4.5 Article

Crop Rotation and Management Effect on Fusarium spp. Populations

期刊

CROP SCIENCE
卷 55, 期 1, 页码 365-376

出版社

CROP SCIENCE SOC AMER
DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2014.03.0199

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative
  2. National Institute of Food and Agriculture
  3. Wisconsin Institute for Sustainable Agriculture
  4. University of Wisconsin-Madison College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fusarium spp. are common fungal pathogens that infect a number of field and vegetable crops. Crop rotation, genetic resistance, and fungicides are the primary methods used for managing these pathogens; however, there is a lack of information regarding the interactions between these management strategies and how they impact Fusarium spp. population dynamics. Therefore, the objective of this research was to quantify the effect of crop rotation and management (i.e., variety selection and fungicide use) on F. graminearum, F. oxysporum, and F. virguliforme populations in the soil using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Soil samples were collected in 2011 and 2012 from a long-term corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) rotation study near Arlington, WI, and populations for each species (spores g(-1) of soil) were quantified from extracted soil DNA. Fusarium oxysporum was the most prevalent Fusarium sp. found. Crop rotation and management did not impact F. oxysporum populations nor F. virguliforme presence. A crop rotation by fungicide interaction was found for F. graminearum (P < 0.001), but this interaction was primarily affected by crop rotation. As expected, F. graminearum was found more often in plots with wheat as part of the rotation. This study found few interactions among crop rotation, variety selection, and fungicide use for controlling populations of three Fusarium spp. in the soil, and significant interactions or individual control methods were dependent on the species being examined.

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

4.5
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