2012
DOI: 10.1080/01140671.2011.623707
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Site-specific risk factors of white mould epidemics in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) in Tasmania, Australia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…More than 600 host plants are subjected to attack by such necrotrophic pathogens [ 2 , 4 , 6 ]. Members of the Leguminosae family including common bean and soybean are among the heavily damaged hosts by S. sclerotiorum [ 1 , 2 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Initial infections occur via ascospores liberated from fully developed apothecia [ 3 , 10 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More than 600 host plants are subjected to attack by such necrotrophic pathogens [ 2 , 4 , 6 ]. Members of the Leguminosae family including common bean and soybean are among the heavily damaged hosts by S. sclerotiorum [ 1 , 2 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Initial infections occur via ascospores liberated from fully developed apothecia [ 3 , 10 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another contributory source to that perception may have been reports of high white mould prevalence (exceeding 50%) in dry bean production in States to the west of NY (Harikrishnan et al, 2006;Schwartz & Singh, 2013). The estimated prevalence of snap bean fields with white mould from 2006 to 2008 was much lower than the 73% prevalence of snap bean fields with white mould from 2009 to 2010 in Tasmania, Australia, another processing snap bean production region (Jones et al, 2012). The reasons for such a large discrepancy between the two geographically distinct studies is purely speculative at this point but may possibly include different crop rotations and macroclimatic weather patterns.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The predicted i pad values were 8.39% and 8.56%. The predictions of i pad with Eqn were consistent in magnitude with the field‐derived observations (Jones et al ., ), conditional on the expected differences in disease estimation, growing environments and weather underlying the two sets of data forming the basis of this comparison.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tolerance thresholds vary by region and processor, but are typically lower than 6% of pods with white mould (Shah et al, 2002;Jones et al, 2011). As the crop approaches maturity, growers, processors and their field personnel decide whether to allow the crop to reach full maturity, to harvest sooner (curtailing epidemic duration at the expense of further pod development), or to by-pass the field if the percentage of pods with white mould is unacceptably high (Jones et al, 2011(Jones et al, , 2012. Growers, crop scouts and processors would therefore benefit from having accurate in-field estimates of pods (number, proportion or incidence) affected by white mould when making these decisions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%