Abstract
Management of Cercospora leaf spot, caused by Cercospora beticola, is necessary for the economic production of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris). The objectives of this study were to evaluate the impact of two relative humidity thresholds (87 and 90%) on the daily infection values (DIVs) used to determine when fungicide applications were required, to determine whether current Cercospora management recommendations for northern areas of Minnesota and North Dakota could be used by growers in the southern areas of these states, and to compare the utility of calendar-based fungicide applications with the Cercospora management model. Research was conducted in Breckenridge, MN and St. Thomas, ND in 2003 and 2004. Fungicide applications significantly (P = 0.05) reduced maximum disease severity (y max ) and area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC) when compared with the nontreated control at both locations during 2003 and 2004. Fungicides applied according to DIVs calculated at RH ≥ 87% or RH > 90% gave similar results. The mandatory second fungicide application 14 days after the first application for southern areas did not significantly decrease disease severity or AUDPC, or improve root yield or recoverable sucrose compared with treatments without the mandatory application. This research illustrates that a DIV calculated at RH ≥ 87% would result in similar timing of fungicide applications compared with DIVs calculated at RH > 90%. The results further show that the recommendation of fungicide applications at initial symptom and subsequent applications based on DIV and disease severity should be used for both northern and southern growers. Finally, this research showed that fungicide applications based on the Cercospora management model provided similar, effective disease control with fewer fungicide applications compared with calendar-based applications.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicide applications significantly reduced maximum disease severity in sugar beet compared with the nontreated control at both locations during 2003 and 2004.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0 - Treatment
- Fungicide applicationse1
- Interactor
- Cercospora beticola
Cercospora beticolae0pathogen - Outcome
- maximum disease severitye1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Comparator
- nontreated controle1
- Setting
- both locations during 2003 and 2004e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Management of Cercospora leaf spot, caused by Cercospora beticola, is necessary for the economic production of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
e1“Fungicide applications significantly (P = 0.05) reduced maximum disease severity (y max ) and area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC) when compared with the nontreated control at both locations during 2003 and 2004”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicide applications significantly reduced the area under the disease progress curve in sugar beet compared with the nontreated control at both locations during 2003 and 2004.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Fungicide applicationse1
- Interactor
- Cercospora beticolaCercospora beticolae0pathogen
- Outcome
- area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC)e1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Comparator
- nontreated controle1
- Setting
- both locations during 2003 and 2004e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Management of Cercospora leaf spot, caused by Cercospora beticola, is necessary for the economic production of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
e1“Fungicide applications significantly (P = 0.05) reduced maximum disease severity (y max ) and area under the disease progress curve (AUDPC) when compared with the nontreated control at both locations during 2003 and 2004”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicides applied by DIVs at RH ≥ 87% or RH > 90% gave similar results in sugar beet.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- DIVs calculated at RH ≥ 87%e2
- Interactor
- Cercospora beticolaCercospora beticolae0pathogen
- Outcome
- resultse2
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede2
- Comparator
- RH > 90%e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Management of Cercospora leaf spot, caused by Cercospora beticola, is necessary for the economic production of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
e2“Fungicides applied according to DIVs calculated at RH ≥ 87% or RH > 90% gave similar results”
Claim · model-written summary
A DIV calculated at RH ≥ 87% gave similar fungicide application timing to DIVs calculated at RH > 90% in sugar beet.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- DIV calculated at RH ≥ 87%e4
- Outcome
- timing of fungicide applicationse4
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede4
- Comparator
- DIVs calculated at RH > 90%e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Management of Cercospora leaf spot, caused by Cercospora beticola, is necessary for the economic production of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
e4“a DIV calculated at RH ≥ 87% would result in similar timing of fungicide applications compared with DIVs calculated at RH > 90%”
Claim · model-written summary
The mandatory second fungicide application did not significantly decrease disease severity or AUDPC in southern areas.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- mandatory second fungicide application 14 days after the first applicatione3
- Outcome
- disease severity or AUDPCe3
- Direction
- did not significantly decreasee3
- Comparator
- treatments without the mandatory applicatione3
- Setting
- southern arease3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Management of Cercospora leaf spot, caused by Cercospora beticola, is necessary for the economic production of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
e3“The mandatory second fungicide application 14 days after the first application for southern areas did not significantly decrease disease severity or AUDPC, or improve root yield or recoverable sucrose compared with treatments without the mandatory application”
Claim · model-written summary
The mandatory second fungicide application did not improve root yield or recoverable sucrose.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- mandatory second fungicide application 14 days after the first applicatione3
- Outcome
- root yield or recoverable sucrosee3
- Direction
- improvee3
- Comparator
- treatments without the mandatory applicatione3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Management of Cercospora leaf spot, caused by Cercospora beticola, is necessary for the economic production of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
e3“The mandatory second fungicide application 14 days after the first application for southern areas did not significantly decrease disease severity or AUDPC, or improve root yield or recoverable sucrose compared with treatments without the mandatory application”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicide applications based on the Cercospora management model gave similar, effective disease control compared with calendar-based applications in sugar beet.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- fungicide applications based on the Cercospora management modele5
- Outcome
- disease controle5
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede5
- Comparator
- calendar-based applicationse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Management of Cercospora leaf spot, caused by Cercospora beticola, is necessary for the economic production of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
e5“fungicide applications based on the Cercospora management model provided similar, effective disease control with fewer fungicide applications compared with calendar-based applications”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicide applications based on the Cercospora management model used fewer fungicide applications than calendar-based applications.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- fungicide applications based on the Cercospora management modele5
- Outcome
- fungicide applicationse5
- Direction
- fewere5
- Comparator
- calendar-based applicationse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Management of Cercospora leaf spot, caused by Cercospora beticola, is necessary for the economic production of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
e5“fungicide applications based on the Cercospora management model provided similar, effective disease control with fewer fungicide applications compared with calendar-based applications”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungicide applications at initial symptom and subsequent DIV-based applications should be used for both northern and southern growers.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Outcome
- fungicide applications at initial symptom and subsequent applications based on DIV and disease severitye6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Management of Cercospora leaf spot, caused by Cercospora beticola, is necessary for the economic production of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris)”
e6“the recommendation of fungicide applications at initial symptom and subsequent applications based on DIV and disease severity should be used for both northern and southern growers”
The same questions in other papers
fungicide · molecular: metabolites · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
fungicide · disease · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →fungicide · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →infection · Cercospora beticola · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
humidity · molecular: metabolites · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
fungicide · control · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
fungicide · Cercospora beticola · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
11 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 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.