4.7 Article

Evasive Planning for the Management of Eucalyptus Rust Austropuccinia psidii for Espirito Santo State, Brazil

期刊

FORESTS
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f13050646

关键词

Austropuccinia psidii; risk areas; fuzzy standardization

类别

资金

  1. Espirito Santo Research and Innovation Foundation (Fapes)
  2. Espirito Santo Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology (IFES)
  3. National Council for Scientific and Technological (CNPq)
  4. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)
  5. Federal University of Espirito Santo (UFES)
  6. company Fibria Celulose S.A.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to map areas at risk of eucalyptus rust in the state of Espirito Santo, Brazil and found that most areas surveyed presented medium to high risk of rust occurrence. Therefore, complementary management measures are needed to control the disease.
Eucalyptus is one of the most exploited forest genera on the planet. Eucalyptus has a variety of uses, mainly because of its great diversity and versatility. Brazil is among the main producers of cellulose, paper, and wood panels in the world. One of the factors limiting the production of Eucalyptus spp. is the occurrence of diseases such as rust caused by the fungus Austropuccinia psidii. This work aimed to map areas at risk of eucalyptus rust in the state of Espirito Santo, Brazil. The study was carried out in two stages: (i) mapping the rust risk areas in the state through the Geographic Information System (GIS) and (ii) applying fuzzy standardization to the infection index to generate a risk index. It was found through GIS and fuzzy standardization that most of the areas surveyed presented medium to high risk of rust occurrence. Thus, it becomes necessary to adopt complementary management measures to control the disease, especially for the months of April to November. The methodology used in this study can be implemented for other diseases and forest species in other parts of the world.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据