></person-group>. <year>1981</year>. <source>A non-destructive method for determining peanut pod maturity. Peanut Sci.</source> <volume>8</volume>: <fpage>134</fpage>-<lpage>141</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list><fn-group><fn id="n101" fn-type="current-aff"><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>Professor, Dept. of Crop &amp; Soil Sci., University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793</p></fn><fn id="n101" fn-type="current-aff"><label><sup>2</sup></label><p>Assistant Research Scientist, Dept of Crop and Soil Sci., University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793</p></fn><fn id="n101" fn-type="current-aff"><label><sup>3</sup></label><p>Professor, Dept. of Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793</p></fn><fn id="n101" fn-type="current-aff"><label><sup>4</sup></label> <p>Professor, Dept. of Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793 </p></fn><corresp id="cor1">Corresponding author email: <email>wdbranch@uga.edu</email></corresp></fn-group></back></article>
