soybean pest management update · soybean pest management update david kee ... 12/12/19 prairie...
Post on 28-Jun-2020
8 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Soybean Pest Management Update
David KeeDirector of Research, MSR&PC
12/12/19 Prairie Grains Update
MSR&PC FY19 Production Projects
• MN soybean funded 25 production projects in FY19• 18 PI’s, 37 Co-PI’s
• Trained multiple Post-Docs, graduate and undergraduate students
• Entities include UMN, NDSU and MN Wheat OFR team• Many communicating research results today
• Updates today• Bio-pesticide development• Soybean Gall Midge• Unified fungicide trial• Waterhemp control
Bio-pesticides and Seed Treatments for Control of
SCN and SDS
• Aim 1: Identify biologically derived nematicides and anti-fungal compounds
• Aim2 : Test combinations of high-performing biological agents against SCN and SDS
• Aim3: Test seed coating treatments and amended spore formulations:
Kathryn Bushley
SenyuChen
Christine Salomon
16
39
11
0
10
20
30
40
50
75 to 100 50 to 74 25 to 49
Num
ber o
f isl
ates
% Nematode Toxicityi) Bioactivity guided fractionation
ii) Identification of active compound(s)
Greenhouse pot trials
Optimize seed treatments formulations
Aim 1: Identify biologically derived nematicides and anti-fungal compounds
SDS treatment alone SDS + 407B13.1 seed treatmentNo SDS control
Aim 2: Greenhouse trials of endophyte seed treatments against SDS
-20-10
0102030405060708090
H A I E D MediacontrolPe
rcen
tage
hat
ch in
hibi
tion
Fungal Strains
SupernatantAqueous phaseOrganic Phase
min10 20 30 40 50
mAU
0
200
400
600
800
DAD1 B, Sig=220,16 Ref=360,100 (C:\CHEM32\...UDI\CHRISTINE_ILYONECTRIA_KB 2019-08-09 12-19-22\E_216_25.D)
min10 20 30 40 50
mAU
0
100
200300
400500
600
DAD1 B, Sig=220,16 Ref=360,100 (C:\CHEM32\...UDI\CHRISTINE_ILYONECTRIA_KB 2019-08-09 12-19-22\E_413_17.D)
min10 20 30 40 50
mAU
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
DAD1 B, Sig=220,16 Ref=360,100 (C:\CHEM32\...HRISTINE_ILYONECTRIA_KB 2019-08-09 12-19-22\SM_14_15_11_1.D)
Novel compound
Activity guided fractionation HPLC and identification of novel compounds
5
© 2019 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
55Bruce Potter 2019
Soybean Gall Midge Update
Bruce Potter, IPM educator, Lamberton
Soybean Gall Midge Resseliella maxima
(University of Minnesota Extension Pictures)
(University of Nebraska Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources (Aug – 2019))
Two Similar Species:
Resseliella maxima (SGM)
Karshomyia caulicola(WGM) – Sclerotina
Sclerotiorum(University of Minnesota Extension Pictures)
Confirmed Areas Effected in 2019
Rock Co, MN 2019 Symptoms Presence 1st -2nd stage 3rd stage All
Edge position1 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0003 < 0.0001Insecticide2 0.8343 0.3536 0.0125 0.1081 0.0198Postition X Insecticide 0.2099 0.0802 0.1024 0.5284 0.1881Prob > F 1 Rows 3-6 vs 7-10 (rows 4 ,5 and 8, 9 sampled)2 Hero @ 5 fl oz/acre applied at V1-2 timed to adult emergence in adjacent field
SGM larvae / stem
6.8 2.1 3.8 1.9 10.6 4.00.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
1-2nd 1-2nd +4 rows
3rd 3rd + 4rows
All All +4 rows
Larv
ae/P
lant
Larval age class and position**
Effect of field position on 1st generation SGMA
B
a
ba
b
** Edge rows 4-5 vs. rows 8-9
5.4 3.5 3.3 2.4 8.7 6.00.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
1-2nd 1-2nd w/ 3rd 3rd w/ All All w/
Larv
ae/P
lant
Larval age class and insecticide* application
Effect of insectide on 1st generation SGM
A
Ba
b
* Hero @ 5 fl oz/acre applied at V1-V2. Four days after 1st adult emergence
Soybean gall midge adult emergence
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
5/1
5/8
5/15
5/22
5/29
6/5
6/12
6/19
6/26
7/3
7/10
7/17
7/24
7/31
8/7
8/14
8/21
8/28
9/4Fi
les/
trap
/day
Collection date
Cumulative SGM adult emergence
Rock Co. Site 2 Rock Co. Site 3
V2V4
V7/R1
V13/R5
Overwintering and two summer flights. Two complete and a partial 3rd generation on soybean.OW adult emergence period ~ 2 weeks, 25-30 days/ generation (generations overlap).
13
© 2019 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Bruce Potter 2019
Predators e.g. Ground beetles Coleoptera (Carabidae)
Parasites e.g. Parasitoid Wasps Hymenoptera (Platygastridae)
SGM BIOLOGICAL CONTROL?
Synopeas myles a parasitoid of the Swede midge Photo: Paul Abram
DNA of platygastrid wasps was detected In SGM larvae from Rock County, MN.Synopeas spp. are known parasitoids of Cecidomyiidae.
Ground beetles are common predators in soybean fields. They have been documented to feed on wheat midge larvae and may feed on SGM larvae and pupae in the soil.
14
© 2019 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
1414Bruce Potter 2019
Fungicide for soybeans
Bruce Potter, IPM educator, Lamberton
Effect of variety and fungicide on soybean yield and moisture (MN 2016-19 )
YIELD @13.5% moisture and 60 lb./bu.
Site 0.9902 a
Variety < 0.0001 **** < 0.0001 **** < 0.0001 **** 0.0003 **** 0.2398 0.4011Fungicide <0.0001 **** 0.0068 **** 0.0667 ** 0.0001 **** 0.8216 0.4061Variety * Fungicide 0.7450 0.2678 0.9199 0.7624 0.9576 0.4131Site * Variety 0.0001 ****Site * Fungicide 0.8602Site * Variety * Fungicide 0.9074% MOISTURE
Site 0.8192Variety < 0.0001 **** < 0.0001 **** < 0.0001 **** 0.0002 *** 0.0035 **** 0.7760Fungicide < 0.0001 **** < 0.0001 **** 0.0001 **** 0.1366 * 0.8326 0.6359Variety * Fungicide 0.0001 **** 0.1407 * 0.0153 *** 0.0583 ** 0.5199 0.1188 *Site * Variety 0.0001 ****Site * Fungicide 0.0001 ****Site * Variety * Fungicide 0.0211 ***aCombined site Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) based on normalized yields and moistures (plot/site mean)§ Due to unique varieties - Morris, and Crookston not included in combined sites
SourceProb > F
COMBINED§ LAMBERTON WASECA ROSEMOUNT MORRIS CROOKSTON
MORRIS CROOKSTONProb > F
SourceCOMBINED§ LAMBERTON WASECA ROSEMOUNT
© 2019 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Bruce Potter 2019
© 2019 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Bruce Potter 2019
13.1 13.9 13.910
11
12
13
14
15
None Priaxor Delaro
% M
oist
ure
Fungicide effect on soybean moistureLamberton, Waseca, Rosemount 2019
B
A A
© 2019 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Bruce Potter 2019
SOYBEAN Fungicide economics WC and NW MN 2016-19
Project Title: Improving Management of White Mold, SDS, and Root Disease in Minnesota
Dean Malvick, Department of Plant Pathology University of Minnesota, St. Paul. dmalvick@umn.edu
Project Objectives
1. Optimize Management of White Mold Goal A. Determine the efficacy of genetic resistance, fungicides, and plant population reduction for management of white mold Goal B. Determine the value of Contans for white mold management in on-farm trials. 2. Improve management and risk analysis for SDS. Goal A. Determine the effects of pathogen population size in soil and other common root
pathogens on development and management of SDS. 3. Technical transfer of disease management information via extension education programs, and support of soybean disease diagnostic needs that address important soybean disease problems in Minnesota.
Malvick Project OutcomesSoybean white mold trials over the past few years have indicated that foliar fungicide are most effective for white mold reduction and yield enhancement with R1- R3 application timing, with up to 35% yield increases. Only low levels of the disease developed in our trials in 2019, however, fungicides delayed maturity (more greening at R6.5 growth stage)
Malvick Project OutcomesResults suggest that soybean SDS is influenced by many factors including soil populations of the SDS fungal pathogen and soil moisture throughout the growing season.In addition, recent studies indicate that other fungi in the soil interact with the SDS pathogen and can increase or decrease SDS severity. This suggests that these other fungi should be considered when managing SDS.
Malvick Project Outcomes
The relatively high level and occurrence of frogeye leaf spot in southern MN (historically uncommon in MN) was a surprise this year. Malvick’s team diagnosed samples and confirmed that frogeye leaf spot was occurring in a number of fields across southern Minnesota. They also confirmed, with collaborators at the University of Kentucky, that the frogeye leaf spot pathogen in Dakota, Faribault, and Watonwan counties is resistant to the QoI(strobilurin) class of fungicides, which significantly impacts management options for this disease in Minnesota.
Objectives:• Screen waterhemp control from 13 residual herbicides
at 0.25X and 0.50X micro-rates as pre-liminary for micro-rate program.
• Utilize data from pre-liminary to target a cost effective and efficacy effective micro-rate program for 2020.
• Screen soybean crop injury from 13 residual herbicides at 1X and 2X rates
2X0.50X 1X0.25X
Data/Conclusions:
Table 4. Soybean growth reduction and yield estimate at 1X and 2X rates.Product Active Ingredient June 19 July 4 October 18
1X Rate 2X Rate 1X Rate 2X Rate 1X Rate 2X Rate-------------------------%---------------------------- ------Bu/A------
FirstRate Cloransulam 0 0 15 0 40 52Prowl Pendimethalin 5 15 0 10 50 95Dimetric EXT Metribuzin 2.5 10 0 0 37 81Cadet Fluthiacet 0 0 0 0 53 87Flexstar Fomesafen 0 0 0 0 82 76Sharpen Saflufenacil 10 12.5 0 0 20 88Blanket Sulfentrazone 10 30 0 0 68 108Valor SX Flumioxazin 60 85 15 60 104 74Warrant Acetochlor 35 60 0 20 65 92Dual II Magnum S-metolachlor 5 22.5 0 0 20 67Outlook Dimethenamid-P 15 15 0 0 62 89Zidua Pyroxasulfone 5 20 0 0 66 86LSD (0.1) 10 11 28
■ Micro-rates screening was successful. Exponential rate increase ratings were graphed, trendline applied, and trendline equation determined will base combination treatments in 2020 from this data (Ask David Kee for Full Article Summary).
■ Soybean crop safety below. Yields were pod estimates, but data is proportional to itself. Valor SX caused the greatest injury at 2X rate compared to 1X rate (1X rate = single application max on label).
Objectives:• Evaluate combinations of soil residual herbicides
targeting giant ragweed control.• Secondarily, evaluate waterhemp control.
• Target economical treatments to compete with current recommendations.
• Exceed 90% giant ragweed control 60 days after treatment.
Data/Conclusions:■ Giant ragweed pressure was much lower than anticipated; giant ragweed is
best controlled in a DT soybean system by more than one residual mode of action (Ask David Kee for Full Article Summary).
■ Waterhemp data (below) was taken on a moderate infestation. FirstRateand Xtendimax were weak EPOST options. FirstRate+Xtendimax had antagonism.
■ Yield was unaffected by herbicide or weed pressure.Table 3. Waterhemp control in soybean in 2019.
App. Waterhemp Control SoybeanTreatmenta Rate Codeb B+15c B+30 B+45 B+60 Yield
oz/A* or fl oz/A -----------------%----------------- Bu/ASharpen+Zidua 1+2.5* A 100 100 98 99 65Sharpen+Zidua / FirstRate 1+2.5* / 0.3* A / B 100 98 95 100 62Sharpen+Zidua / Xtendimax 1+2.5* / 22 A / B 100 98 99 99 63Sharpen+Zidua / FirstRate+Xtendimax 1+2.5* / 0.3*+22 A / B 100 98 98 100 60Authority First 6* A 55 75 63 62 58Authority First / FirstRate 6* / 0.3* A / B 73 70 70 79 66Authority First / Xtendimax 6* / 22 A / B 100 96 98 99 59Authority First / FirstRate+Xtendimax 6* / 0.3*+22 A / B 100 90 93 93 65Xtendimax 22 A 0 0 20 4 62Xtendimax / FirstRate 22 / 0.3* A / B 5 18 23 15 58Xtendimax / Xtendimax 22 / 22 A / B 100 81 80 74 67Xtendimax / FirstRate+Xtendimax 22 / 0.3*+22 A / B 95 78 75 69 58FirstRate 0.3* B 43 53 35 26 63Xtendimax 22 B 100 73 85 77 53FirstRate+Xtendimax 0.3*+22 B 87 64 44 42 57Cobra+COC 10+24 B 100 95 99 99 52Flexstar 16 B 100 74 80 95 61Roundup Powermax+Class Act NG 64+2.5%v/v B 41 38 40 15 62Untreated Check - - 0 18 13 8 55
LSD (0.1) 24 24 24 18 NS
Questions? Contact infodkee@mnsoybean.comDavidKeeMN on twitter
top related