比较认证木薯种子和农民保存的木薯种子的鲜根产量和质量

IF 2.5 2区 农林科学 Q1 AGRONOMY Crop Protection Pub Date : 2024-09-06 DOI:10.1016/j.cropro.2024.106932
{"title":"比较认证木薯种子和农民保存的木薯种子的鲜根产量和质量","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.cropro.2024.106932","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Formal systems supporting the delivery of high-quality cassava seed are being established in several key cassava producing countries in Africa. Questions remain, however, about the value of certified cassava seed when compared to seed which is recycled multiple times, which is standard farmer practice. A study was therefore conducted to compare fresh cassava root yields of high-quality seed (HQS) versus farmer-saved (recycled) seed (FSS) for three widely grown improved cassava varieties in Tanzania namely: <em>Mkuranga1</em>, <em>Kiroba</em> and <em>Mkombozi</em>. Field experiments were established in two sites in different agricultural zones: Mkuranga (Coast Zone) and Maruku (Lake Victoria Zone). Four HQS sources (pre-basic, basic, certified, quality-declared), collectively referred to as HQS, were compared with FSS with respect to cassava brown streak disease (CBSD) foliar and root incidences, fresh root yield, marketable fresh root yield, and usable fresh root yield for each variety in the two locations. Results showed that foliar CBSD incidence in FSS was significantly greater than it was for HQS in <em>Mkuranga1</em> and <em>Kiroba</em> varieties but not for <em>Mkombozi</em>. CBSD root incidence was on average six times more in FSS than in HQS. When comparing FSS with the specific certified seed treatment (CS), 25.8% of the roots were unusable due to CBSD root necrosis for FSS, compared to only 3.7% for CS. CS gave an overall fresh root yield which was 7.5 t/ha more than FSS, representing an 80.6% increase. Yield benefits derived from planting HQS were similar for <em>Kiroba</em> (+80.7%), <em>Mkombozi</em> (+81.3%) and <em>Mkuranga1</em> (+79.5%), as well as across each of the four HQS classes. When also considering losses arising from severe CBSD root necrosis, the overall yield benefit arising from using CS when compared to FSS was 135%. The average estimated income gain for this increase was US$ 2279/ha, which is many times the estimated cost of obtaining certified seed. These results highlight the value of high quality seed systems and the potential gains that farmers can realize from planting high quality certified seed rather than recycling existing crops.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10785,"journal":{"name":"Crop Protection","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219424003600/pdfft?md5=999a3cf462e25c530cf373ffa5e3100b&pid=1-s2.0-S0261219424003600-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing fresh root yield and quality of certified and farmer-saved cassava seed\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cropro.2024.106932\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Formal systems supporting the delivery of high-quality cassava seed are being established in several key cassava producing countries in Africa. Questions remain, however, about the value of certified cassava seed when compared to seed which is recycled multiple times, which is standard farmer practice. A study was therefore conducted to compare fresh cassava root yields of high-quality seed (HQS) versus farmer-saved (recycled) seed (FSS) for three widely grown improved cassava varieties in Tanzania namely: <em>Mkuranga1</em>, <em>Kiroba</em> and <em>Mkombozi</em>. Field experiments were established in two sites in different agricultural zones: Mkuranga (Coast Zone) and Maruku (Lake Victoria Zone). Four HQS sources (pre-basic, basic, certified, quality-declared), collectively referred to as HQS, were compared with FSS with respect to cassava brown streak disease (CBSD) foliar and root incidences, fresh root yield, marketable fresh root yield, and usable fresh root yield for each variety in the two locations. Results showed that foliar CBSD incidence in FSS was significantly greater than it was for HQS in <em>Mkuranga1</em> and <em>Kiroba</em> varieties but not for <em>Mkombozi</em>. CBSD root incidence was on average six times more in FSS than in HQS. When comparing FSS with the specific certified seed treatment (CS), 25.8% of the roots were unusable due to CBSD root necrosis for FSS, compared to only 3.7% for CS. CS gave an overall fresh root yield which was 7.5 t/ha more than FSS, representing an 80.6% increase. Yield benefits derived from planting HQS were similar for <em>Kiroba</em> (+80.7%), <em>Mkombozi</em> (+81.3%) and <em>Mkuranga1</em> (+79.5%), as well as across each of the four HQS classes. When also considering losses arising from severe CBSD root necrosis, the overall yield benefit arising from using CS when compared to FSS was 135%. The average estimated income gain for this increase was US$ 2279/ha, which is many times the estimated cost of obtaining certified seed. These results highlight the value of high quality seed systems and the potential gains that farmers can realize from planting high quality certified seed rather than recycling existing crops.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10785,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Crop Protection\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219424003600/pdfft?md5=999a3cf462e25c530cf373ffa5e3100b&pid=1-s2.0-S0261219424003600-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Crop Protection\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219424003600\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRONOMY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Crop Protection","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219424003600","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

非洲几个主要木薯生产国正在建立支持提供优质木薯种子的正规系统。然而,经认证的木薯种子与经过多次回收的种子(这是农民的标准做法)相比,其价值仍然存在疑问。因此,我们开展了一项研究,比较坦桑尼亚三个广泛种植的木薯改良品种的优质种子(HQS)与农民保存(回收)种子(FSS)的新鲜木薯根产量:Mkuranga1、Kiroba 和 Mkombozi。田间试验在不同农业区的两个地点进行:Mkuranga(沿海地区)和 Maruku(维多利亚湖地区)。将四个 HQS 来源(基本前、基本、认证、质量声明)(统称为 HQS)与 FSS 进行比较,以了解这两个地点每个品种的木薯褐条纹病(CBSD)叶片和根部发病率、鲜根产量、可销售鲜根产量和可用鲜根产量。结果表明,FSS 的 Mkuranga1 和 Kiroba 品种的 CBSD 叶面发病率明显高于 HQS,但 Mkombozi 品种的 CBSD 叶面发病率并不明显。FSS 的 CBSD 根部发病率平均是 HQS 的六倍。将 FSS 与特定的认证种子处理(CS)相比,FSS 有 25.8%的根因 CBSD 根坏死而无法使用,而 CS 只有 3.7%。CS 的鲜根总产量比 FSS 高出 7.5 吨/公顷,增幅达 80.6%。在 Kiroba(+80.7%)、Mkombozi(+81.3%)和 Mkuranga1(+79.5%)以及四个 HQS 等级中,种植 HQS 带来的产量效益相似。如果同时考虑到严重的 CBSD 根坏死造成的损失,与 FSS 相比,使用 CS 的总体产量收益为 135%。估计平均增产收益为 2279 美元/公顷,是获得认证种子估计成本的数倍。这些结果凸显了优质种子系统的价值,以及农民通过种植优质认证种子而非回收利用现有作物所能实现的潜在收益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing fresh root yield and quality of certified and farmer-saved cassava seed

Formal systems supporting the delivery of high-quality cassava seed are being established in several key cassava producing countries in Africa. Questions remain, however, about the value of certified cassava seed when compared to seed which is recycled multiple times, which is standard farmer practice. A study was therefore conducted to compare fresh cassava root yields of high-quality seed (HQS) versus farmer-saved (recycled) seed (FSS) for three widely grown improved cassava varieties in Tanzania namely: Mkuranga1, Kiroba and Mkombozi. Field experiments were established in two sites in different agricultural zones: Mkuranga (Coast Zone) and Maruku (Lake Victoria Zone). Four HQS sources (pre-basic, basic, certified, quality-declared), collectively referred to as HQS, were compared with FSS with respect to cassava brown streak disease (CBSD) foliar and root incidences, fresh root yield, marketable fresh root yield, and usable fresh root yield for each variety in the two locations. Results showed that foliar CBSD incidence in FSS was significantly greater than it was for HQS in Mkuranga1 and Kiroba varieties but not for Mkombozi. CBSD root incidence was on average six times more in FSS than in HQS. When comparing FSS with the specific certified seed treatment (CS), 25.8% of the roots were unusable due to CBSD root necrosis for FSS, compared to only 3.7% for CS. CS gave an overall fresh root yield which was 7.5 t/ha more than FSS, representing an 80.6% increase. Yield benefits derived from planting HQS were similar for Kiroba (+80.7%), Mkombozi (+81.3%) and Mkuranga1 (+79.5%), as well as across each of the four HQS classes. When also considering losses arising from severe CBSD root necrosis, the overall yield benefit arising from using CS when compared to FSS was 135%. The average estimated income gain for this increase was US$ 2279/ha, which is many times the estimated cost of obtaining certified seed. These results highlight the value of high quality seed systems and the potential gains that farmers can realize from planting high quality certified seed rather than recycling existing crops.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Crop Protection
Crop Protection 农林科学-农艺学
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
3.60%
发文量
200
审稿时长
29 days
期刊介绍: The Editors of Crop Protection especially welcome papers describing an interdisciplinary approach showing how different control strategies can be integrated into practical pest management programs, covering high and low input agricultural systems worldwide. Crop Protection particularly emphasizes the practical aspects of control in the field and for protected crops, and includes work which may lead in the near future to more effective control. The journal does not duplicate the many existing excellent biological science journals, which deal mainly with the more fundamental aspects of plant pathology, applied zoology and weed science. Crop Protection covers all practical aspects of pest, disease and weed control, including the following topics: -Abiotic damage- Agronomic control methods- Assessment of pest and disease damage- Molecular methods for the detection and assessment of pests and diseases- Biological control- Biorational pesticides- Control of animal pests of world crops- Control of diseases of crop plants caused by microorganisms- Control of weeds and integrated management- Economic considerations- Effects of plant growth regulators- Environmental benefits of reduced pesticide use- Environmental effects of pesticides- Epidemiology of pests and diseases in relation to control- GM Crops, and genetic engineering applications- Importance and control of postharvest crop losses- Integrated control- Interrelationships and compatibility among different control strategies- Invasive species as they relate to implications for crop protection- Pesticide application methods- Pest management- Phytobiomes for pest and disease control- Resistance management- Sampling and monitoring schemes for diseases, nematodes, pests and weeds.
期刊最新文献
Sustainable management of blister and grey blight diseases of tea using antagonistic and plant growth promoting microbes in Western Ghats of India Selectivity of pre-emergent herbicides in cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) and its relationship with the stem cutting planting system Fusarium graminearum causes leaf spot disease in Nicandra physalodes in China Evaluation of endemic entomopathogenic nematodes for managing Colorado potato beetle and tuber-damaging pests in potato First report of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides causing severe anthracnose on Parthenocissus tricuspidata in China
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1