Meta‐analysis of fungicide efficacy on soybean target spot and cost–benefit assessment
2018
Edwards Molina, Juan Pablo | Paul, Pierce A. | Amorim, Lilian | da Silva, Luis Henrique Carregal Pereira | Siqueri, Fabiano Victor | Borges, Edson Pereira | Campos, H.D. | Nunes Júnior, José | Meyer, Maurício Conrado | Martins, Mônica Cagnin | Balardin, Ricardo Silveiro | Carlin, Valtemir José | Grigolli, José Fernando | Belufi, Luana Maria de Rossi | Godoy, Claudia Vieira
Target spot of soybean has spread in Brazil, the southeastern United States and Argentina in the last decade. A collaborative network of field Uniform Fungicide Trials (UFT) in Brazil was created in 2011 to study the target spot control efficacy of fungicides, including azoxystrobin + benzovindiflupyr (AZ_BF), carbendazim (CZM), fluxapyroxad + pyraclostrobin (FLUX_PYRA), epoxiconazole + FLUX_PYRA (EPO_FLUX_PYRA), mancozeb (MZB) and prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin (PROT_TRIF). Network meta‐analysis was used to conduct a quantitative synthesis of UFT data collected from 2012 to 2016 and to evaluate the effects of disease pressure (DP, low ≤ 35% target spot severity in the nontreated control < high) and year of experiment on the overall mean efficacy and yield response to each of the tested fungicides. Based on mean percentage control of target spot severity, the tested fungicides fall into three efficacy groups (EG): high EG, FLUX_PYRA (76.2% control relative to the nontreated control) and EPO_FLUX_PYRA (75.7% control); intermediate EG, PROT_TRIF (66.5% control) and low EG, MZB (49.6% control), AZ_BF (46.7% control) and CZM (32.4% control). DP had a significant effect on yield response. At DPLow, the highest response was due to PROT_TRIF (+342 kg ha−1, +12.8%) and EPO_FLUX_PYRA (+295.5 kg ha−1, +11.2%), whereas at DPHigh, EPO_FLUX_PYRA and FLUX_PYRA outperformed the other treatments, with yield responses of 503 kg ha−1 (+20.2%) and 469 kg ha−1 (+19.1%), respectively. The probability of a positive return on fungicide investment ranged from 0.26 to 0.56 at DPLow and from 0.34 to 0.66 at DPHigh.
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]Instituto de Patología Vegetal
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]Fil: Edwards Molina, Juan Pablo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Patología Vegetal; Argentina
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]Fil: Paul, Pierce A. Ohio State University. Department of Plant Pathology. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center; Estados Unidos
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]Fil: Amorim, Lilian. Universidade de São Paulo. Departamento de Fitopatologia e Nematologia; Brasil
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]Fil: da Silva, Luis Henrique Carregal Pereira. Agro Carregal, Rio Verde; Brasil
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]Fil: Siqueri, Fabiano Victor. Fundação Mato Grosso; Brasil
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]Fil: Borges, Edson Pereira. Fundação Chapadão; Brasil
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]Fil: Campos, H.D. Universidade de Rio Verde; Brasil
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]Fil: Nunes Júnior, José. Centro Tecnológico para Pesquisas Agropecuárias, Goiânia; Brasil
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]Fil: Meyer, Maurício Conrado. Embrapa Soja; Brasil
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]Fil: Martins, Mônica Cagnin. Círculo Verde Assessoria Agronômica e Pesquisa, Luís Eduardo Magalhães; Brasil
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]Fil: Balardin, Ricardo Silveiro. Universidade Federal de Santa Maria; Brasil
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]Fil: Carlin, Valtemir José. Agrodinâmica, Tangará da Serra; Brasil
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]Fil: Grigolli, José Fernando. Fundação MS, Maracajú; Brasil
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]Fil: Belufi, Luana Maria de Rossi. Fundação Rio Verde, Lucas do Rio Verde; Brasil
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]Fil: Godoy, Claudia Vieira. Embrapa Soja; Brasil
اظهر المزيد [+] اقل [-]الكلمات المفتاحية الخاصة بالمكنز الزراعي (أجروفوك)
المعلومات البيبليوغرافية
تم تزويد هذا السجل من قبل Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria