Effects of fungicide application timing on foliar fungal diseases, Fusarium head blight and economic returns in two winter wheat cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field experiments in 2022 and 2024 evaluated fungicide applications and timing on foliar fungal diseases and Fusarium head blight (FHB) in the winter wheat cultivars Wesley (susceptible) and Zenda (moderately resistant). Metconazole + prothioconazole (Sphaerex) and picoxystrobin (Aproach) were applied once, twice, or three times during growth stages BBCH 31, BBCH 39, or BBCH 60. Disease levels were low in both years. Fusarium-damaged kernels (FDK) and deoxynivalenol (DON) were higher (p = 0.05) in Wesley than in Zenda. Applications at BBCH 39 and BBCH 60 reduced foliar disease severity. Due to low FHB levels, there were no differences among treatments in FHB index, FDK and DON. Yield did not differ among treatments in Zenda. In Wesley, yield in untreated plots was lower (p = 0.05) than in fungicide-treated plots. Applications in Zenda were unprofitable, with net returns ranging from ‒$469 ha‒1 to $92 ha‒1. In Wesley, net returns were positive in 93% of the treatments and ranged from ‒$269 ha‒1 to $329 ha‒1. Single applications were more profitable than multiple applications. These results suggest that a single fungicide application on a susceptible winter wheat cultivar at BBCH 39 or BBCH 60 can effectively and economically control foliar fungal diseases.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".