HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Krupinsky, J. M. Articles by Hanson, J. D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Krupinsky, J. M. Articles by Hanson, J. D. Agricola Articles by Krupinsky, J. M. Articles by Hanson, J. D. Related Collections Crop Rotation Systems Dryland Cropping Systems Plant Disease

Crop Sequence Effects on Leaf Spot Diseases of No-Till Spring Wheat

^a USDA-ARS, Northern Great Plains Research Lab., Box 0459, Mandan, ND 58554-0459
^b Univ. of Mary, 7500 University Dr., Bismarck, ND 58504

View larger version (47K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Growing season precipitation and average air temperature on a monthly basis over the course of the crop sequence project compared to the 22-yr average.

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Isolation of (A) D. tritici-repentis and (B) S. nodorum from wheat following 1 yr of alternative crops, 2 yr of alternative crops, and continuous spring wheat. * Indicates that wheat following alternative crops, as a group, are significantly different from the continuous spring wheat treatment. (C) When spring wheat followed alternative crops, the number of individual alternative crop treatments with significantly less isolation of S. nodorum compared with continuous spring wheat. The continuous spring wheat treatment was used as the control in Dunnett's one-tailed test (P < 0.05).

View larger version (31K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Number of lesions and percentage necrosis on spring wheat leaves following 1 yr of an alternative crop (Group 1) in 2004 and 2005. In (A), (C), and (D), treatments following alternative crops are significantly less than the continuous spring wheat treatment. In (B), treatments following alternative crops are significantly less than the continuous spring wheat treatment, except for the treatment with lentil as the previous crop on 9 June 2004. The continuous spring wheat treatment was used as the control in Dunnett's one-tailed test (P 0.05).

View larger version (33K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Number of lesions and percentage necrosis on spring wheat leaves following 2 yr of an alternative crop (Group 2) in 2004 and 2005. (A) Treatments following alternative crops are significantly less than the continuous spring wheat treatment. (B) Treatments following alternative crops are significantly less than the continuous spring wheat treatment, except for the treatment with sunflower as the previous crop for the 23 June 2004 evaluation. (C) Disease severities following alternative crops are significantly less than the continuous spring wheat treatment. (D) Disease severities following alternative crops are significantly less than the continuous spring wheat treatment, except for the treatment with corn and sunflower as the previous crop for the 28 June 2005 evaluation. The continuous spring wheat treatment was used as the control in Dunnett's one-tailed test (P 0.05).

View larger version (34K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Number of lesions and percentage necrosis on spring wheat leaves following 2 yr of an alternative crop with different residue levels (Group 3) in 2004 and 2005. (A–D) Disease severity following alternative crop sequences is significantly less than the continuous spring wheat treatment. The continuous spring wheat treatment was used as the control in Dunnett's one-tailed test (P 0.05). CO = corn, CP = chickpea, ML = proso millet, SN = sunflower, SR = grain sorghum, and SW = spring wheat.