@article{stalker_beute_shew_isleib_2002, title={Registration of five leaf spot-resistant peanut germplasm lines}, volume={42}, ISSN={["0011-183X"]}, DOI={10.2135/cropsci2002.0314}, abstractNote={Crop ScienceVolume 42, Issue 1 p. 314-316 Registration of Germplasm Registration of Five Leaf Spot-Resistant Peanut Germplasm Lines H.T. Stalker, Corresponding Author H.T. Stalker hts@unity.ncsu.edu Dep. of Crop Science, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Corresponding author (hts@unity.ncsu.edu)Search for more papers by this authorM.K. Beute, M.K. Beute Dep. of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Search for more papers by this authorB.B. Shew, B.B. Shew Dep. of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Search for more papers by this authorT.G. Isleib, T.G. Isleib Dep. of Crop Science, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Search for more papers by this author H.T. Stalker, Corresponding Author H.T. Stalker hts@unity.ncsu.edu Dep. of Crop Science, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Corresponding author (hts@unity.ncsu.edu)Search for more papers by this authorM.K. Beute, M.K. Beute Dep. of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Search for more papers by this authorB.B. Shew, B.B. Shew Dep. of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Search for more papers by this authorT.G. Isleib, T.G. Isleib Dep. of Crop Science, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 January 2002 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2002.3140Citations: 27 Registration by CSSA. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume42, Issue1January–February 2002Pages 314-316 RelatedInformation}, number={1}, journal={CROP SCIENCE}, author={Stalker, HT and Beute, MK and Shew, BB and Isleib, TG}, year={2002}, pages={314–316} }
 @article{stalker_beute_shew_barker_2002, title={Registration of two root-knot nematode-resistant peanut germplasm lines}, volume={42}, DOI={10.2135/cropsci2002.312a}, abstractNote={Crop ScienceVolume 42, Issue 1 p. 312-313 Registration of Germplasm Registration of Two Root-Knot Nematode-Resistant Peanut Germplasm Lines H.T. Stalker, Corresponding Author H.T. Stalker hts@unity.ncsu.edu Dep. of Crop Science, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Corresponding author (hts@unity.ncsu.edu)Search for more papers by this authorM.K. Beute, M.K. Beute Dep. of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Search for more papers by this authorB.B. Shew, B.B. Shew Dep. of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Search for more papers by this authorK.R. Barker, K.R. Barker Dep. of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Search for more papers by this author H.T. Stalker, Corresponding Author H.T. Stalker hts@unity.ncsu.edu Dep. of Crop Science, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Corresponding author (hts@unity.ncsu.edu)Search for more papers by this authorM.K. Beute, M.K. Beute Dep. of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Search for more papers by this authorB.B. Shew, B.B. Shew Dep. of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Search for more papers by this authorK.R. Barker, K.R. Barker Dep. of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 January 2002 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2002.312aCitations: 19 Registration by CSSA. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume42, Issue1January–February 2002Pages 312-313 RelatedInformation}, number={1}, journal={Crop Science}, author={Stalker, H. T. and Beute, M. K. and Shew, B. B. and Barker, K. R.}, year={2002}, pages={312–313} }
 @article{randall-schadel_bailey_beute_2001, title={Seed transmission of Cylindrocladium parasiticum in peanut}, volume={85}, ISSN={["1943-7692"]}, DOI={10.1094/PDIS.2001.85.4.362}, abstractNote={ Seedborne Cylindrocladium parasiticum has been reported in peanuts and the possibility of seed transmission postulated; however, seed transmission has not been documented. Cinnamon brown speckles on peanut testae were correlated with isolation of C. parasiticum. Microscopy indicated that seed were colonized by cinnamon brown colored hyphae and microsclerotia interspersed in and on lightened areas of testa. Speckled seed from commercial seed lots (cultivars NC 7, NC 10C) were planted, with or without a chemical seed treatment (1992, captan + carboxin + dicloran [45:18:15% of product]; 1993 to 1995, captan + PCNB + carboxin [45:15:10% of product]), in fumigated fields with no history of peanut production. Asymptomatic seed from noninfested seed lots (cultivar NC-V 11 or NC 7) were checks for soilborne inoculum. C. parasiticum was isolated from all symptomatic seed lots prior to planting (percentage ranged from 4 to 45%) but was not isolated from asymptomatic seed. Seed transmission occurred from seed both with chemical seed treatment (0.25 to 2.75%) and without seed treatment (0.25 to 6.0%), but not in all years. Asymptomatic seed planted 2.5 cm from speckled seed increased the number of plants with Cylindrocladium black rot from two- to sixfold, illustrating the ability of disease to spread from colonized seed to uninfected plants. It was concluded that seed transmission of C. parasiticum is an important means by which this disease is spread within the seed industry. }, number={4}, journal={PLANT DISEASE}, author={Randall-Schadel, BL and Bailey, JE and Beute, MK}, year={2001}, month={Apr}, pages={362–370} }
 @article{butzler_bailey_beute_1998, title={Integrated management of Sclerotinia blight in peanut: Utilizing canopy morphology, mechanical pruning, and fungicide timing}, volume={82}, ISSN={["1943-7692"]}, DOI={10.1094/PDIS.1998.82.12.1312}, abstractNote={ Sclerotinia blight of peanut, caused by Sclerotinia minor, generally becomes severe only after vines meet in the row middles and a dense canopy develops. Dense foliage appears to support a microclimate conducive to the colonization of peanut limbs by S. minor. Removal of excess foliage before and during a Sclerotinia blight epidemic on the susceptible genotype NC 7 has been shown to reduce the rate of disease progress. Field tests in 1993 and 1994 examined control of Sclerotinia blight among four peanut genotypes (NC 7, VA 93B, NC Ac 18016, and Tam-span 90) with diverse canopy morphologies. Each cultivar had foliage pruned with a rotary mower once (1993 and 1994) or twice (1994) during the season. Applications of fluazinam (9.2 kg a.i./ha) were imposed on the genotype × pruning treatments. Soil temperatures under the canopy of each genotype and pruning treatment were measured and compared. Disease data were collected weekly by counting the number of feet of plants exhibiting lesions with visible fungus growth. Tamspan 90, a resistant Spanish peanut, had the least Sclerotinia blight incidence. Pruning measurably affected soil temperature for approximately 2 weeks following pruning. Removal of foliage reduced disease and increased disease control affected by fluazi-nam in fields with high disease pressure. In some tests, yields were increased by pruning through a reduction in disease pressure. Yields were lower when peanuts were pruned excessively, especially late in the season. Pruning of excessive vine growth can be an alternative, or complement, to fungicide treatments when done in midseason during favorable weather when moderate to high disease pressure occurs. }, number={12}, journal={PLANT DISEASE}, author={Butzler, TM and Bailey, J and Beute, MK}, year={1998}, month={Dec}, pages={1312–1318} }
 @article{hollowell_shew_beute_abad_1998, title={Occurrence of pod rot pathogens in peanuts grown in North Carolina}, volume={82}, DOI={10.1094/PDIS.1998.82.12.1345}, abstractNote={ Pod rot diseases historically caused significant losses in peanut production in North Carolina. Advances in the understanding of pod rot diseases and changes in cultural practices minimized losses in the years since 1979. By the early 1990s, however, some peanut growers began to observe pod rot that apparently was not associated with infection by common soilborne pathogens. Incidence of pod rot also was high in research plots used to study conservation tillage methods. Selected farms were surveyed in the fall of 1994, 1995, and 1996 to identify the fungi associated with pod rot symptoms in North Carolina. Over the three years of the study, more than 6,000 symptomatic pods from 125 peanut fields were assayed for Rhizoctonia spp., Pythium spp., Cylindrocladium parasiticum, Sclerotium rolfsii, and Sclerotinia minor. All five pathogens were isolated during the field survey, with Pythium spp. and Rhizoctonia spp. isolated most frequently. Rhizoctonia spp. were the dominant pathogen in the majority of fields in 1994, whereas Pythium spp. predominated in 1995 and 1996. Combinations of pathogens were identified from 12 to 15% of pods; Rhizoctonia spp. + Pythium spp. and Pythium spp. + C. parasiti-cum were the most frequent combinations. The mean estimated incidence of pod rot was 6.6% in 1995 and 5.9% in 1996. The effects of cover crops and tillage on pod rot incidence were studied in microplots in 1995 and 1996. In 1995, winter cover crops (wheat, oat, rye, and fallow soil) did not affect pod rot incidence, but incidence was greater in no-till treatments compared to plots with conventional tillage. Pod rot incidence did not differ among infestation treatments and no interactions among pathogen, cover crop, or tillage treatments were significant. In contrast, significant (P = 0.04) interactions among winter cover crops and tillage occurred in 1996. Tillage did not affect pod rot incidence following wheat or oats, but incidence following rye was much greater in no-till than in tilled plots. }, number={12}, journal={Plant Disease}, author={Hollowell, J. E. and Shew, B. B. and Beute, M. K. and Abad, Z. G.}, year={1998}, pages={1345–1349} }
 @article{beute_rodriguezkabana_1979, title={EFFECT OF WETTING AND THE PRESENCE OF PEANUT TISSUES ON GERMINATION OF SCLEROTIA OF SCLEROTIUM-ROLFSII PRODUCED IN SOIL}, volume={69}, ISSN={["0031-949X"]}, DOI={10.1094/Phyto-69-869}, number={8}, journal={PHYTOPATHOLOGY}, author={BEUTE, MK and RODRIGUEZKABANA, R}, year={1979}, pages={869–872} }
 @article{beute_1974, title={QUANTITATIVE TECHNIQUE FOR EXTRACTION OF SOIL-INHABITING MITES (ACARINA) AND SPRINGTAILS (COLLEMBOLA) ASSOCIATED WITH POD ROT DISEASE OF PEANUT}, volume={64}, ISSN={["0031-949X"]}, DOI={10.1094/Phyto-64-571}, number={4}, journal={PHYTOPATHOLOGY}, author={BEUTE, MK}, year={1974}, pages={571–572} }
 @article{beute_1971, title={FACTORS AFFECTING STROMATINIA ROOT ROT OF GLADIOLUS}, volume={61}, ISSN={["0031-949X"]}, DOI={10.1094/Phyto-61-1329}, number={11}, journal={PHYTOPATHOLOGY}, author={BEUTE, MK}, year={1971}, pages={1329-&} }