Paper · 2023 · Plant Health Progress

Conventional and Biopesticide Fungicides for Cucurbit Downy Mildew Control on Cucumber in Michigan

Matthew R. Uebbing; Zachary D. Hayden; Mary K. Hausbeck

3
claims
6
verbatim quotes
5
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Michigan ranks first in the nation in cucumber production for processing (pickling), contributing over $45 million to the state's economy in 2019. Cucurbit downy mildew, caused by the oomycete Pseudoperonospora cubensis, is the most important disease of cucumber and an annual threat to yields. Fungicides are the most important means to control P. cubensis. Our goal was to monitor currently labelled conventional fungicides and biopesticides for efficacy over the course of an entire cropping period under high pathogen pressure. Field trials were conducted at the Michigan State University Plant Pathology Research Farm in 2021 and 2022. Fungicides were applied weekly, and disease severity was evaluated by visually assessing the percentage of foliar area showing downy mildew symptoms. At the end of the season, the relative area under the disease progress curve (rAUDPC) was calculated using the disease severity data. Based on rAUDPC results, oxathiapiprolin premixed with chlorothalonil was the most effective fungicide at controlling P. cubensis and was significantly better than all other conventional fungicides in both years tested. In both years, all conventional treatments had a significantly lower rAUDPC than the untreated control except pyraclostrobin, dimethomorph, and fluopicolide. No biopesticide fungicide reduced the rAUDPC compared with the untreated control in either year evaluated.

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 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Oxathiapiprolin premixed with chlorothalonil was the most effective fungicide against P. cubensis and significantly better than all other conventional fungicides in both years.

Taxon
CucumberCucumis sativust0
Treatment
oxathiapiprolin premixed with chlorothalonile1
Interactor
P. cubensisPseudoperonospora cubensise1pathogen
Outcome
controlling P. cubensise1
Direction
most effectivee1
Comparator
all other conventional fungicidese1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pseudoperonospora cubensis
Pseudoperonospora cubensis · InteractorChristian Hummert ( Ixitixel ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Conventional and Biopesticide Fungicides for Cucurbit Downy Mildew Control on Cucumber in Michigan”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–98 · show in text ↑
e1

“Based on rAUDPC results, oxathiapiprolin premixed with chlorothalonil was the most effective fungicide at controlling P. cubensis and was significantly better than all other conventional fungicides in both years tested”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 925–1143 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In both years, all conventional treatments had a significantly lower rAUDPC than the untreated control, except pyraclostrobin, dimethomorph and fluopicolide.

Taxon
CucumberCucumis sativust0
Treatment
conventional treatmentse2
Outcome
rAUDPCe2
Direction
lowere2
Qualifier
except pyraclostrobin, dimethomorph, and fluopicolidee2
Comparator
untreated controle2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Conventional and Biopesticide Fungicides for Cucurbit Downy Mildew Control on Cucumber in Michigan”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–98 · show in text ↑
e2

“In both years, all conventional treatments had a significantly lower rAUDPC than the untreated control except pyraclostrobin, dimethomorph, and fluopicolide”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1145–1301 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No biopesticide fungicide reduced the rAUDPC compared with the untreated control in either year.

Taxon
CucumberCucumis sativust0
Treatment
biopesticide fungicidee3
Outcome
rAUDPCe3
Direction
reducede3
Qualifier
in either year evaluatede3
Comparator
untreated controle3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis sativus
Cucumis sativus · TaxonH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Conventional and Biopesticide Fungicides for Cucurbit Downy Mildew Control on Cucumber in Michigan”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–98 · show in text ↑
e3

“No biopesticide fungicide reduced the rAUDPC compared with the untreated control in either year evaluated”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1303–1408 · show in text ↑

chlorothalonil · Pseudoperonospora cubensis · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

fungicide · disease · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 13 positive, 1 negative or no effect

13 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

biocontrol · disease · Cucumis sativus (cucumber)Positive and negative results

17 papers: 15 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 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.