Abstract
This work compared development of soybean rust (SR) on the susceptible cultivar BRS 133 and on the resistant line CB06-953/963 (Rpp4 gene) following different fungicide treatments applied in different developmental stages. The assessed variables were percent plant defoliation, coefficient of damage (CD) and economic threshold level (ETL), the latter two calculated from disease severity ratings and yield. Experiments were conducted in the field during the 2006-2007 growing season with one sowing date (Experiment I) and in 2007-2008 with two sowing dates (Experiments II and III). The experimental design was a randomized complete block with ten treatments and four replications. Overall, the Rpp4 gene in the resistant line was effective in reducing development of SR in all three experiments. The values of CD and ETL were higher for the resistant line than for the susceptible cultivar. The resistant line needed 13.3 days longer than the susceptible cultivar to reach the ETL in Experiment II. Fungicide applications were more effective in protecting yield and minimizing defoliation in the susceptible cultivar than in the resistant line. Under high inoculum pressure (Experiment III), three and four fungicide sprays applied during the season resulted in significantly higher yields (P<0.05) in both soybean genotypes compared with the untreated controls. Late season fungicide applications reduced rust severity and increased the yield of the resistant cultivar.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Rpp4 reduced soybean rust development in all three experiments.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxt0 - Material
- resistant linee0
- Gene
- Rpp4e0
- Outcome
- development of SRe0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Qualifier
- all three experimentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rpp4 gene in the resistant line was effective in reducing development of SR in all three experiments”
t0“resistant soybean cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
The resistant line had higher CD than the susceptible cultivar.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Material
- resistant linee0
- Outcome
- CDe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- susceptible cultivare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The values of CD and ETL were higher for the resistant line than for the susceptible cultivar”
t0“resistant soybean cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
The resistant line had higher ETL than the susceptible cultivar.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Material
- resistant linee0
- Outcome
- ETLe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- susceptible cultivare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The values of CD and ETL were higher for the resistant line than for the susceptible cultivar”
t0“resistant soybean cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
The resistant line took 13.3 days longer to reach ETL in Experiment II.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Material
- resistant linee0
- Outcome
- reach the ETLe0
- Direction
- longere0
- Value
- 13.3 dayse0
- Qualifier
- Experiment IIe0
- Comparator
- susceptible cultivare0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The resistant line needed 13.3 days longer than the susceptible cultivar to reach the ETL in Experiment II”
t0“resistant soybean cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicides protected yield more effectively in the susceptible cultivar.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Material
- susceptible cultivare0
- Treatment
- Fungicide applicationse0
- Outcome
- protecting yielde0
- Direction
- more effectivee0
- Comparator
- resistant linee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fungicide applications were more effective in protecting yield and minimizing defoliation in the susceptible cultivar than in the resistant line”
t0“resistant soybean cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicides minimized defoliation more effectively in the susceptible cultivar.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Material
- susceptible cultivare0
- Treatment
- Fungicide applicationse0
- Outcome
- defoliatione0
- Direction
- minimizinge0
- Comparator
- resistant linee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fungicide applications were more effective in protecting yield and minimizing defoliation in the susceptible cultivar than in the resistant line”
t0“resistant soybean cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Three fungicide sprays raised yield versus untreated controls under high inoculum pressure.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- three and four fungicide sprayse0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- high inoculum pressure (Experiment III)e0
- Comparator
- untreated controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under high inoculum pressure (Experiment III), three and four fungicide sprays applied during the season resulted in significantly higher yields (P<0.05) in both soybean genotypes compared with the untreated controls”
Claim · model-written summary
Late season fungicide applications reduced rust severity in the resistant cultivar.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Material
- resistant cultivare0
- Treatment
- Late season fungicide applicationse0
- Outcome
- rust severitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Late season fungicide applications reduced rust severity and increased the yield of the resistant cultivar”
t0“resistant soybean cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Late season fungicide applications increased yield in the resistant cultivar.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxt0
- Material
- resistant cultivare0
- Treatment
- Late season fungicide applicationse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Late season fungicide applications reduced rust severity and increased the yield of the resistant cultivar”
t0“resistant soybean cultivars”
The same questions in other papers
climate site · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
69 papers more in this group
See all 73 papers →climate site · disease · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →fungicide · disease · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
44 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →fungicide · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
76 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
105 papers more in this group
See all 109 papers →application · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
331 papers in the same direction as this paper · 66 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
400 papers more in this group
See all 404 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.