# fungicide_meta_analysis Meta-analysis of the effects of fungicide to control soybean rust in the southeastern US This README.txt file was generated on 20170124 by A.A. ArchMiller ------------------- GENERAL INFORMATION ------------------- 1. COMPLETE DATA AND ANALYSIS for: Delaney, M.; ArchMiller, A.A.; Delaney, D.P.; Wilson, A.E.; Sikora, E.J. Effectiveness of Fungicide on Soybean Rust in the Southeastern United States: A Meta-Analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061784 2. Author Information Principal Data Contact Information A.A. ArchMiller Department of Fish, Wildlife, & Cons Bio; University of Minnesota; 135 Skok Hall; 2003 Upper Buford Circle; Saint Paul 55108 Email: althea.archmiller@gmail.com Manuscript Corresponding Author Contact Information Mary Delaney Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Auburn University, AL 36849 USA Email: delanma@auburn.edu 3. Date of data collection: Soybean rust fungicide evaluations from 2008 through 2014, compiled in 2015 4. Geographic location of data: Southeastern United States 5. Information about funding sources that supported the collection of the data: none -------------------------- SHARING/ACCESS INFORMATION -------------------------- 1. Licenses/restrictions placed on the data: none 2. Links to publications that cite or use the data: Delaney, M.; ArchMiller, A.A.; Delaney, D.P.; Wilson, A.E.; Sikora, E.J. Effectiveness of Fungicide on Soybean Rust in the Southeastern United States: A Meta-Analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1784.https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061784 3. Links to other publicly accessible locations of the data: https://github.com/aaarchmiller/fungicide_meta_analysis 4. Links/relationships to ancillary data sets: Data derived from primary literature sources, see below. 5. Was data derived from another source? References used for meta analysis: Allen, T.W. 2011a. Evaluation of foliar fungicide applications to prevent yield loss from aerial web blight in Mississippi, 2010a. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 5:FC120. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR05. Allen, T. W. 2011b. Evaluation of foliar fungicide applications to prevent yield loss from aerial web blight in Mississippi, 2010b. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 5:FC119. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR05. Allen, T. W. 2013a. Evaluation of foliar fungicide application to prevent yield loss from aerial web blight in Mississippi, 2011a. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 7:FC135. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR07. Allen, T. W. 2013b. Evaluation of foliar fungicide application to prevent yield loss from aerial web blight in Mississippi, 2011b. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 7:FC134. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR07. Delaney, D. P., and Sikora E. J. 2009. Triazole fungicides for soybean rust. Unpublished data. Delaney D. P., and Sikora E. J. 2013a. Evaluation of foliar applications of triazoles for control of soybean rust, 2013. Unpublished data. Delaney D. P., and Sikora. E.J. 2013b. Large-scale fungicide trial Brewton, AL. 2013. Unpublished data. Delaney D. P., and Sikora, E. J. 2013c. Large-scale fungicide trial EV Smith, AL. 2013. Unpublished data. Delaney, D. P., and Sikora, E. J. 2013d. Large-scale fungicide trial GCREC, AL. 2013. Unpublished data. Delaney D. P., and Sikora, E. J. 2013e. Large-scale fungicide trial SMREC, AL 2013 Unpublished data. Delaney, D. P., Sikora, E.J. and Delaney, M. A. 2013a. Evaluation of fungicides for control of soybean rust. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 9:FC145. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR09. Delaney, D. P., Sikora, E. J., and Delaney, M. A. 2013b. Evaluation of fungicides for control of soybean rust and target spot, 2013. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 9:FC146. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR09. Delaney, D. P., Sikora, E. J., Lawrence, K., and Delaney, M. 2012. Evaluation of fungicides for control of Cercospora leaf blight of soybean. 2011. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR06. Delaney, D. P., Sikora, E. J., Lawrence, K., Delaney, M., Norris, B. E., and Harkins, D. 2011. Evaluation of fungicides for control of aerial web blight on soybean in Alabama, 2010. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR05. Delaney, D. P., Sikora, E.J., Lawrence, K.S., Norris, B. E., and Harkins, D. 2010. Strobilurin fungicide greening effects on soybeans at Belle Mina, 2010. Unpublished data. Delaney, D. P., Sikora, E. J., Lawrence, K. S., and Scott, S. 2010. Strobilurin fungicide greening effects on soybeans at Shorter, 2010. Unpublished data. Douglas, M. H., Obrien, G. K., Marois, J. J., and Wright, D. L. 2008. Evaluation of fungicides for the control of soybean rust at the NFREC, Quincy, FL, 2008. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 3:FC111. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR02. Douglas, M. H., Obrien, G. K., Marois, J. J., and Wright, D. L. 2008. Evaluation of Topguard fungicide for the control of soybean rust at the NFREC, Quincy, FL, 2008. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 3:FC113. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR02. Douglas, M. H., Obrien, G. K., Marois, J. J., and Wright, D. L. 2009. Evaluation of fungicides for the control of soybean rust at the NFREC, Quincy, FL, 2009. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 4:FC026. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR03. Harmon P. F., Semer, C. R., Harmon, C.L., and McGovern, R.J. 2006. Evaluation of fungicides and Roundup for control of Asian soybean rust in Florida, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 1:FC034 Online publication. doi: 10.1094/FN61. Kemerait. E. C., Jost, P. H., and Sconyers, L. E. 2005. Evaluation of fungicides for control of Asian soybean rust in Lang Farm (Trial 1), Georgia, 2005. Fungicide and Nematicide Tests Vol 61:074. Kemerait, Jr., R. C., and Sconyers, L. E. 2006. Evaluation of fungicides for control of Asian soybean rust in Moultrie (Trial 1-SSDW Study), Georgia, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 1:FC081. Online publication. doi 10.1094/FN61. Kemerait, Jr., R. C., Sconyers, L. E., and Jost, P. H. 2006. Evaluation of fungicides for control of Asian soybean rust in Tifton (RDC Trial), Georgia, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 1:FC083. Online publication. doi 10.1094/FN61. Kemerait, Jr., R. C.,Sconyers, L. E., Jost, P. H., and Mills, W. A. 2006. Evaluation of fungicides for control of Asian soybean rust in Attapulgus (Trial 3-CerexAgri-Nisso), Georgia. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 1:FC015. Online publication. doi:10/1094/FN61. Kemerait, Jr., R. C., Sconyers, L. E., Jost, P. H., and Mills, W. A. 2006. Evaluation of fungicides for control of Asian soybean rust in Attapulgus (Valent Trial), Georgia, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 1:FC084. Online publication. doi 10.1094/FN61. Kemerait, Jr., R. C., Sconyers, L. E., and Mills, W. A. 2006. Evaluation of fungicides for control of Asian soybean rust in Attapulgus (Trial 2-Dow), Georgia, 2006.Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 1:FC082. Online publication. doi 10.1094/FN61. Lawrence, K. S., Delaney, M. A., Sikora, E. J., Delaney, D. P., Lawrence G. W., and Pegues, M. 2006. Efficacy of foliar fungicides Punch and Charisma for Asian soybean rust disease management and yield enhancement in Alabama, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 1:FC042. Online publication. doi 10.1094/FN61. Lawrence, K. S., Delaney, M. A., Sikora, E. J., Delaney, D. P., Lawrence, G.W., and Pegues, M. 2007. Evaluation of Absolute, Folicur and Stratego on Asian soybean rust and yield in Alabama, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 1:FC078. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR01. Lawrence, K. S., Delaney, M. A., Sikora, E. J., Delaney, D. P., Lawrence, G.W., and Pegues, M. 2007. Evaluation of selected fungicides for Asian soybean rust management and yield enhancement in Alabama, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 1:FC079. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR01. Lawrence, K. S., Sikora, E. J., Delaney, D. P., and Lawrence, G. W. 2013. Evaluation of Aproach Prima for control of soybean rust in south Alabama, 2013. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 8:FC224. Online publication. doi 10.1094/PDMR07. Lawrence, K. S., Sikora, E. J., Delaney, D. P, Lawrence, G. W., and Pegues, M. 2009. Evaluation of foliar fungicides for soybean rust management and yield in Alabama, 2008. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 3:FC029. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR03. Lawrence, K. S., Sikora, E. J., Delaney, D. P., and Nightengale, S. P. 2006. Evaluation of Absolute, Folicur and Stratego on soybean foliar disease and yield in Alabama, 2005. F&N Tests Vol 61:FC030. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/FN61. Lawrence, K. S., Sikora, E. J., Delaney, D. P., and Nightengale, S. P. 2006. Evaluation of Punch, Charisma, Folicur, and Manzate on soybean foliar disease and yield in Alabama, 2005. Fungicide and Nematicide Tests 61:FC029. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/FN61. Lawrence, K.S., Sikora, E. J., Delaney, D. P., and Pegues, M. 2007. Evaluation of LEM17, Punch, and Headline for soybean rust management and yield in Alabama, 2007. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2:FC052. Online publication. doi 10.1094/PDMR01. Lawrence, K. S., Sikora, E. J., Delaney, D. P., and Pegues, M. 2007. Evaluation of Topsin, Headline Tebuzol and ACT Plus on soybean rust and yield in Alabama, 2007. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2:FC053. Online publication. doi 10.1094/PDMR01. Lawrence, K.S., Sikora, E. J., Delaney, D. P., and Pegues, M. 2008. Evaluation of Topsin on soybean rust and yield in Alabama, 2007. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2:FC053. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR02. Lawrence, K. S., Sikora, E. J., Delaney, D. P., and Pegues, M. 2008. Soybean rust fungicide disease management and yield affects in Alabama, 2008. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 3:FC028. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR03. Mueller, T. A., Marois, J. J., and Wright, D. L. 2008a. Evaluation of Roundup Weathermax as a fungicide for the management of soybean rust at the NFREC, Quincy, FL, 2007. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2:FC017. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR02. Mueller, T.A., Marois, J. J., and Wright, D. L. 2008b. Soybean rust control using single fungicide application at Quincy, FL 2007. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2:FC023. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR02. Mueller, T. A., Miles, M. R., and Hartman, G. L. 2008. Evaluations of fungicides and fungicide timing for the control of soybean rust, Attapulgus, GA, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2:FC044. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR02. Mueller, T. A., Miles, M. R., Hartman, G. L., O’Brien, G. K., Marois, J. J., and Wright, D. L. 2008. Evaluations of fungicides and fungicide timing for the control of soybean rust in northwest Florida, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2:FC086. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR02. Mueller, T. A., O’Brien, G. K., Marois, J. J., and Wright, D. L. 2006. Evaluation of Cheminova fungicides for the management of soybean rust in northwest Florida, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2:FC044. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/FN06. Mueller, T. A., O’Brien, G. K., Marois, J. J., and Wright, D. L. 2006. Evaluation of fungicides and adjuvants for the control of soybean rust in northwest Florida, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2:FC085. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/FN06. Mueller, T. A., Obrien, G. K., Marois, J. J., and Wright D. L. 2008. Evaluation of Cerexagri fungicides for the management of soybean rust in northwest Florida, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2:FC089. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR02. Mueller, T. A., Obrien, G. K., Marois, J. J., and Wright D. L. 2008. Evaluation of Dow fungicides for the management of soybean rust in northwest Florida, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2:FC088. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR02. Mueller, T. A., Obrien, G. K., Marois, J. J., and Wright D. L. 2008. Evaluation of fungicides for the control of soybean rust in northwest Florida, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2:FC087. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR02. Mueller, T. A., Obrien, G. K., Marois, J. J., and Wright D. L. 2008. Evaluation of Valent fungicides for the management of soybean rust in northwest Florida, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2:FC090. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR02. O’Brien, G. K., Douglas, M. H., Marois, J. J., and Wright, D. L. 2013. Evaluation of fungicides for the control of soybean rust at the NFREC, Quincy, FL, 2012. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 7:FC054. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR07. O'Brien, G. K., George, S., Douglas, M. H., Marois, J. J., and Wright, D. L. 2013. Evaluation of fungicides for the control of soybean rust at the NFREC, Quincy, FL, 2013. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 8:FC208. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR07. Padgett, G. B., Price, J. L., Hague, S., and Coco, A. B. 2001. The effect of fungicides on late season diseases of soybean, 2000. Fungicide and Nematicide Tests 56:FC66. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/FN56. Padgett, G. B., and Purvis, M. A. 2005a. Selected fungicide rates and timings for managing Cercospora foliar blight, 2005. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 61:FC043. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/FN60. Padgett, G. B., and Purvis, M. A. 2005b. Selected fungicide rates and timings for managing Cercospora foliar blight and purple seed stain, 2005. F&N Vol 61:044. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR07. Padgett, G. B., and Purvis, M. A. 2007. Selected fungicide treatment for managing soybean rust and Cercospora foliar blight, 2007. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2:FC046. Price, P., Padgett, G. B., and Purvis, M. A. 2013. The effect of selected fungicides, application rates, and application timings to soybean, 2012. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 7:FC055. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR07. Schneider, R. W., Robertson, C. L., Giles, C. G., Mumma, E. P., Boudreaux J. M.., and Griffin, J. L. 2006 Evaluations of various fungicides for the control of Asian Soybean rust, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 1:FC112. doi 10.1094/FN61. Sikora, E. J., Delaney, M. A., and Delaney, D. P. 2013a. Evaluation of foliar applications of FORTIX for control of soybean rust, 2013. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 9:FC144. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR09. Sikora, E. J., Delaney, M. A., and Delaney, D. P. 2013b. Evaluation of foliar applications of Topguard SC for control of soybean rust, 2013. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 9:FC141. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR09. Sikora, E. J., Delaney, D. P., Delaney, M. A., Lawrence, K. S., and Pegues, M. 2009. Evaluation of sequential fungicide spray programs for control of soybean rust. Plant Health Progress, 2: Apr 2009. Sikora, E. J., Delaney, M. A., Delaney, D. P., and Pegues, M. 2008. Evaluation of Tebuzol to control Asian soybean rust and target spot in Alabama, 2007. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2:FC110. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR02. Sikora, E. J., Lawrence, K., Delaney, M., and Delaney, D. P. 2012. Evaluation of Domark, Topguard and Topsin Xtra for control of Cercospora leaf blight on soybean, 2011. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 6:FC068. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR06. Sikora, E. J., Lawrence, K., Delaney, M., and Delaney, D. P. 2006. Evaluation of fungicide spray programs for Asian soybean rust, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2:FC111. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/FN61. Sikora, E. J., Lawrence, K., Delaney, M., Delaney, D. P., and Pegues, M. 2008. Evaluation of fungicides for control of Asian soybean rust and target spot in Alabama, 2006. Plant Dis. Manag. Rep. 2:FC109. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/PDMR02. Sikora, E. J., Lawrence, K. S., Gutierrez-Estrada, A. Delaney. D. P., and Durbin, R. M.. 2005. Evaluation of Ballad for control of foliar diseases of soybean in Alabama, 2005. Fungicide and Nematicide Tests. 61:FC031. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/FN61. Sikora, E. J., Lawrence, K. S., Gutierrez-Estrada, A., Delaney, D. P., and Pegues, M. 2005. Evaluation of fungicide spray programs for Asian Soybean Rust in Alabama, 2005. F&N Tests Vol 61:FC032. Online publication. doi: 10.1094/FN60. 6. Recommended citation for the data: ArchMiller, Althea A; Delaney, Mary A; Delaney, Dennis P; Wilson, Alan E; Sikora, Edward J. (2016). Complete Data and Analysis for: Fungicide Effectiveness on Soybean Rust in the Southeastern United States 2004-2014: A Meta-Analysis. Retrieved from the Data Repository for the University of Minnesota, http://doi.org/10.13020/D62P4F. --------------------- DATA & FILE OVERVIEW --------------------- 1. File List A. data_processing.html Code used to take the raw data and clean it up, make moderator variable names consistent, and calculate the effect sizes for each study B. data_analysis_bootstrap_rust.html Code used to for meta-analysis of soybean rust severity. Specifically, calculating mean effect sizes using cluster-level bootstrapping. C. data_analysis_bootstrap_yield.html Code used to for meta-analysis of yield. Specifically, calculating mean effect sizes using cluster-level bootstrapping. D. data_analysis_bootstrap_seedwt.html Code used to for meta-analysis of 100-seed-weight. Specifically, calculating mean effect sizes using cluster-level bootstrapping. E. results_processing.html Code that takes the results of the bootstrapped meta-analysis and prepares it for plotting. Also, displays data used in the manuscript results. F. results_plotting.html Program (code, comments, and output figures) used to create the graphs used in the manuscript. G. workspace.csv This is the data that is read into the R program "data_processing.R," where it is further processed for analysis. The final, cleaned data used in the rust, yield, and seed-weight analyses can be found in items H, I, and J, below, respectively. H. rust_data_cleaned.csv This is the data that is used in the rust severity bootstrapping analysis. It is based off of the workspace.csv data, but it has been cleaned with data_processing program. I. yield_data_cleaned.csv This is the data that is used in the yield bootstrapping analysis. It is based off of the workspace.csv data, but it has been cleaned with data_processing program. J. seedwt_data_cleaned.csv This is the data that is used in the 100-seed-weight bootstrapping analysis. It is based off of the workspace.csv data, but it has been cleaned with data_processing program. K. publication_summary.csv This is a summary table of all publications/studies used in the meta-analysis. (Used as Table 1 in the manuscript) L. Rscripts.zip This is the zipped .R files that contain the R programs for analysis and graphing. 2. Relationship between files: The raw data (“workspace.csv”) is read into "data_processing.html” program and made ready (and saved) for analysis of XXX (where XXX is either rust severity, yield, or 100-seed-weight) in "data_analysis_bootstrap_XXX.html.” The analysis results are read into “results_processing.html” where results are combined and made into a format for graphing. Then, the cleaned results are read into “result_graphing.html” where figures for the publication are produced. The Rscripts.zip contains all the R codes and they are saved in the .R files. The R codes were written in R-oxygen, which were converted to .Rmd files then to the html files in this dataset. 3. Additional related data collected that was not included in the current data package: NA 4. Are there multiple versions of the dataset? No, just this final version used in analysis (which is duplicated here and at https://github.com/aaarchmiller/fungicide_meta_analysis) -------------------------- METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION -------------------------- 1. Description of methods used for collection/generation of data: We identified fungicide trials conducted on soybean for the control of SBR by performing a search of Plant Disease Management Reports (PDMRs), Fungicide and Nematicide Tests (FNTs), and other related review articles from January 2005 to July 2014. We also included data from unpublished fungicide trials that were conducted in Alabama during the 2009, 2010, and 2013 growing seasons (Dennis Delaney, personal communication) (Table 1). Inclusion criteria required that the articles be primary, replicated studies that used foliar application of fungicide with a minimum of three replications in addition to a control treatment (i.e., no fungicide application). We also limited the time period of studies from 2005 (the first full year SBR was present in the U.S.) through 2014 and geographical range to five southeastern states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi) where significant yield losses from SBR have been observed in commercial fields and research plots (Allen et al. 2014). We recorded data from each study that met the inclusion criteria above, and the final meta-analysis reference list is given in Table 1. For each study, we recorded a unique study ID, study location (state), fungicide trade name, active ingredients (Table 2), fungicide class (Table 2), number of applications (Table 3), growth stage of the soybean plants at each application (Table 3), study year (Table 3), number of experimental replicates, amount of fungicide applied (Table 2), and mean SBR severity, yield, and 100-seed-weight in treated and control plants. When applicable, we converted yield from bushels per acre to kg ha-1 for analysis. The level of SBR infection at the time of fungicide application was not reported in any of the fungicide trials; however we used mean SBR severity from the untreated control plants as checks to quantify the degree to which disease pressure was present (Table 3). After collecting data, we further excluded data from any studies that did not report SBR severity or where the mean severity in untreated control plants was <5% following Scherm et al. (2009) (Table 1). We only considered a moderator category for analysis when there were at least 15 entries from at least 5 different studies. 2. Methods for processing the data: First, the full raw data was subset to include only relevant fields needed for analysis. Secondly, moderator categorical variables and names were standardized. When there were less than 5 effect sizes for a particular moderator category, those records were included in the "other" category. After these steps, data was subset into five separate files, including one dataset each for the soybean rust data; the yield data; the 100-seed-weight data; the Cercospora blight data and the target spot data. Disease severity was either reported directly in percentages or on varying scales, so we transformed all disease severity scales into percentages for consistent cross-study comparisons. Studies published with the 0-8 scale represented disease severity as follows: 0 to 1 = 0 to 2.5%, >1 to 2 = 2.5 to 5%, >2 to 3 = 5 to 10%, >3 to 4 = 10-15%, >4 to 5 = 15 to 25%, >5 to 6 = 25 to 35%, >6 to 7 = 35 to 67.5%, and >7 to 8 = 67.5 to 100% (e.g., see meta-analysis reference Sikora, and Delaney 2013a). Studies that published SBR values on the 0-10 scale represented disease severity as follows: 1 to 3 = 0 to 2.5%, >3 to 4 = 2.5 to 5%, >4 to 5 = 5 to 10%, >5 to 6 = 10-15%, >6 to 7 = 15 to 25%, >7 to 8 = 25 to 35%, >8 to 9 = 35 to 67.5%, >9 to 10 = 67.5 to 100% (e.g., see meta-analysis reference Padgett and Purvis 2005b). We imputed disease severity as a percentage based on a constant rate of change between scalar values (Shah and Dillard 2006). For instance, if mean SBR severity was given as 4.5 out of 10, we calculated the SBR severity in percentage form as 7.5% (i.e., 0.5 of the distance between a value of 4 and a value of 5). All the steps for data processing are in the R program "data_processing.html.” All data analyses were conducted with the package, metafor, in R. We calculated the log response ratio from each treatment-specific entry i from each study as:ln⁡(R) =ln⁡(yt/yc), where yt is the mean value from the treated plants and yc is the mean value from the control plants. If a treatment mean SBR severity was 0, we converted it to 0.0001; however, we only included data when the control mean SBR severity was ≥5%. All meta-analyses entries were weighted by the level of disease pressure as defined by the mean SBR severity from untreated control plants. We analyzed mean log response ratios using random-effects models with a Restricted Maximized Likelihood Estimator and evaluated overall means and 95% confidence intervals with cluster-level (i.e., study-level) bootstrapping. 3. Instrument- or software-specific information needed to interpret the data: Program R (Full details of R session information including the packages used are available at the bottom of each output html file) 4. Standards and calibration information, if appropriate: NA 5. Environmental/experimental conditions: NA 6. Describe any quality-assurance procedures performed on the data: Data has been extensively cross-referenced and checked for quality control and assurance. 7. People involved with sample collection, processing, analysis and/or submission: M.A. Delaney recorded the data from the publications used in the meta-analysis; A.A. ArchMiller conducted the data processing, data analysis, and data QA/QC. ----------------------------------------- DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: workspace.csv ----------------------------------------- 1. Number of variables: 48 2. Number of cases/rows: 569 3. Missing data codes: NA Data was not available in the corresponding publication for that variable 4. Variable List A. FID: Unique number for each record B. Reference: Short identifier for each reference C. ReferenceNumb: Unique number for each reference (cross-references with ReferenceNumb in publication_summary.csv) D. studyYear: Year in which study was conducted E. State: State in which study was conducted F. location: Specific study location (e.g., research station) NFREC = North Florida Research & Education Center, Quincy, FL GCREC = Gulf Coast Research & Education Center, Wimauma, FL EV Smith or EVS or EVSREC = Auburn University E.V. Smith Research Center, Shorter, AL TVREC or TVRREC = Tennessee Valley Research & Education Center, Tennessee River, AL Noxubee Co = Noxubee County, MS Clay Co = Clay County, MS ARC or ATC = Attapulgus Research and Education Center, Attapulgus, GA bhrs = Ben Hur Research Station, Baton Rouge, LA Brewton = Auburn University Brewton Agricultural Research Unit, Brewton, AL CPES = University of Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA DLRS = Dean Lee Research Station, Alexandria, AL ifas = Institute of Food and Agriculture as in: University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agriculture Plant Science Research and Education Unit, Citra, FL Lang farm = University of Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Lang Research Farm, Tifton, GA NRS = Northeast Research Station, Winnsboro, LA SAER = Sunbelt Ag Expo Research Farm, Moultrie, GA SMREC = Sand Mountain Research and Extension Center UGRF = University of Georgia Research Farm, Attapulgus, GA G. soil: Soil type at study location H. planted.date: Date the soybean plants were planted. In the 1900 date system, the first day that is supported is January 1, 1900. When you enter a date, the date is converted into a serial number that represents the number of elapsed days since January 1, 1900. For example, if you enter July 5, 1998, Excel converts the date to the serial number 35981. To convert to R date format in your data frame “df”, use: df$newplantdate <- as.Date(df$planted.date, origin=“1900-01-01”) I. Date.rust.first.appeared: The date that soybean rust was first detected. In the 1900 date system, the first day that is supported is January 1, 1900. When you enter a date, the date is converted into a serial number that represents the number of elapsed days since January 1, 1900. For example, if you enter July 5, 1998, Excel converts the date to the serial number 35981. To convert to R date format in your data frame “df”, use: df$newrustdate <- as.Date(df$Date.rust.first.appeared, origin=“1900-01-01”) J. Growth.stage.applied: The growth stage(s) during which fungicide was applied to the soybean plants: V : Vegetative R1 : Beginning Bloom R2 : Full Bloom R3 : Beginning Pod R4 : Full Pod R5 : Beginning Seed R6 : Full Seed R7 : Beginning Maturity R8 : Full Maturity K. applicationsNumb: The total number of fungicide applications L. trade.name: The specific fungicide name * "fb" means followed by (i.e., more than 1 application) * "+" means mixture M. active.ingredient: The specific fungicide active ingredient(s) * "fb" means followed by (i.e., more than 1 application) * "+" means mixture N. active.ingredient.coded: The coded identifier for each active ingredient * "fb" means followed by (i.e., more than 1 application) * "+" means mixture O. class: The specific fungicide class P. class.code: The specific fungicide class coded/abbreviated Q. amount: The amount of fungicide applied in either fluid oz per acre or pound per acre or volume percent (v/v or %). * "fb" means followed by (i.e., more than 1 application) * "+" or “,” means mixture of two quantities * “?” signifies when the amount of fungicide was not provided in the reference. R. stats: Experimental protocol. * In all cases, rcb = Randomized Complete Block S. replications: Number of replications for each treatment T. mean.sep: The significance level and statistical test used to test for mean separation between treatment and control U. rustSeverPerc: The mean percentage of rust severity for treated plants V. rustSeverPercLSD: Fisher's protected least significant difference for rust severity in percentage W. rustSeverPercCont: The mean percentage of rust severity for control plants X. rustSeverPercContLSD: Fisher's protected least significant difference for rust severity in percentage Y. rustSever1.8: Rust severity as measured on a scalar (usually from 1-8) for treated plants Z. rustSever1.8LSD: Fisher's protected least significant difference for rust severity as a scale AA. rustSever1.8Cont: Rust severity as measured on a scalar (usually from 1-8) for control plants AB. rustSever1.8ContLSD: Fisher's protected least significant difference for rust severity as a scale AC. Tsincidence: Mean target spot incidence rate for treated plants AD. TSincidenceLSD: Fisher's protected least significant difference for target spot incidence rate AE. TSincidenceCont: Mean target spot incidence rate for control plants AF. TSincidenceContLSD: Fisher's protected least significant difference for target spot incidence as a scale AG. Tsseverity: Mean target spot severity for treatment plants AH. TSseverityLSD: Fisher's protected least significant difference for target spot severity AI. TSseverityCont: Mean target spot severity for control plants AJ. TSseverityContLSD: Fisher's protected least significant difference for target spot severity AK. CercoSever: Mean Cercospora blight severity for treatment plants AL. CercoSeverLSD: Fisher's protected least significant difference for Cercospora severity AM. CercoSeverCont: Mean Cercospora blight severity for control plants AN. CercoSeverContLSD: Fisher's protected least significant difference for Cercospora severity AO. yield: Mean yield (bushels per hectare) of soybeans for treatment plants AP. yieldLSD: Fisher's protected least significant difference for yield (bushels per hectare) AQ. yieldCont: Mean yield (bushels per hectare) of soybeans for control plants AR. yieldContLSD: Fisher's protected least significant difference for yield (bushels per hectare) AS. seedWt: Mean 100-seed-weight (g) for soybean from treatment plants AT. seedWtLSD: Fisher's protected least significant difference for 100-seed-weight (g) AU. seedWtCont: Mean 100-seed-weight (g) for soybean from control plants AV. seedWtContLSD: Fisher's protected least significant difference for 100-seed-weight (g) ----------------------------------------- DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: XXX_data_cleaned_.csv where XXX is either “rust”, “yield” or “seedwt” ----------------------------------------- 1. Number of variables: varies (18 for rust_data_cleaned.csv; 19 for yield_ and seedwt_data_cleaned.csv) 2. Number of cases/rows: varies (320 for rust_data_cleaned.csv; 288 for yield_data_cleaned.csv; 144 for seedwt_data_cleaned.csv) 3. Missing data codes: NA Data was not available in the corresponding publication for that variable 4. Variable List for all variables that are identical across cleaned datasets A. FID: Unique number for each record B. Reference: Short identifier for each reference C. ReferenceNumb: Unique number for each reference (cross-references with ReferenceNumb in publication_summary.csv) D. studyYear: Year in which study was conducted E. State: State in which study was conducted F. location: Specific study location (e.g., research station) NFREC = North Florida Research & Education Center, Quincy, FL GCREC = Gulf Coast Research & Education Center, Wimauma, FL EV Smith or EVS or EVSREC = Auburn University E.V. Smith Research Center, Shorter, AL TVREC or TVRREC = Tennessee Valley Research & Education Center, Tennessee River, AL Noxubee Co = Noxubee County, MS Clay Co = Clay County, MS ARC or ATC = Attapulgus Research and Education Center, Attapulgus, GA bhrs = Ben Hur Research Station, Baton Rouge, LA Brewton = Auburn University Brewton Agricultural Research Unit, Brewton, AL CPES = University of Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA DLRS = Dean Lee Research Station, Alexandria, AL ifas = Institute of Food and Agriculture as in: University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agriculture Plant Science Research and Education Unit, Citra, FL Lang farm = University of Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Lang Research Farm, Tifton, GA NRS = Northeast Research Station, Winnsboro, LA SAER = Sunbelt Ag Expo Research Farm, Moultrie, GA SMREC = Sand Mountain Research and Extension Center UGRF = University of Georgia Research Farm, Attapulgus, GA G. m1i Mean value of effect size from the treated plants For yield_data_cleaned.csv, units are in kg per hectare For seedwt_data_cleaned.csv, units are in g For rust_data_cleaned.csv, units are in % H. m2i Mean value of the effect size from the control plants For yield_data_cleaned.csv, units are in kg per hectare For seedwt_data_cleaned.csv, units are in g For rust_data_cleaned.csv, units are in % I. n2i Sample size for control plants J. n1i Sample size for treated plants K. category_ai Category of active ingredient used for bootstrapping analysis L. category_class Category of fungicide class used for bootstrapping analysis M. category_rstage Category of growth stages used for bootstrapping analysis N. number_applications Number of the applications of fungicide for bootstrapping analysis O. category_pressure Category of rust severity pressure as measured from control plants for bootstrapping analysis P. category_year Year of the study as a character for bootstrapping analysis Q. yi Log response ratio of the mean from the treated plants over the mean of the control plants R. vi Variance as calculated with 1s as the individual standard deviations. Required for escalc() even though analysis with log response ratio does not use the variance estimate. 5. Variable List for variable included in yield_data_cleaned.csv and seedwt_data_cleaned.csv A. rust.m2i The severity of rust in control plants (%), used to weight the log response ratio during the bootstrapping analysis ----------------------------------------- DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: publication_summary.csv ----------------------------------------- 1. Number of variables: 7 2. Number of cases/rows: 61 3. Missing data codes: 4. Variable List A. Reference: Citation for each study used in the meta-analysis B. Type: PDMR Plant Disease Management Report PHP Plant Health Progress Journal FNT Fungicide & Nematicide Tests UP Unpublished studies C. Study Year Year in which the study was conducted D. State State in which the study was conducted E. n Number of experimental treatments (Effect sizes) derived from that study F. Used Whether the study was used in the analysis (“Yes”) or not (“No”) G. Reason Why the study was not used in the analysis when Used=No