Examples of risk tools for pests in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) developed for five countries using Microsoft Excel

Suppressing pest populations below economically-damaging levels is an important element of sustainable peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) production. Peanut farmers and their advisors often approach pest management with similar goals regardless of where they are located. Anticipating pest outbreaks using field history and monitoring pest populations are fundamental to protecting yield and financial investment. Microsoft Excel was used to develop individual risk indices for pests, a composite assessment of risk, and costs of risk mitigation practices for peanut in Argentina, Ghana, India, Malawi, and North Carolina (NC) in the United States (US). Depending on pests and resources available to manage pests, risk tools vary considerably, especially in the context of other crops that are grown in sequence with peanut, cultivars, and chemical inputs. In Argentina, India, and the US where more tools (e.g., mechanization and pesticides) are available, risk indices for a wide array of economically important pests were developed with the assumption that reducing risk to those pests likely will impact peanut yield in a positive manner. In Ghana and Malawi where fewer management tools are available, risks to yield and aflatoxin contamination are presented without risk indices for individual pests. The Microsoft Excel platform can be updated as new and additional information on effectiveness of management practices becomes apparent. Tools can be developed using this platform that are appropriate for their geography, environment, cropping systems, and pest complexes and management inputs that are available. In this article we present examples for the risk tool for each country.Fil: Jordan, David L.. University of Georgia; Estados Unidos. North Carolina State University; Estados UnidosFil: Buol, Greg S.. North Carolina State University; Estados UnidosFil: Brandenburg, Rick L.. North Carolina State University; Estados UnidosFil: Reisig, Dominic. North Carolina State University; Estados UnidosFil: Nboyine, Jerry. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Savanna Agricultural Research Institute; GhanaFil: Abudulai, Mumuni. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Savanna Agricultural Research Institute; GhanaFil: Oteng Frimpong, Richard. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Savanna Agricultural Research Institute; GhanaFil: Mochiah, Moses Brandford. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Crops Research Institute; GhanaFil: Asibuo, James Y.. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Crops Research Institute; GhanaFil: Arthur, Stephen. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Crops Research Institute; GhanaFil: Akromah, Richard. Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science And Technology; GhanaFil: Mhango, Wezi. Lilongwe University Of Agriculture And Natural Resources; MalauiFil: Chintu, Justus. Chitedze Agricultural Research Service, Lilongwe; MalauiFil: Morichetti, Sergio. Aceitera General Deheza; ArgentinaFil: Paredes, Juan Andres. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro de Investigaciones Agropecuarias. Instituto de Patología Vegetal; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro de Investigaciones Agropecuarias. Unidad de Fitopatología y Modelización Agrícola - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Unidad de Fitopatología y Modelización Agrícola; ArgentinaFil: Monguillot, Joaquín Humberto. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro de Investigaciones Agropecuarias. Instituto de Patología Vegetal; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Singh Jadon, Kuldeep. Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur; IndiaFil: Shew, Barbara B.. North Carolina State University; Estados UnidosFil: Jasrotia, Poonam. Indian Institute Of Wheat And Barley Research, Karnal; IndiaFil: Thirumalaisamy, P. P.. India Council of Agricultural Research, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources; IndiaFil: Harish, G.. Directorate Of Groundnut Research, Junagadh; IndiaFil: Holajjer, Prasanna. National Bureau Of Plant Genetic Resources, New Delhi; IndiaFil: Maheshala, Nataraja. Directorate Of Groundnut Research, Junagadh; IndiaFil: MacDonald, Greg. University of Florida; Estados UnidosFil: Hoisington, David. University of Georgia; Estados UnidosFil: Rhoads, James. University of Georgia; Estados Unido

Seed-Borne and Seed-Associated Nematodes: An Overview

Not Availabl

Not Available

Not AvailablePopulation dynamics of some plant parasitic nematodes in the rhizosphere of tuberose and marigold crops were studied. Population density was recorded at monthly interval from May, 2016 to February, 2017 in tuberose and from June, 2016 to November, 2016 in marigold. High population density (>200 nematodes/200 cc soil) of root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita and reniform nematode, Rotylenchulus spp. was recorded in tuberose from July, 2016 to October, 2016. Population dynamics of other nematodes such as Pratylenchus spp. and ectoparasitic nematodes were also recorded in the rhizosphere of tuberose crop. In marigold, population density of plant parasitic nematodes such as Pratylenchus spp., Hoplolaimus spp., Helicotylenchus spp., Tylenchorhynchus spp. and Longidorus spp. were decreased when marigold cultivars Pusa Narangi Gainda and Pusa Basanti Gainda were grown in sequence on the same field. However, these marigold cultivars did not influence the population density of Xiphinema spp.Not Availabl

Not Available

Not AvailableMermithid nematode: a natural parasite of Helicoverpa armigera in groundnutNot Availabl

Not Available

Not AvailableNot AvailableNot Availabl

Not Available

Not AvailablePopulation density on damage of Groundnut by Caryedon serratusNot Availabl

Not Available

Not AvailableThe bio-efficacy of imidacloprid seed treatment against leafhopper and thrips of groundnut was studied during kharif (23rd to 42nd standard week) and summer (5th to 23rd standard week) cropping seasons of 2010 and 2011. The six different concentrations viz., 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 g a. i. kg-1 were tested for their bio-efficacy. A modified sweep net method was followed to record the leafhopper and thrips populations. Seed treatments with imidacloprid @ 2.0 to 5.0 g a. i. kg-1 were found most effective in reducing the insect population. However, seed treatment with imidacloprid @ 2.0 g a. i. kg-1 may be included in integrated pest management (IPM) package for groundnut from environmental safety point.Not Availabl

Not Available

Not AvailableMermithid Parasitism (Nematoda: Mermithidae) in Helicoverpa armigera in GroundnutNot Availabl

Not Available

Not AvailableSeed is the basic and critical input for crop production, and almost 90% of all the world’s food crops are grown from seeds. Diverse groups of plant-parasitic nematodes are associated with variety of seed including seed tissues and/or propagating materials. Seed/propagating materials are the means for survival of plant-parasitic nematodes between growing seasons and also serve as effective means for introducing nematodes to new areas at local, regional and national levels. Some of the nematodes survive in true seeds in anhydrobiotic stage and survive for a long period in or on contaminated or infected seed. Consequently, they can be spread over vast distances in the commercial distribution of seed. Many of the plant-parasitic nematodes are known to survive and disseminate through edible roots, corms, rhizomes and tubers. The infested seed/propagating materials act as a source of inoculum for disease development that in turn cause both qualitative and quantitative losses to wide range of agricultural crops. In this chapter, economically important plant-parasitic nematodes associated with true seed, seed tissues and/or propagating materials are reviewed briefly.Not Availabl