2017
DOI: 10.1590/0103-8478cr20160923
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Standard area diagram set for olive leaf spot assessment

Abstract: The establishment of olive (Olea europaea) orchards in Brazil is increasing due to their economic potential and benefits to human health. However, a number of limiting factors need to be overcome, such as Olive Leaf Spot (OLS) occurrence, for olives to reach their full potential. OLS, which is caused by Fusicladium oleaginum, results in defoliation and a reduction in fruit production. This study aimed to develop a standard area diagram set (SAD) for the assessment of OLS severity under humid subtropical climat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 12 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The LCCC (ρ c ) combines elements of accuracy and precision in order to determine the agreement between estimated and actual values (Lin, 1989) and has been used with great success in recent studies of SADs validation (Schwanck & Del Ponte, 2014, Braido et al, 2015, Dolinski et al, 2017, Sachet et al, 2017. The LCCC confirmed the previously presented results, demonstrating that the accuracy and precision of the raters were improved when aided by the SADs in comparison to the non-aided evaluations (Table 4).…”
Section: /9supporting
confidence: 68%
“…The LCCC (ρ c ) combines elements of accuracy and precision in order to determine the agreement between estimated and actual values (Lin, 1989) and has been used with great success in recent studies of SADs validation (Schwanck & Del Ponte, 2014, Braido et al, 2015, Dolinski et al, 2017, Sachet et al, 2017. The LCCC confirmed the previously presented results, demonstrating that the accuracy and precision of the raters were improved when aided by the SADs in comparison to the non-aided evaluations (Table 4).…”
Section: /9supporting
confidence: 68%