Paper · 1999 · Plant Disease

Evaluation of Tactics for Managing Resistance of Venturia inaequalis to Sterol Demethylation Inhibitors

Wolfram Köller; W. F. Wilcox

11
claims
22
verbatim quotes
48
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The impact on the selection and control of subpopulations of V. inaequalis resistant to the sterol demethylation inhibitor (DMI) fenarimol or to dodine were evaluated with respect to several tactics of apple scab control. Experiments were conducted in an experimental orchard with elevated levels of DMI and dodine resistance over a period of three consecutive seasons. The DMI-resistant subpopulation was poorly (14%) controlled at a fenarimol rate of 15 mg/liter (sprayed to run-off), whereas control was significantly improved (54%) at twice that rate. Mancozeb mixed with the low rate of fenarimol also improved the control of DMI-resistant isolates, but the improvement was due to the indiscriminate control of both the DMI-sensitive and -resistant populations provided by mancozeb. The selection of fenarimol-resistant isolates resulting from poor control of the resistant subpopulation by the low rate of fenarimol was equivalent whether fenarimol was applied singly or in mixture with mancozeb. Consequently, the use of high DMI rates in mixture with a protective fungicide is expected to delay the build-up of resistant subpopulations by limiting their increase through two separate principles of control. For dodine in mixture with fenarimol, it was found that each mixing partner applied alone selected both fe-narimol- and dodine-resistant isolates. This selection pattern was partly explained by the possibility that one of the multiple genes underlying fenarimol and dodine resistance confers resistance to both fungicides, in addition to the selection of double-resistant isolates. Regardless, a mixture of fenarimol with dodine each employed at a low rate controlled both the fenarimol-and the dodine-resistant subpopulation at least as effectively as the individual components at twice their mixture rate, and an accelerated selection of double-resistant isolates was not detected. In commercial orchard trials, mixtures of DMIs with either a protective fungicide or with dodine provided equivalent control even when levels of DMI resistance, dodine resistance, or both were moderately elevated. With the exception of orchards with high levels of DMI or dodine resistance, dodine might be an alternative to protective fungicides as a mixing partner with DMIs.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fenarimol at 15 mg/liter controlled only 14% of the DMI-resistant subpopulation.

Treatment
fenarimol rate of 15 mg/litere0
Outcome
DMI-resistant subpopulatione0
Direction
poorlye0
Value
14%e0

Not reportedInteractorComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The DMI-resistant subpopulation was poorly (14%) controlled at a fenarimol rate of 15 mg/liter (sprayed to run-off)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 370–485 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple scab control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 202–220 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Doubling fenarimol rate improved control to 54%.

Treatment
twice that ratee0
Outcome
controle0
Direction
improvede0
Value
54%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“control was significantly improved (54%) at twice that rate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 495–554 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple scab control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 202–220 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mancozeb mixed with low-rate fenarimol improved control of DMI-resistant isolates.

Treatment
Mancozeb mixed with the low rate of fenarimole0
Outcome
control of DMI-resistant isolatese0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Mancozeb mixed with the low rate of fenarimol also improved the control of DMI-resistant isolates”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 556–653 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple scab control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 202–220 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mancozeb controlled both DMI-sensitive and resistant populations indiscriminately.

Treatment
mancozebe0
Outcome
control of both the DMI-sensitive and -resistant populationse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“indiscriminate control of both the DMI-sensitive and -resistant populations provided by mancozeb”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 690–786 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple scab control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 202–220 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Selection of fenarimol-resistant isolates was equivalent with fenarimol alone and in mixture with mancozeb.

Treatment
fenarimol was applied singly or in mixture with mancozebe0
Outcome
selection of fenarimol-resistant isolatese0
Direction
equivalente0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The selection of fenarimol-resistant isolates resulting from poor control of the resistant subpopulation by the low rate of fenarimol was equivalent whether fenarimol was applied singly or in mixture with mancozeb.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 788–1002 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple scab control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 202–220 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Each of dodine and fenarimol alone selected both fenarimol- and dodine-resistant isolates.

Treatment
each mixing partner applied alonee0
Outcome
fe-narimol- and dodine-resistant isolatese0
Direction
selectede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“each mixing partner applied alone selected both fe-narimol- and dodine-resistant isolates”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1271–1360 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple scab control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 202–220 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Low-rate fenarimol plus dodine controlled the fenarimol-resistant subpopulation at least as effectively as doubled individual rates.

Treatment
a mixture of fenarimol with dodine each employed at a low ratee0
Outcome
fenarimol-and the dodine-resistant subpopulatione0
Direction
at least as effectivelye0
Comparator
individual components at twice their mixture ratee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“a mixture of fenarimol with dodine each employed at a low rate controlled both the fenarimol-and the dodine-resistant subpopulation at least as effectively as the individual components at twice their mixture rate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1609–1821 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple scab control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 202–220 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Accelerated selection of double-resistant isolates was not detected with the mixture.

Outcome
accelerated selection of double-resistant isolatese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“an accelerated selection of double-resistant isolates was not detected”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1827–1897 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple scab control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 202–220 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Commercial orchard mixtures of DMIs with protective fungicide or dodine gave equivalent control despite moderately elevated resistance.

Treatment
mixtures of DMIs with either a protective fungicide or with dodinee0
Outcome
controle0
Direction
equivalente0
Qualifier
moderately elevatede0
Setting
commercial orchard trialse0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In commercial orchard trials, mixtures of DMIs with either a protective fungicide or with dodine provided equivalent control even when levels of DMI resistance, dodine resistance, or both were moderately elevated.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1899–2112 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple scab control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 202–220 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

High DMI rates with a protective fungicide are expected to delay resistant subpopulation buildup.

Treatment
high DMI rates in mixture with a protective fungicidee0
Outcome
delay the build-up of resistant subpopulationse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the use of high DMI rates in mixture with a protective fungicide is expected to delay the build-up of resistant subpopulations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1017–1143 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple scab control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 202–220 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Dodine may be a DMI mixing partner except in orchards with high DMI or dodine resistance.

Outcome
dodine might be an alternative to protective fungicides as a mixing partner with DMIse0
Qualifier
orchards with high levels of DMI or dodine resistancee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“With the exception of orchards with high levels of DMI or dodine resistance, dodine might be an alternative to protective fungicides as a mixing partner with DMIs.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2113–2276 · show in text ↑
e1

“apple scab control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 202–220 · show in text ↑

mancozeb · control · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.