Meta‐analysis of fungicide efficacy on soybean target spot and cost–benefit assessment

Autores
Edwards Molina, Juan Pablo; Paul, Pierce A.; Amorim, Lilian; da Silva, Luis Henrique Carregal Pereira; Siqueri, Fabiano Victor; Borges, Edson Pereira; Campos, H.D.; Nunes Júnior, José; Meyer, Maurício Conrado; Martins, Mônica Cagnin; Balardin, Ricardo Silveiro; Carlin, Valtemir José; Grigolli, José Fernando; Belufi, Luana Maria de Rossi; Godoy, Claudia Vieira
Año de publicación
2018
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión aceptada
Descripción
Target spot of soybean has spread in Brazil, the southeastern United States and Argentina in the last decade. A collaborative network of field Uniform Fungicide Trials (UFT) in Brazil was created in 2011 to study the target spot control efficacy of fungicides, including azoxystrobin + benzovindiflupyr (AZ_BF), carbendazim (CZM), fluxapyroxad + pyraclostrobin (FLUX_PYRA), epoxiconazole + FLUX_PYRA (EPO_FLUX_PYRA), mancozeb (MZB) and prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin (PROT_TRIF). Network meta‐analysis was used to conduct a quantitative synthesis of UFT data collected from 2012 to 2016 and to evaluate the effects of disease pressure (DP, low ≤ 35% target spot severity in the nontreated control < high) and year of experiment on the overall mean efficacy and yield response to each of the tested fungicides. Based on mean percentage control of target spot severity, the tested fungicides fall into three efficacy groups (EG): high EG, FLUX_PYRA (76.2% control relative to the nontreated control) and EPO_FLUX_PYRA (75.7% control); intermediate EG, PROT_TRIF (66.5% control) and low EG, MZB (49.6% control), AZ_BF (46.7% control) and CZM (32.4% control). DP had a significant effect on yield response. At DPLow, the highest response was due to PROT_TRIF (+342 kg ha−1, +12.8%) and EPO_FLUX_PYRA (+295.5 kg ha−1, +11.2%), whereas at DPHigh, EPO_FLUX_PYRA and FLUX_PYRA outperformed the other treatments, with yield responses of 503 kg ha−1 (+20.2%) and 469 kg ha−1 (+19.1%), respectively. The probability of a positive return on fungicide investment ranged from 0.26 to 0.56 at DPLow and from 0.34 to 0.66 at DPHigh.
Instituto de Patología Vegetal
Fil: Edwards Molina, Juan Pablo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Patología Vegetal; Argentina
Fil: Paul, Pierce A. Ohio State University. Department of Plant Pathology. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center; Estados Unidos
Fil: Amorim, Lilian. Universidade de São Paulo. Departamento de Fitopatologia e Nematologia; Brasil
Fil: da Silva, Luis Henrique Carregal Pereira. Agro Carregal, Rio Verde; Brasil
Fil: Siqueri, Fabiano Victor. Fundação Mato Grosso; Brasil
Fil: Borges, Edson Pereira. Fundação Chapadão; Brasil
Fil: Campos, H.D. Universidade de Rio Verde; Brasil
Fil: Nunes Júnior, José. Centro Tecnológico para Pesquisas Agropecuárias, Goiânia; Brasil
Fil: Meyer, Maurício Conrado. Embrapa Soja; Brasil
Fil: Martins, Mônica Cagnin. Círculo Verde Assessoria Agronômica e Pesquisa, Luís Eduardo Magalhães; Brasil
Fil: Balardin, Ricardo Silveiro. Universidade Federal de Santa Maria; Brasil
Fil: Carlin, Valtemir José. Agrodinâmica, Tangará da Serra; Brasil
Fil: Grigolli, José Fernando. Fundação MS, Maracajú; Brasil
Fil: Belufi, Luana Maria de Rossi. Fundação Rio Verde, Lucas do Rio Verde; Brasil
Fil: Godoy, Claudia Vieira. Embrapa Soja; Brasil
Fuente
Plant pathology. (04 August 2018)
Materia
Soja
Glycine Max
Rendimiento
Corynespora Cassiicola
Rentabilidad
Fungicidas
Soybeans
Yields
Profitability
Fungicides
Network Meta-analysis
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso restringido
Condiciones de uso
Repositorio
INTA Digital (INTA)
Institución
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
OAI Identificador
oai:localhost:20.500.12123/3642

id INTADig_811a877ef3dc8ff8c66380232792f269
oai_identifier_str oai:localhost:20.500.12123/3642
network_acronym_str INTADig
repository_id_str l
network_name_str INTA Digital (INTA)
spelling Meta‐analysis of fungicide efficacy on soybean target spot and cost–benefit assessmentEdwards Molina, Juan PabloPaul, Pierce A.Amorim, Lilianda Silva, Luis Henrique Carregal PereiraSiqueri, Fabiano VictorBorges, Edson PereiraCampos, H.D.Nunes Júnior, JoséMeyer, Maurício ConradoMartins, Mônica CagninBalardin, Ricardo SilveiroCarlin, Valtemir JoséGrigolli, José FernandoBelufi, Luana Maria de RossiGodoy, Claudia VieiraSojaGlycine MaxRendimientoCorynespora CassiicolaRentabilidadFungicidasSoybeansYieldsProfitabilityFungicidesNetwork Meta-analysisTarget spot of soybean has spread in Brazil, the southeastern United States and Argentina in the last decade. A collaborative network of field Uniform Fungicide Trials (UFT) in Brazil was created in 2011 to study the target spot control efficacy of fungicides, including azoxystrobin + benzovindiflupyr (AZ_BF), carbendazim (CZM), fluxapyroxad + pyraclostrobin (FLUX_PYRA), epoxiconazole + FLUX_PYRA (EPO_FLUX_PYRA), mancozeb (MZB) and prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin (PROT_TRIF). Network meta‐analysis was used to conduct a quantitative synthesis of UFT data collected from 2012 to 2016 and to evaluate the effects of disease pressure (DP, low ≤ 35% target spot severity in the nontreated control < high) and year of experiment on the overall mean efficacy and yield response to each of the tested fungicides. Based on mean percentage control of target spot severity, the tested fungicides fall into three efficacy groups (EG): high EG, FLUX_PYRA (76.2% control relative to the nontreated control) and EPO_FLUX_PYRA (75.7% control); intermediate EG, PROT_TRIF (66.5% control) and low EG, MZB (49.6% control), AZ_BF (46.7% control) and CZM (32.4% control). DP had a significant effect on yield response. At DPLow, the highest response was due to PROT_TRIF (+342 kg ha−1, +12.8%) and EPO_FLUX_PYRA (+295.5 kg ha−1, +11.2%), whereas at DPHigh, EPO_FLUX_PYRA and FLUX_PYRA outperformed the other treatments, with yield responses of 503 kg ha−1 (+20.2%) and 469 kg ha−1 (+19.1%), respectively. The probability of a positive return on fungicide investment ranged from 0.26 to 0.56 at DPLow and from 0.34 to 0.66 at DPHigh.Instituto de Patología VegetalFil: Edwards Molina, Juan Pablo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Patología Vegetal; ArgentinaFil: Paul, Pierce A. Ohio State University. Department of Plant Pathology. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center; Estados UnidosFil: Amorim, Lilian. Universidade de São Paulo. Departamento de Fitopatologia e Nematologia; BrasilFil: da Silva, Luis Henrique Carregal Pereira. Agro Carregal, Rio Verde; BrasilFil: Siqueri, Fabiano Victor. Fundação Mato Grosso; BrasilFil: Borges, Edson Pereira. Fundação Chapadão; BrasilFil: Campos, H.D. Universidade de Rio Verde; BrasilFil: Nunes Júnior, José. Centro Tecnológico para Pesquisas Agropecuárias, Goiânia; BrasilFil: Meyer, Maurício Conrado. Embrapa Soja; BrasilFil: Martins, Mônica Cagnin. Círculo Verde Assessoria Agronômica e Pesquisa, Luís Eduardo Magalhães; BrasilFil: Balardin, Ricardo Silveiro. Universidade Federal de Santa Maria; BrasilFil: Carlin, Valtemir José. Agrodinâmica, Tangará da Serra; BrasilFil: Grigolli, José Fernando. Fundação MS, Maracajú; BrasilFil: Belufi, Luana Maria de Rossi. Fundação Rio Verde, Lucas do Rio Verde; BrasilFil: Godoy, Claudia Vieira. Embrapa Soja; BrasilWileyinfo:eu-repo/date/embargoedEnd/2019-08-142018-10-19T12:42:16Z2018-10-19T12:42:16Z2018info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/3642https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ppa.129251365-3059https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12925Plant pathology. (04 August 2018)reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariaenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess2025-09-29T13:44:28Zoai:localhost:20.500.12123/3642instacron:INTAInstitucionalhttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/oai/requesttripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:l2025-09-29 13:44:28.453INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Meta‐analysis of fungicide efficacy on soybean target spot and cost–benefit assessment
title Meta‐analysis of fungicide efficacy on soybean target spot and cost–benefit assessment
spellingShingle Meta‐analysis of fungicide efficacy on soybean target spot and cost–benefit assessment
Edwards Molina, Juan Pablo
Soja
Glycine Max
Rendimiento
Corynespora Cassiicola
Rentabilidad
Fungicidas
Soybeans
Yields
Profitability
Fungicides
Network Meta-analysis
title_short Meta‐analysis of fungicide efficacy on soybean target spot and cost–benefit assessment
title_full Meta‐analysis of fungicide efficacy on soybean target spot and cost–benefit assessment
title_fullStr Meta‐analysis of fungicide efficacy on soybean target spot and cost–benefit assessment
title_full_unstemmed Meta‐analysis of fungicide efficacy on soybean target spot and cost–benefit assessment
title_sort Meta‐analysis of fungicide efficacy on soybean target spot and cost–benefit assessment
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Edwards Molina, Juan Pablo
Paul, Pierce A.
Amorim, Lilian
da Silva, Luis Henrique Carregal Pereira
Siqueri, Fabiano Victor
Borges, Edson Pereira
Campos, H.D.
Nunes Júnior, José
Meyer, Maurício Conrado
Martins, Mônica Cagnin
Balardin, Ricardo Silveiro
Carlin, Valtemir José
Grigolli, José Fernando
Belufi, Luana Maria de Rossi
Godoy, Claudia Vieira
author Edwards Molina, Juan Pablo
author_facet Edwards Molina, Juan Pablo
Paul, Pierce A.
Amorim, Lilian
da Silva, Luis Henrique Carregal Pereira
Siqueri, Fabiano Victor
Borges, Edson Pereira
Campos, H.D.
Nunes Júnior, José
Meyer, Maurício Conrado
Martins, Mônica Cagnin
Balardin, Ricardo Silveiro
Carlin, Valtemir José
Grigolli, José Fernando
Belufi, Luana Maria de Rossi
Godoy, Claudia Vieira
author_role author
author2 Paul, Pierce A.
Amorim, Lilian
da Silva, Luis Henrique Carregal Pereira
Siqueri, Fabiano Victor
Borges, Edson Pereira
Campos, H.D.
Nunes Júnior, José
Meyer, Maurício Conrado
Martins, Mônica Cagnin
Balardin, Ricardo Silveiro
Carlin, Valtemir José
Grigolli, José Fernando
Belufi, Luana Maria de Rossi
Godoy, Claudia Vieira
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Soja
Glycine Max
Rendimiento
Corynespora Cassiicola
Rentabilidad
Fungicidas
Soybeans
Yields
Profitability
Fungicides
Network Meta-analysis
topic Soja
Glycine Max
Rendimiento
Corynespora Cassiicola
Rentabilidad
Fungicidas
Soybeans
Yields
Profitability
Fungicides
Network Meta-analysis
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Target spot of soybean has spread in Brazil, the southeastern United States and Argentina in the last decade. A collaborative network of field Uniform Fungicide Trials (UFT) in Brazil was created in 2011 to study the target spot control efficacy of fungicides, including azoxystrobin + benzovindiflupyr (AZ_BF), carbendazim (CZM), fluxapyroxad + pyraclostrobin (FLUX_PYRA), epoxiconazole + FLUX_PYRA (EPO_FLUX_PYRA), mancozeb (MZB) and prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin (PROT_TRIF). Network meta‐analysis was used to conduct a quantitative synthesis of UFT data collected from 2012 to 2016 and to evaluate the effects of disease pressure (DP, low ≤ 35% target spot severity in the nontreated control < high) and year of experiment on the overall mean efficacy and yield response to each of the tested fungicides. Based on mean percentage control of target spot severity, the tested fungicides fall into three efficacy groups (EG): high EG, FLUX_PYRA (76.2% control relative to the nontreated control) and EPO_FLUX_PYRA (75.7% control); intermediate EG, PROT_TRIF (66.5% control) and low EG, MZB (49.6% control), AZ_BF (46.7% control) and CZM (32.4% control). DP had a significant effect on yield response. At DPLow, the highest response was due to PROT_TRIF (+342 kg ha−1, +12.8%) and EPO_FLUX_PYRA (+295.5 kg ha−1, +11.2%), whereas at DPHigh, EPO_FLUX_PYRA and FLUX_PYRA outperformed the other treatments, with yield responses of 503 kg ha−1 (+20.2%) and 469 kg ha−1 (+19.1%), respectively. The probability of a positive return on fungicide investment ranged from 0.26 to 0.56 at DPLow and from 0.34 to 0.66 at DPHigh.
Instituto de Patología Vegetal
Fil: Edwards Molina, Juan Pablo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Instituto de Patología Vegetal; Argentina
Fil: Paul, Pierce A. Ohio State University. Department of Plant Pathology. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center; Estados Unidos
Fil: Amorim, Lilian. Universidade de São Paulo. Departamento de Fitopatologia e Nematologia; Brasil
Fil: da Silva, Luis Henrique Carregal Pereira. Agro Carregal, Rio Verde; Brasil
Fil: Siqueri, Fabiano Victor. Fundação Mato Grosso; Brasil
Fil: Borges, Edson Pereira. Fundação Chapadão; Brasil
Fil: Campos, H.D. Universidade de Rio Verde; Brasil
Fil: Nunes Júnior, José. Centro Tecnológico para Pesquisas Agropecuárias, Goiânia; Brasil
Fil: Meyer, Maurício Conrado. Embrapa Soja; Brasil
Fil: Martins, Mônica Cagnin. Círculo Verde Assessoria Agronômica e Pesquisa, Luís Eduardo Magalhães; Brasil
Fil: Balardin, Ricardo Silveiro. Universidade Federal de Santa Maria; Brasil
Fil: Carlin, Valtemir José. Agrodinâmica, Tangará da Serra; Brasil
Fil: Grigolli, José Fernando. Fundação MS, Maracajú; Brasil
Fil: Belufi, Luana Maria de Rossi. Fundação Rio Verde, Lucas do Rio Verde; Brasil
Fil: Godoy, Claudia Vieira. Embrapa Soja; Brasil
description Target spot of soybean has spread in Brazil, the southeastern United States and Argentina in the last decade. A collaborative network of field Uniform Fungicide Trials (UFT) in Brazil was created in 2011 to study the target spot control efficacy of fungicides, including azoxystrobin + benzovindiflupyr (AZ_BF), carbendazim (CZM), fluxapyroxad + pyraclostrobin (FLUX_PYRA), epoxiconazole + FLUX_PYRA (EPO_FLUX_PYRA), mancozeb (MZB) and prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin (PROT_TRIF). Network meta‐analysis was used to conduct a quantitative synthesis of UFT data collected from 2012 to 2016 and to evaluate the effects of disease pressure (DP, low ≤ 35% target spot severity in the nontreated control < high) and year of experiment on the overall mean efficacy and yield response to each of the tested fungicides. Based on mean percentage control of target spot severity, the tested fungicides fall into three efficacy groups (EG): high EG, FLUX_PYRA (76.2% control relative to the nontreated control) and EPO_FLUX_PYRA (75.7% control); intermediate EG, PROT_TRIF (66.5% control) and low EG, MZB (49.6% control), AZ_BF (46.7% control) and CZM (32.4% control). DP had a significant effect on yield response. At DPLow, the highest response was due to PROT_TRIF (+342 kg ha−1, +12.8%) and EPO_FLUX_PYRA (+295.5 kg ha−1, +11.2%), whereas at DPHigh, EPO_FLUX_PYRA and FLUX_PYRA outperformed the other treatments, with yield responses of 503 kg ha−1 (+20.2%) and 469 kg ha−1 (+19.1%), respectively. The probability of a positive return on fungicide investment ranged from 0.26 to 0.56 at DPLow and from 0.34 to 0.66 at DPHigh.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-10-19T12:42:16Z
2018-10-19T12:42:16Z
2018
info:eu-repo/date/embargoedEnd/2019-08-14
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str acceptedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/3642
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ppa.12925
1365-3059
https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12925
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/3642
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ppa.12925
https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12925
identifier_str_mv 1365-3059
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
eu_rights_str_mv restrictedAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Wiley
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Plant pathology. (04 August 2018)
reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)
instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
reponame_str INTA Digital (INTA)
collection INTA Digital (INTA)
instname_str Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.name.fl_str_mv INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.mail.fl_str_mv tripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.ar
_version_ 1844619127177609216
score 12.559606