@article{naab_tsigbey_prasad_boote_bailey_brandenburg_2005, title={Effects of sowing date and fungicide application on yield of early and late maturing peanut cultivars grown under rainfed conditions in Ghana}, volume={24}, ISSN={["1873-6904"]}, DOI={10.1016/j.cropro.2004.09.002}, abstractNote={Late leaf spot is one of the important factors limiting peanut productivity in Ghana. It is essential to demonstrate the extent of yield losses caused by leaf spot and to develop suitable crop management practices. The objectives of this research were to study the effects of time of sowing, cultivar lifecycle, and fungicide sprays on disease incidence, biomass and pod yield of peanut crops grown under rainfed conditions in northern Ghana. Two peanut cultivars, Chinese (90 days duration) and F-mix (120 days duration) were grown for three seasons (1999–2001) at Nyankpala and for two seasons (2000, 2001) at Wa with three sowing dates (early, mid and late, relative to start of rainy season) with (+F) and without (−F) fungicide application. Disease rating, main-stem defoliation, total biomass, pod yield and seed yield were recorded at harvest maturity. Early sowings soon after onset of rains resulted in greater biomass and pod yields compared to late sowing for both cultivars. The long duration cultivar F-mix produced greater yields than short duration cultivar Chinese under both with and without fungicide treated environments. However, incidence and severity of disease, as measured by disease scores and main-stem defoliation at the end of season, were similar in both cultivars. This suggests that the greater yield obtained by the long duration cultivar was not due to disease tolerance or escape but due to its longer growing season. Application of foliar sprays of fungicide was effective in controlling leaf spot and improved peanut biomass and pod yields by 39% and 75%, respectively, when averaged across cultivars and years. Long duration cultivar F-mix, sown early and treated with fungicide under optimum and timely crop management practices, produced 4500–5000 kg ha−1 pod yield over five site years, i.e. more than three to four-fold increase over present average yields in Ghana.}, number={4}, journal={CROP PROTECTION}, author={Naab, JB and Tsigbey, FK and Prasad, PVV and Boote, KJ and Bailey, JE and Brandenburg, RL}, year={2005}, month={Apr}, pages={325–332} }
 @article{hurt_brandenburg_jordan_kennedy_bailey_2005, title={Management of spotted wilt vectored by Frankliniella fusca (Thysanoptera : Thripidae) in Virginia market-type peanut}, volume={98}, ISSN={["1938-291X"]}, DOI={10.1603/0022-0493-98.5.1435}, abstractNote={Abstract Field tests were conducted during 2001 and 2002 in northeastern North Carolina to evaluate the impact of cultural practices and in-furrow insecticides on the incidence of Tomato spotted wilt virus (genus Tospovirus, family Bunyaviridae, TSWV), which is transmitted to peanut, Arachis hypogaea L., primarily by tobacco thrips, Frankliniella fusca Hinds (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Treatments included in row plant populations of 7, 13, and 17 plants per meter; the virginia market-type ‘NC V-11’ and ‘Perry’; planting dates of early and late May; and phorate and aldicarb insecticide applied in-furrow. The incidence of plants expressing visual symptoms of spotted wilt was recorded from mid-June through mid-September. Treatment factors that reduced the incidence of symptoms of plants expressing spotted wilt symptoms included establishing higher plant densities, delaying planting from early May until late May, and applying the in-furrow insecticide phorate. Peanut cultivar did not have a consistent, significant effect on the incidence of symptomatic plants in this experiment.}, number={5}, journal={JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY}, author={Hurt, CA and Brandenburg, RL and Jordan, DL and Kennedy, GG and Bailey, JE}, year={2005}, month={Oct}, pages={1435–1440} }
 @article{lanier_jordan_barnes_matthews_grabow_griffin_bailey_johnson_spears_wells_2004, title={Disease management in overhead sprinkler and subsurface drip irrigation systems for peanut}, volume={96}, ISSN={["1435-0645"]}, DOI={10.2134/agronj2004.1058}, abstractNote={Experiments were conducted during 2001 and 2002 at one location in North Carolina to compare development of early leaf spot (Cercospora arachidicola Hori), pod yield, and market grade characteristics when peanut (Arachis hypogea L.) was grown under overhead sprinkler irrigation (OSI) and subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) and fungicides were not applied or applied biweekly or based on weather advisories. Incidence of early leaf spot was lower when peanut was grown under SDI compared with OSI when fungicides were not applied. Fewer fungicide applications were needed when applications were based on weather advisories rather than when applied biweekly. There was no difference in early leaf spot control or leaf defoliation resulting from disease when fungicides were applied regardless of irrigation system or fungicide application approach. Pod yield was higher in 2001 under SDI compared with OSI when fungicides were not applied; yield was similar in 2002. Disease severity was much higher in 2001 than in 2002 and most likely explains differences in pod yield between years. No difference in yield was noted when fungicides were applied, regardless of irrigation system. The percentage of extra large kernels (%ELK) was lower in 1 of 2 yr under SDI compared with OSI. There were no differences in percentages of fancy pods (%FP), sound splits (%SS), and other kernels (%OK) among irrigation systems and fungicide programs. In a separate experiment where fungicides were applied biweekly, pod yield, %FP, and %ELK were similar under SDI and OSI but greater than nonirrigated peanut. The %OK was lower when peanut was irrigated.}, number={4}, journal={AGRONOMY JOURNAL}, author={Lanier, JE and Jordan, DL and Barnes, JS and Matthews, J and Grabow, GL and Griffin, WJ and Bailey, JE and Johnson, PD and Spears, JF and Wells, R}, year={2004}, pages={1058–1065} }
 @article{lanier_jordan_spears_wells_johnson_barnes_hurt_brandenburg_bailey_2004, title={Peanut response to planting pattern, row spacing, and irrigation}, volume={96}, ISSN={["1435-0645"]}, DOI={10.2134/agronj2004.1066}, abstractNote={Experiments were conducted from 1999 through 2002 in North Carolina to compare interactions of planting pattern, plant population, and irrigation on peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) pod yield and market grade characteristics. In additional experiments, pod yield and severity of tomato spotted wilt tospovirus associated with the cultivars NC‐V 11, NC 12C, VA 98R, and Perry were compared in single row (rows spaced 91 cm apart) and standard twin row (two rows spaced 18 cm apart on 91‐cm centers) planting patterns when peanut was dug and vines inverted on two digging dates spaced 10 to 16 d apart. In a third set of experiments, pod yield, market grade characteristics, and severity of tomato spotted wilt tospovirus were compared when the cultivars NC‐V 11 and Perry were planted in single row, standard twin row, and narrow twin row (two rows spaced 18 cm apart on 46‐cm centers) planting patterns. Peanut pod yield was higher in standard twin row planting patterns than when grown in single row planting patterns in some but not all experiments. Planting peanut in the narrow twin row pattern did not increase peanut pod yield over the standard twin row planting pattern. Less tomato spotted wilt was observed in standard or narrow twin row planting patterns compared with single row planting patterns. Planting peanut in single rows spaced 46 cm apart did not improve yield over peanut planted in single rows spaced 91 cm apart or the standard twin row planting pattern, regardless of irrigation treatment.}, number={4}, journal={AGRONOMY JOURNAL}, author={Lanier, JE and Jordan, DL and Spears, JF and Wells, R and Johnson, PD and Barnes, JS and Hurt, CA and Brandenburg, RL and Bailey, JE}, year={2004}, pages={1066–1072} }
 @misc{curtis_bailey_2003, title={Method of protecting plants from cold injury}, volume={6,588,142}, number={2003 July 8}, publisher={Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office}, author={Curtis, V. L. and Bailey, J. E.}, year={2003} }
 @article{jordan_barnes_bogle_brandenburg_bailey_johnson_culpepper_2003, title={Peanut response to cultivar selection, digging date, and tillage intensity}, volume={95}, ISSN={["1435-0645"]}, DOI={10.2134/agronj2003.0380}, abstractNote={reduced tillage systems often do not exceed those of conventional tillage. Determining the cause of inconsisPeanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in the United States is generally tent yield response to reduced tillage would be benefigrown in conventionally tilled systems. However, interest in reduced tillage peanut production has increased. Five experiments were concial in determining when reduced tillage systems could ducted in North Carolina to determine if cultivar selection and digging be successfully implemented in peanut production. date affected peanut yield and economic value when peanut was Cultivar selection can have a dramatic effect on crop seeded into conventionally tilled seedbeds compared with strip tillage response to production and pest management practices. into small-grain cover crop or stubble from the crop planted the preCulpepper et al. (1997) reported that peanut cultivars vious summer. In separate experiments, peanut yield and economic responded differently to the plant growth regulator provalue in these tillage systems were compared with peanut strip-tilled hexadione calcium (calcium salt of 3,5-dioxo-4-propiointo beds prepared the previous fall (stale seedbeds). Cultivar selection nylcyclohexanecarboxylic acid). Cultivars also respond and digging date did not affect pod yield or gross value when compardifferently to digging date (Jordan et al., 1998). Disease ing tillage systems. Pod yield in conventional and stale seedbed sysmanagement approaches can be affected by cultivar setems was similar in all five experiments where these systems were compared, and yields in these tillage systems exceeded those of strip lection (Bailey, 2002). Virginia market-type cultivars vary tillage into crop stubble in three of five experiments. Pod yield was considerably in pod size, maturity, and several other agrosimilar among all three tillage systems in the other two experiments. nomic factors (Swann, 2002). Although not well estabIn experiments where only conventional tillage and strip tillage syslished in the literature, pod loss can be severe if peanut tems were compared, pod yield was similar between the two tillage is dug under poor soil conditions (Beam et al., 2002). systems in four experiments, higher in conventional tillage compared It is suspected that pod loss may be greater in reduced with strip tillage in one experiment, and higher for strip tillage comtillage systems than conventional tillage systems bepared with conventional tillage in one experiment. In 16 of 17 comcause the plants may be more difficult to dig. Peanut parisons, pod yield of peanut planted in conventional tillage systems cultivars with larger pods may be more susceptible to equaled or exceeded that of peanut planted into stubble from the digging losses compared with smaller-seeded cultivars previous crop. because they have a greater surface area, which may cause increased exposure to detachment during the digging process. Practitioners indicate that pod loss from P in the United States is typically grown in smaller-seeded runner market types is less than that for conventionally tilled systems (Sholar et al., 1995). large-seeded virginia market types during the digging Peanut response to reduced tillage has been inconsiscomponent of the harvest process. However, these comtent. Research suggests that yields in reduced tillage sysparisons have not been documented in the literature. tems can be lower than (Brandenburg et al., 1998; Cox Determining if pod yield differs among tillage systems and Sholar, 1995; Grichar, 1998; Jordan et al., 2001; for cultivars with different pod sizes may help explain Sholar et al., 1993; Wright and Porter, 1995) or similar inconsistent peanut response to reduced tillage systems. to (Baldwin and Hook, 1998; Dowler et al., 1999; HartStale seedbed crop production has been successful zog et al., 1998; Williams et al., 1998) yields in convenfor a variety of row crops, including soybean [Glycine tional tillage systems. Higher yields in reduced tillage max (L.) Merr.] and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) systems have been associated with lower incidence of (Shaw, 1996). Seedbeds are prepared the previous fall tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) (Baldwin and Hook, or during the spring several weeks or months before 1998; Johnson et al., 2001; Wright et al., 2000). In most seeding directly into previously established stale seedexperiments where this disease is not a factor, yields in bed without significant soil disturbance. This approach to peanut production may be a viable alternative to both D.L. Jordan, P.D. Johnson, and A.S. Culpepper, Dep. of Crop Sci., conventional tillage systems and strip tillage directly Box 7620, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7620; J.S. into stubble from the previous crop. Barnes, Peanut Belt Res. Stn., North Carolina Dep. of Agric. and The objectives of this research were to determine if Consumer Serv., Box 220, Lewiston-Woodville, NC 27849; C.R. Bogle, Dep. of Soil Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Upper Coastal Plain peanut response to tillage was associated with cultivar Res. Stn., Box 7619, Raleigh, NC 27695 and North Carolina Dep. of selection and digging date and if peanut yield in stale Agric. and Consumer Serv., Rt. 2 Box 400, Rocky Mount, NC 27801; seedbeds differs from yield in conventional tillage or R.L. Brandenburg, Dep. of Entomol., Box 7613, North Carolina State strip tillage into crop stubble. Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7613; and J.E. Bailey, Dep. of Plant Pathol., Box 7616, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7616. ReAbbreviations: CBR, Cylindrocladium black rot; %ELK, percentage ceived 11 Apr. 2002. *Corresponding author (david_jordan@ncsu.edu). of extra large kernels; %TSMK, percentage of total sound mature kernels; TSWV, tomato spotted wilt virus. Published in Agron. J. 95:380–385 (2003).}, number={2}, journal={AGRONOMY JOURNAL}, author={Jordan, DL and Barnes, JS and Bogle, CR and Brandenburg, RL and Bailey, JE and Johnson, PD and Culpepper, AS}, year={2003}, pages={380–385} }
 @article{isleib_rice_mozingo_bailey_mozingo_pattee_2003, title={Registration of 'Perry' peanut}, volume={43}, ISSN={["0011-183X"]}, DOI={10.2135/cropsci2003.0739}, abstractNote={Crop ScienceVolume 43, Issue 2 p. 739-740 Registrations of Cultivar Registration of ‘Perry’ Peanut T.G. Isleib, Corresponding Author T.G. Isleib [email protected] Dep. of Crop Science, Box 7629, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Corresponding author ([email protected])Search for more papers by this authorP.W. Rice, P.W. Rice Dep. of Crop Science, Box 7629, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Search for more papers by this authorR.W. Mozingo, R.W. Mozingo Dep. of Crop Science, Box 7629, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629 Dep. of Soil and Environ. Sciences, Tidewater Agric. Res. Ext. Center, 6321 Holland Rd., Suffolk, VA, 23437Search for more papers by this authorJ.E. Bailey, J.E. Bailey Dep. of Plant Pathology, Box 7616, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7616Search for more papers by this authorR.W. Mozingo, R.W. Mozingo Dep. of Crop Science, Box 7629, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629 Dep. of Soil and Environ. Sciences, Tidewater Agric. Res. Ext. Center, 6321 Holland Rd., Suffolk, VA, 23437Search for more papers by this authorH.E. Pattee, H.E. Pattee USDA-ARS, Box 7625, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7625Search for more papers by this author T.G. Isleib, Corresponding Author T.G. Isleib [email protected] Dep. of Crop Science, Box 7629, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Corresponding author ([email protected])Search for more papers by this authorP.W. Rice, P.W. Rice Dep. of Crop Science, Box 7629, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Search for more papers by this authorR.W. Mozingo, R.W. Mozingo Dep. of Crop Science, Box 7629, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629 Dep. of Soil and Environ. Sciences, Tidewater Agric. Res. Ext. Center, 6321 Holland Rd., Suffolk, VA, 23437Search for more papers by this authorJ.E. Bailey, J.E. Bailey Dep. of Plant Pathology, Box 7616, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7616Search for more papers by this authorR.W. Mozingo, R.W. Mozingo Dep. of Crop Science, Box 7629, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629 Dep. of Soil and Environ. Sciences, Tidewater Agric. Res. Ext. Center, 6321 Holland Rd., Suffolk, VA, 23437Search for more papers by this authorH.E. Pattee, H.E. Pattee USDA-ARS, Box 7625, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7625Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 March 2003 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2003.7390Citations: 14 Partial support for the development of NC 12C was provided by the N.C. Peanut Growers' Association, Inc., the N.C. Crop Improvement Association, the N.C. Foundation Seed Producers, Inc., and the USAID Peanut Collaborative Research Support Program. 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 References Beute M.K., Registration of NC 3033 peanut germplasm (Reg. No. GP 9). :. Crop Sci. (1976) 16, 887http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1976.0011183X001600060046x Carver W.A., Registration of Florigiant peanuts (Reg. No. 1). Crop Sci. (1969) 9, 849– 850 http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1969.0011183X000900060067x, Coffelt T.A., Registration of ‘VA 93B’ peanut. :. Crop Sci. (1994) 34, 1126http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1994.0011183X003400040060x, Gregory W.C., Registration of NC 2 peanuts (Reg. No. 5). Crop Sci. (1970) 10, 459– 460 http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1970.0011183X001000040058x Isleib T.G., a. Registration of ‘NC 12C’ peanut. :. Crop Sci. (1997) 37, 1976http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700060051x, Isleib T.G., b. Use of a laboratory colorimeter to measure pod brightness in virginia-type peanuts. Peanut Sci. (1997) 24, 81– 84 http://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-24-2-4 Mozingo R.W. 1999. Peanut variety and quality evaluation results, 1999. I. Agronomic and grade data. Virginia Polytech. Inst. and State Univ. Inf. Ser. No. 422. Mozingo R.W. 2000. Peanut variety and quality evaluation results, 1999. II. Quality data. Virginia Polytech. Inst. and State Univ. Inf. Ser. No. 423. Mozingo R.W., Registration of VA 98R peanut. Crop Sci. (2000) 40, 1202– 1203 http://gateway.isiknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=agrocropsoil&KeyUT=000089410600060&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS_CPL&UsrCustomerID=523bbf5d2a868de7bbaeea0bc70ec0e4 Pattee H.E., Adjusting roast peanut scores for fruity attribute and non-optimum CIELAB L* values. J. Sens. Stud. (1990) 9, 353– 363 http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1994.tb00253.x Wynne J.C., Registration of ‘NC-V11’ peanut. Crop Sci. (1991) 31, 484– 485 http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183X003100020062x, Wynne J.C., Registration of NC 7 peanut (Reg. No. 22). :. Crop Sci. (1979) 19, 563http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1979.0011183X001900040037x, Wynne J.C., Registration of ‘NC 9’ peanut. :. Crop Sci. (1986) 26, 197http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1986.0011183X002600010051x Citing Literature Volume43, Issue2March–April 2003Pages 739-740 ReferencesRelatedInformation}, number={2}, journal={CROP SCIENCE}, author={Isleib, TG and Rice, PW and Mozingo, RW and Bailey, JE and Mozingo, RW and Pattee, HE}, year={2003}, pages={739–740} }
 @article{beam_jordan_york_isleib_bailey_mckemie_spears_johnson_2002, title={Influence of prohexadione calcium on pod yield and pod loss of peanut}, volume={94}, DOI={10.2134/agronj2002.9550}, abstractNote={Excessive vegetative growth of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) can make digging and inverting operations less efficient. Reducing vine growth by applying a suitable plant growth regulator would be an efficient way to manage peanut vines. Pod yield, market grade factors, and gross economic value of peanut treated with prohexadione calcium (calcium salt of 3,5-dioxo-4 propionylcyclohexanecarboxylic acid) were evaluated at 19 sites in North Carolina during 1999 and 2000. Experiments were also conducted at two locations each during 1999 and 2000 to determine the effect of prohexadione Ca, digging date, and lifting (shaking peanut vines after digging to remove soil before combining) on combined yield, market grade factors, gross economic value, seed germination, and pod loss of the virginia market-type cultivar NC 12C. Prohexadione Ca at 140 g a.i. ha -1 , applied at 50% row closure and repeated 2 wk later, increased row visibility at harvest, pod yield by 310 kg ha -1 , and gross economic value of quota peanut by $223 ha -1 when pooled over 19 sites. Prohexadione Ca increased combined yield by 220 kg ha -1 and decreased percent pod loss by 4% regardless of digging date and lifting treatment compared with nontreated peanut. Prohexadione Ca did not affect maximum yield (sum of pods remaining in soil and on the soil surface and pods that were combined) or germination of peanut seed. These data suggest that increased combined yield noted following application of prohexadione Ca can be partially attributed to decreased pod loss.}, number={2}, journal={Agronomy Journal}, author={Beam, J. B. and Jordan, D. L. and York, A. C. and Isleib, T. G. and Bailey, J. E. and McKemie, T. E. and Spears, J. F. and Johnson, P. D.}, year={2002}, pages={331–336} }
 @article{lemay_bailey_shew_2002, title={Resistance of peanut to sclerotinia blight and the effect of acibenzolar-S-methyl and fluazinam on disease incidence}, volume={86}, ISSN={["1943-7692"]}, DOI={10.1094/PDIS.2002.86.12.1315}, abstractNote={ Sclerotinia minor, a soilborne fungal pathogen of peanut, can cause serious yield loss in North Carolina. A field test was implemented to study genotype reaction, and the effect of aciben-zolar-S-methyl (a plant activator) and the fungicide fluazinam on disease incidence. In all, 13 genotypes in 1997 and 12 genotypes in 1998 were evaluated. Three applications of acibenzolar-S-methyl (0.14 kg a.i./ha) or fluazinam (0.58 kg a.i./ha) were made on a calendar-based schedule. Disease ratings were made weekly in 1997 and every other week in 1998. Fluazinam suppressed disease at all sites and increased yield at two of three locations. Acibenzolar-S-methyl had no effect on disease incidence or yield. The advanced breeding line N92056C and cvs. Tam-run 98 (TX 901417) and Perry (N93112C) had moderate to high levels of resistance to S. minorand produced high yields compared with susceptible cv. NC 7. Lines derived from wild species also demonstrated moderate to high levels of resistance relative to NC 7 and represent potential breeding lines. }, number={12}, journal={PLANT DISEASE}, author={Lemay, AV and Bailey, JE and Shew, BB}, year={2002}, month={Dec}, pages={1315–1317} }
 @article{jordan_bailey_barnes_bogle_bullen_brown_edmisten_dunphy_johnson_2002, title={Yield and economic return of ten peanut-based cropping systems}, volume={94}, ISSN={["0002-1962"]}, DOI={10.2134/agronj2002.1289}, abstractNote={Research was conducted in North Carolina at two locations from 1997 through 2000 to determine net returns of 10 cropping systems during a 4‐yr cropping cycle that included peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], and corn (Zea mays L.). Cylindrocladium black rot [caused by Cylindrocladium parasiticum] (CBR) increased when soybean was included in the rotation sequence or when peanut was grown continuously. The CBR‐resistant cultivar NC 12C increased yield compared with the susceptible cultivar NC 7 when this disease was present. Cotton was a better rotation crop than corn at one of two locations with respect to peanut yield and gross economic value in the final year of the study. Net returns were substantially lower when peanut was marketed for export in the current federal program rather than at the quota price. However, the profitability ranking among cropping systems changed little regardless of marketing system. Crop yield and net return were influenced by crop selection, weather conditions, and commodity prices during the 4 yr.}, number={6}, journal={AGRONOMY JOURNAL}, author={Jordan, DL and Bailey, JE and Barnes, JS and Bogle, CR and Bullen, SG and Brown, AB and Edmisten, KL and Dunphy, EJ and Johnson, PD}, year={2002}, pages={1289–1294} }
 @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{garcia_brandenburg_bailey_2000, title={Incidence of Tomato spotted wilt virus (Bunyaviridae) and tobacco thrips in Virginia-type peanuts in North Carolina}, volume={84}, ISSN={["1943-7692"]}, DOI={10.1094/PDIS.2000.84.4.459}, abstractNote={ Virginia-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars were monitored for incidence of Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) and abundance of Frankliniella fusca, the tobacco thrips, in North Carolina during 1995 and 1996. A preliminary evaluation of 225 peanut genotypes for TSWV-resistant or -tolerant genotypes was conducted in 1995. The incidence of TSWV in cultivar NC-9 was twice that of cultivar NC-V11. In 1996, field trials designed to evaluate TSWV susceptibility were conducted with three widely grown commercial peanut cultivars in North Carolina. They were NC-9, NC-V11, and NC-12C, a newly released cultivar. A randomized complete block design was utilized at three locations. Disease incidence was evaluated weekly from 2 weeks postplanting until 2 weeks prior to harvest. Mechanical inoculation of the three cultivars resulted in no difference in relative leaf virus titer as determined from optical density readings following DAS-ELISA for 4 successive weeks beginning at 13 days postinoculation. NC-9 ranked highest in incidence of disease (7%), followed by NC-12C (6%) and NC-V11 (5%). Thrips counts were greatest on NC-V11, followed by NC-9 and NC-12C. Disease incidence overall was 5.96%, but ranged from 3.08 to 11.15% among the three sites. Yield was affected by the temporal occurrence of symptoms beginning at the fifth week postplanting. Greatest yield losses occurred in those plants with the earliest visible foliar symptoms. }, number={4}, journal={PLANT DISEASE}, author={Garcia, LE and Brandenburg, RL and Bailey, JE}, year={2000}, month={Apr}, pages={459–464} }
 @misc{curtis_bailey_2000, title={Method of protecting plants from cold injury}, volume={6,367,193}, number={2000 Mar 17}, publisher={Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office}, author={Curtis, V. L. and Bailey, J. E.}, year={2000} }
 @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{koenning_bailey_schmitt_barker_1998, title={Management of plant-parastic nematodes on peanut with selected nematicides in North Carolina}, volume={30}, number={4 suppl.}, journal={Journal of Nematology}, author={Koenning, S. R. and Bailey, J. E. and Schmitt, D. P. and Barker, K. R.}, year={1998}, pages={643–650} }
 @article{jordan_coble_brandenburg_bailey_1998, title={Relationship of weed populations and herb in selected North Carolina peanut fields}, volume={51}, number={1998}, journal={Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society}, author={Jordan, D. L. and Coble, H. D. and Brandenburg, R. L. and Bailey, J. E.}, year={1998}, pages={215–216} }
 @article{bailey_brune_1997, title={Effect of crop pruning on Sclerotinia blight of peanut}, volume={81}, ISSN={["0191-2917"]}, DOI={10.1094/PDIS.1997.81.9.990}, abstractNote={ Sclerotinia blight of peanut, incited by Sclerotinia minor, causes serious losses when cool, moist conditions prevail in the plant canopy. The effects of altering canopy structure by pruning were investigated in this study. Disease incidence was used to calculate area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC) for field plots receiving various shoot-pruning treatments. In 1990, pruned plots and iprodione-sprayed plots did not differ in AUDPC, but pruned plots produced higher yields. Disease levels and yield of July top-pruned plants did not differ from those of August top-pruned plants. Pruning tops and sides in August reduced yields compared to pruning tops and sides in July, even though August pruning produced lower AUDPC. Without fungicide treatment, the 1991 pruned plots had less disease than nonpruned plots, although yields did not differ significantly. Pruned plots treated with fungicides for control of Sclerotinia blight had less disease than nonpruned plots treated with these fungicides, but there were no differences in yield. Pruning peanut canopies to alter microclimate or enhance fungicide penetration may reduce disease and increase yield when S. minor damage is yield limiting. }, number={9}, journal={PLANT DISEASE}, author={Bailey, JE and Brune, PD}, year={1997}, month={Sep}, pages={990–995} }
 @article{isleib_rice_bailey_mozingo_pattee_1997, title={Registration of 'NC 12C' peanut}, volume={37}, ISSN={["0011-183X"]}, DOI={10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700060051x}, abstractNote={Crop ScienceVolume 37, Issue 6 cropsci1997.0011183X003700060051x p. 1976-1976 Registration of Cultivars Registration of ‘NC 12C’ Peanut T. G. Isleib, Corresponding Author T. G. Isleib [email protected] Dep. of Crop Science, Box 7629, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Corresponding author ([email protected]).Search for more papers by this authorP. W. Rice, P. W. Rice Dep. of Plant Pathology, N.C. State Univ., Box 7616, Raleigh, NC, 27695-7616Search for more papers by this authorJ. E. Bailey, J. E. Bailey Dep. of Soil and Environ. Sciences Tidewater Agric. Res. Ext. Ctr., 6321 Holland Rd., Suffolk, VA, 23437Search for more papers by this authorR. W. Mozingo, R. W. Mozingo USDA-ARS, Box 7625, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7625Search for more papers by this authorH. E. Pattee, H. E. Pattee USDA-ARS, Box 7625, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7625Search for more papers by this author T. G. Isleib, Corresponding Author T. G. Isleib [email protected] Dep. of Crop Science, Box 7629, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7629Corresponding author ([email protected]).Search for more papers by this authorP. W. Rice, P. W. Rice Dep. of Plant Pathology, N.C. State Univ., Box 7616, Raleigh, NC, 27695-7616Search for more papers by this authorJ. E. Bailey, J. E. Bailey Dep. of Soil and Environ. Sciences Tidewater Agric. Res. Ext. Ctr., 6321 Holland Rd., Suffolk, VA, 23437Search for more papers by this authorR. W. Mozingo, R. W. Mozingo USDA-ARS, Box 7625, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7625Search for more papers by this authorH. E. Pattee, H. E. Pattee USDA-ARS, Box 7625, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 27695-7625Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 November 1997 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700060051xCitations: 21AboutPDF 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 No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume37, Issue6November–December 1997Pages 1976-1976 RelatedInformation}, number={6}, journal={CROP SCIENCE}, author={Isleib, TG and Rice, PW and Bailey, JE and Mozingo, RW and Pattee, HE}, year={1997}, pages={1976–1976} }