Paper · 2018 · Agriculture

Importance of Agronomic Practice on the Control of Wheat Leaf Diseases

Biruta Bankina; Gunita Bimšteine; Irina Arhipova; et al.

10
claims
19
verbatim quotes
21
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Soil tillage and crop rotation are considered important tools in wheat leaf disease control; however, the results of investigations are inconsistent. The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of the soil tillage system and cropping sequence on the development of winter wheat leaf diseases in 2012–2017. The disease development was assessed in a two-factor experiment: (a) soil tillage system; and (b) crop rotation. Foliar fungicides were used uniformly in all variants. The results showed that tan spot (caused by Pyrenophora tritici-repentis) dominated in 2012, 2013, and 2016, but the level of Septoria tritici blotch (Zymoseptoria tritici) was essentially lower and exceeded the severity of tan spot only in 2015. The agronomic practice used significantly influenced only the development of tan spot. Reduced soil tillage and continuous wheat sowing substantially increased tan spot severity, especially when both practices were used simultaneously. Short crop rotation (only wheat and oilseed rape) provided sufficient control of tan spot in ploughed fields, whereas in non-ploughed fields, the level of this disease did not decrease. The results could be explained by differences in the pathogens’ life cycle: P. tritici-repentis ascospores in wheat debris is the main source of infection; in contrast, Z. tritici spreads by conidia from living plants.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 10

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tan spot dominated in 2012, 2013, and 2016.

Interactor
Pyrenophora tritici-repentisPyrenophora tritici-repentise0pathogen
Outcome
tan spote0
Setting
2012, 2013, and 2016e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pyrenophora tritici-repentis
Pyrenophora tritici-repentis · InteractorAgronom · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“tan spot (caused by Pyrenophora tritici-repentis) dominated in 2012, 2013, and 2016”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 511–594 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Septoria tritici blotch was generally less severe and exceeded tan spot only in 2015.

Interactor
Zymoseptoria triticiZymoseptoria triticie0pathogen
Outcome
level of Septoria tritici blotche0
Direction
essentially lowere0
Qualifier
only in 2015e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zymoseptoria tritici
Zymoseptoria tritici · InteractorMaccheek · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the level of Septoria tritici blotch (Zymoseptoria tritici) was essentially lower and exceeded the severity of tan spot only in 2015”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 600–732 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Agronomic practice significantly influenced only tan spot development.

Treatment
agronomic practicee0
Interactor
tan spote0pathogen
Outcome
development of tan spote0

Not reportedDirection

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The agronomic practice used significantly influenced only the development of tan spot”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 734–819 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reduced soil tillage substantially increased tan spot severity.

Treatment
Reduced soil tillagee0
Interactor
tan spote0pathogen
Outcome
tan spot severitye0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Reduced soil tillage and continuous wheat sowing substantially increased tan spot severity, especially when both practices were used simultaneously”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 821–968 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Continuous wheat sowing substantially increased tan spot severity.

Treatment
continuous wheat sowinge0
Interactor
tan spote0pathogen
Outcome
tan spot severitye0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Reduced soil tillage and continuous wheat sowing substantially increased tan spot severity, especially when both practices were used simultaneously”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 821–968 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined reduced tillage and continuous wheat sowing especially increased tan spot severity.

Treatment
both practicese0
Interactor
tan spote0pathogen
Outcome
tan spot severitye0
Direction
increasede0
Qualifier
especially when both practices were used simultaneouslye0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Reduced soil tillage and continuous wheat sowing substantially increased tan spot severity, especially when both practices were used simultaneously”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 821–968 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Short wheat and oilseed rape rotation controlled tan spot in ploughed fields.

Treatment
Short crop rotatione0
Interactor
tan spote0pathogen
Outcome
control of tan spote0
Direction
controle0
Setting
ploughed fieldse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Short crop rotation (only wheat and oilseed rape) provided sufficient control of tan spot in ploughed fields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 970–1078 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In non-ploughed fields, short rotation did not decrease tan spot.

Outcome
level of this diseasee0
Direction
did not decreasee0
Setting
non-ploughed fieldse0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“whereas in non-ploughed fields, the level of this disease did not decrease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1080–1154 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors attribute the difference to P. tritici-repentis ascospores in wheat debris as the main infection source.

Interactor
P. tritici-repentisPyrenophora tritici-repentise0pathogen
Outcome
source of infectione0
Qualifier
ascospores in wheat debrise0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pyrenophora tritici-repentis
Pyrenophora tritici-repentis · InteractorAgronom · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“P. tritici-repentis ascospores in wheat debris is the main source of infection”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1232–1310 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors contrast Z. tritici dispersal by conidia from living plants.

Interactor
Z. triticiZymoseptoria triticie0pathogen
Outcome
spreads by conidia from living plantse0
Qualifier
conidia from living plantse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zymoseptoria tritici
Zymoseptoria tritici · InteractorMaccheek · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Z. tritici spreads by conidia from living plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1325–1373 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–56 · show in text ↑

rotation · control · Triticum aestivum (wheat)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 →

rotation · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

38 papers: 20 positive, 18 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. positive

34 papers more in this group

See all 38 papers →

tillage · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

79 papers: 51 positive, 28 negative or no effect

27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 51 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. positive

75 papers more in this group

See all 79 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.