Abstract
This study aimed to determine the influence of air-assisted and trailing boom technologies on fungicide applications to control diseases incidence and severity on wheat, bean and soybean. The experiments were conducted in three different sites in the Campos Gerais (PR) region in a completely randomized blocks design. In the wheat crop season of 2011, the treatments were: i) control (no fungicide application on the plants); fungicide spray with ii) nozzles in conventional ground boom sprayer; iii) nozzles in trailing boom; and iv) nozzles in conventional boom sprayer + trailing boom simultaneously. In the bean and soybean crop season of 2011-12, we added an extra treatment of boom with airassisted sprayer, since the farmers had this technology available. We conclude that at the area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC), the diseases controlled with fungicides presented lower severity and incidence compared with the control treatment for all the crops evaluated. The fungicide spraying technology aggregated to air-assisted and trailing boom did not differ from the conventional boom sprayer for disease control and yield components of wheat, beans and soybeans.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicide application lowered disease severity and incidence (AUDPC) in wheat compared with the untreated control.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume1 - Treatment
- fungicidese0
- Outcome
- severity and incidencee0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the diseases controlled with fungicides presented lower severity and incidence compared with the control treatment for all the crops evaluated”
e1“wheat, bean and soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicide application lowered disease severity and incidence (AUDPC) in bean compared with the untreated control.
Verbatim
e0“the diseases controlled with fungicides presented lower severity and incidence compared with the control treatment for all the crops evaluated”
e1“wheat, bean and soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicide application lowered disease severity and incidence (AUDPC) in soybean compared with the untreated control.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe1 - Treatment
- fungicidese0
- Outcome
- severity and incidencee0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the diseases controlled with fungicides presented lower severity and incidence compared with the control treatment for all the crops evaluated”
e1“wheat, bean and soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
In wheat, fungicide spraying with air-assisted or trailing boom technology did not differ from the conventional boom sprayer for disease control and yield components.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- fungicide spraying technology aggregated to air-assisted and trailing boome0
- Outcome
- disease control and yield componentse0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Comparator
- conventional boom sprayere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The fungicide spraying technology aggregated to air-assisted and trailing boom did not differ from the conventional boom sprayer for disease control and yield components of wheat, beans and soybeans”
Claim · model-written summary
In beans, fungicide spraying with air-assisted or trailing boom technology did not differ from the conventional boom sprayer for disease control and yield components.
Verbatim
e0“The fungicide spraying technology aggregated to air-assisted and trailing boom did not differ from the conventional boom sprayer for disease control and yield components of wheat, beans and soybeans”
Claim · model-written summary
In soybeans, fungicide spraying with air-assisted or trailing boom technology did not differ from the conventional boom sprayer for disease control and yield components.
- Taxon
- soybeansGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- fungicide spraying technology aggregated to air-assisted and trailing boome0
- Outcome
- disease control and yield componentse0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Comparator
- conventional boom sprayere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The fungicide spraying technology aggregated to air-assisted and trailing boom did not differ from the conventional boom sprayer for disease control and yield components of wheat, beans and soybeans”
The same questions in other papers
application · control · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →fungicide · control · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →application · control · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →fungicide · disease · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →fungicide · control · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 papers →application · control · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
35 papers more in this group
See all 39 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
- negative
- negative
- negative
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 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
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
153 papers more in this group
See all 157 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.