4.1 Review

Estimating disease losses to the Australian wheat industry

期刊

AUSTRALASIAN PLANT PATHOLOGY
卷 38, 期 6, 页码 558-570

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1071/AP09053

关键词

bacteria; crop loss assessment; fungi; nematodes; rust; Septoria; tan spot; viruses

资金

  1. GRDC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The incidence, severity and yield loss caused by 41 pathogens were assessed from a survey of 18 wheat pathologists covering the wheat-growing areas of Australia. The survey provided data on the frequency of years that each pathogen developed to its maximum extent, the proportion of the crop then affected in each growing area, and the yield loss that resulted in the affected crops with and without current control measures. These data were combined with crop production and quality data to estimate the value of the losses aggregated to the Northern, Southern and Western production regions. Pathogens were estimated to cause a current average loss of $913 x 10(6)/year or 19.5% of the average annual value of the wheat crop in the decade from 1998-99 to 2007-08. Nationally, the three most important pathogens were Pyrenophora tritici-repentis, Puccinia struformis and Phaeosphaeria nodorum with current average annual losses of $212 x 10(6), $127 x 10(6) and $108 x 10(6), respectively. If current controls were not used, losses would be far higher with potential average annual losses from the three most important pathogens, P. struformis, P. triticirepentis and Heterodera avenae, being $994 x 10(6), $676 x 10(6) and $572 x 10(6), respectively. The average value of control practices exceeded $100 x 10(6)/year for 12 pathogens. Cultural methods (rotation, paddock preparation) were the only controls used for 10 pathogens and contributed more than 50% of the control for a further eight pathogens. Breeding and the use of resistant cultivars contributed more than 50% of control for seven pathogens and pesticides for three pathogens. The relative importance of pathogens varied between regions and zones.

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

4.1
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