Abstract
Tomato spotted wilt (TSW) has become a limiting factor to peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) production in the southeast United States over the past 6 yr. Cultivars are now selected based on their resistance to TSW and planted during time periods to reduce the incidence of TSW. Three peanut cultivars with different resistance to TSW were used (‘Georgia Green’, ‘MDR98’ and ‘SunOleic 97R’). Conventional‐ or strip‐tilled plots were established after winter wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) in 2000 and 2001 in Marianna, FL. Stand count, severity of TSW, and yield were recorded. Plots were irrigated as needed. Stand count was 10% less in the strip‐tilled plots in both 2000 and 2001. Stand count was affected by cultivar used, with Georgia Green and SunOleic 97R having 20% higher populations than MDR98. Phorate [ O, O ‐diethyl, S ‐(ethylthio)methyl phosphorodithioate] treatment had 7% less stand count in 2001 but not in 2000. Tomato spotted wilt severity was 50% less in strip‐tilled plots in 2000, but there was no difference in 2001. Cultivar affected severity of TSW every year but not consistently. Application of phorate did not affect TSW. In 2000 (a droughty year), the strip‐tilled plots had greater yield (2510 vs. 1900 kg ha −1 ) averaged across cultivars. MDR98 had the highest yield across treatments in 2000, but yield was not different among cultivars in 2001. Application of phorate did not affect yield in either year. In the strip‐tilled plots, soil moisture was 30% greater and plant canopy 3 to 5°C cooler during 2000 when plants were visibly drought stressed. Use of phorate had no effect on TSW or yield and its use for TSW control is not recommended. Cultivar selection did influence TSW severity and should be considered as part of a TSW control program. Strip tillage resulted in greater yields than conventional tillage in an abnormally dry year.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Strip tillage reduced peanut stand count by 10% in both years.
- Taxon
- Peanut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Treatment
- strip‐tilled plotse0
- Outcome
- Stand counte0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 10%e0
- Qualifier
- both 2000 and 2001e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Stand count was 10% less in the strip‐tilled plots in both 2000 and 2001.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Georgia Green had a 20% higher stand population than MDR98.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Material
- Georgia Greene0
- Outcome
- populationse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 20%e0
- Comparator
- MDR98e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Stand count was affected by cultivar used, with Georgia Green and SunOleic 97R having 20% higher populations than MDR98.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
SunOleic 97R had a 20% higher stand population than MDR98.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Material
- SunOleic 97Re0
- Outcome
- populationse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 20%e0
- Comparator
- MDR98e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Stand count was affected by cultivar used, with Georgia Green and SunOleic 97R having 20% higher populations than MDR98.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Phorate reduced stand count by 7% in 2001 but not in 2000.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Phoratee0
- Outcome
- stand counte0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 7%e0
- Qualifier
- in 2001 but not in 2000e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Phorate [ O, O ‐diethyl, S ‐(ethylthio)methyl phosphorodithioate] treatment had 7% less stand count in 2001 but not in 2000.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip tillage reduced spotted wilt severity by 50% in 2000, with no difference in 2001.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- strip‐tilled plotse0
- Outcome
- Tomato spotted wilt severitye0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 50%e0
- Qualifier
- in 2000e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tomato spotted wilt severity was 50% less in strip‐tilled plots in 2000, but there was no difference in 2001.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivar affected spotted wilt severity every year, without a consistent ranking.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Material
- Cultivare0
- Outcome
- severity of TSWe0
- Qualifier
- every year but not consistentlye0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cultivar affected severity of TSW every year but not consistently.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Phorate did not affect spotted wilt severity.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- phoratee0
- Outcome
- TSWe0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of phorate did not affect TSW.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip tillage increased peanut yield to 2510 versus 1900 kg ha −1 in droughty 2000.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- strip‐tilled plotse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 2510 vs. 1900 kg ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- a droughty yeare0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2000 (a droughty year), the strip‐tilled plots had greater yield (2510 vs. 1900 kg ha −1 ) averaged across cultivars.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
MDR98 had the highest yield across treatments in 2000.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MDR98 had the highest yield across treatments in 2000”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield did not differ among cultivars in 2001.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Material
- cultivarse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- not differente0
- Qualifier
- in 2001e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield was not different among cultivars in 2001.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Phorate did not affect yield in either year.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- phoratee0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
- Qualifier
- in either yeare0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of phorate did not affect yield in either year.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip-till plots had 30% greater soil moisture in 2000 during visible drought stress.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- strip‐tilled plotse0
- Outcome
- soil moisturee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 30%e0
- Qualifier
- during 2000 when plants were visibly drought stressede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the strip‐tilled plots, soil moisture was 30% greater and plant canopy 3 to 5°C cooler during 2000 when plants were visibly drought stressed.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip-till plots had plant canopy temperatures 3 to 5°C cooler in 2000 during visible drought stress.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- strip‐tilled plotse0
- Outcome
- plant canopye0
- Direction
- coolere0
- Value
- 3 to 5°Ce0
- Qualifier
- during 2000 when plants were visibly drought stressede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the strip‐tilled plots, soil moisture was 30% greater and plant canopy 3 to 5°C cooler during 2000 when plants were visibly drought stressed.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors do not recommend phorate for spotted wilt control.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- phoratee0
- Outcome
- its use for TSW control is not recommendede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Use of phorate had no effect on TSW or yield and its use for TSW control is not recommended.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend considering cultivar selection in spotted wilt control.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Material
- Cultivare0
- Outcome
- should be considered as part of a TSW control programe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cultivar selection did influence TSW severity and should be considered as part of a TSW control program.”
t0“Peanut”
The same questions in other papers
phorate · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →phorate · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
phorate · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →tillage · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
65 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
86 papers more in this group
See all 90 papers →tillage · soil: physics · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →tillage · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →tillage · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →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.