Skip to content
Research Associate, LSU AgCenter

Soybean Variety Response to Taproot Decline (TRD)

Soybean Variety Response to Taproot Decline (TRD) published on No Comments on Soybean Variety Response to Taproot Decline (TRD)

Trey Price, Associate Professor, & Myra Purvis, Research Associate, Agronomic Crop Pathology, Macon Ridge Research Station

Boyd Padgett, Professor, Agronomic Crop Pathology, Dean Lee Research Station

Taproot decline (TRD) of soybean, caused by Xylaria sp., usually is not noticed until pod fill when interveinal chlorosis and necrosis (Figure 1) become evident from the turn row.  However, the disease may cause seed rot, seedling disease (Figure 2), and plant death (Figure 3) at any point the growing season.  Infected seedlings and vegetative stage plants usually go unnoticed because they are quickly covered by rapidly growing neighboring plants.  Infected plants will break at the soil line when pulled.  Roots will appear black when excavated (Figure 4), and are usually in contact with blackened debris from the previous season.  Reproductive structures of the pathogen known as “dead man’s fingers” may appear at the base of affected plants or on other debris during periods of high humidity producing spores that resemble powdered sugar (Figure 5).  Disease distribution within the row usually will have a focal point of dead plants, surrounded by those with foliar symptoms, and neighboring healthy plants.  These areas may overlap creating a clustered and streaky distribution within a given field.  Fields in soybean for two years or more are at risk to taproot decline, and yield losses can be significant.  For more information concerning taproot decline, please read the first report at the following link: https://doi.org/10.1094/PHP-01-17-0004-RS.

Figure 1. Interveinal chlorosis and necrosis.
Figure 2. Taproot decline of seedling.
Figure 3. Plant death caused by taproot decline.
Figure 4. Blackened root diagnostic of taproot decline adjacent to infested debris.
Figure 5. “Dead man’s fingers” produced by Xylaria sp., causal agent of taproot decline.

Many requests for a list of susceptible/resistant varieties have been received prompting the release of preliminary data.  During the past two off-seasons in the greenhouse, we have challenged varieties from the 2016 Official Variety Trials against the pathogen, Xylaria sp.  The process is briefly described hereafter.  We used sterilized millet infested with the pathogen to infest growing medium.  Inoculum was standardized using inoculum concentration experiments (data not shown).  A total of 145 varieties were screened.  During each “run”, 4 replications of 40 varieties (4 seed/4” pot, planted in a linear furrow) were either inoculated at planting or left non-inoculated then removed to flood-irrigated greenhouse tables for three weeks.  Plant roots were harvested, dried to final moisture, and weighed.  The experiment was repeated once, and paired t-tests (α=0.05) were used to compare inoculated (n=8) vs. non-inoculated (n=8) root weights for each variety.  For simplicity, we present the results here as the percentage of root weight reduction.

Paired t-tests indicated that significant root weight reduction occurred at 48% and higher.  Based on percent root weight reduction, varieties were divided into four categories: susceptible (>48%), moderately susceptible (36-48%), tolerant (24-36%), and resistant (<24%).  Out of 145, 97 varieties were deemed susceptible with percent root weight reduction ranging from 48 to 85%.  There were 25 moderately susceptible, 16 moderately resistant, and 7 resistant varieties.  For brevity, we will not present the susceptible varieties in this report.  A list of all varieties included in the screening can be found here.  Resistant, tolerant, and moderately susceptible varieties with corresponding percent root weight reduction are in Tables 1, 2, & 3, respectively.  Field confirmation of these results is ongoing.  Preliminary data from inoculated field trials indicates that varieties deemed resistant in the greenhouse show no significant response.  Varieties deemed susceptible in the greenhouse show significant responses to inoculum in the field.

Table 1.  List of TRD-resistant varieties as determined by inoculation and response.

Variety % Root Weight Reduction
OSAGE 8.391702
CZ 4818LL 18.879462
5N490R2 19.263012
S42RY77 20.944016
5N433R2 22.215409
5067 LL 22.559704
R07-6614RR 22.970824

Table 2.  List of varieties moderately resistant to TRD as determined by inoculation and response.

Variety % Root Weight Reduction
Armor 55-R68 25.253945
RJS47016R 25.793535
CZ 5375RY 26.205598
HBKLL4953 27.339808
4880 RR 27.926596
P5752RY 28.094408
CZ 5225LL 28.605468
ARX4906 29.805397
Go Soy IREANE 30.762175
4995 RR 30.883269
AG 48X7 31.611326
P4788RY 32.46393
AG 46X6 34.502577
S47RY13 35.157094
5625 RR2 35.190462
S49XT07 35.483918

Table 3.  List of varieties moderately susceptible to TRD as determined by inoculation and response.

Variety % Root Weight Reduction
P4814LLS 36.6288
CZ 4105LL 36.631044
GS48R216 37.120729
REV 57R21 37.152585
CZ 4222LL 37.789292
S49LL34 39.360691
P54T94R 39.928806
S12-2418 40.28502
S52RY77 40.607899
REV 51A56 40.734935
P41T33R 41.997581
S11-17025 43.578124
4967 LL 43.925284
S47-K5 43.984519
Armor 46-D08 44.015611
Armor 48-D24 44.107678
Go Soy 5115LL 44.470801
Armor 48-D80 45.47956
REV 56R63 45.566353
REV 49R94 45.659963
Rev 49L49 45.896947
S43RY95 46.122564
5N480R2 46.84488
5N406R2 47.288423
P4588RY 47.58291

In addition to variety selection, data from research trials, numerous observations, and other anecdotal accounts indicate that tillage and/or rotation will reduce TRD incidence and mortality.  To date, there are no recommended seed treatments for taproot decline.  Ongoing research indicates that a few fungicides applied in-furrow at planting may be effective on the pathogen.  Taproot decline is soil/debris borne; therefore, avoiding spread via equipment is recommended.  More research is needed to develop and further refine management strategies for taproot decline.

For more information on these topics or others, please contact your local extension agent, specialist, nearest research station, or visit www.lsuagcenter.com or www.louisianacrops.com.

Southern Corn Rust Confirmed in Louisiana

Southern Corn Rust Confirmed in Louisiana published on No Comments on Southern Corn Rust Confirmed in Louisiana

Southern Corn Rust Confirmed in Louisiana

  

Trey Price, Extension/Research Plant Pathologist, Macon Ridge Research Station

 

Based on a tip from an industry representative, southern rust, Puccinia polysora, was suspected along the Atchafalaya River in milk to early dough stage corn.  Yesterday afternoon samples were collected from two locations (Woodside and Lettsworth) and confirmed to be southern rust this morning via microscopic examination.  Since then, other similar reports have come in from Rapides and Bordelonville.  Incidence in these fields is very low (<1%).  Given the stage of the crop and low incidence, I would not recommend treating these fields.  Current conditions (warm/humid) are favorable for disease development and producers, agents, and consultants should monitor for disease development in their corn fields.  It is noteworthy that we have detected southern rust about one month earlier in 2016 than in 2015.

 

Scouting is key to managing southern rust.  First, identify the disease correctly.  Southern rust pustules will appear reddish orange and will almost always occur on the upper side of the leaf (Figure 1).  In severe cases pustules may appear on leaf sheaths and husks (Figure 2).  Common rust, which has been very common this year, will appear more brick red, and pustules will occur on both sides of the leaf (Figure 3).  Most common rust has ceased to develop because of the warm temperatures, and pustules have turned brown.  There are differences in susceptibility to southern rust among hybrids; therefore, it is important to define disease incidence/severity prior to making management decisions.

 

Foliar symptoms of southern rust.
Foliar symptoms of southern rust.

Southern rust on leaf sheath.
Southern rust on leaf sheath.

Foliar symptoms of common rust.
Foliar symptoms of common rust.

If southern rust is not present, fungicide applications are not necessary.  If southern rust occurs near tasseling, a fungicide application will likely be needed for management and provide economic benefit (See Table 1 for products and efficacy) as this disease can be very aggressive under optimal conditions.  As the crop matures from tasseling stage, a return on fungicide investment becomes increasingly less likely (See Table 2).  Application decisions must be considered on a field by field basis taking into account disease incidence/severity, crop stage, prevailing environmental conditions, and likelihood of economic return.  If a fungicide application is deemed necessary, using recommended rates and maximum water volumes will increase efficacy.  Ideally, fungicides should be applied prior to disease onset, but realistically, fungicides are usually applied at or just after onset. Therefore, individuals should make efforts to detect and treat diseases as early as possible to prevent losses to yield and quality.  Later planted corn is at higher risk for developing southern rust that requires management.

 

Table 1. Fungicide efficacy for control of corn diseases.

The Corn Disease Working Group (CDWG), which includes many members from the mid-South including several pathologists from Louisiana, has developed the following information on fungicide efficacy for control of major corn diseases in the United States. Efficacy ratings for each fungicide listed in the table were determined by field testing the materials over multiple years and locations by the members of the committee. Efficacy ratings are based upon level of disease control achieved by product, and are not necessarily reflective of yield increases obtained from product application. Efficacy depends upon proper application timing, rate, and application method to achieve optimum effectiveness of the fungicide as determined by labeled instructions and overall level of disease in the field at the time of application. Differences in efficacy among fungicide products were determined by direct comparisons among products in field tests and are based on a single application of the labeled rate as listed in the table. Table includes systemic fungicides available that have been tested over multiple years and locations. The table is not intended to be a list of all labeled products1. Efficacy categories: NR=Not Recommended; P=Poor; F=Fair; G=Good; VG=Very Good; E=Excellent; NL = Not Labeled for use against this disease; U = Unknown efficacy or insufficient data to rank product

 

Table 11Additional fungicides are labeled for disease on corn, including contact fungicides such as chlorothalonil. Certain fungicides may be available for diseases not listed in the table, including Gibberella and Fusarium ear rot. Applications of Proline 480 SC for use on ear rots requires a FIFRA Section 2(ee) and is only approved for use in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

2Harvest restrictions are listed for field corn harvested for grain. Restrictions may vary for other types of corn (sweet, seed or popcorn, etc.), and corn for other uses such as forage or fodder.

Many products have specific use restrictions about the amount of active ingredient that can be applied within a period of time or the amount of sequential applications that can occur. Please read and follow all specific use restrictions prior to fungicide use. This information is provided only as a guide. It is the responsibility of the pesticide applicator by law to read and follow all current label directions. Reference to products in this publication is not intended to be an endorsement to the exclusion of others that may be similar. Persons using such products assume responsibility for their use in accordance with current directions of the manufacturer. Members or participants in the CDWG assume no liability resulting from the use of these products.

 

Table 2. Estimated % corn grain yield loss due to defoliation at various growth stages.

scr tableAdapted from the National Crop Insurance Service’s Corn Loss Instruction to represent the leaf collar growth staging method. Included in the Mississippi State University, Grain Crops Update June 4, 2010, Erick Larson.

 

If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact your nearest county agent, research station, or specialist.

Wheat and Corn Pathology Update

Wheat and Corn Pathology Update published on No Comments on Wheat and Corn Pathology Update

Wheat and Corn Pathology Update (4/15/2016)

Trey Price, Field Crop Pathology, Macon Ridge Research Station

Boyd Padgett, Wheat Pathology, Dean Lee Research Station

Wheat

At the time of this writing, most wheat in the state is at or past flowering with the exception of some later maturing varieties.  We have seen issues with vernalization in a few entries in variety trials throughout the state.  Simply, there was not enough cold weather to trigger reproductive development.  Fusarium head blight (scab, Figures 1 & 2) has been of utmost concern to the few wheat producers we have this year.  Conditions have been favorable for scab during flowering, and applications of Caramba or Prosaro using maximum rates and water volumes are recommended for management.  The best control we can expect is 50%, and time will tell if applications were successful or not.

 

 

Figure 1 (Fusarium head blight).
Figure 1 (Fusarium head blight).

 

Figure 2 (scabby kernels below healthy ones).
Figure 2 (scabby kernels below healthy ones).

Other concerns this season have been stripe rust (Figure 3) and leaf rust (Figure 4).  Conditions are currently favorable for both diseases; however, stripe rust activity is slowly decreasing and leaf rust activity is increasing rapidly.  Most varieties are resistant to stripe, leaf, or both rusts, and fungicide applications are usually not necessary.  In susceptible varieties, rusts are effectively and economically managed with triazole fungicide applications.

 

Figure 3 (stripe rust).
Figure 3 (stripe rust).

Figure 4 (leaf rust).
Figure 4 (leaf rust).

 

Other diseases of note have been Septoria leaf blotch (Figure 5) and bacterial streak (Figure 6).  Septoria usually remains low in the canopy and does not escalate to damaging levels; however, if infections occur on the flag leaf or flag leaf -1, a fungicide application may be warranted.  Most fungicides provide adequate control of Septoria leaf blotch.  Bacterial streak cannot be reactively managed.  Fungicides are not effective, of course, so variety selection in the fall is the primary management technique.  LSU AgCenter scientists rate wheat varieties for multiple diseases at multiple locations in the state, and the results are available online (www.lsuagcenter.com), from your county agent, or your nearest research station.  Bacterial streak and Septoria leaf blotch can be difficult to diagnose.  Older Septoria lesions will have black spots (pycnidia) within lesions, while bacterial streak will not.  Younger Septoria lesions may be indistinguishable from bacterial streak lesions; therefore, a quick diagnostic method can be used.  First, cut an affected leaf section then submerge in water.  Wait 5-10 minutes, and observe for bacterial streaming (Figure 7).  This can be accomplished on the turn row with a pocket knife and bottled water.

 

Figure 5 (Septoria leaf blotch).
Figure 5 (Septoria leaf blotch).

 

 

    

Figure 5 (Septoria leaf blotch). Figure 5 (Septoria leaf blotch). Figure 6 (bacterial streak).
Figure 6 (bacterial streak).

 

Figure 7 (bacterial streaming).
Figure 7 (bacterial streaming).


Corn

It is no secret that this has been a tough year for corn so far.  Soon after early planting, most producers received copious amounts of rainfall (particularly in NELA) over an extended period.  Many fields were replanted because of flooding.  On stands that withstood the flooding, the majority of field calls have involved corn plants that had poor nodal root development causing them to fall over (Figures 8 & 9) and stressing or breaking the mesocotyl (first true stem) in the process (Please see Dr. Dan Fromme’s post for more information on rootless corn syndrome (RCS)  http://louisianacrops.com/category/crops/corn/).  Most producers planted on the higher end of plant populations allowing tolerable losses due to RCS.

 

 

 Figure 8 (plant death as a result of RCS).
Figure 8 (plant death as a result of RCS).

 

Figure 9 (normal vs. poor nodal root development).
Figure 9 (normal vs. poor nodal root development).

 

Interestingly, damping off (Rhizoctonia solani) was commonly observed in RCS situations where fields had been planted for at least one month (V3-V4).  Over time, seed treatment efficacy declined, plants were stressed (particularly at the mesocotyl), and the pathogen took advantage of optimal environmental conditions.  Classic damping off lesions were observed on the upper sections of mesocotyl (Figures 10 & 11), and the pathogen was subsequently isolated in the laboratory.

 

 

 Figure 10 (damping off).
Figure 10 (damping off).

 

 Figure 10 (damping off).
Figure 10 (damping off).

 

Since we have a significant number of corn acres that will be relatively late, foliar diseases, southern rust (Figures 12 & 13) in particular, will likely be a concern this year.  Southern rust (SR) can be devastating if it develops early (tasseling or before) and conditions (warm, wet) are favorable for development.  Scouting is key to managing this disease.  Typically SR will develop low in the canopy and progress upward.  Fungicides are effective on SR (Table 1).  If the disease is present at or before tasseling, fungicide applications are warranted.  Depending on disease severity and prevailing environmental conditions, applications could occasionally be warranted between tasseling and milk stage.  Applications are rarely warranted after this stage, because the crop will usually “out-run” disease progression.  Keep in mind that tasseling is the most vulnerable stage to foliar diseases.  As plants mature, more defoliation can be tolerated as time goes by.

 

Figure 12 (southern rust on upper surface of leaf).
Figure 12 (southern rust on upper surface of leaf).

 

 Figure 13 (southern rust on leaf sheath).
Figure 13 (southern rust on leaf sheath).

Northern corn leaf blight (NCLB) is an annual problem in Louisiana.  In fact, we can probably drop the “northern” at this point.  Scouting also is key to managing this disease.  Similar to SR, if NCLB develops during late vegetative stages or near tasseling, a fungicide application may be advisable.  Once the disease initiates, it will continue to progress for the remainder of the season.  Hot and dry weather may slow NLCB progression somewhat, but with most of our acreage irrigated, temperature and moisture requirements for the pathogen are satisfied until black layer.  Specific fungicide efficacy data on NCLB remains elusive; however, pooling of nationwide data indicates that fungicides are effective on NCLB (Table 1).  Similar to SR, the further the crop is past tasseling, more defoliation can be tolerated.

For more information please do not hesitate to contact your local county agent, specialist, or nearest research station.  Please visit our websites (www.lsuagcenter.com and www.louisianacrops.com) for the latest in field crop pathology.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1.  Fungicide Efficacy for Control of Corn Diseases—April 2016

The Corn Disease Working Group (CDWG), which includes many members from the mid-South including several pathologists from Louisiana, has developed the following information on fungicide efficacy for control of major corn diseases in the United States.  Efficacy ratings for each fungicide listed in the table were determined by field testing the materials over multiple years and locations by the members of the committee. Efficacy ratings are based upon level of disease control achieved by product, and are not necessarily reflective of yield increases obtained from product application. Efficacy depends upon proper application timing, rate, and application method to achieve optimum effectiveness of the fungicide as determined by labeled instructions and overall level of disease in the field at the time of application. Differences in efficacy among fungicide products were determined by direct comparisons among products in field tests and are based on a single application of the labeled rate as listed in the table.  Table includes systemic fungicides available that have been tested over multiple years and locations. The table is not intended to be a list of all labeled products1. Efficacy categories: NR=Not Recommended; P=Poor; F=Fair; G=Good; VG=Very Good; E=Excellent; NL = Not Labeled for use against this disease; U = Unknown efficacy or insufficient data to rank product

1Additional fungicides are labeled for disease on corn, including contact fungicides such as chlorothalonil. Certain fungicides may be available for diseases not listed in the table, including Gibberella and Fusarium ear rot. Applications of Proline 480 SC for use on ear rots requires a FIFRA Section 2(ee) and is only approved for use in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

2Harvest restrictions are listed for field corn harvested for grain.  Restrictions may vary for other types of corn (sweet, seed or popcorn, etc.), and corn for other uses such as forage or fodder.

Many products have specific use restrictions about the amount of active ingredient that can be applied within a period of time or the amount of sequential applications that can occur.  Please read and follow all specific use restrictions prior to fungicide use.  This information is provided only as a guide.  It is the responsibility of the pesticide applicator by law to read and follow all current label directions.  Reference to products in this publication is not intended to be an endorsement to the exclusion of others that may be similar. Persons using such products assume responsibility for their use in accordance with current directions of the manufacturer. Members or participants in the CDWG assume no liability resulting from the use of these products.

 

Conditions Favorable for Fusarium Head Blight (scab) in Wheat Again This Year

Conditions Favorable for Fusarium Head Blight (scab) in Wheat Again This Year published on No Comments on Conditions Favorable for Fusarium Head Blight (scab) in Wheat Again This Year

Trey Price, Field Crop Pathology, Macon Ridge Research Station;

Boyd Padgett, Central Region Director, Dean Lee Research and Extension Center

Last year Louisiana wheat was devastated by Fusarium head blight (scab) because of warm and wet weather conditions during flowering.  Weather conditions are currently favorable for wheat scab development statewide.  Most of the wheat in the state is at or very near flowering, which is the most susceptible stage to scab infections.  Wheat in southernmost production regions is already showing early signs of scab infection.

The disease is mainly caused by the fungus, Fusarium graminearum, which also causes ear, stalk, and root rots in corn. Symptoms of the disease will first appear 10 to 14 days after flowering as bleached heads which will be noticeable from the turn row (Photo 1).  This symptom is often mistaken with the appearance of maturing wheat.  Upon closer inspection, affected wheat heads will usually have infected kernels showing the characteristic bleached appearance with pinkish/salmon/light orange coloration along the glumes (Photo 2).  This coloration is millions of microscopic spores (reproductive structures) of the fungal pathogen.  There are usually healthy kernels along with the diseased kernels on the same head (Photo 3).  In extreme cases, however, the entire head may be infected.  At harvest, affected seed will be shriveled, off color, and much lighter than healthy kernels and are referred to as “tombstones” (Photo 4).

Photo 1. A view of a field heavily-infected with FHB.
Photo 1. A view of a field heavily-infected with FHB.

Photo 2. Closer view of a head infected with FHB. Note the salmon-colored fungal growth near the center.
Photo 2. Closer view of a head infected with FHB. Note the salmon-colored fungal growth near the center.

Photo 3. Wheat heads with FHB-affected and healthy kernels.
Photo 3. Wheat heads with FHB-affected and healthy kernels.

Photo 4. Diseased kernels (left) vs. relatively healthy kernels (right).
Photo 4. Diseased kernels (left) vs. relatively healthy kernels (right).

The pathogen over summers on corn, wheat, small grain residue, and other grasses.  With that in mind, there are some cultural practices that may aid in management:  crop rotation, tillage, mowing/shredding, or staggered planting/varietal maturity.  At harvest, combine fan speed may be increased to remove infected seed, which is lighter than healthy seed.  Additionally, seed cleaning equipment may help remove affected seed but may not be cost effective.  These cultural practices alone will not completely manage FHB.  An integrated approach is required to lessen the impact of FHB.

Triazole fungicides may be somewhat effective on FHB.  Some earlier research indicated that tebuconazole (Folicur and generics) may reduce incidence and severity of FHB.  Later research has shown that Prosaro (prothioconazole + tebuconazole), Proline (prothioconazole), and Caramba (metconazole) are most efficacious on FHB.  THESE APPLICATIONS WERE MADE UNDER IDEAL CONDITIONS WITH IDEAL TIMINGS AND THE MAXIMUM CONTROL WAS AROUND 50%.  AVERAGE CONTROL WAS ABOUT 40%.

Timing is critical.  We have a very short window during flowering to make an effective application for FHB.  The biggest problem is that ideal conditions (wet weather) for FHB infection are not ideal for making fungicide applications.  Head coverage also is critical.  Sprayers should be calibrated to deliver maximum water volume (minimum 15 GPA by ground, 5 GPA by air) and optimal droplet size (300 to 350 microns).  For ground sprayers, nozzles angled at 30° to the horizontal will maximize head coverage.  Some research has shown that dual nozzles angled in opposite directions will also increase head coverage.

It is common to see 2-3 years of epidemics of FHB followed by years with little to no disease.  Judging by the amount of scab we saw last year and current weather conditions, the probability is high for another severe epidemic.  An online (www.wheatscab.psu.edu) risk assessment tool that is based on temperature and relative humidity is available online, which has regional commentary that will help you to determine your risk at a given location.

For more information, please see the following resources:

www.scabsmart.org

www.scabusa.org

http://www.mississippi-crops.com/2015/04/24/wheat-disease-update-april-24-2015/

Reports of Fusarium Head Blight of Wheat (Scab) Statewide

Reports of Fusarium Head Blight of Wheat (Scab) Statewide published on No Comments on Reports of Fusarium Head Blight of Wheat (Scab) Statewide

Trey Price, Field Crop Pathology, Macon Ridge Research Station
Boyd Padgett, Small Grain Pathology, Dean Lee Research and Extension Center

Over the past two weeks there have been multiple reports from producers and consultants throughout Louisiana of wheat scab, also known as Fusarium head blight (FHB). Reported incidences have ranged from 10 to 20 percent. The disease is mainly caused by the fungus, Fusarium graminearum, which also causes ear, stalk, and root rots in corn.

Symptoms of the disease will first appear 10 to 14 days after flowering as bleached heads which will be noticeable from the turn row (Photo 1). This symptom is often mistaken with the appearance of maturing wheat. Upon closer inspection, affected wheat heads will usually have infected kernels showing the characteristic bleached appearance with pinkish/salmon/orangish coloration along the glumes (Photo 2). This coloration is millions of microscopic spores (reproductive structures) of the fungal pathogen. There are usually healthy kernels along with the diseased kernels on the same head (Photo 3). In extreme cases, however, the entire head may be infected. At harvest, affected seed will be shriveled, off color, and much lighter than healthy kernels and are referred to as “tombstones” (Photo 4).

Photo 1.  A view of a field heavily-infected with FHB.
Photo 1. A view of a field heavily-infected with FHB.

Photo 2.  Closer view of a head infected with FHB.  Note the salmon-colored fungal growth near the center.
Photo 2. Closer view of a head infected with FHB. Note the salmon-colored fungal growth near the center.

Photo 3.  Wheat heads with FHB-affected and healthy kernels.
Photo 3. Wheat heads with FHB-affected and healthy kernels.

Photo 4.  Diseased kernels (left) vs. relatively healthy kernels (right).
Photo 4. Diseased kernels (left) vs. relatively healthy kernels (right).

 

Since 1996, outbreaks of FHB have been as variable as the weather. Outbreaks have been reported in the Great Plains, Central U. S., Mid-South, and Southeast with reported losses of up to 20% and up to 80% in isolated fields. Conditions favoring development are wet, warm weather during flowering. The fungus may infect wheat from flowering to harvest with the most devastating infections occurring during flowering. This infection timing creates hurdles for managing the disease.

The pathogen oversummers corn, wheat, small grain residue, and other grasses. With that in mind, there are some cultural practices that may aid in management: crop rotation, tillage, mowing/shredding, or staggered planting/varietal maturity. At harvest, combine fan speed may be increased to remove infected seed, which is lighter than healthy seed. Additionally, seed cleaning equipment may help remove affected seed but may not be cost effective. These cultural practices alone will not completely manage FHB. An integrated approach is required to lessen the impact of FHB.

Triazole fungicides may be somewhat effective on FHB. Some of the earlier research showed that tebuconazole (Folicur and generics) may reduce incidence and severity of FHB. Later research shows that Prosaro (prothioconazole + tebuconazole), Proline (prothioconazole), and Caramba (metconazole) may be efficacious on FHB. THESE APPLICATIONS WERE MADE UNDER IDEAL CONDITIONS WITH IDEAL TIMINGS AND THE MAXIMUM CONTROL WAS AROUND 50%. AVERAGE CONTROL WAS ABOUT 40%.

Timing is critical. Essentially we have a 5 day window during flowering to make an effective application for FHB. The biggest problem is that ideal conditions (wet weather) for FHB infection are not ideal for making fungicide applications. Head coverage is also critical. Sprayers should be calibrated to deliver maximum water volume (minimum 15 GPA by ground, 5 GPA by air) and optimal droplet size (300 to 350 microns). For ground sprayers, nozzles angled at 30° to the horizontal will maximize head coverage. Some research has shown that dual nozzles angled in opposite directions will also increase head coverage.

The vast majority of fields in Louisiana are currently past the application window. Fungicide applications at this point would likely by off label and ineffective.

It is common to see 2-3 years of epidemics of FHB followed by years with little to no disease. Judging by the amount of calls and observations at this point, FHB has been more prevalent this year compared to previous years. If we have similar weather conditions next year during flowering, expect to encounter FHB again in 2016. An online (www.wheatscab.psu.edu) risk assessment tool that is based on temperature and relative humidity is available online, which has regional commentary that will help you to determine your risk at a given location next year.

For more information, please see the following resources:

www.scabusa.org
www.scabsmart.org
http://www.mississippi-crops.com/2015/04/24/wheat-disease-update-april-24-2015/
http://www.arkansas-crops.com/2015/04/23/update-management-Arkansas/#sthash.xSo0EAqt.dpuf

 

Target Spot in Louisiana Cotton

Target Spot in Louisiana Cotton published on 1 Comment on Target Spot in Louisiana Cotton

Trey Price, Assistant Professor, Field Crop Pathology, Macon Ridge Research Station
Dan Fromme, Associate Professor, Cotton and Corn Specialist, Dean Lee Research Station

Target spot, a fungal foliar disease caused by Corynespora cassicola, has been observed in Franklin, Madison, Tensas, Red River, Natchitoches, and Rapides parishes on many different varieties. I suspect that the disease is at least present in all cotton-producing areas. Target spot is different from other leaf spots that affect cotton (http://louisianacrops.com/2013/08/02/cotton-leaf-spots/) and is usually more aggressive. If your cotton crop is late this year, you should scout for this disease.

The disease starts in the lower canopy, and is usually more severe in rank (tall) cotton with a dense canopy. During initial infection leaves will display a water-soaking appearance or slight discoloration. Shortly afterwards, lesions up to thumbnail-sized are noticeable on the lower leaves (Photo 2). Lesions are tan to brown in color and will usually have concentric rings giving them a “bulls eye-like” appearance (Photo 2). Occasionally, black specks may be observed within lesions, which may be reproductive structures of the pathogen or secondary invaders (Photo 3). Lesions may appear on bracts as well (Photo 4). Only a few spots are visible at first; however, disease can quickly progress causing significant defoliation (Photo 5). I have observed fields that have gone from just a few spots to 50% defoliated within two weeks. The tricky part about spotting this disease is that it is not visible from the turnrow. Fields will appear to be healthy from the road, yet when you enter the field, symptoms are obvious and often moderate.

Photo 1.  Old (left) and newer (right) target spot lesions.
Photo 1. Old (left) and newer (right) target spot lesions.

 

Photo 2.  Bull's eye pattern of target spot lesions.
Photo 2. Bull’s eye pattern of target spot lesions.

 

Photo 3.  Multiple target spot lesions.
Photo 3. Multiple target spot lesions.

 

Photo 4.  Target spot lesions on bract.
Photo 4. Target spot lesions on bract.

 

Photo 5.  Defoliation resulting from target spot infection.
Photo 5. Defoliation resulting from target spot infection.

There are no known target spot-resistant varieties. Canopy management (PGR applications) earlier in the season is critical for reducing plant height and leaf area. Disease severity will likely be much worse in rank cotton with dense canopies. Disease management at this point will be difficult. If a fungicide application is warranted, coverage is key. Apply fungicides within recommended rate ranges and use as much total spray volume as possible (15 gallons/A is ideal). Therefore, ground application is preferred. If ground application is not possible, 5 gallons/A by air is preferred. Three products are currently labeled in cotton: Quadris, Headline, and Twinline. Read and follow label instructions when applying these fungicides to cotton. In other states where target spot is an annual problem, fungicide applications between bloom and 2 weeks after have been the most effective. Fungicide efficacy data for “rescue” or late-season applications is limited. Late applications may slow disease development and prevent further defoliation, but may or may not be economical. In some cases, the disease may be actually helping by increasing air/light and decreasing moisture in the lower canopy reducing boll rot. We currently have trials at the Northeast, Macon Ridge, and Dean Lee Research Stations that have moderate to heavy levels of target spot. Hopefully, these trials will provide useful information for next year. Below are links to more useful information concerning target spot. As always, please do not hesitate to contact your county agent, specialist, or nearest research station for more information.

http://southeastfarmpress.com/cotton/farm-georgias-bob-kemerait-talks-target-spot-cotton-part-1
http://www.cottoninc.com/fiber/Agricultural-Research/Agricultural-Meetings-Conferences/Tag-Spot-Cotton-Research-Meeting/JBrock-Presentation/Diagnosing-Target-Spot-of-Cotton.pdf
• https://sites.aces.edu/group/timelyinfo/Documents/pp706.pdf
http://www.arkansas-crops.com/2013/08/26/cotton-disease-alert-corynespora-leaf-spot-has-been-detected-in-arkansas/
http://www.mississippi-crops.com/2013/08/03/foliar-leaf-spots-observed-in-cotton/
http://seminolecropnews.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/target-spot-in-cotton/

Managing Southern Corn Rust in Louisiana

Managing Southern Corn Rust in Louisiana published on No Comments on Managing Southern Corn Rust in Louisiana

Primary Author:  Clayton Hollier, Plant Pathologist, Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology
Boyd Padgett, Regional Director and Plant Pathologist, Central Region
Trey Price, Plant Pathologist, Macon Ridge Research Station

We have scouted several corn fields concerning reports of southern corn rust (SCR). These reports and field visits reveal an epidemic of southern rust across the state but in particular in the south central and central corn growing regions. Field surveys indicate that SCR has been reported in 25 of 64 parishes and might be in more that have yet to be surveyed. The LSU AgCenter does not recommend an automatic fungicide application to corn. However, when disease epidemics are progressing up to and including the soft dough stage, an application of a labeled fungicide can protect yield and quality and still be economically viable.

Figure 1. Southern corn rust. Spores are orange.
Figure 1. Southern corn rust. Spores are orange.

Ideally, fungicides should be applied prior to disease onset, but realistically, fungicides are usually applied at or just after onset. Therefore, individuals should make efforts to detect and treat diseases as early as possible to prevent losses to yield and quality. When it is determined an application is needed, a premix fungicide will offer wide spectrum activity (examples are: Headline AMP, Stratego YLD, Quilt, and Quilt Xcel). Follow label instructions for application timings, rates, etc. In most cases, a single application at tassel is justified when disease is present and active. The decision to apply a fungicide should be made on a field-by-field basis. The remainder of this newsletter will address disease identification and management considerations.

Southern corn rust can be found in Louisiana corn fields every year, but its impact on grain quality and yield is dependent on several variables. Although there is some level of resistance, it seems very low. The hybrids considered resistant to SCR in the past are no longer considered resistant, due to new race development found in Georgia four years ago. Therefore, the decision to manage SCR with fungicides should be based on a solid understanding of disease initiation and development. While this disease rarely develops to statewide damaging levels in most years, disease incidence and severity in individual fields may warrant a fungicide application. However, before applying a fungicide, several factors need to be considered. These include disease identification, environmental conditions favoring disease development, and the relationship between disease severity and yield loss.

Southern corn rust is caused by the fungus Puccinia polysora. Initial infections are caused by wind-blown spores. This is a warmer-season rust and, therefore, usually occurs late season and does not always have adequate time to affect yield. However, this rust is very aggressive and if disease epidemics initiate early (prior to or at tasseling), yields could be reduced.

Conditions favoring development include temperatures between 80 degreesF and 90 degrees F with high relative humidity or abundant rainfall. Once established, the spores can survive, spread and germinate at temperatures up to 104 degrees F.

Southern rust produces small circular to oval pustules and contains orange to light brown spores (Figure 1). Pustules are usually more abundant on the upper leaf surface and may also be found on the leaf sheath and husks when disease is severe.

Risk and Management
Risk to disease is influenced by several factors including genetic resistance, tillage practices, planting date, and environmental conditions. Later planted corn can also heighten risk to SCR.

The first line of defense for managing any corn disease should be selecting a disease-resistant hybrid. Since commercially available resistance is not an option, a fungicide may be needed. However, when SCR is not present a fungicide is not necessary. Another factor to consider is when SCR epidemics initiate relative to crop growth stage. The potential for yield loss is high when SCR develops prior to tasseling and conditions remain favorable for development during the growing season. When the rust initiates after tasseling, the potential for disease loss decreases.

The relationship of yield and defoliation can be found in Table 1 adapted from the National Crop Insurance Service’s Corn Loss Instruction.

Table 1. Estimated % corn grain yield loss due to defoliation at various growth stages.

scr tableAdapted from the National Crop Insurance Service’s Corn Loss Instruction to represent the leaf collar growth staging method. Included in the Mississippi State University, Grain Crops Update June 4, 2010, Erick Larson.

 

 

 

 

Bacterial Blight (Angular Leaf Spot) Observed in Louisiana Cotton Fields

Bacterial Blight (Angular Leaf Spot) Observed in Louisiana Cotton Fields published on 1 Comment on Bacterial Blight (Angular Leaf Spot) Observed in Louisiana Cotton Fields

Bacterial blight was once (prior to 1991) a major disease of cotton causing average annual losses of as much as 3.4%. In severe cases, losses ranged from 50 to 70%. From 1991 to 2000, average losses due to bacterial blight averaged 0.1%. Over the past few years, a resurgence of the disease has been noted in the Mid-South. Since 2009, the disease has been observed on many different varieties in many counties in Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Missouri. This year the disease has been observed in three parishes to date. The causal agent of the disease is a bacterium, Xanthamonas campestris pv. malvacearum. This pathogen may affect all plant parts of cotton causing seedling disease and/or infection of leaves, vascular tissues, stems, petioles, bracts, and bolls. Foliar symptoms begin with small, water-soaked lesions on the underside of leaves that are “angular” because of leaf veins that restrict the movement of the bacteria. The lesions become visible on the upper surface of leaves and become necrotic (Figure 1), and the pathogen also may affect vascular systems in leaves resulting in purplish lesions that follow veins (Figure 2). Severe infections may result in defoliation. Stems and petioles also may be infected causing lodging, loss of branches, and/or leaf drop (Figures 3 and 4). Bolls also may be infected resulting in stained lint and possible transfer of the bacterium to seed.

Figure 1.  Angular lesions caused by bacterial blight.
Figure 1. Angular lesions caused by bacterial blight.

The pathogen may be seedborne, and in the past was successfully managed by acid-delinting and chemical treatments of seed. Infection occurs through natural openings or wounds to cotton plants. Survival of the pathogen on plant debris in the field may serve as initial inoculum the following cropping year. The bacterium is spread by wind, rain, insects, and equipment. Overhead irrigation or wind-driven rain will spread the bacterium during an active epidemic. Optimal conditions for disease development are high relative humidity (>85%) and temperatures ranging from 86-97°F.

Figure 2.  Bacterial blight lesions following leaf veins.
Figure 2. Bacterial blight lesions following leaf veins.

Figure 3. Angular leaf lesions infection of petiole, and leaf drop.
Figure 3. Angular leaf lesions infection of petiole, and leaf drop.

Figure 4.  Infection of stem and petioles causing leaf drop.
Figure 4. Infection of stem and petioles causing leaf drop.

Planting acid-delinted or chemically-treated seed will reduce the chances of infection. Sanitary measures to avoid spreading the bacterium should be used in fields where infection has occurred. Rotation to a non-host or planting resistant varieties also are management options. Turning under plant debris will help by reducing the number of bacteria that serve as primary inoculum at the beginning of the next growing season. Avoiding rank canopy growth will reduce leaf wetness periods and may help to reduce disease severity. Managing insect pests will likely lessen the spread of the pathogen. Do not stop irrigating, but do not over-irrigate. Water stress could be more detrimental than the disease, and cotton plants may compensate for foliage loss. Most importantly, there are varieties available that are resistant to bacterial blight. Below are some external sources with more information. Please contact your local parish agent, specialist, or nearest research station if you suspect bacterial blight or require additional information.

http://lubbock.tamu.edu/files/2011/11/2010Bacterial.pdf
http://www.mississippi-crops.com/2012/07/13/bacterial-blight-of-cotton-update-july-13-2012/
http://www.arkansas-crops.com/2011/07/20/alert-bacterial-blight-of-cotton-found-in-arkansas/

 

Frogeye Leaf Spot Prevalent in Louisiana Soybean

Frogeye Leaf Spot Prevalent in Louisiana Soybean published on No Comments on Frogeye Leaf Spot Prevalent in Louisiana Soybean

Over the past two weeks, many reports of frogeye leaf spot have been coming in from all soybean growing areas in the state. Overall disease severity in susceptible varieties has been light to moderate. The disease is caused by a fungus, Cercospora sojina, and has the potential to reduce yield by reducing leaf area and causing defoliation. Losses of up to 30% have been reported in the past. The disease may also cause discoloration of seed reducing seed quality. When scouting for frogeye, initial foliar symptoms are dark, water-soaked spots (1 to 5 mm) which later progress to lesions with gray to brown centers and reddish margins. Symptoms will be evident usually around R3, but may appear earlier or later. The disease may progress with more lesions developing, which may coalesce resulting in large necrotic areas on leaves. If infection is severe, frogeye may cause defoliation of soybeans. Young leaves are infected more readily than older leaves, and patterns of varying degrees of disease severity may be observed within canopy levels. Closer examination with a hand lens, or sometimes with the naked eye, will reveal gray to black conidiophores (reproductive structures) within the center of lesions. The disease is spread by windblown or rain-splashed conidia (spores) formed on the conidiophores. Conditions favorable for disease development have been prevalent in our current weather pattern of consistent rainfall, high humidity, and warm temperatures.

Figure 1.  Frogeye leaf spot lesions.
Figure 1. Frogeye leaf spot lesions.

Figure 2.  Coalescing frogeye leaf spot lesions (note the gray coloration near the centers of the lesions).
Figure 2. Coalescing frogeye leaf spot lesions (note the gray coloration near the centers of the lesions).

Figure 3.  A moderate infection of frogeye leaf spot.
Figure 3. A moderate infection of frogeye leaf spot.

Frogeye leaf spot may be managed by a number of methods. The first line of defense is planting a resistant variety and pathogen-free seed. Although our data is limited on varietal susceptibility, in 2013, we were able to rate soybean varieties for frogeye at Dean Lee Research Station in Alexandria. Results of those ratings are posted at: http://www.lsuagcenter.com/MCMS/RelatedFiles/%7B271517B6-5563-4FB9-BF4F-3D211119F027%7D/Dean-Lee-OVT.pdf. Another list from our friends in Mississippi and Tennessee is located at: http://www.mississippi-crops.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2013-soybean-short-list-frogeye-responses.pdf. If your variety of interest was not included in these sources, please contact your seed representative for more information.

Sometimes a fungicide application may be warranted for management of frogeye leaf spot in susceptible varieties when disease severity is moderate to heavy and conditions favor disease development. One important consideration when making application decisions is the fact that strobilurin fungicide resistance is likely in this pathogen population, and has been confirmed in 9 parishes in Louisiana. Even if strobilurin resistance has not been confirmed in your parish and if strobilurin fungicides have been routinely applied in the area, it is likely that the majority of the pathogen population has become resistant. In some cases we have seen reduced efficacy of strobilurin fungicides (Aproach, Evito, Gem, Headline and Quadris) on frogeye leaf spot. In our trials in 2013 and others conducted throughout the United States, we have seen consistent reductions in disease severity when using triazole products such as Domark, Proline, and Topguard. Additionally, pre-mixes containing these triazoles have shown reductions in disease severity. Data is limited for Louisiana, and we have trials at several research stations examining fungicide efficacy for these products as well as many others not listed.

Other considerations should include application coverage as it relates to nozzle type and water volume. Fungicides usually require a minimum of 10 gallons/A by ground and 5 gallons/A by air. Hollow cone or flat fan nozzles are recommended to achieve optimum droplet size. When applying fungicides, rotate chemistries to avoid resistance issues and prolong the usefulness of products. Please do not hesitate to contact LSU AgCenter via your parish agent, specialist, or nearest research station for additional information.

Secondary Sidebar