Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Jun;94(6):709-716.
doi: 10.1094/PDIS-94-6-0709.

Evaluation of a Warning System for Controlling Primary Infections of Grapevine Downy Mildew

Affiliations

Evaluation of a Warning System for Controlling Primary Infections of Grapevine Downy Mildew

T Caffi et al. Plant Dis. 2010 Jun.

Abstract

A warning system based on (i) a model that simulates the development of all cohorts of Plasmopara viticola oospores, from oospore germination to infection; (ii) short-term weather forecasts; and (iii) a mobile phone short message system was tested in Northern Italy, from 2006 to 2008. An unsprayed control was compared with a "Warning A" treatment (WA, fungicides were applied whenever the warning system predicted an infection period), a "Warning B" treatment (WB, fungicides were applied as in the WA treatment but only when the relative dimension of any oospore cohort predicted by the model exceeded a threshold), and a "grower" treatment (fungicides were applied according to a conventional schedule). Average disease incidence on leaves was reduced by up to 90% in sprayed plots compared with unsprayed plots. On bunches, efficacy was always >90% at fruit set; when most berries were touching, efficacy was higher for the WA (96%) than for grower (89%) and WB (85%) treatments. On average, 6.8 fungicide sprays were applied following the grower's schedule; use of the warning system reduced applications by about one-half (WA treatment) or two-thirds (WB treatment). The grower's schedule had an average cost of 337 €/ha; the average saving with the WA and the WB treatments was 174 and 224 €/ha, respectively.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

LinkOut - more resources