Comparison of methods to assess severity of common rust caused by Puccinia sorghi in maize

Disease severity evaluation is an important decision support for adoption of strategies and tactics for disease control. The most commonly used method to assess disease severity is visual, but the problem is repeatability, due to subjectivity and imprecision of estimates. For Puccinia sorghi, a thre...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Bade, Cecilia Inés A.
Otros Autores: Carmona, Marcelo Aníbal
Formato: Artículo
Lenguaje:Inglés
Materias:
Acceso en línea:http://ri.agro.uba.ar/files/download/articulo/2011Bade.pdf
LINK AL EDITOR
Aporte de:Registro referencial: Solicitar el recurso aquí
LEADER 05030cab a22007457a 4500
001 AR-BaUFA000379
003 AR-BaUFA
005 20220411142604.0
008 181208t2011 |||||o|||||00||||eng d
999 |c 46813  |d 46813 
022 |a 1982-5676 
040 |a AR-BaUFA  |c AR-BaUFA 
100 1 |a Bade, Cecilia Inés A.  |9 30741 
245 0 0 |a Comparison of methods to assess severity of common rust caused by Puccinia sorghi in maize 
520 |a Disease severity evaluation is an important decision support for adoption of strategies and tactics for disease control. The most commonly used method to assess disease severity is visual, but the problem is repeatability, due to subjectivity and imprecision of estimates. For Puccinia sorghi, a threshold of action of 1 percent severity was determined, so high precision is required in disease quantification. The aim of this study was to compare different assessment methods and analyze their association. Two diagrammatic scales were used to estimate severity, the Peterson and Amorim scales. Pustules were counted with the naked eye and with a 20x magnification hand lens. Software for disease quantification, Assess 2.0, was used to determine actual percentage area and lesion count. No significant differences were found between naked-eyed count and with magnifier. Lesion count with Assess 2.0 gave an imprecise result. Significant differences were found between diagrammatic scales. Compared with Assess 2.0, severity using Peterson was 2 percent higher, showing widely scattered differences [R 2=0.48]. Overestimation with visual scales was suggested, especially at low severity levels. Counting pustules was more objective, precise and reproducible. Thus, a calibration curve was constructed [R 2=0.79], which will allow calculation of severity from counting pustules. 
653 0 |a DISEASE ASSESSMENT METHODS 
653 0 |a PHYTOPATHOMETRY 
653 0 |a ZEA MAYS 
700 1 |9 3109  |a Carmona, Marcelo Aníbal 
773 |t Tropical Plant Pathology  |g Vol. 36, no.4 (2011), p.264-266 
856 |u http://ri.agro.uba.ar/files/download/articulo/2011Bade.pdf  |i En internet  |q application/pdf  |f 2011Bade  |x MIGRADOS2018 
856 |u http://www.sbfito.com.br/  |x MIGRADOS2018  |z LINK AL EDITOR 
900 |a as 
900 |a 20131220 
900 |a N 
900 |a OA 
900 |a SCOPUS 
900 |a a 
900 |a s 
900 |a ARTICULO 
900 |a EN LINEA 
900 |a 19825676 
900 |a ^tComparison of methods to assess severity of common rust caused by Puccinia sorghi in maize 
900 |a ^aBade^bC.I.A. 
900 |a ^aCarmona^bM.A. 
900 |a ^aBade^bC. I. A. 
900 |a ^aCarmona^bM. A. 
900 |a ^aBade^bC.I.A.^tFaculty of Agronomy, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina 
900 |a ^aCarmona^bM.A. 
900 |a ^tTropical Plant Pathology^cTrop. Plant Pathol 
900 |a en 
900 |a 264 
900 |a ^i 
900 |a Vol. 36, no. 4 
900 |a 266 
900 |a DISEASE ASSESSMENT METHODS 
900 |a PHYTOPATHOMETRY 
900 |a ZEA MAYS 
900 |a Disease severity evaluation is an important decision support for adoption of strategies and tactics for disease control. The most commonly used method to assess disease severity is visual, but the problem is repeatability, due to subjectivity and imprecision of estimates. For Puccinia sorghi, a threshold of action of 1 percent severity was determined, so high precision is required in disease quantification. The aim of this study was to compare different assessment methods and analyze their association. Two diagrammatic scales were used to estimate severity, the Peterson and Amorim scales. Pustules were counted with the naked eye and with a 20x magnification hand lens. Software for disease quantification, Assess 2.0, was used to determine actual percentage area and lesion count. No significant differences were found between naked-eyed count and with magnifier. Lesion count with Assess 2.0 gave an imprecise result. Significant differences were found between diagrammatic scales. Compared with Assess 2.0, severity using Peterson was 2 percent higher, showing widely scattered differences [R 2=0.48]. Overestimation with visual scales was suggested, especially at low severity levels. Counting pustules was more objective, precise and reproducible. Thus, a calibration curve was constructed [R 2=0.79], which will allow calculation of severity from counting pustules. 
900 |a 36 
900 |a 4 
900 |a 2011 
900 |a ^cH 
900 |a AAG 
900 |a AGROVOC 
900 |a 2011Bade 
900 |a AAG 
900 |a http://ri.agro.uba.ar/files/download/articulo/2011Bade.pdf 
900 |a 2011Bade.pdf 
900 |a http://www.sbfito.com.br/ 
900 |a http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-82555181682&partnerID=40&md5=04db039719faa86fcbf148637271de6f 
900 |a ^a^b^c^d^e^f^g^h^i 
900 |a OS 
942 0 0 |c ARTICULO  |2 udc 
942 0 0 |c ENLINEA  |2 udc