The role of fungicides for effective disease management in cereal crops

Figures & data

Fig. 1. (Colour online) The disease triangle with vertices representing the contributing factors to plant disease (Francl 2001).

Fig. 2. (Colour online) Study of foliar fungicide movement in the cereal leaf three days after application to the base of the cereal leaf (Poole 2009 – FAR).

Fig. 3. (Colour online) Graphic illustrating the differences in movement of strobilurin fungicide in the cereal leaf (Bartlett et al. 2002).

Table 1. Influence of stripe rust onset in wheat and its influence on yield of cultivar with different levels of genetic resistance, derived from the ‘RustMan’ model.

Disease onset		Stripe rust reaction (% yield loss)
Growth stage		Susceptible	Moderately susceptible	Moderately resistant	Resistant
GS31	First node	85	75	(55)	(25)
GS39	Flag leaf	75	45	15	5
GS45	Booting	65	25	7	2
GS49	1st awns	50	10	3	1
GS55	Mid heading	40	5	2	0
GS65	Mid flower	12	2	1	0

Fig. 4. (Colour online) Influence of fungicide active ingredient and rate on the incidence of stem rust in wheat – (mean of 4 Australian trials conducted in 2010) (Poole & Wylie 2011).

Fig. 5. (Colour online) Influence of no treatment (a), triadimenol seed treatment (b), two triazole fungicide sprays (c) and two triazole/strobilurin mixtures (d) on green leaf retention in barley during grain fill following leaf rust infection – cv ‘Gairdner Plus’ barley, South Australia 2007 (Poole 2009 – GRDC).

Fig. 6. (Colour online) Correlation between green leaf retention of flag-1 at GS80 and yield in trial work on barley (red data point – In furrow fungicide followed by 1 foliar spray, orange data point – best 2 spray foliar treatment) (Poole 2009 – GRDC).

Fig. 7. (Colour online) Influence of one and two spray fungicide programmes in dryland (a) and irrigated (b) spring barley at the FAR Arable Site in 2012 (unpublished).

Table 2. Look-up table derived from APSIM estimating yield loss due reductions in LAD relative to an expected yield of a healthy crop.

Expected yield of healthy crop (t ha^−1)	Expected reduction in post-anthesis leaf area duration
	5%	10%	20%	30%	40%	50%	60%	70%
	Estimated yield of diseased crop
1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.8	0.8
2.1	2.1	2.0	1.8	1.7	1.6	1.4	1.3	1.1
3.3	3.2	3.0	2.8	2.6	2.3	2.1	1.8	1.5
4.4	4.3	4.1	3.8	3.5	3.1	2.8	2.4	2.0
5.5	5.3	5.1	4.8	4.4	3.9	3.5	3.0	2.5
6.3	6.2	6.0	5.7	5.2	4.8	4.2	3.6	3.0
6.9	6.8	6.7	6.4	6.0	5.5	4.9	4.3	3.5

Francl LJ. 2001. The disease triangle: a plant pathological paradigm revisited. Plant Health Instruct. doi:10.1094/PHI-T-2001-0517–01.

 Google Scholar

Poole N, Wylie T. 2011. Stem rust control in wheat- 2010 trials review. GRDC Adviser Update Paper. Towoomba (QLD): Northern Grower Alliance.

 Google Scholar

Bartlett DW, Clough JM, Godwin JR, Hall AA, Hamer M, Parr-Dobrzanski B. 2002. The strobilurin fungicides. Pest Manag Sci.. 58:649–662.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Poole NF. 2009b. Cereal growth stages: the link to disease management. Templeton (New Zealand): Foundation for Arable Research. FAR Focus Issue no. 2

 Google Scholar