Abstract
Abstract Two trials with iprodione and three trials with fluazinam were conducted to assess the effects of application method and rate on the control of Sclerotinia blight of peanut with fungicide. In order to concentrate the fungicides near the crown area where the disease causes the most damage, applications were made through a canopy opener with a single nozzle centered over the row to achieve a 30.5-cm-wide band (canopy opener), and through a single nozzle centered over the row to achieve a 46-cm-wide band (band). Broadcast applications were compared to these methods at rates of 0, 0.28, 0.56, and 1.12 kg/ha on the susceptible cultivar Okrun. Sclerotinia blight was severe, with > 70% disease incidence and < 2000 kg/ha yield for the untreated controls in each trial. Linear reductions in area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC), but not final disease incidence, with iprodione rate were significant (P < 0.05) for all methods of application. However, the rate of decrease did not differ among application methods. Linear increases in yield with rate of iprodione were greater for canopy opener compared to the band or broadcast applications. Only a 50% reduction in AUDPC and a maximum yield of < 2700 kg/ha was achieved with iprodione using the best method. At the maximum rate of 1.12 kg/ha, fluazinam provided > 75% disease control and > 4000 kg/ha yield for all application methods. Differences in disease control and yield among application methods only occurred at the 0.28 and 0.56 kg/ha rates of fluazinam. Reductions in AUDPC with fluazinam rate were quadratic for all application methods, but AUDPC values were less for the canopy opener and band methods at 0.28 and 0.56 kg/ha compared to the broadcast methods. The yield response to rate for broadcast applications of fluazinam was linear. However, predicted yield responses to fluazinam rate were quadratic for the band and canopy opener methods and approached the maximum response at 0.84 kg/ha. Targeting fungicide applications using the band and/or canopy opener methods was beneficial for fluazinam at reduced rates. Disease control with iprodione was not adequate regardless of application method.
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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Untreated peanut controls had more than 70% disease incidence.
- Taxon
- Peanut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Treatment
- untreated controlse0
- Outcome
- disease incidencee0
- Value
- > 70%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sclerotinia blight was severe, with > 70% disease incidence and < 2000 kg/ha yield for the untreated controls in each trial.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Untreated peanut controls yielded less than 2000 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- untreated controlse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Value
- < 2000 kg/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sclerotinia blight was severe, with > 70% disease incidence and < 2000 kg/ha yield for the untreated controls in each trial.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing iprodione rate linearly reduced disease progress area for all application methods.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- iprodione ratee0
- Outcome
- area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC)e0
- Direction
- reductionse0
- Qualifier
- for all methods of applicatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Linear reductions in area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC), but not final disease incidence, with iprodione rate were significant (P < 0.05) for all methods of application.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Iprodione rate did not significantly reduce final disease incidence.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- iprodione ratee0
- Outcome
- final disease incidencee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Linear reductions in area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC), but not final disease incidence, with iprodione rate were significant (P < 0.05) for all methods of application.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
The rate of decrease in disease progress under iprodione did not differ among application methods.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- rate of decreasee0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Comparator
- application methodse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, the rate of decrease did not differ among application methods.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield rose more strongly with iprodione rate under canopy opener application than band or broadcast application.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- rate of iprodionee0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Comparator
- band or broadcast applicationse0
- Setting
- canopy openere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Linear increases in yield with rate of iprodione were greater for canopy opener compared to the band or broadcast applications.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
The best iprodione method achieved only a 50% reduction in disease progress area.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Only a 50% reduction in AUDPC and a maximum yield of < 2700 kg/ha was achieved with iprodione using the best method.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
The best iprodione method produced a maximum yield below 2700 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- iprodionee0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- < 2700 kg/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Only a 50% reduction in AUDPC and a maximum yield of < 2700 kg/ha was achieved with iprodione using the best method.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Fluazinam at 1.12 kg/ha provided more than 75% disease control across application methods.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- fluaziname0
- Outcome
- disease controle0
- Direction
- providede0
- Value
- > 75%e0
- Qualifier
- 1.12 kg/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At the maximum rate of 1.12 kg/ha, fluazinam provided > 75% disease control and > 4000 kg/ha yield for all application methods.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Fluazinam at 1.12 kg/ha produced yield above 4000 kg/ha across application methods.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- fluaziname0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- providede0
- Value
- > 4000 kg/hae0
- Qualifier
- 1.12 kg/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At the maximum rate of 1.12 kg/ha, fluazinam provided > 75% disease control and > 4000 kg/ha yield for all application methods.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Application methods differed in disease control at the lower fluazinam rates.
- Treatment
- 0.28 and 0.56 kg/ha rates of fluaziname0
- Outcome
- disease controle0
- Direction
- Differencese0
- Comparator
- application methodse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Differences in disease control and yield among application methods only occurred at the 0.28 and 0.56 kg/ha rates of fluazinam.”
Claim · model-written summary
Application methods differed in yield at the lower fluazinam rates.
- Treatment
- 0.28 and 0.56 kg/ha rates of fluaziname0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- Differencese0
- Comparator
- application methodse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Differences in disease control and yield among application methods only occurred at the 0.28 and 0.56 kg/ha rates of fluazinam.”
Claim · model-written summary
Disease progress area declined quadratically with fluazinam rate for all application methods.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- fluazinam ratee0
- Outcome
- AUDPCe0
- Direction
- Reductionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reductions in AUDPC with fluazinam rate were quadratic for all application methods”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
At the lower fluazinam rates, band and canopy opener applications gave lower disease progress area than broadcast application.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- canopy opener and band methodse0
- Outcome
- AUDPC valuese0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Qualifier
- 0.28 and 0.56 kg/hae0
- Comparator
- broadcast methodse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AUDPC values were less for the canopy opener and band methods at 0.28 and 0.56 kg/ha compared to the broadcast methods.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Broadcast fluazinam application had a linear yield response to rate.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- broadcast applications of fluaziname0
- Outcome
- yield responsee0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield response to rate for broadcast applications of fluazinam was linear.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Predicted yield responses to fluazinam rate under band and canopy opener methods were quadratic and approached maximum at 0.84 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- fluazinam ratee0
- Outcome
- yield responsese0
- Direction
- approached the maximum responsee0
- Value
- 0.84 kg/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“predicted yield responses to fluazinam rate were quadratic for the band and canopy opener methods and approached the maximum response at 0.84 kg/ha.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Targeted band or canopy opener application was beneficial for fluazinam at reduced rates.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- band and/or canopy opener methodse0
- Outcome
- Targeting fungicide applicationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Targeting fungicide applications using the band and/or canopy opener methods was beneficial for fluazinam at reduced rates.”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Iprodione disease control was inadequate regardless of application method.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- iprodionee0
- Outcome
- Disease controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Disease control with iprodione was not adequate regardless of application method.”
t0“Peanut”
The same questions in other papers
iprodione · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →iprodione · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
fluazinam · control · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
fluazinam · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.