Paper · 2001

The effect of leaf spots on yield and quality of wheat in southern Saskatchewan

H. Wang; M. R. Fernandez; F. R. Clarke; et al.

10
claims
26
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Although leaf spots have been reported to have a negative effect on yield and quality, the magnitude of the effect of leaf spots on grain yield and quality of wheat cultivars grown on dryland in southern Saskatchewan is not known.Experiments were conducted at Swift Current (Brown soil) and Indian Head (Black soil) for three years to determine effects of leaf spots on grain yield, kernel weight, test weight and protein concentration of wheat.Two fungicides, Folicur 3.6F and Bravo 500 were applied at different growth stages in order to diversify the severity of leaf spots.Three common wheat (T.aestivum L.) cultivars -AC Domain, Laura and AC Elsa and three durum wheat (T.turgidum L. var durum) cultivars with different levels of leaf spot susceptibility were used in this study.The control of leaf spots by fungicides often did not cause an increase of yield, kernel weight, test weight or grain protein concentration in the drier Prairies where yield potential is relatively low.Fungicide treatments significantly increased yield in only two of six location-years (Folicur applied at head emergence in 1997 (0.07-0.13 t ha -1 ) (P < 0.05) and Folicur applied at flag emergence and/or head emergence in 1998 (0.41-0.47 t ha -1 ) (P < 0.001) at Indian Head.Fungicide applications significantly increased kernel weight in only three of six location-years (applications at flag leaf emergence at Swift Current (0.8-1.1 mg) (P < 0.05) and Indian Head (1.8-2.0 mg) (P < 0.001) in 1998 and at Indian Head in 1999 (10-1.1 mg) (P < 0.01).An increase of grain protein concentration was only found in treatments of Bravo applications at Indian Head in 1998 (0.3-0.7%) (P < 0.001).It seems that the control of leaf spots tended to have higher effect on yield and quality at Indian Head than Swift Current, it could be attributed to better controls of leaf spots at early milk stage (P < 0.001) and/or higher yield potential at Indian Head (P < 0.001).Although the cultivars used in this study have different leaf spot susceptibility (P < 0.001), there were no consistent cultivar differences in the effectiveness of the fungicides on control of leaf spots and on the yield, kernel weight and other quality characteristics.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungicide control of leaf spots often did not increase wheat yield or grain quality in the drier Prairies.

Treatment
fungicidese0
Outcome
yield, kernel weight, test weight or grain protein concentratione0
Direction
did not cause an increasee0
Setting
drier Prairiese0

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

“The control of leaf spots by fungicides often did not cause an increase of yield, kernel weight, test weight or grain protein concentration in the drier Prairies where yield potential is relatively low”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 784–985 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–54 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Folicur at head emergence increased yield at Indian Head in 1997 by 0.07-0.13 t ha -1.

Treatment
Folicur applied at head emergencee0
Outcome
yieldt0
Direction
increasede1
Value
0.07-0.13 t ha -1e0
Setting
Indian Heade2

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

“Folicur applied at head emergence in 1997 (0.07-0.13 t ha -1 ) (P < 0.05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1072–1145 · show in text ↑
t0

“yield and quality of wheat in southern Saskatchewan”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–79 · show in text ↑
e1

“Fungicide treatments significantly increased yield in only two of six location-years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 986–1070 · show in text ↑
e2

“at Indian Head.Fungicide applications”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1247–1284 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Folicur at flag and/or head emergence increased yield at Indian Head in 1998 by 0.41-0.47 t ha -1.

Treatment
Folicur applied at flag emergence and/or head emergencee0
Outcome
yieldt0
Direction
increasede1
Value
0.41-0.47 t ha -1e0
Setting
Indian Heade0

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

“Folicur applied at flag emergence and/or head emergence in 1998 (0.41-0.47 t ha -1 ) (P < 0.001) at Indian Head”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1150–1261 · show in text ↑
t0

“yield and quality of wheat in southern Saskatchewan”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–79 · show in text ↑
e1

“Fungicide treatments significantly increased yield in only two of six location-years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 986–1070 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungicide applications increased kernel weight at Swift Current in 1998 by 0.8-1.1 mg.

Treatment
applications at flag leaf emergencee0
Outcome
kernel weighte1
Direction
increasede1
Value
0.8-1.1 mge0
Setting
Swift Currente0

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

“applications at flag leaf emergence at Swift Current (0.8-1.1 mg) (P < 0.05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1360–1436 · show in text ↑
t0

“yield and quality of wheat in southern Saskatchewan”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–79 · show in text ↑
e1

“Fungicide applications significantly increased kernel weight in only three of six location-years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1262–1358 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungicide applications increased kernel weight at Indian Head in 1998 by 1.8-2.0 mg.

Treatment
Fungicide applicationse1
Outcome
kernel weighte1
Direction
increasede1
Value
1.8-2.0 mge0
Setting
Indian Heade0

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

“Indian Head (1.8-2.0 mg) (P < 0.001) in 1998”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1441–1485 · show in text ↑
t0

“yield and quality of wheat in southern Saskatchewan”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–79 · show in text ↑
e1

“Fungicide applications significantly increased kernel weight in only three of six location-years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1262–1358 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungicide applications increased kernel weight at Indian Head in 1999 by the reported 10-1.1 mg.

Treatment
Fungicide applicationse1
Outcome
kernel weighte1
Direction
increasede1
Value
10-1.1 mge0
Setting
Indian Heade0

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

“at Indian Head in 1999 (10-1.1 mg) (P < 0.01)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1490–1535 · show in text ↑
t0

“yield and quality of wheat in southern Saskatchewan”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–79 · show in text ↑
e1

“Fungicide applications significantly increased kernel weight in only three of six location-years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1262–1358 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bravo applications increased grain protein concentration at Indian Head in 1998 by 0.3-0.7%.

Treatment
Bravo applicationse0
Outcome
grain protein concentratione0
Direction
increasee0
Value
0.3-0.7%e0
Setting
Indian Heade0

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

“An increase of grain protein concentration was only found in treatments of Bravo applications at Indian Head in 1998 (0.3-0.7%) (P < 0.001)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1536–1675 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–54 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf spot control tended to have a higher effect on yield and quality at Indian Head than Swift Current.

Outcome
effect on yield and qualitye0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
Swift Currente0
Setting
Indian Heade0

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

“control of leaf spots tended to have higher effect on yield and quality at Indian Head than Swift Current”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1694–1799 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–54 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The cultivars differed in leaf spot susceptibility.

Outcome
leaf spot susceptibilitye0
Direction
differente0

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

“cultivars used in this study have different leaf spot susceptibility (P < 0.001)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1959–2039 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–54 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cultivars had no consistent differences in fungicide effectiveness for leaf spot control, yield, kernel weight, or other quality characteristics.

Outcome
effectiveness of the fungicides on control of leaf spots and on the yield, kernel weight and other quality characteristicse0
Direction
no consistent cultivar differencese0

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

“there were no consistent cultivar differences in the effectiveness of the fungicides on control of leaf spots and on the yield, kernel weight and other quality characteristics”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2041–2216 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 49–54 · show in text ↑

fungicide · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

23 papers: 13 positive, 10 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

19 papers more in this group

See all 23 papers →

fungicide · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

262 papers: 232 positive, 30 negative or no effect

231 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect

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.