Set SIrl8 *ic S-3524
S. -W F44
Introduction .................................. ................ 1
Origin ............................ .. ................... 1
Varietal Characteristics ................. .. .....................2
Disease Assessments ........................................ 5
Quality ....................................................... 8
Production Pointers ............................................. 10
SeedSupply ............................. ....................12
Acknowledgments ................. ....... ....................12
Literature Cited ................ ............................13
Dr. Gorbet is a Professor of Agronomy, University of Florida, Agricultural
Research and Education Center, Marianna, Florida; Dr. Norden is a Professor,
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville; Dr. Shokes is an
Associate Professor of Plant Pathology, University of Florida, North Florida
Research and Education Center, Quincy; Dr. Knauft is an Associate Professor,
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) originated in South America but are
an important cash crop for Florida growers and for the southeastern
USA. Florida had 69,000 acres planted and 60,000 acres harvested in
1983, with a value of $40.7 million. The 1981 record Florida crop was
valued at $48.6 million (1983 Florida Agriculture Statistics). Yields
have been relatively stable for the past 10 years (3,000 + lbs./acre),
except for the drought-affected 1980 crop.
Record Florida plantings for the past 30 years were made in 1984,
with some estimates exceeding 80,000 acres. This was prompted by low
profit potential of alternate crops compared to "additional peanuts."
The additional include acreage grown for markets other than domestic
edible. These plantings often receive lower inputs and less intensive
Pesticide use represents a major production cost on peanuts in the
USA, especially in the southeast. Fungicides applied on a 10- to 14-day
schedule for leafspot control, beginning 30 to 40 days after planting,
represent a major component of pesticide and production cost. Leafspot
diseases are probably the most serious diseases of peanut on a
worldwide scale and cause economic yield losses frequently exceeding
50% in many parts of the world (Garren and Jackson, 1973). Leafspot on
peanut is caused by Cercospora arachidicola Hori (early leafspot) and
Cercosporidium personatum (Berk. & Curt) Deighton (late leafspot).
None of the commercially available varieties have a significant degree
of resistance to either leafspot pathogen (Norden et al., 1982).
'Southern Runner' is a new runner-market-type peanut variety with
a moderate degree of resistance to leafspot, especially to C. personatum
(ate leafspot). To maximize economic returns, this new variety will
require some fungicide application for leafspot control.
Southern Runner was derived by pedigree selection from a cross
made at Marianna, Florida, in 1972 between PI 203396 and the widely
grown variety 'Florunner'. The primary objective of this cross was to
incorporate resistance to leafspot in a good yielding, acceptable runner-
type peanut. The female parent (PI 203396) belongs to Arachis
hypogaea subspecies hypogaea and is late maturing with a runner
growth-habit. This line has two seed per pod with a flesh or pale tan
colored testa, averaging approximately 0.86 g per seed. It was selected
as a parent based on field tests in 1971 at Marianna with emphasis on
leafspot resistance. The leafspot resistance of PI 203396 was further
documented in subsequent research (de La T'rre, 1980). The male
parent, Florunner, is a well known cultivar with no appreciable
resistance to late leafspot. However, some evidence indicates that
Florunner has a limited amount of resistance to early leafspot or C.
arachidicola (de La Tbrre, 1980). Florunner has a runner growth-habit
and runner-market-type fruit.
Southern Runner was tested experimentally as UF80202 or 72 x
93-6-1-1-b3-B. Leafspot resistance was selected for in the F2 under
unsprayed (no leafspot fungicide) conditions. Selection was continued
through the F5 generation on a single plant basis, with emphasis on
leafspot resistance and desirable runner-type pods and seed. Seed from
three F, plants were bulked to produce Southern Runner (F6) and subse-
quent evaluations were made on that bulk in replicated tests. Southern
Runner was first evaluated for yield and grade in the F6 generation.
Southern Runner is currently a composite of three F6 sister-lines,
The plants of Southern Runner have a runner or prostrate growth-
habit. Early season (first 30-40 days) development is slower than for
Florunner, but it will usually equal Florunner in vegetative growth by
mid-season. The lateral branches have alternate pairs of vegetative
and reproductive branches, similar to Florunner. The leaf color is often
somewhat lighter green than Florunner, especially on new growth.
New leaves are evident much later in the growing season on Southern
Runner than on Florunner. Southern Runner has a greater LAI (eaf
area index) than Florunner, which is apparent by 60 days after plant-
ing and continues through the remainder of the season. Ifleafspot is not
a factor, the LAI on Southern Runner will exceed 6.0, and Florunner's
LAI usually will be less than 5.0 at approximately 100 days after plant-
ing. If leafspot becomes a factor, the difference in LAI will be even
greater in favor of Southern Runner, exceeding 5.5 at its peak (Pixley,
Southern Runner matures 5 to 7 days later than Florunner under
similar production systems. Its pods and seed grade as runner-market-
type, with pod and seed size slightly smaller than Florunner (i.e., 58
g/100 seed vs. 64 g/100 seed). It has clean, uniform pods with more pro-
minent longitudinal veination on the pod surface. The testa or seedcoat
is flesh or light tan colored, being more like PI203396 than Florunner.
Seeds are generally more rounded and pods more symetrical in
appearance than those of Florunner, having predominantly two seed
per pod, rarely one or three (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Comparison of pods and seed of Florunner (left) and Southern Run-
Pod yield and grade data on the relative performance of Southern
Runner in various Florida tests, 1978-83, are given in Tables 1 through
4. Additional performance data on Southern Runner in Florida and the
other peanut producing states in the USA are given in results pub-
lished on the Uniform Peanut Performance Tests, 1981-83 (University
of Georgia Agronomy Progress Reports No. 9, 1982; No. 10, 1983; and
No. 11, 1984).
Mean pod yield, grades, and disease ratings on Southern runner com-
pared to Florunner in all test comparisons conducted at Marianna,
1978-83, are listed in Table 1. The yield advantage for Southern Run-
ner over Florunner is most evident in unsprayed (no fungicide applied
for leafspot control) tests, being nearly double that of Florunner. In
sprayed tests the yields are very similar, with Southern Runner having
a slight advantage. Grading data indicate that Southern Runner and
Florunner are very similar, with Florunner showing a slight advan-
tage for % TSMK when leafspot is controlled with a fungicide. Florun-
ner is also 3 to 6 grams greater in 100-seed weights. The lower leafspot
Table 1. Performance of Southern Runner compared to Florunner at Marianna
Pod Yield TSMKt Weight of % Dis.
Line lbs/A* % 100 seed (g) ELKS Rating#
Southern Runner 4552 79 58 18 2.2
Florunner 4311 80 64 20 3.5
Southern Runner 3469 79 57 14 4.6
Florunner 1775 79 60 12 8.7
NOTE: Data include multiple harvest dates and different fungicide treatments.
* Tb convert lbs/A to kg/ha multiply by 1.12.
tTSMK = total sound mature kernels = sound mature kernels plus sound splits
(remaining on a 16/64-inch slotted screen).
t ELK = extra large kernels, includes all sound mature kernels that remain on a
21.5/64-inch slotted screen.
# Disease Rating = 1-10 scale, with 1 = no disease and 10 = plants dead.
Sprayed with fungicide = 18 tests comparison; unsprayed = 37 tests comparison.
disease ratings for Southern Runner, especially when no fungicide is
applied, clearly point to a production advantage for this variety over
Table 2 gives performance data comparison of Southern Runner and
Florunner at Gainesville, Marianna, and Jay in the Uniform Peanut
Performance Tests, 1981-83. All of these tests were sprayed full season
with a fungicide for leafspot control. These results show a yield and
grade advantage for Florunner, especially at Gainesville and Jay.
However, Southern Runner was probably dug too early (immature) at
Gainesville and Jay and thus not at peak yields.
The results given in Table 3 are from unsprayed field trials conducted
at Gainesville and Marianna with each test having three harvest
Table 2. Performance of Southern Runner compared to Florunner in the Uni-
form Peanut Performance Tests at Gainesville, Marianna, and Jay,
Line Pod Yield, lbs/A* Shelling Percent
Gaines- Mari- Jay Gaines- Mari- Jay
ville anna ville anna
Southern Runner 4263 4659 3940t 78.0 79.0 78.0
Florunner 4668 4761 4329 81.7 80.7 78.3
* Tests at all three locations were sprayed with full season leafspot fungicide program; to
convert lbs/A to kg/ha multiply by 1.12.
t 1983 & 1982 data only.
dates. Objectives were to harvest when Florunner had reached peak
pod yield and to follow by biweekly harvests to measure Florunner's
yield response to increased leafspot. Pod yields, grades, and disease
development, as related to maturity and resistance, were compared.
Florunner yields and grades were highest at 118 to 122 days after
planting, followed by increases in leafspot and pod yield losses. Effects
of leafspot diseases on Southern Runner were not as great and peak pod
yields were obtained at 120 to 153 days. Highest individual yields
generally occurred at 134 to 140+ days. Grades (% TSMK) generally
peaked with pod yields. The leafspot disease ratings are clearly much
higher for Florunner, indicating greater susceptibility to leafspots.
Table 4 summarizes the results from tests at Marianna, 1981-83,
comparing the performance of Southern Runner and Florunner under
different levels of leafspot management, utilizing three fungicide pro-
grams. The three fungicide spray programs were: 1) unsprayed (no
fungicide applied), 2) Bravo 500 (chlorothalonil)1 applied at 2-1/8
pt./acre on a 20-day schedule, beginning 60 days after planting (DAP),
and 3) the recommended full season program with Bravo 500 (2-1/8
pt./acre on a 14-day schedule, beginning approximately 35 DAP).
Results from these tests show the clear advantage of the resistance to
leafspot of Southern Runner. Pod yields of Southern Runner
unsprayedd) were essentially double that of Florunner, and only 1074
lbs./acre less than the full season fungicide program, while Florunner
unsprayed yields were nearly 3000 lbs./acre less than its 14-day pro-
gram. Of special note, with 3 or 4 fungicide sprays (delayed 20-day), the
yield of Southern Runner was only 301 lbs./acre less than a full season
program (8 or 9 sprays). Fungicide program had no apparent effect on
grades of Southern Runner, but Florunner did respond to fungicide
application. Figure 2 shows unsprayed Southern Runner plots at 124
days after planting with a moderate level of leafspot. Unsprayed
Southern Runner had dramatically less leafspot than unsprayed
Florunner (Figure 3) at 135 days after planting in field tests at Mari-
Southern Runner has been assessed for leafspot in several different
ways. Most of the assessments during the selection phase in
segregating generations were subjective. In replicated yield trials all
plots were rated on a 1-10 scale with 1 = no disease and 10 = plants
1. Mention of a trade name does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the
product and does not imply its approval or recommendation by the Florida
Agricultural Experiment Station to the exclusion of other products that may
Table 3. Performance of Southern Runner compared to Florunner at different harvest dates with no fungicide applied for leafspot
Line Pod Yield, lbs /A* % TSMKt DiseaseS
L ine --------- -------- --------
H1 H2 H3 H1 H2 H3 H1 H2 H3
Southern Runner 1722 2545 2480 59.6 74.7 76.8 3.0 4.3 5.2
Florunner 2251 2404 891 74.9 78.5 77.5 6.2 8.7 9.5
Southern Runner 3011 3293 3612 78.2 79.1 79.8 4.0 4.8 5.4
Florunner 3257 2122 662 79.5 79.7 79.4 7.9 8.8 9.7
* To convert lbs /A to kg/ha multiply by 1.12.
t TSMK = total sound mature kernels = sound mature kernels (SMK) plus sound splits (SS), which ride a 16/64-inch slotted screen.
$ Disease rated on 1-10 scale with 1 = no disease and 10 = plants dead.
# Gainesville: H1 = 104-106 days; H2 = 118-120 days; H3 = 132-134 days after planting.
Marianna: H1 = 114-122 days; H2 = 128-136 days; H3 = 142-153 days.
Table 4. Performance of Southern Runner compared to Florunner with different fungicide spray programs at Marianna AREC,
Pod yield lbs/A* % TSMKt Disease*
Line Unspr. 20D 14D Unspr. 20D 14D Unspr. 20D 14D
Southern Runner 3668 4441 4742 79.5 79.4 79.0 4.6 2.9 2.1
Florunner 1829 3842 4820 79.6 80.8 80.9 8.6 5.3 3.1
* Unspr. = no fungicide applied for leafspot control; 20D = Bravo 500 applied on a 20-day schedule at 2 1/8 pt./A; 14D = Bravo 500 applied on a 14-day
schedule as above. Tb convert lbs/A to kg/ha multiply by 1.12.
t TSMK = total sound mature kernels = sound mature kernels plus sound splits (ride a 16/64-inch slotted screen).
$ 1-10 scale, with 1 = no disease and 10 = plants dead.
Figure 2. Field plot of Southern Runner (UF 80202) that has received no
leafspot fungicide application, shown at 124 days after planting at Marianna.
Figure 3. Comparison of field plots of Florunner (left) and Southern Runner
(right) that have received no leafspot fungicide applications, shown at 135
days after planting at Marianna.
dead from leafspot. Other more detailed assessments included data on
lesion numbers (per leaflet and per given leaf area), lesion size, %
necrosis (per leaflet and per given leaf area), rate of disease develop-
ment on a given leaf as well as in a given plot, and defoliation. These
assessments were made from three to nine times during the growing
season and at different plant canopy levels. Some of these data have
been published, but most have not (Gorbet et al., 1982).
Table 5 gives a sampling of disease assessment as made on the dif-
ferential fungicide tests at Marianna, 1981-82, comparing Southern
Runner and Florunner at two sample dates each year. These data give
lesion counts per leaflet of CP (C. personatum) only, since that is cur-
rently the dominant leafspotting pathogen in Florida and has been
since 1978. The application of fungicide (Bravo 500) greatly reduces the
lesion numbers of CP on both genotypes. However, Southern Runner
clearly has lower lesion counts than Florunner at all sample dates and
within each fungicide treatment.
Southern Runner has approximately 3% more oil in its seed than
Florunner, as noted in Table 6. Also Southern Runner has a higher
Table 5. Number of leafspots/leaflet on Southern Runner and Florunner for
different fungicide treatments, Marianna AREC, 1981-82.
LineDAP* Number of CP Lesions per Leaflett
14D 20D Unspr.
Southern Runner 0.04 .06 3.47
Florunner 0.46 .64 24.86
Southern Runner 3.71 10.56 45.08
Florunner 3.93 15.29 58.64
Southern Runner 0.32 2.06 6.22
Florunner 0.62 5.60 28.47
Southern Runner 0.71 1.94 23.96
Florunner 1.50 12.94 36.37
* DAP = days after planting.
t Bravo applied on 14-day schedule (14D), 20-day schedule (20D), or not sprayed; CP =
Cercosporidium personatum. Lesion counts based on means of four replicates with 10
leaves per plot sampled at the fourth fully expanded leaf.
percentage of monounsaturated oleic acid and a lower percentage of
polyunsaturated linoleic acid than Florunner. With an O/L of 2.1+
compared to Florunner's 1.6, Southern Runner should have better
keeping quality characteristics than Florunner. This is further
evidenced by lower iodine values for Southern Runner.
Table 7 indicates that Southern Runner is slightly lower in protein
content than Florunner. It is also lower in the limiting essential amino
acid methionine. However, Southern Runner is higher than Florunner
in the two essential amino acids lysine and threonine.
Limited data on sugar analyses indicate some differences between
Southern Runner and Florunner. In general, Southern Runner was
lower in total sugars, sucrose, raffinose, stachyose, fructose, and rham-
nose, and higher in glucose.
Processing and flavor evaluations, given in Table 8, indicate that
Southern Runner is comparable to Florunner. In these tests, flavor
score results are not significantly different between genotypes within
tests, both being acceptable, which also applies to blanching.
Table 6. Effect of leafspot fungicide treatment on oil composition of Southern
Runner and Florunner, Marianna, 1980-82.
Fatty Acid Content* Iodine
Line % Oil Oleic Linoleic O/Lt Value
Southern Runner 52.8 53.8 25.3 2.13 91.5
Florunner 49.9 49.8 32.2 1.55 95.4
Southern Runner 52.3 54.3 25.3 2.15 89.8
Florunner 49.5 50.9 31.8 1.60 96.0
NOTE: Values are calculated from data obtained from Dr. Clyde Young, N. C. State
University; Dr. Walt Mozingo, TRACEC, Suffolk, VA; Dr. S. H. Kreutzer with Proctor and
Gamble, Cincinnati, OH; and Dr. Tim Sanders with USDA Peanut Lab, Dawson, GA.
* Percent of total oil.
t O/L equals oleic/linoleic ratio.
Table 7. Protein content of Southern Runner compared to Florunner.
Line % Protein Amino Acids (g A A /100 g A A)
Line % Protein
Lysine Threonine Methionine
Southern Runner 22.4 3.90 5.18 0.86
Florunner 23.2 3.30 5.10 1.04
NOTE: Date are from Dr. S. Pancholy, Florida A & M University, Tallahassee.
*A A = amino acids.
Table 8. Processing evaluations of Southern Runner compared to Florunner,
Flavor Scores* Blanched
'83 Pt '84 Pt '82 UF '84 PG % (Pt)
Southern Runner 7.8 6.0 5.8 7.0 88.0
Florunner 7.9 7.0 6.3 8.0 86.5
* Flavor scores range from 1-9, with 9 being most desirable. Pt = Pert Labs (Edenton,
NC); UF = University of Florida, Gainesville (Dr. Sam Ahmed); PG = Proctor and
Gamble Company (Cincinnati, Ohio). No statistical difference in values.
Detailed information concerning peanut culture, harvesting, pro-
cessing, marketing, and utilization has been compiled in the books
Peanuts: Culture and Uses and Peanut Science and Technology,
published by the American Peanut Research and Education Society in
1973 and 1982, respectively. Specific production recommendations for
local areas are available in Cooperative Extension Service publica-
tions available from state and county extension offices and through
your local county extension agent. The following discussion concerns
production factors most relevant to Southern Runner.
As with any new peanut variety, growers are cautioned to limit
acreage planted to Southern Runner until they know it will
perform well on their farm, and they are able to make the necessary
equipment and management adjustments to handle this new variety.
In general, the production needs for Southern Runner are very
similar to other runner-market-type varieties. Major factors that can
be related to differences in production needs concern its moderate level
of resistance to leafspot (especially late leafspot), its later maturity (5 to
7 days later than Florunner), and its slightly smaller seed size.
Since Southern Runner has leafspot resistance and is somewhat
later in maturity, it should be more adapted to the southern peanut pro-
duction areas of the United States, especially the Southeast, where
leafspot is a major problem annually. The leafspot resistance of
Southern Runner is not strong enough to completely discontinue the
use of fungicides for leafspot control in most seasons and cropping
systems. In general, a grower should be able to reduce the number of
fungicide sprays to 3 to 5 per season, depending on his planting date,
rotation, water supply (irrigation or wet seasons cause more leafspot),
temperatures, fungicide type, and possibly other factors. If a grower
chooses to continue a full season fungicide program for leafspot control
on Southern Runner, his results should be even lower disease levels
(leafspots) than on cultivars such as Florunner or 'Sunrunner'.
It is possible to harvest two ton per acre yields on unsprayed plant-
ings of Southern Runner with no fungicide applied for leafspot control,
if plantings are made by mid-May on well rotated land (3 + years out of
peanuts) with moderate to low disease pressure. However, the latter is
not recommended because the disease pressure may well be at a high-
risk level near harvest and delays in harvest could be
costly in pod loss.
Since Southern Runner is later in maturity than current varieties,
plantings should not be made beyond May 31 in southern
production areas and probably not later than May 15 above 34 N
latitude. Also late plantings may be more dependent on supplemental
water (irrigation) during late season development than currently
grown varieties. Plantings made in April or the first two weeks of May
should not experience any special problems related to Southern Run-
ner maturity. However, for good acceptable chemical quality peanuts,
Southern Runner should be allowed to reach full maturity before dig-
ging, as should all peanut varieties.
Southern Runner has slightly smaller seed size than current runner-
type varieties, being as much as 10% smaller than Florunner or
Sunrunner. Seed requirements may be reduced accordingly and need
not exceed 75 to 85 lbs /acre for most growers following general produc-
tion recommendations and row spacings.
Since Southern Runner tends to produce somewhat more vine than
current runner-type varieties, it may be desirable to use a growth
regulator. However, this would probably be advantageous only under
irrigation or a high rainfall situation accompanied with a full-season
or fairly intensive fungicide spray program for leafspot control. Also,
Southern Runner grown under these conditions may require an addi-
tional day or two of curing in the window to pick at comparable com-
bine settings and speeds to which growers are accustomed.
Currently no information is available to indicate that Southern Run-
ner has resistance or differential reaction to other peanut pests when
compared to Florunner or other runner-market-type varieties.
However, recent data indicate that Southern Runner has some
resistance to rust (Puccinia arachidis Spegazzini).
Southern Runner is a new runner-market-type peanut variety with
moderate resistance to leafspot, especially late leafspot (Cer-
cosporidiumpersonatum). It originates from a cross between PI203396
and Florunner and is 5 to 7 days later in maturity than Florunner. It
has slightly smaller seed size than Florunner and has a runner
(prostrate) growth-habit. Pod yields and grades are generally equal to
Florunner when leafspot is not a limiting factor (full season fungicide
program). Southern Runner generally has higher yields and com-
parable grades when leafspot becomes a yield limiting factor.
Seed supplies should be available for commercial seed plantings
beginning with the 1987 growing season. Inquiries should be made to
Florida Foundation Seed Producers, Inc., P.O. Box 309, Greenwood,
The authors wish to express appreciation to the Southeastern Peanut
Association, the Florida Peanut Producers' Association, and the
Florida Foundation Seed Producers for financial assistance; and to the
following personnel for their cooperation in evaluating this new
Florida Agicultural Experiment Stations: H.A. Peacock,
Agricultural Research and Education Center, Jay; E.M. Ahmed, Food
Science Department, Gainesville; K.J. Boote and Kevin Pixley,
Agronomy Department, Gainesville; T.A. Kucharek and Greg Watson,
Plant Pathology Department, Gainesville; and A.J. Oswald, Florida
Foundation Seed Producers, Inc.
Georgia Agricultural Experiment Stations: R.O. Hammons, USDA,
ARS, Tifton; W.D. Branch, Agronomy Department, Tifton; and Robert
Littrell, Plant Pathology Department, Tifton.
Florida A & M University: S.K. Pancholy, Peanut Protein Lab,
USDA National Peanut Research Laboratory: T.H. Sanders,
North Carolina State University: C.T. Young, Food Science Depart-
ment, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: Walton Moz-
ingo, TRACEC, Suffolk, Virginia.
Proctor and Gamble Corporation: S.H. Kreutzer, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Pert Labs: Don Sutton and J.R. Baxley, Edenton, North Carolina.
The authors are especially grateful for the dedicated technical
support from: Willis Lipford, Stanley Slay, H.C. Wood, Wayne Branch,
Charles Bryant, Harold Hewett, Mary Chambliss, and numerous
1. Branch, W.D., T.A. Coffelt, D.W. Gorbet, R.O. Hammons, J.S. Kirby, R.E.
Lynch, A.J. Norden, H.A. Peacock, C.E. Simpson, O.D. Smith, J.G. Star-
ling, and J.C. Wynne. 1981. Uniform Peanut Performance Tests. Univ. of
Georgia Agron. Prog. Rpt. No. 9.
2. 1982. Uniform Peanut Performance Tests. Univ. of Georgia
Agron. Prog. Rpt. No. 10.
3. 1983. Uniform Peanut Performance Tests. Univ. of Georgia
Agron. Prog. Rpt. No. 11.
4. de la Ibrre, Teddy Monasterious. 1980. Genetic resistance to Cercospora
leafspot diseases in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Ph.D. Dist., Univ. of
5. Garren, K.H., and C.R. Jackson. 1973. Peanut Diseases.,Chap. 13 in:
Peanut Cultures and Uses. American Peanut Research and Education
Soc., Inc., Stillwater, OK.
6. Gorbet, D.W., F.M. Shokes, and L.F. Jackson. 1982. Control of peanut
leafspot with a combination of resistance and fungicide treatment.
Peanut Sci. 9:87-90.
7. Norden, A.J., O.D. Smith, and D.W. Gorbet. 1982. Breeding of the
cultivated peanut. Pp. 95-122 in: Peanut Science and Technology. Edited
by H.E. Pattee and C.T. Young. Amer. Peanut Res. and Ed. Soc., Inc.,
8. Pixley, Kevin. 1985. Growth and partitioning responses of four peanut
genotypes to Cercospora leafspot. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Florida.
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
This publication was produced at an annual cost of $2,958.50 or
$.74 per copy to provide information about a new leaf-spot resist-
ant variety of peanut.
All programs and related activities sponsored or assisted by the Florida
Agricultural Experiment Stations are open to all persons regardless of race,
color, national origin, age, sex, or handicap.