Abstract
Abstract Applying fungicides at night when the leaves are folded and using irrigation water after application have both been shown to increase deposition of fungicides in the lower plant canopy, improve control of stem rot (caused by Sclerotium rolfsii), and increase peanut (Arachis hypogaea) yield. To evaluate the interactive effects of these two practices, four applications of a protectant fungicide, chlorothalonil (1.26 kg a.i./ha), or a systemic, prothioconazole + tebuconazole (0.23 kg a.i./ha), tebuconazole (0.21 kg a.i./ha), flutolanil + propiconazole (0.45 kg a.i./ha), pyraclostrobin (0.21 kg a.i./ha), or two applications of a systemic, fluoxastrobin (0.17 kg a.i./ha) or azoxystrobin (0.31 kg a.i./ha) were sprayed either at night (3 a.m. to 5 a.m., when peanut leaves were folded) or during daylight (10 a.m. to 12 p.m., when peanut leaves were unfolded). Fungicides were applied as sub-subplots and night and day fungicide application timings as subplots in a split-split plot design with post-spray irrigation and nonpost-spray irrigation as whole plots to evaluate disease control and peanut yield in 2008 and 2009. In 2008, leaf spot intensity (early leaf spot caused by Cercospora arachidicola) was low and disease control was similar regardless of application timing or fungicide across post-spray irrigation treatments. In 2009, leaf spot was severe and disease control for night and day applications of a systemic fungicide was similar across post-spray irrigation, but pyraclostrobin and prothioconazole + tebuconazole had the lowest ratings. Interaction of fungicide, application timing and post-spray irrigation was significant for stem rot and yield. Night application of prothioconazole + tebuconazole, flutolanil + propiconazole or pyraclostrobin showed the most increase in stem rot control and yield compared with day application among the evaluated fungicides, but the positive effects on stem rot control and yield were minimal with post-spray irrigation. The effects of application timing and post-spray irrigation on fungicide efficacy were not the same for all fungicides.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
In 2008, disease control was similar regardless of application timing or fungicide across post-spray irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Treatment
- application timing or fungicidee0
- Interactor
- Cercospora arachidicolaMycosphaerella arachidise0pathogen
- Outcome
- disease controle0
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede0
- Qualifier
- across post-spray irrigation treatmentse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2008, leaf spot intensity (early leaf spot caused by Cercospora arachidicola) was low and disease control was similar regardless of application timing or fungicide across post-spray irrigation treatments”
t0“Implications of fungicide application timing and post-spray irrigation on disease control and peanut yield”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2008, leaf spot intensity was low.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Interactor
- Cercospora arachidicolaMycosphaerella arachidise0pathogen
- Outcome
- leaf spot intensitye0
- Qualifier
- was lowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2008, leaf spot intensity (early leaf spot caused by Cercospora arachidicola) was low and disease control was similar regardless of application timing or fungicide across post-spray irrigation treatments”
t0“Implications of fungicide application timing and post-spray irrigation on disease control and peanut yield”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2009, disease control for night and day applications of a systemic fungicide was similar across post-spray irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- night and day applications of a systemic fungicidee0
- Outcome
- disease controle0
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede0
- Qualifier
- across post-spray irrigatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2009, leaf spot was severe and disease control for night and day applications of a systemic fungicide was similar across post-spray irrigation”
t0“Implications of fungicide application timing and post-spray irrigation on disease control and peanut yield”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2009, pyraclostrobin and prothioconazole + tebuconazole had the lowest disease control ratings.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- pyraclostrobin and prothioconazole + tebuconazolee0
- Outcome
- ratingse0
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but pyraclostrobin and prothioconazole + tebuconazole had the lowest ratings”
t0“Implications of fungicide application timing and post-spray irrigation on disease control and peanut yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Night application of prothioconazole + tebuconazole, flutolanil + propiconazole or pyraclostrobin gave the largest increase in stem rot control and yield compared with day application.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Night application of prothioconazole + tebuconazole, flutolanil + propiconazole or pyraclostrobine0
- Interactor
- Sclerotium rolfsii
Agroathelia rolfsiie1pathogen - Outcome
- stem rot control and yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Comparator
- day applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Night application of prothioconazole + tebuconazole, flutolanil + propiconazole or pyraclostrobin showed the most increase in stem rot control and yield compared with day application among the evaluated fungicides”
e1“improve control of stem rot (caused by Sclerotium rolfsii)”
t0“Implications of fungicide application timing and post-spray irrigation on disease control and peanut yield”
Claim · model-written summary
The positive effects of post-spray irrigation on stem rot control and yield were minimal.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- post-spray irrigatione0
- Outcome
- positive effects on stem rot control and yielde0
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Qualifier
- minimale0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the positive effects on stem rot control and yield were minimal with post-spray irrigation”
t0“Implications of fungicide application timing and post-spray irrigation on disease control and peanut yield”
Claim · model-written summary
The interaction of fungicide, application timing and post-spray irrigation was significant for stem rot and yield.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- fungicide, application timing and post-spray irrigatione0
- Outcome
- stem rot and yielde0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Interaction of fungicide, application timing and post-spray irrigation was significant for stem rot and yield”
t0“Implications of fungicide application timing and post-spray irrigation on disease control and peanut yield”
Claim · model-written summary
The effects of application timing and post-spray irrigation on fungicide efficacy differed among fungicides.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- application timing and post-spray irrigatione0
- Outcome
- fungicide efficacye0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effects of application timing and post-spray irrigation on fungicide efficacy were not the same for all fungicides”
t0“Implications of fungicide application timing and post-spray irrigation on disease control and peanut yield”
The same questions in other papers
propiconazole · Agroathelia rolfsii · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
prothioconazole · Agroathelia rolfsii · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →tebuconazole · Agroathelia rolfsii · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →pyraclostrobin · Agroathelia rolfsii · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
flutolanil · Agroathelia rolfsii · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →fungicide · Mycosphaerella arachidis · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →irrigation · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →fungicide · control · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 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.