Abstract
Pod rot diseases historically caused significant losses in peanut production in North Carolina. Advances in the understanding of pod rot diseases and changes in cultural practices minimized losses in the years since 1979. By the early 1990s, however, some peanut growers began to observe pod rot that apparently was not associated with infection by common soilborne pathogens. Incidence of pod rot also was high in research plots used to study conservation tillage methods. Selected farms were surveyed in the fall of 1994, 1995, and 1996 to identify the fungi associated with pod rot symptoms in North Carolina. Over the three years of the study, more than 6,000 symptomatic pods from 125 peanut fields were assayed for Rhizoctonia spp., Pythium spp., Cylindrocladium parasiticum, Sclerotium rolfsii, and Sclerotinia minor. All five pathogens were isolated during the field survey, with Pythium spp. and Rhizoctonia spp. isolated most frequently. Rhizoctonia spp. were the dominant pathogen in the majority of fields in 1994, whereas Pythium spp. predominated in 1995 and 1996. Combinations of pathogens were identified from 12 to 15% of pods; Rhizoctonia spp. + Pythium spp. and Pythium spp. + C. parasiti-cum were the most frequent combinations. The mean estimated incidence of pod rot was 6.6% in 1995 and 5.9% in 1996. The effects of cover crops and tillage on pod rot incidence were studied in microplots in 1995 and 1996. In 1995, winter cover crops (wheat, oat, rye, and fallow soil) did not affect pod rot incidence, but incidence was greater in no-till treatments compared to plots with conventional tillage. Pod rot incidence did not differ among infestation treatments and no interactions among pathogen, cover crop, or tillage treatments were significant. In contrast, significant (P = 0.04) interactions among winter cover crops and tillage occurred in 1996. Tillage did not affect pod rot incidence following wheat or oats, but incidence following rye was much greater in no-till than in tilled plots.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 17
Claim · model-written summary
All five assayed pathogens were isolated from symptomatic peanut pods during the field survey.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeae1 - Organ / stage
- podse1
- Outcome
- All five pathogens were isolatede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All five pathogens were isolated during the field survey”
e1“more than 6,000 symptomatic pods from 125 peanut fields were assayed for Rhizoctonia spp., Pythium spp., Cylindrocladium parasiticum, Sclerotium rolfsii, and Sclerotinia minor.”
Claim · model-written summary
Pythium spp. and Rhizoctonia spp. were isolated most frequently from peanut pods.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeat0
- Second interactor
- Rhizoctonia spp.
.jpg?width=60)
Rhizoctoniae0pathogen - Outcome
- isolated most frequentlye0
.jpg?width=60){kind=small}
PythiumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“with Pythium spp. and Rhizoctonia spp. isolated most frequently.”
t0“Peanuts”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizoctonia spp. dominated in the majority of peanut fields in 1994.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeat0
- Interactor
- Rhizoctonia spp.Rhizoctoniae0pathogen
- Outcome
- dominant pathogene0
- Qualifier
- in the majority of fields in 1994e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rhizoctonia spp. were the dominant pathogen in the majority of fields in 1994”
t0“Peanuts”
Claim · model-written summary
Pythium spp. predominated in peanut fields in 1995 and 1996.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- predominatede0
- Qualifier
- in 1995 and 1996e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pythium spp. predominated in 1995 and 1996.”
t0“Peanuts”
Claim · model-written summary
Pathogen combinations were identified in 12 to 15% of peanut pods.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeat0
- Organ / stage
- podse0
- Outcome
- Combinations of pathogense0
- Value
- 12 to 15%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Combinations of pathogens were identified from 12 to 15% of pods”
t0“Peanuts”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizoctonia spp. plus Pythium spp. was among the most frequent pathogen combinations in peanut pods.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeat0
- Interactor
- Rhizoctonia spp.Rhizoctoniae0pathogen
- Outcome
- most frequent combinationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rhizoctonia spp. + Pythium spp. and Pythium spp. + C. parasiti-cum were the most frequent combinations.”
t0“Peanuts”
Claim · model-written summary
Pythium spp. plus C. parasiti-cum was among the most frequent pathogen combinations in peanut pods.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeat0
- Second interactor
- C. parasiti-cume0pathogen
- Outcome
- most frequent combinationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rhizoctonia spp. + Pythium spp. and Pythium spp. + C. parasiti-cum were the most frequent combinations.”
t0“Peanuts”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean estimated peanut pod rot incidence was 6.6% in 1995.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- mean estimated incidence of pod rote0
- Value
- 6.6%e0
- Qualifier
- in 1995e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean estimated incidence of pod rot was 6.6% in 1995 and 5.9% in 1996.”
t0“Peanuts”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean estimated peanut pod rot incidence was 5.9% in 1996.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- mean estimated incidence of pod rote0
- Value
- 5.9%e0
- Qualifier
- in 1996e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mean estimated incidence of pod rot was 6.6% in 1995 and 5.9% in 1996.”
t0“Peanuts”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter cover crops did not affect peanut pod rot incidence in 1995.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- winter cover cropse0
- Outcome
- pod rot incidencee0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
- Qualifier
- In 1995e0
- Comparator
- fallow soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1995, winter cover crops (wheat, oat, rye, and fallow soil) did not affect pod rot incidence”
t0“Peanuts”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut pod rot incidence was greater with no-till than conventional tillage in 1995.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- no-tille0
- Outcome
- pod rot incidencee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- In 1995e0
- Comparator
- conventional tillagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1995, winter cover crops (wheat, oat, rye, and fallow soil) did not affect pod rot incidence, but incidence was greater in no-till treatments compared to plots with conventional tillage.”
t0“Peanuts”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut pod rot incidence did not differ among infestation treatments in 1995.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- infestation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Pod rot incidencee0
- Direction
- did not differe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pod rot incidence did not differ among infestation treatments”
t0“Peanuts”
Claim · model-written summary
No interactions among pathogen, cover crop, or tillage treatments were significant in 1995.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- pathogen, cover crop, or tillage treatmentse0
- Outcome
- interactionse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no interactions among pathogen, cover crop, or tillage treatments were significant.”
t0“Peanuts”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter cover crop and tillage interactions on peanut pod rot incidence were significant in 1996.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- winter cover crops and tillagee0
- Outcome
- pod rot incidencee1
- Qualifier
- in 1996e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In contrast, significant (P = 0.04) interactions among winter cover crops and tillage occurred in 1996.”
e1“The effects of cover crops and tillage on pod rot incidence were studied in microplots in 1995 and 1996.”
t0“Peanuts”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage did not affect peanut pod rot incidence following wheat in 1996.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Tillagee0
- Outcome
- pod rot incidencee0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
- Qualifier
- following wheate0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tillage did not affect pod rot incidence following wheat or oats”
t0“Peanuts”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage did not affect peanut pod rot incidence following oats in 1996.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Tillagee0
- Outcome
- pod rot incidencee0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
- Qualifier
- oatse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tillage did not affect pod rot incidence following wheat or oats”
t0“Peanuts”
Claim · model-written summary
Following rye, peanut pod rot incidence was much greater in no-till than tilled plots in 1996.
- Taxon
- PeanutsArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- no-tille0
- Outcome
- pod rot incidencee1
- Direction
- much greatere0
- Qualifier
- following ryee0
- Comparator
- tilled plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“incidence following rye was much greater in no-till than in tilled plots.”
e1“Tillage did not affect pod rot incidence following wheat or oats”
t0“Peanuts”
The same questions in other papers
infection · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →tillage · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →cover crop · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- no effect
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.