Influence of Planting Date, Plant Population, and Cultivar on Management of Spotted Wilt in Peanut (Arachis Hypogaea L.)

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Influence of Planting Date, Plant Population, and Cultivar on Management of Spotted Wilt in Peanut (Arachis Hypogaea L.)
Physical Description:
1 online resource (64 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
McKinney, Justin L
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Agronomy
Committee Chair:
TILLMAN,BARRY
Committee Co-Chair:
ERICKSON,JOHN E
Committee Members:
WRIGHT,DAVID L
CULBREATH,ALBERT K

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
spotted -- wilt
Agronomy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Agronomy thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
Spotted wilt, caused by Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV), is a major disease that has impacted peanut production for growers in the southeastern United States since the mid-late 1990s.  Currently, there is no single control measure that manages spotted wilt in peanut sufficiently; however, collaborative research has identified several management factors that, when used together, can minimize losses due to the disease.  Three of the major cultural practices used to reduce incidence and severity of spotted wilt in peanut are date of planting, seeding density, and cultivar selection.  New peanut cultivars with improved resistance to spotted wilt have been developed in the Southeast peanut production areas, but even the most resistant cultivars are at risk for spotted wilt when planted in April at lower seeding densities.  New peanut genotypes with superior resistance could reduce the risk of spotted wilt in situations of early planting and reduced plant stand.  The effects of planting date, plant population and cultivar in management of spotted wilt were assessed in a field experiment over three consecutive years (2010-2012) near Marianna, Florida.  Data collection included three measures of visual disease symptoms (two foliar and one seed), ImmunoStrip (ELISA) testing of root crowns for presence or absence of TSWV, pod yield, and grade.  There was no effect of planting date on spotted wilt symptoms or TSWV infection.  Assessment of spotted wilt just prior to harvest indicated traces of the disease in all peanut cultivars with little variation among cultivars.  However, ImmunoStrip results revealed that viral infection differed widely among cultivars.  Viral infection was lower in cultivars Florida EPTM ‘113’ and UFT-312 compared to Georgia Green and Florida-07.  Foliar spotted wilt symptoms were highly correlated with each other (r=0.73), however, only symptoms on the seed were highly correlated with TSWV infection (r=0.77).  These results indicate that foliar symptomology is not as reliable in assessing genotype resistance as is TSWV infection, especially in seasons when disease pressure is low.  It also indicates that seed inspection may be a good predictor of resistance for use in breeding programs because it is much less expensive than ImmunoStrip testing.  New genotypes demonstrated a higher level of TSMK than Florida-07, suggesting major improvements have been achieved in this very important agronomic trait.  Results from these experiments illustrate that in years when negligible epidemics of spotted wilt occur, the impact of planting date and seeding density on spotted wilt are minimal.  Cultivar resistance is the primary means of control.  The cultivars Florida EPTM ‘113’ and UFT-312 display a new level of resistance that could possibly override other factors such as planting date and seeding density even in years with high disease pressure.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Justin L McKinney.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: TILLMAN,BARRY.
Local:
Co-adviser: ERICKSON,JOHN E.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0046330:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 INFLUENCE OF PLANTING DATE, PLANT POPULATION, AND CULTIVAR ON MANAGEMENT OF SPOTTED WILT IN PEANUT ( Arachis hypogaea L.) By JUSTIN L MCKINNEY A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Justin L. McKinney

PAGE 3

3 To my son Garrett McKinney, who inspires me daily by always persevering through wh atever life throws his way. I cherish every moment I get to spend with you and I will never stop believing, hoping and praying for a complete healing of your body

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr Barry L. Tillman, for providing the opportunity to further advance my education and for his sound scientific guidance. Without his assistance, this research project and thesis would not have been possible. I would also like to acknowledge and thank my committee: Dr Albert Culbreath, Dr. John Erickson, and Dr. David Wright I am grateful to the faculty and staff at the North Florida Research and Education Center at Marianna, Florida, where the bulk of my research project was conducted. I thank Mr. Ma rk Gomillion, Mr. James Crawford, Ms. Tracey Smith, Ms. Glenda Smith, Mr. Brad Peeler, and Mr. George Person for their technical assistance with my project. I thank my family for their continual support and encouragement throu gh out this journey in my life. I especially would like to thank my wife Joan, for her unconditional love, support and encouragement, which always ke pt me humbled and on the path of righteousness throughout this season in my life. Finally, last but certainly not least, I give thanks to Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior, who lived a sin free life, died on a cross and r ose again, so that I could have eternal life with him in paradise.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ............................. 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHA P TER 1 OVERVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 12 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 15 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 15 Planting Da te ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 17 Plant Population (Seeding Density) ................................ ................................ ........ 19 Cultivar Selection ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 21 Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 24 3 EFFECT OF PLANTING DATE, SEEDING DENSITY AND CULTIVAR RESPONSE IN MANAGEMENT OF SPOTTED WILT DISEASE OF PEANUT ..... 25 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 25 Materials and Methods ................................ ................................ ............................ 28 Experimental Design and Locatio n ................................ ................................ ... 28 Pod Yield ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 30 Peanut Grades ................................ ................................ ................................ 31 Statistical Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................ 31 Results and Discussion ................................ ................................ ........................... 32 Planting Date and Seeding Density ................................ ................................ .. 32 Pod Yield ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 32 Grades ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 33 Plant Stand ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 33 Disease Assessment ................................ ................................ ........................ 34 Summary and Discussion ................................ ................................ ....................... 34 4 EFFECT OF CULTIVAR AND PLANTING DATE ON TSWV INFECTION IN PEANUT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 40 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 40 Materials and Methods ................................ ................................ ............................ 43

PAGE 6

6 Experimental Design a nd Location ................................ ................................ ... 43 Disease Assessment ................................ ................................ ........................ 44 ELISA Sampling ................................ ................................ ............................... 45 Statistical Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................ 46 Results and Discussion ................................ ................................ ........................... 46 TSWV Infection ................................ ................................ ................................ 46 Disease Assessment ................................ ................................ ........................ 47 Seed Coat Symptomology ................................ ................................ ................ 47 Summary and Discussion ................................ ................................ ....................... 48 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 60 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 64

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Probability values from ANOVA for effects of planting date, seeding densities, and cultivar o n several traits averaged over three consecutive years, 2010 2012, in Marianna, Florida. ................................ ............................. 36 3 2 Variation in average pod yield, TSMK, rating scale 1 to 10, DIR 0 to 30, tap root crown counts, and emerged plant population over three years, 2010 2012, in Marianna, Florida. ................................ ................................ ................. 36 3 3 Planting date effect on TSMK averaged over three years (2010 2012). ............. 36 3 4 Seeding densities averaged over three years (2010 2012). ............................... 37 4 1 Probability values from ANOVA for Disease intensity rating, Rating scale, Seed coat symptoms, and TSWV infection on tap roots during, 2010 2012, in Marianna, Florida. ................................ ................................ ............................... 51 4 2 Various spotted wilt ratings averaged over three years, 2010 2012, in Marianna, Florida. ................................ ................................ ............................... 51 4 3 Correlation among 6 spotted wilt symptoms in four peanut genotypes averaged over three consecutive years, 2010 2012, in Marianna, Florida. ........ 52

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Yield test plots with low disease incidence of spotted wilt near Marianna, Florida in 2010. The experiment contained Florunner between every two plots to serve as suscept disease. ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 38 3 2 Interaction effect of cultivar x planting date on po d yield averaged over the three consecutive year (2010 2012) study near Marianna, Florida. .................... 38 3 3 Interaction effect of planting date x seeding densities on pod yield averaged over the three co nsecutive year (2010 2012) study near Marianna, Florida. ...... 39 4 1 T SWV infection results from ten randomly selected tap ro ot crowns from four cultivars in Marianna, FL in 2010 2012. Blue bars represent negative ELISA results for TSWV infection and Maroon bars represent positive ELISA results for TSWV infection ................................ ................................ .............................. 53 4 2 Four peanut seeds with A, C & D showing symptoms of TSWV while B showing little to no sign of symptoms. Photo taken by Justin McKinney. .......... 54 4 3 Four peanut cultivars showing symptoms of TSWV on their seed coats. Florunner a susceptible cultivar (50 pts.) to TSWV, Georgia Green a moderately resist ant cultivar (30 pts.) to TSWV, Florida 07 a moderate to resistant cultivar (10 pts.) to TSWV, and UF peanut breeding line highly resistant cultivar to TSWV infection. Photo taken by Justin McKinney. ............. 55 4 4 Dried tap root crowns of four peanut cultivars collected from the field on all 13.1 seed m 1 plots during 2010 2012 in Marianna, FL. Photo taken by Justin McKinney. ................................ ................................ ................................ 56 4 5 Five prefilled Agdia sample bags with 4 negative (single red line) and 1 (double red lines) positive result for TS WV. Photo taken by Justin McKinney. .. 57 4 6 Example of plot number 91201 with 10 randomly selected tap roots tested for presence of TSWV. Photo taken by Justin McKinney. ................................ ....... 58 4 7 A) Whole dried root crown, B) tap root sample weigh between 0. 4 and 0.6 grams, C) s ample process of tap root crown emulsified showing negative result for the presence of TSWV. Photos taken by Justin McKinney. ................ 59

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ANOVA analysis of variance CM centimeters DAP days after planting DIR disease intensity rat ing ELK extra large kernels HA hectare HSD H onestly Significant D ifferences KG kilogram LSK loose shelled kernels M meters OK other kernels SMK sound mature kernels SS sound splits T K Tukey Kramer TSMK total sound mature kernels TSWV Tomato spotted wilt v irus

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science INFLUENCE OF PLANTING DATE, PLANT POPULATION, AND CULTIVAR ON MANA GEMENT OF SPOTTED WILT IN PEANUT ( Arachis hypogaea L.) By Justin L. McKinney December 2013 Chair: Barry L. Tillman Major: Agronomy Spotted wilt, caused by Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV), is a major disease that has impacted peanut production for grow ers in the southeastern United States since the mid 1990s Currently, there is no single control measure that manages spotted wilt in peanut sufficiently; however, collaborative research has identified several management factors that, when used together, can minimize losses due to the disease. Three of the major cultural practices used to reduce incidence and severity of spotted wilt in peanut are date of planting, seeding density, and cultivar selection. New peanut cultivars with improved resistance to spotted wilt have been developed in the Southeast peanut production areas, but even the most resistant cultivars are at risk for spotted wilt when planted in April at lower seeding densities. New peanut genotypes with superior resistance could reduce the risk of spotted wilt in situations of early planting and reduced plant stand. The effects of planting date, plant population and cultivar in management of spotted wilt were assessed in a field experiment over three consecutive years (2010 2012) near Maria nna, Florida. Data collection included three measures of visual disease symptoms (two foliar and one seed), ImmunoStrip (ELISA) testing of root crowns for presence or absence of TSWV, pod yield, and grade. There was no effect of

PAGE 11

11 planting date on spotted wilt symptoms or TSWV infection. Assessment of spotted wilt just prior to harvest indicated traces of the disease in all peanut cultivars with little variation among cultivars. However, ImmunoStrip results revealed that viral infection differed widely am ong cultivars. Viral infection was lower in cultivars Florida EP TM and UFT 312 compared to Georgia Green and Florida 07. Foliar spotted wilt symptoms were highly correlated with each other (r=0.73), however, only symptoms on the seed were highly co rrelated with TSWV infection (r=0.77). Th ese result s indicate that foliar symptomology is not as reliable in assessing genotype resistance as is TSWV infection, especially in seasons when disease pressure is low as was the case during the three years of t his study It also indicates that seed inspection may be a good predictor of resistan ce for use in breeding programs because it is much less expensive than ImmunoStrip testing. New genotypes demonstrated higher TSMK than Florida 07, suggesting major impr ovements have been achieved in this very important trait. Results from these experiments illustrate that in years when negligible epidemics of spotted wilt occur, the impact of planting date and seeding density on spotted wilt are minimal. Cultivar resis tance is the primary means of control and the cultivars Florida EP TM 312 display a much higher level of resistance than is currently available. This level of resistance could possibly override other factors such as planting date and seeding density even in years with high disease pressure

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW The cultivated peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) is one of the most important crops grown in the world. It is native to South America, but is now widely grown throughout much of the warm temp erate areas of the world. An exact origin of the Arachis genus is not entirely clear, but some archeological data indicates it formed in the southwestern part of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil or northeast Paraguay in the gardens of primitive hunter and gathe rer civilizations (Simpson et al., 2001). The most ancient species of the genus are still growing in that region today. Peanut was introduced into the United States from Africa and the Caribbean Islands by Spanish traders (Coffelt et al., 1997). The fi rst commercial production of peanut in the United States was thought to have been in Virginia, around 1844 (Coffelt peanut did not become a significant agronomic field cro p for the United States until the Civil War. Once the peanut industry began developing its own m achinery which improved planting cultivating, harvesting, and shelling, peanut rapidly became an important crop for the United States. In the United States, peanuts are primarily used for peanut butter, cooking oils, snack foods (candy, boiled, roasted), and grain feed for animals, while elsewhere in the world they are mainly used for oil (Knauft et al., 1987). In the United States, peanut is grown in three distinct regions; Southeast (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi), Southwest (New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas) and the Virginia 2007 2011, the United States gr ew and harvested an avera ge of 495,060 hectares of peanut annually. During that time span, the average harvested pod yield was 3, 695

PAGE 13

13 kilograms per hectare which resulted in an average of 1.84 5 trillion kilograms of domestic product annually during 2007 2011. Using the average p rice per kilogram ($0. 419 dollars per kilogram ) over that same time period, the total farm gate value 1 was slightly less than $942 million annually. The southeast region is responsible for approximately 70 percent of this total farm gate value; the southw est territory generates about 20 percent, and the Virginia of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service USDA NASS 2013). Today, peanut growers in the southeastern United States are faced with m any disease problems that affect the peanut crop. In order to maximize profits, breeding programs in the Southeast have placed great emphasis on screening for disease resistant varieties. The peanut plant has to overcome many obstacles during the course of a growing season that are caused by both biotic (living organism) and abiotic (environmental limiting) agents. For the southeast region, biotic diseases are of primary concern a nd can be very costly to control. There are several diseases of major impo rtance to peanut, but the disease spotted wilt, caused by Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) is one of primary concern. Spotted wilt can cause severe damage to the peanut crop resulting in major economic losses. Some infected peanut plants are either seve rely stunted for the duration of their life or die before reaching maturity. S ymptoms of spotted wilt in peanut include stunting and mottling of the plant, concentric ring spot and chlorosis of the leaves, small and shriveled seeds, and discolored seed c oats The virus has been reported to infect over 650 plant species i ncluding more than 50 families in both monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plants (Culbreath et al., 2003), which 1 Value of the product when it leaves the farm without marketing or other variable cost considered

PAGE 14

14 means it has an extensive host range. Currently, there is no single cont rol measure that provides adequate management of spotted wilt in peanut (Culbreath et al., 2003). However, several cultural peanut practices have proven effective in minimizing losses due to the disease and include manipulating the planting date, obtainin g a uniform plant population, and selecting a resistant cultivar.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Diseases caused by thrips vectored Tospovirus es are serious problems in many agricultural ecosystems (Culbreath et al., 2003). The genus name is derived from Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) within the family Bunyaviridae, which is made up of predominantly human and animal infecting viruses. The disease was initially described in Australia on tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum Miller) i n 1915 (Brittlebank, 1919), and was first observed to be caused by a virus in 1930 (Samuel et al., 1930). The involvement of thrips in transmission of the causal agent was reported in 1927 (Pittman, 1927). TSWV is transmitted or spread by several species of thrips, which are small winged insects that feed and reproduce on plant tissue (Culbreath et al., 2008). Thrips acquire th e virus from an infected host plant in an immature larval stage (Culbreath et al., 2008). After the larva has acquired TSWV it c an transmit the virus to plant s for the duration of its life (Culbreath et al., 2008). Adult thrips are capable of transmitting the virus to a plant, but are incapable of acquiring the virus from an infected plant ( Kucharek et al., 1990). The virus has b een found to be concentrated in the bud terminals where thrips larvae feed, but titer appears to be high in young leaves as well (Kresta et al., 1995). Three species of thrips (Thysanoptera) are the primary vectors for TSWV in agricultur al production: tob acco thrips [ Frankliniella fusca ( Hinds )], western flower thrips [ Frankliniella occidentalis ( Pergande )] and onion thrips ( Thrips tabaci ). Other thrips species that vector TSWV are found in United States, but have not been associated as a significant vect or of the virus in peanut (Culbreath et al., 2003). In peanut, tobacco

PAGE 16

16 thrips [ Frankliniella fusca ( Hinds)] and western flower thrips are the most common spreader vector of TSWV (Todd et al., 1996 Webb et al., 1997). In general, the use of insecticide s alone to control thrips has been ineffective in suppressing spotted wilt, and it has often been found that the severity of infections are independent of the thrips population (Culbreath et al., 2010). Initially, TSWV was thought to be seed transmitted in peanut as well as vector transmitted by thrips, but no conclusive evidence found to confirm th e seed transmission has been foun d in the pods and testae of both symptomatic and asymptomatic peanut plants, TSWV could not be identified in the cotyledons (Pappu et al., 1999). In grow out studies, none of the seed from ELISA positive plants exhibited positive TSWV infection when asses sed by ELISA the following season (Pappu et al., 1999). Therefore, planting infected seeds which may show TSWV symptomology on their seed coats from either symptomatic or asymptomatic plants does not increase the risk of spotted wilt incidence the followi ng year. The first observation of spotted wilt in the southeastern region of the United States was in Alabama in 1986 (Hagen and Weeks 1998). Since that time, epidemics of spotted wilt in peanut have become common and the disease is one of the most proble matic in the Southeast (Culbreath et al. 1997). Spotted wilt is difficult to control because it affects a wide range of host plants such as tomato ( Solanum esculentum ), pepper ( Capsicum annuum ), peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.), and many others, thereby keep ing the virus in the agricultural ecosystem year round. Major epidemics of the

PAGE 17

17 disease continue to limit pod yield and therefore require the use of proven cultural practices such as planting date, plant population, and cultivar selection. There is no sing le management practice available that provides sufficient control of spotted wilt in peanut (Culbreath et al., 2003). In the southeastern US, an interdisciplinary and comprehensive research and extension group has been effective in providing manag ement to ols for the disease in peanut (Culbreath et al., 2003). Research has identifi ed three essential management factors to minimize risk of s potted wilt; planting date, plant population, and cultivar selection. The most effective control methods utilize genet ic resistance and cultural practice s which delay or slow development of spotted wilt epidemics (Culbreath et al., 2003). Planting Date Date of planting is an important factor affecting the risk of spotted wilt in peanut. The impact of planting date on sp otted wilt was first noted in Texas. For production areas in southern Texas, peanut planted between May 5 th and June 5 th was less likely to have severe spotted wilt than those planted earlier or later (Black, 1990). Similar studies on planting date in th e southeastern United States have suggested that planting in the first 2 weeks of May usually resulted in the lowest incidence of spotted wilt, while planting in mid April or early June resulted in greater incidence of disease (Culbreath et al., 2008). Su rveys of spotted wilt infestations in production fields in Georgia have supported these findings (Brown et al., 1996). However, the effects of planting date have not been as dependable as cultivar effects (Culbreath et al., 2008). The trend toward higher infestations of spotted wilt in April planted peanuts compared to peanuts planted in early to mid May has been consistent (Culbreath et al., 2008).

PAGE 18

18 Explanations for the differing effects of planting date have been based on circumstantial evidence and rema in speculative (Culbreath et al., 2003). A common explanation has been thrips populations and peanut susceptibility to infection are often variable across planting dates, but are at their highest in the early spring (Culbreath et al., 2010). Several studi es in Georgia indicated the greatest numbers of tobacco thrips ( Frankliniella fusca Hinds) occurred in April planted peanuts, whereas peanuts planted in May were subjected to fewer thrips (Culbreath et al., 2003). The population dynamics of thrips in non crop plants or volunteer peanuts early in the season have been hypothesized as a reason for the effects since these plants may serve as reservoirs for spotted wilt (Culbreath et al., 1993). However, proof of this mechanism has not been reported (Culbreath et al., 2003). Wells et al. (2003) found differences between years in time of peak percentage of tobacco thrips which tested positive for nonstructural protein consistent with TSWV reproduction. These changes may be due to environmental conditions which affect other thrips populations that typically occur during that range of reasonable planting dates host susceptibly and inoculation efficiency (Culbreath et al., 2003). Ambient air and soil temperatures often are much lower in mid April than in mid May in the southern United States. Therefore, soil temperature affects rate and uniformity of seed germination and seeding emergence, as well as subsequent plant populations and vigor (Culbreath et al., 2003). Temperature may also affect disease development in inoculated plants (Culbreath et al., 2003). Mandel et al. (2002) reported that fewer systemic infections occurred in field resistant breeding lines, which indicated a slower rate of mechanical inoculation of spotted wilt at lower verses higher

PAGE 19

19 tempera tures. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to clarify the reason for these shifts or fluctuation s in the effects of planting date on TSWV in peanut. Although management of planting date is a valuable instrument for suppressing spotted wilt, it does have limitations in practical application for large scale operations (Culbreath et al., 2003). Due to the sheer size and number of fields to be planted, limitations on equipment and labor, and the uncertainty of weather, most growers cannot plant all of 2003). Flexibility in planting date is especially important for large farms and would be beneficial to the entire industry. Optimum planting dates vary from year to year, but in general, av oiding early and late planting reduces the incidence and severity of spotted wilt (Olatinwo et al., 2008). In addition, utilizing planting date alone to minimize spotted wilt incidence may not be adequate as a sole cultural practice to prevent significant losses due to spotted wilt disease (Culbreath et al., 2003). Plant Population (Seeding Density ) Achieving the optimum plant population is an important management factor that influences the severity of spotted wilt in peanut. Plant population can affect t he amount of light interception, canopy closure, weed suppression, and either decrease or increase disease pressure. S potted wilt is suppressed with higher plant population s Apparently, infection rates of individual peanut plants are greater among spars e plant populations than with dense populations (Culbreath et al., 2003). Tobacco and western flower thrips prefer plants that are surrounded by bare ground over sites with canopy closure. Thus, any cultural practice that would shorten the period between sowing and canopy closure should decrease the incidence of spotted wilt (Wehtje et al., 1994). Even if the grower

PAGE 20

20 obtains a higher plant population per unit of land, this may not actually reduce the number of individual plants affected in a particular fi eld, but possibly reduce the percentage of infected plants per square foot (Culbreath et al., 2010). The effects of seeding density have been the primary means of evaluating plant population and the severity or incidence of spotted wilt of peanut in the southeastern United States. Results have indicated a decrease in the incidence of spotted wilt in peanut as seeding density increases (Wehtje et al., 1994). In Florida, spotted wilt incidence, pod yields, and grades were affected by in row plant space mo dification among several genotypes (Gorbet and Shokes, 1994). Similar reductions in incidence of spotted wilt and an increase in pod yield of several cultivars were seen as seeding density increased (Branch et al., 2003). All of these reports demonstrate that the importance of high seeding density among different cultivars should result in high pod yields, and lower spotted wilt incidence. The current recommendation in the Southeast is to plant all runner type peanut s at 19.7 seed m 1 This relatively hi gh seeding density serves as a barricade against poor germination and slow emergence in hopes of actually obtaining a plant stand of 4 individual plant s per 30.48 centimeter of row (Baldwin, 1997). Poor plant stands, along with inferior seed quality, inse cts, or challenging environmental conditions often result in decreased pod yield and low economic returns (Stermitzke et al., 2000). Often growers contemplate replanting after poor germination, but the cost of peanut seed (Sorensen et al., 2007), normall y exceeds the economic gain from replanting. Therefore, it is extremely important for a farmer to have a high quality seed source to minimize the chance of encountering these situations. To achieve a high plant, a grower must be

PAGE 21

21 able to obtain a high qua lity seed with good seedling vigor. Acceptable plant stands are also achieved through adequate soil moisture, soil temperature, and attaining the correct planting depth (Culbreath et al., 2010). Increasing plant population will not always mean an increa se in pod yield. For example, other diseases like Sclerotinia blight, caused by Sclerotinia minor Jagger in peanut intensify in severity and incidence with higher plant population compared to lower plant population in susceptible cultivars (Maas et al., 2 006). Current extension recommendations for minimizing cultivars, avoid high seeding densities, and plant before June 15 th Even though some of the recommendations for reducing Sclerotinia blight are si milar to those of spotted wilt, the lower seeding density recommended minimizing Sclerotinia blight the impact of seeding density is the opposite. Additionally, peanut breeders in the Southeast have several advanced breeding lines with greater levels of re sistance to spotted wilt that may allow lower seeding densities, especially when used in combination with other Peanut Rx (Culbreath et al., 2010) practices that aid in the suppression of spotted wilt (Culbreath et al., 2003). Cultivar Selection The most e ffective means of managing losses caused by spotted wilt in peanut is cultivar resistance. As with many viruses, peanut cultivars vary in their reaction to spotted wilt and so do the associated physiological responses (Rowland et al., 2005). Even though some cultivars have shown moderate levels of resistance, there are no known peanut cultivars with complete resistance or immunity (Culbreath et al., 2010). S ymptoms cannot be correlated with differen tial responses to thrips vector so it is unlikely that resistance to thrips explains cultivar resistance observed Research has

PAGE 22

22 proven that there is a differential tolerance level among cultivars to spotted wilt (Culbreath et al., 2000). Tolerance may be in some measure physiologically mediated (Rowland et al., 2005). U tilizing cultivars with moderate levels of field resistance to spotted wilt is a leading tool in the integrated management tool developed for the disease, and as a result, resistance to spotted wilt is a major consideration in peanut productio n in the southeastern United States (Culbreath et al., 2000). Cultivar selection is a significan t part of Peanut Rx which assigns a numerical risk value for each cultivar based on assessment from previous research. Th e index was originally developed in G eorgia to assist growers and advisors in how to recognize and avoid high risk conditions for spotted wilt of peanut (Brown et al., 1999 ). The peanut variety Southern Runner (Gorbet et al., 1987) released by University of Florida Peanut Breeding Program w as the first peanut cultivar observed to have a moderate level of resistance to spotted wilt (Culbreath et al., 1992). After Southern Runner was observed with spotted wilt resistance, the development of ne w cultivars with greater levels of resistance to s potted wilt became a major objective for peanut breeding programs in the southeastern United States. Currently there is no peanut variety available that is completely immune to spotted wilt (Culbreath et al., 2010). However, new cultivars with better spo tted wilt resistance than current cultivars have been developed but many of these new cultivars have yet to be tested under the production practices recommended for reducing spotted wilt losses (Tillman et al., 2006).

PAGE 23

23 T he mechanism responsible for spotted wilt resistance in peanut ha s not been discover ed (Culbreath et al., 2003). Several studies have investigated the possibility that the thrips vectors that reproduce and feed on the peanut have a lack of attractiveness to these highly resistant peanut lin es (Culbreath et al., 2003) but this has not been confirmed Reasons for the lack of correlation between results of field tests and mechanical inoculation test s have yet to be determined (Culbreath et al., 2003). However, a recent report from the USDA AR S showed that the breeding line C11 2 39 has resistance to spotted wilt based on the mechanical inoculation results as well as field resistance (Mandal et al., 2002). One possible explanation might include differential reactions of the virus when it is ve ctored through thrips compared with inoculation (Culbreath et al., 2003). Regardless it appears that new peanut cultivars with higher levels of resistance to spotted wilt have the most potential for improving the management of this challenging disease. Since research has demonstrated the importance of cultivar selection, most peanut breeding programs aim to produce lines with greater resistan ce to spotted wilt. Meanwhile, growers are encouraged to plant moderately resistant cultivars and utilize differe nt combinations of the integrated management program to aid in minimizing losses to spotted wilt of peanut. Major advancements in cultivar resistance have been achieved, but even the best cultivars (those with the highest level of resistance to spotted wil t) are still at significant risk for the disease when planted prior to May 1. Recently, during the 2009 growing season the lines with superior resistance to spotted wilt. These lines were te sted under the name of Florida EP TM 113) and UFT 312. The y are derived

PAGE 24

24 from a hirsuta background and are related to the line described by Culbreath, et al ., (2005) Studies to evaluate the performance of these new breeding li nes are needed to determine their effects on planting date, planting population, and cultivar selection. Objectives Although the factors described above have been important in reducing the losses from spotted wilt in peanut, their implementation has caus ed major changes in peanut production in the southeastern United States including delayed planting, increased seeding density, and a major shift in cultivar selection. Therefore the objectives of this research are as follow s: 1. To determine if new peanut ge notypes (Florida EP TM 312) could be planted in April with minimal risk of losses from spotted wilt. 2. To determine if new spotted wilt resistant genotypes (Florida EP TM and UFT 312) could be planted at reduced seeding densities with mini mal risk. 3. To determine if new peanut genotypes (Florida EP TM 312) are resistant enough to spotted wilt to allow planting in April and at lower seeding densities. 4. To determine if Florida EP TM 312 become infected by Tomato spott ed wilt virus (TSWV).

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 3 EFFECT OF PLANTING DATE SEEDING DENSITY AND CULTIVAR RESPONSE IN MANAGEMENT OF SPOTTED WILT DISEASE OF PEANUT Introduction Spotted wilt, caused by Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV, genus Tospovirus, family Bunyaviridae), is a major disease that has impacted peanut production for growers in the southeastern United States since the mid first described on peanut in the U nited States in 1971 in Texas ( Halliwell and Philley 1974, Kucharek et al., 1 990 Hagan and Weeks 1998 ) and has spread throughout all of the peanut producing regions of the United States (Rowland et al., 2005). TSWV has been reported to infect over 650 species of plants, including more than 50 families of both monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plants (Culbreath et al., 2003), demonstrating its extensive host range. Some infected peanut plants are either severely stunted for the duration of their li fe, or die before reaching maturity. Spotted wilt symptoms in peanut are variable in degree and severity. Symptoms include stunting of the plant, mottling, concentric ring spots, and chlorosis of the leaflets; furthermore, the seed is small, shriveled, and can have a discolored and/or cracked seed coat. Symptoms can appear in as litt le as 30 days after planting and progress throughout the remainder of the growing season. In addition, asymptomatic 1 plants have been reported in previous field studies based on ELISA results (Culbreath et al. 1992) I ncidence of asymptomatic infections has been reported to be as high as the incidence of symptomatic peanut plants (Culbreath et al. 2003) 1 Plant that has the pathogen (TSWV) but does not express any foliar symptoms

PAGE 26

26 The only known method of transmission of the virus is through certain species of thrips (singular or plural), which have previously acquired the virus by feeding on other infected plants (Culbreath et al., 2010). Three species of thrips (Thysanoptera) are the primary vectors for TSWV in agricultur al production: tobacco thrips [ Frankliniella fusca ( Hinds)], western flower thrips [ Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande)] and onion thrips ( Thrips tabaci ). Other thrips species that vector TSWV are found in United States, but have not been associated as a significant vector of the virus in peanut (Culbreath et al., 2003). In peanut, tobacco thrips [ Frankliniell a fusca ( Hinds)] and western flower thrips are the most common vectors of TSWV (Todd et al., 1996 and Webb et al., 1997). Prior to spotted wilt in peanut, growers began planting their crop in mid April at seeding density of 13.1 seed m 1 and would general ly have planted a high percentage of their acres during th is early spring time period However, since the occurrence of spotted wilt peanut growers are plant ing mainly in May at an increased seeding density of 19.7 seed m 1 Planting date manipulation is a primary control measure used to reduce spotted wilt incidence and severity Planting in May versus April is believed to avoid high thrips populations during the month of April compared to low er population s in May. However, th e effectiveness of th is control measure can vary from year to year and as with all control measures for spotted wilt, it is preventative and its effect cannot be predic ted prior to the growing season. Although management of planting date is a valuable instrument for suppressing spotted wilt, it does have limitations in practical application for large scale operations (Culbreath et al., 2003). Due to the sheer size and number of fields to be planted, limitations on equipment and labor, and the uncertainty of weather,

PAGE 27

27 most growers (Culbreath et al., 2003). Furthermore, utilizing planting date alone to minimize spotted wilt incidence may not be adequate to prevent significant losses (Culbreath et al., 2003). Another common method used to reduce risk of spotted wilt in peanut is seeding density Results have demonstrated a decrease in the incidence of spotted wilt in peanut as seeding density increases (Wehtje et al., 1994). In Florida, spotted wilt incidence, pod y ields, and grades were affected by in row plant space modification among several genotypes (Gorbet and Shokes, 1994). Similar reductions in incidence of spotted wilt and an increase in pod yield of several cultivars were seen as seeding densities increase d (Branch et al., 2003) T hese reports justify the use of high seeding density but they do not address the associated cost. I ncreased seed cost coupled with larger seed ed cultivars, means that seed costs are high. Therefore, g rowers would benefit from r educe d seeding densit y in order to minimize production cost and in return improve profitability Development of resistant cultivars might allow plant ing during the month of April and/or at a lower seeding densit y, but current cultivars do not have suffici ent resistance for that purpose Minimizing these and other production practices would allow peanut growers in the Southeast to return to pre spotted wilt cultural practices, which could decrease buying point congestion and increase growers flexibility wit h other crop commodities. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of p lanting date and seeding density on spotted wilt symptoms and infection in two advanced peanut breeding lines with superior resistan ce to spotted wilt

PAGE 28

28 Materials and Meth ods Experimental D esign and L ocation Field experiment s w ere conducted at the North Florida Research and Education Center (NFREC), near Marianna, Florida for three consecutive years 2010 2012 The r esearch site was chosen b ecause of a history of severe sp otted wilt epidemics Management of experiments utilized commercial peanut cultur al practices following current UF extension guidelines for peanut in the region Soil preparation utilized conventional tillage consist ing of offset disking, level harrowing deep moldboard plowing, th e n level harrowing with two field cultivation s just prior to planting (early spring) All plots were irrigated using an overhead center pivot as needed The soil type was a Chipola loamy sand (Loamy, kaolinitic, thermic Arenic Kanhapludults). Prior to peanut plot establishment, fields were planted in maize ( Zea mays L.) followed by cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) No insecticide s were applied either foliar or in furrow in order to maximize thrips vector pressure on peanut plan ts. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with a split split plot treatment arrangement and three replications. Factorial treatments consisted of three planting dates (main plots), two seeding densit ies (subplots), and four cultivars (s ub subplots). Planting dates corresponded to three different risk levels for spotted wilt (30pts, 15pts, & 5pts) according to the Peanut Rx (Culbreath et al., 2010) which were separated by 2 week intervals. Plots were planted on 16 April, 30 April, and 14 May in 2010 ; on 15 April, 29 April, and 13 May in 2011 ; on 13 April, 27 April, and 11 May in 2012. Seeding densities corresponded to two different risk levels (15pt s & 5pt s ) according to the Peanut Rx (Culbreath et al., 2010) Seeding densities were 1 3.1 and 19.7 seed m 1 of row and plant population s were determined in all plots by counting

PAGE 29

29 emerged plants (14 to 21 DAP ) and individual tap roots immediately after each digging date following plot inversion. Genotypes tested were Florida 07 (10pt. risk) Georgia Green (30pt risk) and two advanced breeding lines from the UF Peanut Breeding Program known as Florida EP TM (Tillman and Gorbet, 2012) and UFT 312. Peanut plots consisted of two 4.6 m long rows spac ed 9 1 cm apart. Disease A ssessment Prio r to digging, plants in each plot were evaluated for spotted wilt disease using two visual ratings: disease intensity rating (DIR) and a 1 to 10 scale. The DIR represents a combination of incidence and severity that was calculated by counting the number o f foci (1/2 to 1 foot sections of diseased row) of severely diseased plants for each individual plo t ( Culbreath et al., 1997). This method was originally adapted from a similar method used for incidence of southern stem rot in peanut (Rodriguez et al., 19 75). There were a maximum number of 30 foci possible in each plot. Severity of spotted wilt was also evaluated on a rating scale of 1 to 10 where each value represents a percentage of plants severely diseased in the plot. In this tr ial 1 = 10% or less, 2 = 11 20%, 3 = 21 30%, 4 = 31 40%, 5 = 41 50%, 6 = 51 60%, 7 = 61 70%, 8 = 71 80%, 9 = 81 90%, and 10 = 91 100%. For mid April planting dates, sp otted wilt was evaluated at 97 DAP, 110 DAP, 123 DAP and 138 DAP in 2010; 95 DAP, 108 DAP and 129 DAP in 20 11; 95 DAP, 108 DAP, 126 DAP and 136 DAP in 2012. In l ate April planting dates, spotted wilt disease was evaluated at 83 DAP, 97 DAP, 110 DAP, 123 DAP and 138 DAP in 2010; 81 DAP, 95 DAP, 108 DAP and 129 in 2011; 80 DAP, 95 DAP, 108 DAP, 126 DAP and 1 36 DAP in 2012. Mid May planting dates, spotted wilt was evaluated in all plots at 70 DAP,

PAGE 30

30 83 DAP, 97 DAP, 110 DAP, 123 DAP and 138 DAP in 2010; 68 DAP, 81 DAP, 95 DAP, 108 DAP and 129 DAP in 2011; 80 DAP, 95 DAP, 108 DAP, 126 DAP and 136 DAP in 2012. Pod Y ield Peanut plots were dug according to maturity class with a standard two row conventional peanut digger shaker inverter manufactured by KMC 2 Maturity was determined visually and by the hull scrape method (Williams and Drexler 1981) based on samp les from adjacent border rows that were established on the first planting date (mid April) in all three years. Digging of the subsequent planting dates was separated by 2 week intervals to maintain consistency over the study In 2010, Florida EP TM UFT 312, Florida 07, and Georgia Green were dug and inverted on 2 September, 17 September, and 1 October for the three respective planting dates. In 2011, Florida EP TM 312, Florida 07, and Georgia Green were dug and inverted on 31 August, 1 Se ptember, and 26 September for the three respective planting dates. In 2012, Florida EP TM 312, Florida 07, and Georgia Green were dug and inverted on 31 August, 14 September, and 28 September for the three respective planting dates. Inverted pl ants were allowed to dry in the field for 3 to 4 days before harvesting with small sta tionary peanut threshing equipment. Once pod samples were collected in the field, they were placed in forced air dry ing wagons and allowed to dry at 35 C for 12 to 18 ho urs until 10.5 percent moisture was obtained based on a standard grain meter calibrated to measure moisture of peanuts After curing, samples were cleaned with de 2 Kelley Manufacturing Corporation, Tifton, GA 31793

PAGE 31

31 stemmer saws removing foreign material which was not removed during the threshing process, a nd weighed for pod yield Peanut G rades Each plot was graded following the USDA procedures for peanut. In addition to de stemming and foreign material removal, sub samples were further cleaned by hand before grading to remove all loose shelled kernels ( LSK) and other non related foreign matter (i.e. damage caused by small plot threshers) not normally seen by mechanically picked peanuts. Percent of LSK and other foreign related material w as not recorded in this trial. Grading samples consisted of a two hundred gram pod sample derived as described above. T o estimate pod matur ity 20 random 2 cell pods were selected and maturity was recorded by inspecting the inside of the hull for color (white, brown or black) and press ure points located within the hull Pods were sized to determine the percentage of the sample classified as virginia pod s. Subsequently pods were shelled and the seeds were classifi ed. The extra large kernels (shelled), medium kernels (shelled), number one kernels (shelled), w ere summe d to calculate sound mature kernels (SMK) S ound splits (SS) and other kernels (OK) were a lso shelled measurement s collected. Final pod grades were analyzed and presented as percent of total sound mature kernels (TSMK), which is the sum SMK plus SS. St atistical A nalysis All data collected was subjected to analy sis of variance (ANOVA). Data were analyzed using the Mixed Procedure of SAS (SAS v.9.3; SAS Institute, Cary NC) w ith planting date seeding density, cultivar, and all their interaction s as fixed effects, with block nested within planting date and all i nteractions with year and replication c onsidered random effects. Differences in treatment means were considered significant

PAGE 32

32 at the p 0.05 level using T ukey Kr a mer H onestly S ignificant D ifferences (HSD) Multiple Comparison method adjustment for protection. Results and Discussion Planting D ate and S eeding D ensity Mid April, late April and mid May planting dates did not affect pod yiel d, spotted wilt ratings or TSWV incidence. Seeding densities of 13.1 and 19.7 seed m 1 did not affect pod yield, grading characteristics such as total sound mature kernels, or visual spotted wilt disease symptoms. Pod Y ield Pod yield was not affected by i nteraction s year by planting date, year by seeding rate, or year by cultivar; therefore, data was not analyzed separately by year. Pod yield varied among cultivars, cultivar x planting date, and planting x seeding density. Average p od yield s were 6,733, 5,480, 5,215, and 5,130 kg ha 1 (S.E. 530), for Florida 07, Florida EP TM 312, respectively ( Table 3 2). Florida 07 pod yield was higher than Florida EP TM 312 indicating its superior yield potentia l in moderate to low disease environments. Pod yield varied among cultivars when planted in mid April, but not in late April or mid May (cultivar x planting date interaction) (Figure 3 2 ). Florida 07 yields were higher than Florida EP TM reen, and UFT 312; however, no differences were found among Florida EP TM 312. Although there was cultivar x planting date interaction, rank changes were minimal indicating that pod yield of most cultivars respond similarly ac ross planting dates. Pod yield was lower in mid April compare to mid May when planted at 13.1 seed m 1 seeding density, but they were the same at 19.7 seed m 1 seeding density (planting

PAGE 33

33 date x seeding density interaction) (Figure 3 3). These results sugge st that genotypes with higher field resistance t o spotted wilt respond better to lower seeding density when planted in April. Additional work on plant populations is needed to determine the optimal density s ince higher pod yields were obtained with the lo wer seeding dens ity in this present study. Grades TSMK varied among cultivars ( Table 3 2 ) with 78.1 % 77.5 % 76.3 % and 7 4.7 % (S.E. 0.8 2 % ) for Florida EP TM 312 and Florida 07, respectively. TSMK also varied among planting date s ( Table 3 3 ) w ith 77.6 % 76.7 % and 75.7 % (S.E. 0.81 % ) for mid May, late April and mid April, respectively Higher TSMK in mid May plantings could also have been a result of more even pod maturity since plants are not stressed by cool temperatures as are th ose planted in April. Plant Stand Tap root counts varied between s eeding densities (Table 3 4) w ith means of 122 roots per plot and 89 roots per plot (S.E. 5 ) for seeding densities of 1 9.7 and 1 3.1 seed m 1 respectively Cultivar s did not vary in tap ro ot counts w ith 110 roots per plot 107 roots per plot 106 roots per plot and 100 roots per plot (S.E. 7) for UFT 312, Georgia Green, Florida 07, and Florida EP TM Emerged plant stand counts differed between the two seeding densities (Table 3 4) with 14 1 plants per plot and 100 plants per plot (S.E. 4 ) for seeding densities of 19.7 and 13.1 seed m 1 respectively. Emerged plants were not different among c ultivars w ith 127, 119, 119 and 116 (S.E. 5) for Georgia Green, UFT 312, Florida 07, and Florida EP TM Neither emerged counts nor tap root counts averaged over both seeding densities differed among Florida 07, Georgia Green, Florida EP TM 312. Results suggest

PAGE 34

34 that cultivars did not differ in germinatio n or in field emergence However, tap root counts seem to be more reliable estimates of final plant stand compared to emerge nce counts especially in the 19.7 seed m 1 density because it is hard to distinguish between individual seedlings at such a young a ge and double counts likely occurred Disease A ssessment Final foliar disease assessment ratings which were taken just prior to harvest from both DIR 0 to 30 and the 1 to 10 scale indicated differences a mong the genotypes. Georgia Green had more spotted wilt than Florida 07, Florida EP TM 312 with 2.4, 1.4, 1.2, and 1.0 (S.E. 0.10) on the 1 to 10 scale. Similar results were obtained from the DIR with Georgia Green being higher than Florida 07, Florida EP TM UFT 312 with 3.2, 1.4, 1. 2, and 0.4 (S.E. 0.38 ). Foliar symptoms were more prevalent in Georgia Green, than Florida 07, Florida EP TM and UFT 312. Results demonstrated the low disease pressure conditions during the three years of this study T he influence of planting date and seeding density were not major factors in decreasing visual symptoms of spotted wilt in this study. Summary and Discussion Planting date, seeding density and cultivar selection are important factors used to reduce risk of losses to spotted wilt in pe anut. The most critical factor is genetic resistance (Tillman et a l., 2006). Results in this present study validate the importance of cultivar i n managing spotted wilt disease. Although spotted wilt epidemics occurred in all three years of the field exp eriment, the disease was less severe than in previous seasons. R esults from our tr ials do not reflect historical patterns of spotted wilt epidemics on standard cultivars Georgia Green and Florida 07 when planted in mid to late April at 1 3.1 seed m 1 Exp lanations for this phenomenon are unknown at this

PAGE 35

35 point ; however, through ELISA testing, we know that the pathogen (TSWV) was presen t in the field during all three years of this study (see Chapter 4) In addition, thrips feeding was observed in all plots in every year between 30 and 60 DAP, but thrips were not sampl ed In conclusion Florida 07 and Georgia Green pod yield s were higher than expected on April planting dates at seeding density of 13.1 seed m 1 which is an indication of their yield potential in moderate to low disease environments. Lower y ield potential of the breeding lines may be a result of lower harvest index but they were competitive with Georgia Green, a cultivar that dominated production in the s outheastern U S for about 10 years. F lorida EP TM and UFT 312 show ed promising resistance to spotted wilt in the field and more so than the most resistant cultivars reported to date T he two breeding lines may not be desirable to peanut grower s in the southeast b ecause of their lower yi eld s, but they would make excellent parenteral lines for introgression of resistance to spotted wilt.

PAGE 36

36 Table 3 1 Probability values from ANOVA for effects of planting date, seeding densities, and cultivar on several traits averaged over three consecutiv e years 2010 2012 in Marianna, Florida TSMK 1 DIR 2 0 30 Rating 3 1 10 Tap r oot Emerged plant Pod y ield Source d f p p p p p p Cultivar (C) 3 0.0016 0.0040 0.0001 0.7108 0.3700 <.0001 Planting Date (P) 2 0.0425 0.9262 0.7424 0.7847 0.7116 0.2374 Se eding Density (D) 1 0.2983 0.3999 0.9596 0.0118 0.0034 0.6676 C x P 6 0.3463 0.2556 0.8791 0.1536 0.2107 0.0029 C x D 3 0.7142 0.1007 0.9112 0.1780 0.0003 0.8702 P x D 2 0.2234 0.8502 0.2496 0.0325 0.6198 0.0134 C x P x D 6 0.1412 0.8224 0.7682 0.6079 0.8313 0.1553 1 Total sound mature kernel (TSMK) taken during the grading process 2 Disease intensity rating 0 to 30 (0= no disease and 30= all plants diseased or dead in plot) 3 Rating scale 1 to 10 (1= little to no disease and 10= all plants diseased or dead in plot) Table 3 2 Variation in average pod yield, TSMK, r ating scale 1 to 10, DIR 0 to 30, tap root crown counts, and emerged plant population over three years 2010 2012 in Marian n a, Florida. Cultivar kg/ha 1 TSMK avg 2 Rating 3 1 10 DIR 4 0 30 T ap root Emerged plant F lorida 07 6,733 a 74.7 c 1.4 b 1.4 a 10 6 a 119 a F lorida EP TM 5,480 b 7 8.1 a 1.2 b 1.2 b 100 a 116 a G eorgia Green 5,215 b 7 7.5 ab 2.4 a 3.2 b 107 a 127 a UFT 312 5,130 b 7 6.3 bc 1 .0 b 0.4 b 110 a 119 a LSD 5 (0.05) 530 0.82 0.10 0.38 7 5 1 Adjusted least square mean s base d on kilogram per hectare 2 Adjusted least square means based on 200 gram samples 3 Rating scale 1 to 10 (1= little to no disease and 10= all plants diseased or dead in plot) 4 Disease intensity rati ng 0 to 30 (0= no disease and 30= all plants diseased or dead in plot) 5 Means separated using T K HSD multiple comparison for protection in each column. Means within a column with the same letter do not differ at P<.05. Table 3 3 Planting date e ffect on TSMK averaged over three years (2010 2012). Total sound mature kernels (TSMK) % Planting Date TSMK avg 1 Group 2 Mid April 75.7 B Late April 76.7 AB Mid May 77.6 A LSD 3 (0.05) 0.81

PAGE 37

37 1 Adjusted least square means based on 200 gram samples 2 Means wit hin a column with the same letter do not differ at P<.05 3 Means separated using T K HSD multiple comparison for protection in each column. Table 3 4 Seeding densities a veraged over three years (2010 2012). Seeding populations Density Emerged count 1 Tap root count 1 19.7 seed m 1 14 1 a 122 a 13.1 seed m 1 100 b 89 b LSD 2 (0.05) 4 5 1 Means within a column with the same letter do not differ at P<.05 2 Means separated using T K HSD multiple comparison for protection in each column.

PAGE 38

38 Fi gure 3 1. Yield test plots with low disease incidence of s potted wilt near Marianna, Florida in 2010 The e xperiment contained Florunner between every two plots disease. Figure 3 2 Interaction e ffect of cultivar x planting date on pod yield averaged over the three consecutive year (2010 2012) study near Marianna, Florida.

PAGE 39

39 Figure 3 3 Interaction e ffect of planting date x seeding densities on pod yield averaged over the three co nsecutive year (2010 2012) study near Marianna, Florida.

PAGE 40

40 CHAPTER 4 EFFECT OF CULTIVAR AND PLANTING DATE ON TSWV INFECTION IN PEANUT Introduction Spotted wilt, caused by Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV genus Tospovirus family Bunyaviridae ), is a major disease that has impacted peanut production for growers in the southeastern United States since the mid The disease was first described in the United States in 1971 on peanut s in Texas ( Halliwell and Philley 1974, Kucharek et al., 1990 Hagan and Weeks 1998 ) and has spread throughout all of the peanut producing regions of the United States (Rowland et al., 2005). Spotted wilt of peanut can cause serious yield reductions resulting in large economic losses for growers (Tillman et al., 2006). T he greatest loss occurred in 1997 in Georgia alone, spotted wilt caused an estimated $40 million in monetary losses on peanut (Bertrand, 1998) The disease continues to be a yield reducing factor in peanuts in the state of Georgia (Pappu et al. 1999), and other peanut producing states within the southeastern United States. The only known method of transmission of the virus is through certain species of thrips (singular or plural), which have previously acquired the virus by feeding on other inf ected plants (Culbreath et al., 2010). TSWV has been reported to infect over 650 species of plants, including more than 50 families in both monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plants (Culbreath et al., 2003), suggesting it has an extensive host range So me infected peanut plants are either severely stunted for the duration of their li fe, or die before reaching maturity Disease symptoms in peanut from spotted wilt are variable in degree and severity Symptoms include stunting of plant, mottling, concent ric ring spots, and chlorosis of the leaflets; furthermore, the s eed is small,

PAGE 41

41 shriveled, and can have discolored and/or cracked seed coat s Spotted wilt s ymptoms can appear in as little as 30 DAP and progress throughout the remainder of the growing seaso n. In addition, asymptomatic 1 plants have been reported in previous field research studies (Culbreath et al. 1992) ; based on ELISA results when no foliar symptoms are noticed. I ncidence of asymptomatic infections has been reported to be as high as the inc idence of symptomatic peanut plants (Culbreath et al. 2003). Therefore, the use of ELISA testing for detecting the presence o r absence of TSWV m ay be the clear est way of delineat ing new resistant types from other genotypes. The problems with ELISA testin g are high cost for the peanut breeding program and time constraints given the sheer number of breeding plots. Two major control methods used to reduce epidemics of spotted wilt by suppressing severity and incidence on peanut are planting date and cultivar selection. Presently, no peanut cultivars are available to the growers that can manage spotted wilt alone ; therefore other major production practices have to be used in combination with each other in order to reduc e spotted wilt severity. The three mos t commonly grown varieties in the southern United States are Florida 07, Georgia 06G, and Tifguard The dominant variety is Georgia 06G with over 7 5 percent of the peanut acreage planted with this cultivar. Culbreath et al., (2013) reported field resista nce in Florida 07, Georgia 06G, and Tifguard was sufficient to allow planting them at reduc ed seeding densities as compared to Georgia Green However, these cultivars are still at some risk of spotted wilt disease if they are planted in mid April with the past (prior to spotted wilt) 1 Plant that has the pathogen (TSWV) but does not express any foliar symptoms

PAGE 42

42 extension recommended seeding density 13.1 seed m 1 Therefore breeding efforts have continued in the areas of improved spotted wilt resistance so farmers could potentially return to mid April planting with reduced seeding d ensities The primary objective of this research was to further investigate two new cultivars Florida EP TM 312 under various field conditions in order to characterize the ir infection to TSWV compared to the commercial cultivars Florida 07 a nd Georgia Green The effect of planting date and the importance of cultivar selection in mana gement of spotted wilt disease of peanut i s well documented However, the potential impacts of new highly resistant genotypes under traditional or historical p eanut production practices have not been evaluat ed and need to be described to determine if the breeding efforts have made significant progress on spotted wilt resistance to allow farmers to plant at seeding densities of 13.1 seed m 1 during mid April Th is combination of planting date and seeding density was very common and the extension recommendation prior to the onset of spotted wilt. If new genotypes prove to have resistance sufficient to obviate planting date and seeding density as important managem ent factors for spotted wilt, growers could reduc e production cost s by reducing seeding density and spread planting to solve planting and harvest logistics caused by a narrow planting window These problems have plagued farmers since the mid 1990 s when sp otted wilt bec a me a common problem to all growers in the southeast Studies were conducted to compare two new peanut cultivars with commercial standards relative to pod yield, market pod grading characteristics, and spotted wilt ratings Cultivars Georgia Green (Branch, 1996) and Florida 07 (Gorbet and Tillman, 2007) were chosen base d on their variable levels of field resistance to spotted wilt to compare

PAGE 43

43 to two new spotted wilt resistant cultivars tested as Florida EP TM (Tillman and Gorbet 2012) and UFT 312 Materials and Methods Experimental D esign and L ocation Studies were conducted at the North Florida Research and Education Center (NFREC) near Marianna, Florida for three consecutive years (2010 2012) The research si te was chosen based on pas t epidemics and in creased pressure of spotted wilt disease on peanuts. Management of experiment s utilized commercial peanut production l practices following current UF extension guidelines for peanut Soil preparation utilized conventional tillage consis ting of offset disking, level harrowing, deep moldboard plowing, then level harrowing with two field cultivations just prior to planting (early spring). All plots were irrigated using an overhead center pivot as needed. The soil type was a Chipola loamy sand (Loamy, kaolinitic, thermic Arenic Kanhapludults). Prior to peanut plot establishment, fields were planted in maize ( Zea mays L.) followed by cotton ( Gossypium hirsutm L.). No insecticide applications were applied either foliar or in furrow in order to maximize thrips vector pressure on peanut plants The experimental design was a randomized complete block with a split split plot treatment arrangement and three replications Factorial treatments consisted of three planting dates (whole plots), two s eeding densities (subplots), and four cultivars (sub subplots). Pl anting dates c orrespond ed to three different risk levels (30pts, 15pts, & 5pts) a ccording to th e Peanut Rx (Culbreath et al., 2010) which were separated by 2 week intervals. Plots were planted on 1 6 April 30 April and 1 4 May in 2010; on 15 April, 29 April, and 13 May in 2011; on 1 3 April, 27 April, and 11 May in 2012 Seeding

PAGE 44

44 densities corresponded to two different risk levels (15pts & 5pts) according to the Peanut Rx (Culbreath et al ., 2010) Seeding densities were 13.1 and 19.7 seed m 1 and plant population s w ere determined in all plots by counting emerged plants (14 to 21 DAP) and individual tap roots immediately after each digging date following plot inversion. Genotypes tested w ere Florida 07 (10pt risk), Georgia Green (30pt risk), and two advanced breeding lines from the UF Peanut Breeding Program known as Florida EP TM 312. Peanut plots were established on single rows spaced 91 centimete rs (cm) apart and rows were 4.6 meters (m) long with two rows in each plot. Disease A ssessment Prior to digging, plants in each plot were evaluated for spotted wilt disease using two visual ratings : disease intensity rating (DIR) and a 1 to 10 scale The DIR represents a combination of incidence and severity that w as calculated by counting the number of foci (1/2 to 1 foot sections of row) of severely diseased plants for each individual plot (Culbreath et al., 1997). This method was originally adapted fro m a similar method used for incidence of southern stem rot in peanut by (Rodriguez et al., 1975 ). The re were a max imum number of 30 foci possible in each plot. Severity of spotted wilt w as also evaluated on a rating scale of 1 to 10 where each value repr esents a percentage of plants severely diseased in the plot In this trail, 1 = 10% or less, 2 = 11 20%, 3 = 21 30%, 4 = 31 40%, 5 = 41 50%, 6 = 51 60%, 7 = 61 70%, 8 = 71 80%, 9 = 81 90% a nd 10 = 91 100%. In addition to fo liar symptoms o f the canopy, se ed coat symptoms caused by TSWV were inspected visually by randomly selecting 50 seeds out of the SMK Then were weighed separately and rated. Ratings consisted of seed coat discoloration (red, pink, purple, brown), constriction shriveling and cracking

PAGE 45

45 (Figure 4 2 ). A verage seed weight and number of seeds showing symptomology were recorded so data could be used to develop a correlation analysis ELISA Sampling Plant s were sampled immediately after digging while the plant tissue was still fresh Tap ro ot crowns were collected after population counts were finalized and placed in brown paper bags and allow ed to dry using circular fans in the lab (Figure 4 4 ) Viral detection was assessed using the ImmunoStrip Kit (ISK) (Agdia Inc., Elkhart, IN, USA) spec ifically designed for Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) in plant tissue ISK assay kit tests were used for testing the frequency of vir al infection on individual peanut plants (Figure 4 5 ) Antibodies were store d at 4 6 C (not allowed to freeze) until all root crowns were collected from the field and allowed to dry Plant samples between 0.4 to 0.6 grams (Figure 4 7b) of root crown tissue w ere placed in a sample extract pouch, which were prefilled with SEB1 (sample ext ract buffer # 1) buffer solution containing 3 milliliters per bag Root crowns were cleaned by hand during the removal of the all the lateral roots from the main tap root. Each e xtraction pouch was opened using standard office scissors, crowns were place d between mesh screens, bags were sealed briefly with fingers, and then tissue became emulsified by hammering with a mallet (Figure 4 7c ) Once solution settled, test strips were inserted into the channel portion (no mesh) of the bag and allowed to set fo r one hour in an upright position, so fluid did not escape from the extract bag. Results developed in as little as 5 minutes but were not recorded until an hour pas sed in order to allow lower titer samples time to develop (Figure 4 6 ) Any test strip rea ding that indicated an invalid result was discarded A total of 10 randomly selected root crowns were tested from all 3 planting dates, 3 replications from only the 13.1 seed m 1 plots

PAGE 46

46 Statistical A nalysis D ata w ere subjected to analysis of variance (A NOVA) using the Mixed Procedure of SAS (SAS v.9.3; SAS Institute, Cary NC) with planting date, cultivar, and planting date x cultivar interaction considered as fixed effects, with block nested within planting date and all interactions with year and replica tion considered random effects. Differences in treatment means were evaluated using Tukey Kr a mer Honestly Significant Differences (HSD) Multiple Comparison method adjustment for protection. Probability was set at P<0.05 and considered different if less t han 0.05. Seeding density differences were not characterized through ELISA testing in this study because of time constraints, equipment and labor limitations. In addition, t o analysis of variance, a correlation analysis w as conducting using PROC CORR of SAS (SAS v.9.3; SAS Institute, Cary NC) to further examine the relationship among visual spotted wilt ratings and TSWV in fection Results and Discussion TSWV Infection Planting date had no effect on TSWV infection frequency DIR, TSW V rating, or seed coat symptoms (Table 4 1). TSWV infections varied among cultivars (p=0.0001) Incidence of TSWV infections averaged (n=270) for each cultivar over three planting dates with three replication over three consecutive years study were 67, 44, 10, and 4 percent (S .E. 7 0), for Georgia Green, Florida 07, Florida EP TM 312, respectively (Figure 4 1). TSWV infection in Georgia Green was higher than Florida 07, Florida EP TM 312 indicating it was the most susceptible cultivar Florida 07 had lower TSWV infection than Georgia Green, but higher than Florida EP TM and UFT 312 and represent ed a cultivar with moderate TSWV infection. Infection of

PAGE 47

47 TSWV in Florida EP TM 312 TSWV was similar but l ower than Florida 07 and Georgia Gr een. The two advanced breeding lines were highly resistant to TSWV infections and therefore, showed little to no disease symptoms Disease A ssessment Final foliar disease assessment ratings, which were taken just prior to harvest from both DIR and the 1 t o 10 scale indicated differences among the genotypes. Georgia Green had more spotted wilt than Florida 07, Florida EP TM 312 with 2.4, 1.4, 1.2, and 1.0 (S.E. 0.10) on the 1 to 10 rating scale. Similar results were obtained from the DIR with Georgia Green being higher than Florida 07, Florida EP TM 312 with 3.2, 1.4, 1.2, and 0.4 (S.E. 0.38) respectively Seed coat symptoms taken during the grading process indicated differences among the cultivars. Georgia Green had the most se ed coat symptoms following by Florida 07 which was lower than Georgia Green but higher than Florida EP TM 312 with 15.7, 7.0, 2.8, and 1.5 (S.E. 0.72) symptomatic seeds out of 50 evaluated Foliar symptoms were more prevalent in Georgia Green than Florida 07, Florida EP TM and UFT 312. However, foliar symptoms were not highly correlated with TSWV infection as were seed coat symptoms ( Table 4 3) Nonetheless, results s how that disease pressure was low a nd that the influence of planting date was minimal. Seed Coat Symptomology To date, this is the first study in peanut to describe the important trait of seed coat symptomology and its relationship with the viral pathogen TSWV. Seed quality has always been a major factor in peanut process ing O ne of the p rimarily methods that the shelling industry uses to maintain high seed quality is to remov e all the dark purple to red spott ed or blemished kernels. This process has been traditionally accomplished by

PAGE 48

48 manual selection. New t echnolog ica l advancement s have equipped modern shelling facilities with color sorting machines (ScanMaster TM ) which automatically reject kernels reflecting certain shades of light inconsistent with desirable seed coat color parameters (Manual 1998) Therefore, c ulti vars susceptible to high incidence of seed coat symptoms may be at a disadvantage in the market. This creates the need for peanut breeding programs to develop new cultivars that are more resistant to seed coat blemishes associated with spotted wilt. In t his present study, s eed coat symptomology is the only consistent visual disease symptom that serve s as a good predictor of infection by TSWV These findings have huge implication s o n both growers and breeders TSWV infection causes reduced pod yields and could cause rejection of seeds with blemished seed coats. Developing cultivars with resistan ce to both foliar and seed coat symptoms of spotted wilt could minimize the impact on both. Summary and Discussion In general, spotted wilt epidemics were low in all treatments and followed this pattern throughout the three consecutive (2010 2012) year field study. ELISA assessment indicates that c ultivar was the most significant factor in reducing TSWV infection. Peanut genotypes Florida EP TM and UFT 312 had very low levels of TSWV which make them good candidates for both large and small scale growers who may want to start planting a high percentage of their peanut acreage in the month of April a t a reduced seeding density of 13.1 seed m 1 According to a correlation analysis (Table 4 5) symptomology based on the DIR and the 1 10 scale were highly correlated with each other (r=0.73) ; however, there was a poor er relationship between foliar symptoms and actual TSWV infection with DIR (r=0.42) and 1 10 scale (r=0.55). These results indicate that foliar symptomology is not

PAGE 49

49 as reliable in assessing genotype resistance as is TSWV infection, especially in seasons when disease pressure is low. The strongest correlation observed was between seed coat symptoms (vis ual assessment) and TSWV infection (r=.77). Seed coat symptoms of spotted wilt were evaluated as part of the grading process during the winter season. Even though visual assessments from both foliar ratings of symptomatic plants varied among cultivars, t hey did not correlate with TSWV presence or absence in the root crown Georgia Green had the highe st incidence of TSWV infection compared to Florida 07, Florida EP TM and UFT 312 even though 44% of Florida 07 plants were infected with TSWV. This s u ggest s that seed coat symptomology may be a better means of assessing TSWV resistant lines th a n current foliar evaluation methods commonly used in peanut breeding programs in the United States. Evaluations of spotted wilt severity based exclusively on vi sible foliar symptoms m a y underestimate the actual presence of TSWV, since asymptomatic plants are common. In years with minimal phenotypic symptomology or when asymptomatic plant s are present, such as in this study, foliar symptoms are not as reliable as seed coat symptoms in identifying resistant genotypes such that breeding programs may be inadvertently advancing and releasing cultivars with unacceptable susceptibility to spotted wilt S eed coat symptomology was the only visual disease symptom that ser ved as a good predictor for the presence or absence of TSWV and is less expensive than ELISA testing. Breeding programs cannot afford to misdiagnose escape for spotted wilt resistance. Utilizing seed symptomology could help to eliminate susceptible genot ypes from the breeding populations and perhaps avert release of a spotted wilt susceptible cultivar.

PAGE 50

50 Even though foliar symptomology was minimal, t his study revealed through ELISA testing that TSWV is still in our agricultur al ecosystem (Figure 4 1) and i s therefore capable of causing disease. T he reason for the lack of spotted wilt disease on peanut during those seasons remains unknow n, but the disease is known to vary from season to season. Nevertheless, these results confirm the importance of cultivar selection in management of spotted wilt. Florida EP TM and UFT 312 have exceptional resistance to spotted wilt apparently because they are less likely to become infected by TSWV th a n other standard cultivars Other studies have reported lower level s of TSWV infectio n with advanced breeding material, but never as low as Florida EP TM 312 as demonstrated in this research. Data suggest Florida EP TM 312 ha ve low enough infection levels to TSWV that if called upon, they could be planted in high risk situation without severe loss due to spotted wilt. In fact, similar TSWV infection levels in future cultivars may help growers negate major production factors that have con strained the industry since spotted wilt became an issue in the mid 1990s

PAGE 51

51 Table 4 1. Probability values from ANOVA for D isease i ntensity r ating R ating scale, S eed coat symptoms, and TSWV infection on tap roots during 2010 2012 in Marianna, Florida. DIR 1 0 30 Rating 2 1 10 Seed coat 3 symptoms TSWV 4 infection Source df p p p p Cultivar (C) 3 0.0040 0.0001 <.0001 0.0001 Planting Date (P) 2 0.9262 0.7424 0.9241 0.1773 Seeding Density (D) 1 0.3999 0.9596 0.8491 N/A C x P 6 0.2556 0.8791 0.5594 0.3957 C x D 3 0.1007 0.9112 0.4884 N/A P x D 2 0.8502 0.2496 0 .3112 N/A C x P x D 6 0.8224 0.7682 0.1664 N/A 1 Disease intensity rating 0 to 30 (0= no disease and 30= all plants diseased or dead in plot) 2 Rating scale 1 to 10 (1= little to no disease and 10= all plants diseased or dead in plot) 3 Seed coat symptom s taken during the grading process [50 random (SMK) ] 4 TSWV infection frequency using tap root crowns from all 13.1 seed m 1 plots Table 4 2 Various s potted wilt ratings averag ed over three years 2010 2012 in Marianna, Florida Spotted wilt severity Cultivar Rating 1 DIR 2 Seed Coat 3 1 10 0 30 No. out of 50 Georgia Green 2.4 a 3.2 a 15.7 a Florida 07 1.4 b 1.4 b 7.0 b Florida EP TM 1.2 b 1.2 b 2.8 c UFT 312 1.0 b 0.4 b 1.5 c LSD 4 (0.05) 0.10 0.38 0.72 1 Rating scale 1 to 10 ( 1= little t o no disease and 10= all plants diseased or dead in plot ) 2 Disease i ntensity r ating 0 to 30 ( 0= no disease and 30= all plants diseased or dead in plot ) 3 Number of seeds with symptoms of spotted wilt out of 50 r andom (SMK) 4 Means separated using T K HSD multiple comparison for protection in each column Means within a column with the same letter do not differ at P<.05

PAGE 52

52 Table 4 3 Correlation among 6 spotted wilt symptom s in four peanut genotypes averaged over three consecutive yea rs 2010 2012 in Marianna, Florida. DIR Disease intensity rating Final TSWV Rating Scale 1 to 10 Seed c oat symptomology Pod Yield TSMK Total sound mature kernels Final DIR Disease intensity rating --Final TSWV Rating Scale 1 to 10 0.73** --Seed coat symptom ology 0.57** 0.70** --Pod Yield 0.27** 0.17** 0.08 --TSMK Total sound mature kernels 0.13 0.10 0.01 0.35** --ELISA Positive ImmunoStrip 0.42** 0.54** 0.77** 0.22* 0.20 *,** Significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels of probability, respecti vely.

PAGE 53

53 Figure 4 1 TSWV infection results from ten randomly selected tap r oot crown s from four cultivars in Marianna, FL in 2010 2012 Blue bars represent negative ELISA results for TSWV infection and Maroon bars represent positive ELISA r esults for TSWV infection

PAGE 54

54 Figure 4 2 Four peanut seeds with A, C & D showing symptoms of TSWV while B showing little to no sign of symptoms. Photo taken by Justin McKinney. A B B C B D

PAGE 55

55 Figure 4 3 Four peanut cultivar s showing symptoms of TSWV on the ir seed coats. Florunner a susceptible cultivar (50 pts.) 1 to TSWV, Georgia Green a moderately resistant cultivar (30 pts.) to TSWV, Florida 07 a moderate to resistant cultivar (10 pts.) to TSWV, and UF peanut breeding line highly resistant cultivar to TS WV infection Photo taken by Justin McKinney. 1

PAGE 56

56 Figure 4 4 Dried tap root crowns of f our peanut cultivar s collected from the field on all 13.1 seed m 1 plots during 2010 2012 in Marianna, FL Photo taken by Justin McKinney.

PAGE 57

57 Figure 4 5 F ive prefilled Agdia sample bags with 4 negative (single red line) and 1 (double red lines) positive result for TSWV Photo taken by Justin McKinney.

PAGE 58

58 Figure 4 6 Example of plot number 91201 with 10 randomly selected tap roots tested for presence of TSWV. Photo taken by Justin McKinney.

PAGE 59

59 A B C Figure 4 7 A) Whole dried root crown, B) tap root sample weigh between 0.4 and 0.6 grams, C) s ample process of tap root crown emulsified showing negative result for the pre sence of TSWV. Photos taken by Justin McKinney.

PAGE 60

60 LIST OF REFERENCES Baldwin, J.A. 1997. Seeding rates, row patterns, and planting dates. Pages 22 25. In Peanut Production Field Guide. Bulletin 1146. Georgia Cooperative Extension Station Tifton, Ga. Ber trand, P. ed. 1998. Georgia plant disease loss estimates. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Publication Pathology. 98 1007. Black, M.C. 1990. Predicting spotted wilt in south Texas peanuts. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Ed. Soc. 22 83 (Abstract). Branc Branch, W.D., J.A. Baldwin, and A.K. Culbreath. 2003. Genotype x seeding rate interaction among tswv resistant, runner type peanut cultivars. Peanut Science. 30:108 111. Brittl ebank, C.C. 1919. Tomato diseases. Journal of Agriculture, Victoria. 27:231 235. Brown, S., J. Todd, A. Culbreath, H. Pappu, J. Baldwin, and J. Beasley. 1999. Tomato spotted wilt of peanut: Identifying and avoiding high risk situations. University of Geor gia Extension Bulletin. 1165. Brown, S.L., J.W. Todd, and A.K. Culbreath. 1996. Effects of selected cultural practices on tomato spotted wilt virus and populations of thrips in peanuts. Acta. Horticulturea. 431:491 498. Chiteka, Z.A., D.W. Gorbet, D.A. K nauft, F.M. Shokes, and T.A. Kucharek. 1988b. Components of resistance to late leafspot in peanut II. Correlations among components and their significance in breeding for resistance. Peanut Science 15:76 81. N.Kolalis Burelle, D.M. Porter, R. Rodriguez Kabana, D.H. Smith, and P. Subrahmanyam, Eds., pg. 2, APS Press, St. Paul, Minn, USA, 2nd edition, 1997. Culbreath, A.K., R.S. Tubbs, B.L. Tillman, J.P. Beasley, W.D. Branc h, C.C. Holbrook, A.R. Smith, and N.B. Smith, 2013. Effect of seeding rate and cultivar on tomato spotted wilt of peanut. Crop Protection 53:118 124. Culbreath, A.K., and R. Srinivasan. 2011. Epidemiology of spotted wi lt disease of peanut caused by tomato spotted wilt virus in the southeastern U.S. Virus Research 159:101 109. Culbreath, A., J. Beasley, B. Kemerait, E. Prostko, T. Brenneman, N. Smith, S. Tubbs, R. Olatinwo, B. Tillman, and A. Hagen. 2010. Minimizing di seases of peanuts in

PAGE 61

61 the southeastern United States. The 2010 version of the University of Georgia, University of Florida, and Auburn University. Peanut Rx: 1 16. Culbreath, A.K., J.W. Todd, S.L. Brown, H.R. Pappu. 2008. An introduction to plant viruses a nd TSWV. Online. http://www.caes.uga.edu/topics/diseases/tswv/peanut/intro.html Culbreath, A.K., J.W. Todd, and S.L. Brown. 2003. Epidemiology and management of tomato spotte d wilt in peanut. In: Annual review of phytopathology. 41:53 75. Culbreath, A.K., J.W. Todd, D.W. Gorbet, S.L. Brown, J.A. Baldwin, H.R. Pappu, and F.M. Shokes. 2000. Reaction of peanut cultivars to spotted wilt. Peanut Science. 27:35 39. Culbreath, A.K. J.W. Todd, D.W. Gorbet, S.L. Brown, J.A. Baldwin, H.R. Pappu, C.C. Holbrook, and F.M. Shokes. 1999. Response of early, medium, and late maturing peanut breeding lines to field epidemics of tomato spotted wilt. Peanut Science. 26:100 106. Culbreath, A.K. J.W. Todd, D.W. Gorbet, F.M. Shokes and H.R.Pappu. 1997. Field response of new peanut cultivar UF 91108 to tomato spotted wilt virus. Plant Disease 81:1410 1415. Culbreath, A.K., J.W. Todd, J.W. Demski, and J.R. Chamberlin. 1993. Disease progress of spo tted wilt in peanut cultivars Florunner and southern runner. Phytopathology. 82:766 771. Culbreath, A.K., J.W. Todd, and J.W. Demski. 1992. Comparison of hidden and apparent spotted wilt epidemics in peanut. Proc. Am Peanut Res. Ed. Soc. 24:39 (Abstract.) Culbreath, A.K., A.S, Csinos, T.B. Brenneman, J.W. Demski and J.W. Todd. 1991. Association of tomato spotted wilt virus with foliar chlorosis of peanut in Georgia. Plant Disease. 75:863 (Abstract.). Gorbet, D.W., and B.L. Tillman. 2009. Registration of Plant Registrations. 3:14 18. Gorbet, D.W. and F.M. Shokes, 1994. Plant spacing and tomato spotted wilt virus. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Ed. Soc. 26:50 (Abstract). Gorbet, D.W., A.J. Norden, F.M. Shokes, and D.A. Knauft. 198 7. Registration of Hagen, A.K., and R. Weeks. 1998. Tomato spotted wilt virus on peanuts. Alabama Cooperative Extension Service Publication ANR 574.

PAGE 62

62 Halliwell, R.S., and G Philley. 1974. Spotted wilt of peanu t in Texas. Plant Dis. Rep. 58:23 25. development, W.R. Fehr, E.L. Fehr, and H.J. Jessen, Eds., pg 346, Macmillan, New York, Volume 2, 1987. Kresta, K.K., F.L. Mitchell, and J.W. Smith Jr. 1995. Survey by ELISA of thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) vectored tomato spotted wilt virus distribution in foliage and flowers of field infected peanut. Peanut Science. 22:141 149. Kucharek, T., L. Brown, F. Johnson, and J. Funderburk. 1 990 Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus of Agronomic, Vegetable, and Ornamental Crops. Circ 914. Fla. Coop. Ext. Serv., University of Florida, Gainesville. Maas, A.L., K.E. Dashiell, and H.A. Melouk. 2006. Planting density influences diseases incidence and severit y of Sclerotinia blight in peanut. Crop Science. 46:1341 1345. Mandal, B., H.R. Pappu, A.K. Culbreath, C.C. Holbrook, and D.W. Gorbet. 2002. Differential response of selected peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) genotypes to mechanical inoculation by tomato spott ed wilti virus. Plant Disease. 86:939 944. Nascimento, L.C., V. Pensuk, N.P Costa, 2006. Evaluation of peanut genotypes for resistance to tomato spotted wilt virus by mechanical and thrips inoculation. Pesq. Agropec. Bras., Brasilia, pg 937.942. Olatinw o, R.O., J.O. Paz, S.L. Brown, R.C. Kemerait, Jr., A.K. Culbreath, J.P. Beasley, Jr., and G. Hoogenboom, 2008. A predictive model for spotted wilt epidemics in peanut based on local weather conditions and the tomato spotted wilt virus risk index. Phytopath ology. 98:1066 1074. Pappu, S.S., H.R. Pappu, A.K. Culbreath, and J.W. Todd. 1999. Localization of tomato spotted wilt virus (genus tospovirus, family bunyaviridae) in peanut pods. Peanut Science. 26:98 99. Pittman, H.A. 1927. Spotted wilt of tomatoes. P reliminary note concerning the transmission of spotted wilt of tomatoes by an insect vector (Thrips tabaci L.). J. Council Scientific Industrial Research (Aust.) 1:74 77. Rodriguez Kabana, R., P.A. Backman, and J.C Williams. 1975. Determination of yield l osses to sclerotium rolfsii in peanut fields. Plant Disease. Rep. 59:855 858. Rowland, D., J. Dorner, R. Sorensen, J. Beasley Jr., and J. Todd. 2005. Tomato spotted wilt virus in peanut tissue types and physiological effects related to disease incidence a nd severity. Plant Pathology. 54:431 440.

PAGE 63

63 Satake USA Inc. 1998. ScanMaster TM tomatoes in Australia. Commonwealth of Australia, Council Sc ientific Industrial Research Bulletin Number 44. Simpson, C.E., A. Krapovickas, and J.F.M. Valls. 2001. History of Arachis including evidence of A. hypogaea L. Progenitors. Peanut Science. 28:78 80. Sorensen, R.B., M.C. Lamb, and C.L. Buttes. 2007. Pean ut response to row pattern and seed density when irrigated with subsurface drip irrigation. Peanut Science. 34:27 31. Sternitzke, D.A., M.C. Lamb, J.I. Davidson Jr., R.T. Barron, and C.T. Bennet. 2000. Impact of plant spacing and population on yield for s ingle row nonirrigated peanuts ( Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Science. 27:52 56. Todd, J.W., A.K., Culbreath, and S.L. Brown, 1996. Dynamics of vector populations and progress of spotted wilt disease relative to insecticide use in peanuts. Acta Hortic. 431 483 490. Tillman, B.L., D.W. Gorbet, A.K. Culbreath, and J.W. Todd. 2006. Response of peanut cultivars to seeding density and row patterns. Online. Crop Management doi: 10.1094/CM 2006 0711 01 RS. Tillman, B.L. and D.W. Gorbet. 2012. Peanut cultivar UF T113. United States Patent 8178752. US Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. (USDA NASS). 2013. Crops. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Da ta and Statistics/Quick Stats/. Accessed 04/26/2013 Webb, S.E., M.L. Kok Yohomi, and J.H. Tsai. 1997. Evaluation of Frankliniella bispinosa as a potential vector of tomato spotted wilt virus. Phytopathology 87 (Suppl.), S102. Wehtje, G., L. Well, R. We eks, P. Pace, and M. West. 1994. Influence of planter type and seeding rate on yield and disease incidence. Peanut Science. 21:16 19. Williams and Drexler. 1981. A non destructive method for determining peanut pod maturity. Peanut Science 8: 134 141.

PAGE 64

64 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Justin L McKinney is a devout Christian who was born in Wauchula, Florida. He is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Lee McKinney of Ona, Florida. R aised in Hardee County he graduated from Hardee Senior High School in 1997 He recei ved an Associate of Arts degree with an emphasis on a ccounting from South Florida Community College in December 1999. H e entered the University of Florida in January 2000 to pursue a Bachelor of Science degree in the major of f ood and r esource e conomics w ith a minor in sales, and an emphasis in a gribusiness m anagement Upon graduating in May 2002 he accepted a B iologi st position at the Plant Science Research and Education Unit In 2005 he transferred into a S e n i or B iologi st position within the Agronomy Department where h e has work ed mainly for the University of Florida Peanut Breeding Program. Since that time, he has been promoted to R esearch C oordinator within the Agronomy D epartment, where he continues to se rv e primarily the p eanut b reeding p rogram in Citra and assist s other A gronomy F aculty with their research needs. Following the completion of his Master of Science degree in a gronomy, he plans to continue his career within the University of Florid a system