Assessing fungicide in-furrow applications in soybean

Transcription

1 Assessing fungicide in-furrow applications in soybean Tim Hampton, CCA March 4, 2015 DD.MM.YYYY INTERNAL 1

2 Background Livermore, McLean County, KY 2

3 Family Amanda, Mallory (6), Jake (3) 3

4 Education and Work Experience B.S. Agriculture, Western Kentucky University, 1998 Pioneer Hi-Bred International Sales Assistant, Western Kentucky Research Associate, Hamel, IL & West Memphis, AR Waters Agricultural Laboratories Manager, Owensboro, KY Peabody Energy Reclamation Specialist, Evansville, IN Crop Production Services Seed/Chemical Marketing Manager, Henderson, KY BASF Innovation Specialist, Kentucky, 2013-present 4

5 Interests No-till farming practices Fifty years ago, Christian County farmer Harry Young Jr. planted the nation s first commercial no-till crop acres of corn. It changed agriculture forever (UK AgNews, 2012). 70% of the wheat, 50% of the corn, and 80% of the soybean acres planted in Kentucky are no-till (Pratt, UK). No-till soybeans produce equivalent yields with good management compared to conventional soybeans. Weed control strategies in no-tillage wheat begin in the fall and continue through early spring. 5

6 Introduction Fungicides control plant disease by preventing pathogen development. Asian soybean rust first confirmed in the U.S Soybean growers implemented fungicides into their crop plans to prevent ASR. R3 growth stage determined to be the highest yielding time of application. Yield increases in the absence of disease. Other effects on soybean yield in addition to protection from plant diseases. Fungicide use grew from <1% in 2002 to 11% in

7 Introduction Soybean diseases in Kentucky Septoria brown spot (Septoria glycines) Up to 15% yield loss can be realized. Causes soybean to defoliate prematurely. Infects lower canopy, moves up through upper canopy (warm, wet weather is favorable). Can be visible on leaves, pods, and stems. 7

8 Introduction Soybean diseases in Kentucky Anthracnose (Colletotrichum truncatum) Large potential for yield loss (16-26%). Infects leaves, pods, and stems. Symptoms are not visible during growing season. Soybeans susceptible to infection at all stages of development. 8

9 Introduction Soybean diseases in Kentucky Frogeye Leaf Spot (Cercospora sojina) yield loss averaged 7.8% in TN. Potential for 30 50% loss during warm/humid conditions with susceptible varieties. Resistance to strobilurin fungicides documented in 2010 (Lauderdale County, TN). 72% of fields sampled in KY found to be sensitive, 28% found to be resistant Lighter gray or tan discoloration in middle of the lesion. 9

10 Introduction Soil-borne diseases in soybean Soil-borne diseases: Rhizoctonia solani Fusarium solani f.sp. phaseoli Phytopthora sojae Genetic resistance available in some soy varieties - AG3832 PRR Resistance Rps1 c Pythium spp. Seed treatment offerings Broad spectrum (good control of several soil and seed-borne fungi) Trifloxystrobin (Trilex) Narrow spectrum (particular fungal groups i.e. Pythium and Phytopthora) Metalaxyl 10

11 Introduction Reasons why growers are implementing in-furrow applications: 1. Economic environment leans towards growers planting more soybeans. 2. Broadcast foliar applications do not protect the seed or seedling from soil-borne pathogens. 3. Negative impact on grain yield due to wheel-track damage from broadcast application. 11

12 Introduction In-furrow fungicide applications in other crops Cotton Higher germination % and less post-emergence loss when compared to seed treatment. Peanuts Azoxystrobin suppressed Aspergillus crown rot in early season. Sugarbeets Azoxystrobin Lower disease severity, increased % of healthy roots, and increased yields. Increased quality as recoverable sucrose was higher in treated vs untreated. Rhizoctonia solani - Damping off and root rot causes poor stands Copyright Tim Hampton, All rights reserved.

13 Objectives 1. To determine if in-furrow fungicide applications in soybean affect: a) Yield b) Plant/root mass c) Stand count d) Disease 2. To determine if in-furrow fungicide followed by a fungicide application at R3 growth stage affects: a) Yield b) Plant/root mass c) Disease 13

14 Materials and Methods Treatments and Experimental Design Randomized Complete Block Design In-furrow fungicide treatments 1. Quadris SC, Syngenta, (azoxystrobin) 2. Headline EC, BASF (pyraclostrobin) 3. Priaxor, BASF (pyraclostrobin + fluxapyroxad) In-furrow fungicide treatments followed by R3 app 1. Headline EC fb Priaxor 2. Priaxor fb Priaxor ANOVA method via ARM to determine significance of treatments on soybean yield. Mean differences assessed at the P = 0.05 probability level (Duncan s New MRT). Treatment Treatment Application Rate Rate Unit Number Name Description 1 Control 2 Headline 6 fl oz/a In-furrow 3 Quadris 6 fl oz/a In-furrow 4 Priaxor 4 fl oz/a In-furrow 5 Headline 6 fl oz/a In-furrow Priaxor 4 fl oz/a R3 6 Priaxor 4 fl oz/a In-furrow Priaxor 4 fl oz/a R3 Block Treatment

15 Materials and Methods - Treatments Experiment conducted in 2013 Planted in four row plots 30 inch row width, 25 ft. row length Data collected in middle two rows Pioneer 94Y70 untreated variety 140,000 seed/acre seeding rate Soil type Grenada silt loam (GrA, 0-2% slope) Murray State University farm Murray, KY Planted June 21, no-till, soy-soy rotation 15

16 Materials and Methods In-furrow fungicide applied through the starter fertilizer system. Water was 4 gpa Foliar fungicide applied at R3 15 gpa via CO2 backpack sprayer 16

17 Materials and Methods Data Collection Stand counts taken at V2 Plants counted in 17 feet 5 inch length of row 1/1000 th of an acre in 30 inch row width Plant samples taken at R4 Whole plants extracted from soil via hand shovel Roots washed of soil Roots cutoff from plant at the soil line Root, as well as plant, samples taken to local lab for dry weight analysis 17

18 Materials and Methods Data Collection R6 growth stage Septoria brown spot disease ratings (lower & upper canopy) Severity visually determined and rated using a 1 9 scale 1 = no disease, 9 = most disease 18

19 Materials and Methods Data Collection R8 growth stage. A leaf defoliation measurement can be considered a plant health benefit. Leaf defoliation is an indicator of plant maturity. A delay in maturity could result in increased yields. Percent defoliation was determined. Untreated plots were used as a comparison to evaluate. Center two rows were given a visual rating compared to the control. Values given as a percentage of defoliation. 19

20 Materials and Methods Data Collection Anthracnose ratings. 6 days prior to harvest (full maturity). Center two rows were visually evaluated. Compared to the control. Rated on a 1 to 9 scale (1 = best, 9 = worst). 20

21 Materials and Methods Data Collection Center two rows were harvested. Grain weight was recorded. Grain samples. Dickey John mini-gac grain tester. Moisture. Yield hand calculated. Factored to 13% moisture. Grain Yield = (100-moisture) x (lbs. of grain) x ( ) / (Row length in feet) / (Row width in inches) / (Number of rows). 21

22 Results and Discussion Stand Count Root Mass Plant Mass Anthracnose Septoria brown spot Defoliation percentage Yield Return on Investment Lower canopy Upper canopy 22

23 Results and Discussion a All fungicide in-furrow treatments had a significant increase in plant stand compared to the control. b Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, Duncan's New MRT) 23

24 Results and Discussion Root/Plant Mass Sequential applications resulted in significantly more root mass than the control. However, sequential applications were not significantly different, in root mass, than the IF treatments of Headline and Priaxor alone. No significant differences found in in-furrow alone vs control in root mass. Headline IF fb Priaxor R3 significantly increased plant mass vs the control, but not significantly different than the other treatments. Grams dry weight Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, Duncan's New MRT) 24

25 Results and Discussion There is a trend of the more root/plant mass, the more soybean yield produced Greater total dry matter production increases seed number per plant during the seed set period (Vega et al., 2001) 25

26 Results and Discussion Disease ratings Treatment Rate fl oz/ acre Anthracnose (1 9) Septoria brown spot (1 9) Lower Canopy Upper Canopy Priaxor IF Priaxor R d 2.0 d 1.0 c Headline IF Priaxor R cd 4.3 c 2.2 c Priaxor IF bc 5.7 bc 2.7 bc Headline IF bc 6.3 ab 4.5 ab Quadris IF a 7.8 a 5.5 a Control a 7.8 a 5.5 a Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, Duncan's New MRT) 26

27 Results and Discussion Defoliation percentage Treatment Rate fl oz/ acre Percent Defoliation % Both IF + R3 applications had significantly less defoliation than the IF alone and the control Priaxor IF Priaxor R3 Headline IF Priaxor R b 83.3 b Priaxor IF a Headline IF a Quadris IF a Control a It has been suggested that an increase in nitrogen input during rapid seed development may be achieved by extending the exponential phase of nitrogen fixation or by increasing the proportion of photosynthate allocated to support nitrogen fixation. Another way to increase nitrogen fixation would be to maintain photosynthetically active leaves throughout reproductive growth. Maintaining photosynthesis and nitrogen assimilation during a long reproductive period may be crucial for increasing soybean yields (Abu-Shakra et al., 1978). Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, Duncan's New MRT) 27

28 Results and Discussion - YIELD Treatment Priaxor IF Priaxor R3 Headline IF Priaxor R3 Rate fl oz/ acre Grain Yield Bu/acre 64.0 a 63.6 a Priaxor IF ab Headline IF ab Quadris IF b Control b Means followed by same letter do not significantly differ (P=.05, Duncan's New MRT) 28

29 Results and Discussion Return on Investment (2013) Treatment Treatment Name Application Code Treatment Rate fl oz/a Grain Yield Bu acre -1 Gross Income $ acre -1 Application Cost $ acre -1 Return on Investment $ acre -1 1 Control $ $ Headline EC A $ $14.06 $ Quadris A $ $14.53 $ Priaxor A $ $14.68 $ Headline EC Priaxor Priaxor Priaxor Based on December 2013 KY soybean price of $13.20 (United States Department of Agriculture, 2014b). Based on Headline EC $300 gallon, Quadris $310 gallon, Priaxor $470 gallon. Application code: A in-furrow application; B post-emergence application at R3. A B A B $ $28.74 $ $ $29.36 $

30 Results and Discussion Return on Investment (Projected 2015) Treatment Treatment Name Application Code Treatment Rate fl oz/a Grain Yield Bu acre -1 Gross Income $ acre -1 Application Cost $ acre -1 Return on Investment $ acre -1 1 Control $ $ Headline EC A $ $15.00 $ Quadris A $ $11.72 $ Priaxor A $ $11.41 $ Headline EC Priaxor A B $ $26.41 $ Priaxor Priaxor A B $ $22.82 $ Based on 2015 Projected U.S. crop insurance floor soybean price $9.73/bu (Reuters, Feb. 27, 2015). Based on Headline EC $320 gallon, Quadris $250 gallon, Priaxor $365 gallon. Application code: A in-furrow application; B post-emergence application at R3. 30

31 Conclusion Significant decreases: Headline & Priaxor in-furrow, as well as in-furrow + R3, resulted in less anthracnose compared to control. Priaxor in-furrow + Priaxor R3 resulted in less Septoria brown spot, in lower canopy, compared to all treatments. Priaxor was the only in-furrow alone treatment that showed significance vs control. Both sequential fungicide treatments resulted in delayed senescence compared to all in-furrow only treatments and control. 31

32 Conclusion Significant increases: Fungicide in-furrow + R3 produced more grain yield compared to control. Improved stand count with an application of fungicide in-furrow (all fungicide treatments). The relationship between stand count and soybean grain yield in this study does not correlate with the findings of Pedersen and Lauer (2002). Authors concluded an absence of significant interaction between grain yield and plant population and that soybean performed as well at the lowest (119,109 plants/ac) as at the highest plant population (209,919 plant/ac). Both sequential fungicide treatments resulted in more root mass development than the control and Quadris in-furrow treatment. Headline IF fb Priaxor R3 increased plant mass vs the control, but not significantly different than the other treatments Projected ROI over the control Priaxor IF = $46.39, Priaxor IF + R3 = $93.65 Potential net income for 1,000 ac. soy grower, Priaxor IF = $46,090, Priaxor IF + Priaxor R3 = $93,050 32

33 Acknowledgments Major Professor Dr. Allan Ciha Program of Study Committee Dr. Thomas Loynachan, Dr. Kenneth Moore Program Coordinator Dawn Miller M.S. Agronomy Faculty & Staff Mentor Dr. Melvin Newman, Professor Emeritus, Entomology & Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee BASF team Dr. Greg Stapleton, Rocky Napier 33

34 Questions?