Paper · 1975 · Canadian Journal of Plant Science

INFLUENCE OF SOWING DATES, SOIL AMENDMENTS, AND CULTIVARS ON WHEAT SPINDLE STREAK MOSAIC IN WINTER WHEAT

L. F. GATES

7
claims
13
verbatim quotes
18
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Wheat spindle streak mosaic was reduced by sowing wheat after mid-October, instead of in the usual period, mid- to late September, but yield losses from late sowing more than offset the gain through disease reduction. Nitrogenous fertilizers and fungicides to control the probable fungus vector did not reduce the disease significantly. Several cultivars of red winter wheat, including Halytchanka, Blueboy and Miro, showed much lower incidence of disease and milder symptoms than the commercially acceptable white cultivars Genesee, Talbot, Fredrick or Yorkstar. Resistant cultivars offer the best solution at present to this disease problem.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sowing wheat after mid-October reduced wheat spindle streak mosaic compared with the usual mid- to late September sowing.

Treatment
sowing wheat after mid-Octobere1
Outcome
Wheat spindle streak mosaice1
Direction
reducede1
Comparator
usual period, mid- to late Septembere1

Not reportedValue

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

e1

“Wheat spindle streak mosaic was reduced by sowing wheat after mid-October, instead of in the usual period, mid- to late September”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–129 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Yield losses from late sowing more than offset the gain from disease reduction in winter wheat.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
late sowinge2
Outcome
yield lossese2
Direction
decreaseinferrede2

Not reportedComparatorValue

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

e2

“yield losses from late sowing more than offset the gain through disease reduction”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 135–216 · show in text ↑
t0

“WINTER WHEAT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–104 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogenous fertilizers did not significantly reduce the disease in winter wheat.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
Nitrogenous fertilizerse3
Outcome
diseasee3
Direction
did not reducee3

Not reportedComparatorValue

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

e3

“Nitrogenous fertilizers and fungicides to control the probable fungus vector did not reduce the disease significantly”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 218–335 · show in text ↑
t0

“WINTER WHEAT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–104 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fungicides applied to control the probable fungus vector did not significantly reduce the disease in winter wheat.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
fungicides to control the probable fungus vectore3
Interactor
fungus vectore3other
Outcome
diseasee3
Direction
did not reducee3

Not reportedComparatorValue

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

e3

“Nitrogenous fertilizers and fungicides to control the probable fungus vector did not reduce the disease significantly”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 218–335 · show in text ↑
t0

“WINTER WHEAT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–104 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Halytchanka, Blueboy and Miro showed lower disease incidence than Genesee, Talbot, Fredrick and Yorkstar.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Material
Halytchanka, Blueboy and Miroe4
Outcome
incidence of diseasee4
Direction
lowere4
Comparator
Genesee, Talbot, Fredrick or Yorkstare4

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

e4

“Several cultivars of red winter wheat, including Halytchanka, Blueboy and Miro, showed much lower incidence of disease and milder symptoms than the commercially acceptable white cultivars Genesee, Talbot, Fredrick or Yorkstar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 337–562 · show in text ↑
t0

“WINTER WHEAT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–104 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Halytchanka, Blueboy and Miro showed milder disease symptoms than Genesee, Talbot, Fredrick and Yorkstar.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Material
Halytchanka, Blueboy and Miroe4
Outcome
symptomse4
Direction
mildere4
Comparator
Genesee, Talbot, Fredrick or Yorkstare4

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

e4

“Several cultivars of red winter wheat, including Halytchanka, Blueboy and Miro, showed much lower incidence of disease and milder symptoms than the commercially acceptable white cultivars Genesee, Talbot, Fredrick or Yorkstar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 337–562 · show in text ↑
t0

“WINTER WHEAT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–104 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Resistant cultivars are the best current solution to wheat spindle streak mosaic.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivumt0
Outcome
Resistant cultivarse5
Qualifier
at presente5

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

e5

“Resistant cultivars offer the best solution at present to this disease problem”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 564–642 · show in text ↑
t0

“WINTER WHEAT”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 92–104 · show in text ↑

fertilization · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

107 papers: 72 positive, 35 negative or no effect

34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 72 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

103 papers more in this group

See all 107 papers →

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

157 papers: 135 positive, 22 negative or no effect

21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 135 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

153 papers more in this group

See all 157 papers →

sowing time · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

462 papers: 266 positive, 196 negative or no effect

195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 266 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

458 papers more in this group

See all 462 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.