Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Meta-analysis of Response of Yellow Spot and Stagonospora Nodorum Blotch (SNB)
in Wheat to Fungicides in Western Australia
ACPP-APPS, Darwin, 26-29 April 2011
Kawsar P. Salam, Geoff J. Thomas,Moin U. Salam, Ciara Beard,
William J. MacLeod & Robert LoughmanDepartment of Agriculture & Food, Western
Australia (DAFWA)
1
Yellow spot and SNB in wheat in Western Australia
Source: NDSU Extension Service; PP-1249 (Revised), 2011
Yellow spot / tan spot(Pyrenophora tritici-repentis)
Stagonospora Nodorum Blotch (SNB)(Stagonospora nodorum (previously Septoria nodorum))
2
Response of the YS to fungicides is usually not quiet evident from individual experiments, especially when questions needed to answer, such as,
does the response vary between the• number of sprays?• seasons?• cultivars of different resistance rating?• fungicides?• and so on …
Is meta-analysis a better technique to address those questions?
Why meta-analysis?
3
“Garbage-in, garbage-out” - “Mixing apples and oranges” (ci. Madden & Paul 2011)
• New Applications of Statistical Tools in Plant Pathology (Garrett et al. 2002)• Meta-Analysis in Plant Pathology: Synthesizing Research Results (Rosenberg et al. 2004)• Relationship between visual estimates of Fusarium head blight intensity and deoxynivalenol accumulation in
harvested wheat grain: A meta-analysis (Paul et al. 2005)• Biological and application-oriented factors influencing plant disease suppression by biological control: A meta-
analytical review (Ojiambo & Scherm 2006)• Yield loss in sweet corn caused by Puccinia sorghi: A meta-analysis (Shah & Dillard 2006)• A quantitative review of tebuconazole effect on Fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol content in wheat (Paul
et al. 2007)• Meta-analysis of the effects of triazole-based fungicides on wheat yield and test weight as influenced by
Fusarium head blight intensity (Paul et al. 2010)• Meta-analysis todetermine the effects of plant disease management measures: Review and case studies on
soybean and apple (Ngugi et al. 2011)• Multiple Treatment Meta-Analysis of Products Evaluated for Control of Fire Blight in the Eastern United States
(Ngugi et al. 2011)• Meta-Analysis for Evidence Synthesis in Plant Pathology: An Overview (Madden & Paul 2011)• A meta-analysis of severity and yield loss from ascochyta blight on field pea in Western Australia (Salam et al.
2011)
“It is obvious that the new scientific discipline of meta-analysis is here to stay” (Chalmers & Lau 1993)
Meta-analysis is the analysis of experiments
It is built on the principle that science is meant to be a cumulative process, where individual studies contribute to the overall total knowledge base.
Results of individual studies can contribute something to the total, but it is the collection of results from many sources that matter in moving science forward or
in informing our decision-making process.
4
Meta-analysis calculates “Effect size” ~ an index of how much change is evident across all the studies
Presentation of meta-analysis
R2 = 0.7524
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
-10 0 10 20 30 40
Yield gain or loss (%)
Yiel
d ga
in o
r los
s (k
g ha
-1)
Effect size is presented here as,I. kg ha-1 gain or loss over no fungicide treatment from each
experimentII. number of effects (~data-points) used to create the estimate &III. 95% confidence intervals (CI) to determine the consistency
and reliability of the mean estimated effect size
5
347 data-points; 88 Experiments; 16 growing seasons during 1982 to 201024 cultivars (YS resistance rating 2-5); sprayed 1-3 (few 4/5) with 13
fungicides, predominantly Folicur [tebuconazole](46% data-points & Tilt [propiconazole] 31% data-points)
90% data-points from northern agricultural region of Western Australian’s grain-belt
6
What response did we derive?
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17
10
20
27
36
30
39
25
32
10
18
9
1915
116 8
3 3 1 2 14
10
10
20
30
40-5
00-4
50-4
00-3
50-3
00-2
50-2
00-1
50-1
00 -50 0 50 100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
Category of yield loss or gain (kg ha-1)
Freq
uenc
y226 - 278 kg ha-1 (CI 95%); Average 252 kg ha-1; Median = 200 kg ha-1
7
0
100
200
300
400
1 2 3 4 5
Number of fungicide application
Yiel
d ga
in o
r los
s (k
g ha
-1)
Did the response vary between the numbers of fungicide application?
2 or 3 application > 1; Parallel lines = envelope of 95% CI of avg response
Folicur 50%Tilt 28%Z39 45%Z43 12%N=228
Folicur 72%
Z39/41/47Z39/61/65
N=43
Folicur 22%Tilt 56%
Z32, Z39, Z60
N=71 N=2 N=1
8
Did the response vary between the growing seasons?
10/16 = similar; 3/16 = low; 3/16 = high; High response 1999 onwards
0
200
400
60019
82
1983
1991
1992
1993
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2003
2004
2008
2009
2010
Year
Yiel
d ga
in o
r los
s (k
g ha
-1)
N=29
N=44
N=2
N=3
N=31
N=24
N=5
N=40
N=78
N=25
N=27
N=19
N=4
N=10
N=18
N=7
9
Did the response vary between the cultivar resistance rating?
High response to very susceptible cultivars
0
100
200
300
400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Yellow spot resistance scale
Yiel
d ga
in o
r los
s (k
g ha
-1)
Resistance rating scale1:Extremely susceptible2:Very susceptible3:Susceptile4:Moderately susceptible5:Intermediate6:Moderately resistant7:Resistant8:Highly resistant9:Immune
N=89
N=172
N=35
N=42
N=6
N=3
10
0
100
200
300
400
Folicur Tilt
Fungicide
Yiel
d ga
in o
r los
s (k
g ha
-1)
Did the response vary between the fungicides?
Tilt appears to be responded better than Folicur
N=190
N=281
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 Spray 2 Spray 3 Spray
Scenarios
A$
gain
or l
oss
(ha-1
) ove
r fu
ngic
ide
cost
s (in
clud
ing
spra
ying
, cro
p da
mag
e et
c)
“A difference, to be a difference, must make a difference” $ return makes the difference
Costs per spray (fungicide, application, crop damage etc): $20 ha-1
Farmgate price of wheat: 250 t-1
12
N=228 N=72N=43
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
252 kg ha-1
[226–277 kg ha-1 CI 95%]88 Experiments; 347 data-points; 16 seasons (1982 to 2010); 24 cultivars
(YS rating 2–5); sprayed 1-3 times with 13 fungicides, predominantly Folicur (46% data-points) & Tilt (31% data-points)
FUNGICIDE APPLICATION (NUMBER OF SPRAY)
S1: 195 kg ha-1 [N=227][168–222 kg ha-1 CI 95%]S2: 347 kg ha-1 [N=43][279–415 kg ha-1 CI 95%]S3: 368 kg ha-1 [N=72][302–434 kg ha-1 CI 95%]
GROWING SEASON
20%: 451 kg ha-1 [N=50][385–518 kg ha-1 CI 95%]60%: 281 kg ha-1 [N=168][245–318 kg ha-1 CI 95%]20%: 73 kg ha-1 [N=86][49–97 kg ha-1 CI 95%]
CULTIVAR RESISTANCE
YS 2: 319 kg ha-1 [N=89][266–372 kg ha-1 CI 95%]YS 3-5: 229 kg ha-1 [N=258][200–258 kg ha-1 CI 95%]
FUNGICIDE
Folicur: 227 kg ha-1 [N=281][200–254 kg ha-1 CI 95%]Tilt: 304 kg ha-1 [N=190][268–340 kg ha-1 CI 95%]
Between categories: same colour ~ similar at 95% CIWithin a category: double arrow ~ different at 95% CI
13
Meta-analysis of Response of Yellow Spot and Stagonospora Nodorum Blotch (SNB)
in Wheat to Fungicides in Western Australia
ACPP-APPS, Darwin, 26-29 April 2011
We thank Australian Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) for funding for this research through projects DAW00207
and DAW00210
14