Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:57:44.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of fungicides for the control of mildew on spring barley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

S. J. Wale  and
E. A. Hunter
S. J. Wale
Affiliation:
North of Scotland Colleges of Agriculture, Aberdeen
E. A. Hunter
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Food Research Council Unit of Statistics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A series of 24 standardized, replicated field trials comparing 47 fungicidal treatments for the control of spring barley mildew have been analysed. The joint analysis has enabled stronger conclusions to be drawn about the relative efficacy of treatments than examination of individual trials. To increase sensitivity the trials were divided into those with high or low mildew pressure. Under high mildew pressure, the treatments which gave the greatest control of mildew also gave the highest yields. However, within any given treatment the yield response appeared not to be closely related to the degree of mildew control achieved. It is concluded that effective fungicides may have a phytotonic effect as well as a mildew control effect.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 105 , Issue 3 , December 1985 , pp. 573 - 579
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Atkin, J. C., Parsons, R. G., Rieley, C. E., Waterhouse, S. & Siegle, H. (1981). Control of cereal diseases with fenpropimorph and fenpropimorph mixtures in the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference – Pests and Diseases – 1981, pp. 307–316.Google Scholar
Dyke, G. V. & Shelley, C. F. (1976). Serial Designs balanced for effects of neighbours on both sides. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 87, 303–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glentworth, R. & Muir, J. W. (1963). The Soils of the Country round Aberdeen, Inverurie and Fraserburgh. Edinburgh: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Jenkyn, J. F., Bainbridge, A., Dyke, G. V. & Todd, A. D. (1979). An investigation into interplot interactions in experiments with mildew on barley using balanced designs. Annals of Applied Biology 92, 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J. E. (1977). Surveys of foliar diseases of spring barley in England and Wales, 1972–75. Plant Pathology 26, 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Large, E. C. & Doling, D. A. (1962). The measurement of cereal mildew and its effect on yield. Plant Pathology 11, 47–57.Google Scholar
Martin, T. J., Morris, D. B. & Chipper, M. E. (1981). Triadimenol seed treatment on spring barley; results of a 60 site evaluation in the United Kingdom, 1980. Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference – Pests and Diseases – 1981, pp. 299–306.Google Scholar
Patterson, H. D., Hunter, E. A. & Talbot, M. (1976). EDEX: Analysis of Experiments. Inter-University/Research Council Series Report No. 12.Google Scholar
Shephard, M. C., Bent, K. J., Woolner, M. & Cole, A. M. (1975). Sensitivity to ethirimol of powdery mildew from UK barley crops. Proceedings of the 8th British Insecticide and Fungicide Conference, pp. 59–66.Google Scholar
Zadoks, J. C., Chang, T. T. & Konzak, C. F. (1974). A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14, 415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar