Suppression of Pea(Pisum sativum)Root Rot by Dinitroaniline Herbicides

Weed Science ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 609-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. Teasdale ◽  
R. G. Harvey ◽  
D. J. Hagedorn
Keyword(s):  
Pisum Sativum ◽  
Root Rot ◽  
Aphanomyces Euteiches ◽  
Average Yield ◽  
Fresh Weight ◽  
Common Root ◽  
Common Root Rot ◽  
Herbicide Treatments ◽  
Plant Stand ◽  
Dinitroaniline Herbicides

Nine substituted dinitronaline herbicides were studied to determine their effectiveness in controlling common root rot of peas(Pisum sativumL.) caused byAphanomyces euteichesDrechs. under field conditions. Most of the dinitroaniline herbicide treatments increased plant stand, plant fresh weight, and shelled pea yield due to root rot suppression in each of the three years studied. Weed control was good in all plots and did not contribute to yield differences. Root rot suppression and crop injury were the primary determinants of yields. The greatest yield increases when compared with the weeded control were 82% for 0.56 kg/ha of dinitramine(N4,N4-diethyl-α,α,α-trifluoro-3,5-dinitrotoluene-2,4-diamine) in 1974, 80% for 0.84 kg/ha of fluchloralin [N-(2-chloroethyl)-2,6-dinitro-N-propyl-4-(trifluoromethyl) aniline] in 1975, and 26% for 1.68 kg/ha of pendimethalin [N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine] in 1976. The best average yield increases over all years were 54% for the combination of trifluralin (α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine) and oryzalin (3,5-dinitro-N4,N4-dipropylsulfanilamide) at 0.56 + 0.56 kg/ha, 49% for fluchloralin at 0.84 kg/ha, and 43% for pendimethalin at 0.84 kg/ha. Annual applications of 0.84 kg/ha of trifluralin delayed the rate of pathogen infestation of a field repeatedly planted to peas.

scholarly journals Reaction of spring barley to common root rot under several moisture regimes: Effect on yield components, plant stand, and disease severity

1991 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 461-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. E. Grey ◽  
R. E. Engel ◽  
D. E. Mathre
Keyword(s):  
Disease Severity ◽  
Root Rot ◽  
Spring Barley ◽  
Common Root ◽  
High Moisture ◽  
Common Root Rot ◽  
Moisture Regimes ◽  
Plant Stand ◽  
Effect On Yield ◽  
Disease Pressure

The reaction of spring barley to common root rot and its effect on yield components, plant stand, and disease severity was studied under several moisture regimes. Infection of barley from natural soil inoculum, primarily Cochliobolus sativus, was augmented with inoculum of C. sativus or Fusarium culmorum to insure uniform disease pressure during plant development. In one study during the 1986 and 1987 growing seasons, a line-source sprinkler irrigation system was utilized to establish a soil moisture gradient from a high-moisture regime receiving both irrigation water and rainfall to a dryland regime receiving only rainfall. In 1986, a second study was carried out to examine the effect of soil moisture at three locations that differed in annual precipitation. Plant emergence and harvestable tillers were reduced by C. sativus in both studies as compared to the noninoculated controls. Grain yield loss was associated with C. sativus and low plant density under drought but not under moderate to high moisture conditions. In the irrigated moisture regimes, moderate and high rainfall locations, the inoculated plants compensated for reduced plant stand and harvestable tillers by producing heavier kernels. Disease severity, based on the subcrown internode lesion development during the soft dough growth stage, did not differ in the dryland and irrigated moisture regimes. However, disease severity was higher in the drought location than in the moderate and high rainfall locations. Prolonged drought and disease pressure during seedling development can result in grain yield reductions, whereas subsequent moisture will affect the crop's ability to compensate for common root rot. Key words: Hordeum vulgare, ranking and selection, canopy temperature

Mechanism for the Suppression of pea (Pisum sativum) Root Rot by Dinitroaniline Herbicides

Weed Science ◽  
1979 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. Teasdale ◽  
R. G. Harvey ◽  
D. J. Hagedorn
Keyword(s):  
Pisum Sativum ◽  
Root Rot ◽  
Solution Culture ◽  
Spore Production ◽  
Aphanomyces Euteiches ◽  
Sensitive Stage ◽  
Zoospore Production ◽  
Asexual Spore ◽  
Pea Roots ◽  
Dinitroaniline Herbicides

Pea (Pisum sativumL. ‘Elf’) root rot suppression by dinitroaniline herbicides could not be explained by a direct effect on the host. Pre-incubation of pea roots with 0.1 ppmw of oryzalin (3,5-dinitro-N4,N4-dipropylsulfanilamide) or trifluralin (α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine) in solution culture did not alter their resistance to root rot. Furthermore, 0.1 ppmw of oryzalin or trifluralin did not alter the exudation of electrolytes or α-amino compounds from pea roots. Most of the dinitroaniline herbicides significantly inhibited mycelial radial growth of pathogen,Aphanomyces euteichesDrechs., at 1.0 ppmw and inhibited asexual spore production at 0.1 to 1.0 ppmw. Dinitramine (N4,N4-diethyl-α,α,α-trifluoro-3,5-dinitrotoluene-2,4-diamine), fluchloralin [N-(2-chloroethyl)-2,6-dinitro-N-propyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)aniline], and oryzalin inhibitedA. euteichesmycelial growth and asexual reproduction more effectively than the other dinitroaniline herbicides studied. The production of motile zoospores, the infecting propagule of the pathogen, was the most sensitive stage in the life cycle and was completely inhibited by 0.01 ppmw of all dinitroaniline herbicides tested. Since this concentration is below that estimated in the soil solution at registered rates of application, inhibition of motile zoospore production is sufficient to explain root rot suppression. Inhibition of pathogen motility resulted in a 2-week delay in the infection of pea roots. This delay allowed sufficient additional plant growth that the peas could better withstand the effects of subsequent disease development.

Suppression of Root Diseases and Weeds in Peas(Pisum sativum)Treated with Dinitrophenol and Dinitroaniline Herbicides

Weed Science ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 589-593
Author(s):  
R. F. Sacher ◽  
H. J. Hopen ◽  
B. J. Jacobsen
Keyword(s):  
Pisum Sativum ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Disease Severity ◽  
Root Rot ◽  
Fungal Pathogens ◽  
Severity Index ◽  
Disease Severity Index ◽  
Aphanomyces Euteiches ◽  
Root Diseases ◽  
Dinitroaniline Herbicides

Dinoseb (2-sec-butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol) and certain dinitroaniline herbicides suppressed root rot caused byAphanomyces euteichesDrechs. and other fungal pathogens in peas(Pisum sativumL.). Dinoseb was the most effective. At 6.72 kg/ha pre-plant incorporated (PPI) it reduced the disease severity index (DSI) in glasshouse bioassays to the level considered safe for general use by commercial growers. In fields tests disease severity was reduced and yield of peas was increased with dinoseb. Dinitroaniline herbicides reduced DSI values to the level considered safe for early crop peas. A simplified DSI method of measuring root rot based on mid-season root symptoms was found to be effective. Weed control was superior with the dinitroanilines and propachlor (2-chloro-N-isoproylacetanilide). Dinoseb significantly reduced weed populations relative to untreated plots. Several dinitroaniline treatments caused stunting and stand reduction.

Factors Affecting the Suppression of Pea(Pisum sativum)Root Rot(Aphanomyces euteiches)by Dinitroaniline Herbicides

Weed Science ◽  
1979 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. Teasdale ◽  
R. G. Harvey ◽  
D. J. Hagedorn
Keyword(s):  
Soil Moisture ◽  
Pisum Sativum ◽  
Root Rot ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Field Capacity ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Aphanomyces Euteiches ◽  
Greenhouse Study ◽  
Maximum Root ◽  
Dinitroaniline Herbicides

Field and greenhouse studies have shown that dinitroaniline herbicides suppress root rot of peas (Pisum sativumL.) caused by the fungusAphanomyces euteichesDrechs. This investigation was conducted to identify factors which could enhance root rot suppression. In a temperature-soil moisture growth chamber study, dinitroaniline herbicides significantly reduced disease severity symptoms at all temperature and soil moisture regimes except 32 C and 0.75 field capacity. Dinitroaniline herbicides increased pea fresh weight significantly only under those conditions which favored severe disease development. Maximum root rot suppression occurred at 24 C and 1.25 field capacity. In a greenhouse study of the interaction of root rot suppression with pea varieties, dinitroaniline herbicides significantly increased growth of all 12 pea varieties tested including a root rot tolerant wild type of pea. A series of experiments explored the effect of uniformity, time, and depth of dinitroaniline herbicide incorporation on root rot suppression. In greenhouse studies, non-uniform incorporation significantly reduced root rot suppression indicating the need for thorough incorporation to achieve maximum root rot suppression. The combination of trifluralin (α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine) + oryzalin (3,5-dinitro-N4,N4dipropylsulfanilamide) was more effective than either trifluralin or oryzalin alone under non-uniform incorporation conditions but not under uniform incorporation conditions. Field studies showed that herbicide incorporation 2 weeks prior to planting may improve pea yield by 1.12 kg/ha of trifluralin or 0.56 + 0.56 kg/ha of trifluralin + oryzalin but not by 0.56 kg/ha of trifluralin. Herbicide incorporation to 15.2 cm rather than the normal 7.6 cm, increased pea yield at the 1.12 kg/ha rate of trifluralin or oryzalin or at 0.56 + 0.56 kg/ha of trifluralin + oryzalin. At the 0.56 kg/ha rate of trifluralin or oryzalin, herbicide dilution offset any benefit from deeper soil incorporation.

Generation and Characterization ofPgPGIP1Transgenic Wheat Plants with Enhanced Resistance to Take-all and Common Root Rot

2013 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
pp. 1576 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li-Hua YANG ◽  
Jin-Feng WANG ◽  
Li-Pu DU ◽  
Hui-Jun XU ◽  
Xue-Ning WEI ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Root Rot ◽  
Common Root ◽  
Common Root Rot ◽  
Enhanced Resistance ◽  
Take All

Expression ofBvGLP1in Transgenic Wheat Enhances Resistance to Common Root Rot

2013 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 368
Author(s):  
Liang DANG ◽  
Zhen-Qi SU ◽  
Xing-Guo YE ◽  
Hui-Jun XU ◽  
Zhao LI ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Root Rot ◽  
Transgenic Wheat ◽  
Common Root ◽  
Common Root Rot

The epidemiology of common root rot in Manitou wheat: disease progression during the growing season

1974 ◽  
Vol 52 (7) ◽  
pp. 1757-1764 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. R. Verma ◽  
R. A. A. Morrall ◽  
R. D. Tinline
Keyword(s):  
Triticum Aestivum ◽  
Disease Severity ◽  
Plant Development ◽  
Root Rot ◽  
Growing Season ◽  
Cochliobolus Sativus ◽  
Infection Rates ◽  
Common Root ◽  
Common Root Rot ◽  
Disease Rating

Common root rot in Triticum aestivum cultivar Manitou caused primarily by Cochliobolus sativus was followed during plant development in 1969, 1970, and 1971 at Matador, Saskatchewan. Plants were sampled at intervals, and three variables based mainly on the occurrence of lesions on subcrown internodes were studied: number of diseased plants per square meter; percentage of diseased plants; and disease rating which integrated percentage of diseased plants and disease severity on each plant. All variables increased with time, and the progression curves in all 3 years were hyperbolic, indicating that the increases were like those of a simple interest disease as described by Van der Plank. In two of the years, almost 100% of the plants were diseased considerably before the end of the season. The transformation proposed by Van der Plank for simple interest diseases, log10[1/(1 − x)], was applied to the percentages of diseased plants, and regressions were calculated. The slopes of these lines (infection rates) were as follows: 1969, 0.99% plants per day; 1970, 1.32%; and 1971, 1.96%. In 1969 the onset of disease was later than in 1970 and 1971, and there was correspondingly less disease at the end of the growing season.

Effect of imazalil seed treatment on common root rot and grain yields of cereal cultivars

1981 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 239-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.R. Verma ◽  
S.H.F. Chinn ◽  
W.L. Crowle ◽  
D.T. Spurr ◽  
R.D. Tinline
Keyword(s):  
Root Rot ◽  
Seed Treatment ◽  
Common Root ◽  
Grain Yields ◽  
Common Root Rot ◽  
Cereal Cultivars
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document