Abstract
Foliar diseases and Fusarium head blight (FHB) (caused by Fusarium graminearum Schwabe) frequently constrain hard winter wheat (HWW) production in the northern Great Plains of North America. Experiments were conducted in North Dakota (ND) to determine the agronomic and economic response of adapted hard winter wheat (HWW; Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars to foliarly applied fungicides. Experiments consisted of a factorial combination of winter wheat cultivars (12–18 depending on the year) and fungicides (no fungicide or fungicides applied) and were conducted in five environments from 2005 to 2007. Yield and disease development varied between environments, with the greatest disease pressure occurring in 2005 and the least in 2006. Within an environment and averaged across cultivars, fungicides improved yields by 5.5 to 44.0%. Cultivars differed significantly in their yield in each environment and cultivar by fungicide interactions for yield occurred in four of the five environments. In all but 2005, varieties that were most responsive to fungicides were those with the greatest disease susceptibility. In 2005, the year of the greatest disease pressure, cultivars that were the most responsive to fungicide were those with the best disease tolerance, indicating the value of integrating several control practices when disease pressure is high. Fungicides were very effective in reducing leaf spots and FHB and provided near complete control of leaf rust. Fungicides can be a valuable tool in increasing yields and profitability of winter wheat, especially if disease susceptible cultivars are grown and if disease pressure is only moderate. Combining fungicides with genetic resistance offers the best monetary return when disease pressure is high.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Yield varied among environments.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Yield and disease development varied between environments, with the greatest disease pressure occurring in 2005 and the least in 2006.”
t0“Hard Winter Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Disease pressure varied among environments, greatest in 2005 and least in 2006.
Verbatim
e0“Yield and disease development varied between environments, with the greatest disease pressure occurring in 2005 and the least in 2006.”
t0“Hard Winter Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicides improved yield by 5.5 to 44.0% within environments averaged across cultivars.
Verbatim
e0“Within an environment and averaged across cultivars, fungicides improved yields by 5.5 to 44.0%.”
t0“Hard Winter Wheat”
e1“no fungicide or fungicides applied”
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivar yields differed significantly in each environment.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Cultivars differed significantly in their yield in each environment”
t0“Hard Winter Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivar by fungicide yield interactions occurred in four of five environments.
Verbatim
e0“cultivar by fungicide interactions for yield occurred in four of the five environments.”
t0“Hard Winter Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Except in 2005, the most fungicide-responsive varieties were the most disease susceptible.
Verbatim
e0“In all but 2005, varieties that were most responsive to fungicides were those with the greatest disease susceptibility.”
t0“Hard Winter Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2005 the most fungicide-responsive cultivars had the best disease tolerance.
Verbatim
e0“In 2005, the year of the greatest disease pressure, cultivars that were the most responsive to fungicide were those with the best disease tolerance”
t0“Hard Winter Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicides reduced leaf spots and Fusarium head blight.
- Taxon
- Hard Winter Wheatt0
- Treatment
- Fungicidese0
- Interactor
- Fusarium graminearum Schwabe
_on_Corn_(Zea_mays)_at_Waimea%2C_Hawaii.jpg?width=60)
Fusarium graminearume1pathogen - Outcome
- leaf spots and FHBe0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Comparator
- no fungicidee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_on_Corn_(Zea_mays)_at_Waimea%2C_Hawaii.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Fungicides were very effective in reducing leaf spots and FHB and provided near complete control of leaf rust.”
t0“Hard Winter Wheat”
e1“Fusarium head blight (FHB) (caused by Fusarium graminearum Schwabe)”
e2“no fungicide or fungicides applied”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicides provided near complete leaf rust control.
Verbatim
e0“Fungicides were very effective in reducing leaf spots and FHB and provided near complete control of leaf rust.”
t0“Hard Winter Wheat”
e1“no fungicide or fungicides applied”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend fungicides for increasing yield and profitability especially with susceptible cultivars and moderate disease pressure.
- Taxon
- winter wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Outcome
- Fungicidese0
- Qualifier
- especially if disease susceptible cultivars are grown and if disease pressure is only moderatee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fungicides can be a valuable tool in increasing yields and profitability of winter wheat, especially if disease susceptible cultivars are grown and if disease pressure is only moderate.”
Claim · model-written summary
Combining fungicides with genetic resistance offers the best monetary return under high disease pressure.
Verbatim
e0“Combining fungicides with genetic resistance offers the best monetary return when disease pressure is high.”
t0“Hard Winter Wheat”
The same questions in other papers
fungicide · Fusarium graminearum · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →fungicide · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
134 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
153 papers more in this group
See all 157 papers →fungicide · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
231 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
258 papers more in this group
See all 262 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.