My Account: Log In | Join | Renew
Search
Author
Title
Vol.
Issue
Year
1st Page

Abstract

 

This article in AJ

  1. Vol. 76 No. 5, p. 723-726
     
    Received: Apr 4, 1983
    Published: Sept, 1984


 View
 Download
 Alerts
 Permissions

doi:10.2134/agronj1984.00021962007600050004x

Response of Proso Millet to Fungicide Seed Treatments1

  1. L. A. Nelson and
  2. E. D. Kerr2

Abstract

Abstract

Fungicidal seed treatments are recommended in many crops as a prophylaxis because of their low cost and possible benefits. The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a beneficial effect from treating proso (Panicum miliaceum L.) seed with fungicides before sowing. Three tests were conducted near Sidney, NE on Mesic Aridic Argiustoll soil. The first 2-year trial compared the influence of several seed treatment fungicides on proso emergence and grain yield, using a widely accepted planting method. Plant emergence and grain yield was not improved by any of the fungicide treatments. The second 2-year trial compared two seed treatment fungicides and a check, using planting equipment that gave good and poor seedbeds. Again, fungicides did not improve stand or grain yield regardless of the quality of the seedbed. The third trial of 3 years duration investigated the effects of seed treatment fungicides on preventing head smut caused by Sphacelotheca destruens, a seedborne pathogen of proso. Seed treatment with captan {N-[(trichloromethyl)thio]-4-cyclohexene-l,2-dicarboximide}, thiram [tetramethylthiuram disulfidel, and maneb {manganese ethylenebisfdithiocarbamate]} were effective in reducing head smut infection by 93% over the untreated plots.

  Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left.

Copyright © .

Facebook   Twitter