AUDPCArea Under the Disease Progress Curve
References in periodicals archive ?
While the efficacy of the selected BCAs as a mixture or single application to reduce Ganoderma disease symptoms was expressed as the percentage of DR derived from the values of AUDPC (Table 2).
05) between the treatments for the variables severity and AUDPC (Figure 1; Table 2).
Considerable variations were observed in AUDPC in four different dates of sowing and correlation with weather factors on disease development.
Hence, as per our findings, lines showing low frequency of disease severity with lower AUDPC values could be considered as slow rusting lines carrying durable rust resistance against Lr34, Lr46 and Sr2 virulences, which can be utilized in breeding programs.
Considering the factor application scheme in the regular season experiment, the treatments with fungicide application showed higher HLAD and lower AUDPC and OS (Table 2).
AUDPC was then computed for each plot according to the formula given by Bjarko and Line (1988):
In order to allow comparison between different treatments that were assessed during different periods of time, the AUDPC integral variable was divided by its respective observation period (ti+1 - ti), thus AUDPC was the standard area under the chickpea wilt incidence progress curve and interpreted as the mean incidence of disease (Shaner and Finney, 1977).
The disease assessments (TLCVD incidence) over specific periods of time interval (weekly) recorded during the experiment (2012 and 2013) were interpreted according to the above mentioned formula and the AUDPC of TLCVD for each variety/line was calculated during both the years.
In the AUDPC individual analysis of each system (Table 2), the best results within the conventional system (CO) were CFFH for bloom (~193) and flowering (~327) and CFF for fruits (<30mm) (~382), where as the CFH management presented the highest AUDPC on the three phenological states, but it did not differ significanttly from the CF on the flowering and CFF on the fruits (<30mm), however it was significantly diffrent from the CFFH for flowering and fruits (<30mm).