NUMBER 1212 |
September 15, 2009 |
---|
GRAIN CROPS |
FRUIT CROPS |
Update on Fungicides for "Plant Health" By Paul Vincelli and Don Hershman |
Corn A 45% breakeven scenario in the absence of significant disease pressure is pretty impressive, if you consider that we’re talking about a fungicide. However, 45% is still not even equal to a coin toss. In other words, in the absence of significant disease pressure, application of Headline® to corn is not likely to pay for itself. One of the conclusions from university data for corn is that this “yield bump” in the absence of significant disease is unpredictable. There are no convincing data that give guidance to a producer, so that s/he knows when they can expect the yield bump. University research shows clearly that some corn hybrids get a greater yield bump than others. However, university studies also show that the effect is inconsistent from one environment to another. In other words, just because you got the yield bump in Hybrid X in one field in one year, you are not necessarily going to see it in another. The claims of improved stalk health are valid to a degree. Improved stalk health certainly can result from the application of Headline®. However, in most university trials where this effect is seen, it relates to control of foliar diseases. In a small number of trials, improved stalk health was reported in the absence of foliar disease. In these cases, it might relate to the “greening effect” extending the presence of green leaf tissue. However, overall, most cases of improved stalk health relate to foliar disease control. This is important because it gives guidance about how to best make the decision to apply the fungicide, as we will summarize at the end of this article. The claims of improved tolerance to hail damage are exciting but aren’t necessarily based on valid research. The only studies we are aware of that properly test these claims have not shown any benefit of Headline® in helping corn tolerate hail damage. Soybean As with corn, soybean is most likely to experience an economic (or statistically significant) yield response to a fungicide when there is an elevated disease risk. In the absence of significant, visible disease, the probability of achieving an economic response is about the same as if you had flipped a coin. We still have not seen any data which has convinced us that fungicides should be applied to soybean when the risk of disease is negligible. Said a different way, it is our opinion that growth efficiency and stress tolerance benefits, while they occur from time to time in soybean treated with Headline® (and other strobilurin fungicides), are currently not predictable and, therefore, should not be the basis for applying a foliar fungicide. Concluding Points Possible negative consequences from the use of fungicides for growth promotion include speeding the development of fungicide resistance, added drying costs because of increased grain moisture content, increased human exposure to strobilurin chemistry, increased environmental contamination, and other concerns. These are just some of the reasons why it is critical to avoid any and all fungicide uses that cannot be well-justified. Bottom Line |
Rotten Apples? By John Hartman |
Rainy periods in spring and summer were an obstacle that apple growers faced when trying to manage apple diseases this year. Rains interfered with early spring pruning and sanitation efforts and prevented timely applications of preventive fungicides. Continued rainy weather and cooler than normal weather for parts of the summer likely also affected the kinds of diseases affecting apples, particularly fruit rot diseases. Based on weather patterns this spring and summer, it seems likely that black rot fruit decay and sooty blotch and flyspeck will predominate on apples at harvest. However, there have been sufficient episodes of hot and humid weather which would favor diseases such as white rot and bitter rot. Black rot is caused by the fungus Botryosphaeria obtusa. The fungus infects blossoms and leaves (causing frog-eye leaf spot) as well as twigs, branches, and fruits. Black rot inoculum originates from colonized dead wood within the tree or from mummified fruit and fruitlets. Fruit with black rot
infections at the calyx end usually result from sepal infections that occurred early in the season (Figure 1). These infections, which may happen as soon as the flower bud scales loosen, typically develop into blossom end rot. If black rot infections appear on the sides of growing fruit in summer, the source of inoculum can often be traced to one or more killed fruitlets located above the infection site within the tree canopy. Late fruit infections occur through cracks in the cuticle, wounds and lenticels. Black rot fruit infections are favored by temperatures about 70 degrees F with prolonged wetness. The black rot fungus can also be one of several different fungi that may be present in fruit with moldy core. Infected fruits eventually shrivel and dry down to pycnidia-covered mummies (Figure 1, inset) which remain attached to the tree, serving as inoculum sources in the spring of the following year.
|
By Julie Beale and Paul Bachi |
On fruit and vegetable samples, we have diagnosed Phyllosticta leaf spot on blueberry; cane borer injury and Sphaerulina leaf spot on raspberry; anthracnose, downy mildew, powdery mildew and potyvirus on cucurbits; early blight, Septoria leaf spot, late blight, bacterial spot and anthracnose (ripe rot) on tomato. On ornamentals and turf, we have seen Rhizoctonia and Pythium root rots on chrysanthemum; Cercospora leaf spot on peony; powdery mildew on lilac; Cercospora leaf spot on rose and hydrangea; anthracnose, tar spot, Phyllosticta leaf spot and Verticillium wilt on maple; Actinopelte leaf spot on ash and oak; bacterial leaf scorch on sycamore and oak; black leaf spot on elm; brown patch on bentgrass; anthracnose and rust on bluegrass; brown patch on tall fescue; and large patch on zoysiagrass. |
By Patricia Lucas | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
August 28-September 3
Graphs of insect trap counts for the 2008 season are available on the IPM web site at -http://www.uky.edu/Ag/IPM/ipm.htm. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NOTE: Trade names are used to simplify the information presented in this newsletter. No endorsement by the Cooperative Extension Service is intended, nor is criticism implied of similar products that are not named.