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.
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Instituto de Patología Vegetal
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Edwards Molina, Juan Pablo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Patología Vegetal; Argentina
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Paul, Pierce A. Ohio State University. Department of Plant Pathology. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center; Estados Unidos
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Amorim, Lilian. Universidade de São Paulo. Departamento de Fitopatologia e Nematologia; Brasil
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: da Silva, Luis Henrique Carregal Pereira. Agro Carregal, Rio Verde; Brasil
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Siqueri, Fabiano Victor. Fundação Mato Grosso; Brasil
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Borges, Edson Pereira. Fundação Chapadão; Brasil
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Campos, H.D. Universidade de Rio Verde; Brasil
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Nunes Júnior, José. Centro Tecnológico para Pesquisas Agropecuárias, Goiânia; Brasil
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Meyer, Maurício Conrado. Embrapa Soja; Brasil
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Martins, Mônica Cagnin. Círculo Verde Assessoria Agronômica e Pesquisa, Luís Eduardo Magalhães; Brasil
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Balardin, Ricardo Silveiro. Universidade Federal de Santa Maria; Brasil
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Carlin, Valtemir José. Agrodinâmica, Tangará da Serra; Brasil
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Grigolli, José Fernando. Fundação MS, Maracajú; Brasil
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Belufi, Luana Maria de Rossi. Fundação Rio Verde, Lucas do Rio Verde; Brasil
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Fil: Godoy, Claudia Vieira. Embrapa Soja; Brasil
Mostrar más [+] Menos [-]Palabras clave de AGROVOC
Información bibliográfica
Este registro bibliográfico ha sido proporcionado por Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria