ARTICLES

Evaluation of Runner Peanut Cultivars and Advanced Georgia Breeding Lines for Yield and Resistance to Late Leaf Spot Under Three Disease-Management Programs¹

Authors: , , ,

Abstract

Podyield and resistance to late leaf spot, caused by Cercosporidium personatum (Berk. & M.A. Curtis) Deighton, were evaluated on nine advanced Georgia breeding lines and five cultivars of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.): Florunner, Georgia Runner, GK-7, Southern Runner, and Sunrunner. Peanuts were grown at Tifton, GA during 1987-1988 under three leaf spot programs using diniconazole at 0.14 kg/ha with Agri-Dex (0.5% v/v): 1) unsprayed, 2) 28-day, and 3) 14-day spray schedule. Final disease ratings (Florida 1 to 10 scale) were made approximately 1-wk prior to harvest. In unsprayed plots, Southern Runner and GaT-2566 had significantly lower leaf spot disease ratings than Florunner, GK-7, Sunrunner, and Georgia Runner. Across all fungicide treatments, yields of Georgia Runner averaged significantly higher than the four other cultivars and GaT-2566. Average yields were 5111, 4497, 4433, 4404, 4377, and 4022 kg/ha for Georgia Runner, Southern Runner, GK-7, GaT-2566, Sunrunner, and Florunner, respectively. In addition to low yield potential of GaT-2566, it was susceptible to Rhizoctonia limb rot (R. solani Khn, anastomosis group 4). However, Georgia Runner was found to have moderate tolerance to late leaf spot and excellent yield potential.

Full Article Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature

Keywords: fungicides, diniconazole, groundnut (Arachis hypogaea), Cercosporidium personatum, disease tolerance, yield evaluation

How to Cite: Smith, F. , Brenneman, T. , Branch, W. & Mullinix, B. (1994) “Evaluation of Runner Peanut Cultivars and Advanced Georgia Breeding Lines for Yield and Resistance to Late Leaf Spot Under Three Disease-Management Programs¹”, Peanut Science. 21(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-21-1-12

Author Notes

1Contribution from the University of Georgia, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. This research was supported by state and hatch funds with grants from the Georgia Peanut Commission. Use of trade or common names does not imply endorsement or criticism of the products by the University of Georgia, judgment of similar ones not mentioned, or registration under FIFRA.