Field and Greenhouse Assessment of Seed Treatment Fungicides for Management of Sudden Death Syndrome and Yield Response of Soybean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seed treatments for the management of sudden death syndrome (SDS) caused by Fusarium virguliforme are available in the United States and Canada; however, side-by-side comparisons of these seed treatments are lacking. Sixteen field experiments were established in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin, United States, and Ontario, Canada, in 2019 and 2020 to evaluate seed treatment combinations. Treatments included a nontreated check (NTC), fungicide and insecticide base seed treatments (base), fluopyram, base + fluopyram, base + saponin extracts from Chenopodium quinoa, base + fluopyram + heat-killed Burkholderia rinojenses, base + pydiflumetofen, base + thiabendazole + heat-killed B. rinojenses, and base + thiabendazole + C. quinoa extracts + heat-killed B. rinojenses. Treatments were tested on SDS moderately resistant and susceptible soybean cultivars at each location. Overall, NTC and base had the most root rot, most foliar disease index (FDX), and lowest yield. Base + fluopyram and base + pydiflumetofen were most effective for managing SDS. Moderately resistant cultivars reduced FDX in both years but visual root rot was greater on the moderately resistant than the susceptible cultivars in 2020. Yield response to cultivar was also inconsistent between the 2 years. In 2020, the susceptible cultivar provided significantly more yield than the moderately resistant cultivar. Treatment effect for root rot and FDX was similar in field and greenhouse evaluations. These results reinforce the need to include root rot evaluations in addition to foliar disease evaluations in the breeding process for resistance to F. virguliforme and highlights the importance of an integrated SDS management plan because not a single management tactic alone provides adequate control of the disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".