Research to improve the management of barley leaf diseases

Transcription

1 The 8th Canadian Barley Symposium and The 22nd North merican Barley Researchers Workshop Research to improve the management of barley leaf diseases T.K. Turkington, K. Xi, J.T. O Donovan, K.N. Harker, B. Tidemann, B. Beres, R.E. Blackshaw, E.N. Johnson, G. Peng, H.R. Kutcher, W.E. May, R.M. Mohr, R.B. Irvine,. Foster, and R.. Martin

2 cknowledgements FC and F colleagues & technical staff lberta Barley, Western Grains Research Foundation, tlantic Grains Council FC Barley DIP/Cluster, Rahr Malting CBS NBRW 2017 Organizing Committee

3 The Four Horsemen of the Barley pocalypse Scald Net type net blotch Spot type net blotch Spot blotch

4 The producer Plant disease results from the interaction of a susceptible host, favourable environment, and the presence of a virulent pathogen in sufficient quantities Pathogen Host Disease Producer cropping practices can influence these factors and their interactions Environment

5 % leaf area diseased with net-form net blotch Test 65, B, 2013, Melfort, SK, Variety and % Leaf rea Diseased, Flag leaf 1 & 2, Soft Dough Stage Sundre (VS-S) Chigwell (MRMS) Vivar (MR-R) B B B B Flag leaf -1 Flag leaf -2 Note: No seed treatment No foliar fungicide Host

6 Grain Yield (bu/ac) Barley Test 65, Melfort, SK, 2013, Seed Treatment, Variety, Fungicide, Yield (bu/ac) Sundre (S) Chigwell (MRMS) Vivar (MR-R) B 27% yield reduction with Sundre No seed trt No Twinline Host

7 Factors influencing current canola/cereal rotations Commodity prices Other market factors On-farm needs Lack of comfort and/or success with alternative crops Neil Harker a weedy guy outstanding in the field One year between host crops is not enough for elimination of crop residues harbouring cereal leaf diseases and FHB

8 Barley Silage Harvesting, Lacombe Research and Development Centre Barley production in lberta (%) Barley on nonhost Barley on barley 36 64

9 Rotational diversity, mixtures and intercropping trial (Test 46) FC Lacombe and Lethbridge Pathogen Host

10 Test 46 n eight treatment, 4-rep RCBD exp. t Lacombe and Lethbridge, lberta started in 2008 Three year rotational sequence of barley variety rotation, barley variety mixtures or intercropping of barley, oat, and triticale In the third year of the rotational sequence all treatments included the sixrow barley variety Sundre

11 % area of penultimate leaf diseased Net blotch and the effect of variety rotation, mixtures, and intercropping, Lacombe 2016 Intercrop = barley, oat, and triticale (either spring [ST] or winter [WT]) T1 - Sundre barley T3 - Mixture of three barley varieties (same) T5 - Intercrop same varieties (ST) T7 - Intercrop same varieties (WT) T2 - Barley rotation with different varieties T4 - Mixture of three barley varieties (different) T6 - Intercrop different varieties (ST) T8 - Intercrop different varieties (WT) B B B B Same barley variety each year Barley variety rotation Barley mixtures - same C Bar. Mix.- different Intercrop ST - same Treatments 1-8 (L to R) C Intercrop ST different C Intercrop WT - same Intercrop WT different P<0.0001

12 Kg/ha Silage yields (wet weight basis) and the effect of variety rotation, mixtures, and intercropping, Lacombe 2016 T1 - Sundre barley T2 - Barley rotation with different varieties T3 - Mixture of three barley varieties (same) T5 - Intercrop same varieties (ST) T7 - Intercrop same varieties (WT) T4 - Mixture of three barley varieties (different) T6 - Intercrop different varieties (ST) T8 - Intercrop different varieties (WT) Intercrop = barley, oat, and triticale (either spring [ST] or winter [WT]) B B B B Same barley variety each year Barley variety rotation Barley mixtures - same Barley mixtures - different Intercrop ST - same Intercrop ST different Intercrop WT - same Intercrop WT different Treatments 1-8 (L to R) P=0.0001

13 Disease resistance may be useful But Resistance may not be a disease management strategy when: The variety you want/need to grow doesn t have resistance to the diseases you are concerned about Thus with tight rotations and susceptible varieties fungicides become the main strategy for leaf diseases Host

14 Pathogen? Early applications of fungicide (before GS 30) at the time of herbicide applications of limited benefit

15 Trial 62, Seed treatment, PGR Seed treatment and fungicide timing Insure at 600 ml/100 kg seed (2x rate) PGR Ethrel (ethephon) at ml/ac (Cerone) Flag leaf Twinline at 202 ml/ac Head emergence Prosaro at 324 ml/ac Percentage leaf area diseased Flag leaf 1 Grain yield Kernel characteristics C Metcalfe barley Multiple locations across Canada Pathogen

16 Grain yield (bu/ac) Test 62, Beaverlodge, B, 2014, Grain Yield (bu/ac) Check Treated NS NS NS No to limited disease development (<2.0% for check) Seed treatment PGR Flag fungicide Head fungicide NS Similar results in 2015 at Beaverlodge

17 PLD (%) Test 62, Melfort, SK, 2015, Percentage leaf area diseased Check Treated NS P = P < P < Seed treatment PGR Flag fungicide Head fungicide

18 PLD (%) Test 62, Melfort, SK, 2015, Fungicide Timing and Percentage leaf area diseased Untreated Flag Head Flg+Hd B B B Fungicide Timing

19 Grain yield (bu/ac) Test 62, Melfort, SK, 2015, Grain Yield (bu/ac) Check Treated P = P < P < P < Seed treatment PGR Flag fungicide Head fungicide

20 Grain yield (bu/ac) Test 62, Melfort, SK, 2015, Fungicide Timing and Grain Yield (bu/ac) Check Flag Head Flg+Hd B B B Fungicide Timing

21 Take home messages Seed treatment May have some impact/benefit PGR When there is a risk of lodging Flag/Head fungicide Provided the most consistent impact, when risk was higher Direct protection of upper canopy More important than seed treatments Single fungicide applications generally similar to split applications

22 Host Trial 65, Seed Treatment, Variety Resistance and Fungicide Seed treatment Insure at 600 ml/100 kg seed (2x rate) Flag leaf Triticonazole, pyraclostrobin, metalaxyl Twinline at 202 ml/ac Metconazole, pyraclostrobin Variety resistance Lacombe (scald) Xena (S) Busby (MRMS) Gadsby (MR-R) Variety resistance Melfort/Charlottetown (net form net blotch) Sundre (VS-S) Chigwell (MRMS) Vivar (MR-R) Percentage leaf area diseased Early and late Grain yield/ kernel characteristics Pathogen

23 % leaf area diseased with net-form net blotch Barley Test 65, B, 2016, Charlottetown, PEI, Seed Treatment, Variety, Fungicide, % Leaf rea Diseased, Flag 1, Soft Dough Stage 40 Sundre (VS-S) Chigwell (MRMS) Vivar (MR-R) CD D No seed trt No Twinline B CD D Yes Seed trt No Twinline BC CD D No seed trt Twinline applied P< CD CD D Yes Seed trt Twinline applied

24 Grain yield (bu/ac) Test 65, Charlottetown, PEI, 2016, Interaction of Variety and Fungicide, Grain Yield (bu/ac) Sundre (VS-S) Chigwell (MRMS) Vivar (MR-R) P = B B 20 No Twinline Twinline applied

25 Take home messages Seed treatment May have some impact/benefit PGR When there is a risk of lodging Flag/Head fungicide Provided the most consistent impact, when risk was higher Direct protection of upper canopy More important than seed treatments Single fungicide applications similar to split applications

26 Host Trial 65, Seed Treatment, Variety Resistance and Fungicide Seed treatment Insure at 600 ml/100 kg seed (2x rate) Flag leaf Triticonazole, pyraclostrobin, metalaxyl Twinline at 202 ml/ac Metconazole, pyraclostrobin Variety resistance Lacombe (scald) Xena (S) Busby (MRMS) Gadsby (MR-R) Variety resistance Melfort/Charlottetown (net form net blotch) Sundre (VS-S) Chigwell (MRMS) Vivar (MR-R) Percentage leaf area diseased Early and late Grain yield/ kernel characteristics Pathogen

27 % leaf area diseased with net-form net blotch Barley Test 65, B, 2016, Charlottetown, PEI, Seed Treatment, Variety, Fungicide, % Leaf rea Diseased, Flag 1, Soft Dough Stage 40 Sundre (VS-S) Chigwell (MRMS) Vivar (MR-R) CD D No seed trt No Twinline B CD D Yes Seed trt No Twinline BC CD D No seed trt Twinline applied CD CD D Yes Seed trt Twinline applied

28 Grain yield (kg/ha) Test 65, Charlottetown, PEI, 2016, Interaction of Variety and Fungicide, Grain Yield (kg/ha) Sundre (VS-S) Chigwell (MRMS) Vivar (MR-R) B B 1000 No Twinline Twinline applied

29 Take home messages Seed treatment May help to limit disease and increase yield Especially for susceptible varieties (e.g. yield at Melfort 2013) Foliar fungicide Had the largest impact on disease and yield Variety Especially for susceptible varieties Reduced disease Resistance not always available and/or disease issues change

30 Take home messages Resistant varieties generally not responsive to fungicide inputs Resistance provides producers with peace of mind when disease risk is high, protecting yield, while limiting input costs Limited synergistic impact of using a seed treatment in combination with a foliar fungicide May reflect the seed treatment that was used If leaf disease is an issue then direct protection of the upper canopy leaves should be your focus

31 The Five Four X Horsemen of the Western Canadian Barley pocalypse Fusarium head blight caused by F. graminearum Scald Net type net blotch Spot type net blotch Spot blotch

32 Fungicide timing in relation to cereal growth stages and the appearance and severity of leaf disease and/or risk of FHB + Cereal growth stages: the link to crop management, GRDC?

33 Kelly s thoughts on fungicide timing for Western Canada Image from Cereal growth stages: the link to crop management, GRDC Herbicide timing for fungicide applications is of questionable value? GS 32: Flag leaf 2, GS 33: Flag leaf 1

34 Kelly s thoughts on fungicide timing for Western Canada Image from Cereal growth stages: the link to crop management, GRDC If weather conditions are conducive early in the season and leaf disease symptoms are readily observed as the crop is coming into stem elongation to flag leaf emergence and fusarium head blight is not a concern then a flag leaf stage application may be the target to focus on GS 32: Flag leaf 2, GS 33: Flag leaf 1

35 Kelly s thoughts on fungicide timing for Western Canada Image from Cereal growth stages: the link to crop management, GRDC If weather conditions are not conducive early in the season and limited leaf disease symptoms are observed as the crop is coming into stem elongation to flag leaf emergence, but conditions become more favourable as the crop moves past flag leaf emergence, ND/OR fusarium head blight is the main concern then an anthesis/head emergence stage application may be the target to focus on GS 32: Flag leaf 2, GS 33: Flag leaf 1

36 Kelly s thoughts on fungicide timing for Western Canada Image from Cereal growth stages: the link to crop management, GRDC + If leaf disease development is a concern as the crop is coming into stem elongation to flag leaf emergence, ND fusarium head blight is a significant concern then flag leaf emergence (or slightly earlier) and anthesis/head emergence stage applications may be the targets to focus on GS 32: Flag leaf 2, GS 33: Flag leaf 1

37 Kelly s thoughts on future fungicide timing options for Western Canada Image from Cereal growth stages: the link to crop management, GRDC + GS 32: Flag leaf 2, GS 33: Flag leaf 1 If early to mid season leaf disease development is a concern ND fusarium head blight and later season leaf disease development are concerns then a xylem mobile seed treatment followed by an anthesis/head emergence stage fungicide application may be the targets to focus on. See McLean, M.S. & Hollaway, G.J. ustralasian Plant Pathol. (2017). Ideally different active ingredients should be used in the seed treatment and foliar fungicide.

38 Thank You Contrary to what John had hoped for, Lethbridge did not irrigate their malt barley plots with beer! Breanne Tidemann, weed 38 management trial