Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T11:29:30.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. R. Teasdale ,
R. G. Harvey  and
D. J. Hagedorn
J. R. Teasdale
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
R. G. Harvey
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
D. J. Hagedorn
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol., Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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

Keywords

Diseasetemperaturesoil moistureincorporationtrifluralinoryzalin
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , July 1979 , pp. 467 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

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

References

Literature Cited

1. Altman, J. and Campbell, C. L. 1977. Effects of herbicides on plant diseases. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 15:361–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Grau, C. R. and Reiling, T. P. 1977. Effect of trifluralin and dinitramine on Aphanomyces root rot of pea. Phytopathology 67:273–276.Google Scholar
3. Hagedorn, D. J. 1973. Peas. Pages 326–343 in Nelson, R. R., ed. Breeding plants for disease resistance, concepts and applications. The Penn State U. Press, University Park and London.Google Scholar
4. Hagedorn, D. J., Holm, L. G., and Torrie, J. H. 1955. Yield-quality relationships as influenced by maturity of canning peas. Res. Bull. No. 187, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison. 17 pp.Google Scholar
5. Jacques, G. L. and Harvey, R. G. 1979. Adsorption and diffusion of dinitroaniline herbicides in soils. Weed Sci. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Katan, J. and Eshel, Y. 1973. Interactions between herbicides and plant pathogens. Residue Rev. 45:145–177.Google Scholar
7. Papavizas, G. C. and Ayers, W. A. 1974. Aphanomyces species and their root diseases in pea and sugar beet. U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1485. 158 pp.Google Scholar
8. Shehata, M., Grau, C. R., Davis, D. W., and Pfleger, L. F., 1976. A technqiue for concurrently evaluating resistance in peas to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. pisi and Aphanomyces euteiches . Plant Dis. Rep. 60:1024–1026.Google Scholar
9. Sherwood, R. T. and Hagedorn, D. J. 1958. Determining the common root rot potential of pea fields. Wisc. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 531. 12 pp.Google Scholar
10. Sumner, D. R. 1974. Interaction of herbicides and nematicides with root diseases of snapbean and southern pea. Phytopathology 64:1353–1358.Google Scholar
11. Teasdale, J. R., Harvey, R. G., and Hagedorn, D. J. 1978. Suppression of pea root rot by dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 26:609–613.Google Scholar
12. Teasdale, J. R., Harvey, R. G., and Hagedorn, D. J. 1979. Mechanism for the suppression of pea root rot by dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. In press.Google Scholar
13. Wyse, D. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1976. Effect of herbicides on the development of root rot on navy beans. Weed Sci. 24:11–15.Google Scholar