Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T08:52:50.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of fungicide and sowing density on the growth and yield of two groundnut cultivars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2008

J. B. NAAB ,
K. J. BOOTE ,
P. V. V. PRASAD ,
S. S. SEINI  and
J. W. JONES
J. B. NAAB
Affiliation:
Savanna Agricultural Research Institute, Wa Experiment Station, POB 494, Wa, Ghana
K. J. BOOTE
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
P. V. V. PRASAD*
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
S. S. SEINI
Affiliation:
Savanna Agricultural Research Institute, Wa Experiment Station, POB 494, Wa, Ghana
J. W. JONES
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: vara@ksu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Groundnut or peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is a valuable food and forage crop in West Africa. It is important to determine yield-limiting factors and to develop suitable management practices to improve groundnut productivity. The objective of the present research was to determine the influence of fungicide application at different sowing densities on growth, biomass and yield of early and late maturing groundnut under rainfed conditions. Two groundnut cultivars (Chinese, 90 days duration and Manipinter, 120 days duration) were grown at low (8 plants/m2), medium (12 plants/m2) and high density (20 plants/m2), with and without fungicide application, for two growing seasons (2004 and 2005). Data on leaf area index (LAI), light interception (LI) and total biomass were measured at different stages of crop development. Haulm (stem and leaf), pod and seed yields were measured at maturity. Fungicide application increased LAI, LI and total biomass of both cultivars from 65 days after sowing (DAS) until maturity. Fungicide application significantly increased pod and seed yields by 95 and 103%, respectively, on average. In both years, the long duration cultivar Manipinter had significantly greater LAI, LI and total biomass at later stages of crop development when compared with the short-duration cultivar Chinese. The growth and yield of both cultivars were significantly less at the lowest population density when compared with medium or high population densities. There was no significant difference between medium and high population densities in haulm, pod and seed yield at maturity. It is concluded that sowing a long-duration cultivar at a density of 12 plants/m2 with fungicide application significantly improved groundnut yields under rainfed conditions in Ghana.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 147 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 179 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adomou, M., Prasad, P. V. V., Boote, K. J. & Detongnon, J. (2005). Disease assessment methods and their use in simulating growth and yield of peanut crops affected by leafspot disease. Annals of Applied Biology 146, 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banterng, P., Patanothai, A., Pannangpetch, K., Jogloy, S. & Hoogenboom, G. (2003). Seasonal variation in the dynamic growth and development traits of peanut lines. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 141, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, M. J., Harch, G. & Wright, G. C. (1991). Plant population studies in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in subtropical Australia. 1. Growth under fully irrigated conditions. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 31, 535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Board, J. E. & Harville, B. G. (1992). Explanations for greater light interception in narrow- vs. wide-row soybean. Crop Science 32, 198–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boote, K. J., Jones, J. W., Smerage, G. H., Barfield, C. S. & Berger, R. D. (1980). Photosynthesis of peanut canopies as affected by leafspot and artificial defoliation. Agronomy Journal 72, 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourgeois, G. & Boote, K. J. (1992). Leaflet and canopy photosynthesis of peanut affected by late leaf spot. Agronomy Journal 84, 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, D. R., Wadia, K. D. R. & Jadhav, D. R. (1994). Effects of leaf wetness and temperature on late leaf spot infection of groundnut. Plant Pathology 43, 112–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chin-Choy, E. W., Stone, J. F., Stone, R. S., Matlock, R. S. & McCauley, G. N. (1982). Plant population and irrigation effects on Spanish peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Science 9, 73–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiteka, Z. A., Gorbet, D. W., Shokes, F. M. & Kucharek, T. A. (1997). Components of resistance to early leaf spot in peanut – genetic variability and heritability. Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida Proceedings 56, 63–68.Google Scholar
Cox, F. R. & Reid, P. H. (1965). Interaction of plant population factors and level of production on the yield and grade of peanuts. Agronomy Journal 57, 455–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimmock, J. P. R. E. & Gooding, M. J. (2002). The influence of foliar diseases, and their control by fungicides, on the protein concentration in wheat grain: a review. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 138, 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwivedi, S. L., Pande, S., Rao, J. N. & Nigam, S. N. (2002). Components of resistance to late leafspot and rust among interspecific derivatives and their significance in a foliar disease resistance breeding in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Euphytica 125, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (2005). Crop Production Statistics. Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations. http://faostat.fao.org (verified 9 April 2008).Google Scholar
Farrel, J. K., Bailey, J. E. & Mills, W. R. (1967). The effects of time of planting, spacing and fungicide on Cercospora leaf spots on groundnut in Malawi, Rhodesia and Zambia. Malawi Journal of Agricultural Research 5, 241–247.Google Scholar
ICRISAT (1991). ICRISAT West Africa Program Annual Report 1991. Sahelian Center, Niamey, Niger: ICRISAT.Google Scholar
Kannaiyan, J. & Haciwa, H. C. (1990). Economic benefits of spraying fungicides to control groundnut foliar disease in Zambia. Tropical Pest Management 36, 21–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, M. A. & Venkatachari, A. (1971). Studies on the effect of intra-row spacing and fertility levels on the yield and quality of two varieties of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Research 5, 67–79.Google Scholar
Lanier, J. E., Jordon, J. L., Spears, J. F., Wells, R., Johnson, P. D., Barnes, J. S., Hurt, C. A., Brandenburg, R. L. & Bailey, J. E. (2004). Peanut response to planting pattern, row spacing and irrigation. Agronomy Journal 96, 1066–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marley, P. S. (2004). Effects of integrated host plant resistance with time of planting or fungicides on anthracnose and grain mould and yield of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) in Nigerian northern Guinea Savanna. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 142, 345–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayeux, A. & Maphanyane, G. S. (1989). Groundnut cultivation under low rainfall conditions in Botswana. In Proceedings of Third Regional Groundnut Workshop for Southern Africa, 13–18 March 1988, Lilongwe, Malawi (EdsAbraham, J. J. & Bock, K. R.), pp. 149–155. Patancheru, India: ICRISAT.Google Scholar
Mercer-Quarshie, H. (1972). Effect of inter-ridge and within-ridge plant spacing on the performance of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in North Ghana. Ghana Journal of Agricultural Science 5, 103–109.Google Scholar
Mligo, J. K. & Craufurd, P. Q. (2007). Productivity and optimum plant density of pigeonpea in different environments in Tanzania. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 145, 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naab, J. B., Tsigbey, F. K., Prasad, P. V. V., Boote, K. J., Bailey, J. E. & Brandenburg, R. L. (2005). Effects of sowing date and fungicide application on yield of early and late maturing peanut cultivars grown under rainfed conditions in Ghana. Crop Protection 24, 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nutter, F. W. & Shokes, F. M. (1995). Management of foliar diseases caused by fungi. In Peanut Health Management (EdsMelouk, H. A. & Shokes, F. M.), pp. 65–73. St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society Press.Google Scholar
Pixley, K. V., Boote, K. J., Shokes, F. M. & Gorbet, D. W. (1990 a). Disease progression and leaf-area dynamics of four peanut genotypes differing in resistance to late leafspot. Crop Science 30, 789–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pixley, K. V., Boote, K. J., Shokes, F. M. & Gorbet, D. W. (1990 b). Growth and partitioning characteristics of four peanut genotypes differing in resistance to late leafspot. Crop Science 30, 796–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, R. C., Tanner, J. W., Hatley, O. E. & Elliot, J. M. (1980). Agronomic aspects of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) production in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Plant Sciences 60, 679–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, P. E. (2005). A century of fungicide evolution. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 143, 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shokes, F. M. & Culbreath, A. K. (1997). Early and late leaf spots. In Compendium of Peanut Diseases, 2nd edition (EdsBurelle, N. K., Porter, D. M., Kabana, R. R., Smith, D. H. & Subrahmanyam, P.), pp. 17–20. St Paul, MN: American Phytopathology Society.Google Scholar
Singh, A. K., Dwivedi, S. L., Pande, S., Moss, J. P., Nigam, S. N. & Sastri, D. S. (2003). Registration of rust and late leafspot resistant peanut germplasm lines. Crop Science 43, 440–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D. H. & Littrell, R. H. (1980). Management of peanut foliar diseases with fungicides. Plant Disease 64, 356–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D. H., Pauer, G. D. C. & Shokes, F. M. (1992). Cercosporidium and cercospora leafspot of peanut (groundnut). In Plant Disease of International Importance, vol. 2 (EdsSingh, U. S., Mukhopadhyay, A. N., Kumar, J. & Chaube, H. S.), pp. 285–304. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.Google Scholar
Stalker, H. T., Beute, M. K., Shew, B. B. & Isleib, T. G. (2002). Registration of five leafspot resistant peanut germplasm. Crop Science 42, 314–316.Google Scholar
Subrahmanyam, P., McDonald, D., Gibbons, R. W., Nigam, S. N. & Nevill, D. J. (1982). Resistance to rust and late leaf spot diseases in some genotypes of Arachis hypogaea L. Peanut Science 9, 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subrahmanyam, P., Wongkaew, S., Reddy, D. V. R., Demski, J. W., McDonald, D., Sharma, S. B. & Smith, D. H. (1992). Field Diagnosis of Groundnut Diseases. Information Bulletin No. 36. Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: ICRISAT.Google Scholar
Waliyar, F. (1991). Evaluation of yield losses due to groundnut leaf diseases in West Africa. In Summary Proceedings of the Second ICRISAT Regional Groundnut Meeting for West Africa, 11–14 September 1990, Niamey, Niger (EdsNduguru, B. J., Waliar, F. & Ntare, B. R.), pp. 32–33. Patancheru, India: ICRISAT.Google Scholar
Waliyar, F., Adomou, M. & Traore, A. (2000). Rational use of fungicide applications to maximize peanut yield under foliar disease pressure in West Africa. Plant Disease 84, 1203–1211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, G. C. & Bell, M. J. (1992). Plant population studies on peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in subtropical Australia. 3. Growth and water use during terminal drought stress. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 32, 197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar