| |
| Publication Type:
| Report |
|---|
| Author(s): | Dernoeden, P. H.;
Fidanza, M. A. |
|---|
| Author Affiliation: | Dept. of Agronomy, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD |
|---|
| Title: | Curative control and residual brown patch efficacy of Sentinel and Rizolex, 1991. |
|---|
| Source: | Fungicide and Nematicide Tests. Vol. 47, 1992, p. 311. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society |
|---|
| Keywords: | TIC Keywords: Lolium perenne; Brown patch; Rhizoctonia solani
|
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | "Brown patch was active and damaging to the perennial ryegrass stand (seeded Sep 1990) in late May 1991, and on 3 Jun 6.0 Fl. oz of Daconil 2787 were applied to the entire test site. The study, however, was initiated on 11 Jun, at which time R. solani was again active and 10 to 15% of the ryegrass site exhibited some blighting and stand density reduction. Treatments were applied on 21 or 28 day intervals with a CO2 pressurized (36 psi) sprayer in 2.5 gal water per 1000 ft2 on the dates footnoted in the data table. Soil was a Chillum silt loam with a pH of 5.9 and 1.6% OM. Plots were 5 by 5 ft, and were arranged in a randomized complete block with four replications. Percent of plot area blighted would be considered unacceptable control on a golf course fairway. Environmental conditions were generally ideal for severe brown patch pressure from late May to mid-Aug. Except for ProStar, all treatments appeared to have provided very good curative brown patch control when data were obtained 14 DAT (25 Jun). Because the initial, low use rates of ProStar (1.0 or 2.0 oz) provided a poor level of curative control, these plots were retreated on 26 Jun with either 4.0 oz of ProStar or ProStar 2.0 oz + Sentinel 0.25 oz. Blight rating remained basically unchanged on 1 Jul, but by 8 Jul disease ratings dropped in all treated plots. All treatments containing Sentinel (to include ProStar + Sentinel) and Rizolex were providing commercially acceptable brown patch control on 8 Jul. While ProStar alone-treated plots did not deteriorate they also did not recover from the initial damage and did not achieve an acceptable level of density by 19 Aug. Brown patch pressure abated in late Jul and early Aug, and on 5 Aug all treatments appeared to be providing good to excellent brown patch control. On 19 Aug it had been 48 and 41 day since the 21 and 28-day spray interval treatments were last applied, respectively. However, excellent residual brown patch control was observed in plots treated with ProStar + Sentinel, Sentinel (0.33 oz on a 28-day interval), and Sentinel + Rizolex. All treatments, however, were continuing to provide a significant reduction in brown patch on the final rating date." |
|---|
| Language: | English |
|---|
| References: | 0 |
|---|
| Note: | Table |
|---|
| ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Dernoeden, P. H., and M. A. Fidanza. 1992. Curative control and residual brown patch efficacy of Sentinel and Rizolex, 1991.. Fungicide Nematicide Tests. 47:p. 311. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=24509 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 24509. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| 
MSU catalog number: SB 951.3 .F82 |
| Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record) |
