ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Economical aspects of disease control in winter wheat
 
More details
Hide details
1
Agricultural University, Plant and Soil Cultivation Department Mazowiecka 45/46, 60-623 Poznań, Poland
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Zuzanna Sawinska
Agricultural University, Plant and Soil Cultivation Department Mazowiecka 45/46, 60-623 Poznań, Poland
 
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2006;46(3):255–260
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
The experiment was conducted in the years 2001–2003 at the Experimental Station in Złotniki. The aim of the performed investigations was to evaluate economic effectiveness of different fungicidal protection programs in winter wheat. Winter wheat of cv. Sakwa was cultivated using the following two variants of seed treatment: 1) Raxil 060 FS at the dose of 60 ml/100 kg grain, 2) Raxil 060 FS + Latitude 125 FS at the doses of 60 and 200 ml/100 kg, and five variants of fungicidal foliar protection: 1) Vista 228 SE, 2) Sportak Alpha 380 EC, 3) Sportak Alpha 380 EC + Vista 228 SE, 4) Sportak Alpha 380 EC + Vista 228 SE + Juwel 250 SC, 5) control – without protection. The use of the above plant protection products contributed to the increase of winter wheat grain yield from 0.60 t/ha to 2.07 t/ha. This increase of yield covered costs of performed chemical control. The economic analysis showed that most effective variant of winter wheat chemical protection was seed treatment with Latitude 125 FS with additional two foliar treatments with the following fungicides: Sportak Alpha 380 EC and Vista 228 SE. Irrespective of the applied seed dressing, additional application of Juwel 250 SC at the stage of early milk maturity turned out to be economically not justified.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
 
REFERENCES (13)
1.
Dahab M., O’Callaghan J. 1997. A simulation modelling approach to the management of spray treatments of fungal attacks on wheat. J. Agric. Engng Res. 66: 287–293.
 
2.
Dawson W., Bateman G. 2000. Sensitivity of fungi from cereal roots to fluquinconazole and their suppressiveness towards take-all on plants with or without fluquinconazole seed treatment in a controlled environment. Plant Pathol. 49: 477–486.
 
3.
Jaczewska-Kalicka A. 2005. Straty plonu ziarna pszenicy ozimej powodowane przez choroby grzybowe. Prog. Plant Protection/Post. Ochr. Roślin 45: 722–724.
 
4.
Jaczewska-Kalicka A. 2003. Aspekty ekonomiczne zwalczania chorób grzybowych pszenicy ozimej w latach 2000–2002. Prog. Plant Protection/Post. Ochr. Roślin 43: 686–688.
 
5.
Jaczewska-Kalicka A., Grala B. 1997. Opłacalność zwalczania kompleksu chorób pszenicy ozimej. Prog. Plant Protection/Post. Ochr. Roślin 37: 314–316.
 
6.
Kaniuczak Z. 2002. Chemical protection of spring barley against diseases and pests and its influence on grain yield and economic indices. J. Plant Protection Res. 42: 323–330.
 
7.
Korbas M. 2001. Choroby liści i kłosa występujące w okresie wegetacji zbóż – biologia, rozpoznawanie, integracja metod ochrony. Mat. Konf. „Ochrona zbóż w integrowanych systemach uprawy”. Inst. Ochr. Roślin, Poznań, 21–22 maja 2001: 6–13.
 
8.
Krzyzińska B., Mączyńska A., Sikora H. 2004. Zwalczanie chorób grzybowych liści za pomocą zapraw nasiennych w uprawie jęczmienia jarego. Prog. Plant Protection/Post. Ochr. Roślin 44: 877–880.
 
9.
Lipa J. 1999. Nowoczesna ochrona zbóż. Pam. Puł. 114: 241–257.
 
10.
Mierzejewska W. 1985. Metody badawcze i miary oceny ekonomicznej efektywności chemicznych zabiegów ochrony roślin. Post. Nauk Roln. 32/37 (5): 77–90.
 
11.
Parylak D., Kordas L. 2001. Wpływ czynników agrotechnicznych na porażenie pszenicy ozimej przez zgorzel podstawy źdźbła (Gaumannomyces graminis). Prog. Plant Protection/Post. Ochr. Roślin 41: 762–765.
 
12.
Schoeny A., Jeuffroy M., Lucas P. 2001. Influence of take-all epidemics on winter wheat yield formation and yield loss. Phytopathology 91: 694–701.
 
13.
Szmigiel A. 1999. Wpływ technologii uprawy na plonowanie pszenicy ozimej. Pam. Puł. 118: 423–429.
 
eISSN:1899-007X
ISSN:1427-4345