Anthesis is generally recommended as the optimum growth stage for ap- and PA resulted in the highest ̄C values for IND, 52.2 and 51.5%, respecplying a foliar fungicide to manage Fusarium head blight (FHB) and the tively, compared with 45.9% for CL, 41.3% for PL, and less than 33% for Fusarium-associated toxin deoxynivalenol (DON) in wheat. However, CE and PE. Anthesis and postanthesis treatments reduced mean IND by because it is not always possible to treat fields at anthesis, studies were 14.9 to 29.7% relative to preanthesis treatments. The estimated effect size conducted to evaluate pre- and postanthesis treatment options for managwas also statistically significant for comparisons between CA and CL and ing FHB and DON in spring and winter wheat. Network meta-analytical PA and PL; CA reduced IND by 11.7% relative to CL, whereas PA remodels were fitted to data from 19 years of fungicide trials, and log reduced the disease by 17.4% relative to PL. Differences in efficacy against sponse ratio (L) and approximate percent control (C̅) relative to a nontreated IND between pairs of prothioconazole + tebuconazole and metconazole check were estimated as measures of the effects of six treatments on FHB treatments applied at the same timing (CE versus PE, CA versus PA, and index (IND: mean percentage of diseased spikelets per spike) and DON. CL versus PL) were not statistically significant. However, CA and CL The evaluated treatments consisted of either Caramba (metconazole) apoutperformed PA and PL by 7 and 12.8%, respectively, in terms of effiplied early (at heading [CE]), at anthesis (CA), or late (5 to 7 days after cacy against DON. All application programs had comparable efficacy anthesis; CL), or Prosaro (prothioconazole + tebuconazole) applied at the against IND between spring and winter wheat types, but efficacy against same three times and referred to as PE, PA, and PL, respectively. All DON was 10 to 16% greater for spring than winter wheat for applications treatments reduced mean IND and DON relative to the nontreated check, made at or after anthesis. All programs led to an increase in mean grain but the magnitude of the effect varied with timing and wheat type. CA yield and test weight relative to the nontreated check.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||11|
|State||Published - Dec 2018|
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
Funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Salaries and research support for P. A. Paul, L. V. Madden, and F. D. DaSilva were provided by state and federal funds to the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. This is a cooperative project with the U.S. Wheat & Barley Scab Initiative (agreements # 59-0206-4-018 [The Ohio State University], 59-0206-4-006 [Cornell University], 59-0206-4-042 [Purdue University], and 59-0206-4-016 [The University of Minnesota]). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Special thanks to W. Bardall, M. Wallhead, and the Snyder farm crew for assisting with the establishment and maintenance of plots in Wooster, OH.
Funding: Funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Salaries and research support for P. A. Paul, L. V. Madden, and F. D. DaSilva were provided by state and federal funds to the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.
© 2018 The American Phytopathological Society