Abstract
SummaryThe timing of sprays for control of peach brown rot (Monilinia fructicola (Wint.) Honey) was re-examined following the introduction of the fungicide benomyl, which has systemic, curative and protective properties. Fifteen different spray schedules of up to four spring and two pre-harvest applications were compared with a post-infection curative schedule.Brown rot did not develop in the experimental orchard until about one month before harvest. Variations in the spring applications had no effect on disease development. Spraying the developing fruit one month before picking was essential for brown rot control in the orchard. Spraying approximately one week before picking did not reduce losses in the orchard. This late spray was necessary however, for control of brown rot in stored fruit.Brown rot control with the curative schedule was equal to that with the best protective schedules but benomyl did not prevent infection of injured fruits.The incidence of soft rot (caused by Rhizopus stolonifer (Fr.) Lind.) in stored fruit was increased by two pre-harvest applications of benomyl.An infection period 18 days before harvest appeared to result in a high level of short-term, latent infection. The rationale of spray schedules is discussed in relation to recent advances in understanding of brown rot epidemiology.
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
Brown rot appeared in the orchard about one month before harvest.
- Taxon
- peaches
Prunus persicat0 - Interactor
- Monilinia fructicola (Wint.) Honey
Monilinia fructicolae1pathogen - Outcome
- Brown rot did not develop in the experimental orchard until about one month before harveste0
- Setting
- experimental orcharde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Brown rot did not develop in the experimental orchard until about one month before harvest”
t0“peaches”
e1“peach brown rot (Monilinia fructicola (Wint.) Honey)”
Claim · model-written summary
Variation in spring applications did not affect disease development.
- Taxon
- peachesPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- spring applicationse0
- Interactor
- Monilinia fructicola (Wint.) HoneyMonilinia fructicolae1pathogen
- Outcome
- disease developmente0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Variations in the spring applications had no effect on disease development”
t0“peaches”
e1“peach brown rot (Monilinia fructicola (Wint.) Honey)”
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying developing fruit one month before picking controlled brown rot in the orchard.
- Taxon
- peachesPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- Spraying the developing fruit one month before pickinge0
- Interactor
- Monilinia fructicola (Wint.) HoneyMonilinia fructicolae1pathogen
- Outcome
- brown rot control in the orcharde0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spraying the developing fruit one month before picking was essential for brown rot control in the orchard”
t0“peaches”
e1“peach brown rot (Monilinia fructicola (Wint.) Honey)”
Claim · model-written summary
Spraying approximately one week before picking did not reduce orchard losses.
- Taxon
- peachesPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- Spraying approximately one week before pickinge0
- Outcome
- losses in the orcharde0
- Direction
- did not reducee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spraying approximately one week before picking did not reduce losses in the orchard”
t0“peaches”
Claim · model-written summary
The late spray controlled brown rot in stored fruit.
- Taxon
- peachesPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- late spraye0
- Interactor
- Monilinia fructicola (Wint.) HoneyMonilinia fructicolae1pathogen
- Outcome
- control of brown rot in stored fruite0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This late spray was necessary however, for control of brown rot in stored fruit”
t0“peaches”
e1“peach brown rot (Monilinia fructicola (Wint.) Honey)”
Claim · model-written summary
The curative schedule achieved brown rot control equal to the best protective schedules.
- Taxon
- peachesPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- curative schedulee0
- Interactor
- Monilinia fructicola (Wint.) HoneyMonilinia fructicolae1pathogen
- Outcome
- Brown rot controle0
- Direction
- equal toe0
- Comparator
- best protective schedulese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Brown rot control with the curative schedule was equal to that with the best protective schedules”
t0“peaches”
e1“peach brown rot (Monilinia fructicola (Wint.) Honey)”
Claim · model-written summary
Benomyl did not prevent infection of injured fruit.
- Taxon
- peachesPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- benomyle0
- Interactor
- Monilinia fructicola (Wint.) HoneyMonilinia fructicolae1pathogen
- Outcome
- infection of injured fruitse0
- Direction
- did not prevente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“benomyl did not prevent infection of injured fruits”
t0“peaches”
e1“peach brown rot (Monilinia fructicola (Wint.) Honey)”
Claim · model-written summary
Two pre-harvest benomyl applications increased soft rot incidence in stored fruit.
- Taxon
- peachesPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- two pre-harvest applications of benomyle0
- Interactor
- Rhizopus stolonifer (Fr.) Lind.
Rhizopus stolonifere0pathogen - Outcome
- incidence of soft rote0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The incidence of soft rot (caused by Rhizopus stolonifer (Fr.) Lind.) in stored fruit was increased by two pre-harvest applications of benomyl”
t0“peaches”
Claim · model-written summary
An infection period 18 days before harvest appeared to produce high short-term latent infection.
- Taxon
- peachesPrunus persicat0
- Interactor
- Monilinia fructicola (Wint.) HoneyMonilinia fructicolae1pathogen
- Outcome
- high level of short-term, latent infectione0
- Qualifier
- An infection period 18 days before harveste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“An infection period 18 days before harvest appeared to result in a high level of short-term, latent infection”
t0“peaches”
e1“peach brown rot (Monilinia fructicola (Wint.) Honey)”
The same questions in other papers
benomyl · Monilinia fructicola · Prunus persica (peach)Results differ
4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →application · Monilinia fructicola · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.