- Open Access Repository of ICRISAT

*
,
Resistance to Groundnut Diseases in Wild Arachis
Species
P. Subrahmanyam, A.M. Ghanekar, 8.L. Nolt, D.V.R. Reddy, and
Abstract
Drseases e n malor conslramts lo groundnul produclron The mrxrt e c o n o m r c a l l y ~ m p o r t m
lunge/
~
drseases on a worldwrde scale are leaf spols (Cercospora r r a c h ~ d s o l rCercosportdlum
.
peraonaturn), and rust (Pucclnla a r a c h ~ d ~ sSources
)
of resrslance lo these drseases have bssn tdenltlred
wrthrn the cullrvaled groundnul and are berng ulrlrted m resrslance breedrngprograms Hrgh lewls
01 resrstance, and/or rmmunrty lo the drseases have M e n rdenlrfred among wrld Arach~sspeoes and
cylogenerrc~stsheve been successful rn rncorporalrng some 01 these resrsfances ~ n t o
rhe culrrvarbd
groundnul
Groundnufs ere alsosublecl to several damagrng vrrus drseases and lew sources olresrsrance ro
lhese heve been lound m the cullrvaledgroundnul However. hrgh reststances l o groundnul roselre.
peanut mottle, peanu1 slunl, and lomalo spotled wrlt vrruses have been l w n d m some wrld Arachls
specres, and 11IS rmporlanl lhel lhese resrslences should also be rncorporaled rnlo the cullrvsled
groundnul Srmrlerly, resrslance lo some nomarode drseases has also been focrnd tn wrld Arach~s
spcrcres and eltorts should bB made lo rncorporale lhrs rnro the culfrvaled grotrndnul
Rdsrslance aux maladres de Ibrachrde dans les e s p k e s sauvages d ' Arach~sL Les maledres
constrtuent I'un des prrncrpaux lecleurs Irmrlanls de la produclron arachrdrOre Au nrveau mondral
les meladres cryptogemrques Bconomrquemenl les plus rmporlenles sonl les cercosporroses (Cotpersonaturn) e! la roullle (Puccln~a
a r a c h ~ d ~ sDes
) sources
cospora arachldlcola. Cercospor~d~urn
de rdsrslance B ces maladres rdenlrlr8es dens I'arachrde cullrvBe sonl acluellemenr ulrlrsbes dans les
programmes de s8leclron pour la rdsrslence Des nrveaux de rBuslanceel~oud'rmmunrl4BlevBs atrr
maledres on1 818 rdenlrlrBes permr des especes sauvages d ' Arach~sel des cylog6nBlrcrens on1 r6ussr
B rntrodurre cerlernes de ces rdsrslances dens les arachrdes cullrvbes
Les erachrdes sont Bgalemml sensrbles B plusreurs maladres B vrrus, el les sources de rbstslance
sullrsanles d8couverles lusqu rcr dens les erachrdes cullrv8es sonl peu nombreuses Cependanr.
cerlarnes especes d ' Arach~ssauvages se sonl rBvBlBes prdsenler une bonne r8srslance aux vrrus de
la rosette, de la marbrure folrarre, du nanrsme, el de la meladre b r o n z h de la tomale
I / est donc rmportanl que ces rBsrslances sorenr Bgalemenl rnlrodurles dens les arachrdes cul
IrvBes. De m4me. une rBsrstance B certerns nBmelodes e BIB IrouvBe permr les espbces d ' Arach~s
seuvages, des eliorfs devronl 4lre mrs en oeuvre pour rnfrodurre celre rBsrs1ance dens I'arachrde
culfrv8e
Introduction
A large number of fungal, vlrus, and nematode dl;.
eases of groundnul have been reported, and wlth
few exceptions, they are commonly present In all
groundnul.growlng reglons of the world T h e most
lmpoflant fungal dlseases causlng severe ylcld
losses on a worldwide b a s ~ sare the leaf spots
(Cercospora arachrdrcol:, H o r ~ and C e r c o s p w ,
drum personalum [Berk el Curt ] O e ~ g h l o nand
)
.----
-+---
Plant Pathologst. V~robg~st.
Intunatmrl Intern. Prlnclprl V~roioglst,m d Prlnc~palPrthologlal. Groundnut Improvmmt
Program. ICRISAT. Patrnchw P 0 . A P 502 324. Indlr
1
~nletnabonalClops Research Inst~lule(ofIhe Semi-Ar~d Ttopccs 1985 Proceed~ngsof an InlernalKnal Wofkshop on Cylugem!~cso(
Afacha. 31 Oa - 2 Nov 1933 ICRlSAT Ceola Indm Palancheru A P 502 324 India ICRISAT
rust (Puccinra arachidis Speg ) Losses In ylelds
due to leaf spots of around 10% have been estlmated In the USA desplte the wldespread appllcatlon of funglcldes (Jackson and Bell 1969) In the
seml-arid troplcs, where chem~calcontrol IS rarely
used, losses In excess of 50°h are commonplace
(G~bbons1980) Loss In ylelds ol around 70% was
estmated In l n d ~ adue to a cornblned attack of leaf
spots and rust (Subrahmanyam el al 1984)
Although these dlscases can be controlled by cer
taln chemicals, t h ~ sapproach IS not at prcsenl leas
lble In many lessdeveloped countrles Rosearch on
~dontlflcatlonof reslstance to these dlseases has
recelved much attention over the last decade not
Only In the developlrrg countrles where cherri~cal
control IS rarely practised but also In developed
countrles where costs of chernlcal conlrol have
becorne very hlgh (Glbbons 1982) 7 hcre has beer1
lntenslvc research on scrcenlng grour~dnutgerm
plasm lor rcslstance lo varlous fungal dlseases
and several lrncs wlth hlgh lcvels of resistance to
these dlseases have betm ~dent~llcd
(Subrahrna
nyam el al 1980 198% 1983 Porter ct al 1982)
Among the virus dlscases of groundnut peanut
mottle vlrus (PMV) IS the mosl wldespread (Reddy
et al 1978) and causes yleld losses up to 30°/0
(Kuhn and Demsk~ 1975) Other aconorrilcally
Important vlrus dlseases have more restricted d,s
trlbutlons For Instance, grouridnut rosrttc vlrus
(GRV) IS lmportarit In Afrlca south of the Sahara
peanut clump vlrus (PCV) In West Alrlca and In
Indla, bud necrosls dlsease (BND) caused by
tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) 11) lndla and
wltches' broom In Southeast Asla (Reddy 1980
Ghanekar 1980. Porter el al 1982) The coritrol
strategy for many of the vlrus dlseases has Iradl
tlonally been a rnanlpulat~oriof cultural methods
elther to evade the peak populat~orisof tho vector
or to avold ~nfectlonat the susceptible seedllng
stage of crop growth Although these alternative
methods of control do help In rcduclng the dlsease
they are usually locallon speclllc and are riot therefore universally acceplablc Iri addltlon larmers In
the developlng countrles where the nialorlty of the
world's groundnut crop is grown are reluctant to
modlfy thelr ago-old cultural practices The use of
lnsectlcldal sprays to control vectors ol these vlr
uses IS not a practical proposltlon lor most larmers
In developlng countrles Therefore use of host
plant reslstance IS, where possible, the most practlcal, effectye, and hence the best way to control
virus r' seases
Dtseases caused by nematodes are economl-
cally Important In some pans of the world fhe
prlnclpal specles mvolved are In the genera Melord.
ogyne, Prarylenchus Belonolarmus. and Macro
posrhon~a (Porter el a1 1982) In recent years
germplasm screening lor reststance to varlous
nematode dlseases has been carried out in the
USA, and several sources of res~stancehave beer
reported 1 Porter el al 1982)
The sources of reslstance lo darlous fungal
virus arid nematode dlseases In cultivated groundnut gerrnplasm reported so far represent a narro*
range of varlabtllty that could be 1rnprove3by the
drscovery of addltlonal genes for res~slancetc
these dlseases Wild Alachls spec~esare polenllally uselul for broadentng the gerlct~cbase of the
cultivated groundnut In recent years there has
been considerable ernphas~son screening wlla
Afnchis species lor reslslance to varlous messes
and some specles have been reporled to have h~gh
levels of reslstance to d~sease:; catrsed by fun
viruses, and nematodes Cytogerietic rcsrar
alrned at ~ncorporating disease res~stanccand
other u s e f ~ trarls
~l
from wild A/nchi>. specles Into
Ct~ltlvatCd groundnut 1s In progress al several
research ~nstltutronsiMoss 1980 S'righ t?! al 1980
Stalker 1980 Wynne and (iregory 1981 r
In this paper the l~lcratorrho' irfcnlif~cat~on
ol
sources of reslstanct?to varlous fungal virus and
ricrnatotlt! dtscases of grountlnul In ;v~ldArnch~s
specles I S rev~cwad
Q
Disease Resistance in Wild Arachis
Species
Fungal Diseases
Leaf spots
Glbbons and Bailey ( 1 967) reported that threc Arachts sppcles A hngenbec411Harms A glr:!,rata
Benth and A iepens Handro d ~ dnot develop any
C nr,~ch~d~cola
les~oriswhen grown In plast~cpot
~n the open undcr natural d~seasepressure I
Malaw1 Abdou el al (1974) Screened 93 accessions of Arach~sspecies for reslstance to C arachldrcola and C personal(~n7 under laboratory
condltlons Resistance was evaluated by measurIng the number of leslons per leaflet leslon d~ameter percentage leal area damaged percentage
defollat~onand sporulatlon Index They found several Immune and hlghly resistant specles In the
sectlons Arachrs Krap el Greg nom nud . Erecfotdes Krap et Greg nom nud Rh~zomafosae
Krap el Greg nom nud and Exfranervosae Krap
1
et 'Greg nom nud K o l a w l e (1976) reported an
unnamed d~plordspecies as reslstant to both leaf
spot pathogens In N ~ g e r ~Shar~el
a
el al (1 978)
belleved that lhls species was probably A srenos
perma (HLK 410) Foster el al r 1981 ) evaluated
nine Arachrs species for reslstance l o C arach~dc.
ola by measuring various drsease parameters and
concluded that the number of les~onsper leaf and
percentage defol~al~on
were most useful for evaluatlon of reslstance lo C afachrdrcola A chacoense
and A sfenosperma were found l o be hrghly resrsr
ant Abdou el al ( 1 974) reported that A chacoense
Krap et Greg nom nud was h~ghlyreslslant lo C
arachldtcola but suscepl~bleto C personetbm
However Subrahmanyam el al ( 1 980) found only a
lea llny non-sporulalrng les~onsof both leaf spot
pathogens on A chacoense under both held and
laboratory cond~t~onsMelouk and Banks (I978)
and Shar~efel al ( I 978) observed no lesron devel
men! on A chacoense when lnoculated w~thC
ch~drcolaunder a r t ~ f ~ c~noculal~on
~al
cond~t~ons
A cardenasif Krap el Greg nom n:rd was sus
ceptible l o C ,?rnchrd,cola but IrnrnJne to C per
sonarurn (Abdou el al 1974 Shar~efel al 1978
Subrahmanbam et al 1980) Nevrll (1979) did not
observe any leslons on A cardennsra and A sten(?\
pernin when inoculated w ~ t hC pr>rsor),jliir?l In
N ~ g e r ~Company
a
el al ( 19821 evaluated A ch,i
coense and A cardendsi for therr rcactlori to C
arachldrcola durlng an Invcsllgatton on rylology
and leaf spot resrstance in ~nlorspec~f~c
hybrid
derrvatives Both specles showed the prcsoncc of
C arachldrcola les~onsIn field lr~alsbut drd not
produce any leslons In laboratory tests Abdou el al
r 1974) reported that three accesslons of A v1110s1l11
carpa Hoehne were lmmune to both leaf spot path
ogens in the USA However G~bbonsand Balley
11967) observed cons~derable damage to the
foliage of thls specles due lo C srachtdicola lnfec
tron In Malaw1 Subrahmanyam el al (unpublished)
bserved les~onsof C personalum on A vrllosi~11
.arpa but the les~ons were small and non
sporulallng An unldentlfled specles of Arachis
(GKP 10596. PI 276233) In sectlon Rhrzoma!osae
was reported lmmune to both leaf spot pathogens In
the USA and lnd~a(Abdou el al 1974 Subrahmanyam et al 1980) However Melouk and Banks
( 1 978) In the USA observed small non-sporulat~ng
les~onson thls specles when lnoculated wlth C
arachrd~cola(Table 1 )
Some of these dltferences In d~seasereact~ons
zould be due l o var~at~on
In the pathogen, Interac!Ion between host, pathogen. and environment, or
R
1
c~ofusronIn ~dentrf~catron
of Or variatcon wthln, the
hOSl m
b
S
Rust
Subrahmanyam el al (19831 screened 61 accssslons of wild species represenllng tlw sect~ons01
the genus Arachrs under heid and laboratory condrtlons for reacllon to groirndnut rust Most were
y
arid two were
lmmune SIX were h ~ g h ~resistant
suscepl~bleto the pathogen Some ol the inimuno
and h~ghlyresrslant accesslons are Irsted In Table
2 Several accesslons of A ylabr,+r,, wore lound
Immune when tested In the USA and lridin (Brorn
f ~ e l dand Cevar~o1970 Subrehmanyarn et el 1980
19831 However rust was 0bst3rved on an acces.
s o n of the same species collected In Brazrl cBrorn
held 197 1 V Rnrriarialha Ran and J F Honnc!n
personal cornrliun~cat~on)
A yl,4hr,tl,l IS d vcvy vilr
lablo specles arid marly need to be roclass~l~cd
It IS
not surprlslng that drtferenl arct3sslons of il spo
cles can vary In dlseasc rc>acllon and nwrv alleri
lion should be glvon l o recordrrig dlsnasc8s prosari1
on w ~ l dArdchrs spp when collrcling
Attenipts are b e ~ n grnade to LISP spt?closIhet nro
res~slanland Immtrne lo P ,2r,Ich1dl\ as prnctlcal
sources ot rust resrstarice I hey niay havo gunus
for reslstance lo rust drftorent frorti those In A
hvpognea thus prov~dlrigthe p o s s ~ b ~ l01~ tcornhln
y
Ing the rusl rcslslanco of wild and cult~valeds(w
cles lo glve rnore effecl~vcand stable ras~stariccrIn
the cull~valedgroundnuf (Suhrahrnariyani c l al
1983) Even IIthe genes are ldonllcal they may bo
llnked lo drfterenl des~rablocharac:t#!rs or rnay pro
duce more effecllvc allellc cornb~nal~ons
Slngh el al ( 1 984) evaluated the flrsl generation
hybrld progenies of two rust -suscepl~ble
groundnut
culllvars crossed ~ 1 1 rust-rrnmuno
h
A hitltr~or
Krap el Greg nom nud d~ploldand a ~ ~ l o t o l r a
plo~dsand 11s amph~plo~d
w ~ t htwo other lmmune
d ~ p l o ~wlld
d spccles for reaction against groundnut
rust They concluded that rust reslstance In dlplotd
w ~ l dspecles 1s of a partially domlnanl nature. unltke
In A hypogeea where 11 IS recessive The transler
of rust reslslance lrom wild specles should be
stra~ghtforwardbecause of the domlnant nature 01
the genes
The telraplord or near-telraplo~dlines derived
lrom crosses between A hypogaea and wlld specles lmmune and h~ghtyreststant to rusl, were systematlcally evaluated for the~rrust reactloo durlng
the 1981 and 1982 ralny seasons at ICRISAT Center A very hlgh degree of reslstance lo rust was
n
J
Table 1. Sources of resistance to leef spots in wild Arechis species.
Specres
Seceon
Collector initial and
number or other identity
Achacoense
A.chacoense
A.chacoense
Arachrs
Arachrs
Arachrs
GKP 10602. PI 276325
GKP 10602. PI 276325
GKP 10602. PI 276325
A.cardenas11
Arachrs
GKP 10017. PI 262141
A.sfenosperma
A.slenosperma
Arachrs
Arachrs
HLK 41 0. PI 338280
HLK 41 0. PI 338280
Caulorhrzae
Caulorhrzae
C arachrdcola
C personaturn
HA
HR
S
HR
Abdou el al. (1974)
Subrahmanyam d al. (1980)
M&uk and Banks (1978)
I
AWou el at (1974)
Subrahmanyam el al (1980)
HR
Subrahmanyam et al (1980)
Melouk and Benks (1 9781
1
HR
HR
HR
G~bbonsand Bailey (1967)
Subrahmanyam el al (unpub )
HR
AWou el al (1974)
I
Arachrs species
Erectordes
GK 10573. PI 276225
A.appnssrprla
Erectordes
GKP 10002
HR
Subrahmanyam et al (unpub )
A.paraguarrensrs
Erectordes
KCF 1 1462
HR
Subrahmanyam el a1 (unpub.)
A vrllosuicarpa
A vrllosulrcarpa
Extranervosae
Exrranervosae
ICG 8142
HR
Abdou et a1 (1974)
Subrahmanyam et al (unpub )
A.hagenbeckrr
A.hagenbeckrr
Rhrzomalosae
Rhrzomatosae
HL 486 PI 338267
HR
Gibbons and Bailey (1 967)
Subrahmanyam (unpub )
Rh~zomatosae
Rh~zomatosae
Rhrzomalosae
GKP 9830. PI 262797
GKP 9830 PI 262797
HR
HR
GiWons and 6ailey (1 967)
Abdou et a1 (1974)
Subrahmanyam (unpub )
~rachrsspecies
Erectordes
GKP 10574
HR
HR
AWou et at (1974)
Arachrs species
Rhrzomalosae
GKP 10596 PI 276233
I
I
Arach~sspecies
Rhrzomalosae
GKP 10596 PI 276233
HR
1 I5
Immune. HR = Highly Res~slanl S = SusceptlMe
HR
lnvestigaton
I
I
I
HR
Abdou et al (1974)
Subrahmanyam el a1 (1980)
Melouk and Banks ( 1978)
TabY 2 Sources of reslstanca to rust In wild Ar8chm S Q O C ~
~ W W S
Secrm
A bafrzwor
A duranenvs nom nud
A spegazzrnrr noin nud
A correnfrna nom nud
A slenosperma nom nud
A card en as^^ nom nud
A cnacoense nom nud
A vtllosa
B
A apressrpda nom nud
A pafaguariensrs
A pusrlla
A v~llosulrcarpa
A hagenbeckti
A glabrara
Afdchrs
Ara~hts
Arachls
Arachcs
Aracnrs
Arachis
Arach~s
Arach~s
Erecrodes
E recILwdes
Tr~senr~ndlae
E ~rranervosae
Rhczon~losae
Rhtzomalosae
1
I
HR
immune no ~ U S Id~seases v r n p t m s
smell necrotic ks~onslormcd h k t
Htghly res~slanl
CdJectoc ~n~lurl
end
n u m b or othe cdenllty
RUSI
reactton'
K 9484 PI XI0639 PI 338312
K 7988 PI 219823
GKP 10038 PI 263133
HL 1 76 PI 331 194 GKP 9548
I
I
I
I
HLk 410 PI 338280
GKP 10017 PI 262141
GKP 10602 PI 2 7 6 3 5
PI 210554
GKP 10002 PI 2621 40
KCF 1 1 462
--70
-observed In most of the interspec~fichybrld derlvatlves On resistant llnes. Ihe uredosorl were slightly
d rupture to release the
depressed. small, and d ~ not
comparat~velyfew uredlnlospores produced The
affected leaflets showed only limited necrosis
Virus Diseases
GK 12922 PI 3.18449
ICG 014? tax C ~ t f l l b ~ t ~ r ~
HLKO 349 PI J.93.305
HLKHe 552 PI .W?61
---.
--a
D f o 0 u C l O n OI Du5tuMs cn u r m l ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ s p ~ f t * * .
lnlectod except A pustll,? Brnlti ( 1 2 9 2 2 ) A r.,lrtltr
nnsit ( 1 0 0 1 7 ) A rhnccnv?sc ( 1 0 6 0 2 ) nrld A ('or
renr~na(Burk ) Krap el ( i r t y nom r111tl (!1530)
Two of these s p ~ ~ Ac sct~,?c.ocrtscl,lnd A ~ ~ u s ~ l l t r
after repealed graft inoci~lnt~oris
r~rnalnudlrco
lrom ~ n l e c t ~ as
o ndelerrn~nedby {tssdys on l'h,~seo
/ ( I S vulgnrts (cv Topcrop) and by t,ri?yrnn Iirrked
trnrnunosorbcnt dssay (ILISA)
Peanut mottle virus (PMV)
Demski and Sowell (1981 ) reported that SIX wild
rhizomatous groundnut ~ntroductlons,(most were
probably A glabrala) were not infected by mechan
lcal or aphld (Aphts cracctvora) inoculation or In
the field under hlgh dlsease pressure (Table 3)
Fifty wlld Arach~sspecles accessions have been
screened for PMV resistance at ICRISAT Center
under greenhouse condltlorls usrng mechanical
leaf rub, and air brush inoculations All were
Table 3. Wild Arachis species resistant to peanut
mottle virus'.
Groundnut rosette virus (GRV)
Very I~ttlt?p~rbl~shed
~rilorriiatiorrIS ava~loblcRL)OIJI
the ~dc?ntif~calion
ol sourcc?s of rr!!;l!;lnric'c!
lo
groundnut rosettc? virus In wll(1 Ari9c:ht:; sp!clc!s
G~bbons(1969) In Malaw1 tcslcd c!lovt!ri w~ldAr;,
chts spccles ~nch~dlng
lour arlriuals and stlvcri pc!
rennlals, by aphld (Aphis CIiI(:C/vOIiI) and gralt
lnoculallon t i c observed that A reperts, dlplold nricl
letraploid and A gl;#hrnl;?rernalncd free ol rosottc
vlrus lnlect~onHowcvcr. Klesscr ( 1967) using srr~r
llar expcr~mcntalrriethods In S o ~ ~Alr1c;a
lh
reportod
that A glabrala was a symptomloss carric?r of
groundnut roselte lrnmune llnes whlch do not
show rosette vlrus symptoms should be conlirrrlod
as virus.free uslng ELISA
A glabrela
A glabra,a
A glabala ( 7 )
Arachts sp
Arachts sp
Arachrs SD
Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV)
At ICRISAT Center, a total ol 42 wild Arachts species accesscons were tested In the greenhouse by
mechan~cal and thrlps (Flankltn~ella schulrzer)
~noculat~on
Three species. A pusrlla (12922). A
correnhne (9530), and A cardenas11 (1001 7).
although Infected by mechanlcal and thr~psInoculatlon In the laboratory, showed no lnfect~onunder
field condltlons, based on observatrons over many
seasons Only A chacoense remalned free from
TSWV ~r~fectlon
atter mechanlcal and thr~psInoculatlon as determined by lndex~ngon V~gnaungulculala '(cv C 152), and by ELISA However TSWV
could be detected In A chacoense follow~nggraft
lnoculatlon Add~t~onallyA chacoense always
remalned free from lnfectlon under fleld conditions
Therefore, A chacoense can be cons~deredh~ghly
reslstant to TSWV and a potent~alsource of reslstance genes In ~nterspeclf~c
crosses w~ththe cul11vated groundnut
root knot nematode (Meto~dogynehapla CMIwood) Only one specles from sect~onRhrzomalosae, PI 262286, had a moderate level of reslstance
Cast~lloet a1 (1 973) tested 12 accessions for reststance to northern root knot nematode Four accesslons of sectlon Rh~zomatosae. PI 262286. PI
262841. PI 26281 4. and PI 262844 had fewer galls
than the control A hypogaea cv Spantex The
number of egg-lay~ngfemales was also reduced
At present no lnformatlon 1s available on ut~llZatlOn
of these specles In breedlng for res~stancelo
M hapla
References
Abdou. Y A-M , Gregory. W C , and Cooper.
W.E. 1974 Sources and nature of reslslance I?Cercos
Peanut stunt virus (PSV)
pjra arachrdrcola Horl and Cercosportdrurnpersonarum
(Berk el Curtis) Delghton In A~achrsspecies Peanut
Hebert and Stalker (1981) tested 90 collect~onsof
wlld Arachls specles by mechanlcal ~noculat~on. Sclence 1 6 - 1 1
and those that were not Infected were further tested
Banks. D.J. 1969 Breedlng for northern root knol ne
!ode Melordogyne hnpla reslstance In peanuts Journal ol
by graft lnoculat~on Forty-e~ghtcollect~onslrom
Amer~canPeanut Research and Fducat~on
Association 1
four sect~onswere h~ghlyreslstant and several of
23-28
these are presented In Table 4 The reslstance of
these selected llnes was confirmed by ELlSA and
Brornf~eld,K R 1971 Peanut us1 a rt3vlrv, of I~terat~~re
by assays on V ungu~culala The selected llnes
Journal ol Afnerican Peanut Fiescavcb and Educat~on
Assoc~allon3 1 1 1 121
were also tested for suscept~b~l~ty
to PSV In a held
where the d~seasepressure was adequate and
Bromfleld,K R and Cevar~o S J 1970 Greenhouse
they st111remalned free lrom PSV lnfect~on
screening of pcanut r Ar,,ch~s nvooydtD,lI tor res~stance
to
peanut rusl (Pocc irrr,c ,tr,?Ch'(lrsl Plaflt Dtsease Reporter
54 381 383
8
Nematode Diseases
Banks (1969) evaluated some 33 accessions of
wild Arachis specles for reslstance to the northern
Table 4. Wild Arachis species resistant to peanut
stunt virus'.
Spocies or
collector
number
957 1
9806
992 1
A.glabra1a B1
10596
7988
10598
9764
10573
A.reper.
1 After
Soctlon
Rhrzornalosae
Rh~romalosae
Rh~zomalosae
Rhrzomalosae
Rhrzomalosae
Arachrs
Arachrs
Ereclo~des
Ereclodes
Caulorhuae
Hebert and Slalker (1981)
PI number
2628 1 8
262792
262296
-
276233
-
276234
262859
276225
-
Castrllo. M B , Morrison. L S . Russel. C C , and
hdpl~
Banks, D J 1973 Res~stancelo Melo~doyvr~e
peanuts Journal of Nematology 5 281 -285
Company. M.. Stalker. H.T . and Wynne. J C. 1982
Cytology and leafspolres~slancein Arach~shypogaea x
w~ldSpecles hybrids Euphytlca 31 885-893
Dernski. J.W., and Sowell, G., Jr 1981 Res~stanceto
peanut mottle v~rusIn Afach~sspp Peanut Sc~ence8
43-44
.
Foster. D.J., Stalker. H.T Wynne. J.C.. and ~eute.
M.K. 1981 Reststance ol Arachls hypogaea L and w~ld
relatives to Cercosporn arachrd~colaHor~Ol6aglneux 36
139-143
Ghanekar. A.M. 1980 Groundnut virus research at
ICRISAT Pages 21 1-216 rn Proceedings ol the InternaIlona1 Workshop on Groundnuts 13-17 Oct 1980. ICRISAT Center, lnd~a Patancheru A P 502 324. lnd~a
lnternat~onalCrops Research lnst~tutefor the Sernl-Arid
Trop~cs
Gibbons. R.W. 1969 Groundnut rosette research in
Malaw~Pages 1-8 m Proceed~ngsof the Thlrd Eastern
~ ~ n c aCereals
n
Research Conference. Z
Mabm. Mar 1969
m and
C T , eds) Yoakum. Texas. USA American Peenul
Research and EdutXth~nSoc~ery
G i w , R.W. 1980 GrwndnLA lmprovemerw research
techndogy fathe sml-and troplcs Pages 27-37 m Pro-
Reddy. D.V.R. 1980 I n t W ~ l 1 0 Ma!+xls
l
ot Qroundnut
nrus f8searCh Pages 203.210 a Procmchngs of the
Intwitnerml Wwkshop on Groundnuts 13 I7 Oct 1960
ICRISAT Cenler. lnd~aPatencheru A P 502 324 Inct~n
Internattonal Clops Research Inshtute loc the %in1 And
Troplcs
ceedrngs d the Internattonal Sympo~umon Devetop
men! and f ransfef ol Technology for Ratnfed Agrculture
and the SAT Farmer. 28 Aug-1 Sept 1979. ICRISAT Cen.
tw. lndra Patancheru. A P 502 324. lndle International
Crops Research lnsttlute tor the Semi-Arld Tropcs
Gibbons. R.W. 1982 Sources d reslstance to some
important dlseasas In the enu us Arechs Presented at the
lnternat~onalSyrnp~sumon PrOdut~on.World 011seeQs
Market and Intra-AfTlcan Trade In Groundnu's and
Groundnut Products. 7.1 June 1982 Banlul,
Gembla
A
502 324 lndla
Research lnstltute for the Semi-And Troplcs (Ltrnlled
distr~but~on
)
.
R w y . D V R , lizukr. N Ghrnekrr. A M . Murlhy.
V R Kuhn. C W G~bbons. R W , and Chohrn.
J S 1978 The occurrence ol peanu1rnottb v~rus111 lnd18
Plant Disease report^ 62 978 902
.
.
Shanef. Y , Rawltngs. J 0 , and Gr6gory. W C 1978
Estimates of leafspot rus~stancoIn t h t w IIII~V~,~~I,IC
hybrids of Arechrs Euphytlca 27 74 1 751
.
Slngh. A K Sastri. D C , and Moss. J P I980 I J t ~ l ~ t d
lion of wild Arech~sspocles at ICRISAT Pegus R? 90 trr
G1bbonsg W o and Bailey.
Resistance lo
CercOsPOraarachduo'a In some 'pectes Of A'achrs
Rhodesia Zambia a*
Journal
Of Agricultural
.-search 5 57-59
Procwd~ngsof the lnlnrnal~onalWorkshop on Grourrd
ntjts 13.17 Oct 1980 ICRISAT Cenler lnd~tr1'atanck*iu
A P 50.' 324 lnd~alnternat~onolCrops Hasckurrh lrlst~tuto
for the S Q ~Arld
I
Troqilcs
'Fferbert. T.T., and Stalker. H T. 1981 Reststance lo
peanut stunt wrus In cultlvaled and wild A~achisspecles
Peanut Sc~ence8 45-47
Singh. A K Subrahmanyam. P , end Moss. J P 1984
A noto on dornlnanl naturcl of reslstnncu to t'rn'r:rrir,t
arnchdls In wld AI;+c.~IS s[)(*cI~'s O l b ~ g ~ r i ~:I!)~ k5:Vr
it
537
Jackson. C.R.. and Bell, D.K. 1969 Dlseases of peanut
(groundnut) caused by fungus Research Bulletin no 56.
Georg~aAgrlculture Exper~mentStatlons 137 pp
Klesser, P.J. 1967 Arach~sspecles and thelr react~on
to
virus ~nfectlons South Afrlcan Journal of Agr~cultural
Sc~ence10 919-927
Kolawole. K.B. 1976 A short progress report on transfer
of Cercospora res~stantlralts to !he cult~vatedArachts
hypogaea L Samaru Agricultural Newslener 18 40.43
.
Stalker. H T 1980 Cylognnut~c Ir\vt*stlgsllons In tht~
genus Arnch~sPagos 73 81 m I'roc:t!otf~tiys of 1ht1lrrlur
nat~onalworkshop on Groui~tlnuts 13 1 ? Ocl l!bHO I(:f1I
SAT Csnlor lnd~a Palanchoru A P 502 3?4 Indlit
Internallonel Crops R~soarchInst~l~rlc!
for Ihtr Sclr~r~
Ar~d
Tropics
.
.
.
Subrahmanyam. P McDonald D Olbbons. R W
Nlgam, S N , and Nevlll. D J 1982 f?c!slslnnc:c! lo r l l r i l
and late leafspot dlseasos In sonio gorioly(ws ol Ari~:ti~s
Kuhn, C.W., and Demski, J.W. 1975 The relat~onsh~pol hypognea Poantrt Sc1enc.o 9 6 10
peanut mottle virus to peanut production Research
Subrahmanyam. P., Mehan. V K Nevlll, D J , and
Report 21 3. Georg~aAgrlculture Exper~mentStat~ons 19
McDonald, D. 1980 Reseerch on fungal dlsoasns of
PP
groundnul a1 ICRISAT Pages 193 198 1n Pr~cood~rlys
of
Melouk, H . A . , and Banks. D.J. 1978 A method ol
the Inlernatlonal Workshop on (iroundnkrls. 13.11 Oct
screening peanut genotypes for reslstance to Cercos.
1980. ICRISAT Center, lndla Patancheru, A P 502 324.
pora leafspot Peanut Sctence 5 1 12-1 14
lnd~alnternal~onalCrops Research Inslltule for the Som~.
Arid Troplcs
h s s . J.P 1980 Wild species In the improvement of
groundnuts Pages 525-535 m Advances in legume
Subrahmanyam, P., Mom, J.P., and Rao, V.R. 1983
sclence prcceedlngs of the lnternat~onalLegume Con
Reslslance to peanul rust In wlld Arachis species Plant
ference. 24-29 July 1978. Kew. Surrey. UK (Summertleld.
D~sease67 209.21 2
R J , and Bunting. A H . eds ) V d 2 Kew. Surrey UK
Subrahmanyam, P., Wlllrams, J.H.,McDonald, D..and
Royal Bolanlc Gardens
Gibbons. R.W. 1984 The lntluence of fol~ard l s e a m
Nevlll, D.J. 1979 An ~nvestlgatlonof the disease reacand thelr control by cielecllve lunglc~deson a range of
lion to CercospordrumperSonalum In Arach~shypogaea
grwndnul (Arachrs hypogaea L ) genotypes Annals of
Tropcal Grain Legume Bulletin 15 18-22
Applied Biology 104 467-476
.
Porter. D.M., Smith. D.H., and Rodrlgwz-bbarur,
R. 1982. Peanut plant diseases Pages 326-410 rn Peanut Scrence and Technology (Patlee. H.E.,and Young.
Wynne, J.C., and Gregory, W.C. 1981 Peanut Breed
Ing Pages 39.72 tn Advances In agronomy, Vo134 New
York. USA Academlc Press, Inc