2017
DOI: 10.2134/agronj2016.07.0418
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Risk Management Strategies using Precision Agriculture Technology to Manage Potato Late Blight

Abstract: Precision agriculture has emerged as a revolutionary technology, which transforms farming related data into useful information for agricultural decision-making. Th is paper compares precision farming technology with calendar-based approach in scheduling fungicide applications to manage potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) late blight disease. Th ree fungicide scheduling strategies were evaluated: calendar-based strategy, BlightPro decision support system based strategy (DSS-based strategy), and unsprayed control. Usi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
28
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
2
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Achieving effective control of late blight on potato using decreased fungicide doses on moderately resistant cultivars has been demonstrated previously (Fry, ; Clayton & Shattock, ; Gans et al ., ; Bain et al ., ) and such information has been incorporated into some models to guide fungicide applications (Nærstad et al ., ; Liu et al ., ). The current study also shows that equivalent or better control of late blight can be achieved by combining moderately resistant cultivars with appropriate fungicide doses, compared to applying full doses to susceptible varieties.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Achieving effective control of late blight on potato using decreased fungicide doses on moderately resistant cultivars has been demonstrated previously (Fry, ; Clayton & Shattock, ; Gans et al ., ; Bain et al ., ) and such information has been incorporated into some models to guide fungicide applications (Nærstad et al ., ; Liu et al ., ). The current study also shows that equivalent or better control of late blight can be achieved by combining moderately resistant cultivars with appropriate fungicide doses, compared to applying full doses to susceptible varieties.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Producers may hold differing attitudes toward risks, and thus they may have different preferences for NT and cover crop choices (Boyer et al., ; Larson et al., ). Those who are more risk‐averse are more likely to choose the farm practices that have a smaller variation in farm income (Liu, Langemeier, Small, Joseph, & Fry, ). This research compares mutually exclusive production decisions by cotton producers for adopting NT and winter cover crops.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The CE for a risky alternative is determined by the utility function and the risk aversion levels of the decision maker, that is, CEfalse(w,r(w)false)=U1false(w,r(w)false) (Lien et al., ). The risky outcome with a higher CE value should be preferred over those with lower CE values (Liu et al., ). Specifically, at a certain risk‐aversion level, the decision maker will choose the risky alternative that provides the highest CE.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The value of RP represents the minimum amount of payoff per hectare at some risk aversion level, r ( w ), that a decision‐maker needs to be paid to switch from a preferred practice to a less preferred practice, as shown in Figure 2b (Hardaker, Lien, Anderson, & Huirne, 2015; Mwinuka, Mutabazi, Sieber, Makindara, & Bizimana, 2017). A positive RP means that the cotton producer prefers no‐till with/without cover crops to the conventional tillage, and the positive value of RP could also be viewed as the expected gain from adopting no‐till with/without cover crops (Liu, Langemeier, Small, Joseph, & Fry, 2017). On the contrary, a negative RP means that the cotton producer prefers conventional tillage to no‐till with/without cover crops, and the negative value of RP could be viewed as the expected loss or the amount of compensation farmers would need to be paid to adopt no‐till with/without cover crops.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%