edible bean agronomy and pest …...this report is a compilation of agronomy and pest management...

EDIBLE BEAN

AGRONOMY AND

PEST MANAGEMENT RESEARCH RESULTS

2006

C.L. GILLARD S. WILLIS

D. DEPUYDT

2

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………. 3 Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………… 4 2006 Weather ………………………………………………………………………..…… 8 Control of Anthracnose in Dry Beans with Seed Treatments …..….………………….... 9 Head to Head Comparison of Foliar Fungicides to Control Anthracnose in Dry Beans ... 29 Interaction of Foliar Fungicides and Seed Treatments to Control Anthracnose .………. 49 Evaluation of Foliar Fungicides for Plant Health in Dry Beans ………………………… 87 Evaluation of Narrow Row Production Methods for Cranberry and Kidney Beans ……. 91 Efficacy of Matador Tankmixes to Control Leafhoppers in Dry Beans ………………… 100 Evaluation of Repeated Applications of Cygon at Various Rates in Dry Beans ………… 113 Control of White Mold in Dry Beans with Foliar Fungicides…………………………… 116 Control of Root Rot in Dry Beans with Seed Treatments ………………………………. 130 Field Validation of Common Bacterial Blight (CBB) Resistance in Dry Bean Cultivars… 148 Evaluation of the Incidence of Marsh Spot in Cranberry Bean Varieties ..…………….... 154 Dry Bean Variety Registration/Performance Trials……………………………………… 159 Dry Bean Variety Preliminary Yield Trials ……………………………………………… 165 Appendix A …………………………………………………………………………….. 169

3

Agronomy and Pest Management Research Results for Dry Edible Beans

2006

This report is a compilation of agronomy and pest management research results in dry edible beans at Ridgetown College and the Huron Research Station for 2006. It has been produced as a reference for growers and industry personnel. A number of the pesticides that are included in this report are not currently registered for use in dry edible beans in Ontario. Always follow label directions when applying pesticides.

Acknowledgments Funding for this research was received from: Agricultural Adaptation Council – CanAdvance Program The Ontario Coloured Bean Growers Syngenta Crop Protection BASF Canada The Ontario White Bean Producers Summer Career Placement Program Summer Experience Program

The Bean Team

Steve Willis Chris Gillard Don Depuydt Student Assistance by: Allison Vandermeer Kristen Verhoog Laura McKenzie Diane Murray Kelsey Nickel Kylie O’Neill Danelle Aulenback

Copyright by University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus

Ridgetown Ontario Canada N0P 2C0 Telephone: (519) 674-1632 Facimile (519)674-1600

Email:[email protected]

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For each of the following summaries, there are individual reports attached that will provide additional details and data summaries for the reader. 2006 Weather Heat unit accumulation for 2006 was close to average at all locations. Temperatures were quite moderate all summer, with little extreme heat. Precipitation was below average for May and June, but average to above average for July and August. Rainfall was not a limiting factor for most of the summer. Harvest started normally, but from mid-September on, extremely wet weather and cloudy conditions made progress very difficult. This was the worst harvest season since 1992. A large number of plots were hand pulled, and brought into the shop to dry before threshing. The last soybean plots had to be hand harvested, because soil conditions were too wet to support the weight of a combine. Dispite difficult weather conditions, harvest was finished before the end of October. A killing frost did not occur until well into November, across much of southern Ontario. The irrigation system at the Huron Research Station worked very well. Some irrigation was done in June to alleviate drought stress. The system was used extensively in the white mold nursery, with good success. Anthracnose Experiments This was the second year for the national anthracnose project. The project has three objectives:

- develop a rapid DNA based test to detect anthracnose in seed and plant samples - develop new IPM tools by surveying the disease races present in commercial fields,

develop a comprehensive list of genetic resistance present in commercial varieties, and fill in gaps in existing chemical and cultural control measures.

- develop breeding lines with pyramided genes for resistance Collaborating partners in the project include Dr. R. Conner and Dr. P. Balasubaramanian at AAFC Morden, and Dr. G. Boland at U of Guelph. A number of field studies were initiated in June 2005 at Exeter ON and Morden MB, and repeated in 2006. Each study was planted twice; the first using infected seed with no visible lesions (mild infection), and the second using seed with visible lesions (severe infection). This provided a range of disease pressure for the treatments applied. This research will be wound down at the end of 2006, and new graduate student research projects will be initiated in 2007. In Ontario, regular precipitation and moderate temperatures resulted in good anthacnose disease pressure. In 2006, the leaf vein damage was less than in 2005, but the pod damage was greater. This followed a similar trend as the year before. In Manitoba, very dry weather after planting limited the disease in some trials. Some trials were located at the AAFC research station at Morden, and irrigation was used to promote disease development. Control of Anthracnose with Seed Treatments Dynasty was compared to four other seed treatments (Apron Maxx, Senator, DCT and Vitaflo 280) and one foliar product (Quadris). There were three locations; two near Exeter ON, and one near Morden MB. Dynasty was evaluated at four rates, with and without Apron Maxx. It is interesting to note that Apron Maxx was more effective than its’ performance average over the last four years. Dynasty applied at 0.5 or 1.0 g a.i. + Apron Maxx was equivalent to DCT. This is the first time in five years that a treatment has been identified that is equivalent to DCT.

5

Head-to-Head Comparison of Foliar Fungicides for the Control of Anthracnose Quadris and Headline were compared at 4 application timings (A= late vegetative, B = early flower, C = late flower, and D = early pod fill) in two trials near Exeter ON. Each fungicide had seven treatments applied; four single applications (A, B, C and D) and three sequential applications (AC, BC and BD). Early leaf vein and pod ratings at 8 WAP were inconclusive measures of performance, since some foliar timings had been just applied, or were not even applied yet. The top single application was the ‘C’ timing, while the top sequential application were the ‘BC’ and ‘BD’ timing. There was a dramatic increase in disease pressure just after the ‘C’ timing of fungicide application. This favoured the ‘C’ timing, over earlier fungicide timings. Headline was found to be significantly better than Quadris in a number of treatment comparisons, for disease incidence and severity, and for crop assessment and yield. This agrees with a trend in the data set from 2005. Interaction of Foliar Fungicide and Seed Treatments for the Control of Anthracnose The interaction of two foliar fungicides (Quadris and Headline) and two seed treatments (DCT and Apron Maxx) was evaluated in four trials near Exeter ON. Seven different application timings were used for each foliar fungicide; four single applications (A, B, C and D) and three sequential applications (AC, BC and BD). The foliar fungicide treatments overlaid on separate experiments seeded with each seed treatment. For all the experiments, treatments using DCT were consistently better than treatments using Apron Maxx as a seed treatment. The best single fungicide application was the ‘B’ or ’C’ timing. The ‘B’ timing was favoured in treatments containing Apron Maxx as a seed treatment or Quadris as a foliar fungicide. The ‘C’ timing was favoured in treatments containing DCT as a seed treatment, or Headline as a foliar fungicide. Under lower disease pressure, two sequential applications of Headline were no better than the best single application timing. This was particularly evident when DCT was used as a seed treatment. Under higher disease pressure, two sequential applications of Headline were more consistent than one single application. In the two Quadris experiments, two sequential applications were more consistent than a single fungicide application. Efficacy of Foliar Fungicides for Plant Health in Dry Beans The purpose of the experiment was to measure the effects of foliar fungicides on plant health, in the absence of any disease pressure. Quadris and Headline were tested at ½ and full label rates in four replicated studies. Each study used a different bean cultivar (OAC Rex, T9905, Red Hawk and Etna). A series of grower strip trials were also done, but will not be reported on. In each experiment, the fungicides had no effect on yield. A combined analysis over locations did not identify any significant yield responses. This research will continue in 2007, using the same methodology. It is anticipated that the yield response to fungicide application is quite small, in the absence of any disease pressure. A combined analysis over locations and years will likely be needed to measure any differences. The Response of Cranberry and Kidney Varieties to Narrow Row Production Methods. Two cranberry (Hooter/Etna) and two kidney (Red Hawk/Red Kanner) varieties were compared under two row width management systems (76 and 38 cm) at three locations (Thorndale, Exeter and the Huron Research Station). The varieties were selected on their popularity, and differences in maturity and architecture. Seeding rates were increased by 25% in the narrow row system. Some variation in plant stands were noticed between varieties, in each row width. The narrow row system produced significantly higher yields at two sites. At these sites, each variety responded positively to narrow rows. The average yield advantage for the narrow row system was 273 kg/ha.

6

This research will continue in 2007, with a slight change to the protocol. A high seeding rate will be used for each plot, and then hand thinning will be done to achieve the correct plant population and spacing. Evaluation of Matador Tankmixes for the Control of Potato Leafhoppers Matador tank mixes were compared in two dry bean varieties (T9905 and Berna) at two locations (Huron Research Station and Ridgetown Campus). The insecticide Matador was applied alone, and as a tankmix with two fungicides (Allegro and cyprodinil/fludioxonil) in each trial. This research will support the registration of these tank mixes for crop group 6C (legumes). The main pests include PLH/white mold in dry beans and aphids/rust in soybeans. PLH nymph populations were below average at Huron, and average at Ridgetown. The tank mixes had some impact on PLH nymph populations, but there was no effect on crop yield or phytotoxicity. Evaluation of Repeated Applications of Cygon at Various Rates on White Beans Three rates of Cygon (25, 50 and 100% of the label rate) were applied three times to two dry bean varieties (T9905 and SVM Taylor), to document the impact of repeated applications of Cygon on dry bean cultivars. Insecticide application was done every two weeks for a six week period. A standard PLH nymph threshold was used to initiate the timing of the first insecticide application. No differences in yield were recorded. This research has been conducted for four years, and there is no evidence that repeated applications of Cygon, even at the full label rate, have any effect on yield. Control of White Mold in Dry Edible Beans with Foliar Fungicides Three experiments were conducted at the Huron Research Station, under irrigation, to evaluate five products (Lance, Ronilan, Quadris, Allegro and cyprodinil/fludioxonil) alone and as tank mixes with other products. A great northern bean cv. Matterhorn was planted on three separate dates at a sheltered site, and intensively managed to increase the likelihood of white mold infection. There was no white mold disease pressure in the first experiment, and it was discarded. Treatment differences were detected for disease incidence and severity shortly after fungicide application, and the differences continued through to harvest. The top treatments included Lance, Ronilan and Allegro. One experiment was conducted in a cranberry bean (cv. Dolly) field near Thorndale. Three fungicides (Lance, Ronilan and Allegro) were compared to two rates of CaCl. Disease incidence was high, and no differences were found between treatments. The Lance and Allegro treatments had the least disease severity, and the highest yield. The CaCl treatments were not significantly different that the untreated control. Control of Seedling Root Rot (Rhizoctionia) in Dry Edible Beans with Seed Treatments Four experiments were conducted at the Huron Research Station, using cranberry (cv. SVM Taylor) and kidney (Red Hawk) varieties. In the first two experiments, a Rhizoctonia root rot culture was inoculated into the seed trench at planting. In the other two experiments, native strains of root rot in the soil were used to evaluate the treatments. Hot and dry conditions following planting were not considered ideal for the development of root rot. Native strains of root rot in the soil did not provide enough root rot pressure to provide treatment differences. The addition of Rhizoctonia inoculum produced dramatic results for plant emergence and vigour. This was particularly evident in the kidney bean experiment. Apron Maxx was dramatically better than DCT. The addition of high rates of Dynasty to Apron Maxx, were incrementally better than Apron Maxx alone. Ratings for root rot and plant weight at 37 days after planting did not provide consistent treatment differences.

7

Field Validation of Common Bacterial Blight (CBB) Resistance in Dry Bean Cultivars Fourteen cultivars with CBB tolerance were compared to three CBB susceptible cultivars in separate CBB inoculated and uninoculated experiments. A low level of disease was documented on each treatment in the uninoculated experiment. There were no significant differences between susceptible and resistant cultivars. A moderate level of CBB infection was initially documented in the inoculated experiment. Most of the CBB tolerant cultivars had lower disease levels than the susceptible cultivars. Disease symptoms did not spread on the plants, or onto the pods and seed. There were no differences between treatments for yield, or a calculated yield index. This research will continue in 2007. Evaluation of Marsh Spot in Dry Beans The cranberry cultivars entered into the variety trials at the Kippen, Thorndale, St. Thomas and Monkton locations were evaluated for marsh spot and compared to Messina, which was also planted at each trial location. Marsh spot was quite noticeable at the Thorndale and St. Thomas sites. A combined analysis of all four locations shows that Messina, HR 167-4099 and HR 161-4199 are significantly worst than any other variety. This agrees with data from 2005. This research will continue in 2007. Variety Trials There were 5 registration/performance trials planted in 2005. The Brussels location (whites) was discarded, due to extreme white mold pressure. Yield and mold summaries were prepared, but are of limited value. The Kippen location (white, major coloured, minor coloured) was excellent with very low c.v.’s, considering the harvest weather conditions. The Thorndale location (major coloured) had severe crusting problems at emergence, which affected plant stands. Good growing conditions for the rest of the season produced an excellent trial with above average yields and a c.v. of 7.3. All of the cranberry and kidney entries were tested at the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool lab for halo blight infection, at a cost of $2500. A new methodology to detect halo blight was used for 2006. Three coloured bean entries (HR163-4099, OAC 06-D1 and OAC 06-D2) were found to have moderate Pseudomonas infection. These lines were removed from the entry list for 2006. There was no halo blight infection at any location in 2006. The Kemptville white bean trial data has been added to this report, to provide this information to the participants in the trial. This site was considered a valid trial, and it was inspected by an OPCC member. A series of preliminary yield trials (PYT) were organized and planted at the Kippen location in 2006. These trials planted beside the registration/performance trials, and managed the same way. The use of common checks will allow some comparisons to be made between the PYT entries and entries in the official trials. A total of 80 lines were tested in three trials; a narrow row trial (25 white/17 black), a wide row major (12 LRK/12 DRK/6 cran) and a wide row minor (adzuki, otebo, yellow, pink, small red etc.). Seven private (ADM, Agricore United, Coop, ISB, Rogers, Seminis, Syngenta) and five public (Ag. Can, Cornell, MSU, NDSU, WSU) breeding institutions participated. This research will continue in 2007.

8

2006 Heat Unit and Precipitation Summary for Ridgetown, Exeter and Brussels

Ontario Corn Heat Units (OCHU) Huron Research (Exeter) Brussels Ridgetown College

Norm Norm Norm Month 2006 2005 (28 yr) 2006 2005 (18 yr) 2006 2005 (34 yr)

May 298 360 335 308 292 296 464 344 354 June 636 767 649 612 707 603 640 768 684 July 809 787 775 779 728 701 807 806 799

August 731 771 741 645 714 675 736 790 769 September 555 625 544 418 452 430 527 650 578

October 194 225 62 159 169 34 207 337 190 Total 2945 3535 3106 2921 3062 2739 3381 3695 3374

Precipitation (mm)

Huron Research (Exeter) Brussels Ridgetown College Norm Norm Norm

Month 2006 2005 (28 yr) 2006 2005 (18yr) 2006 2005 (34 yr)

May 28 68 82 57 23 94 84 82 78 June 30 29 79 54 27 92 57 36 76 July 78 128 81 179 197 87 98 29 80

August 91 94 68 48 76 92 76 64 92 September 60 65 109 97 35 107 110 40 89

October 174 75 86 134 21 75 118 81 67 Total 461 459 505 569 379 547 543 332 482

20% or more below average 20% or more above average

9

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Edible beans, Common white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cv. Kippen, common white bean PEST: Anthracnose, Colletotrichum lindemuthianumi NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS S., DEPUYDT D., Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: CONTROL OF ANTHRACNOSE IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS WITH NO LESIONS USING DIFFERENT SEED APPLIED AND FOLIAR CHEMICAL TREATMENTS (EXETER)

MATERIALS: APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 3.8g + 2.5g ai/ha.); QUADRIS 250 SC (azoxystrobin 125g ai/ha); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w); VITAFLO 280 (carbathiin + thiram, 44g + 39g ai/100 kg seed) ; SENATOR (thiophanate-methyl 72.8 g ai/100 kg seed );A14379B; CRUISER 5 FS (thiamethoxam, 50 g ai /100 kg seed); Cruiser Maxx (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil + thiamethoxam, 56.25 g ai /100 kg seed); Dynasty (azoxystrobin .25,.5,1.0, & 2.0 g ai/100 kg seed). METHODS: The anthracnose pressure was modified by using mixtures of seed with and without visible anthracnose damage. The presence of visible damage has been shown to increase disease pressure. The seed for this trial was obtained from previous studies. The seed was sorted using a SORTEX ELECTRIC EYE which separated the seed into white and off white seed. The off white seed was primarily infected with anthracnose lesions, and for the remainder of this report, the “off white” seed will be called seed with lesions. In this experiment the infected seed used had no visible lesions. The trial was set up using a RCBD with 4 replications. Plots contained 5 rows which were 0.43 m apart and 6.0 m in length. The centre 3 rows contained the infected white beans and the outside two rows contained soybeans. The soybean rows were used to help prevent disease transmission from plot to plot. The seeding rate was 18 seeds per metre for the white beans and 25 seeds per metre for the soybeans. The trial was planted at a farm near Exeter, Ontario on 9 June 2005 using a five-row cone-seeder with John Deere Max Emerge planter units. The fungicides were sprayed using a CO2 pressurized sprayer with three 10-002 Air Bubble Nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 346kPa (50psi) in 200 L/ha water. Sentinel plots were set up using all the infected seed checks (treatment 1). Each plot had ten random plants labelled with plastic corn tags. Every 2-3 days, incidence and severity ratings were done on these tagged plants. This system was used to determine the start date for ratings on the all the trials. The ratings were timed to document the maximum treatment differences, before the disease had a chance to spread throughout the experiment and overwhelm the treatments applied. Assessments for emergence and vigour damage were done using the middle 4 meter long area located in the centre row of the three infected rows of the plot. Plant emergence was assessed for 3 weeks starting on 2 weeks after planting (WAP). Plant emergence ratings were then converted to a percentage of seed planted. Plant vigour was assessed using a scale of 0 - 10 (0 = best plant development and 10 = poorest plant development) and was assessed for 3 weeks starting at 2 WAP. Disease ratings were accessed on leaves and pods. Leaf ratings were done for 3 weeks, starting at 8 WAP. These leaf ratings were determined by visually rating the percent total leaf vein area that was discoloured. An attempt was made at the 6 WAP stage but there was not enough damage to record treatment differences. Pod disease incidence ratings were done for 3 weeks, starting at 8 WAP. Pod severity ratings were done at 11 WAP. Pod severity ratings used an index of the number of destroyed pods and the % damage on the remaining pods. The applications of foliar sprays (Table 1) occurred at the 4-5 trifoliate stage (5 WAP, July 14), late 50% bloom stage (6 WAP, July 22) and late full bloom stage (7 WAP, July 28).

10

A 4 meter section from the centre of the three infected rows was harvested on Sept 8. The seed from each plot was weighed and the seed moisture was measured. The seed was then put through a CLIPPER CLEANER equipped with a 10 X ¾ screen (industry standard). The difference between the weight before cleaning and the weight after cleaning was calculated as a percent dockage. A weight of 100 randomly selected seeds from each plot was obtained. Of these 100 seeds a weight of the seeds rejected for discolouration and/or misshapen appearance was established as a percent and called pick. The dry bean industry uses a larger sample (minimum 500 grams) to determine the pick, but this is not practical for this study. A visual seed quality rating was done using a 1 to 5 scale (1 = excellent seed quality and 5 = poor seed quality). The final crop assessments include yield which was calculated using all of the seed harvested from each plot, after cleaning to remove any foreign material. Each plot weight was adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%, and then converted to kg/ha. To calculate the value of the crop, the goal was to mirror the grading standards used by the dry bean industry for commercial production as much as possible. The value of the crop ($/acre) was determined by reducing the seed yield for two possible quality deficiencies; dockage and pick. Dockage (undersized seed and diseased splits) is removed as a straight percentage. For pick (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) the percentage is doubled to allow not only for the actual poor seed but also for the cost of removing that seed. The remaining large clean seed yield was multiplied by a price of $0.21 per pound to calculate a value per acre. The additional value for each treatment was calculated by subtracting the value per acre for the infected seed check treatment from the value per acre of each treatment. Additional costs were calculated using the suggested grower list prices for each product applied. The return on investment was calculated by subtracting the additional cost from the additional value for each treatment. RESULTS: See Tables 1 – 8 , Figure 1 CONCLUSIONS: Regular precipitation and moderate temperatures resulted in good anthracnose disease pressure (Figure 1). In 2006, the leaf vein discolouration was less than in 2005, but the pod damage started earlier, and was more severe. There were noticeable differences between the infected and uninfected treatments for plant emergence (Table 2) and plant vigour (Table 3). Treatments containing Apron Maxx had better emergence and vigour than most other treatments. Significant differences were detected between treatments for leaf vein discolouration and the incidence of pod lesions at 8 WAP (Tables 4 and 5). Treatments were significantly better if they had a foliar fungicide application. Seed treatment only treatments had fewer veins purple and pod lesions if the treatment contained a high rate of Dynasty with Apron Maxx, compared to either treatment alone. Dynasty at 0.5 or 1.0 g a.i. + Apron Maxx, was equivalent to the label rate of DCT. A pod damage index was created to estimate the severity of pod damage, and allow for pods already destroyed (Table 6). Shriveled pods (< 50 % in size of a normal sized pod) were counted as 100% destroyed and the remaining pods had a damage estimate done (using the % of the pod area with lesions). The index shows a dramatic difference between the infected check and the uninfected check that was sprayed with Quadris. Seed treatment only treatments containing high rate of Dynasty or Senator with Apron Maxx provided the best results. Adding Apron Maxx to a treatment generally reduced the severity of pod lesions. Dynasty at 1 g a.i. + Apron Maxx was equivalent to the label rate of DCT. Treatments with high disease pressure tended to have smaller seed, poorer visual seed quality, higher dockage and pick (Table 7) and lower yield and value per acre (Table 8). A dramatic difference can be seen between the infected check and the uninfected check that was sprayed with Quadris for each parameter in Tables 7 & 8. Treatments containing thiophanate-methyl in combination with Apron Maxx or high rates of Dynasty provided the best results (excluding the foliar treatments). Adding Apron Maxx to a treatment generally improved each of the crop seed assessments as well as yield and value per acre. Dynasty at 0.5 or 1.0 g a.i. + Apron Maxx, was equivalent to the label rate of DCT. In Table 8, the calculations for additional value, additional costs and return on investment were not analyzed for statistical significance. All treatments except Cruiser alone had a positive Return On Investment (ROI) for this trial. The best treatments (excluding foliar treatments) were treatments including Dynasty or Senator + Apron Maxx. Dynasty at 0.5 g a.i. + Apron Maxx, was equivalent to the label rate of DCT.

11

Figure # 1 Sentinel plot anthracnose incidence and severity ratings in white beans at Exeter, ON. 2006

Comparison of Lesion to Non Lesion on Navy Bean Leaves

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jul-11 Jul-14 Jul-17 Jul-19 Jul-21 Jul-24 Jul-26 Jul-31 Aug-02 Aug-04 Aug-08Date

Per

cen

tage

No lesion incidence Lesion incidence No lesion severity Lesion severity

Table 1 Application timing for the fungicides in white beans with no anthracnose lesions at Exeter, ON. 2006

Weeks After Planting Treatment

Product Rate (g/100 kg seed

or ml/ha) 4 5 6 7 8 9

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris 500 ml * * *

15 Senator + Apron Maxx + Quadris 104 g + 328 ml + 500 ml *

• * indicates when the foliar fungicides was applied

12

Table 2 Emergence in white beans with no anthracnose lesions at Exeter Ontario. 2006

% Crop Emergence

Treatment Product Rate (g/100 kg seed

or ml/ha) 2 WAP 3 WAP 4 WAP

1 Infected Seed Check 83 b-e 82 c-f 83 b-f

2 Uninfected Seed Check + Quadris 500 ml 85 a-d 95 a 94 a

3 Cruiser 83 ml 85 a-d 85 b-f 82 b-f

4 Dynasty + Cruiser 2.5 ml+ 83 ml 84 b-e 86 a-e 86 a-d

5 Dynasty + Cruiser 5.0 ml+ 83 ml 78 cde 81 def 74 f

6 Dynasty + Cruiser 10.0 ml+ 83 ml 96 a 78 ef 81 b-f

7 Dynasty + Cruiser 20.0 ml.+ 83 ml 87 abc 76 f 75 ef

8 Cruiser + Apron Maxx RTA 83 ml + 328 ml 83 b-e 92 ab 90 ab

9 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 2.5 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 80 b-e 89 a-d 86 a-d

10 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 5.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 89 abc 90 a-d 87 a-d

11 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 10.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 87 abc 88 a-e 85 a-e

12 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 20.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 90 ab 90 a-d 87 a-d

13 Cruiser+ Senator 83 ml + 104 g 80 b-e 91 a-d 80 b-f

14 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 79 b-e 82 c-f 80 c-f

15 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 87 abc 90 a-d 89 abc

Quadris 500 ml

16 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 5.0 ml + 195 ml 74 e 89 a-d 85 a-d

17 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 10.0 ml + 195 ml 81 b-e 91 abc 85 a-d

18 DCT + Cruiser 260 g+ 83 ml 89 ab 87 a-e 82 b-f

19 DCT + Cruiser 520 g+ 83 ml 74 de 90 a-d 79 def

20 Vitaflo 280+ Cruiser 260 ml+ 83 ml 82 b-e 85 b-f 81 b-f

Mean 83.7 86.8 83.6

PR>F 0.03 0.01 0.03

LSD (P=. 05) 11.4 9.5 9.8

CV 9.6 7.7 8.3

13

Table 3 Vigour in white beans with no anthracnose lesions at Exeter Ontario. 2006

Crop Vigour



1 Infected Seed Check 4.5 a 6.0 a 5.0 a

2 Uninfected Seed Check + Quadris 500 ml 1.0 e 2.0 g 1.5 d

3 Cruiser 83 ml 3.5 abc 4.8 bcd 3.0 bc

4 Dynasty + Cruiser 2.5 ml+ 83 ml 4.0 ab 5.3 abc 3.8 abc

5 Dynasty + Cruiser 5.0 ml+ 83 ml 3.5 abc 5.5 ab 4.3 ab

6 Dynasty + Cruiser 10.0 ml+ 83 ml 3.5 abc 5.3 abc 4.3 ab

7 Dynasty + Cruiser 20.0 ml.+ 83 ml 4.5 a 5.5 ab 4.0 ab

8 Cruiser + Apron Maxx RTA 83 ml + 328 ml 2.8 cd 4.8 bcd 3.0 bc

9 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 2.5 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 3.0 bcd 3.3 ef 3.0 bc

10 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 5.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 2.3 d 4.0 def 3.0 bc

11 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 10.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 3.0 bcd 4.0 def 2.5 cd

12 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 20.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 3.0 bcd 4.5 bcd 3.5 bc

13 Cruiser+ Senator 83 ml + 104 g 3.3 bcd 3.8 def 3.0 bc

14 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 3.3 bcd 4.3 cde 3.0 bc

15 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 2.8 cd 4.0 def 3.0 bc

Quadris 500 ml

16 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 5.0 ml + 195 ml 3.3 bcd 4.0 def 3.0 bc

17 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 10.0 ml + 195 ml 2.3 d 3.0 fg 3.0 bc

18 DCT + Cruiser 260 g+ 83 ml 3.5 abc 4.0 def 3.8 abc

19 DCT + Cruiser 520 g+ 83 ml 2.5 cd 4.3 cde 3.8 abc

20 Vitaflo 280+ Cruiser 260 ml+ 83 ml 3.0 bcd 4.3 cde 3.3 bc

Mean 3.11 4.31 3.33

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 1.1 1.0 1.3

CV 24.5 16.6 26.9

14

Table 4 Leaf vein discolouration ratings in white beans with no anthracnose lesions at Exeter Ontario. 2006

Leaf Vein Rating



1 Infected Seed Check 11 a 34 a 81 a

2 Uninfected Seed Check + Quadris 500 ml 0 c 0 c 0 d

3 Cruiser 83 ml 8 a 30 a 75 a

4 Dynasty + Cruiser 2.5 ml+ 83 ml 2 bc 10 b 20 bcd

5 Dynasty + Cruiser 5.0 ml+ 83 ml 0 c 1 bc 11 bcd

6 Dynasty + Cruiser 10.0 ml+ 83 ml 0 c 2 bc 16 bcd

7 Dynasty + Cruiser 20.0 ml.+ 83 ml 0 c 1 bc 11 bcd

8 Cruiser + Apron Maxx RTA 83 ml + 328 ml 2 bc 10 bc 35 B

9 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 2.5 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 1 bc 5 bc 20 bcd

10 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 5.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 0 c 3 bc 17 bcd

11 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 10.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 0 c 1 bc 7 cd

12 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 20.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 0 c 1 bc 9 bcd

13 Cruiser+ Senator 83 ml + 104 g 2 bc 6 bc 21 bcd

14 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 0 c 1 bc 5 d

15 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 0 c 0 bc 1 d

Quadris 500 ml

16 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 5.0 ml + 195 ml 0 c 6 bc 23 bcd

17 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 10.0 ml + 195 ml 1 bc 2 bc 9 bcd

18 DCT + Cruiser 260 g+ 83 ml 0 c 2 bc 33 bc

19 DCT + Cruiser 520 g+ 83 ml 1 bc 2 bc 11 bcd

20 Vitaflo 280+ Cruiser 260 ml+ 83 ml 6 ab 7 bc 35 b

Mean 1.8 6.1 22.0

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 5.4 10.0 27.4

CV 213.4 115.1 88.2

15

Table 5 Incidence of pod lesions in white beans with no anthracnose lesions at Exeter Ontario. 2006

Incidence of Pod Lesions



1 Infected Seed Check 14 a 37 a 33 abc

2 Uninfected Seed Check + Quadris 500 ml 0 c 0 c 0 f

3 Cruiser 83 ml 12 ab 32 a 35 ab

4 Dynasty + Cruiser 2.5 ml+ 83 ml 4 c 14 bc 32 abc

5 Dynasty + Cruiser 5.0 ml+ 83 ml 0 c 6 bc 20 b-e

6 Dynasty + Cruiser 10.0 ml+ 83 ml 0 c 10 bc 23 a-d

7 Dynasty + Cruiser 20.0 ml.+ 83 ml 0 c 3 bc 15 def

8 Cruiser + Apron Maxx RTA 83 ml + 328 ml 3 c 15 b 38 a

9 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 2.5 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 3 c 13 bc 37 a

10 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 5.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 0 c 6 bc 33 abc

11 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 10.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 0 c 3 bc 18 cde

12 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 20.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 0 c 3 bc 23 a-d

13 Cruiser+ Senator 83 ml + 104 g 2 c 9 bc 23 a-d

14 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 0 c 4 bc 19 b-e

15 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 0 c 0 c 6 ef

Quadris 500 ml

16 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 5.0 ml + 195 ml 1 c 10 bc 27 a-d

17 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 10.0 ml + 195 ml 2 c 4 bc 23 a-d

18 DCT + Cruiser 260 g+ 83 ml 2 c 8 bc 32 abc

19 DCT + Cruiser 520 g+ 83 ml 0 c 6 bc 25 a-d

20 Vitaflo 280+ Cruiser 260 ml+ 83 ml 6 bc 16 b 26 a-d

Mean 2.6 9.9 24.3

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 6.5 13.6 16.7

CV 179.5 97.8 48.5

16

Table 6 Severity of pod damage in white beans with no anthracnose lesions at Exeter Ontario. 2006

Severity of Pod Lesions (11 WAP)

Treatment


or ml/ha) % Pod Area With Lesions

% of Pods Destroyed

Pod Destruction

Index **

1 Infected Seed Check 15 d 47 a 56 ab

2 Uninfected Seed Check + Quadris 500 ml 4 e 0 h 4 i

3 Cruiser 83 ml 35 a 46 a 65 a

4 Dynasty + Cruiser 2.5 ml+ 83 ml 26 abc 25 b-f 44 b-e

5 Dynasty + Cruiser 5.0 ml+ 83 ml 21 cd 12 fgh 30 efg

6 Dynasty + Cruiser 10.0 ml+ 83 ml 27 abc 25 b-f 45 bcd

7 Dynasty + Cruiser 20.0 ml.+ 83 ml 21 cd 10 fgh 30 fg

8 Cruiser + Apron Maxx RTA 83 ml + 328 ml 21 cd 35 abc 49 bc

9 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 2.5 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 21 cd 30 b-e 45 bcd

10 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 5.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 28 abc 38 ab 55 ab

11 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 10.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 23 bcd 16 e-h 35 d-g

12 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 20.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 23 bcd 8 gh 29 fg

13 Cruiser+ Senator 83 ml + 104 g 28 abc 9 gh 33 d-g

14 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 15 d 12 fgh 25 gh

15 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 14 d 0 h 14 hi

Quadris 500 ml

16 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 5.0 ml + 195 ml 31 ab 35 a-d 55 ab

17 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 10.0 ml + 195 ml 25 bc 13 fgh 34 d-g

18 DCT + Cruiser 260 g+ 83 ml 28 abc 23 b-g 44 bcd

19 DCT + Cruiser 520 g+ 83 ml 25 bc 19 d-g 39 c-f

20 Vitaflo 280+ Cruiser 260 ml+ 83 ml 26 abc 20 c-g 41 c-f

Mean 22.8 21.1 38.7

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 8.8 16.0 13.5

CV 27.4 53.6 24.8

** pod destruction index =(100%*%of dest. pods)+(% pod area with lesions*(1- % of dest.pods))*100

17

Table 7 Seed quality ratings in white beans with no anthracnose lesions at Exeter Ontario. 2006

Crop Seed Assessment Treatment


or ml/ha) Seed

Moisture 100 Seed Weight

Seed Quality Dockage Pick

1 Infected Seed Check 19.9 a 14.1 f 4.8 a 15 a 44 abc

2 Uninfected Seed Check + Quadris 500 ml 16.8 f 17.3 a 1.9 f 2 e 19 f

3 Cruiser 83 ml 19.0 abc 14.5 ef 4.6 a 15 a 52 a

4 Dynasty + Cruiser 2.5 ml+ 83 ml 18.1 b-e 15.6 b-f 4.6 ab 9 bc 45 abc

5 Dynasty + Cruiser 5.0 ml+ 83 ml 18.0 b-f 16.1 a-d 4.1 bcd 6 bcd 38 bcd

6 Dynasty + Cruiser 10.0 ml+ 83 ml 19.0 ab 15.3 c-f 4.4 abc 8 bc 42 bcd

7 Dynasty + Cruiser 20.0 ml.+ 83 ml 17.8 b-f 15.7 b-f 4.1 bcd 7 bcd 40 bcd

8 Cruiser + Apron Maxx RTA 83 ml + 328 ml 18.5 bcd 15.4 c-f 4.6 ab 9 bc 39 bcd

9 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 2.5 ml+83 ml+328 ml 19.0 abc 15.8 a-e 4.5 ab 9 bc 45 abc

10 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 5 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 17.8 b-f 15.5 b-f 4.1 bcd 7 bcd 39 bcd

11 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 10 ml+83 ml+ 328 ml 18.4 bcd 15.9 a-e 4.1 bcd 6 bcd 39 bcd

12 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 20 ml+83 ml+328 ml 18.6 a-d 16.7 abc 3.6 d 7 bcd 39 bcd

13 Cruiser+ Senator 83 ml + 104 g 18.0 b-f 15.9 a-e 4.5 ab 7 bcd 44 abc

14 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g+83 ml+328 ml 17.6 c-f 16.6 abc 3.8 cd 6 cde 37 cd

15 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g+83 ml+ 328 ml 17.0 ef 17.0 ab 2.8 e 4 de 27 ef

Quadris 500 ml 16 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 5.0 ml + 195 ml 17.5 def 15.9 a-e 4.3 bcd 8 bc 40 bcd

17 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 10.0 ml + 195 ml 16.9 ef 16.2 a-d 3.6 d 6 bcd 35 de

18 DCT + Cruiser 260 g+ 83 ml 18.5 a-d 14.9 def 4.5 ab 10 b 43 bcd

19 DCT + Cruiser 520 g+ 83 ml 18.0 b-f 15.6 b-f 4.3 bcd 8 bc 42 bcd

20 Vitaflo 280+ Cruiser 260 ml+ 83 ml 18.7 a-d 15.5 b-f 4.5 ab 9 bc 46 ab

Mean 18.1 15.7 4.11 7.83 33.3

PR>F 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 1.3 1.6 0.7 3.7 18.1

CV 5.2 6.9 11.5 33.6 37.9

18

Table 8 Crop Value Assessment in white beans with no anthracnose lesions at Exeter Ontario. 2006

Crop Value Assessment Treatment


or ml/ha) Yield (kg ha–1)

Value ($ per ac.)

Additional Value

($ per ac.)

Additional Costs*

($ per ac.)

Return on Investment ($ per ac.)

1 Infected Seed Check 695 e 14.35 fg

2 Uninfected Seed Check + Quadris 2765 a 317.13 a

3 Cruiser 500 ml 704 e -6.10 g -20.45 7.42 -27.87

4 Dynasty + Cruiser 83 ml 1381 d 25.49 efg 11.14 9.60 1.54

5 Dynasty + Cruiser 2.5 ml+ 83 ml 1712 cd 80.91 cde 66.56 11.77 54.79

6 Dynasty + Cruiser 5.0 ml+ 83 ml 1359 d 39.14 d-g 24.79 16.12 8.67

7 Dynasty + Cruiser 10.0 ml+ 83 ml 1746 cd 63.07 c-f 48.72 24.82 23.90

8 Cruiser + Apron Maxx RTA 20.0 ml.+ 83 ml 1343 d 45.02 d-g 30.67 10.50 20.17

9 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 83 ml + 328 ml 1471 cd 36.73 d-g 22.38 12.68 9.70

10 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA

2.5 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 1672 cd 65.99 c-f 51.64 14.85 36.79


5.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 1906 bc 79.32 cde 64.97 14.85 50.12


10.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 1665 cd 60.95 c-f 46.60 19.20 27.40

13 Cruiser+ Senator 20.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 1594 cd 45.34 d-g 30.99 11.55 19.44

14 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 83 ml + 104 g 1847 bcd 95.73 cd 81.38 14.63 66.75

15 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA

104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 2323 ab 193.46 b 179.11 44.72 134.39

Quadris 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml

16 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 500 ml 1624 cd 65.15 c-f 50.80 14.85 35.95

17 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 5.0 ml + 195 ml 1961 bc 111.47 c 97.12 19.20 77.92

18 DCT + Cruiser 10.0 ml + 195 ml 1366 d 39.91 d-g 25.56 10.02 15.54

19 DCT + Cruiser 260 g+ 83 ml 1506 cd 44.81 d-g 30.46 12.62 17.84

20 Vitaflo 280+ Cruiser 520 g+ 83 ml 1444 cd 31.62 efg 17.27 9.61 7.66

Mean 260 ml+ 83 ml 72.47

PR>F 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 520.9 59.1

CV 23.0 57.7

• 2005 grower list price Quadris $ 22.09/ac., Senator $ 4.13/ac. Apron Maxx $ 3.08/ac. DCT (low rate) $ 2.60/ac. DCT (high rate) $ 5.20/ac. Vitaflo 280 $ 2.19/ac. A14379B and Cruiser + Apron Maxx are estimated at $10.50/ac. Dynasty based on US data estimated at $8.70/ac

• Application rate $ 8.00 /ac. was for the foliar applications. Seed Treatments had no application costs attached.

19


TITLE: CONTROL OF ANTHRACNOSE IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS WITH LESIONS USING DIFFERENT SEED APPLIED AND FOLIAR CHEMICAL TREATMENTS (EXETER)

MATERIALS: APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 3.8g + 2.5g ai/ha.); QUADRIS 250 SC (azoxystrobin 125g ai/ha); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w); VITAFLO 280 (carbathiin + thiram, 44g + 39g ai/100 kg seed) ; SENATOR (thiophanate-methyl 72.8 g ai/100 kg seed );A14379B; CRUISER 5 FS (thiamethoxam, 50 g ai /100 kg seed); Cruiser Maxx (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil + thiamethoxam, 56.25 g ai /100 kg seed); Dynasty (azoxystrobin .25,.5,1.0, & 2.0 g ai/100 kg seed). METHODS: The anthracnose pressure was modified by using mixtures of seed with and without visible anthracnose damage. The presence of visible damage has been shown to increase disease pressure. The seed for this trial was obtained from previous studies. The seed was sorted using a SORTEX ELECTRIC EYE which separated the seed into white and off white seed. The off white seed was primarily infected with anthracnose lesions, and for the remainder of this report, the “off white” seed will be called seed with lesions. In this experiment the infected seed used had visible lesions. The trial was set up using a RCBD with 4 replications. Plots contained 5 rows which were 0.43 m apart and 6.0 m in length. The centre 3 rows contained the infected white beans and the outside two rows contained soybeans. The soybean rows were used to help prevent disease transmission from plot to plot. The seeding rate was 18 seeds per metre for the white beans and 25 seeds per metre for the soybeans. The trial was planted at a farm near Exeter, Ontario on 9 June 2005 using a five-row cone-seeder with John Deere Max Emerge planter units. The fungicides were sprayed using a CO2 pressurized sprayer with three 10-002 Air Bubble Nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 346kPa (50psi) in 200 L/ha water. Sentinel plots were set up using all the infected seed checks (treatment 1). Each plot had ten random plants labelled with plastic corn tags. Every 2-3 days, incidence and severity ratings were done on these tagged plants. This system was used to determine the start date for ratings on the all the trials. The ratings were timed to document the maximum treatment differences, before the disease had a chance to spread throughout the experiment and overwhelm the treatments applied. Assessments for emergence and vigour damage were done using the middle 4 meter long area located in the centre row of the three infected rows of the plot. Plant emergence was assessed for 3 weeks starting on 2 weeks after planting (WAP). Plant emergence ratings were then converted to a percentage of seed planted. Plant vigour was assessed using a scale of 0 - 10 (0 = best plant development and 10 = poorest plant development) and was assessed for 3 weeks starting at 2 WAP. Disease ratings were accessed on leaves and pods. Leaf ratings were done for 3 weeks, starting at 8 WAP. These leaf ratings were determined by visually rating the percent total leaf vein area that was discoloured. An attempt was made at the 6 WAP stage but there was not enough damage to record treatment differences. Pod disease incidence ratings were done for 2 weeks, starting at 8 WAP. Pod severity ratings were done at 11 WAP. Pod severity ratings used an index of the number of destroyed pods and the % damage on the remaining pods. The applications of foliar sprays (Table 1) occurred at the 4-5 trifoliate stage (5 WAP, July 14), late 50% bloom stage (6 WAP, July 22) and late full bloom stage (7 WAP, July 28).

20

A 4 meter section from the centre of the three infected rows was harvested on Sept 8. The seed from each plot was weighed and the seed moisture was measured. The seed was then put through a CLIPPER CLEANER equipped with a 10 X ¾ screen (industry standard). The difference between the weight before cleaning and the weight after cleaning was calculated as a percent dockage. A weight of 100 randomly selected seeds from each plot was obtained. Of these 100 seeds a weight of the seeds rejected for discolouration and/or misshapen appearance was established as a percent and called pick. The dry bean industry uses a larger sample (minimum 500 grams) to determine the pick, but this is not practical for this study. A visual seed quality rating was done using a 1 to 5 scale (1 = excellent seed quality and 5 = poor seed quality). The final crop assessments include yield which was calculated using all of the seed harvested from each plot, after cleaning to remove any foreign material. Each plot weight was adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%, and then converted to kg/ha. To calculate the value of the crop, the goal was to mirror the grading standards used by the dry bean industry for commercial production as much as possible. The value of the crop ($/acre) was determined by reducing the seed yield for two possible quality deficiencies; dockage and pick. Dockage (undersized seed and diseased splits) is removed as a straight percentage. For pick (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) the percentage is doubled to allow not only for the actual poor seed but also for the cost of removing that seed. The remaining large clean seed yield was multiplied by a price of $0.21 per pound to calculate a value per acre. The additional value for each treatment was calculated by subtracting the value per acre for the infected seed check treatment from the value per acre of each treatment. Additional costs were calculated using the suggested grower list prices for each product applied. The return on investment was calculated by subtracting the additional cost from the additional value for each treatment. RESULTS: See Tables 1 – 8, Figure 1. CONCLUSIONS: Regular precipitation and moderate temperatures resulted in good anthracnose disease pressure (Figure 1). In 2006, the leaf vein discolouration was less than in 2005, but the pod damage started earlier, and was more severe. There were noticeable differences between the infected and uninfected treatments for plant emergence (Table 2) and plant vigour (Table 3). DCT provided the best results. Adding Apron Maxx to Dynasty improved emergence and vigour. Dynasty at 1 g a.i. + Apron Maxx was equivalent to the label rate of DCT. Significant differences were detected between treatments for leaf vein discolouration and the incidence of pod lesions (Tables 4 and 5). Treatments were significantly better if they had a foliar fungicide application. Seed treatment containing high rates of Dynasty or thiophanate-methyl had less vein discolouration or pod lesions. Dynasty at 1 or 2 g a.i. + Apron Maxx was equivalent to the label rate of DCT. A pod damage index was created to estimate the severity of pod damage, and allow for pods already destroyed (Table 6). Shriveled pods (< 50 % in size of a normal sized pod) were counted as 100% destroyed and the remaining pods had a damage estimate done (using the % of the pod area with lesions). The index shows a dramatic difference between the infected check and the uninfected check that was sprayed with Quadris. The other treatments did not differ greatly from each other. Treatments with high disease pressure tended to have smaller seed, poorer visual seed quality, higher dockage and pick (Table 7) and lower yield and value per acre (Table 8). A dramatic difference can be seen between the infected check and the uninfected check that was sprayed with Quadris for each parameter. The other treatments did not differ greatly from each other. In Table 8, the calculations for additional value, additional costs and return on investment were not analyzed for statistical significance. All treatments except treatments # 13 and # 15 had a negative Return On Investment (ROI) for this trial. The seed treatments were overwhelmed, and unable to provide adequate disease control in this experiment.

21

Figure # 1 Sentinel plot anthracnose incidence and severity ratings in white beans at Exeter, ON. 2006


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Per

cen

tage


Table 1 Application timing for the fungicides in white beans with anthracnose lesions at Exeter, ON. 2006

Weeks After Planting Treatment


or ml/ha) 4 5 6 7 8 9

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris 500 ml * * *

15 Senator + Apron Maxx + Quadris 104 g + 328 ml + 500 ml *

* indicates when the foliar fungicides was applied

22

Table 2 Emergence in white beans with anthracnose lesions at Exeter Ontario. 2006

% Crop Emergence



1 Infected Seed Check 77 66 def 66 def

2 Uninfected Seed Check + Quadris 500 ml 84 102 a 96 a

3 Cruiser 83 ml 75 78 bc 71 cde

4 Dynasty + Cruiser 2.5 ml+ 83 ml 71 61 f 58 f

5 Dynasty + Cruiser 5.0 ml+ 83 ml 73 74 cde 69 de

6 Dynasty + Cruiser 10.0 ml+ 83 ml 79 65 ef 61 ef

7 Dynasty + Cruiser 20.0 ml.+ 83 ml 77 73 cde 70 de

8 Cruiser + Apron Maxx RTA 83 ml + 328 ml 75 80 bc 76 bcd

9 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 2.5 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 78 73 cde 72 cd

10 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 5.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 71 75 cde 75 bcd

11 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 10.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 83 78 bc 76 bcd

12 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 20.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 74 74 cde 69 de

13 Cruiser+ Senator 83 ml + 104 g 75 74 cde 70 de

14 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 75 80 bc 76 bcd

15 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 73 77 bcd 74 bcd

Quadris 500 ml

16 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 5.0 ml + 195 ml 75 82 bc 81 bc

17 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 10.0 ml + 195 ml 77 80 bc 74 bcd

18 DCT + Cruiser 260 g+ 83 ml 75 82 bc 75 bcd

19 DCT + Cruiser 520 g+ 83 ml 82 87 b 84 b

20 Vitaflo 280+ Cruiser 260 ml+ 83 ml 80 75 cde 74 bcd

Mean 76.5 76.8 73.3

PR>F 0.20 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) n/a 10.8 10.4

CV 8.4 10.0 10.1

23

Table 3 Vigour in white beans with anthracnose lesions at Exeter Ontario. 2006

Crop Vigour



1 Infected Seed Check 5.0 ab 6.3 a 5.3 a

2 Uninfected Seed Check + Quadris 500 ml 1.3 d 3.0 f 2.8 d

3 Cruiser 83 ml 5.3 a 6.0 ab 4.8 ab

4 Dynasty + Cruiser 2.5 ml+ 83 ml 4.5 abc 6.0 ab 4.8 ab

5 Dynasty + Cruiser 5.0 ml+ 83 ml 5.3 a 5.3 a-d 4.3 abc

6 Dynasty + Cruiser 10.0 ml+ 83 ml 5.3 a 6.0 ab 5.3 a

7 Dynasty + Cruiser 20.0 ml.+ 83 ml 4.5 abc 5.5 abc 4.8 ab

8 Cruiser + Apron Maxx RTA 83 ml + 328 ml 4.3 abc 4.5 cde 3.8 bcd

9 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 2.5 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 3.8 bc 5.0 b-e 4.3 abc

10 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 5.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 3.3 c 4.3 de 3.3 cd

11 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 10.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 4.0 abc 5.0 b-e 4.0 a-d

12 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 20.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 4.5 abc 5.3 a-d 4.0 a-d

13 Cruiser+ Senator 83 ml + 104 g 5.0 ab 5.5 abc 4.0 a-d

14 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 4.3 abc 4.5 cde 3.8 bcd

15 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 4.0 abc 5.5 abc 4.0 a-d

Quadris 500 ml

16 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 5.0 ml + 195 ml 3.8 bc 4.5 cde 3.8 bcd

17 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 10.0 ml + 195 ml 4.3 abc 4.3 de 3.3 cd

18 DCT + Cruiser 260 g+ 83 ml 4.5 abc 4.0 ef 3.3 cd

19 DCT + Cruiser 520 g+ 83 ml 3.8 bc 4.3 de 3.3 cd

20 Vitaflo 280+ Cruiser 260 ml+ 83 ml 4.8 ab 5.5 abc 4.8 ab

Mean 4.3 5.0 4.1

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.01

LSD (P=. 05) 1.4 1.2 1.3

CV 23.8 16.2 22.9

24

Table 4 Leaf vein discolouration ratings in white beans with anthracnose lesions at Exeter Ontario. 2006

Leaf Vein Rating



1 Infected Seed Check 3 a 18 ab 62 ab

2 Uninfected Seed Check + Quadris 500 ml 0 d 0 f 0 i

3 Cruiser 83 ml 3 ab 25 a 72 a

4 Dynasty + Cruiser 2.5 ml+ 83 ml 2 abc 9 cd 51 b-e

5 Dynasty + Cruiser 5.0 ml+ 83 ml 1 cd 12 bc 47 b-g

6 Dynasty + Cruiser 10.0 ml+ 83 ml 0 d 2 ef 25 h

7 Dynasty + Cruiser 20.0 ml.+ 83 ml 0 d 3 def 37 c-h

8 Cruiser + Apron Maxx RTA 83 ml + 328 ml 3 ab 12 bc 55 abc

9 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 2.5 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 1 cd 6 c-f 32 d-h

10 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 5.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 1 bcd 5 c-f 38 c-h

11 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 10.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 2 abc 9 cd 55 abc

12 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 20.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 1 cd 7 c-f 31 fgh

13 Cruiser+ Senator 83 ml + 104 g 0 d 8 cde 32 e-h

14 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 0 d 1 ef 28 gh

15 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 0 d 0 f 3 i

Quadris 500 ml

16 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 5.0 ml + 195 ml 1 bcd 8 cde 51 bcd

17 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 10.0 ml + 195 ml 2 a-d 7 c-f 42 c-h

18 DCT + Cruiser 260 g+ 83 ml 0 d 4 def 33 d-h

19 DCT + Cruiser 520 g+ 83 ml 1 cd 1 ef 39 c-h

20 Vitaflo 280+ Cruiser 260 ml+ 83 ml 1 cd 9 cd 50 b-f

Mean 1.1 7.4 39.1

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 1.7 7.4 19.2

CV 108.8 70.4 34.7

25

Table 5 Incidence of pod lesions in white beans with anthracnose lesions at Exeter Ontario. 2006

Incidence of Pod Lesions


or ml/ha)

8 WAP 9 WAP

1 Infected Seed Check 32 a 40 abc

2 Uninfected Seed Check + Quadris 500 ml 0 e 0 g

3 Cruiser 83 ml 32 a 47 a

4 Dynasty + Cruiser 2.5 ml+ 83 ml 17 bc 39 a-d

5 Dynasty + Cruiser 5.0 ml+ 83 ml 21 ab 40 abc

6 Dynasty + Cruiser 10.0 ml+ 83 ml 6 cde 26 ef

7 Dynasty + Cruiser 20.0 ml.+ 83 ml 6 cde 29 def

8 Cruiser + Apron Maxx RTA 83 ml + 328 ml 30 a 42 ab

9 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 2.5 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 9 b-e 30 c-f

10 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 5.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 15 bcd 34 b-e

11 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 10.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 16 bc 38 a-d

12 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 20.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 10 b-e 31 c-f

13 Cruiser+ Senator 83 ml + 104 g 11 b-e 27 ef

14 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 3 de 22 f

15 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 0 e 5 g

Quadris 500 ml

16 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 5.0 ml + 195 ml 16 bc 30 c-f

17 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 10.0 ml + 195 ml 17 bc 38 a-d

18 DCT + Cruiser 260 g+ 83 ml 11 b-e 31 c-f

19 DCT + Cruiser 520 g+ 83 ml 3 de 36 b-e

20 Vitaflo 280+ Cruiser 260 ml+ 83 ml 12 b-e 35 b-e

Mean 13.5 30.9

PR>F 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 12.8 10.4

CV 67.4 23.7

26

Table 6 Severity of pod damage in white beans with anthracnose lesions at Exeter Ontario. 2006


Treatment


or ml/ha) % Pod Area With Lesions

% of Pods Destroyed

Pod Destruction

Index **

1 Infected Seed Check 14 48 a 55 ab

2 Uninfected Seed Check + Quadris 500 ml 3 0 c 3 c

3 Cruiser 83 ml 19 42 ab 54 ab

4 Dynasty + Cruiser 2.5 ml+ 83 ml 20 30 ab 45 ab



7 Dynasty + Cruiser 20.0 ml.+ 83 ml 34 34 ab 56 ab

8 Cruiser + Apron Maxx RTA 83 ml + 328 ml 23 47 a 60 a

9 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 2.5 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 23 30 ab 47 ab


11 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 10.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 21 26 b 42 b


13 Cruiser+ Senator 83 ml + 104 g 24 31 ab 47 ab

14 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 21 38 ab 51 ab

15 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 11 1 c 12 c

Quadris 500 ml

16 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 5.0 ml + 195 ml 31 31 ab 53 ab

17 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 10.0 ml + 195 ml 22 32 ab 47 ab

18 DCT + Cruiser 260 g+ 83 ml 18 43 ab 54 ab

19 DCT + Cruiser 520 g+ 83 ml 24 36 ab 52 ab

20 Vitaflo 280+ Cruiser 260 ml+ 83 ml 26 40 ab 55 ab

Mean 20.9 32.9 47.0

PR>F 0.36 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) n/a 19.61 14.9

CV 60.6 42.2 22.5

27

Table 7 Seed quality ratings in white beans with anthracnose lesions at Exeter Ontario. 2006


or ml/ha) Crop Seed Assessment

Seed Moisture

100 Seed Weight


1 Infected Seed Check 17.3 13.6 bc 4.9 ab 25 abc 40 abc

2 Uninfected Seed Check + Quadris 500 ml 16.9 17.3 a 2.8 e 8 i 27 d

3 Cruiser 83 ml 18.3 12.4 c 5 a 29 a 38 bc

4 Dynasty + Cruiser 2.5 ml+ 83 ml 17.6 14.4 b 5 a 24 bcd 38 bc

5 Dynasty + Cruiser 5.0 ml+ 83 ml 18.2 14.2 b 4.9 ab 22 b-f 42 ab

6 Dynasty + Cruiser 10.0 ml+ 83 ml 17.5 15.0 b 4.8 abc 19 d-g 44 ab

7 Dynasty + Cruiser 20.0 ml.+ 83 ml 18.2 15.1 b 4.9 ab 19 d-g 40 abc

8 Cruiser + Apron Maxx RTA 83 ml + 328 ml 19.2 12.5 c 4.7 abc 26 ab 40 abc

9 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 2.5 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 19.1 15.0 b 4.5 c 21 c-g 40 abc

10 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 5.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 17.3 15.2 b 4.9 ab 20 d-g 47 a

11 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 10.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 18.3 14.3 b 4.8 abc 23 b-e 38 bc

12 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 20.0 ml+ 83 ml + 328 ml 17.1 15.3 b 4.6 bc 20 c-g 42 ab

13 Cruiser+ Senator 83 ml + 104 g 17.9 14.8 b 4.5 c 19 efg 42 ab

14 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 17.3 15.3 b 4.6 bc 17 fg 45 ab

15 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g + 83 ml + 328 ml 17.9 17.1 a 3.6 d 11 hi 33 cd

Quadris 500 ml

16 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 5.0 ml + 195 ml 17.9 15.1 b 4.9 ab 16 gh 42 ab

17 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 10.0 ml + 195 ml 18.1 14.4 b 4.6 bc 22 b-f 39 bc

18 DCT + Cruiser 260 g+ 83 ml 17.3 14.2 b 4.9 ab 18 efg 41 abc

19 DCT + Cruiser 520 g+ 83 ml 17.8 14.8 b 4.9 ab 18 fg 45 ab

20 Vitaflo 280+ Cruiser 260 ml+ 83 ml 18.3 14.2 b 4.9 ab 21 c-g 43 ab

Mean 17.9 14.7 4.6 19.8 40.2

PR>F 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

LSD (P=. 05) n/a 1.7 0.4 4.8 8.2

CV 5.1 8.2 5.7 17.1 14.3

28

Table 8 Crop Value Assessment in white beans with anthracnose lesions at Exeter Ontario. 2006

Crop Value Assessment


or ml/ha) Yield (kg ha–1)

Value ($ per ac.)

Additional Value

($ per ac.)

Additional Costs*

($ per ac.)


1 Infected Seed Check 415 g 12.10 c

2 Uninfected Seed Check + Quadris 500 ml 2205 a 177.45 a

3 Cruiser 83 ml 419 g 13.25 c 1.15 7.42 -6.27

4 Dynasty + Cruiser 2.5 ml+ 83 ml 508 fg 17.11 c 5.01 9.60 -4.59

5 Dynasty + Cruiser 5.0 ml+ 83 ml 598 d-g 14.28 c 2.18 11.77 -9.59

6 Dynasty + Cruiser 10.0 ml+ 83 ml 686 c-f 12.99 c 0.89 16.12 -15.23

7 Dynasty + Cruiser 20.0 ml.+ 83 ml 703 c-f 21.15 c 9.05 24.82 -15.77

8 Cruiser + Apron Maxx RTA 83 ml + 328 ml 432 g 12.30 c 0.20 10.50 -10.30

9 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 2.5 ml+83 ml+328ml 685 c-f 21.05 c 8.95 12.68 -3.73

10 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 5 ml+83 ml+ 328 ml 689 c-f 7.37 c -4.73 14.85 -19.58

11 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 10 ml+83 ml+328 ml 555 efg 19.26 c 7.16 14.85 -7.69

12 Dynasty+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 20ml+83 ml+328 ml 677 c-f 16.55 c 4.45 19.20 -14.75

13 Cruiser+ Senator 83 ml + 104 g 810 cd 27.16 c 15.06 11.55 3.51

14 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g+83 ml+328 ml 908 c 16.75 c 4.65 14.63 -9.98

15 Senator+Cruiser+Apron Maxx RTA 104 g+83 ml+328 ml 1719 b 100.48 b 88.38 44.72 43.66

Quadris 500 ml

16 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 5.0 ml + 195 ml 540 efg 12.33 c 0.23 14.85 -14.62

17 Dynasty + A14379B (Cruiser Maxx) 10.0 ml + 195 ml 543 efg 18.48 c 6.38 19.20 -12.82

18 DCT + Cruiser 260 g+ 83 ml 699 c-f 18.46 c 6.36 10.02 -3.66

19 DCT + Cruiser 520 g+ 83 ml 768 cde 9.24 c -2.86 12.62 -15.48

20 Vitaflo 280+ Cruiser 260 ml+ 83 ml 556 efg 16.01 c 3.91 9.61 -5.70

Mean 756 28.2

PR>F 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 239 30.00

CV 22.4 74.8

• 2005 grower list price Quadris $ 22.09/ac., Senator $ 4.13/ac. Apron Maxx $ 3.08/ac. DCT (low rate) $ 2.60/ac. DCT (high rate) $ 5.20/ac. Vitaflo 280 $ 2.19/ac. A14379B and Cruiser + Apron Maxx are estimated at $10.50/ac. Dynasty based on US data estimated at $8.70/ac

• Application rate $ 8.00 /ac. was for the foliar applications. Seed Treatments had no application costs attached.

29

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Dry edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cv. Kippen, white pea bean PEST: Anthracnose, Colletotrichum lindemuthianum NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS S., DEPUYDT D., Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON OF FOLIAR FUNGICIDES FOR THE CONTROL OF ANTHRACNOSE IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS WITH NO LESIONS

MATERIALS: APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 3.8g + 2.5g ai/ha.); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w); QUADRIS 250 SC (azoxystrobin 125g ai/ha); HEADLINE (pyraclostrobin 100g ai/ha); SENATOR 70WP (thiophanate-methyl 1400g ai/ha ). METHODS: The anthracnose pressure was modified by using mixtures of seed with and without visible anthracnose damage. The presence of visible damage has been shown to increase disease pressure. The seed for this trial was obtained from previous studies. The seed was sorted using a SORTEX ELECTRIC EYE which separated the seed into white and off white seed. The off white seed was an assortment of some light green and grey seeds but most had anthracnose lesions. For the remainder of this report the “off white” seed will be called seed with lesions. In this experiment the infected seed had no lesions. The trial was set up using a RCBD with 4 replications. Plots contained 5 rows which were 0.43 m apart and 6.0 m in length. The centre 3 rows contained the infected white beans and the outside two rows contained soybeans. The soybean rows were used to help prevent disease transmission from plot to plot. The seeding rate was 18 seeds per metre for the white beans and 25 seeds per metre for the soybeans. The trial was planted a farm near Exeter on 10 June 2005 using a five-row cone-seeder with John Deere Max Emerge planter units. The fungicides were sprayed using a CO2 pressurized sprayer with three 10-002 Air Bubble Nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 346kPa (50psi) in 200 L/ha water. The fungicide application timing is shown in Table 1. Disease ratings were accessed on leaves and pods. Leaf ratings were done for 2 weeks, starting at 7 WAP, by observing the percentage of the leaf vein area that was purple. Pod disease incidence ratings were done at 8 and 9 WAP. Pod severity ratings were done at 11 WAP. Pod severity ratings used an index of the number of destroyed pods and the % damage on the remaining pods. Another indication of disease pressure on the plant was the amount of plant regrowth at 9 WAP. Plant maturity was determined just prior to harvest. A 4 meter section from the centre of the three infected rows was harvested on Sept 15. The seed from each plot was weighed and the seed moisture was measured. The seed was then put through a CLIPPER CLEANER equipped with a 10 x ¾ screen (industry standard). The difference between the weight before and the weight after was calculated as a percent dockage. A weight of 100 randomly selected seeds from each plot was obtained. Of these 100 seeds a weight of the seeds rejected for discolouration and/or misshapen appearance was established as a percent and called pick. The dry bean industry uses larger sample (minimum 500 grams) to determine the pick, but this is not practical for this study. A visual seed quality rating was done using a 1 to 5 scale (1 = excellent seed quality and 5 = poor seed quality). The final crop assessments were determined using the following: The yield was calculated using all of the seed harvested from each plot, after cleaning to remove any foreign material. Each plot weight was adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%, and then converted to kg/ha. The value of the crop ($/acre) was determined by reducing the seed yield for two possible quality issues; dockage and pick. Dockage (undersized seed and diseased splits) is removed as a straight percentage. For pick (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) the percentage is doubled to allow not only for the actual poor seed but also for the cost of removing that seed. The remaining large clean seed yield was adjusted to a yield per acre, and multiplied by a price of $0.21 per pound to calculate a value

30

per acre. In calculating the value of the crop, the goal was to mirror the grading standards used by the dry bean industry for commercial production as much as possible. The additional value for each treatment was calculated by subtracting the value per acre for the infected seed check treatment from the value per acre of each treatment. Additional costs were calculated using the suggested grower list prices for each product applied. The return on investment was calculated by subtracting the additional cost from the additional value for each treatment. RESULTS: See Figure 1, Tables 1 – 7. CONCLUSIONS: Regular precipitation and moderate temperatures resulted in good anthracnose disease pressure (Figure 1). Rainfall during the middle of July caused disease pressure to expand rapidly after July 26. In 2006, the leaf vein discolouration was less than in 2005, but the pod damage started earlier, and was more severe. The A timing of fungicide application had some slight advantages for leaf vein discolouring at 7 WAP (Table 2). By 9 WAP, the A timing had failed, and the effects of the B and C timings were evident. A similar trend can be seen in the % incidence of pod lesions (Table 3). By 9 WAP, the AC and BC sequential timings of fungicide application are dramatically better than any single application. In order to better estimate the severity of pod damage an index was designed (Table 4) to allow for pods already destroyed. Shriveled pods (< 50 % in size of a normal sized pod) were counted as 100% destroyed and the remaining pods had a damage estimate done (using the % of the pod area with lesions). The index shows that the best control of pod lesion severity at this point in time (11 WAP) was the sequential application treatments. The A timing has failed by this point. Too much disease pressure was present when the D timing was applied, to give effective disease control. Rating for plant maturity and regrowth (Table 5) show that treatments with higher disease levels matured earlier, and treatments with a later fungicide application had greater tendency to regrow. Treatments with high disease levels had lower seed weights, poorer seed quality and higher dockage and pick (Table 6). The B or C timings were the best timing for a single application of fungicide, producing the lowest dockage, pick and seed quality ratings. The BC and BD timings were the best timings for a sequential application of fungicide. In 2006, there was a dramatic increase in disease pressure just prior to the D application timing (Figure #1). For Headline, the AC timing had significantly higher yields but the seed quality reduced the final value (Table 7). The multiple fungicide applications gave a higher return on investment than a single fungicide application. Headline was found to be significantly better than Quadris in a number of treatment comparisons, for disease incidence and severity, and for crop assessment and yield.

31

Figure # 1 Sentinel plot disease incidence and severity ratings in white beans at Exeter, ON. 2006


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Per

cen

tage


32

Table 1. Fungicide application timing for the Foliar Head-to-Head (Mild) at Exeter, ON 2006

Days After Planting (date)

Treatment Timing2 Product Rate Per

ha 34 (July 14)

42 (July 22)

48

(July 28)

57 (Aug 6)

1 Infected Check

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 500 ml * * *

3 Uninfected Check

4 Headline A 400 ml *

5 Headline B 400 ml *

6 Headline C 400 ml *

7 Headline D 400 ml *

8 Headline AC 400 ml * *

9 Headline BC 400 ml * *

10 Headline BD 400 ml * *

11 Quadris A 500 ml *

12 Quadris B 500 ml *

13 Quadris C 500 ml *

14 Quadris D 500 ml *

15 Quadris AC 500 ml * *

16 Quadris BC 500 ml * *

17 Quadris BD 500 ml * *

18 Senator B 1050 g *

* indicates when the foliar fungicides was applied 2 Timing A = 5th trifoliate leaf stage, Timing B = early flower, Timing C = late flower, Timing D = 10 days after late flower

33

Table 2. Leaf vein ratings for the Foliar Head-to-Head (Mild) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006

Leaf Vein Rating Treatment Timing

7 WAP 9 WAP

1 Infected Check 6 ab 72 a

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 0 e 1 f

3 Uninfected Check 0 e 54 b

4 Headline A 0 e 24 d

5 Headline B 3 b-e 5 f

6 Headline C 4 b-e 6 f

7 Headline D 3 b-e 40 c

8 Headline AC 0 e 0 f

9 Headline BC 3 cde 0 f

10 Headline BD 1 de 3 f

11 Quadris A 0 e 59 ab

12 Quadris B 1 de 10 def

13 Quadris C 5 abc 22 de

14 Quadris D 4 bcd 62 ab

15 Quadris AC 1 de 9 ef

16 Quadris BC 2 de 2 f

17 Quadris BD 8 a 11 def

18 Senator B 1 de 21 de

Mean 2.4 22.4

PR>F 0.0 0.0

LSD (P=. 05) 3.5 14.3

CV 103.1 45.1

34

Table 3. Incidence of pod lesions for the Foliar Head-to-Head (Mild) at Exeter, Ontario, 2006

% Incidence of Pod Lesions

Treatment Timing

8 WAP 9 WAP

1 Infected Check 9 a 44 abc

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 0 c 7 hi

3 Uninfected Check 4 bc 47 ab

4 Headline A 1 bc 40 a-d

5 Headline B 1 bc 20 fgh

6 Headline C 4 b 23 efg

7 Headline D 9 a 47 a

8 Headline AC 0 c 3 i

9 Headline BC 0 bc 3 i

10 Headline BD 1 bc 14 ghi

11 Quadris A 4 bc 50 a

12 Quadris B 1 bc 28 def

13 Quadris C 8 a 33 cde

14 Quadris D 11 a 51 a

15 Quadris AC 4 bc 28 def

16 Quadris BC 1 bc 12 ghi

17 Quadris BD 3 bc 34 b-e

18 Senator B 2 bc 31 def

Mean 3.4 28.7

PR>F 0.0 0.0

LSD (P=. 05) 3.9 12.9

CV 81.1 31.8

35

Table 4. Severity of pod lesions for the Foliar Head-to-Head (Mild) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006


Treatment Timing

% Pod Area With Lesions

% of Pods Destroyed

Pod Destruction

Index **

1 Infected Check 18 a 38 ab 52 a

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 8 a 2 ef 10 efg

3 Uninfected Check 13 a 43 a 50 a

4 Headline A 20 a 22 cd 38 abc

5 Headline B 11 a 13 c-f 23 def

6 Headline C 13 a 10 def 22 def

7 Headline D 8 a 16 cde 23 de

8 Headline AC 5 a 0 f 5 g

9 Headline BC 2 a 0 f 2 g

10 Headline BD 10 a 1 ef 11 efg

11 Quadris A 11 a 43 a 50 a

12 Quadris B 14 a 21 cd 32 cd

13 Quadris C 16 a 27 bc 39 abc

14 Quadris D 5 a 45 a 48 ab

15 Quadris AC 19 a 13 c-f 29 cd

16 Quadris BC 7 a 2 ef 9 fg

17 Quadris BD 20 a 19 cd 35 bcd

18 Senator B 19 a 15 c-f 30 cd

Mean 12.1 18.3 28.2

PR>F 0.1 0.0 0.0

LSD (P=. 05) 12.1 15.5 14.0

CV 70.3 59.7 35.0


36

Table 5. Miscellaneous field observations for the Foliar Head-to-Head (Mild) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006

Treatment Timing Maturity Regrowth

1 Infected Check 84 h 2.9 cde

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 89 bc 1.9 e

3 Uninfected Check 85 gh 2.1 de

4 Headline A 85 gh 3.5 a-d

5 Headline B 86 efg 3.1 a-e

6 Headline C 87 def 3.0 b-e

7 Headline D 86 fg 4.3 abc

8 Headline AC 89 bcd 1.8 e

9 Headline BC 91 a 2.6 de

10 Headline BD 91 ab 3.0 b-e

11 Quadris A 85 gh 3.0 b-e

12 Quadris B 86 efg 3.3 a-e

13 Quadris C 86 efg 2.9 cde

14 Quadris D 86 efg 4.5 ab

15 Quadris AC 88 cde 3.1 a-e

16 Quadris BC 89 bc 2.4 de

17 Quadris BD 87 c-f 4.6 a

18 Senator B 87 def 3.3 a-e

Mean 86.9 3.1

PR>F 0.00 0.02

LSD (P=. 05) 1.9 1.5

CV 1.6 35.4

37

Table 6. Seed quality ratings for the Foliar Head-to-Head (Mild) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006

Crop Seed Assessment Treatment Timing

Seed Moisture

100 Seed Weight


1 Infected Check 16.3 14.2 hi 4.6 ab 20 a 36 abc

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 16.9 16.1 b-f 2.8 ghi 4 ij 31 cde

3 Uninfected Check 16.0 13.9 i 4.8 a 15 b 42 a

4 Headline A 16.2 14.8 ghi 4.3 abc 12 bc 42 a

5 Headline B 16.6 16.3 a-e 3.4 efg 7 e-h 31 cde

6 Headline C 16.6 17.0 abc 3.1 fgh 6 f-i 29 c-f

7 Headline D 16.1 14.6 ghi 4.3 abc 11 cd 35 a-d

8 Headline AC 16.7 17.3 ab 2.3 i 2 j 23 efg

9 Headline BC 16.7 17.4 a 3.1 fgh 4 hij 20 fg

10 Headline BD 17.0 17.4 ab 2.5 hi 4 hij 19 g

11 Quadris A 15.6 14.0 hi 4.4 ab 14 b 41 ab

12 Quadris B 14.7 15.2 d-h 3.5 def 9 cde 35 a-d

13 Quadris C 16.6 14.9 f-i 4.1 a-d 10 cde 32 bcd

14 Quadris D 16.7 14.3 hi 4.0 b-e 15 b 34 a-d

15 Quadris AC 16.5 15.1 e-i 3.6 c-f 8 def 31 cde

16 Quadris BC 16.9 16.5 a-d 3.3 fg 5 g-j 27 d-g

17 Quadris BD 15.5 15.9 c-g 3.3 fg 7 efg 29 c-f

18 Senator B 16.1 14.3 hi 4.0 b-e 9 def 36 a-d

Mean 16.3 15.5 3.6 9.0 31.9

PR>F 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

LSD (P=. 05) n/a 1.3 0.7 3.19 9.0

CV 8.5 5.9 13.8 25.1 19.9

38

Table 7. Crop Value Assessment for the Foliar Head-to-Head (Mild) at Exeter, Ontario, 2006


Treatment Timing Yield

(kg ha–1) Value

($ per ac.) Additional

Value ($ per ac.)

Additional Costs*

($ per ac.)


1 Infected Check 513 j 22.62 gh

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 2300 ab 157.45 bc

3 Uninfected Check 859 hi 22.12 gh

4 Headline A 1022 gh 27.21 gh 4.59 24.83 -20.24

5 Headline B 1649 cd 108.71 de 86.09 24.83 61.26

6 Headline C 1772 c 130.98 bcd 108.36 24.83 83.53

7 Headline D 1009 gh 53.91 fgh 31.29 24.83 6.46

8 Headline AC 2575 a 256.64 a 234.02 49.66 184.36

9 Headline BC 2080 b 223.36 a 200.74 49.66 151.08

10 Headline BD 2080 b 234.66 a 212.04 49.66 162.38

11 Quadris A 694 ij 20.03 h -2.59 30.09 -32.68

12 Quadris B 1355 ef 69.22 efg 46.60 30.09 16.51

13 Quadris C 1183 fg 68.01 e-h 45.39 30.09 15.30

14 Quadris D 811 hi 41.38 gh 18.76 30.09 -11.33

15 Quadris AC 1455 def 94.69 def 72.07 60.18 11.89

16 Quadris BC 2128 b 171.93 b 149.31 60.18 89.13

17 Quadris BD 1539 cde 109.94 cde 87.32 60.18 27.14

18 Senator B 1326 ef 67.89 e-h 45.27 44.00 -.73

Mean 1463 104.50

PR>F 0.0 0.0

LSD (P=. 05) 279 48.52

CV 13.5 32.8

• * 2006 grower list price : Headline $ 16.83 /ac., Quadris $ 22.09/ac., Senator $36.00/ac • * application rate $ 8.00 /ac

39

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Dry edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cv. Kippen, white pea bean PEST: Anthracnose, Colletotrichum lindemuthianum NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS S., DEPUYDT D., Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON OF FOLIAR FUNGICIDES FOR THE CONTROL OF ANTHRACNOSE IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS WITH LESIONS

MATERIALS: APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 3.8g + 2.5g ai/ha.); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w); QUADRIS 250 SC (azoxystrobin 125g ai/ha); HEADLINE (pyraclostrobin 100g ai/ha); SENATOR 70WP (thiophanate-methyl 1400g ai/ha ). METHODS: The anthracnose pressure was modified by using mixtures of seed with and without visible anthracnose damage. The presence of visible damage has been shown to increase disease pressure. The seed for this trial was obtained from previous studies. The seed was sorted using a SORTEX ELECTRIC EYE which separated the seed into white and off white seed. The off white seed was an assortment of some light green and grey seeds but most had anthracnose lesions. For the remainder of this report the “off white” seed will be called seed with lesions. In this experiment the infected seed had visible lesions. The trial was set up using a RCBD with 4 replications. Plots contained 5 rows which were 0.43 m apart and 6.0 m in length. The centre 3 rows contained the infected white beans and the outside two rows contained soybeans. The soybean rows were used to help prevent disease transmission from plot to plot. The seeding rate was 20 seeds per metre for the white beans and 25 seeds per metre for the soybeans. The trial was planted a farm near Exeter on 10 June 2005 using a five-row cone-seeder with John Deere Max Emerge planter units. The fungicides were sprayed using a CO2 pressurized sprayer with three 10-002 Air Bubble Nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 346kPa (50 psi) in 200 L/ha water. The fungicide application timing is shown in Table 1. Disease ratings were accessed on leaves and pods. Leaf ratings were done for 3 weeks, starting at 6 WAP, by observing the percentage of the leaf vein area that was purple. Pod disease incidence ratings were done at 8 and 9 WAP periods.. Pod severity ratings were done at 11 WAP. Pod severity ratings used an index of the number of destroyed pods and the % damage on the remaining pods. Another indication of disease pressure on the plant was the amount of plant regrowth at 9 WAP. Plant maturity was determined just prior to harvest. A 4 meter section from the centre of the three infected rows was harvested on Sept 17. The seed from each plot was weighed and the seed moisture was measured. The seed was then put through a CLIPPER CLEANER equipped with a 10 x ¾ screen (industry standard). The difference between the weight before and the weight after was calculated as a percent dockage. A weight of 100 randomly selected seeds from each plot was obtained. Of these 100 seeds a weight of the seeds rejected for discolouration and/or misshapen appearance was established as a percent and called pick. The dry bean industry uses larger sample (minimum 500 grams) to determine the pick but this is not practical for this study. A visual seed quality rating was done using a 1 to 5 scale (1 = excellent seed quality and 5 = poor seed quality). The final crop assessments (Table 9) were determined using the following: The yield was calculated using all of the seed harvested from each plot, after cleaning to remove any foreign material. Each plot weight was adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%, and then converted to kg/ha. The value of the crop ($/acre) was determined by reducing the seed yield for two possible quality issues; dockage and pick. Dockage (undersized seed and diseased splits) is removed as a straight percentage. For pick (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) the percentage is doubled to allow not only for the actual poor seed but also for the cost of removing that seed. The remaining large clean seed yield was adjusted to a yield per acre, and multiplied by a price of $0.21 per pound to calculate a value

40

per acre. In calculating the value of the crop, the goal was to mirror the grading standards used by the dry bean industry for commercial production as much as possible. The additional value for each treatment was calculated by subtracting the value per acre for the infected seed check treatment from the value per acre of each treatment. Additional costs were calculated using the suggested grower list prices for each product applied. The return on investment was calculated by subtracting the additional cost from the additional value for each treatment. RESULTS: See Figure 1, Tables 1 - 7. CONCLUSIONS: Regular precipitation and moderate temperatures resulted in good anthracnose disease pressure (Figure 1). Rainfall during the middle of July caused disease pressure to expand rapidly after July 26. In 2006, the leaf vein discolouration was less than in 2005, but the pod damage started earlier, and was more severe. The A timing of fungicide application had some slight advantages for leaf vein discolouring at 6 WAP (Table 2). By 9 WAP, the A timing had failed, and the effects of the B and C timings were evident. A similar trend can be seen in the % incidence of pod lesions (Table 3). By the 9 WAP, there was a large advantage to multiple treatments found in the incidence of pod infection (Table 3), particularly for the product Headline. In order to better estimate the severity of pod damage an index was designed (Table 4) to allow for pods already destroyed. Shriveled pods (< 50 % in size of a normal sized pod) were counted as 100 % destroyed and the remaining pods had a damage estimate done (using the % of the pod area with lesions). The sequential application treatments provided the best disease control at this point in time (11 WAP), with the BC timing have the best control. The B and C timing were the best single fungicide application timings. The A timing has failed by this point. Too much disease pressure was present when the D timing was applied, to give effective disease control. Rating for plant maturity and regrowth (Table 5) show that treatments with higher disease levels matured earlier, and treatments with a later fungicide application had greater tendency to regrow. Treatments with high disease levels had lower seed weights, poorer seed quality and higher dockage and pick (Table 6). The B or C timings were the best timing for a single application of fungicide, producing the lowest dockage, pick and seed quality ratings. The BC and BD timings were the best timings for a sequential application of fungicide. In 2006, there was a dramatic increase in disease pressure at the D application timing (Figure #1). The BC timing had significantly higher yields (Table 8) for both fungicides. The multiple applications gave a higher return on investment for the Headline treatments but the Quadris treatments have a better return with a single fungicide application at the C timing. Headline was found to be significantly better than Quadris in a number of treatment comparisons, for disease incidence and severity, and for crop assessment and yield.

41



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Per

cen

tage


42

Table1. Fungicide application timing for the Foliar Head-to-Head (Severe) at Exeter, ON 2006



ha 34 (July 14)

42 (July 22)

48

(July 28)

57 (Aug 6)

1 Infected Check


3 Uninfected Check

4 Headline A 400 ml *

5 Headline B 400 ml *

6 Headline C 400 ml *

7 Headline D 400 ml *

8 Headline AC 400 ml * *

9 Headline BC 400 ml * *

10 Headline BD 400 ml * *

11 Quadris A 500 ml *

12 Quadris B 500 ml *

13 Quadris C 500 ml *

14 Quadris D 500 ml *

15 Quadris AC 500 ml * *

16 Quadris BC 500 ml * *

17 Quadris BD 500 ml * *

18 Senator BC 1050 g * *


43

Table 2. Leaf vein ratings for the Foliar Head-to-Head (Severe) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006

Leaf Vein Rating

Treatment Timing

6 WAP 8 WAP 9 WAP

1 Infected Check 2 abc 21 a 86 a

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 0 e 0 e 0 f

3 Uninfected Check 0 e 12 bcd 65 b

4 Headline A 0 e 1 e 26 cd

5 Headline B 3 ab 2 e 5 ef

6 Headline C 3 ab 5 de 12 def

7 Headline D 2 abc 12 bc 56 b

8 Headline AC 0 e 1 e 0 f

9 Headline BC 2 bc 2 e 0 f

10 Headline BD 3 ab 1 e 3 f

11 Quadris A 1 de 2 e 61 b

12 Quadris B 2 abc 4 e 20 de

13 Quadris C 3 a 7 cde 35 c

14 Quadris D 1 cd 18 ab 81 a

15 Quadris AC 1 cde 1 e 12 def

16 Quadris BC 2 cd 2 e 4 f

17 Quadris BD 1 cde 1 e 12 def

18 Senator BC 2 bc 1 e 8 ef

Mean 1.6 5.3 27.0

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 1.2 6.9 14.6

CV 50.2 93.3 38.2

44

Table 3. Incidence of pod lesions for the Foliar Head-to-Head (Severe) at Exeter, Ontario, 2006


Treatment Timing

8 WAP 9 WAP

1 Infected Check 12 a 47 a

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 0 c 1 j

3 Uninfected Check 3 c 35 bc

4 Headline A 1 c 28 cd

5 Headline B 0 c 15 fgh

6 Headline C 7 b 17 fg

7 Headline D 12 a 36 bc

8 Headline AC 1 c 4 ij

9 Headline BC 0 c 1 j

10 Headline BD 0 c 11 ghi

11 Quadris A 6 b 46 a

12 Quadris B 0 c 22 def

13 Quadris C 7 b 25 de

14 Quadris D 11 a 41 ab

15 Quadris AC 1 c 18 efg

16 Quadris BC 0 c 7 hij

17 Quadris BD 0 c 20 def

18 Senator BC 2 c 19 efg

Mean 3.6 21.9

PR>F 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 3.2 8.4

CV 62.0 27.0

45

Table 4. Severity of pod lesions for the Foliar Head-to-Head (Severe) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006


Treatment Timing


% of Pods Destroyed

Pod Destruction

Index **

1 Infected Check 12 b-e 38 ab 45 ab

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 0 h 0 e 0 g

3 Uninfected Check 15 a-d 39 a 47 a

4 Headline A 16 ab 17 cd 31 cd

5 Headline B 15 abc 15 cd 28 cde

6 Headline C 6 e-h 14 d 18 ef

7 Headline D 5 fgh 26 bc 30 cd

8 Headline AC 9 c-g 6 de 14 f

9 Headline BC 1 h 0 e 1 g

10 Headline BD 17 ab 6 de 22 def

11 Quadris A 20 a 30 ab 44 ab

12 Quadris B 14 a-d 16 cd 28 cde

13 Quadris C 8 d-g 17 cd 23 def

14 Quadris D 4 gh 34 ab 37 bc

15 Quadris AC 15 a-d 16 cd 28 cde

16 Quadris BC 14 a-d 1 e 15 f

17 Quadris BD 12 b-f 14 d 25 def

18 Senator BC 12 b-e 14 d 24 def

Mean 10.8 16.7 25.6

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 6.9 11.6 10.4

CV 45.0 48.9 28.7


46

Table 5. Miscellaneous field observations for the Foliar Head-to-Head (Severe) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006


1 Infected Check 84 i 2.3 efg

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 90 abc 1.0 h

3 Uninfected Check 84 i 1.9 fgh

4 Headline A 84 i 2.3 efg

5 Headline B 87 ef 3.0 cde

6 Headline C 87 de 3.9 bc

7 Headline D 85 ghi 5.0 a

8 Headline AC 89 bc 2.3 efg

9 Headline BC 90 ab 1.4 gh

10 Headline BD 91 a 1.9 fgh

11 Quadris A 85 hi 2.3 efg

12 Quadris B 86 efg 3.6 cd

13 Quadris C 86 fgh 3.8 bcd

14 Quadris D 85 ghi 4.6 ab

15 Quadris AC 87 ef 3.9 bc

16 Quadris BC 89 cd 2.5 ef

17 Quadris BD 86 fgh 4.6 ab

18 Senator BC 87 ef 2.9 de

Mean 86.6 2.9

PR>F 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 1.3 0.9

CV 1.1 22.3

47

Table 6. Seed quality ratings for the Foliar Head-to-Head (Severe) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006


Seed Moisture

100 Seed Weight


1 Infected Check 11.9 13.4 i 4.9 ab 26.4 a 46.2 a

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 11.8 17.3 a 2.4 f 1.8 i 20.3 h

3 Uninfected Check 11.4 14.2 hi 5.0 a 16.3 bc 39.3 a-e

4 Headline A 12.1 14.3 ghi 4.8 abc 14.6 c 42.2 abc

5 Headline B 12.0 16.8 abc 4.4 bcd 7.8 def 39.9 a-e

6 Headline C 12.9 16.4 a-e 3.8 e 6.7 efg 31.2 g

7 Headline D 11.2 14.9 f-i 4.8 abc 14.8 c 39.2 a-f

8 Headline AC 13.6 16.8 abc 4.3 cde 4.0 ghi 33.8 efg

9 Headline BC 12.3 17.1 ab 3.8 e 3.4 hi 31.4 fg

10 Headline BD 12.8 16.5 a-d 4.1 de 5.6 fgh 41.7 a-d

11 Quadris A 11.7 14.0 hi 4.9 ab 14.0 c 41.7 a-d

12 Quadris B 12.7 15.2 d-h 4.4 bcd 10.2 d 36.9 b-g

13 Quadris C 13.4 15.1 d-h 4.4 bcd 10.5 d 35.3 c-g

14 Quadris D 11.8 14.2 hi 5.0 a 19.1 b 41.2 a-e

15 Quadris AC 12.8 15.8 b-f 4.5 a-d 8.9 de 41.8 a-d

16 Quadris BC 12.8 15.6 c-g 4.4 bcd 6.3 e-h 43.8 ab

17 Quadris BD 12.2 15.0 e-h 4.1 de 6.9 efg 34.0 d-g

18 Senator BC 13.0 15.3 d-h 4.4 bcd 8.3 def 38.3 b-g

Mean 12.3 15.5 4.3 10.3 37.7

PR>F 0.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) n/a 1.4 0.5 3.1 7.8

CV 12.2 6.5 8.2 21.4 14.7

48

Table 7. Crop Value Assessment for the Foliar Head-to-Head (Severe) at Exeter, Ontario, 2006


Treatment Timing Yield

(kg ha–1) Value

($ per ac.) Additional

Value ($ per ac.)

Additional Costs*

($ per ac.)


1 Infected Check 504 j 4.97 h

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 2729 a 296.79 a

3 Uninfected Check 841 hi 31.11 e-h

4 Headline A 1034 gh 24.76 fgh 19.79 24.83 -5.04

5 Headline B 1567 def 53.61 e-h 48.64 24.83 23.81

6 Headline C 1618 de 108.65 bcd 103.68 24.83 78.85

7 Headline D 977 hi 33.61 e-h 28.64 24.83 3.81

8 Headline AC 2136 b 126.45 bc 121.48 49.66 71.82

9 Headline BC 2234 b 149.42 b 144.45 49.66 94.79

10 Headline BD 1992 bc 57.19 efg 52.22 49.66 2.56

11 Quadris A 873 hi 23.91 fgh 18.94 30.09 -11.15

12 Quadris B 1292 fg 56.77 efg 51.80 30.09 21.71

13 Quadris C 1396 ef 72.12 def 67.15 30.09 37.06

14 Quadris D 705 ij 18.86 gh 13.89 30.09 -16.20

15 Quadris AC 1448 ef 40.77 e-h 35.80 60.18 -24.38

16 Quadris BC 1751 cd 39.23 e-h 34.26 60.18 -25.92

17 Quadris BD 1394 ef 78.52 cde 73.55 60.18 13.37

18 Senator BC 1453 ef 58.25 d-g 53.28 70.00 -16.72

Mean 1441 70.83

PR>F 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 279 51.48

CV 13.7 51.3

• * 2006 grower list price : Headline $ 16.83 /ac., Quadris $ 22.09/ac., Senator $36.00/ac • * application rate $ 8.00 /ac

49

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Dry edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cv. Kippen white pea bean PEST: Anthracnose, Colletotrichum lindemuthianum NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS S., DEPUYDT D., Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: CONTROL OF ANTHRACNOSE IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS WITH NO LESIONS USING DIFFERENT HEADLINE FOLIAR TIMINGS AND TWO DIFFERENT SEED TREATMENTS

MATERIALS: APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 3.8g + 2.5g ai/ha.); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w 197.6 & 98.9 g ai/ha) QUADRIS 250 SC (azoxystrobin 125g ai/ha); HEADLINE (pyraclostrobin 100g ai/ha); SENATOR 70WP (thiophanate-methyl 1400g ai/ha ); METHODS: The anthracnose pressure was modified by using mixtures of seed with and without visible anthracnose damage. The presence of visible damage has been shown to increase disease pressure. The seed for this trial was obtained from previous studies. The seed was sorted using a SORTEX ELECTRIC EYE which separated the seed into white and off white seed. The off white seed was an assortment of some light green and grey seeds but most had anthracnose lesions. For the remainder of this report the “off white” seed will be called seed with lesions. In this experiment the infected seed had no lesions. The trial was set up using a RCBD with 4 replications. Plots contained 5 rows which were 0.43 m apart and 6.0 m in length. The centre 3 rows contained the infected white beans and the outside two rows contained soybeans. The soybean rows were used to help prevent disease transmission from plot to plot. The seeding rate was 18 seeds per metre for the white beans and 25 seeds per metre for the soybeans. The trial was planted at a farm near Exeter on 10 June 2005 using a five-row cone-seeder with John Deere Max Emerge planter units. The fungicides were sprayed using a CO2 pressurized sprayer with three 10-002 Air Bubble Nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 346kPa (50 psi) in 200 L/ha water. Disease ratings were accessed on leaves and pods. Leaf ratings were done for 3 weeks, starting at 7 WAP, by observing the percentage of the leaf vein area that was purple. Pod disease incidence ratings were done 3 weeks, starting at 7 WAP. Pod severity ratings were done at 12 WAP. Pod severity ratings used an index of the number of destroyed pods and the % damage on the remaining pods. An indication of the response of the plant to the disease was the amount of regrowth at rated at maturity. Plant maturity was determined just prior to harvest. A 4 meter section from the centre of the three infected rows was harvested on Sept. 15. The seed from each plot was weighed and the seed moisture was measured. The seed was then put through a CLIPPER CLEANER equipped with a 10 X ¾ screen (industry standard). The difference between the weight before and the weight after was calculated as a percent dockage. A weight of 100 randomly selected seeds from each plot was obtained. Of these 100 seeds a weight of the seeds rejected for discolouration and/or misshapen appearance was established as a percent and called pick. The dry bean industry uses larger sample (minimum 500 grams) to determine the pick but this is not practical for this study. A visual seed quality rating was done using a 1 to 5 scale (1 = excellent seed quality and 5 = poor seed quality). The yield was calculated using all of the seed harvested from each plot, after cleaning to remove any foreign material. Each plot weight was adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%, and then converted to kg/ha. The value of the crop ($/acre) was determined by reducing the seed yield for two possible quality deficiencies; dockage and pick. Dockage (undersized seed and diseased splits) is removed as a straight percentage. For pick (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) the percentage is doubled to allow not only for the actual poor seed but also for the cost of removing that seed. The remaining large clean seed yield was adjusted to a yield per acre, and multiplied by a price of $0.21 per pound to calculate a

50

value per acre. In calculating the value of the crop, the goal was to mirror the grading standards used by the dry bean industry for commercial production as much as possible. RESULTS: See Figure 1, Tables 1 – 7. CONCLUSIONS: Regular precipitation and moderate temperatures resulted in good anthracnose disease pressure (Figure 1). Rainfall during the middle of July caused disease pressure to expand rapidly after July 26. In 2006, the leaf vein discolouration was less than in 2005, but the pod damage started earlier, and was more severe. Treatment differences were not detected for leaf vein ratings (Table 2). For pod lesion incidence (Table 3), the A timing of fungicide application was failing by 11 WAP, while the B and C applications were still effective. Too much disease pressure was present when the D timing was applied, to give effective disease control. All of the sequential fungicide treatments provided excellent disease control, but were not better than a single fungicide application at the B or C timing. In order to better estimate the severity of pod damage an index was designed (Table 4) to allow for pods already destroyed. Shriveled pods (< 50 % in size of a normal sized pod) were counted as 100 % destroyed and the remaining pods had a damage estimate done (using the % of the pod area with lesions). The sequential application treatments have the best index scores at 12 WAP. However, in most cases, the sequential treatments were not better than a single fungicide application at the B or C timing. The D timing of fungicide application was too late to prevent serious plant damage from the disease. Only small differences were detected between the DCT and Apron Maxx seed treatments. Rating for plant maturity and regrowth (Table 5) show that treatments with higher disease levels matured earlier, and treatments with a later fungicide application had greater tendency to regrow. Treatments with higher disease levels had reduced seed size and seed moisture (Table 6). These treatments had significantly higher dockage and pick, which gave significantly poorer seed quality values (Table 6). The B and C timings were the best timings for a single application of fungicide, producing the lowest dockage, pick and seed quality ratings. They had similar yield and crop value per acre (Table 7). The BC timing was the best timing for a sequential application of fungicide. In most cases, the return on investment favoured the sequential fungicide over all other single applications, except the DCT treatment with a single fungicide application at the B timing.

51

Figure 1. Sentinel plot disease incidence and severity ratings in white beans at Exeter, ON. 2006


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Per

cen

tage


52

Table 1. Foliar application timing for the foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) Exeter ON 2006



ha 34 (July 14)

42 (July 22)

48

(July 28)

57 (Aug 6)

1 Infected Check

2 Uninfected Check + Headline ABC 500 ml * * *

3 Uninfected Check

4 DCT + Headline A 400 ml *

5 DCT + Headline B 400 ml *

6 DCT + Headline C 400 ml *

7 DCT + Headline D 400 ml *

8 DCT + Headline AC 400 ml * *

9 DCT + Headline BC 400 ml * *

10 DCT + Headline BD 400 ml * *

11 ApronMaxx + Headline A 500 ml *

12 ApronMaxx + Headline B 500 ml *

13 ApronMaxx + Headline C 500 ml *

14 ApronMaxx + Headline D 500 ml *

15 ApronMaxx + Headline AC 500 ml * *

16 ApronMaxx + Headline BC 500 ml * *

17 ApronMaxx + Headline BD 500 ml * *

18 DCT + Senator B 1050 g *


53

Table 2. Leaf vein ratings in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006

Leaf Vein Rating

Treatment Timing

7 WAP 9 WAP 11 WAP

1 Infected Check 1 a 48 a 64 a

2 Uninfected Check + Headline ABC 0 b 0 b 0 c

3 Uninfected Check 0 b 6 b 6 bc

4 DCT + Headline A 0 b 1 b 5 bc

5 DCT + Headline B 0 b 1 b 2 c

6 DCT + Headline C 0 b 0 b 0 c

7 DCT + Headline D 0 b 1 b 9 bc

8 DCT + Headline AC 0 b 0 b 0 c

9 DCT + Headline BC 0 b 0 b 0 c

10 DCT + Headline BD 0 b 0 b 0 c

11 ApronMaxx + Headline A 0 b 5 b 9 bc

12 ApronMaxx + Headline B 0 b 1 b 3 bc

13 ApronMaxx + Headline C 0 b 0 b 0 c

14 ApronMaxx + Headline D 0 b 11 b 16 b

15 ApronMaxx + Headline AC 0 b 0 b 0 c

16 ApronMaxx + Headline BC 0 b 0 b 0 c

17 ApronMaxx + Headline BD 0 b 0 b 0 c

18 DCT + Senator B 0 b 0 b 3 bc

Mean 0.1 4.1 6.4

PR>F 0.04 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 0.3 13.3 14.0

CV 335.9 230.2 154.6

54

Table 3. Incidence of pod lesions in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, ON 2006.


Treatment Timing

7 WAP 9 WAP 11 WAP


2 Uninfected Check + Headline ABC 0 b 0 d 0 e

3 Uninfected Check 0 b 7 bcd 27 b

4 DCT + Headline A 0 b 5 cd 16 bc

5 DCT + Headline B 0 b 2 d 4 cde

6 DCT + Headline C 0 b 1 d 6 cde

7 DCT + Headline D 0 b 11 bc 29 b

8 DCT + Headline AC 0 b 1 d 0 e

9 DCT + Headline BC 0 b 0 d 1 e

10 DCT + Headline BD 0 b 1 d 5 cde

11 ApronMaxx + Headline A 0 b 4 cd 15 bcd

12 ApronMaxx + Headline B 0 b 3 cd 13 cde

13 ApronMaxx + Headline C 0 b 1 d 7 cde


15 ApronMaxx + Headline AC 0 b 1 d 1 de

16 ApronMaxx + Headline BC 0 b 0 d 1 e

17 ApronMaxx + Headline BD 0 b 1 d 3 cde

18 DCT + Senator B 0 b 1 d 7 cde

Mean 0.8 5.0 12.1

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 3.3 9.8 14.2

CV 294.1 137.8 82.6

55

Table 4. Severity of pod lesions in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, Ontario 2006


Treatment Timing


% of Pods Destroyed

Pod Destruction

Index **


2 Uninfected Check + Headline ABC 0 d 0 d 0 h

3 Uninfected Check 16 a 17 b 31 b

4 DCT + Headline A 10 ab 3 cd 13 def

5 DCT + Headline B 4 bcd 0 d 4 fgh

6 DCT + Headline C 4 bcd 0 d 4 gh

7 DCT + Headline D 14 a 0 d 14 cde

8 DCT + Headline AC 1 d 0 d 1 h

9 DCT + Headline BC 1 d 0 d 1 h

10 DCT + Headline BD 2 d 0 d 2 gh

11 ApronMaxx + Headline A 10 abc 12 bc 21 cd

12 ApronMaxx + Headline B 10 abc 1 d 11 efg

13 ApronMaxx + Headline C 6 bcd 0 d 6 e-h

14 ApronMaxx + Headline D 14 a 10 bcd 22 bc

15 ApronMaxx + Headline AC 2 d 0 d 2 gh

16 ApronMaxx + Headline BC 1 d 1 d 2 h

17 ApronMaxx + Headline BD 2 cd 0 d 2 gh

18 DCT + Senator B 5 bcd 0 d 5 fgh

Mean 6.6 4.7 10.7

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 7.7 10.7 8.8

CV 82.7 161.6 57.9


56

Table 5. Miscellaneous field observations for foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, Ontario 2006


1 Infected Check 86 h 1.8 de

2 Uninfected Check + Headline ABC 91 abc 1.3 e

3 Uninfected Check 87 h 2.0 d

4 DCT + Headline A 89 fg 1.8 de

5 DCT + Headline B 90 d-g 1.6 de

6 DCT + Headline C 90 c-f 2.8 bc

7 DCT + Headline D 89 efg 4.8 a

8 DCT + Headline AC 92 a 1.9 de

9 DCT + Headline BC 91 abc 2.0 d

10 DCT + Headline BD 91 a-d 2.3 cd

11 ApronMaxx + Headline A 89 efg 2.0 d

12 ApronMaxx + Headline B 88 g 2.1 cd

13 ApronMaxx + Headline C 89 efg 3.3 b

14 ApronMaxx + Headline D 88 g 4.4 a

15 ApronMaxx + Headline AC 90 b-e 2.3 cd

16 ApronMaxx + Headline BC 91 ab 2.1 cd

17 ApronMaxx + Headline BD 92 a 3.0 b

18 DCT + Senator B 89 efg 2.0 d

Mean 89.5 2.4

PR>F 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 1.4 0.7

CV 1.1 20.2

57

Table 6. Seed quality ratings in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006

Treatment Timing Crop Seed Assessment

Seed Moisture

100 Seed Weight


1 Infected Check 11.4 15.5 d 4.9 a 11 a 46 a

2 Uninfected Check + Headline ABC 12.9 18.1 ab 1.0 h 1 f 7 g

3 Uninfected Check 11.7 17.0 c 3.9 b 6 b 31 b

4 DCT + Headline A 12.3 16.9 c 3.0 bcd 4 bc 25 bcd

5 DCT + Headline B 12.3 17.6 bc 1.6 e-h 2 def 12 efg

6 DCT + Headline C 12.4 18.5 a 2.0 efg 2 c-f 14 efg

7 DCT + Headline D 11.0 17.5 bc 3.4 b 6 b 26 bc

8 DCT + Headline AC 12.6 18.6 a 1.0 h 2 c-f 5 g

9 DCT + Headline BC 11.9 18.7 a 1.1 gh 2 ef 7 g

10 DCT + Headline BD 11.5 18.7 a 1.8 e-h 2 def 11 efg

11 ApronMaxx + Headline A 12.2 17.5 bc 3.3 bc 4 bcd 26 bc

12 ApronMaxx + Headline B 11.8 17.5 bc 3.3 bc 4 b-e 24 bcd

13 ApronMaxx + Headline C 11.9 18.5 a 2.1 def 3 c-f 12 efg

14 ApronMaxx + Headline D 11.6 18.0 ab 3.0 bcd 6 b 20 cde

15 ApronMaxx + Headline AC 12.8 18.6 a 1.4 fgh 2 def 11 efg

16 ApronMaxx + Headline BC 12.5 18.1 ab 1.3 fgh 1 f 9 fg

17 ApronMaxx + Headline BD 12.9 18.6 a 1.5 e-h 2 def 7 g

18 DCT + Senator B 12.1 18.1 ab 2.4 cde 2 c-f 17 def

Mean 12.1 17.9 2.3 3.3 17.3

PR>F 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) n/a 0.8 1.0 2.3 8.8

CV 8.1 3.3 29.5 48.9 36.1

58

Table 7. Crop Value Assessment in Headline foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, ON 2006


Treatment Timing

Yield (kg ha–1)

Value ($ per ac.)

Additional Value

($ per ac.)

Additional Costs*

($ per ac.)


1 Infected Check 1143 g 16.71 g

2 Uninfected Check + Headline ABC 2829 ab 452.80 ab

3 Uninfected Check 2156 ef 147.11 f

4 DCT + Headline A 2263 def 211.13 f 194.42 30.03 164.39

5 DCT + Headline B 2810 ab 393.09 abc 376.38 30.03 346.35

6 DCT + Headline C 2692 abc 358.07 bc 341.36 30.03 311.33

7 DCT + Headline D 2113 f 173.25 f 156.54 30.03 126.51

8 DCT + Headline AC 2575 bcd 425.83 abc 409.12 54.86 354.26

9 DCT + Headline BC 2996 a 479.26 a 462.55 54.86 407.69

10 DCT + Headline BD 2854 ab 413.49 abc 396.78 54.86 341.92

11 ApronMaxx + Headline A 2254 def 193.51 f 176.80 27.91 148.89

12 ApronMaxx + Headline B 2296 c-f 222.79 ef 206.08 27.91 178.17

13 ApronMaxx + Headline C 2530 b-e 352.56 bcd 335.85 27.91 307.94

14 ApronMaxx + Headline D 2189 def 242.84 def 226.13 27.91 198.22

15 ApronMaxx + Headline AC 2705 ab 386.86 abc 370.15 52.74 317.41

16 ApronMaxx + Headline BC 2868 ab 429.63 abc 412.92 52.74 360.18

17 ApronMaxx + Headline BD 2675 abc 426.90 abc 410.19 52.74 357.45

18 DCT + Senator B 2722 ab 330.69 cde 313.98 41.20 272.78

Mean 2481 314.3

PR>F 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 406.0 112.3 CV 11.6 25.3

• Seed Treatments had no application costs attached. * 2006 grower list price : Headline $ 16.83 /ac., Quadris $ 22.09/ac., Senator $36.00/ac , Apron Maxx $ 3.08/ac. ,DCT (high rate) $ 5.20/ac

• * application rate $ 8.00 /ac

59

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Dry edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cv. Kippen white pea bean PEST: Anthracnose, Colletotrichum lindemuthianum NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS S., DEPUYDT D., Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: CONTROL OF ANTHRACNOSE IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS WITH LESIONS USING DIFFERENT HEADLINE FOLIAR TIMINGS AND TWO DIFFERENT SEED TREATMENTS

MATERIALS: APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 3.8g + 2.5g ai/ha.); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w 197.6 & 98.9 g ai/ha) QUADRIS 250 SC (azoxystrobin 125g ai/ha); HEADLINE (pyraclostrobin 100g ai/ha); SENATOR 70WP (thiophanate-methyl 1400g ai/ha ); METHODS: The anthracnose pressure was modified by using mixtures of seed with and without visible anthracnose damage. The presence of visible damage has been shown to increase disease pressure. The seed for this trial was obtained from previous studies. The seed was sorted using a SORTEX ELECTRIC EYE which separated the seed into white and off white seed. The off white seed was an assortment of some light green and grey seeds but most had anthracnose lesions. For the remainder of this report the “off white” seed will be called seed with lesions. In this experiment the infected seed had lesions. The trial was set up using a RCBD with 4 replications. Plots contained 5 rows which were 0.43 m apart and 6.0 m in length. The centre 3 rows contained the infected white beans and the outside two rows contained soybeans. The soybean rows were used to help prevent disease transmission from plot to plot. The seeding rate was 20 seeds per metre for the white beans and 25 seeds per metre for the soybeans. The trial was planted at a farm near Exeter on 10 June 2005 using a five-row cone-seeder with John Deere Max Emerge planter units. The fungicides were sprayed using a CO2 pressurized sprayer with three 10-002 Air Bubble Nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 346kPa (50 psi) in 200 L/ha water. Disease ratings were accessed on leaves and pods. Leaf ratings were done for 3 weeks, starting at 6 WAP. by observing the percentage of the leaf vein area that was purple. Pod disease incidence ratings were done 2 weeks, starting at 8 WAP. Pod severity ratings were done at 12 WAP. Pod severity ratings used an index of the number of destroyed pods and the % damage on the remaining pods. Another indication of disease pressure on the plant was the amount of regrowth at rated at maturity. Plant maturity was determined just prior to harvest. A 4 meter section from the centre of the three infected rows was harvested on Sept 17. The seed from each plot was weighed and the seed moisture was measured. The seed was then put through a CLIPPER CLEANER equipped with a 10 X ¾ screen (industry standard). The difference between the weight before and the weight after was calculated as a percent dockage. A weight of 100 randomly selected seeds from each plot was obtained. Of these 100 seeds a weight of the seeds rejected for discolouration and/or misshapen appearance was established as a percent and called pick. The dry bean industry uses larger sample (minimum 500 grams) to determine the pick but this is not practical for this study. A visual seed quality rating was done using a 1 to 5 scale (1 = excellent seed quality and 5 = poor seed quality). The yield was calculated using all of the seed harvested from each plot, after cleaning to remove any foreign material. Each plot weight was adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%, and then converted to kg/ha. The value of the crop ($/acre) was determined by reducing the seed yield for two possible quality deficiencies; dockage and pick. Dockage (undersized seed and diseased splits) is removed as a straight percentage. For pick (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) the percentage is doubled to allow not only for the actual poor seed but also for the cost of removing that seed. The remaining large clean seed yield was adjusted to a yield per acre, and multiplied by a price of $0.21 per pound to calculate a

60

value per acre. In calculating the value of the crop, the goal was to mirror the grading standards used by the dry bean industry for commercial production as much as possible. RESULTS: See Figure 1, Tables 1 – 7. CONCLUSIONS: Regular precipitation and moderate temperatures resulted in good anthracnose disease pressure (Figure 1). Rainfall during the middle of July caused disease pressure to expand rapidly after July 26. In 2006, the leaf vein discolouration was less than in 2005, but the pod damage started earlier, and was more severe. For leaf vein ratings (Table 2) and pod lesion incidence (Table 3), the A timing of fungicide application was failing by 9 WAP, while the C application was still effective. The B application timing was still effective for DCT, but was failing when Apron Maxx was used as a seed treatment. Too much disease pressure was present when the D timing was applied, to give effective disease control. All of the sequential fungicide treatments provided excellent disease control, and were equal to or better than a single fungicide application at the C timing. In order to better estimate the severity of pod damage an index was designed (Table 4) to allow for pods already destroyed. Shriveled pods (< 50 % in size of a normal sized pod) were counted as 100 % destroyed and the remaining pods had a damage estimate done (using the % of the pod area with lesions). The sequential application treatments have the best index scores at 12 WAP. The D timing of fungicide application was too late to prevent serious plant damage from the disease. Treatments using DCT were consistently better than treatments using Apron Maxx as a seed treatment. Treatments that had significantly higher dockage and pick gave significantly poorer seed quality values (Table 5). The B and C timings were the best timings for a single application of fungicide, producing the lowest dockage, pick and seed quality ratings and the highest yield and crop value per acre (Table 6). The BC timing was the best timing for a sequential application of fungicide. In all cases, the return on investment favoured the sequential fungicide applications over the single fungicide applications. Treatments using DCT were consistently better than treatments using Apron Maxx as a seed treatment.

61

Figure 1. Sentinel plot disease incidence and severity ratings in white beans at Exeter, ON. 2006


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Per

cen

tage


62

Table 1. Fungicide application timing in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006



ha 34 (July 14)

42 (July 22)

48

(July 28)

57 (Aug 6)

1 Infected Check

2 Uninfected Check + Headline ABC 500 ml * * *

3 Uninfected Check

4 DCT + Headline A 400 ml *

5 DCT + Headline B 400 ml *

6 DCT + Headline C 400 ml *

7 DCT + Headline D 400 ml *

8 DCT + Headline AC 400 ml * *

9 DCT + Headline BC 400 ml * *

10 DCT + Headline BD 400 ml * *

11 ApronMaxx + Headline A 500 ml *

12 ApronMaxx + Headline B 500 ml *

13 ApronMaxx + Headline C 500 ml *

14 ApronMaxx + Headline D 500 ml *

15 ApronMaxx + Headline AC 500 ml * *

16 ApronMaxx + Headline BC 500 ml * *

17 ApronMaxx + Headline BD 500 ml * *

18 DCT + Senator BC 1050 g * *


63

Table 2. Leaf vein ratings in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006

Leaf Vein Rating

Treatment Timing

6 WAP 8 WAP 9 WAP


2 Uninfected Check + Headline ABC 0 c 0 e 0 g

3 Uninfected Check 0 c 1 de 27 c

4 DCT + Headline A 0 c 0 e 14 def

5 DCT + Headline B 0 c 0 e 1 g

6 DCT + Headline C 0 c 0 e 1 g

7 DCT + Headline D 0 c 5 cd 15 de

8 DCT + Headline AC 0 c 0 e 0 g

9 DCT + Headline BC 0 c 0 e 0 g

10 DCT + Headline BD 0 c 0 e 0 g

11 ApronMaxx + Headline A 0 c 1 de 17 cd

12 ApronMaxx + Headline B 3 ab 1 e 4 fg

13 ApronMaxx + Headline C 2 ab 5 c 5 efg


15 ApronMaxx + Headline AC 0 c 0 e 0 g

16 ApronMaxx + Headline BC 2 ab 0 e 0 g

17 ApronMaxx + Headline BD 2 b 2 cde 4 fg

18 DCT + Senator BC 0 c 0 e 0 g

Mean 0.8 3.6 10.9

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 1.2 3.7 10.9

CV 101.9 72.5 70.9

64

Table 3. Incidence of pod lesions in foliar fungicide x seed treatment ( lesions) at Exeter, ON 2006.


Treatment Timing

8 WAP 9 WAP


2 Uninfected Check + Headline ABC 0 f 1 f

3 Uninfected Check 5 de 50 bc

4 DCT + Headline A 0 f 33 d

5 DCT + Headline B 0 f 8 ef

6 DCT + Headline C 3 ef 4 f

7 DCT + Headline D 10 c 46 c

8 DCT + Headline AC 0 f 1 f

9 DCT + Headline BC 0 f 1 f

10 DCT + Headline BD 0 f 6 ef

11 ApronMaxx + Headline A 2 ef 61 ab

12 ApronMaxx + Headline B 2 ef 33 d

13 ApronMaxx + Headline C 9 cd 18 e

14 ApronMaxx + Headline D 24 b 60 b

15 ApronMaxx + Headline AC 3 ef 8 ef

16 ApronMaxx + Headline BC 0 ef 3 f

17 ApronMaxx + Headline BD 2 ef 19 e

18 DCT + Senator BC 1 ef 7 ef

Mean 5.6 24.0

PR>F 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 4.4 13.0

CV 55.8 38.4

65

Table 4. Severity of pod lesions in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, Ontario 2006


Treatment Timing


% of Pods Destroyed

Pod Destruction

Index **

1 Infected Check 8 cde 35 a 40 ab

2 Uninfected Check + Headline ABC 0 e 0 d 0 g

3 Uninfected Check 24 a 22 bc 42 ab

4 DCT + Headline A 16 b 13 c 27 de

5 DCT + Headline B 8 cd 13 c 20 e

6 DCT + Headline C 3 de 3 d 6 fg

7 DCT + Headline D 22 ab 20 bc 38 bc

8 DCT + Headline AC 0 e 0 d 0 g

9 DCT + Headline BC 0 e 0 d 0 g

10 DCT + Headline BD 3 de 2 d 4 fg

11 ApronMaxx + Headline A 26 a 28 ab 47 a

12 ApronMaxx + Headline B 15 bc 18 c 30 cd

13 ApronMaxx + Headline C 6 de 17 c 21 de

14 ApronMaxx + Headline D 4 de 22 bc 25 de

15 ApronMaxx + Headline AC 6 de 3 d 8 fg

16 ApronMaxx + Headline BC 1 de 0 d 1 g

17 ApronMaxx + Headline BD 2 de 3 d 4 fg

18 DCT + Senator BC 8 cde 3 d 10 f

Mean 8.2 11.2 17.9

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 7.9 10.0 9.0

CV 67.7 63.3 35.5


66

Table 5. Seed quality ratings in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006


Seed Moisture

100 Seed Weight

Seed Quality

Dockage Pick

1 Infected Check 12.2 12.9 j 5.0 a 25 a 44 bc

2 Uninfected Check + Headline ABC 14.4 18.1 a 2.4 gh 2 i 13 j

3 Uninfected Check 11.4 13.7 ij 5.0 a 13 b 52 a

4 DCT + Headline A 12.0 15.2 gh 4.8 ab 12 bc 41 bcd

5 DCT + Headline B 12.3 17.2 a-d 3.9 cde 5 f-i 31 fg

6 DCT + Headline C 12.5 17.8 ab 4.3 a-d 4 f-i 34 d-g

7 DCT + Headline D 12.6 15.9 fg 4.6 abc 9 cd 44 abc

8 DCT + Headline AC 13.4 17.8 ab 3.0 fg 2 hi 17 ij

9 DCT + Headline BC 12.4 17.9 ab 2.0 h 2 ghi 14 ij

10 DCT + Headline BD 12.8 17.6 abc 3.1 efg 3 ghi 22 hi

11 ApronMaxx + Headline A 11.5 14.6 hi 4.9 ab 14 b 47 ab

12 ApronMaxx + Headline B 13.3 16.1 efg 4.5 abc 8 de 38 b-f

13 ApronMaxx + Headline C 12.5 16.5 def 4.1 bcd 7 def 36 c-f

14 ApronMaxx + Headline D 12.3 15.6 gh 4.9 ab 12 bc 39 b-f

15 ApronMaxx + Headline AC 13.0 17.5 a-d 4.1 bcd 5 e-h 32 efg

16 ApronMaxx + Headline BC 12.6 17.9 ab 3.5 def 3 ghi 27 gh

17 ApronMaxx + Headline BD 13.9 17.0 b-e 4.3 a-d 4 f-i 32 efg

18 DCT + Senator BC 12.6 16.8 c-f 4.3 a-d 5 efg 40 b-e

Mean 12.6 16.4 4.0 7.4 33.5

PR>F 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) n/a 1.0 0.8 3.1 8.7

CV 12.0 4.2 13.4 29.5 18.3

67

Table 6. Crop Value Assessment in Headline foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, ON 2006


Treatment Timing

Yield (kg ha–1)

Value ($ per ac.)

Additional Value

($ per ac.)

Additional Costs*

($ per ac.)


1 Infected Check 571 i 9.18 gh

2 Uninfected Check + Headline ABC 2875 a 392.16 a

3 Uninfected Check 1045 gh -5.89 h

4 DCT + Headline A 1334 fg 43.52 fgh 34.34 30.03 4.31

5 DCT + Headline B 2182 cd 145.82 cd 136.64 30.03 106.61

6 DCT + Headline C 2340 cd 139.87 de 130.69 30.03 100.66

7 DCT + Headline D 1493 ef 31.18 fgh 22.00 30.03 -8.03

8 DCT + Headline AC 2790 a 339.75 a 330.57 54.86 275.71

9 DCT + Headline BC 2643 ab 344.59 a 335.41 54.86 280.55

10 DCT + Headline BD 2455 bc 255.02 b 245.84 54.86 190.98

11 ApronMaxx + Headline A 974 h 10.23 gh 1.05 27.91 -26.86

12 ApronMaxx + Headline B 1691 e 70.03 fg 60.85 27.91 32.94

13 ApronMaxx + Headline C 1656 e 81.81 def 72.63 27.91 44.72

14 ApronMaxx + Headline D 1069 gh 42.46 fgh 33.28 27.91 5.37

15 ApronMaxx + Headline AC 2196 cd 138.53 de 129.35 52.74 76.61

16 ApronMaxx + Headline BC 2426 bc 206.80 bc 197.62 52.74 144.88

17 ApronMaxx + Headline BD 2119 d 136.48 de 127.30 52.74 74.56

18 DCT + Senator BC 2205 cd 75.97 ef 66.79 70.00 -3.21

Mean 1892.4 136.5

PR>F 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=. 05) 302.2 64.3 CV 11.3 33.3

• Seed Treatments had no application costs attached. * 2006 grower list price : Headline $ 16.83 /ac., Quadris $ 22.09/ac., Senator $27.00/ac , Apron Maxx $ 3.08/ac. ,DCT (high rate) $ 5.20/ac


68


TITLE: CONTROL OF ANTHRACNOSE IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS WITH NO LESIONS USING DIFFERENT QUADRIS FOLIAR TIMINGS AND TWO DIFFERENT SEED TREATMENTS

MATERIALS: APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 3.8g + 2.5g ai/ha.); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w 197.6 & 98.9 g ai/ha) QUADRIS 250 SC (azoxystrobin 125g ai/ha);QUADRIS (pyraclostrobin 100g ai/ha); SENATOR 70WP (thiophanate-methyl 1400g ai/ha ); METHODS: The anthracnose pressure was modified by using mixtures of seed with and without visible anthracnose damage. The presence of visible damage has been shown to increase disease pressure. The seed for this trial was obtained from previous studies. The seed was sorted using a SORTEX ELECTRIC EYE which separated the seed into white and off white seed. The off white seed was an assortment of some light green and grey seeds but most had anthracnose lesions. For the remainder of this report the “off white” seed will be called seed with lesions. In this experiment the infected seed had no lesions. The trial was set up using a RCBD with 4 replications. Plots contained 5 rows which were 0.43 m apart and 6.0 m in length. The centre 3 rows contained the infected white beans and the outside two rows contained soybeans. The soybean rows were used to help prevent disease transmission from plot to plot. The seeding rate was 18 seeds per metre for the white beans and 25 seeds per metre for the soybeans. The trial was planted at a farm near Exeter on 10 June 2005 using a five-row cone-seeder with John Deere Max Emerge planter units. The fungicides were sprayed using a CO2 pressurized sprayer with three 10-002 Air Bubble Nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 346kPa (50 psi) in 200 L/ha water. Disease ratings were accessed on leaves and pods. Leaf ratings were done for 3 weeks, starting at 7 WAP. by observing the percentage of the leaf vein area that was purple. Pod disease incidence ratings were done 3 weeks, starting at 7 WAP. Pod severity ratings were done at 12 WAP. Pod severity ratings used an index of the number of destroyed pods and the % damage on the remaining pods. An indication of the response of the plant to the disease was the amount of regrowth at rated at maturity. Plant maturity was determined just prior to harvest. A 4 meter section from the centre of the three infected rows was harvested on Sept 15. The seed from each plot was weighed and the seed moisture was measured. The seed was then put through a CLIPPER CLEANER equipped with a 10 X ¾ screen (industry standard). The difference between the weight before and the weight after was calculated as a percent dockage. A weight of 100 randomly selected seeds from each plot was obtained. Of these 100 seeds a weight of the seeds rejected for discolouration and/or misshapen appearance was established as a percent and called pick. The dry bean industry uses larger sample (minimum 500 grams) to determine the pick but this is not practical for this study. A visual seed quality rating was done using a 1 to 5 scale (1 = excellent seed quality and 5 = poor seed quality). The yield was calculated using all of the seed harvested from each plot, after cleaning to remove any foreign material. Each plot weight was adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%, and then converted to kg/ha. The value of the crop ($/acre) was determined by reducing the seed yield for two possible quality deficiencies; dockage and pick. Dockage (undersized seed and diseased splits) is removed as a straight percentage. For pick (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) the percentage is doubled to allow not only for the actual poor seed but also for the cost of removing that seed. The remaining large clean seed yield was adjusted to a yield per acre, and multiplied by a price of $0.21 per pound to calculate a

69

value per acre. In calculating the value of the crop, the goal was to mirror the grading standards used by the dry bean industry for commercial production as much as possible. RESULTS: See Figure 1, Tables 1 – 7. CONCLUSIONS: Regular precipitation and moderate temperatures resulted in good anthracnose disease pressure (Figure 1). Rainfall during the middle of July caused disease pressure to expand rapidly after July 26. In 2006, the leaf vein discolouration was less than in 2005, but the pod damage started earlier, and was more severe. For leaf vein rating (Table 2) and pod lesion incidence (Table 3), the A timing of fungicide application was failing by 9 WAP, while the B and C applications were still effective up to 11 WAP. Too much disease pressure was present when the D timing was applied, to give effective disease control. All of the sequential fungicide treatments provided excellent disease control, but were not better than a single fungicide application at the B or C timing. In order to better estimate the severity of pod damage an index was designed (Table 4) to allow for pods already destroyed. Shriveled pods (< 50 % in size of a normal sized pod) were counted as 100 % destroyed and the remaining pods had a damage estimate done (using the % of the pod area with lesions). The sequential application treatments have the best index scores at 12 WAP. The D timing of fungicide application was too late to prevent serious plant damage from the disease. Only small differences were found between the DCT and Apron Maxx treatments. Rating for plant maturity and regrowth (Table 5) show that treatments with higher disease levels matured earlier, and treatments with a later fungicide application had greater tendency to regrow. Treatments with more anthracnose had smaller seed and lower seed moisture (Table 6). These treatments had significantly higher dockage and pick, which gave significantly poorer seed quality values (Table 6). The B and C timings were the best timings for a single application of fungicide, producing the lowest dockage, pick and seed quality ratings. They had similar yield and crop value per acre (Table 7). The sequential applications of the fungicide produced similar yields irregardless of timing. In most cases, the return on investment favoured the sequential fungicide over all other single applications and the greatest value was obtained from the BD treatment.

70



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Per

cen

tage


71

Table 1. Foliar application timing for the foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006



ha 34 (July 14)

42 (July 22)

48

(July 28)

57 (Aug 6)

1 Infected Check


3 Uninfected Check

4 DCT + Quadris A 500 ml *

5 DCT + Quadris B 500 ml *

6 DCT + Quadris C 500 ml *

7 DCT + Quadris D 500 ml *

8 DCT + Quadris AC 500 ml * *

9 DCT + Quadris BC 500 ml * *

10 DCT + Quadris BD 500 ml * *

11 ApronMaxx + Quadris A 500 ml *

12 ApronMaxx + Quadris B 500 ml *

13 ApronMaxx + Quadris C 500 ml *

14 ApronMaxx + Quadris D 500 ml *

15 ApronMaxx + Quadris AC 500 ml * *

16 ApronMaxx + Quadris BC 500 ml * *

17 ApronMaxx + Quadris BD 500 ml * *

18 DCT + Senator B 1400 g *


72

Table 2. Leaf vein ratings in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006

Leaf Vein Rating

Treatment Timing

7 WAP 9 WAP 11 WAP


2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 0 a 0 e 0 e

3 Uninfected Check 0 a 25 bcd 51 b

4 DCT + Quadris A 0 a 11 cde 15 de

5 DCT + Quadris B 0 a 0 e 1 e

6 DCT + Quadris C 0 a 4 de 4 e

7 DCT + Quadris D 0 a 32 bc 48 b

8 DCT + Quadris AC 0 a 0 de 1 e

9 DCT + Quadris BC 0 a 0 e 0 e

10 DCT + Quadris BD 0 a 0 e 1 e

11 ApronMaxx + Quadris A 0 a 42 b 44 bc

12 ApronMaxx + Quadris B 0 a 5 de 5 e

13 ApronMaxx + Quadris C 0 a 3 de 9 de

14 ApronMaxx + Quadris D 2 a 22 b-e 34 bcd

15 ApronMaxx + Quadris AC 0 a 5 de 7 e

16 ApronMaxx + Quadris BC 0 a 2 de 1 e

17 ApronMaxx + Quadris BD 0 a 3 de 4 e

18 DCT + Senator B 0 a 17 cde 21 cde

Mean 0.4 13.6 18.4

PR>F 0.1 0.0 0.0

LSD (P=. 05) 1.8 24.2 26.3

CV 329.4 125.7 100.9

73

Table 3. Incidence of pod lesions in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, ON 2006.


Treatment Timing

7 WAP 9 WAP 11 WAP


2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 1 b 1 f 1 f

3 Uninfected Check 2 b 27 abc 43 a

4 DCT + Quadris A 0 b 18 b-f 18 cde

5 DCT + Quadris B 0 b 2 ef 5 ef

6 DCT + Quadris C 1 b 10 c-f 9 ef

7 DCT + Quadris D 2 b 27 abc 34 ab

8 DCT + Quadris AC 0 b 4 ef 3 f

9 DCT + Quadris BC 0 b 1 f 1 f

10 DCT + Quadris BD 1 b 1 f 2 f

11 ApronMaxx + Quadris A 5 b 35 ab 31 abc

12 ApronMaxx + Quadris B 1 b 10 c-f 8 ef

13 ApronMaxx + Quadris C 2 b 9 def 11 ef

14 ApronMaxx + Quadris D 2 b 26 a-d 26 bcd

15 ApronMaxx + Quadris AC 1 b 7 ef 11 ef

16 ApronMaxx + Quadris BC 0 b 12 c-f 4 f

17 ApronMaxx + Quadris BD 0 b 10 c-f 9 ef

18 DCT + Senator B 2 b 20 b-e 14 def

Mean 2.3 14.4 15.0

PR>F 0.0 0.0 0.0

LSD (P=. 05) 6.1 18.2 13.4

CV 185.2 89.3 63.2

74

Table 4. Severity of pod lesions in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, Ontario 2006


Treatment Timing


% of Pods Destroyed

Pod Destruction

Index **

1 Infected Check 8 c-f 54 a 58 a

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 3 f 0 f 3 f

3 Uninfected Check 21 ab 47 ab 60 a

4 DCT + Quadris A 18 abc 16 cde 30 bc

5 DCT + Quadris B 9 c-f 0 f 9 ef

6 DCT + Quadris C 17 a-d 3 ef 19 cde

7 DCT + Quadris D 17 abc 21 c 34 b

8 DCT + Quadris AC 5 ef 0 f 5 ef

9 DCT + Quadris BC 2 f 0 f 2 f

10 DCT + Quadris BD 2 f 0 f 2 f

11 ApronMaxx + Quadris A 25 a 38 b 54 a

12 ApronMaxx + Quadris B 15 a-e 3 f 17 cde

13 ApronMaxx + Quadris C 11 b-f 8 c-f 18 cde

14 ApronMaxx + Quadris D 13 b-f 16 cd 27 bcd

15 ApronMaxx + Quadris AC 10 b-f 5 def 14 def

16 ApronMaxx + Quadris BC 5 def 3 ef 8 ef

17 ApronMaxx + Quadris BD 8 c-f 4 def 11 ef

18 DCT + Senator B 15 a-e 0 f 15 def

Mean 11.2 12.0 21.4

PR>F 0.0 0.0 0.0

LSD (P=. 05) 11.7 13.1 14.3

CV 74.1 77.0 47.2


75

Table 5. Miscellaneous field observations for foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, Ontario 2006


1 Infected Check 86 h 1.6 f-i

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 89 def 1.1 i

3 Uninfected Check 86 h 1.5 ghi

4 DCT + Quadris A 88 g 2.1 d-i

5 DCT + Quadris B 89 def 2.1 d-i

6 DCT + Quadris C 89 ef 3.1 cd

7 DCT + Quadris D 88 fg 4.5 ab

8 DCT + Quadris AC 91 b 2.1 d-i

9 DCT + Quadris BC 90 c 1.3 hi

10 DCT + Quadris BD 93 a 2 e-i

11 ApronMaxx + Quadris A 88 g 2.6 c-f

12 ApronMaxx + Quadris B 89 def 2.1 d-i

13 ApronMaxx + Quadris C 88 fg 3.6 bc

14 ApronMaxx + Quadris D 88 g 4.8 a

15 ApronMaxx + Quadris AC 90 cd 2.3 d-h

16 ApronMaxx + Quadris BC 89 cde 2 e-i

17 ApronMaxx + Quadris BD 92 b 2.8 cde

18 DCT + Senator B 89 ef 2.4 d-g

Mean 89 2.4

PR>F 0.0 0.0

LSD (P=. 05) 1.0 1.0

CV 0.8 29.8

76

Table 6. Seed quality ratings in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006


Seed Moisture

100 Seed Weight

Seed Quality

Dockage Pick

1 Infected Check 10.7 13.9 g 5.0 a 19 a 42 a

2 Uninfected Check + Headline ABC 12.6 17.0 abc 2.6 e-h 2 e 16 efg

3 Uninfected Check 11 15.0 fg 4.9 a 11 b 44 a

4 DCT + Headline A 11.7 16.2 b-f 4.0 a-d 8 bcd 30 bcd

5 DCT + Headline B 11.6 16.9 a-e 3.0 d-g 4 de 26 b-f

6 DCT + Headline C 11.1 16.8 a-e 3.5 b-e 4 de 27 b-e

7 DCT + Headline D 12.4 15.3 d-g 4.0 a-d 10 b 37 ab

8 DCT + Headline AC 12.4 18.0 a 2.9 e-h 3 e 20 d-g

9 DCT + Headline BC 13.1 17.6 ab 1.9 h 2 e 13 g

10 DCT + Headline BD 12.9 18.0 a 2.0 gh 2 e 14 g

11 ApronMaxx + Headline A 10.9 15.3 efg 4.5 ab 11 b 43 a

12 ApronMaxx + Headline B 11.1 16.3 b-f 3.5 b-e 6 cde 25 b-f

13 ApronMaxx + Headline C 11.9 17.1 abc 3.1 c-f 5 de 24 c-g

14 ApronMaxx + Headline D 11.9 15.5 c-g 4.1 abc 10 bc 33 abc

15 ApronMaxx + Headline AC 11.3 17.0 a-d 2.6 e-h 4 de 22 c-g

16 ApronMaxx + Headline BC 12.3 17.5 ab 2.8 e-h 3 e 21 c-g

17 ApronMaxx + Headline BD 12.6 17.2 ab 2.4 fgh 3 e 15 fg

18 DCT + Senator BC 10.9 16.5 a-f 3.4 c-f 8 bcd 28 bcd

Mean 11.8 16.5 3.3 6.5 26.6

PR>F 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

LSD (P=. 05) 1.7 1.7 1.0 4.7 11.7

CV 10.0 7.2 21.6 51.1 31.2

77

Table 7. Crop Value Assessment in Quadrisfoliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, ON 2006


Treatment Timing

Yield (kg ha–1)

Value ($ per ac.)

Additional Value

($ per ac.)

Additional Costs*

($ per ac.)


1 Infected Check 600 f 13.83 g

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 2666 a 338.58 ab

3 Uninfected Check 1361 e 25.43 fg

4 DCT + Quadris A 1752 cde 124.98 d-g 111.15 35.29 75.86

5 DCT + Quadris B 2171 abc 193.92 cde 180.09 35.29 144.8

6 DCT + Quadris C 2151 abc 191.03 cde 177.2 35.29 141.91

7 DCT + Quadris D 1300 e 82.09 efg 68.26 35.29 32.97

8 DCT + Quadris AC 2414 ab 258.68 abc 244.85 65.38 179.47

9 DCT + Quadris BC 2495 ab 339.19 ab 325.36 65.38 259.98

10 DCT + Headline BD 2623 a 351.89 a 338.06 65.38 272.68

11 ApronMaxx + Quadris A 1275 e 31.75 fg 17.92 33.17 -15.25

12 ApronMaxx + Quadris B 2080 bc 182.81 cde 168.98 33.17 135.81

13 ApronMaxx + Quadris C 2021 bcd 191.67 cde 177.84 33.17 144.67

14 ApronMaxx + Quadris D 1522 de 114.29 d-g 100.46 33.17 67.29

15 ApronMaxx + Quadris AC 2232 abc 229.46 bcd 215.63 63.26 152.37

16 ApronMaxx + Quadris BC 2333 ab 247.02 abc 233.19 63.26 169.93

17 ApronMaxx + Quadris BD 2267 abc 313.59 ab 299.76 63.26 236.5

18 DCT + Senator B 1752 cde 140.49 c-f 126.66 44.00 82.66

Mean 1945.1 187.30

PR>F 0.0 0.0

LSD (P=. 05) 539.6 119.5 CV 19.6 45.1

• Seed Treatments had no application costs attached. * 2006 grower list price : Quadris$ 16.83 /ac., Quadris $ 22.09/ac., Senator $36.00/ac , Apron Maxx $ 3.08/ac. , DCT (high rate) $ 5.20/ac


78


TITLE: CONTROL OF ANTHRACNOSE IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS WITH LESIONS USING DIFFERENT QUADRIS FOLIAR TIMINGS AND TWO DIFFERENT SEED TREATMENTS

MATERIALS: APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 3.8g + 2.5g ai/ha.); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w 197.6 & 98.9 g ai/ha) QUADRIS 250 SC (azoxystrobin 125g ai/ha);QUADRIS (pyraclostrobin 100g ai/ha); SENATOR 70WP (thiophanate-methyl 1400g ai/ha ); METHODS: The anthracnose pressure was modified by using mixtures of seed with and without visible anthracnose damage. The presence of visible damage has been shown to increase disease pressure. The seed for this trial was obtained from previous studies. The seed was sorted using a SORTEX ELECTRIC EYE which separated the seed into white and off white seed. The off white seed was an assortment of some light green and grey seeds but most had anthracnose lesions. For the remainder of this report the “off white” seed will be called seed with lesions. In this experiment the infected seed had lesions. The trial was set up using a RCBD with 4 replications. Plots contained 5 rows which were 0.43 m apart and 6.0 m in length. The centre 3 rows contained the infected white beans and the outside two rows contained soybeans. The soybean rows were used to help prevent disease transmission from plot to plot. The seeding rate was 20 seeds per metre for the white beans and 25 seeds per metre for the soybeans. The trial was planted at a farm near Exeter on 10 June 2005 using a five-row cone-seeder with John Deere Max Emerge planter units. The fungicides were sprayed using a CO2 pressurized sprayer with three 10-002 Air Bubble Nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 346kPa (50 psi) in 200 L/ha water. Disease ratings were accessed on leaves and pods. Leaf ratings were done for 3 weeks, starting at 6 WAP. by observing the percentage of the leaf vein area that was purple. Pod disease incidence ratings were done 2 weeks, starting at 8 WAP. Pod severity ratings were done at 12 WAP. Pod severity ratings used an index of the number of destroyed pods and the % damage on the remaining pods. An indication of the response of the plant to the disease was the amount of regrowth at rated at maturity. Plant maturity was determined just prior to harvest. A 4 meter section from the centre of the three infected rows was harvested on Sept 17. The seed from each plot was weighed and the seed moisture was measured. The seed was then put through a CLIPPER CLEANER equipped with a 10 X ¾ screen (industry standard). The difference between the weight before and the weight after was calculated as a percent dockage. A weight of 100 randomly selected seeds from each plot was obtained. Of these 100 seeds a weight of the seeds rejected for discolouration and/or misshapen appearance was established as a percent and called pick. The dry bean industry uses larger sample (minimum 500 grams) to determine the pick but this is not practical for this study. A visual seed quality rating was done using a 1 to 5 scale (1 = excellent seed quality and 5 = poor seed quality). The yield was calculated using all of the seed harvested from each plot, after cleaning to remove any foreign material. Each plot weight was adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%, and then converted to kg/ha. The value of the crop ($/acre) was determined by reducing the seed yield for two possible quality deficiencies; dockage and pick. Dockage (undersized seed and diseased splits) is removed as a straight percentage. For pick (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) the percentage is doubled to allow not only for the actual poor seed but also for the cost of removing that seed. The remaining large clean seed yield was adjusted to a yield per acre, and multiplied by a price of $0.21 per pound to calculate a

79

value per acre. In calculating the value of the crop, the goal was to mirror the grading standards used by the dry bean industry for commercial production as much as possible. RESULTS: See Figure 1, Tables 1 – 6. CONCLUSIONS: Regular precipitation and moderate temperatures resulted in good anthracnose disease pressure (Figure 1). Rainfall during the middle of July caused disease pressure to expand rapidly after July 26. In 2006, the leaf vein discolouration was less than in 2005, but the pod damage started earlier, and was more severe. For leaf vein ratings (Table 2) and for pod lesion incidence (Table 3), the A timing of fungicide application was failing by 9 WAP, while the B and C applications were still effective. Too much disease pressure was present when the D timing was applied, to give effective disease control. The AC and BC sequential fungicide application timings provided excellent disease control, but were not better than a single fungicide application at the B timing. In order to better estimate the severity of pod damage an index was designed (Table 4) to allow for pods already destroyed. Shriveled pods (< 50 % in size of a normal sized pod) were counted as 100 % destroyed and the remaining pods had a damage estimate done (using the % of the pod area with lesions). The sequential application treatments and treatment 5 (DCT + a single application of Quadris at the B timing of application) have the best index scores at 12 WAP. The D timing of fungicide application was too late to prevent serious plant damage from the disease. Differences were observed between the DCT and Apron Maxx seed treatments, although these differences are often insignificant. Treatments with higher disease levels had a decrease in seed size (Table 6). These treatments had significantly higher dockage and pick, which gave significantly poorer seed quality values (Table 6). The B and C timings were the best timings for a single application of fungicide, producing the lowest dockage, pick and seed quality ratings. They had similar to any of the sequential application treatments. The BC sequential application of the fungicide produced the highest yields, and the highest return on investment. The single application at the B timing had as good a return on investment as the other sequentials.

80



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Per

cen

tage


81

Table 1. Foliar application timing for the foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006



ha 34 (July 14)

42 (July 22)

48

(July 28)

57 (Aug 6)

1 Infected Check


3 Uninfected Check

4 DCT + Quadris A 500 ml *

5 DCT + Quadris B 500 ml *

6 DCT + Quadris C 500 ml *

7 DCT + Quadris D 500 ml *

8 DCT + Quadris AC 500 ml * *

9 DCT + Quadris BC 500 ml * *

10 DCT + Quadris BD 500 ml * *

11 ApronMaxx + Quadris A 500 ml *

12 ApronMaxx + Quadris B 500 ml *

13 ApronMaxx + Quadris C 500 ml *

14 ApronMaxx + Quadris D 500 ml *

15 ApronMaxx + Quadris AC 500 ml * *

16 ApronMaxx + Quadris BC 500 ml * *

17 ApronMaxx + Quadris BD 500 ml * *

18 DCT + Senator BC 1400 g *


82

Table 2. Leaf vein ratings in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter,Ontario. 2006

Leaf Vein Rating

Treatment Timing

6 WAP 8 WAP 9 WAP


2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 0 e 0 d 1 h

3 Uninfected Check 0 e 1 bcd 27 cd

4 DCT + Quadris A 0 e 1 cd 30 cd

5 DCT + Quadris B 0 e 0 d 3 gh

6 DCT + Quadris C 0 e 3 bcd 19 d-g

7 DCT + Quadris D 1 de 6 bc 24 de

8 DCT + Quadris AC 0 e 0 d 4 fgh

9 DCT + Quadris BC 0 e 0 d 1 h

10 DCT + Quadris BD 0 e 1 cd 9 e-h

11 ApronMaxx + Quadris A 1 cde 7 b 44 bc

12 ApronMaxx + Quadris B 1 de 2 bcd 10 e-h

13 ApronMaxx + Quadris C 2 a-d 3 bcd 21 def

14 ApronMaxx + Quadris D 2 abc 19 a 57 ab

15 ApronMaxx + Quadris AC 1 b-e 2 bcd 6 fgh

16 ApronMaxx + Quadris BC 2 ab 2 bcd 3 fgh

17 ApronMaxx + Quadris BD 3 a 4 bcd 16 d-h

18 DCT + Senator BC 1 de 3 bcd 7 fgh

Mean 0.9 4.2 19.5

PR>F 0.0 0.0 0.0

LSD (P=. 05) 1.2 5.6 17.3

CV 93.6 93.4 63.0

83

Table 3. Incidence of pod lesions in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, ON 2006.


Treatment Timing

8 WAP 9 WAP


2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 1 ef 2 j

3 Uninfected Check 7 def 31 b-e

4 DCT + Quadris A 3 ef 28 c-f

5 DCT + Quadris B 0 f 7 ij

6 DCT + Quadris C 8 def 21 efg

7 DCT + Quadris D 9 de 34 bcd

8 DCT + Quadris AC 2 ef 8 ij

9 DCT + Quadris BC 0 f 2 j

10 DCT + Quadris BD 1 ef 20 fgh

11 ApronMaxx + Quadris A 13 cd 42 ab

12 ApronMaxx + Quadris B 3 ef 18 f-i

13 ApronMaxx + Quadris C 18 bc 27 c-f

14 ApronMaxx + Quadris D 24 ab 38 abc

15 ApronMaxx + Quadris AC 5 def 15 ghi

16 ApronMaxx + Quadris BC 2 ef 9 hij

17 ApronMaxx + Quadris BD 6 def 27 c-f

18 DCT + Senator BC 6 def 24 d-g

Mean 7.6 22.3

PR>F 0.0 0.0

LSD (P=. 05) 8.5 11.4

CV 79.1 36.0

84

Table 4. Severity of pod lesions in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, Ontario 2006


Treatment Timing


% of Pods Destroyed

Pod Destruction

Index **

1 Infected Check 8 c-g 34 ab 40 abc

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 2 fg 1 g 3 j

3 Uninfected Check 18 ab 39 a 51 a

4 DCT + Quadris A 22 a 29 abc 45 ab

5 DCT + Quadris B 3 efg 3 fg 6 hij

6 DCT + Quadris C 13 a-d 18 de 28 def

7 DCT + Quadris D 4 d-g 34 ab 37 bcd

8 DCT + Quadris AC 12 a-e 4 fg 16 ghi

9 DCT + Quadris BC 1 g 1 g 2 j

10 DCT + Quadris BD 12 b-e 5 fg 17 gh

11 ApronMaxx + Quadris A 9 b-g 27 bcd 33 cde

12 ApronMaxx + Quadris B 11 b-g 25 bcd 33 cde

13 ApronMaxx + Quadris C 7 c-g 22 cd 28 def

14 ApronMaxx + Quadris D 11 b-f 33 ab 40 abc

15 ApronMaxx + Quadris AC 11 b-f 9 efg 19 fg

16 ApronMaxx + Quadris BC 5 c-g 0 g 5 ij

17 ApronMaxx + Quadris BD 6 c-g 19 de 23 efg

18 DCT + Senator BC 14 abc 12 ef 24 efg

Mean 9.3 17.5 24.9

PR>F 0.0 0.0 0.0

LSD (P=. 05) 9.7 10.0 11.4

CV 73.6 40.4 32.4


85

Table 5. Seed quality ratings in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2006


Seed Moisture

100 Seed Weight

Seed Quality

Dockage Pick

1 Infected Check 12.3 13.3 h 5.0 a 23 a 43 a-d

2 Uninfected Check + Headline ABC 13.4 17.6 a 3.0 g 3 j 20 f

3 Uninfected Check 12.8 14.3 fgh 4.8 abc 15 cde 44 abc

4 DCT + Headline A 13.8 15.4 c-f 4.8 abc 12 def 47 a

5 DCT + Headline B 12.0 16.3 bc 3.9 ef 6 ghi 35 de

6 DCT + Headline C 11.7 14.8 d-g 4.4 b-e 12 ef 43 a-d

7 DCT + Headline D 10.8 14.6 efg 4.9 ab 16 cd 50 a

8 DCT + Headline AC 12.0 15.7 b-e 4.3 c-f 7 ghi 38 b-e

9 DCT + Headline BC 13.4 16.8 ab 3.8 f 4 ij 34 e

10 DCT + Headline BD 12.8 16.9 ab 4.1 def 6 hij 38 b-e

11 ApronMaxx + Headline A 11.6 14.2 gh 4.9 ab 18 bc 44 ab

12 ApronMaxx + Headline B 12.8 15.8 bcd 3.9 ef 8 gh 37 b-e

13 ApronMaxx + Headline C 12.6 15.5 cde 4.6 a-d 10 fg 35 cde

14 ApronMaxx + Headline D 12.4 14.0 gh 4.9 ab 19 b 44 ab

15 ApronMaxx + Headline AC 11.5 16.0 bcd 4.3 c-f 8 gh 38 b-e

16 ApronMaxx + Headline BC 12.1 16.1 bc 4.3 c-f 6 ghi 34 e

17 ApronMaxx + Headline BD 11.9 15.8 bcd 4.1 def 9 fg 33 e

18 DCT + Senator BC 12.1 15.5 cde 4.6 a-d 8 gh 44 ab

Mean 12.3 15.5 4.4 10.5 38.9

PR>F 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

LSD (P=. 05) n/a 1.2 0.6 3.4 8.2

CV 10.1 5.5 9.7 23.1 14.9

86

Table 6. Crop Value Assessment in Quadris foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, ON 2006.


Treatment Timing

Yield (kg ha–1)

Value ($ per ac.)

Additional Value

($ per ac.)

Additional Costs*

($ per ac.)


1 Infected Check 557 h 11.97 fg

2 Uninfected Check + Quadris ABC 2519 a 276.72 a

3 Uninfected Check 940 fg 17.82 efg

4 DCT + Quadris A 1103 def 17.81 efg 5.84 35.29 -29.45

5 DCT + Quadris B 1873 b 97.69 bc 85.72 35.29 50.43

6 DCT + Quadris C 1326 cde 33.20 d-g 21.23 35.29 -14.06

7 DCT + Quadris D 976 efg 0.39 g -11.58 35.29 -46.87

8 DCT + Quadris AC 1802 b 82.64 bcd 70.67 65.38 5.29

9 DCT + Quadris BC 2347 a 136.59 b 124.62 65.38 59.24

10 DCT + Headline BD 1916 b 84.33 bcd 72.36 65.38 6.98

11 ApronMaxx + Quadris A 834 fgh 18.35 efg 6.38 33.17 -26.79

12 ApronMaxx + Quadris B 1620 bc 73.07 cde 61.1 33.17 27.93

13 ApronMaxx + Quadris C 1317 cde 67.31 c-f 55.34 33.17 22.17

14 ApronMaxx + Quadris D 726 gh 14.53 efg 2.56 33.17 -30.61

15 ApronMaxx + Quadris AC 1582 bc 66.30 c-f 54.33 65.38 -11.05

16 ApronMaxx + Quadris BC 1900 b 108.63 bc 96.66 65.38 31.28

17 ApronMaxx + Quadris BD 1430 cd 81.92 bcd 69.95 65.38 4.57

18 DCT + Senator BC 1442 cd 32.65 d-g 20.68 70.00 -49.32

Mean 1456.0 67.9

PR>F 0.0 0.0

LSD (P=. 05) 350.3 60.8 CV 17.0 63.3

• Seed Treatments had no application costs attached. * 2006 grower list price : Headline $ 16.83 /ac., Quadris $ 22.09/ac., Senator $27.00/ac , Apron Maxx $ 3.08/ac. , DCT (high rate) $ 5.20/ac


87

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. OAC Rex, T9905, Red Hawk, Etna PEST: NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, DEPUYDT, D and WILLIS, S. Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: EVALUATION OF FOLIAR FUNGICIDES FOR PLANT HEALTH IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS AT THE HURON RESEARCH STATION

MATERIALS: CRUISER 5FS (thiamethoxam, 600 g ai /L); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w); HEADLINE (pyraclostrobin 100g ai/ha); QUADRIS 250 SC (azoxystrobin 125g ai/ha). METHODS: The seed for the experiments was treated with DCT and Cruiser 5FS, at label rates, for protection against early season seedling diseases and insects. The experiment was planted June 1, 2006 using a four row cone-mounted planter mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter. The seeding rate was 20 seeds per metre of row for the white bean varieties and 17 seeds for the large seeded kidney and cranberry beans. An experimental unit contained 4 rows 0.75 m apart, 6 m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All of the assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. The spray treatments were applied once during the growing season, when a single flower was present on the majority of plants in that variety. The experiments were sprayed on July 11 (40 DAP) for the Red Hawk and Etna and July 17 (46 DAP) for the white bean varieties. The spray was applied using a CO2 pressurized sprayer with a three 10002 Airbubble nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 277 kPa (40 psi) in 200 L/ha water. The treatments were assessed for any disease and notes were made before harvest. The Etna and Red Hawk experiments were harvested on August 31 with the white bean trials following on September 22. Pick percentage (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) were calculated for each plot. Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 100 randomly selected seed from each plot. Yield and seed weights were adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%. RESULTS: See Tables 1-5. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between treatments for yield in any of the four experiments (Table 1-4). When the data was combined and analyzed, no significant differences were found (Table 5).

88

Table 1. Headline/Quadris Evaluation in White Beans (OAC Rex), Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2006.

Crop Assessment

Treatment

G A/HA

Seed Weight (g/100 seeds)

% Pick Yield (kg/ha)

Yield – Pick (kg/ha)

1 Untreated Check 20.6 1.4 2329 2297

2 Headline (Half Rate) 50 20.8 1.5 2188 2156

3 Headline (Full Rate) 100 21.0 1.6 2497 2457

4 Quadris (Half Rate) 62.5 20.7 1.4 2344 2313

5 Quadris (Full Rate) 125 19.8 1.0 2492 2468

Mean 20.6 1.4 2370 2338

C.V. 3.9 29.0 10.7 10.8

PR>F 0.34 0.41 0.43 0.42

LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Table 2. Headline/Quadris Evaluation in White Beans (T9905) - Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2006.

Crop Assessment

Treatment

G A/HA




1 Untreated Check 22.0 2.0 3434 3367





Mean 22.5 2.8 3638 3534

C.V. 3.7 56.9 8.2 8.1

PR>F 0.50 0.58 0.35 0.42


89

Table 3. Headline/Quadris Evaluation in DRK (Red Hawk) - Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2006.

Crop Assessment

Treatment

G A/HA




1 Untreated Check 48.2 3.0 a 1724 1678

2 Headline (Half Rate) 50 51.9 1.4 c 1901 1876

3 Headline (Full Rate) 100 50.0 1.9 abc 1976 1941

4 Quadris (Half Rate) 62.5 50.9 2.7 ab 1794 1748

5 Quadris (Full Rate) 125 50.1 1.6 bc 1993 1965

Mean 50.2 2.1 1878 1941

C.V. 5.0 35.6 10.5 11.0

PR>F 0.35 0.05 0.29 0.26

LSD (P=.05) N/A 1.2 N/A N/A

Table 4. Headline/Quadris Evaluation in Cranberry Bean (Etna) - Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2006.

Crop Assessment

Treatment

G A/HA




1 Untreated Check 59.0 2.3 2787 2721





Mean 58.6 2.8 2800 2722

C.V. 3.5 39.7 10.5 11.0

PR>F 0.89 0.17 0.64 0.59


90

Table 5. Headline/Quadris Evaluation Combined Analysis over All Locations, Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2006.

Crop Assessment1

Treatment

G A/HA


% Pick2 Yield (kg/ha)


1 Untreated Check 37.6 2.5 2643 2565





Mean 37.9 2.0 2668 2605

PR>F 0.65 0.08 0.09 0.07

1 - Analysis performed using SAS 2 - Used log transformation

91

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv., Hooter, Etna, Red Hawk & Red Kanner PEST: none NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS, S. and DEPUYDT, D Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: THE RESPONSE OF CRANBERRY AND KIDNEY VARIETIES TO NARROW ROW PRODUCTON METHODS AT THORNDALE, ONTARIO IN 2006

MATERIALS: CRUISER 5FS (thiamethoxam, 600 g ai /L); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w); RONILAN 500EG (vinclozolin, 500 g a.i./kg). METHODS: The experiment was conducted to determine the adaptability of cranberry and kidney bean varieties to narrow row production. Four varieties were selected on their popularity, maturity and plant type or architecture:

1. Hooter cranberry – late maturity, large plant 2. Etna cranberry – late maturity, compact plant 3. Red Hawk DRK – mid maturity, very compact plant 4. Red Kanner LRK – late maturity, large plant

The experiment was designed as a split plot with row width as the main effect and variety as the split effect. Two row widths were compared; the traditional wide rows at 30 inches or 75 cm and narrow rows at 15 inches or 38 cm. The seeding rate was set at 63000 seeds/ac (157,500 seeds/ha or 3.6 seeds per foot of row) for the wide rows. The seeding rate was increased by 25% to 79000 seeds/ac (197500 seeds/ha or 2.25 seeds per foot of row) for the narrow rows. DCT and Cruiser 5FS seed treatments were applied at label rates, for protection against early season seedling diseases and insects. Each experimental unit contained either four wide rows or six narrow rows. Each experimental unit was six meters in length. The experiment was planted May 30th, 2006 using a six row cone-mounted planter mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter which is convertible to planting either four wide rows or six narrow rows. All assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and in the center 2 or 4 rows, for the wide or narrow row treatments, respectively. A heavy rain before emergence caused a soil crust and the farm co-operator rotary hoed the experiment to improve emergence. A plant emergence count was performed on June 29 at 30 days after planting (DAP), from the harvest area of each plot. On August 4th, Ronilan was applied to the trial as some white mold was detected within the experiment and also in adjacent farmers fields. A plant height and harvestability rating on a scale of 1-5 (1 = erect with no pods touching the ground, 5 = flat with majority of pods touching the ground) were taken just before harvest. The experiment was harvested on September 6th and 17th. Visual seed quality was determined using a scale of 1-5 (1 = excellent seed quality, 5 = poor seed quality). Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 100 randomly selected seeds from each plot. Yield and seed weights were adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%. RESULTS: See Tables 1-2. CONCLUSIONS: For the main effect (row width), significant differences were detected for yield (Table 2). The narrow row treatments had a yield advantage of 258 kg, averaged over varieties. Each variety had

92

a higher yield in narrow rows. A number of significant differences were detected for the split effect (variety), but all of the differences were expected, due to differences in variety characteristics. Table 1: Plant Emergence, Height and Harvestability for the Cran/Kidney Row Width Experiment Thorndale, Ontario. 2006.

Treatments Row Width Analysis

Row Width (Factor A)

Variety (Factor B) % Emergence Plant Height (cm) Harvestability (1-5)

Wide Row 80 37.6 3.1 Narrow Row 77 35.6 3.1 Hooter 85 a 38.2 a 3.4 e Etna 83 ab 32.6 c 2.6 a Red Hawk 80 ab 37.4 ab 3.2 d Red Kanner 66 d 38.1 ab 3.2 d Wide Row Hooter 86 38.6 3.4 Narrow Row Hooter 85 37.8 3.4 Wide Row Etna 81 33.0 2.6 Narrow Row Etna 85 32.3 2.5 Wide Row Red Hawk 83 39.2 3.3 Narrow Row Red Hawk 77 35.7 3.1 Wide Row Red Kanner 69 39.7 3.1 Narrow Row Red Kanner 62 36.6 3.3

Mean 78 36.6 3.1 PR>F (A) 0.36 0.06 0.71 PR>F (B) 0.00 0.00 0.00 PR>F (A x B) 0.42 0.67 0.68 LSD(.05) (A) N/A N/A N/A LSD(.05) (B) 7.6 3.0 0.2 LSD(.05) (A x B) N/A N/A N/A

93

Table 2: Crop Assessment for the Cran/Kidney Row Width Experiment, Thorndale, Ontario. 2006.

Treatments Crop Assessment


Variety (Factor B)

Yield (kg / ha)

Seed Quality (1-5)

100 Seed Weight (g)

Days to Harvest

Wide Row 3539 c 1.9 56.1 105 Narrow Row 3797 a 1.9 57.1 105 Hooter 3749 a 2.1 c 60.1 a 110 Etna 3726 a 1.9 b 59.1 ab 99 Red Hawk 3475 c 1.6 a 57.2 ab 100 Red Kanner 3724 a 2.1 c 49.9 e 110 Wide Row Hooter 3712 2.1 60.4 110 Narrow Row Hooter 3786 2.1 59.7 110 Wide Row Etna 3423 1.9 59.5 100 Narrow Row Etna 4028 2.0 58.7 99 Wide Row Red Hawk 3355 1.5 54.3 100 Narrow Row Red Hawk 3594 1.6 60.2 100 Wide Row Red Kanner 3668 2.1 50.0 110 Narrow Row Red Kanner 3780 2.0 49.7 110

Mean 3668 1.9 56.6 105 PR>F (A) 0.00 0.78 0.35 1.00 PR>F (B) 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 PR>F (A x B) 0.06 0.83 0.09 0.02 LSD(.05) (A) 147 N/A N/A N/A LSD(.05) (B) 208 0.33 3.0 N/A LSD(.05) (A x B) N/A N/A N/A N/A

94

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv., Hooter, Etna, Red Hawk & Red Kanner PEST: Row Width NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS, S. and DEPUYDT, D Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: THE RESPONSE OF CRANBERRY AND KIDNEY VARIETIES TO NARROW ROW PRODUCTON METHODS AT HURON RESEARCH STATION, EXETER, ONTARIO IN 2006

MATERIALS: CRUISER 5FS (thiamethoxam, 600 g ai /L); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w). METHODS: The experiment was conducted to determine the adaptability of cranberry and kidney bean varieties to narrow row production. Four varieties were selected on their popularity, maturity and plant type or architecture:


The experiment was designed as a split plot with row width as the main effect and variety as the split effect. Two row widths were compared; the traditional wide rows at 30 inches or 75 cm and narrow rows at 15 inches or 38 cm. The seeding rate was set at 63000 seeds/ac (157,500 seeds/ha or 3.6 seeds per foot of row) for the wide rows. The seeding rate was increased by 25% to 79000 seeds/ac (197500 seeds/ha or 2.25 seeds per foot of row) for the narrow rows. DCT and Cruiser 5FS seed treatments were applied at label rates, for protection against early season seedling diseases and insects. Each experimental unit contained either four wide rows or six narrow rows. Each experimental unit was six meters in length. The experiment was planted June 1st, 2006 using a six row cone-mounted planter mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter which is convertible to planting either four wide rows or six narrow rows. All assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and in the center 2 or 4 rows, for the wide or narrow row treatments, respectively. A plant emergence count was performed on June 29 at 30 days after planting (DAP), from the harvest area of each plot. A plant height and harvestability rating on a scale of 1-5 (1 = erect with no pods touching the ground, 5 = flat with majority of pods touching the ground) were taken just before harvest. The experiment was harvested on August 31th and September 6th. Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 100 randomly selected seeds from each plot. Pick percentage (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) were also calculated for each plot. Yield and seed weights were adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%. RESULTS: See Tables 1-2. CONCLUSIONS: For the main effect (row width), significant differences were detected for seed weight and yield (Table 2). Wide rows had higher seed weight, but lower yield than narrow rows. The yield advantage for narrow rows was 287 kg, averaged over varieties. Each variety had a higher yield in narrow

95

rows. A number of significant differences were detected for the split effect (variety), but all of the differences were expected, due to differences in variety characteristics. Table 1: Plant Emergence, Height and Harvestability for the Cran/Kidney Row Width Experiment Thorndale, Ontario. 2006.



Variety (Factor B) % Emergence Plant Height (cm) Harvestability (1-5)

Wide Row 82 26.7 2.4 Narrow Row 81 25.8 2.4 Hooter 92 a 25.4 b 2.3 b Etna 87 ab 24.9 b 2.1 a Red Hawk 80 b 26.1 ab 2.4 b Red Kanner 67 c 28.6 a 2.9 d Wide Row Hooter 95 25.5 2.4 Narrow Row Hooter 89 25.3 2.1 Wide Row Etna 84 25.3 2.1 Narrow Row Etna 90 24.5 2.1 Wide Row Red Hawk 83 26.8 2.3 Narrow Row Red Hawk 77 25.5 2.5 Wide Row Red Kanner 65 29.3 2.9 Narrow Row Red Kanner 69 28.0 3.0

Mean 82 26.3 2.4 PR>F (A) 0.86 0.24 0.71 PR>F (B) 0.00 0.01 0.00 PR>F (A x B) 0.58 0.95 0.68 LSD(.05) (A) N/A N/A N/A LSD(.05) (B) 11.4 3.0 0.2 LSD(.05) (A x B) N/A N/A N/A

96




Variety (Factor B)

Yield (kg / ha) Pick (%) Yield – Pick

(kg / ha) 100 Seed

Weight (g) Wide Row 1729 c 2.0 1694 c 51.1 a Narrow Row 2016 a 2.2 1971 a 49.2 c Hooter 1982 ab 1.9 1945 a 54.1 a Etna 1992 a 2.2 1947 a 52.7 b Red Hawk 1704 c 1.7 1676 b 47.2 f Red Kanner 1811 bc 2.8 1761 b 46.6 f Wide Row Hooter 1933 1.8 1899 55.9 Narrow Row Hooter 2031 2.0 1991 52.4 Wide Row Etna 1780 1.9 1746 53.6 Narrow Row Etna 2204 2.6 2148 51.9 Wide Row Red Hawk 1501 1.6 1477 47.6 Narrow Row Red Hawk 1907 1.7 1876 46.8 Wide Row Red Kanner 1701 2.8 1653 47.3 Narrow Row Red Kanner 1921 2.7 1870 45.9

Mean 1873 2.1 1833 50.2 PR>F (A) 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 PR>F (B) 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.00 PR>F (A x B) 0.19 0.85 0.23 0.18 LSD(.05) (A) 124 N/A 126 0.9 LSD(.05) (B) 175 N/A 179 1.3 LSD(.05) (A x B) N/A N/A N/A N/A

97

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv., Hooter, Etna, Red Hawk & Red Kanner PEST: Row Width NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS, S. and DEPUYDT, D Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: THE RESPONSE OF CRANBERRY AND KIDNEY VARIETIES TO NARROW ROW PRODUCTON METHODS AT EXETER, ONTARIO IN 2006

MATERIALS: CRUISER 5FS (thiamethoxam, 600 g ai /L); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w) METHODS: The experiment was conducted to determine the adaptability of cranberry and kidney bean varieties to narrow row production. Four varieties were selected on their popularity, maturity and plant type or architecture:


The experiment was designed as a split plot with row width as the main effect and variety as the split effect. Two row widths were compared; the traditional wide rows at 30 inches or 75 cm and narrow rows at 15 inches or 38 cm. The seeding rate was set at 63000 seeds/ac (157,500 seeds/ha or 3.6 seeds per foot of row) for the wide rows. The seeding rate was increased by 25% to 79000 seeds/ac (197500 seeds/ha or 2.25 seeds per foot of row) for the narrow rows. DCT and Cruiser 5FS seed treatments were applied at label rates, for protection against early season seedling diseases and insects. Each experimental unit contained either four rows spaced 75 cm apart or six rows spaced at 38 cm apart. Each experimental unit was six meters in length. The experiment was planted at a site near Exeter on June 14th, 2006 using a six row cone-mounted planter mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter which is convertible to planting either four wide rows or six narrow rows. All assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and in the center 2 or 4 rows, for the wide or narrow row treatments, respectively. A plant emergence count was performed on June 29 at 30 days after planting (DAP), from the harvest area of each plot. A plant height and harvestability rating on a scale of 1-5 (1 = erect with no pods touching the ground, 5 = flat with majority of pods touching the ground) were taken just before harvest. The experiment was harvested on August 31th and September 6th. Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 100 randomly selected seeds from each plot. Pick percentage (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) were also calculated for each plot. Yield and seed weights were adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%. RESULTS: See Tables 1-2. CONCLUSIONS: For the main effect (row width), significant differences were detected for plant height (Table 1) and seed weight (Table 2). Wide rows produced taller plants, with higher seed weights. A number of significant differences were detected for the split effect (variety), but all of the differences were expected, due to differences in variety characteristics. There were no significant differences in yield between wide and narrow rows.

98

Table 1: Plant Emergence, Height and Harvestability for the Cran/Kidney Row Width Experiment Thorndale, Ontario. 2006.



Variety (Factor B) % Emergence Plant Height

(cm) Harvestability

(1-5) Days to Maturity

Wide Row 75.9 34.1 a 2.6 111 Narrow Row 72.8 30.6 c 2.5 110 Hooter 83.5 a 34.0 a 2.4 a 112 c Etna 89.8 a 31.9 abc 2.3 a 96 a Red Hawk 65.1 c 30.4 c 2.8 b 107 b Red Kanner 59.0 c 33.2 ab 2.8 b 127 d Wide Row Hooter 85.3 36.5 2.4 114 Narrow Row Hooter 81.8 31.6 2.4 110 Wide Row Etna 91.3 32.6 2.5 96 Narrow Row Etna 88.3 31.1 2.1 96 Wide Row Red Hawk 67.0 32.5 2.8 106 Narrow Row Red Hawk 63.3 28.3 2.8 107 Wide Row Red Kanner 60.0 34.9 2.6 128 Narrow Row Red Kanner 58.0 31.5 2.9 127

Mean 74.4 32.4 2.6 111 PR>F (A) 0.34 0.00 0.75 0.09 PR>F (B) 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 PR>F (A x B) 1.00 0.42 0.18 0.13 LSD(.05) (A) N/A 1.5 N/A N/A LSD(.05) (B) 9.3 2.2 0.3 2 LSD(.05) (A x B) N/A N/A N/A N/A

99




Variety (Factor B)

Yield (kg / ha) Pick (%) Yield – Pick

(kg / ha) 100 Seed

Weight (g) Wide Row 2505 4.7 2392 58.8 a Narrow Row 2507 4.7 2403 55.7 b Hooter 2794 a 3.6 a 2696 a 61.6 a Etna 2714 b 3.9 a 2607 a 54.4 b Red Hawk 2279 c 2.9 a 2214 b 52.6 b Red Kanner 2237 c 8.4 c 2075 b 60.5 a Wide Row Hooter 2902 3.9 2795 64.4 Narrow Row Hooter 2686 3.3 2596 58.8 Wide Row Etna 2725 3.7 2622 56.3 Narrow Row Etna 2702 4.0 2592 52.5 Wide Row Red Hawk 2080 3.3 2012 53.3 Narrow Row Red Hawk 2477 2.5 2415 51.9 Wide Row Red Kanner 2312 7.7 2141 61.3 Narrow Row Red Kanner 2162 9.0 2010 59.7

Mean 2506 4.7 2398 57.3 PR>F (A) 0.98 0.92 0.90 0.03 PR>F (B) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PR>F (A x B) 0.10 0.67 0.11 0.65 LSD(.05) (A) N/A N/A N/A 2.8 LSD(.05) (B) 261 2.0 262 4.0 LSD(.05) (A x B) N/A N/A N/A N/A

100

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. 9905 PEST: Potato Leafhopper Empoasca fabae Harris NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, DEPUYDT, D and WILLIS, S. Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: EVALUATION OF MATADOR TANKMIXES FOR POTATO LEAFHOPPER CONTROL IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS (WHITE BEANS) AT RIDGETOWN COLLEGE

MATERIALS: ALLEGRO 500F (fluazinam, 500 g a.i./L); APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 1.07% + 0.73%); CYPRODINIL / FLUDIOXONIL (37.5% + 25.0%); MATADOR 120EC (lambda-cyhalothrin 120g ai/l). METHODS: A 1.2 kilogram lot of seed was treated with ApronMaxx RTA using a syringe to apply the treatment to the seed. The seed was then mixed in a plastic bag for 1 minute to ensure thorough seed coverage. The experiment was planted June 7, 2006 using a four row cone-mounted planter mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter. The seeding rate was 20 seeds per metre of row. An experimental unit contained 2 rows 0.75 m apart, 6 m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All of the assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. Matador was applied alone, and in combination with several fungicides when the nymph counts reached threshold for the specific growth state of the crop (Table 1). The spray treatments were applied once during the growing season, on July 7 (30 DAP) using a CO2 pressurized sprayer with a three 10002 Airbubble nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 277 kPa (40 psi) in 200 L/ha water. The treatments were assessed for phytotoxicity at 3 days after spray application (DAA). The experiments were monitored weekly to determine if potato leafhoppers (PLH) were present. PLH nymph counts were performed for seven weeks, starting at 26 DAP. The average number of nymphs per leaf was calculated, based on a 10 leaf sample per experimental unit. At the trifoliate leaf stages of development, a single leaf sample included all three leaflets of the trifoliate leaf. The experiment was harvested on September 7. Pick percentage (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) were also calculated for each plot. Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 100 randomly selected seed from each plot. Yield and seed weights were adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%. RESULTS: See Tables 2-4. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between the sprayed treatments and the check were detected for several PLH nymph counts (see Table 2 and 3), but there were no differences between the Matador tank mixes. No differences in phytotoxicity were detected (data not shown). No differences in crop assessments were detected in this experiment (Table 4).

101

Table 1. Insecticide application thresholds for potato leafhoppers.

Leafhopper Nymph Threshold at Specific Growth Stages Treatment

Unifoliate 2nd Trifoliate 4th Trifoliate First Bloom Early Pod Fill

Standard Thresholds 0.25 0.5 1.0 2.0 N/A

Table 2. Matador Evaluation Trial – Leafhopper counts for white beans – Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario 2006.

Number of Nymphs per Leaf

Treatment

G A/HA

26 DAP 2nd Tri.

30 DAP 3rd Tri.

33 DAP 4th Tri.

36 DAP 6th Tri.

Standard Thresholds (see Table 1) 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0

1 Untreated Check 0.00 0.50 0.85 a 1.07 a

2 Matador 120EC 10 0.05 0.68 0.00 b 0.15 b

3 Matador 120EC Allegro

10 500 0.00 0.80 0.03 b 0.08 b

4 Matador 120EC Cyprodinil/Fludioxonil

10 609 0.05 0.73 0.05 b 0.18 b

Mean 0.03 0.68 0.23 0.37

C.V. 210 65.9 91.8 81.4

PR>F 0.36 0.80 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A 0.34 0.48

* Bold Text indicates the timing of treatment application based on PLH thresholds

102

Table 3. Matador Evaluation Trial – Leafhopper counts for white beans – Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario 2006.


Treatment

G A/HA

43 DAP Flower

50 DAP Early Pod

57 DAP Mid. Pod

64 DAP Late Pod

71 DAP Late Pod

Standard Thresholds (see Table 1) 2.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A

1 Untreated Check 2.30 a 1.08 0.88 0.15 0.10

2 Matador 120EC 10 0.88 b 0.40 0.68 0.13 0.25


10 500 0.80 b 0.35 1.15 0.28 0.10


10 609 1.30 ab 0.48 0.75 0.08 0.28

Mean 1.32 0.57 0.86 0.16 0.18

C.V. 47.5 61.6 31.9 117 66.5

PR>F 0.03 0.06 0.14 0.50 0.13

LSD (P=.05) 1.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A

* Bold Text indicates the timing of treatment application based on PLH thresholds Table 4. Matador Evaluation Trial – Crop Assessment on white beans – Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario 2006.

Crop Assessment

Treatment

G A/HA

100 Seed

Weight (grams) Yield

(kg / ha) % Pick Yield-Pick (kg/ha)

1 Untreated Check 20.2 3310 2.6 3226

2 Matador 120EC 10 19.7 3471 2.0 3403


10 500 19.4 3450 2.1 3377


10 609 20.0 3404 2.1 3333

Mean 19.8 3409 2.2 3335

C.V. 2.2 4.3 23.7 4.2

PR>F 0.14 0.45 0.42 0.35


103

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. 9905 PEST: Potato Leafhopper Empoasca fabae Harris NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, DEPUYDT, D and WILLIS, S. Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT TANK MIX FORMULATIONS OF MATADOR FOR CONTROL OF POTATO LEAFHOPPERS IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS (WHITE BEANS) AT THE HURON RESEARCH STATION

MATERIALS: ALLEGRO 500F (fluazinam, 500 g a.i./L); APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 1.07% + 0.73%); CYPRODINIL / FLUDIOXONIL (37.5% + 25.0%); MATADOR 120EC (lambda-cyhalothrin 120g ai/l). METHODS: A 1.2 kilogram lot of seed was treated with ApronMaxx RTA using a syringe to apply the treatment to the seed. The seed was then mixed in a plastic bag for 1 minute to ensure thorough seed coverage. The experiment was planted June 1, 2006 using a four row cone-mounted planter mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter. The seeding rate was 20 seeds per metre of row. An experimental unit contained 2 rows 0.75 m apart, 6 m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All of the assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. Matador was applied alone, and in combination with several fungicides when the nymph counts reached threshold for the specific growth state of the crop (Table 1). The spray treatments were applied once during the growing season, on July 7 (36 DAP) using a CO2 pressurized sprayer with a three 10002 Airbubble nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 277 kPa (40 psi) in 200 L/ha water. The treatments were assessed for phytotoxicity at 0, 3, 7 and 10 days after spray application (DAA). The experiments were monitored weekly to determine if potato leafhoppers (PLH) were present. PLH nymph counts were performed for six weeks, starting at 33 DAP. The average number of nymphs per leaf was calculated, based on a 10 leaf sample per experimental unit. At the trifoliate leaf stages of development, a single leaf sample included all three leaflets of the trifoliate leaf. Leaf burn due to PLH feeding was assessed each time a nymph count was performed, using a 1 - 10 scale (1 = low leaf burn, 10 = high leaf burn). The experiment was harvested on September 22. Pick percentage (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) were also calculated for each plot. Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 100 randomly selected seed from each plot. Yield was adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%. RESULTS: See Tables 2-4. CONCLUSIONS: Potato leafhopper nymph pressure at the Huron Research Station was very low for the entire season. Only one significant difference was observed in PLH nymph counts, this was just 3 days after the experiment was sprayed between the sprayed treatments and the control (Table 2 and 3). There were no differences between the Matador tank mixes for PLH nymph control. No differences in PLH leaf burn were detected and were not shown in a table. Phytotoxicity ratings were all zeros and therefore are not shown in a table. No differences in Crop Assessments were detected in this experiment (Table 4).

104





Table 2. Matador Evaluation Trial – Leafhopper counts for white beans – Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2006.


Treatment

G A/HA

33 DAP 2nd Tri.

36 DAP 2nd Tri.

39 DAP 3rd Tri.

43 DAP 4th Tri.

Standard Thresholds (see Table 1) 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0

1 Untreated Check 0.08 0.42 0.25 a 0.03

2 Matador 120EC 10 0.20 0.55 0.00 b 0.00


10 500 0.10 0.40 0.00 b 0.08


10 609 0.13 0.35 0.00 b 0.00

Mean 0.13 0.43 0.06 0.03

C.V. 84.3 42.4 80.0 231

PR>F 0.42 0.49 0.00 0.28

LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A 0.08 N/A

* Bold Text indicates leafhoppers reached threshold and were sprayed

105

Table 3. Matador Evaluation Trial – Leafhopper counts for white beans – Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2006.


Treatment

G A/HA

46 DAP 5th Tri.

50 DAP flower

53 DAP flower

61 DAP Pod

70 DAP Pod

Standard Thresholds (see Table 1) 1.0 2.0 2.0 N/A N/A

1 Untreated Check 0.13 0.10 0.05 0.30 0.15

2 Matador 120EC 10 0.03 0.08 0.00 0.20 0.13


10 500 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.18 0.15


10 609 0.05 0.13 0.03 0.10 0.20

Mean 0.09 0.10 0.03 0.19 0.16

C.V. 99.0 127 201 59.8 121

PR>F 0.20 0.96 0.64 0.18 0.95

LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

* Bold Text indicates leafhoppers reached threshold and were sprayed Table 4. Matador Evaluation Trial – Crop Assessment for white beans – Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2006.

Crop Assessment

Treatment

G A/HA

100 Seed



1 Untreated Check 23.2 3257 2.3 3183

2 Matador 120EC 10 23.7 3172 2.5 3093


10 500 24.2 3444 2.6 3352


10 609 23.6 3310 1.8 3252

Mean 23.7 3296 2.3 3220

C.V. 2.7 7.0 28.3 6.9

PR>F 0.22 0.44 0.34 0.45


106

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. Berna Dutch Brown PEST: Potato Leafhopper Empoasca fabae Harris NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, DEPUYDT, D and WILLIS, S. Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: EVALUATION OF MATADOR TANKMIXES FOR POTATO LEAFHOPPER CONTROL IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS (BROWN BEANS) AT RIDGETOWN COLLEGE

MATERIALS: ALLEGRO 500F (fluazinam, 500 g a.i./L); APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 1.07% + 0.73%); CYPRODINIL / FLUDIOXONIL (37.5% + 25.0%); MATADOR 120EC (lambda-cyhalothrin 120g ai/l). METHODS: A two kilogram lot of seed was treated with ApronMaxx RTA using a syringe to apply the treatment to the seed. The seed was then mixed in a plastic bag for 1 minute to ensure thorough seed coverage. The experiment was planted June 7, 2006 using a four row cone-mounted planter mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter. The seeding rate was 20 seeds per metre of row. An experimental unit contained 2 rows 0.75 m apart, 6 m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All of the assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. Matador was applied alone, and in combination with several fungicides when the nymph counts reached threshold for the specific growth state of the crop (Table 1). The spray treatments were applied twice during the growing season, on July 3 (26 DAP) and July 13 (36 DAP) using a CO2 pressurized sprayer with a three 10002 Airbubble nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 277 kPa (40 psi) in 200 L/ha water. The treatments were assessed for phytotoxicity at approximately 4 days after spray application (DAA). The experiments were monitored weekly to determine if potato leafhoppers (PLH) were present. PLH nymph counts were performed for seven weeks, starting at 26 DAP. The average number of nymphs per leaf was calculated, based on a 10 leaf sample per experimental unit. At the trifoliate leaf stages of development, a single leaf sample included all three leaflets of the trifoliate leaf. The experiment was harvested on September 7. Pick percentage (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) were also calculated for each plot. Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 100 randomly selected seed from each plot. Yield and seed weights were adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%. RESULTS: See Tables 2-4. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between the sprayed treatments and the check were detected for several PLH counts (see Table 2 and 3), but there were no differences between the Matador tank mixes for PLH nymph control. No differences for phytotoxicity were detected (data not shown). No differences in crop assessments were detected in this experiment (Table 4).

107





Table 2. Matador Evaluation Trial – Leafhopper counts for brown beans – Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario 2006.


Treatment

G A/HA

26 DAP 2nd Tri.

30 DAP 4th Tri.

36 DAP 6th Tri.

43 DAP early pod

Standard Thresholds (see Table 1) 0.5 1.0 1.0 N/A

1 Untreated Check 0.72 1.20 a 2.80 a 4.90 a

2 Matador 120EC 10 0.45 0.17 b 1.25 b 0.68 b


10 500 0.63 0.13 b 1.65 b 1.22 b


10 609 0.38 0.18 b 1.27 b 0.50 b

Mean 0.54 0.42 1.74 1.82

C.V. 54.5 59.6 27.0 49.0

PR>F 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=.05) N/A 0.40 0.75 1.43


108

Table 3. Matador Evaluation Trial – Leafhopper counts for brown beans – Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario 2006.


Treatment

G A/HA

50 DAP Mid. Pod

57 DAP Mid. Pod

64 DAP Late Pod

71 DAP Late Pod

Standard Thresholds (see Table 1) N/A N/A N/A N/A

1 Untreated Check 3.43 a 1.85 b 0.30 0.28

2 Matador 120EC 10 0.75 b 3.75 a 0.40 0.13


10 500 1.22 b 3.50 a 0.20 0.17


10 609 0.72 b 4.25 a 0.88 0.15

Mean 1.53 3.34 0.44 0.18

C.V. 37.1 18.0 83.3 70.2

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.41

LSD (P=.05) 0.91 0.96 N/A N/A

* Bold Text indicates the timing of treatment application based on PLH thresholds Table 4. Matador Evaluation Trial – Crop Assessment on brown beans – Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario 2006.

Crop Assessment

Treatment

G A/HA

100 Seed



1 Untreated Check 35.4 b 1946 5.6 1854

2 Matador 120EC 10 37.1 a 2157 4.8 2051


10 500 37.7 a 1999 5.1 1898


10 609 36.0 b 1872 4.4 1788

Mean 36.6 1994 5.0 1898

C.V. 1.8 16.9 28.6 16.9

PR>F 0.00 0.68 0.71 0.70

LSD (P=.05) 1.0 N/A N/A N/A

109

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. Berna Dutch Brown PEST: Potato Leafhopper Empoasca fabae Harris NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, DEPUYDT, D and WILLIS, S. Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: EVALUATION OF MATADOR TANKMIXES FOR POTATO LEAFHOPPER CONTROL IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS (BROWN BEANS) AT THE HURON RESEARCH STATION

MATERIALS: ALLEGRO 500F (fluazinam, 500 g a.i./L); APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 1.07% + 0.73%); CYPRODINIL / FLUDIOXONIL (37.5% + 25.0%); MATADOR 120EC (lambda-cyhalothrin 120g ai/l). METHODS: A two kilogram lot of seed was treated with ApronMaxx RTA using a syringe to apply the treatment to the seed. The seed was then mixed in a plastic bag for 1 minute to ensure thorough seed coverage. The experiment was planted June 1, 2006 using a four row cone-mounted planter mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter. The seeding rate was 20 seeds per metre of row. An experimental unit contained 2 rows 0.75 m apart, 6 m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All of the assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. Matador was applied alone, and in combination with several fungicides when the nymph counts reached threshold for the specific growth state of the crop (Table 1). The spray treatments were applied once during the growing season, on July 4 (33 DAP) using a CO2 pressurized sprayer with a three 10002 Airbubble nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 277 kPa (40 psi) in 200 L/ha water. The treatments were assessed for phytotoxicity at 2, 5 and 9 days after spray application (DAA). The experiments were monitored weekly to determine if potato leafhoppers (PLH) were present. PLH nymph counts were performed for seven weeks, starting at 33 DAP. The average number of nymphs per leaf was calculated, based on a 10 leaf sample per experimental unit. At the trifoliate leaf stages of development, a single leaf sample included all three leaflets of the trifoliate leaf. Leaf burn due to PLH feeding was assessed each time a nymph count was performed, using a 1 - 10 scale (1 = low leaf burn, 10 = high leaf burn). The experiment was harvested on September 8. Pick percentage (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) were also calculated for each plot. Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 100 randomly selected seed from each plot. Yield and seed weights were adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%. RESULTS: See Tables 2-6. CONCLUSIONS: Only one significant difference was observed in PLH nymph counts, between the untreated check and the sprayed treatments this was 5 DAA or 38 DAP (see Table 2 and 3). There were no differences between the Matador tank mixes for PLH nymph control. For leaf burn, differences between the check and Matador treatments were detected at 13 DAA (Table 4 and 5). No differences in phytotoxicity were detected (data not shown). No differences in crop assessments were detected in this experiment (Table 6).

110





Table 2. Matador Evaluation Trial – Leafhopper counts for brown beans – Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2006.


Treatment

G A/HA

33 DAP 2nd Tri.

35 DAP 2nd Tri.

38 DAP 3rd Tri.

42 DAP 4th Tri.

46 DAP flower

Standard Thresholds (see Table 1) 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 2.0

1 Untreated Check 0.45 0.05 0.33 a 0.00 0.70

2 Matador 120EC 10 0.60 0.05 0.00 b 0.10 0.20


10 500 0.50 0.03 0.00 b 0.08 0.15


10 609 0.45 0.05 0.00 b 0.00 0.38

Mean 0.50 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.36

C.V. 44.0 171 154 301 82.7

PR>F 0.75 0.95 0.01 0.62 0.10

LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A 0.20 N/A N/A


111

Table 3. Matador Evaluation Trial – Leafhopper counts for brown beans – Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2006.


Treatment

G A/HA

50 DAP

Pod 53 DAP

Pod 61 DAP

Pod 70 DAP

Pod 75 DAP

Pod

Standard Thresholds (see Table 1) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

1 Untreated Check 0.48 1.33 2.10 1.10 0.10

2 Matador 120EC 10 0.25 0.15 1.58 1.57 0.17


10 500 0.17 0.22 1.95 1.27 0.35


10 609 0.45 0.17 2.03 1.85 0.57

Mean 0.34 0.47 1.91 1.45 0.30

C.V. 74.1 151 44.0 24.9 102

PR>F 0.31 0.12 0.82 0.07 0.20


* Bold Text indicates the timing of treatment application based on PLH thresholds Table 4. Matador Evaluation Trial – Leaf Burn ratings for brown beans – Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2006.

Leaf Burn (0 = none, 10 = high) Treatment

G A/HA

33 DAP 2nd Tri.

35 DAP 2nd Tri.

38 DAP 3rd Tri.

42 DAP 4th Tri.

46 DAP flower

Standard Thresholds (see Table 1) 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 2.0

1 Untreated Check 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.8 3.3 a

2 Matador 120EC 10 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.3 2.3 b


10 500 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 b


10 609 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.8 2.3 b

Mean 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.7 2.6

C.V. 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.4 9.8

PR>F 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.07 0.00

LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.4

112

Table 5. Matador Evaluation Trial – Leaf Burn ratings for brown beans – Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2006.

Leaf Burn (0 = none, 10 = high)

Treatment

G A/HA

50 DAP

Pod 53 DAP

Pod 61 DAP

Pod 70 DAP

Pod 75 DAP

Pod

Standard Thresholds (see Table 1) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

1 Untreated Check 2.8 2.8 6.0 6.0 6.0

2 Matador 120EC 10 2.5 2.8 5.8 6.0 6.0


10 500 2.3 2.8 6.0 6.0 6.0


10 609 2.5 2.8 5.8 6.0 6.0

Mean 2.5 2.8 5.9 6.0 6.0

C.V. 18.9 14.9 4.9 0.0 0.0

PR>F 0.55 1.00 0.44 1.00 1.00


Table 6. Matador Evaluation Trial – Crop Assessment for brown beans – Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2006.

Crop Assessment

Treatment

G A/HA

100 Seed



1 Untreated Check 42.8 1952 2.3 1909

2 Matador 120EC 10 42.6 2243 2.3 2192


10 500 43.2 2221 2.1 2175


10 609 42.7 2174 2.4 2123

Mean 42.8 2147 2.27 2100

C.V. 2.0 11.1 24.3 11.6

PR>F 0.77 0.34 0.90 0.38


113

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. T9905 cv. SVM Taylor PEST: Potato Leafhopper Empoasca fabae Harris NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C.L., DEPUYDT D., WILLIS S. Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: EVALUATION OF REPEATED APPLICATIONS OF CYGON AT VARIOUS RATES ON WHITE AND CRANBERRY BEANS (HURON RESEARCH STATION) IN 2006

MATERIALS: CYGON 4E (dimethoate,480 g ai/L); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w) METHODS: The trial seed was treated with DCT and planted June 7, 2006 using a four row cone-mounted planter mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter. The seeding rate was 20 seeds per metre for the white beans and 17 seeds per metre for the cranberry beans. Plots contained 2 rows 0.75 m apart, 6 m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. An untreated check was compared with quarter, half and full rate of Cygon applied every two weeks once leafhopper nymph populations reached standard threshold numbers. Cygon was applied at rates of 0.25, 0.5 and 1.0 L of product per hectare using a CO2

pressurized sprayer with three 10002 Airbubble nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 277 kPa (40 psi) in 200 L/ha water. The experiment was sprayed three times during the growing season (Tables 1 & 2). The cranberry bean trial was harvested on August 31 and the whites on September 22. Pick percentage (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) were also calculated for each plot. Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 100 randomly selected seed from each plot. Yield and seed weights were adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%. RESULTS: See Table 3 and 4 CONCLUSIONS: The insecticide application dates and plant developmental stages are included in Tables 1 and 2. Leafhopper pressure was considered very low at the Huron Research Station in 2006. There were no significant differences in the crop assessments between the treatments in the white and cranberry bean experiments (Table 3&4).

114

Table 1. Application Dates and Crop Stage for each application of Cygon in white beans – Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2006.


Unifoliate 2nd Trifoliate 4th Trifoliate First Bloom Early Pod Fill Pod Fill

1 Untreated Check N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

2 Cygon 25% Rate July 7 ( 30 DAP)

July 21 (44 DAP) Aug 4

(58 DAP)

3 Cygon 50% Rate July 7 (30 DAP)


(58 DAP)



(58 DAP)

Table 2. Application Dates and Crop Stage for each application of Cygon in cranberry beans – Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2006.


Unifoliate 2nd Trifoliate 4th Trifoliate First Bloom Early Pod Fill Pod Fill

1 Untreated Check N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A



(58 DAP)



(58 DAP)



(58 DAP)

115

Table 3. Crop assessments for white beans treated with different rates of Cygon at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2006.

Crop Assessment

Treatment Seed weight

(g) % Pick Yield (kg / ha)

Yield – Pick (kg / ha)

1 Untreated Check 21.9 1.84 2835 2783

2 Cygon 25% Rate 22.0 1.35 2708 2672

3 Cygon 50% Rate 21.8 1.57 2860 2816

4 Cygon 100% Rate 22.2 2.21 2911 2848

Mean 22.0 1.74 2829 2780

C.V. 3.6 31.1 11.4 11.5

PR>F 0.94 0.20 0.83 0.87

LSD(.05) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Table 4. Crop assessments for cranberry beans treated with different rates of Cygon at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2006.

Crop Assessment

Treatment Seed weight

(g) % Pick Yield (kg / ha)

Yield – Pick (kg / ha)

1 Untreated Check 60.2 2.14 2184 2138

2 Cygon 25% Rate 57.5 2.46 2105 2053

3 Cygon 50% Rate 57.2 2.87 2180 2116

4 Cygon 100% Rate 57.8 2.40 2379 2322

Mean 58.2 2.47 2212 2157

C.V. 2.6 21.0 8.29 7.87

PR>F 0.10 0.31 0.25 0.21

LSD(.05) N/A N/A N/A N/A

116

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cv. Matterhorn – great northern PEST: White Mold Sclerotinia sclerotiorum NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS, S, and DEPUYDT, D. Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected] TITLE: CONTROL OF WHITE MOLD IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS WITH FOLIAR FUNGICIDES MATERIALS: ALLEGRO 500F (fluazinam, 500 g a.i./L); BAS 510KCF; BAS 51004F; BAS 600KGF; BAS 93141F; CYPRODINIL / FLUDIOXONIL (37.5% + 25.0%); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w); QUADRIS (Azoxystrobin 250 g a.i./L); RONILAN 500EG (vinclozolin, 500 g a.i./kg). METHODS: Three experiments were established using dry beans (cv. Matterhorn great northern) with a staggered planting of two weeks between experiments. Urea was broadcasted before planting at a rate of 120 kg/ha of actual nitrogen and incorporated into the soil. An additional 100 kg/ha of actual nitrogen was side dressed before flowering, using ammonium nitrate. White mold sclerotia were applied at a rate of 100 kg/ha (actual) and incorporated into the soil. The sclerotia were in white bean screenings, at a concentration of approximately 28%. The experiments were planted on May 31th, June 14th and June 27th respectively. All sites had a plot length of 6 meters, and a row spacing of 0.38 m. The experiments were arranged in a RCBD design with 4 replications. Treatments were applied to the middle four rows of each plot. Fungicide application codes and the application dates are outlined in Table 1. All of the treatments were applied using a CO2 pressurized sprayer with a four 10003 air bubble jet nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 310 kPa (45 psi) in 300 L/ha water. Precipitation and supplementary irrigation amounts are listed in Table 2. Irrigation was applied using a 64 m Briggs low pressure boom and a Cadman 4000 reel. A visual assessment for plant phytotoxicity was done within 7 days after application (DAA), using a 0-10 scale (0 = excellent, 10 = poor). An assessment for white mold incidence and severity was done at –1, 7, 14, 21 days after the first treatment application. The incidence was determined by arbitrarily placing a 4 metre rod between the center two rows of each plot. The rod was marked into 5 equal sections thus creating 5 separate quadrants on each side of the rod. It was recorded whether there was diseased material present (or not) in each quadrant. Thus, 10 evaluations were made in each plot, and incidence is a number from 0-1, where 0 indication no infection in any plot and 1 has infection in all quadrants. White mold severity was evaluated in each quadrant, by visually rating the percent white mold in the plant canopy. Horsfall Barrett?? The 2nd and 3rd planting dates were harvested on September 26th and October 16th respectively. RESULTS: See Tables 1-8. CONCLUSIONS: The 1st planting date was not harvested due to a lack of disease pressure. No differences in phytotoxicity were detected in any of the experiments (data not shown). For the 2nd planting date, differences between the untreated check and all the fungicide treatments were detected for disease incidence and severity at 5 DAA (Tables 3 and 4). For disease severity, treatment differences continued until plant maturity (Table 4). At 20 DAA, Allegro, Ronilan and BAS51004F+BAS 600KGF provided the best white mold control. By 36 DAA, there were few

117

differences between the fungicide treatments. Significant differences were detected between most of the fungicide treatments and the untreated check, for yield and for yield minus pick (Table 5). The top treatments were Quadris + Allegro and cyprodinil/fludioxonil at a high rate. For the 3rd planting date, differences in disease incidence were detected at 18 DAA (Table 6). BAS51004F (high rate) and Ronilan provided the lowest incidence scores. For disease severity, differences between the untreated check and the fungicide treatments were detected at 18 DAA (Table 7). Other treatment differences were detected at 42 DAA, with the mid and high rates of BAS51004F giving the best results. For crop assessment, treatment differences were detected for % pick, yield and yield minus pick. Most of the fungicide treatments were better than the untreated check for each parameter. Pick was not strongly correlated to yield. The top yielding treatments were BAS510KAF, Quadris + Allegro and Matador + Allegro. Table 1. White Mold Trials – Application code with associated spray volume rate and spray timing.

Application Code

Spray Volume Rate (l/ha) Spray Timing Spray Dates

1st Planting 2nd Planting 3rd Planting

A 300 1st Flower Present July 8 July 19 August 3

B 300 20 – 50% Bloom July 19 July 25 August 8

C 300 10 – 14 Days Later August 3 August 9 August 24

118

Table 2. Precipitation and irrigation amounts during the growing season, Huron Research Station, Exeter ON, 2006.

Precipitation (mm) - Bold indicates irrigated Day

June July August 1 May 31 – 1st Planted 19 2 5 3 65 4 12 19 5 6 7 19 8 10 9

10 15 10 11 16 3rd Planting – 1st spray 12 10 13 14 2nd Planted 5 7.5 & 4 15 16 2nd Planting – 2nd spray 17 15 18 1.5 19 1st Planting – 1st spray 5 20 5 7.5 21 10 10 22 2.5 3rd Planting – 2nd spray 23 24 10 25 26 2.5 16 27 3rd Planted 17.5 28 7.5 2.5 29 30 1st Planting – 2nd spray 31 2nd Planting – 1st spray

Total 29.5 61 (65.5) 91.5 (81.5)

119

Table 3. Disease Incidence in White Mold Experiment (2nd Planting Date), Huron Research Station, Exeter Ontario 2006.

Incidence (0-1) Treatment A.I. Rate

g/ha Appl. Code Aug 14

(5 DAA) Aug 29

(20 DAA) Sep 14

(36 DAA)

1 Untreated Check 0.17 a 1.00 1.00

2 BAS 51004F 400 BC 0.00 b 0.95 1.00

3 BAS 41004F 540 BC 0.00 b 0.98 1.00

4 BAS 51004F 600 BC 0.00 b 1.00 1.00

5 BAS 510KAF 540 BC 0.03 b 0.90 0.98

6 BAS 51004F + BAS 600KGF 400 +100 BC 0.00 b 1.00 1.00

7 BAS 51004F + BAS 600KGF 400 +150 BC 0.00 b 0.93 0.98

8 BAS 93141F 200 BC 0.00 b 0.99 0.95

9 BAS 93141F 400 BC 0.03 b 0.88 0.90

10 Quadris 250SC 250 BC 0.03 b 0.98 1.00

11 Allegro 500F 500 BC 0.00 b 0.76 0.92

12 Quadris 250SC + Allegro 500F 125 + 500 A + BC 0.03 b 1.00 0.93

13 Ronilan EC 500 BC 0.00 b 0.76 0.93

14 Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 484 BC 0.00 b 0.93 0.83

15 Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 609 BC 0.00 b 0.98 0.98

16 Matador + Allegro 500F 10 + 500 BC 0.00 b 0.85 0.98

17 Matador + Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 10 + 609 BC 0.00 b 1.00 1.00

18 Senator 1210 BC 0.00 b 0.76 0.95

Mean 0.02 0.92 0.96

C.V. 248.9 16.6 7.8

PR>F 0.00 0.23 0.10

LSD (P=.05) 0.05 0.22 0.11

120

Table 4. Disease Severity in White Mold Experiment (2nd Planting Date), Huron Research Station, Exeter Ontario 2006.

Severity (%) Treatment A.I. Rate

g/ha Appl. Code Jul 31

(6 DAA) Aug 14

(5 DAA) Aug 29

(20 DAA) Sep 14

(36 DAA)

1 Untreated Check 0.0 0.6 a 10.0 a 14.6 a

2 BAS 51004F 400 BC 0.0 0.0 b 4.6 b-e 6.8 bcd

3 BAS 51004F 540 BC 0.0 0.0 b 3.7 b-e 6.9 bcd

4 BAS 51004F 600 BC 0.0 0.0 b 3.8 b-e 5.9 cd

5 BAS 510KAF 540 BC 0.0 0.1 b 5.5 bcd 8.5 bcd

6 BAS 51004F + BAS 600KGF 400 +100 BC 0.0 0.0 b 6.5 b 7.4 bcd

7 BAS 51004F + BAS 600KGF 400 +150 BC 0.0 0.0 b 2.5 de 5.6 cd

8 BAS 93141F 200 BC 0.0 0.0 b 4.0 b-e 5.2 d

9 BAS 93141F 400 BC 0.0 0.1 b 2.6 cde 4.7 d

10 Quadris 250SC 250 BC 0.0 0.1 b 5.7 bc 10.4 b

11 Allegro 500F 500 BC 0.0 0.0 b 2.1 e 4.9 d

12 Quadris 250SC + Allegro 500F 125 + 500 A + BC 0.0 0.1 b 4.2 b-e 4.4 d

13 Ronilan EC 500 BC 0.0 0.0 b 2.1 e 5.3 d

14 Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 484 BC 0.0 0.0 b 2.8 cde 5.8 cd

15 Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 609 BC 0.0 0.0 b 2.7 cde 7.4 bcd

16 Matador + Allegro 500F 10 + 500 BC 0.0 0.0 b 2.6 cde 4.9 d

17 Matador + Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 10 + 609 BC 0.0 0.0 b 4.4 b-e 7.2 bcd

18 Senator 1210 BC 0.0 0.0 b 3.6 b-e 9.5 bc

Mean 0.0 0.1 4.1 7.0

C.V. 0.0 233.1 54.6 41.5

PR>F 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=.05) 0.0 0.2 3.1 4.1

121

Table 5. Crop Assessment in White Mold Experiment (2nd Planting Date), Huron Research Station, Exeter Ontario 2006.

Crop Assessment Treatment A.I. Rate

g/ha Appl. Code Seed

Weight % Pick Yield (kg/ha)

Yield - Pick (kg/ha)

1 Untreated Check 36.5 4.6 3121 e 2978 f

2 BAS 51004F 400 BC 35.8 4.9 3512 a-d 3343 a-e

3 BAS 51004F 540 BC 36.1 4.1 3534 a-d 3388 a-e

4 BAS 51004F 600 BC 34.8 3.5 3339 cde 3222 b-f

5 BAS 510KAF 540 BC 36.1 3.5 3382 b-e 3263 a-f

6 BAS 51004F + BAS 600KGF 400 +100 BC 35.0 3.9 3344 cde 3214 c-f

7 BAS 51004F + BAS 600KGF 400 +150 BC 35.5 6.8 3433 a-d 3204 def

8 BAS 93141F 200 BC 36.6 4.0 3593 abc 3451 a-d

9 BAS 93141F 400 BC 36.4 4.7 3264 de 3110 ef

10 Quadris 250SC 250 BC 37.0 4.9 3478 a-d 3309 a-e

11 Allegro 500F 500 BC 35.7 6.2 3571 abc 3351 a-e

12 Quadris 250SC + Allegro 500F 125 + 500 A + BC 36.4 4.4 3703 a 3538 a

13 Ronilan EC 500 BC 35.3 4.4 3385 b-e 3235 a-f

14 Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 484 BC 35.8 4.0 3491 a-d 3351 a-e

15 Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 609 BC 38.1 4.3 3697 a 3540 a

16 Matador + Allegro 500F 10 + 500 BC 35.8 3.9 3673 ab 3530 ab

17 Matador + Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 10 + 609 BC 35.9 3.7 3600 abc 3467 a-d

18 Senator 1210 BC 35.1 3.7 3658 ab 3522 abc

Mean 36.0 4.4 3488 3334

C.V. 4.8 30.5 6.2 6.5

PR>F 0.66 0.08 0.01 0.02

LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A 304 3.9

122

Table 6. Disease Incidence in White Mold Experiment (3rd Planting Date), Huron Research Station, Exeter Ontario 2006.

Incidence (0-1) Treatment A.I. Rate


(7 DAA) Sept 11

(18 DAA) Oct 5

(42 DAA)

1 Untreated Check 0.47 0.75 abc 0.88

2 BAS 51004F 400 BC 0.33 0.63 a-d 0.75

3 BAS 5104F 540 BC 0.15 0.35 de 0.60

4 BAS 51004F 600 BC 0.10 0.30 e 0.75

5 BAS 510KAF 540 BC 0.18 0.68 abc 0.77

6 BAS 51004F + BAS 600KGF 400 +100 BC 0.28 0.50 cde 0.68

7 BAS 51004F + BAS 600KGF 400 +150 BC 0.45 0.75 abc 0.72

8 BAS 93141F 200 BC 0.13 0.52 cde 0.75

9 BAS 93141F 400 BC 0.28 0.50 cde 0.75

10 Quadris 250SC 250 BC 0.38 0.75 abc 0.90

11 Allegro 500F 500 BC 0.25 0.52 cde 0.73

12 Quadris 250SC + Allegro 500F 125 + 500 A + BC 0.22 0.53 cde 0.77

13 Ronilan EC 500 BC 0.15 0.30 e 0.68

14 Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 484 BC 0.33 0.85 ab 0.95

15 Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 609 BC 0.23 0.57 b-e 0.68

16 Matador + Allegro 500F 10 + 500 BC 0.13 0.70 abc 0.70

17 Matador + Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 10 + 609 BC 0.50 0.93 a 0.95

18 Senator 1210 BC 0.38 0.70 abc 0.85

Mean 0.27 0.60 0.77

C.V. 81.0 37.0 24.7

PR>F 0.23 0.00 0.40

LSD (P=.05) N/A 0.32 N/A

123

Table 7. Disease Severity in White Mold Experiment (3rd Planting Date), Huron Research Station, Exeter Ontario 2006.

Severity (%) Treatment A.I. Rate


(7 DAA) Sept 11

(18 DAA) Oct 5

(42 DAA)

1 Untreated Check 1.9 21.1 a 42.7 a

2 BAS 51004F 400 BC 0.9 7.0 b 13.2 b-e

3 BAS 51004F 540 BC 0.3 1.4 b 3.2 e

4 BAS 51004F 600 BC 0.2 1.5 b 3.7 de

5 BAS 510KAF 540 BC 0.4 3.7 b 6.2 cde

6 BAS 51004F + BAS 600KGF 400 +100 BC 0.9 10.0 b 12.7 b-e

7 BAS 51004F + BAS 600KGF 400 +150 BC 1.4 10.1 b 24.3 a-d

8 BAS 93141F 200 BC 0.3 3.8 b 4.4 cde

9 BAS 93141F 400 BC 0.9 7.6 b 14.0 b-e

10 Quadris 250SC 250 BC 1.3 10.4 b 24.9 abc

11 Allegro 500F 500 BC 0.6 6.2 b 19.0 b-e

12 Quadris 250SC + Allegro 500F 125 + 500 A + BC 0.4 2.8 b 6.6 cde

13 Ronilan EC 500 BC 0.3 1.5 b 4.1 cde

14 Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 484 BC 0.7 7.4 b 19.0 b-e

15 Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 609 BC 0.5 7.4 b 11.0 b-e

16 Matador + Allegro 500F 10 + 500 BC 0.3 4.6 b 14.4 b-e

17 Matador + Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 10 + 609 BC 1.5 10.5 b 30.3 ab

18 Senator 1210 BC 1.0 7.9 b 19.5 b-e

Mean 0.8 6.9 15.2

C.V. 124.6 99.4 97.9

PR>F 0.35 0.04 0.03

LSD (P=.05) N/A 9.8 21.0

124

Table 8. Crop Assessments in White Mold Experiment (3rd Planting Date), Huron Research Station, Exeter Ontario 2006.

Crop Assessment Treatment A.I. Rate

g/ha Appl. Code Seed

Weight % Pick Yield (kg/ha)

Yield - Pick (kg/ha)

1 Untreated Check 35.7 7.5 a-f 2123 d 1969 d

2 BAS 51004F 400 BC 37.3 9.6 ab 2779 bc 2515 bc

3 BAS 51004F 540 BC 36.9 10.4 a 2638 c 2371 cd

4 BAS 51004F 600 BC 36.3 6.0 b-g 2787 abc 2620 abc

5 BAS 510KAF 540 BC 37.3 7.8 a-e 3284 a 3029 a

6 BAS 51004F + BAS 600KGF 400 +100 BC 37.2 5.9 c-h 2556 cd 2421 bcd

7 BAS 51004F + BAS 600KGF 400 +150 BC 37.4 3.5 gh 2698 bc 2606 abc

8 BAS 93141F 200 BC 37.0 6.2 b-g 2817 abc 2641 abc

9 BAS 93141F 400 BC 38.3 2.3 h 2683 bc 2627 abc

10 Quadris 250SC 250 BC 37.1 4.6 d-h 2717 bc 2591 abc

11 Allegro 500F 500 BC 37.6 4.3 e-h 2846 abc 2723 abc

12 Quadris 250SC + Allegro 500F 125 + 500 A + BC 38.4 2.9 gh 3159 ab 3065 a

13 Ronilan EC 500 BC 36.6 8.1 a-d 2964 abc 2724 abc

14 Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 484 BC 38.4 9.3 abc 2963 abc 2686 abc

15 Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 609 BC 36.9 4.8 d-h 2841 abc 2706 abc

16 Matador + Allegro 500F 10 + 500 BC 38.4 2.9 gh 3151 ab 3060 a

17 Matador + Cyprodinil / Fludioxonil 10 + 609 BC 37.5 4.1 fgh 2569 cd 2464 bc

18 Senator 1210 BC 37.8 3.2 gh 2992 abc 2900 ab

Mean 37.3 5.8 2809 2651

C.V. 3.1 45.2 12.5 13.1

PR>F 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.01

125

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cv. Dolly cranberry bean PEST: White Mold Sclerotinia sclerotiorum NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS, S, and DEPUYDT, D. Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected] TITLE: CONTROL OF WHITE MOLD IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS WITH FOLIAR FUNGICIDES MATERIALS: ALLEGRO 500F (fluazinam, 500 g a.i./L); ASSIST 90EC (surfactant 17%, paraffin based mineral oil 83%); CALCIUM CHLORIDE (77% Flake); LANCE WDG (Boscalid, 70%); RONILAN 500EG (vinclozolin, 500 g a.i./kg). METHODS: A site was selected in the Thorndale area with considerable white mold pressure. The location was in fields of cranberry beans (cv. Hooter), which was planted on June1. The field had a row spacing of 0.76 m. An experimental unit consisted of three bean rows 6 meters long. An RCBD design was employed with 5 replications. The fungicide treatments were applied to two rows, with the third row acting as a shared guard row in order to minimize treatment overlap. The experimental trial was sprayed on August 11 with the crop at the pod fill stage and with an initial white mold severity at 6.9 percent (Table 2). Treatments 7 and 8 (calcium chloride) had a second application seven days later on August 8th. All of the treatments were applied using a CO2 pressurized sprayer with a three 10003 air bubble jet nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 310 kPa (45 psi) in 300 L/ha water. A visual assessment for plant phytotoxicity was done at 8 days after application (DAA), using a 0-10 scale (0 = excellent, 10 = poor). An assessment for white mold incidence and severity was performed at the time of spray application and then weekly thereafter. White mold incidence was determined by arbitrarily placing a 4 metre rod between the two bean rows. The rod was marked into 5 equal sections thus creating 5 separate quadrants on each side of the rod. It was recorded whether there was diseased material present (or not) in each quadrant. Thus, 10 evaluations were made in each plot, and incidence is a number from 0-1, where 0 = no infection in any quadrant and 1 = infection in all quadrants. White mold severity was evaluated in each of the 10 quadrants, by visually rating the % white mold infection in the plant canopy. Yield was determined using the two treated rows from each plot, with a total of 4 m harvested from each row. The site was harvested on August 30. Visual seed quality was determined using a scale of 1-5 (1 = excellent seed quality, 5 = poor seed quality). Pick percentage (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) were also calculated for each plot. Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 100 randomly selected seed from each plot. Yield and seed weights were adjusted to a standard moisture of 18%. To calculate the value of the crop, the goal was to mirror the grading standards used by the dry bean industry for commercial production as much as possible. The value of the crop ($/acre) was determined by reducing the seed yield for ‘pick’. Pick (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) is calculated on as a % of the total seed yield. The percentage is doubled to allow not only for the actual poor seed but also for the cost of removing that seed. The harvest value per acre was determined using a price of $0.28 per pound for cranberry beans. The additional value for each treatment was calculated by subtracting the value per acre for the infected seed check treatment from the value per acre of each treatment. Additional costs were calculated using the

126

suggested grower list prices for each product applied. The return on investment was calculated by subtracting the additional cost from the additional value for each treatment RESULTS: See Tables 1-4. CONCLUSIONS: The fungicide treatments did not cause any crop phytotoxicity (data not shown). No differences in white mold incidence were found over time (Table 1). There were no significant differences between treatments for white mold severity on August 1st (0 DAA), the date of the first fungicide application. The Lance and Allegro had significantly less white mold (Table 2), significantly more yield (Table 3) and a significantly higher value per acre (Table 4), compared to the untreated check and calcium chloride only treatments. Also, the Allegro treatment provided better seed quality and pick values, compared to any other treatment (Table 3). Table 1. White Mold Incidence on Cranberry Beans – White Mold, Thorndale, 2006.

White Mold Incidence (0-1) Treatment

A.I. Rate

g/ha

Appl. Code

0 DAA 8 DAA 20 DAA 27 DAA

1 Untreated Check A 0.92 0.94 1.00 1.00

2 Lance 540 A 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00

3 Ronilan 750 A 0.98 0.94 1.00 1.00

4 Ronilan (1/2 rate) + Calcium Chloride (1/4 lb/ac)

375 219 A 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00

5 Ronilan + Assist

750 1.0% A 0.94 0.94 1.00 1.00

6 Allegro 504 A 0.88 0.90 1.00 0.98

7 Calcium Chloride (1/4 lb/ac) 219 AB 0.94 0.96 1.00 1.00

8 Calcium Chloride (1/2 lb/ac) 437 AB 0.94 0.98 1.00 1.00

Mean 0.94 0.95 1.00 1.00

C.V. 8.2 10.3 0.0 1.6

PR>F 0.35 0.84 1.00 0.45


127

Table 2. White Mold Severity on Cranberry Beans – White Mold, Thorndale, 2006

White Mold Severity % Treatment

A.I. Rate

g/ha

Appl. Code

0 DAA 8 DAA 20 DAA 27 DAA

1 Untreated Check A 7.7 20.7 51.4 a 43.8 ab

2 Lance 540 A 5.3 12.6 30.6 c 28.6 c

3 Ronilan 750 A 8.2 15.6 39.0 bc 36.4 abc


375 219 A 8.0 13.3 35.8 bc 35.0 bc

5 Ronilan + Assist

750 1.0% A 7.2 15.0 36.7 bc 36.4 abc

6 Allegro 504 A 5.2 8.8 30.5 c 28.8 c

7 Calcium Chloride (1/4 lb/ac) 219 AB 8.3 20.0 46.9 ab 43.0 ab

8 Calcium Chloride (1/2 lb/ac) 437 AB 5.3 18.1 45.9 ab 45.2 a

Mean 6.9 15.5 39.6 37.2

C.V. 51.6 47.9 21.8 21.1

PR>F 0.63 0.22 0.00 0.01

LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A 11.2 10.2

128

Table 3. Seed Assessments on Cranberry Beans – White Mold, Thorndale, 2006.

Seed Assessment Treatment

A.I. Rate

g/ha

Appl. Code


Seed Quality (1-5) % Pick Yield

(kg/ha)

1 Untreated Check A 57.4 3.8 a 9.1 a 2638 b

2 Lance 540 A 59.8 3.5 a 8.1 ab 3184 a

3 Ronilan 750 A 56.7 3.6 a 6.6 b 2882 ab


375 219 A 59.3 3.6 a 8.0 ab 2962 ab

5 Ronilan + Assist

750 1.0% A 58.2 3.5 a 7.6 ab 2952 ab

6 Allegro 504 A 61.7 3.1 b 4.7 c 3076 a

7 Calcium Chloride (1/4 lb/ac) 219 AB 58.1 3.7 a 7.5 ab 2696 b

8 Calcium Chloride (1/2 lb/ac) 437 AB 60.1 3.8 a 8.6 a 2700 b

Mean 58.9 3.6 7.5 2886

C.V. 5.6 8.0 19.3 9.6

PR>F 0.32 0.01 0.00 0.04

LSD (P=.05) N/A 0.4 1.9 357

129

Table 4. Crop Value Assessment on Cranberry Beans – White Mold, Thorndale, 2006.


Treatment

A.I. Rate g/ha

Appl. Code


Value ($/acre)

Additional Value

($/acre)

Additional Costs* ($/acre)

Return on Investment

($/acre)

1 Untreated Check A 2402 b 539.03 c

2 Lance 540 A 2929 a 664.29 a 125.26 56.98 68.28

3 Ronilan 750 A 2695 ab 622.15ab 83.12 49.00 34.12


375 219 A 2726 ab 619.09 ab 80.06 28.60 51.46

5 Ronilan + Assist

750 1.0% A 2730 ab 623.02 ab 83.99 31.95 52.04

6 Allegro 504 A 2933 a 691.26 a 152.23 52.43 99.80

7 Calcium Chloride (1/4 lb/ac) 219 AB 2498 b 571.66 bc 32.63 16.20 16.43

8 Calcium Chloride (1/2 lb/ac) 437 AB 2467 b 555.45 bc 16.42 16.40 0.02

Mean 2672 610.74

C.V. 9.7 10.1

PR>F 0.02 0.01

LSD (P=.05) 335 79.87

* 2006 product retail prices: Lance $ 48.98 / ac., Ronilan (full) $ 41.00 / ac., Allegro $ 44.43 / ac., Assist $ 3.45 / ac., Calcuim Chloride ¼ lb/acre $ 0.10 / ac., ½ lb/ac $ 0.20 / ac. * includes an application cost of $ 8.00/ac.

130

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS CROP: Edible beans, cv. RED HAWK dark red kidney PEST: Root rot, native strains plus Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS, S. , and DEPUYDT D Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: CONTROL OF SEEDLING ROOT ROT (RHIZOCTONIA) IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS WITH SEED TREATMENTS AT HURON RESEARCH STATION

MATERIALS: APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 19.2 g ai/L); CRUISER 5FS (thiamethoxam, 600 g ai /L); CRUISER MAXX (thiamethoxam + metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 22.61% + 1.70% + 1.12%); DYNASTY 100FS (azoxystrobin 100 g ai/L). VITAFLO (carbathiin + thiram, 14.9% + 13.2%) SENATOR 70WP (thiophanate-methyl 70%).

METHODS: For each treatment, seed was treated in 0.9 kg lots in individual plastic bags by applying the appropriate treatment. The seed was then mixed for 1 minute to ensure thorough seed coverage. The experiment was planted May 29, 2006 at a seeding rate of 17 seeds per meter, using a four-row cone-seeder mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter. An experimental unit contained 2 rows that were 0.75 m apart, 6 m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All of the assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. The Rhizoctonia root rot inoculum was applied at a rate of 5 g/m of row. All of the assessments were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. Plant emergence counts were assessed at 9, 15, 22, 28, and 35 days after planting (DAP), using a 2 m length from the two rows of each plot. Plant vigour, using a scale of 0-10 (0 = best plant development and 10 = poorest plant development) was assessed at 15, 22, 28, and 35 DAP. Root rot ratings were performed on July 7 at 37 DAP. A set of 10 representative plants if possible, were dug from the plot area. The fresh and dry weight of the above ground portion of the plants was determined. The primary root (radicle) was scored for external damage, based on disease symptoms. It was then split open and a score given for internal damage. A scale of 0-10 (0 = 0% root damage, 10 = 100% root damage) was used. The experiment was not harvested for yield, due to poor plant stands following the plant sampling above. INOCULUM: A strain of Rhizoctonia solani (86-8b) was cultured onto Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA). One kg of hulless oats was added to each of several 4 litre plastic jugs and covered with 2% V8 Juice. Bottles were capped and left to stand for 2-3 hours. After standing, excess liquid was poured off and the bottles autoclaved at 15 psi and 121 C for 1 hour. Autoclaving procedure was repeated after 3 days. The PDA plates of R. solani were cut up into small squares and 5-6 plugs placed in the bottles of sterile oats. The bottles were incubated for 2 weeks. After 2 days of incubation there were golf ball sized chunks of inoculum present and the bottles were shaken every 2 days to ensure even distribution of inoculum. After 2 weeks incubation, the inoculum was dried and weighed into 30 g packages. RESULTS: See Tables 1 - 3. CONCLUSIONS: In 2006, environmental conditions for root rot were not ideal, with hot, dry weather after planting. The addition of Rhizoctonia solani inoculum provided dramatic differences between treatments for plant emergence (Table 1) and plant vigour (Table 2). Apron Maxx dramatically improved plant emergence, compared to the inoculated check or the standard fungicide treatment of DCT. Adding

131

high rates of Dynasty to Apron Maxx provided plant vigour ratings that were significantly better than standard fungicide treatment of DCT, and also provided an incremental increase in plant emergence, compared to Apron Maxx alone. There were limited differences between treatments for external and internal root ratings (Table 3). Often there was not a consistent response as the rate of a product was increased. Fresh and dry plant weights showed similar trends to the plant emergence data, except that the standard fungicide treatments (DCT and Vitaflo) were not significantly different from the best treatments.

132

Table 1. Percent Plant Emergence of RED HAWK dark red kidney beans with seed treatments for Rhizoctonia seedling disease at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario. 2006.

% Emergence Treatment

G A/100

kg of seed

9 DAP 15 DAP 22 DAP 28 DAP 35 DAP

1 Non-Inoculated Check 59 a 81 a 79 a 80 a 80 a 2 Inoculated Check 0 c 0 j 2 h 1 h 1 h 3 Cruiser 5FS 50 0 c 1 j 2 h 2 h 2 h

4 Cruiser 5FS Apron Maxx RTA

50 6.25 2 c 42 cde 35 cd 34 cde 31 cd

5 Cruiser 5FS

DCT 50

197.6 0 c 4 j 6 h 6 h 4 h

6 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.25 0 c 5 j 8 h 7 h 7 gh

7 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.50 0 c 8 j 9 gh 7 h 6 gh

8 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

1.00 0 c 17 i 17 fg 17 g 14 fg

9 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

2.00 0 c 24 hi 22 ef 21 fg 20 ef

10 Cruiser 5FS

Apron Maxx RTA Dynasty

50 6.25 0.25

2 bc 34 fg 32 d 29 def 27 de

11 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.50

1 c 39 def 37 cd 38 cd 34 cd

12 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 1.00

4 bc 49 bc 41 c 40 bc 39 bc

13 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 2.00

3 bc 54 b 50 b 49 b 47 b

14 Cruiser 5FS

Senator 70 WP 50

72.8 0 c 0 j 1 h 1 h 1 h

15 Cruiser 5FS

Apron Maxx RTA Senator 70 WP

50 6.25 72.8

1 c 30 gh 31 d 27 ef 27 de

16 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 0.50 3 bc 36 efg 30 de 31 cde 29 de

17 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 1.00 0 c 42 cde 37 cd 38 cd 34 cd

18 Cruiser 5FS Vitaflo 280

50 72.8 6 b 47 bcd 38 cd 36 cde 35 cd

Mean 4 29 26 26 24 C.V. 58.6 20.5 22.7 26.5 25.6 PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=.05) 3.7 8.3 8.5 9.7 8.8

133

Table 2. Crop Vigour of RED HAWK dark red kidney beans with seed treatments for Rhizoctonia Seedling disease at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario. 2006

Vigour (0-10) Treatment

G A/100

kg of seed

15 DAP 22 DAP 28 DAP 35 DAP

1 Non-Inoculated Check 2.0 f 2.0 g 2.0 f 2.5 f 2 Inoculated Check 4.0 e 6.0 b-e 9.0 a 8.5 a 3 Cruiser 5FS 50 5.0 abc 7.0 ab 7.7 b 7.3 ab


50 6.25 4.5 cde 5.0 ef 6.3 de 5.5 de

5 Cruiser 5FS

DCT 50

197.6 5.0 abc 6.8 abc 6.3 de 6.5 bcd

6 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.25 5.0 abc 7.3 a 7.3 bc 7.0 bc

7 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.50 5.3 ab 6.8 abc 7.5 bc 7.0 bc

8 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

1.00 5.5 a 6.5 a-d 7.0 bcd 6.3 b-e

9 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

2.00 5.0 abc 6.5 a-d 6.8 b-e 6.0 cde

10 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.25

4.8 bcd 5.5 def 6.0 de 6.3 b-e

11 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.50

4.3 de 5.8 c-f 6.0 de 5.5 de

12 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 1.00

4.3 de 5.3 ef 6.3 de 5.0 e

13 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 2.00

4.3 de 4.8 f 6.0 de 6.0 cde

14 Cruiser 5FS

Senator 70 WP 50

72.8 5.0 abc 5.5 def 7.0 bcd 6.0 cde

15 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 72.8

5.0 abc 6.5 a-d 6.5 cde 6.3 b-e

16 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 0.50 4.3 de 5.8 c-f 6.5 cde 6.5 bcd

17 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 1.00 4.3 de 5.5 def 6.0 de 5.8 cde


50 72.8 4.3 de 5.5 def 5.8 e 5.5 de

Mean 4.5 5.7 6.4 6.1 C.V. 11.1 12.5 11.6 14.8 PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=.05) 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.3

134

Table 3. Plant Assessment for RED HAWK dark red kidney beans with seed treatments for Rhizoctonia seedling disease at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario. 2006

Plant Assessment Treatment

G A/100

kg of seed

Primary External (0-10)

Primary Internal (0-10)

Fresh Weight (g/10 plants)

Dry Weight (g/10 plants)

1 Non-Inoculated Check 4.0 f 4.2 f 149.4 a 32.1 a 2 Inoculated Check 3 Cruiser 5FS 50 6.0 a 7.3 a 60.9 d 14.0 d


50 6.25 5.0 cde 5.0 c-f 115.1 abc 25.4 abc

5 Cruiser 5FS

DCT 50

197.6 5.1 b-e 5.7 bcd 116.6 abc 25.1 abc

6 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.25 5.3 bcd 5.2 b-f 82.3 cd 18.3 cd

7 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.50 5.4 bc 5.5 b-e 99.2 bcd 21.5 bcd

8 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

1.00 5.2 bcd 6.3 ab 103.2 bc 23.9 abc

9 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

2.00 5.2 bcd 5.0 c-f 128.8 ab 28.1 ab

10 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.25

5.1 b-e 4.7 def 128.6 ab 28.3 ab

11 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.50

4.8 de 5.9 bc 127.4 ab 27.3 ab

12 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 1.00

5.0 cde 4.5 ef 125.6 ab 26.8 ab

13 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 2.00

5.2 b-e 4.9 c-f 105.7 bc 23.6 bc

14 Cruiser 5FS

Senator 70 WP 50

72.8 5.5 ab 4.8 def 91.8 bcd 23.5 bc

15 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 72.8

5.2 bcd 5.7 bcd 128.3 ab 28.0 ab

16 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 0.50 4.7 e 4.6 def 112.3 abc 24.9 abc

17 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 1.00 5.1 b-e 4.8 def 104.9 bc 22.9 bc


50 72.8 5.4 bc 5.4 b-e 125.6 ab 26.7 abc

Mean 5.1 5.3 112.1 24.7 C.V. 7.1 15.0 25.1 24.0 PR>F 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.04

LSD (P=.05) 0.5 1.1 40.2 8.5

135

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: 61006537 CROP: Edible beans, cv. SVM TAYLORS cranberry bean PEST: Root rot, native strains plus Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS, S. , and DEPUYDT D Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: CONTROL OF SEEDLING ROOT ROT (RHIZOCTONIA) IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS WITH SEED TREATMENTS AT HURON RESEARCH STATION

MATERIALS: APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 19.2 g ai/L); CRUISER 5FS (thiamethoxam, 600 g ai /L); CRUISER MAXX (thiamethoxam + metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 22.61% + 1.70% + 1.12%); DYNASTY 100FS (azoxystrobin 100 g ai/L). VITAFLO (carbathiin + thiram, 14.9% + 13.2%); SENATOR 70WP (thiophanate-methyl 70%).

METHODS: For each treatment, seed was treated in 1.0 kg lots in individual plastic bags by applying the appropriate treatment. The seed was then mixed for 1 minute to ensure thorough seed coverage. The experiment was planted May 29, 2006 at a seeding rate of 17 seeds per meter, using a four-row cone-seeder mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter. An experimental unit contained 2 rows that were 0.75 m apart, 6 m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All of the assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. The Rhizoctonia root rot inoculum was applied at a rate of 5 g/m of row. All of the assessments were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. Plant emergence counts were assessed at 9, 15, 22, 28, and 35 days after planting (DAP), using a 2 m length from the two rows of each plot. Plant vigour, using a scale of 0-10 (0 = best plant development and 10 = poorest plant development) was assessed at 15, 22, 28, and 35 DAP. Root rot ratings were performed on July 6 at 36 DAP. A set of 10 representative plants if possible, were dug from the plot area. The fresh and dry weight of the above ground portion of the plants was determined. The primary root (radicle) was scored for external damage, based on disease symptoms. It was then split open and a score given for internal damage. A scale of 0-10 (0 = 0% root damage, 10 = 100% root damage) was used. The experiment was not harvested for yield, due to poor plant stands following the plant sampling above. INOCULUM: A strain of Rhizoctonia solani (86-8b) was cultured onto Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA). One kg of hulless oats was added to each of several 4 litre plastic jugs and covered with 2% V8 Juice. Bottles were capped and left to stand for 2-3 hours. After standing, excess liquid was poured off and the bottles autoclaved at 15 psi and 121 C for 1 hour. Autoclaving procedure was repeated after 3 days. The PDA plates of R. solani were cut up into small squares and 5-6 plugs placed in the bottles of sterile oats. The bottles were incubated for 2 weeks. After 2 days of incubation there were golf ball sized chunks of inoculum present and the bottles were shaken every 2 days to ensure even distribution of inoculum. After 2 weeks incubation, the inoculum was dried and weighed into 30 g packages. RESULTS: See Tables 1 - 3. CONCLUSIONS: In 2006, environmental conditions for root rot were not ideal, with hot, dry weather after planting. The addition of Rhizoctonia solani inoculum provided dramatic differences between

136

treatments for plant emergence (Table 1), although the differences were not as dramatic as in the kidney bean experiment. Apron Maxx dramatically improved plant emergence, compared to the inoculated check or the standard fungicide treatment of DCT. Dynasty alone was no better than the standard treatment of DCT. Adding high rates of Dynasty to Apron Maxx provided an incremental increase in plant emergence, compared to Apron Maxx alone. There were limited differences between treatments for plant vigour (Table 2) and internal root ratings, fresh and dry plant weights (Table 3). Often there was not a consistent response as the rate of a product was increased.

137

Table 1. Percent Plant Emergence of SVM TAYLOR cranberry beans with seed treatments for Rhizoctonia seedling disease at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario. 2006.


G A/100

kg of seed

9 DAP 15 DAP 22 DAP 28 DAP 35 DAP

1 Non-Inoculated Check 64 a 81 a 80 a 85 a 83 a 2 Inoculated Check 0 d 11 f 11 g 13 i 11 h 3 Cruiser 5FS 50 0 cd 7 f 13 g 12 i 11 h


50 6.25 4 bcd 47 c 59 b 58 bcd 51 b-e

5 Cruiser 5FS

DCT 50

197.6 1 cd 24 e 39 def 40 fgh 33 fg

6 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.25 0 d 24 e 31 ef 35 fgh 33 fg

7 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.50 1 cd 24 e 32 ef 34 gh 30 g

8 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

1.00 3 bcd 22 e 28 f 29 h 27 g

9 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

2.00 2 bcd 37 d 43 cde 47 def 45 def

10 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.25

3 bcd 47 c 52 bc 54 cde 50 cde

11 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.50

5 bcd 58 b 62 b 68 b 57 bcd

12 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 1.00

6 bc 58 b 60 b 60 bcd 51 b-e

13 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 2.00

4 bcd 49 c 52 bc 57 bcd 53 b-e

14 Cruiser 5FS

Senator 70 WP 50

72.8 0 d 8 f 14 g 13 i 12 h

15 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 72.8

3 bcd 37 d 42 cde 41 e-h 37 fg

16 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 0.50 4 bcd 47 c 60 b 62 bc 58 bc

17 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 1.00 3 bcd 54 bc 58 b 67 b 62 b


50 72.8 7 b 52 bc 45 cd 44 efg 43 ef

Mean 6 38 43 45 41 C.V. 65.6 16.2 20.0 20.2 20.8 PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=.05) 5.6 8.7 12.3 13.0 12.2

138

Table 2. Crop Vigour of SVM TAYLOR cranberry beans with seed treatments for Rhizoctonia seedling disease at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario. 2006


G A/100

kg of seed


1 Non-Inoculated Check 2.5 e 3.3 e 2.8 f 2.8 d 2 Inoculated Check 4.5 abc 6.0 bcd 6.5 bcd 7.3 ab 3 Cruiser 5FS 50 5.0 a 7.3 a 8.0 a 7.8 a


50 6.25 4.0 cd 5.8 bcd 5.5 cde 6.0 bc

5 Cruiser 5FS

DCT 50

197.6 4.5 abc 6.3 a-d 6.5 bcd 7.0 abc

6 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.25 4.3 bcd 6.0 bcd 6.5 bcd 7.0 abc

7 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.50 4.3 bcd 6.8 ab 7.0 ab 7.3 ab

8 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

1.00 4.8 ab 5.5 cd 6.3 b-e 6.5 abc

9 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

2.00 4.3 bcd 6.0 bcd 6.8 abc 6.5 abc

10 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.25

4.0 cd 5.5 cd 5.5 cde 6.0 bc

11 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.50

3.8 d 6.0 bcd 5.5 cde 6.0 bc

12 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 1.00

3.8 d 6.0 bcd 5.3 de 6.3 bc

13 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 2.00

4.0 cd 5.3 d 5.0 e 6.0 bc

14 Cruiser 5FS

Senator 70 WP 50

72.8 4.8 ab 6.5 abc 6.3 b-e 6.8 abc

15 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 72.8

4.0 cd 6.0 bcd 5.8 b-e 6.0 bc

16 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 0.50 4.0 cd 5.8 bcd 5.5 cde 6.0 bc

17 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 1.00 3.8 d 5.3 d 5.3 de 5.8 c


50 72.8 4.0 cd 5.3 d 5.5 cde 6.3 bc

Mean 4.1 5.8 5.9 6.3 C.V. 12.6 13.1 16.6 14.6 PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD (P=.05) 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.3

139

Table 3. Plant Assessment for SVM TAYLOR cranberry beans with seed treatments for Rhizoctonia seedling disease at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario. 2006


G A/100

kg of seed





1 Non-Inoculated Check 4.2 1.9 h 106.9 ab 20.7 a 2 Inoculated Check 5.6 8.0 a 75.6 cd 15.0 bcd 3 Cruiser 5FS 50 6.0 7.3 ab 70.2 cd 14.0 bcd


50 6.25 5.6 4.4 fg 73.2 cd 14.4 bcd

5 Cruiser 5FS

DCT 50

197.6 5.5 5.4 c-f 63.7 d 12.7 d

6 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.25 5.6 4.7 efg 76.1 cd 14.7 bcd

7 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.50 6.1 6.2 bcd 74.4 cd 14.7 bcd

8 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

1.00 6.2 5.6 c-f 87.5 abc 17.3 abc

9 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

2.00 5.0 4.3 fg 77.2 cd 15.0 bcd

10 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.25

5.5 4.5 efg 84.8 bcd 17.1 a-d

11 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.50

5.4 3.4 gh 85.2 a-d 16.9 a-d

12 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 1.00

5.3 4.6 efg 89.6 abc 17.3 abc

13 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 2.00

5.9 4.3 fg 91.6 abc 17.9 ab

14 Cruiser 5FS

Senator 70 WP 50

72.8 6.2 6.9 abc 64.7 d 12.9 cd

15 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 72.8

6.0 5.9 b-e 107.2 a 21.3 a

16 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 0.50 5.9 4.5 efg 77.1 cd 15.1 bcd

17 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 1.00 5.3 3.9 g 71.9 cd 13.9 bcd


50 72.8 5.3 5.3 def 84.3 cd 16.8 a-d

Mean 5.6 5.1 81.2 16.0 C.V. 14.4 20.8 19.4 19.9 PR>F 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.01

LSD (P=.05) N/A 1.5 22.3 4.5

140

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS CROP: Edible beans, cv. RED HAWK dark red kidney PEST: Root rot, native strains NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS, S. , and DEPUYDT D Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: CONTROL OF SEEDLING ROOT ROT IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS WITH SEED TREATMENTS AT HURON RESEARCH STATION

MATERIALS: APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 19.2 g ai/L); CRUISER 5FS (thiamethoxam, 600 g ai /L); CRUISER MAXX (thiamethoxam + metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 22.61% + 1.70% + 1.12%); Dynasty 100FS (azoxystrobin 100 g ai/L). VITAFLO (carbathiin + thiram, 14.9% + 13.2%) SENATOR 70WP (thiophanate-methyl 70%).

METHODS: For each treatment, seed was treated in 0.9 kg lots in individual plastic bags by applying the appropriate treatment. The seed was then mixed for 1 minute to ensure thorough seed coverage. The experiment was planted May 29, 2006 at a seeding rate of 17 seeds per meter, using a four-row cone-seeder mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter. An experimental unit contained 2 rows that were 0.75 m apart, 6 m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All of the assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. All of the assessments were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. Plant emergence counts were assessed at 9, 15, 22, 28, and 35 days after planting (DAP), using a 2 m length from the two rows of each plot. Plant vigour, using a scale of 0-10 (0 = best plant development and 10 = poorest plant development) was assessed at 15, 22, 28, and 35 DAP. Root rot ratings were performed on July 7 at 37 DAP. A set of 10 representative plants, were dug from the plot area. The fresh and dry weight of the above ground portion of the plants was determined. The primary root (radicle) was scored for external damage, based on disease symptoms. It was then split open and a score given for internal damage. A scale of 0-10 (0 = 0% root damage, 10 = 100% root damage) was used. The experiment was not harvested for yield due to a lack of visual differences between treatments. RESULTS: See Tables 1 - 3. CONCLUSIONS: In 2006, environmental conditions for root rot were not ideal, with hot, dry weather after planting. The native strains of root rot in the soil did not cause treatment differences for plant emergence (Table 1) or plant vigour (Table 2). There were slight differences between treatments for internal primary root rating (Table 3), but most of the treatments were not significantly different.

141

Table 1. Percent Plant Emergence of RED HAWK dark red kidney beans with seed treatments for seedling disease at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario. 2006.


G A/100

kg of seed


1 Non-Inoculated Check 57 77 79 75 2 Non-Inoculated Check

Inoculated Check2 46 78 74 75

3 Cruiser 5FS 50 52 72 84 79


50 6.25 47 76 76 76

5 Cruiser 5FS

DCT 50

197.6 40 84 88 90

6 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.25 50 79 80 78

7 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.50 52 78 81 80

8 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

1.00 52 88 89 92

9 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

2.00 65 83 86 86

10 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.25

59 82 85 83

11 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.50

44 78 77 78

12 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 1.00

39 76 80 79

13 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 2.00

46 80 82 82

14 Cruiser 5FS

Senator 70 WP 50

72.8 51 77 81 78

15 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 72.8

58 90 91 88

16 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 0.50 49 81 84 82

17 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 1.00 51 80 81 71


50 72.8 49 81 82 79

Mean 50 80 82 81 C.V. 23.0 8.4 9.7 11.0 PR>F 0.20 0.11 0.24 0.13


142

Table 2. Crop Vigour of RED HAWK dark red kidney beans with seed treatments for seedling disease at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario. 2006


G A/100

kg of seed

15 DAP 22 DAP 35 DAP

1 Non-Inoculated Check 2.3 2.0 2.0 2 Non-Inoculated Check 2.5 2.0 2.0 3 Cruiser 5FS 50 2.5 2.0 2.0


50 6.25 2.0 2.0 2.0

5 Cruiser 5FS

DCT 50

197.6 2.3 2.0 2.0

6 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.25 2.3 2.0 2.0

7 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.50 2.5 2.0 2.0

8 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

1.00 2.3 2.0 2.0

9 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

2.00 2.5 2.0 2.0

10 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.25

2.3 2.0 2.0

11 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.50

2.0 2.0 2.0

12 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 1.00

2.3 2.0 2.0

13 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 2.00

2.3 2.0 2.0

14 Cruiser 5FS

Senator 70 WP 50

72.8 2.3 2.0 2.0

15 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 72.8

2.0 2.0 2.0

16 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 0.50 2.3 2.0 2.0

17 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 1.00 2.3 2.0 2.0


50 72.8 2.0 2.0 2.0

Mean 2.3 2.0 2.0 C.V. 15.2 0.0 0.0 PR>F 0.47 1.00 1.00

LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A N/A

143

Table 3. Plant Assessment for RED HAWK dark red kidney beans with seed treatments for seedling disease at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario. 2006


G A/100

kg of seed





1 Non-Inoculated Check 5.2 3.8 a-e 258 47 2 Non-Inoculated Check

Inoculated Check 5.1 4.6 a 248 46

3 Cruiser 5FS 50 4.6 4.8 a 277 49


50 6.25 4.8 4.3 a-d 233 42

5 Cruiser 5FS

DCT 50

197.6 4.8 3.9 a-e 279 52

6 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.25 4.5 4.5 ab 300 53

7 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.50 4.7 4.6 a 263 47

8 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

1.00 4.9 3.9 a-e 263 47

9 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

2.00 4.6 4.4 abc 284 51

10 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.25

4.4 3.3 cde 284 51

11 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.50

4.6 3.9 a-e 302 55

12 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 1.00

4.5 3.3 de 290 51

13 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 2.00

4.3 3.7 a-e 265 47

14 Cruiser 5FS

Senator 70 WP 50

72.8 4.9 3.1 e 247 44

15 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 72.8

4.4 3.4 b-e 265 47

16 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 0.50 4.5 4.7 a 242 43

17 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 1.00 4.4 3.3 de 281 50


50 72.8 5.0 4.1 a-e 261 47

Mean 4.7 4.0 269 48.2 C.V. 8.7 19.9 14.6 16.0 PR>F 0.11 0.04 0.49 0.66

LSD (P=.05) N/A 1.1 N/A N/A

144

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: 61006537 CROP: Edible beans, cv. SVM TAYLORS cranberry bean PEST: Root rot, native strains NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS, S. , and DEPUYDT D Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: CONTROL OF SEEDLING ROOT ROT IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS WITH SEED TREATMENTS AT HURON RESEARCH STATION

MATERIALS: APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 19.2 g ai/L); CRUISER 5FS (thiamethoxam, 600 g ai /L); CRUISER MAXX (thiamethoxam + metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 22.61% + 1.70% + 1.12%); DYNASTY 100FS (azoxystrobin 100 g ai/L). VITAFLO (carbathiin + thiram, 14.9% + 13.2%) SENATOR 70WP (thiophanate-methyl 70%).

METHODS: For each treatment, seed was treated in 1.0 kg lots in individual plastic bags by applying the appropriate treatment. The seed was then mixed for 1 minute to ensure thorough seed coverage. The experiment was planted May 29, 2006 at a seeding rate of 17 seeds per meter, using a four-row cone-seeder mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter. An experimental unit contained 2 rows that were 0.75 m apart, 6 m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All of the assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. All of the assessments were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. Plant emergence counts were assessed at 9, 15, 22, 28, and 35 days after planting (DAP), using a 2 m length from the two rows of each plot. Plant vigour, using a scale of 0-10 (0 = best plant development and 10 = poorest plant development) was assessed at 15, 22, 28, and 35 DAP. Root rot ratings were performed on July 6 at 36 DAP. A set of 10 representative plants were dug from the plot area. The fresh and dry weight of the above ground portion of the plants was determined. The primary root (radicle) was scored for external damage, based on disease symptoms. It was then split open and a score given for internal damage. A scale of 0-10 (0 = 0% root damage, 10 = 100% root damage) was used. The experiment was not harvested for yield due to a lack of visual differences between treatments. RESULTS: See Tables 1 - 3. CONCLUSIONS: In 2006, environmental conditions for root rot were not ideal, with hot, dry weather after planting. The native strains of root rot in the soil did not cause treatment differences for plant emergence (Table 1) or plant vigour (Table 2). There were significant differences between treatments for internal primary root rating (Table 3). Cruiser + Apron Maxx + Dynasty was significantly better than the check, but was not significantly better than Cruiser + Apron Maxx or the standard fungicide treatment (DCT).

145

Table 1. Percent Plant Emergence of SVM TAYLOR cranberry beans with seed treatments for seedling disease at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario. 2006.


G A/100

kg of seed

7 DAP 15 DAP 22 DAP

1 Non-Inoculated Check 64 81 80 2 Non-Inoculated Check 61 78 78 3 Cruiser 5FS 50 58 83 85


50 6.25 61 83 86

5 Cruiser 5FS

DCT 50

197.6 54 78 77

6 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.25 59 82 84

7 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.50 60 84 83

8 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

1.00 63 79 88

9 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

2.00 55 78 79

10 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.25

58 83 83

11 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.50

53 81 81

12 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 1.00

54 82 85

13 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 2.00

60 80 88

14 Cruiser 5FS

Senator 70 WP 50

72.8 58 85 85

15 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 72.8

73 88 91

16 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 0.50 64 89 88

17 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 1.00 66 88 87


50 72.8 58 78 80

Mean 60 82 84 C.V. 14.6 8.3 8.6 PR>F 0.24 0.47 0.30

LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A N/A

146

Table 2. Crop Vigour of SVM TAYLOR cranberry beans with seed treatments for seedling disease at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario. 2006


G A/100

kg of seed

15 DAP 22 DAP

1 Non-Inoculated Check 2.0 2.0 2 Non-Inoculated Check 2.0 2.0 3 Cruiser 5FS 50 2.0 2.0


50 6.25 2.0 2.0

5 Cruiser 5FS

DCT 50

197.6 2.0 2.0

6 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.25 2.0 2.0

7 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.50 2.0 2.0

8 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

1.00 2.0 2.0

9 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

2.00 2.0 2.0

10 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.25

2.0 2.0

11 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.50

2.0 2.0

12 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 1.00

2.0 2.0

13 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 2.00

2.0 2.0

14 Cruiser 5FS

Senator 70 WP 50

72.8 2.0 2.0

15 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 72.8

1.8 2.0

16 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 0.50 2.0 2.0

17 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 1.00 2.0 2.0


50 72.8 2.0 2.0

Mean 2.0 2.0 C.V. 5.9 0.0 PR>F 0.47 1.00

LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A

147

Table 3. Plant Assessment for SVM TAYLOR cranberry beans with seed treatments for seedling disease at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario. 2006


G A/100

kg of seed





1 Non-Inoculated Check 4.8 3.4 a 618 107 2 Non-Inoculated Check 4.8 2.7 abc 677 114 3 Cruiser 5FS 50 4.7 2.4 a-d 631 102


50 6.25 4.7 2.4 a-d 732 148

5 Cruiser 5FS

DCT 50

197.6 4.5 1.6 cd 734 127

6 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.25 4.4 2.5 a-d 706 145

7 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

0.50 4.7 2.3 bcd 545 123

8 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

1.00 4.3 3.3 ab 807 141

9 Cruiser 5FS

Dynasty 50

2.00 4.6 2.5 a-d 752 128

10 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.25

4.6 2.3 bcd 715 135

11 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 0.50

4.2 2.1 cd 737 125

12 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 1.00

4.5 2.4 a-d 668 116

13 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 2.00

4.4 1.5 d 701 123

14 Cruiser 5FS

Senator 70 WP 50

72.8 4.6 1.8 cd 636 118

15 Cruiser 5FS


50 6.25 72.8

4.3 1.5 d 675 119

16 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 0.50 4.6 2.2 cd 643 125

17 Cruiser Maxx

Dynasty 56.25 1.00 4.2 2.0 cd 691 122


50 72.8 4.7 2.6 abc 691 130

Mean 4.5 2.3 687 125 C.V. 7.4 33.6 16.4 24.4 PR>F 0.29 0.04 0.36 0.84

LSD (P=.05) N/A 1.09 N/A N/A

148

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. 17 Varieties PEST: Bacterial Blight (Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli) NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, DEPUYDT, D and WILLIS, S. Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: FIELD VALIDATION OF THE COMMON BACTERIAL BLIGHT (CBB) RESISTANCE GENE(S) IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS (HURON RESEARCH STATION)

MATERIALS: CRUISER 5FS (thiamethoxam, 600 g ai /L); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w); Sylgard 309 (siloxylated polyether + surfactant mixture, 76% + 24%); Bacterial Blight Culture OVERVIEW: Document the impact of CBB (Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli) on seed yield, leaf and seed quality in dry bean cultivars that possess a CBB resistance gene(s), compared to bean cultivars that are susceptible to CBB. METHODS: This report encompasses two experiments; experiment A (not inoculated with a CBB culture) and experiment B (inoculated with a CBB culture). Each experiment had 17 treatments; Fourteen were varieties with potential CBB resistance and three were CBB susceptible control varieties (AC Compass, Envoy, and Navigator). Seed was treated with DCT and Cruiser 5FS at registered rates, for protection against early season seedling diseases and insects. Disease spread was minimized by separating the two experiments, and by separating the treatments within an experiment. Two 75 cm rows of soybeans were planted between each experimental unit within a tier and 6 meters of soybeans were planted between adjacent tiers. The experiments were planted June 8th , 2006 using a four row cone-mounted planter mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter. The seeding rate was 17 seeds per metre. An experimental unit contained 2 rows 75 cm apart, 6 m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. Nitrogen was applied at 60 kg actual / hectare to provide good plant growth. Bacterial blight inoculum was applied twice during the season on experiment B. The first application was in the late afternoon on July 14th when the plants were at the 4th trifoliate. The site received 5 mm of rain on that evening about 2 hours after application. The second application was on the morning of July 17th in a heavy due. The inoculum was applied using a CO2 pressurized sprayer with three 10005 teejet split fan nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 242kPa (35 psi). Rate of application of the bacterial culture was 167 ml per meter of row + 0.2% Sylgard 309. Disease severity on leaves was done using two methods. The first method used a 0-5 scale: 0 = no infection, 1 =< 5%, 2 = 5-10%, 3 = 10-25%, 4 = 25-50%, 5 = 50-100%. The second method used a 0-4 scale: 0 = no infection, 1 = very small necrotic lesions only, 2 = a few small lesions (no bigger than a dime), 3 = large spreading lesions, 4 = entire plant covered with large spreading lesions. Scores of 0.5 are used to describe a treatment that falls between two categories on the disease scale. Leaf ratings were done on August 15th and on the 22th. Leaf ratings were taken on August 15th and on the 22th. Pod and seed ratings were not done, due to a lack of disease development in the inoculated experiment. The experiments were harvested between September 27th and October 6th. Plant maturity was determined by recording the days needed for 95% of the pods on the plant to be ready for harvest. Visual seed quality

149

was determined using a scale of 1-5 (1 = excellent seed quality, 5 = poor seed quality). Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 100 randomly selected seeds from each plot. Yield and seed weights were adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%. INOCULUM: The bacterial blight culture was grown in Luria Bertani (LB) media. The protocol is as follows: To 980 ml of double distilled water add 10g of Bacto-tryptone (Difco), 5g Bacto-yeast extract (Difco) and 5 g Sodium Chloride (NaCl). 1 M Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) was added to the solution until a pH of 7.0 - 7.2 was reached. Double distilled water was then added to a final volume of one litre. The flask containing the LB media was autoclaved for purpose of sterilization of the media on wet cycle for 25 minutes. An initial culture of the four Xap strains was started two days before inoculation of the main cultures. The culture was started by taking a loop full of bacteria from a frozen stock of the four mixed strains or by taking a loop from each of the separately frozen strains and dipping the loop into a 150 ml flask of LB media. The inoculated flask was placed on a shaker (150 rpm) at 28 oC for 2 days (the flask should gradually turn cloudy and clumps of cells should be visible when swirled). It is very important that proper sterile technique is used to inoculate the media as contamination will lead to other unwanted bacteria and fungus growing in the media. For the mass inoculations Erlenmayer flasks were filled to 70% of listed volume (1000 ml flask was filled to 700 ml) with LB media. To the flasks 0.07% (700 ul to 1000 ml flask) of the volume of the flask was added in inoculum from the initial culture. The cultures were placed on a shaker at 28 oC for 2 days and should appear cloudy at the second day. To determine how much the cultures must be diluted the optical density (O.D.) of the cultures was taken using the spectrophotometer (Beckmann Instruments Inc., USA). The cultures must be diluted to an O.D. of 0.32 corresponding to 1x 108 colony forming units ml -1. Dilution of the inoculum was carried out in the sprayer tank using non-chlorinated tap water. METHODS: RESULTS: See Tables 1-4. CONCLUSIONS: A low level of CBB infection was documented in each treatment in the non-inoculated experiment (Table 1). No significant differences were detected between the susceptible and tolerant cultivars. It is believed that the seed was the source of the infection. In the inoculated experiment, a moderate level of CBB infection was documented (Table 2). All of the CBB tolerant treatments were significantly better than the three control treatments, except for HR67 and MABC 03-40. Differences in plant maturity and seed weight were expected within each experiment (Table 3 and 4), due to inherent differences between varieties. Differences in plant maturity between experiments may be due to differences in soil type and CBB infection levels. Trends in yield are not clearly evident in the data set (Table 3&4). A yield index was calculated, using the following formula: Non-inoculated Yield – Inoculated Yield x 100 Non-inoculated Yield The yield index calculations show no differences between the susceptible and resistant treatments. The CBB resistant treatments had an average yield index of 42.0%, and the CBB susceptible treatments had an average yield index of 41.4%.

150

Table 1. Bacterial Blight Analysis for Experiment A (Non-inoculated) at the Huron Research Station. Exeter, Ontario. 2006.

Bacterial Blight Leaf Analysis

August 15 August 22

Treatment

Percentage 0-5 Scale 0-4 Scale Percentage 0-5 Scale 0-4 Scale

1 Envoy 12.5 2.3 3.0 23.8 3.0 3.0

2 Compass 15.0 2.5 3.0 25.0 3.5 3.0

3 Navigator 7.5 1.5 3.0 11.3 2.3 3.0

4 HR 67 13.8 2.3 3.0 23.8 3.3 3.0

5 HR 135 8.8 1.8 3.0 16.3 2.5 3.0 6 HR 144 8.8 1.8 2.8 17.5 2.5 3.0

7 HR 146 7.5 1.5 2.8 10.0 2.0 3.0

8 HR 164 10.0 2.0 3.0 20.0 3.0 3.0

9 Harohawk 17.5 2.5 3.0 26.3 3.3 3.0 10 OAC Rex 10.0 2.0 3.0 18.8 3.0 3.0

11 OAC 02-2 10.0 2.0 3.0 16.3 2.5 3.0

12 OAC 06-B1 12.5 2.0 2.8 25.0 3.3 3.0

13 OAC 06-4 11.3 2.3 3.0 17.5 2.8 3.0 14 MABC 03-29 10.0 2.0 3.0 15.0 2.8 3.0

15 MABC 03-40 13.8 2.8 3.0 18.8 3.0 3.0

16 MABC 03-9 7.5 1.5 3.0 16.3 2.8 3.0

17 F4GR185 11.3 1.8 2.8 21.3 3.0 3.0

Mean 11.0 2.0 2.9 19.0 2.8 3.0

C.V. 49.5 1.0 8.2 42.8 22.9 0.0

PR>F 0.40 0.40 0.65 0.20 0.15 1.00

LSD(.05) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

151

Table 2. Bacterial Blight Analysis for Experiment B (Inoculated) at the Huron Research Station. Exeter, Ontario. 2006.

Bacterial Blight Leaf Analysis

August 15 August 22

Treatment

Percentage 0-5 Scale 0-4 Scale Percentage 0-5 Scale 0-4 Scale

1 Envoy 65.0 a 5.0 a 3.8 a 55.0 a 5.0 a 3.5 a

2 Compass 40.0 b 4.0 b 3.0 b 40.0 bc 3.8 bc 3.0 b

3 Navigator 43.8 b 4.0 b 3.0 b 33.8 cde 3.5 bcd 3.0 b

4 HR 67 36.3 bc 3.8 bc 3.0 b 37.5 bcd 3.8 bc 3.0 b 5 HR 135 23.8 def 3.0 def 3.0 b 27.5 efg 3.3 cde 3.0 b

6 HR 144 25.0 def 2.8 ef 3.0 b 28.8 efg 3.5 bcd 3.0 b

7 HR 146 23.8 def 3.0 def 3.0 b 23.8 fg 3.0 de 3.0 b

8 HR 164 26.3 def 3.3 cde 2.8 b 22.5 fg 3.0 de 3.0 b 9 Harohawk 30.0 cd 3.3 cde 3.0 b 37.5 bcd 4.0 b 3.0 b

10 OAC Rex 18.8 fg 3.0 def 3.0 b 21.3 g 2.8 e 3.0 b

11 OAC 02-2 21.3 ef 2.8 ef 3.0 b 28.8 efg 3.5 bcd 3.0 b

12 OAC 06-B1 12.5 g 2.5 f 2.8 b 27.5 efg 3.3 cde 3.0 b 13 OAC 06-4 27.5 de 3.5 bcd 3.0 b 32.5 cde 3.5 bcd 3.0 b

14 MABC 03-29 27.5 de 3.0 def 3.0 b 32.5 cde 3.5 bcd 3.0 b

15 MABC 03-40 36.3 bc 3.8 bc 3.0 b 43.8 b 4.0 b 3.0 b

16 MABC 03-9 27.5 de 3.0 def 3.0 b 30.0 def 3.3 cde 3.0 b

17 F4GR185 30.0 cd 3.3 cde 3.0 b 30.0 def 3.3 cde 3.0 b

Mean 30.3 3.3 3.0 32.5 3.5 3.0

C.V. 19.4 11.4 6.9 17.9 12.3 4.6

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD(.05) 8.4 0.5 0.3 8.3 0.6 0.2

152

Table 3. Crop Assessment for Experiment A (Non-inoculated) at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario. 2006.

Crop Assessment

Treatment Yield (kg/ha) Days to Maturity Seed Weight Seed Quality

1 Envoy 2196 109 h 21.3 d 1.5 e

2 Compass 2141 112 gh 22.7 bc 2.1 bc

3 Navigator 2443 115 efg 21.2 d 1.8 cde

4 HR 67 1980 120 de 24.1 b 1.6 de

5 HR 135 2304 126 abc 21.8 cd 1.8 cde

6 HR 144 2332 126 ab 21.3 d 2.0 bcd

7 HR 146 2312 121 bcd 23.1 bc 1.5 e 8 HR 164 2285 118 def 23.7 b 2.0 bcd

9 Harohawk 2283 119 def 21.8 cd 1.4 e

10 OAC Rex 1799 126 ab 21.8 cd 1.8 cde

11 OAC 02-2 2354 126 ab 22.1 cd 1.6 de 12 OAC 06-B1 2481 114 fgh 23.0 bc 2.4 b

13 OAC 06-4 2436 121 bcd 22.0 cd 2.1 bc

14 MABC 03-29 2083 116 d-g 20.9 d 1.4 e

15 MABC 03-40 1833 116 d-g 23.5 b 1.5 e

16 MABC 03-9 2139 121 cd 21.3 d 1.6 de

17 F4GR185 1505 129 a 26.9 a 3.5 a

Mean 2171 120 22.5 1.9

C.V. 19.6 3.2 4.3 17.3

PR>F 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD(.05) N/A 5.5 1.4 0.5

153

Table 4. Crop Assessment for Experiment B (Inoculated) at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario. 2006.

Crop Assessment

Treatment Yield (kg/ha) Yield Index Days to Maturity Seed Weight Seed Quality

1 Envoy 1152 b-e 47.5 105 f 22.3 cde 1.8 def

2 Compass 1518 abc 29.1 109 e 23.4 bcd 1.9 cde

3 Navigator 1283 bcd 47.5 109 e 21.6 ef 1.9 cde

4 HR 67 1071 cde 45.9 118 ab 24.1 b 2.1 c

5 HR 135 1293 bcd 43.9 117 abc 22.8 b-e 1.9 cde 6 HR 144 1113 b-e 52.3 117 abc 21.3 ef 1.5 f

7 HR 146 1460 abc 36.9 114 d 22.8 b-e 1.5 f

8 HR 164 1944 a 14.9 111 e 23.5 bc 2.0 cd

9 Harohawk 1518 abc 33.5 111 e 21.9 def 1.6 ef 10 OAC Rex 1207 bcd 32.9 119 a 22.8 b-e 1.8 def

11 OAC 02-2 1189 b-e 49.5 117 bc 22.8 b-e 1.9 cde

12 OAC 06-B1 1605 ab 35.3 109 e 24.0 b 3.3 a

13 OAC 06-4 1481 abc 39.2 117 bc 21.6 ef 1.9 cde 14 MABC 03-29 1215 bcd 41.7 109 e 20.7 fg 1.8 def

15 MABC 03-40 901 de 50.8 103 f 23.5 bc 1.6 ef

16 MABC 03-9 679 e 68.3 116 cd 19.2 g 1.6 ef

17 F4GR185 850 de 43.5 119 a 28.6 a 2.8 b

Mean 1263 113 22.8 1.9

C.V. 28.9 1.5 4.8 13.3

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD(.05) 521 2.5 1.6 0.4

154

PMR REPORT # SECTION J: CEREAL, FORAGE, AND OILSEED CROPS ICAR: CROP: Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. as per treatment PEST: Marsh Spot NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS, S. and DEPUYDT, D Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: [email protected]

TITLE: EVALUATION OF INCIDENCE OF MARSH SPOT IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS VARIETY TRIALS (THORNDALE, KIPPEN, ST. THOMAS AND MONKTON)

MATERIALS: CRUISER 5FS (thiamethoxam, 600 g ai /L); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w) METHODS: Cranberry beans are prone to a disorder, known as Marsh Spot, that discolors the interior of the cotyledon and can create marketing issues. The experiment was conducted to determine if any of the Ontario registered or candidate cranberry varieties are susceptible to Marsh Spot compared to Messina, a highly susceptible variety of cranberry beans. Seed was treated with DCT and Cruiser 5FS at registered rates, for protection against early season seedling diseases and insects. Four locations were planted across southern Ontario; St. Thomas, Thorndale, Kippen and Monkton. The experiments were part of the Ontario dry bean variety registration and performance trials. The experiments were arranged as a RCBD design with 4 replications. Samples of seed harvested from these experiments were sent to the Huron Research, and scored for marsh spot incidence and severity. Fifty seeds were split and each half was rated for marsh spot incidence. The percentage incidence was then calculated for each variety. If marsh spot was present, its severity was visually rated on a scale of one to five, using the standards found in Figure 1. RESULTS: See Tables 1-5. CONCLUSIONS: Marsh spot scores for each of four locations are presented in Tables 1-4. Marsh spot was quite noticeable at the Thorndale (Table 1) and St. Thomas (Table 3) sites. A combined analysis of all four locations is presented in Table 5. Incidence by severity calculations show that Messina, HR 167-4099 and HR 161-4199 are significantly worst than any other variety.

155

Figure 1: Marsh Spot Severity Ratings

156

Table 1. Marsh Spot Analysis – Variety Trial, Thorndale, Ontario. 2006.

Marsh Spot Analysis Treatments

% Incidence Average Severity Incidence by Severity (0 – 5)

1 SVM Taylor Cran 13.8 c 1.7 0.25 bc

2 Hooter 16.5 bc 1.7 0.29 bc

3 Etna 17.5 bc 1.9 0.34 bc

4 HR 167-4099 24.0 ab 2.4 0.57 a

5 HR 168-4246B 10.8 c 1.9 0.18 c

6 HR 176-4655 10.0 c 2.2 0.22 c

7 HR 161-4199 14.8 c 2.3 0.36 bc

8 Messina 30.3 a 1.5 0.42 ab

Mean 17.2 1.9 0.33

C.V. 32.5 25.6 39.5

PR>F 0.00 0.14 0.01

LSD(.05) 8.2 N/A 0.19

Table 2. Marsh Spot Analysis – Variety Trial, Kippen, Ontario 2006



1 SVM Taylor Cran 0.0 b 0.0 e 0.00 d

2 Hooter 1.0 b 0.8 bcd 0.01 cd

3 Etna 1.8 b 1.0 abc 0.03 bc

4 HR 167-4099 1.0 b 0.5 cde 0.01 cd

5 HR 168-4246B 0.3 b 0.3 de 0.00 cd

6 HR 176-4655 0.3 b 0.3 de 0.00 cd

7 HR 161-4199 3.8 a 1.4 ab 0.05 ab

8 Messina 4.0 a 1.5 a 0.06 a

Mean 1.5 0.7 0.02

C.V. 80.3 67.7 90.4

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD(.05) 1.8 0.7 0.03

157

Table 3. Marsh Spot Analysis – Variety Trial, St. Thomas, Ontario 2006.



1 SVM Taylor Cran 1.8 b 0.6 c 0.02 b

2 Hooter 1.8 b 1.3 abc 0.04 b

3 Etna 1.5 b 1.0 bc 0.02 b

4 HR 167-4099 18.8 a 2.2 ab 0.42 a

5 HR 168-4246B 8.3 b 1.4 abc 0.17 b

6 HR 176-4655 2.5 b 1.0 bc 0.04 b

7 HR 161-4199 17.0 a 2.2 a 0.38 a

8 Messina 22.3 a 2.2 a 0.50 a

Mean 9.2 1.5 0.20

C.V. 54.5 53.6 64.9

PR>F 0.00 0.04 0.00

LSD(.05) 7.4 1.2 0.19

Table 4. Marsh Spot Analysis – Variety Trial, Monkton, Ontario. 2006.



1 SVM Taylor Cran 1.5 cd 1.0 a 0.02 cd

2 Hooter 4.0 bc 1.2 a 0.06 bc

3 Etna 0.3 d 0.3 b 0.00 d

4 HR 167-4099 6.8 ab 1.5 a 0.10 ab

5 HR 168-4246B 2.8 cd 1.0 a 0.03 cd

6 HR 176-4655 2.3 cd 1.3 a 0.03 cd

7 HR 161-4199 7.5 a 1.6 a 0.11 a

8 Messina 7.4 a 1.3 a 0.10 ab

Mean 4.0 1.1 0.06

C.V. 52.6 40.5 57.7

PR>F 0.00 0.02 0.00

LSD(.05) 3.1 0.7 0.05

158

Table 5. Marsh Spot Analysis – Variety Trial, Combined Four Locations in Ontario. 2006.

Marsh Spot Analysis1 Treatments

% Incidence2 Average Severity Incidence by Severity (0 – 5)

1 SVM Taylor Cran 2.7 a 0.8 a 0.07 a

2 Hooter 4.2 a 1.2 ab 0.10 a

3 Etna 3.3 a 1.0 a 0.10 a

4 HR 167-4099 10.1 bc 1.6 bc 0.28 b

5 HR 168-4246B 4.1 a 1.1 a 0.10 a

6 HR 176-4655 2.8 a 1.2 a 0.07 a

7 HR 161-4199 9.8 b 1.9 c 0.23 b

8 Messina 13.9 c 1.6 bc 0.27 b

Mean 6.4 1.3 0.15

1 - Analysis performed using SAS 2 - Used square root transformation

159

Narrow Row P. & R. Trial - Kippen 06DVWBK

Cultivar Yield Rank

Yield (kg/ha)

Seed Quality (1-5)

Blight (1-5)

Direct Harvestability

Days to Maturity

OAC 05-2 15 4164 1.0 2.3 3.7 101 GTS 563 39 3830 1.1 3.4 3.4 101 HR177-3719 35 3907 1.1 3.5 2.5 96 OAC 06-1 20 4098 1.9 3.5 2.2 101 GTS 564 10 4233 1.1 3.2 2.9 101 HR178-4202 34 3929 1.1 1.9 2.5 106 OAC 06-2 24 4045 1.5 3.5 2.3 97 GTS 565 29 4010 1.0 3.2 1.8 104 HR179-4697 41 3754 1.3 2.1 2.8 105 OAC 06-3 36 3885 1.1 3.6 1.8 104 GTS 566 27 4030 1.3 2.9 2.6 100 HR181-3497 5 4287 1.0 2.3 2.6 95 OAC 06-4 25 4041 1.3 2.3 2.6 105 GTS 567 31 3978 1.3 2.9 2.5 104 AC Compass 21 4086 1.5 4.7 2.9 88 Oac Rex 28 4025 1.0 0.6 3.5 109 Vista 18 4134 1.0 3.7 3.4 100 Cirrus 43 3659 1.5 4.8 4.7 88 Nautica 19 4108 1.3 2.2 2.2 103 OAC Thunder 8 4248 1.5 2.7 2.9 105 Scepter 2 4497 1.1 2.8 3.2 113 Beacon 11 4218 2.0 3.9 4.3 103 AC Trident 38 3850 1.1 3.0 3.5 105 OAC 04-2 14 4188 1.0 3.6 3.1 96 GTS 544 30 3997 1.3 4.0 3.4 104 Stingray 26 4040 1.4 3.9 4.5 101 AC Mast 33 3933 1.1 3.7 3.4 100 OAC Gryphon 1 4521 1.0 3.1 4.0 107 GTS 554 3 4392 1.0 3.3 3.2 101 T9905 37 3866 1.1 3.8 3.2 98 Galley 16 4157 1.1 3.9 3.0 97 OAC Silvercreek 17 4151 1.0 3.6 4.5 101 GTS 555 12 4211 1.1 2.6 2.2 104 T9903 40 3762 1.4 5.1 3.8 91 Kippen 42 3688 1.9 3.8 4.0 92 GTS 557 7 4262 1.0 3.4 3.1 104 T10303 4 4316 1.3 2.1 1.8 105 AC Cruiser 32 3962 1.0 2.7 3.9 101 T10306 22 4083 1.4 2.7 2.2 104 HR144-3927B 9 4243 1.0 1.3 1.8 107 T10307 6 4273 1.1 2.2 2.1 103 HR164-3495B 23 4057 1.0 1.2 2.1 110 LD06-01 44 3107 3.0 3.8 2.9 114 HR135-3495 13 4206 1.0 0.9 2.2 106

Mean 4055 1.3 3.0 3.0 102 Seed Quality: 1 = good 5 = poor Plant Blight: 1 = no blight 5 = all plants blight damage C.V. 5.2 24.6 21.8 16.8 2.1

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD(0.05) 246 0.4 0.8 0.6 3.0

Design: RCBD (nearest neighbour) Harvest Dates: Sept. 4,25&Oct.2 Row Width: 15 inch (38 cms) Planting Date: June 6 Number of Rows Per Plot: 6 Fertilizer: 0-0-0 NPK 10 lbs of Zinc actual ppi (May 10) Number of Rows Harvested Per Plot: 4 Liquid 3-12-3 actual at planting (June 6) Plot Length: 6m. Crop Booster 1 L. /ac. (July 18) Harvest Length: 4m. Seeding Rate: 20 seeds / m.

Herbicide: Pursuit 200ml/ha. Rival 1.25L/ha (May 29) Insecticide: Lagon 1.0 L/ha (July 19)

Seed Treatment: DCT 5.2g/1kg.seed Fungicide: Headline .4 L/ha (July 18) Cruiser 1.0 ml/1kg seed Suitability for Direct Harvest 1= Excellent, 5 = Poor

160

Major Coloured Bean R. & P. Trial - Kippen

06DVCAK Seed 100

Treatment Type Yield Yield Quality Pick Seed Blight Days to Maturity Name Rank (kg/ha) (1-5) **(%) Weight (1-5) Maturity

Montcalm DRK 6 2705 2.2 4.9 47.3 3.2 104 M AC Calmont DRK 2 2914 1.9 4.7 50.0 2.9 107 M Red Hawk DRK 5 2711 3.0 3.9 47.1 4.7 98 E

OAC 03-D1 DRK 1 2924 2.0 3.6 51.6 3.9 100 M OAC 05-D2 DRK 3 2828 2.1 4.3 52.2 3.5 103 M

HR 174-4239 DRK 8 2548 2.7 4.3 59.5 4.8 98 E HR 175-4594 DRK 7 2613 3.4 4.4 56.9 3.6 113 L

Majesty DRK 4 2817 2.8 4.7 59.0 4.0 100 M AVERAGE 2757

AC Litekid LRK 5 2775 3.2 7.4 49.1 2.2 114 L AC Elk LRK 6 2451 2.2 3.4 55.1 5.1 88 E

Red Kanner LRK 1 3419 2.6 5.0 49.3 2.1 112 L OAC 04-L1 LRK 7 2310 2.5 3.2 62.1 4.9 88 E OAC 06-L1 LRK 3 3040 2.5 5.4 56.7 3.4 109 L OAC 06-L2 LRK 2 3095 2.4 5.9 58.3 2.7 111 L OAC 06-l3 LRK 4 2879 2.7 5.3 54.5 2.3 116 L

AVERAGE 2853 SVM Taylor CRAN 7 2470 2.3 5.0 52.9 4.5 88 E

Hooter CRAN 4 3114 3.0 6.1 56.7 2.9 109 L Etna CRAN 6 2732 2.5 5.1 53.5 5.0 88 E

HR 167-4099 CRAN 2 3326 4.1 7.5 65.7 2.5 114 L HR 168-4246B CRAN 5 2801 3.9 9.3 61.6 3.5 94 E HR 176-4655 CRAN 1 3341 2.7 6.5 60.4 2.1 113 L HR 161-4199 CRAN 3 3192 3.7 7.4 59.5 2.4 114 L

AVERAGE 2997 Mean 2864 2.7 5.3 55.4 3.5 104

Seed Quality: 1 = good 5 = poor C.V. 7.0 15.5 40.9 3.4 17.7 2.3 Plant Blight: 1 = no blight 5 = all plants blight damage PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Seed Blight: 1 = no blight 5 = high blight damage LSD(0.05) 238 0.5 2.6 2.2 0.7 3 Pick: a subjective estimate of percent discolouration which may be due to blight ,uneven drydown etc. Maturity: <101=E, 101-107=M, >107= L

Trial Summary

Design: RCBD (nearest neighbour) Harvest Dates: Sept. 4,19&28 Row Width: 30 inch (75 cms) Planting Date: June 6 Number of Rows Per Plot: 2 Fertilizer: 0-0-0 NPK 10 lbs of Zinc actual ppi (May 10) Number of Rows Harvested Per Plot: 2 Liquid 3-12-3 actual at planting (June 6) Plot Length: 6m. Crop Booster 1 L. /ac. (July 18) Harvest Length: 4m. Seeding Rate: 17 seeds / m.


Seed Treatment: DCT 5.2g/1kg.seed Fungicide: Headline .4 L/ha (July 18) Cruiser 1.0 ml/1kg seed

161

06DVCAT Ontario Coloured Bean Variety Registration and Performance – Major – Thorndale Seed 100 Seed

Treatment Market Treatment Yield Yield Quality Weight Days to Number Class Name Rank (kg/ha) (1-5) (g) Maturity

1 DRK Montcalm 6 3082 2.8 54.3 105 Check 2 DRK AC Calmont 2 3383 2.5 55.8 104 Check 3 DRK Red Hawk 1 3398 2.8 55.5 101 4 DRK OAC 03-D1 4 3277 3.0 55.5 103 5 DRK OAC 05-D2 3 3363 3.3 60.8 104 6 DRK HR 174-4239 8 2755 3.3 64.0 97 7 DRK HR 175-4594 7 3080 4.0 57.0 105 8 DRK Majesty 5 3245 2.8 62.3 102 Average 3198

9 LRK AC Litekid 5 3260 3.0 50.5 108 Check 10 LRK AC Elk 6 2978 2.8 58.8 98 Check 11 LRK Red Kanner 1 3676 3.0 49.3 109 12 LRK OAC 04-L1 7 2808 3.0 62.8 91 13 LRK OAC 06-L1 3 3398 2.8 59.0 103 14 LRK OAC 06-L2 4 3375 3.0 56.3 106 15 LRK OAC 06-L3 2 3417 3.0 54.8 108

Average 3273

16 Cran SVM Taylor Cran 7 3070 2.8 58.0 92 Check

17 Cran Hooter 5 3302 4.0 61.5 105 Check 18 Cran Etna 3 3594 3.3 59.8 98 19 Cran HR 167-4099 1 3891 4.3 64.5 106 20 Cran HR 168-4246B 6 3292 3.3 67.3 96 21 Cran HR 176-4655 4 3436 4.3 61.0 105 22 Cran HR 161-4199 2 3654 3.8 63.3 102

Average 3463 Mean 3306 3.2 58.7 102 C.V. 7.3 13.56 2.6 1.6 PR > F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LSD(0.05) 284.4 0.5 1.8 1.9

Planting Date: May 30 Fungicide: Headline @ 0.4 L/ha July 19 Harvest Dates: Aug 30 Sept. 5, 12, 17 Seed Quality: 1=good 5=poor Yields adjusted to 18 % moisture. Design: RCBD Seeding Rate 17 seeds / m Number of Rows Per Plot: 2 Insecticide: Cruiser 5 FS @ 83 ml/100 kg of seed Number of Rows Harvested Per Plot: 2 DCT 520 g./100 kg of seed Plot Length: 5 metres Fertilizer: N (28%) @ 68 kg actual / ha May 29 Harvest Length: 4 metres Herbicide: Pursuit 200 ml/ha May 29 Treflan 1.25 L/ha May 29 Dual II Magnum 1.25 L/ha May 29

162

Minor Coloured Bean R. & P. Trial – Kippen 06DVCCK

Seed 100

Cultivar Type Yield Yield Quality Seed Blight Days to Maturity Rank (kg/ha) (1-5) Weight (1-5) Maturity AC Harblack Black 11 3137 1.5 18.8 4.8 91 E

Blackjack Black 9 3223 1.8 22.8 4.1 95 M

HR145-348 Black 1 3832 1.8 25.3 1.9 104 L

HR146-383 Black 2 3643 1.0 21.0 1.8 100 M

Harohawk Black 4 3482 1.8 21.0 2.1 97 M

HR106-231 Black 5 3408 1.3 20.5 2.7 101 M

HR120-264 Black 3 3484 1.5 19.3 3.2 93 E

Jaguar Black 7 3291 1.0 20.0 3.4 96 M

Condor Black 8 3258 1.3 22.0 3.2 99 M

OAC 06-B1 Black 6 3312 2.5 21.8 2.9 95 M

HR171-453 Black 12 2795 2.0 21.8 4.4 101 M

GTS 401 White Kidney 10 3183 2.0 39.5 2.1 106 L

Mean 3337 1.6 22.8 3.0 98

Seed Quality: 1 = good 5 = poor C.V. 6.9 27.0 3.1 15.6 3.2

Plant Blight: 1 = no blight 5 = all plants blight damage PR > F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Seed Blight: 1 = no blight 5 = high blight damage

LSD(0.05) 275 0.5 0.8 0.6 3.7

Maturity: <95=E, 95-101=M, >101= L Design: RCBD (nearest neighbour) Harvest Dates: Sept. 4&19 Row Width: 30 inch (75 cms)

Planting Date: June 6

Number of Rows Per Plot: 2

Fertilizer: 80-0-0 10 lbs of Zinc actual ppi (May 10)

Number of Rows Harvested Per Plot: 2 liquid 3- 12- 3 actual at seeding (June 6) Plot Length: 6m. Crop Booster 1 L./ac. (July 18) Harvest Length: 4m. Herbicide: Pursuit 200ml/ha. Rival 1.25L/ha (May 29) Seeding Rate: 17 seeds / m. Insecticide: Lagon 1.0 L/ha (July 19) Seed Treatment: DCT 5.2g/1kg.seed Fungicide: Headline .4 L/ha (July 18) Cruiser 1.0 ml/1kg seed

163

Narrow Row P. & R. Trial - Brussels 06DVWBB

Cultivar Yield Rank

Yield (kg/ha)

C.V.Yield (Nearest

Neighbour)

Seed Quality (1-5)

100 Seed

Weight

Dockage (%)

White Mold #1 (1-10)

White Mold #2

(1-5)

OAC 06-1 9 1464 33 2.6 17.0 14.4 7.0 3.9 HR181-3497 7 1661 30 2.1 13.9 24.3 6.3 4.4 AC Compass 2 1942 33 2.0 17.0 14.7 8.5 4.2

OAC Rex 5 1726 25 2.3 16.6 10.0 4.3 3.7 Cirrus 15 1217 21 3.0 15.6 17.0 9.5 4.8

Nautica 14 1217 34 3.4 15.4 29.7 5.5 4.3 OAC Thunder 6 1720 29 2.3 17.3 14.6 7.3 4.4

Beacon 17 1009 27 2.6 18.5 13.2 9.0 4.4 AC Trident 18 882 33 3.3 16.1 14.1 7.0 4.2 OAC 04-2 1 2376 8 1.9 16.9 10.5 5.0 3.8 Stingray 8 1550 39 2.5 18.2 9.4 7.5 4.5 AC Mast 13 1294 30 2.8 17.0 13.7 6.8 4.1

OAC Gryphon 10 1419 15 3.3 17.6 6.3 6.5 4.1 Galley 4 1775 45 2.3 17.6 13.2 6.8 4.4 T9903 16 1166 20 2.8 17.2 12.1 9.3 4.7 Kippen 3 1844 17 1.8 15.8 13.8 7.3 4.2

AC Cruiser 11 1317 22 2.3 17.4 11.0 7.0 4.1 LD06-01 12 1315 27 3.3 14.6 21.7 5.3 4.3

Mean 1494 2.6 16.6 14.7 7.0 4.2 Seed Quality: 1 = good 5 = poor Dockage: % by weight of seed removed using a 10 X 3/4 screen.

C.V. 29.3 19.6 8.1 32.4 16.3 8.1

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 LSD(0.05) 519.0 .6 1.6 5.6 1.3 .4

White Mold #1 Visual Rating where 1= no damage & 10 = total damage White Mold Rating # 3 Severity Rating 0-5 (0=0%), (1=5%),(2=15%),(3=40%),(4=65%),(5=85%) source NODAK

Check Variety

Trial Summary Design: RCBD (nearest neighbour) Harvest Dates: Sept. 10(direct harvested) Row Width: 15 inch (38 cms) Planting Date: May 31 Number of Rows Per Plot: 6 Fertilizer: 0-0-0 NPK 10 lbs of Zinc actual ppi (May 10) Number of Rows Harvested Per Plot: 4 Liquid 3-12-3 actual at planting (June 6) Plot Length: 6m. Crop Booster 1 L. /ac. (July 18) Harvest Length: 4m. Seeding Rate: 20 seeds / m.



164

WHITE BEAN COOP VARIETY TRIAL WINCHESTER 2006 TYPE Yield 100 Maturity Emergence White Mold Variety Type kg/ha Seed Wt (g) (Days) (1 -5) ( 1 - 5) OAC 05-2 2A 4289 22.1 90 2.3 1.2 GTS 563 2A 3057 21.3 95 2.5 3.1 HR177-3719 2A 3902 21.6 90 2.5 1.8 OAC 06-1 2B 3504 21.1 95 2.3 2.0 GTS 564 2A 3578 19.0 91 3.0 2.2 HR178-4202 2B 3606 19.3 98 2.3 1.8 OAC 06-2 2B 3992 19.1 90 1.8 2.4 GTS 565 2B 3236 19.8 99 2.5 2.8 HR179-4697 2B 3738 22.8 90 2.3 1.7 OAC 06-3 2A 3879 25.8 98 2.3 1.8 GTS 566 1 2965 18.7 98 2.8 2.9 HR181-3497 2A 4121 20.2 87 2.5 1.7 OAC 06-4 2A 3634 23.6 91 2.0 2.4 GTS 567 2B 3385 19.6 98 2.8 2.5 AC COMPASS 2A 4079 23.5 87 2.3 1.3 OAC REX 2A 4171 21.7 97 3.5 1.7 VISTA 2B 4098 20.4 94 3.0 1.9 CIRRUS 2A 3178 19.8 84 2.8 1.2 NAUTICA 1 3736 19.5 90 2.5 1.3 OAC THUNDER 2B 3742 22.2 89 2.5 1.5 SCEPTER 2A 3665 26.6 99 2.0 1.8 BEACON 2B 3535 21.0 89 2.3 2.4 AC TRIDENT 1 3536 21.5 98 2.5 1.9 OAC 04-2 2A 4246 22.3 89 2.0 1.5 GTS 544 2B 2939 20.1 96 2.8 1.7 STINGRAY 2A 3932 22.0 91 2.5 1.8 AC MAST 2B 3555 22.4 91 2.8 2.2 OAC GRYPHON 2B 3397 19.5 89 2.5 1.6 GTS 554 1 3946 20.2 92 2.8 1.7 T9905 1 4132 23.7 90 2.8 2.4 GALLEY 2A 3740 22.3 89 2.0 2.4 OAC SILVERCREEK 1 2520 21.0 89 1.8 1.8 GTS 555 1 3798 20.2 98 2.5 2.4 GTS 557 2B 3814 19.6 98 2.5 2.1 T10303 2B 3898 22.7 92 2.0 1.7 AC CRUISER 2B 3913 22.1 92 2.0 2.4 T10306 1 3505 20.2 90 2.3 1.3 HR144-3927B 1 4029 20.1 94 2.5 1.5 T10307 2B 4230 24.6 97 3.0 2.3 HR164-3495B 2B 4074 24.2 88 2.0 1.2 KIPPEN 1 4149 19.7 82 2.3 1.6 HR180-4537 2B 3875 25.5 98 2.0 1.1 MEAN 3721.8 21.5 92.0 2.4 1.9 C.V.% 12.6 4.4 0.5 18.8 38.2 L.S.D. .05 654.5 1.3 1.8 0.6 1.0 PLANTING DATE - MAY 31,2006 FUNGICIDE HEADLINE - 244MLS/ACRE FIRST HERBICIDE FLOWER DUAL - 1.75 L/HA PPI - MAY 30 BASAGRAN FORTE 2.24L/HA -POST JUNE23 WHITE MOLD RATING 1=0%, 2<25%, 3=26-50%, 4=51-75%, 5>75% Emergence 1>85%, 2=70-84%, 3=45-69%, 4=20-44%, 5=0-19%

165

Narrow Row PYT (Whites Only)- Kippen 06DVWCK Seed Plant Suitability Days

Cultivar Source Yield Yield Quality Blight Harvestibility For Direct to Maturity Rank (kg/ha) (1-5) (1-5) Harvest Maturity

Ensign Rogers 20 3431 1.5 4.4 3.7 P 95 E Seabisket (ADM

N128420) ADM 9 3835 1.7 4.2 4.0 P 104 L

Roger 331 Rogers 5 4032 1.3 4.6 3.1 G 99 M Schooner Rogers 2 4077 1.5 4.9 4.2 P 97 M

Morden 003 Ag Can 23 3095 2.0 4.6 3.4 G 89 E MSUN02237 MSU 7 3958 2.0 4.6 2.8 G 94 M

Seahawk MSU 15 3712 1.8 5.0 3.8 P 100 M Mayflower MSU 8 3837 1.8 3.9 2.5 G 101 M

Frigate Idaho SC 19 3599 1.5 3.8 2.4 G 101 M

SEM08550862 Seminis 12 3763 1.4 4.0 2.8 G 99 M ADMN203185 ADM 6 3965 1.1 3.0 2.9 G 104 L ADMN220185 ADM 17 3683 1.6 4.7 2.3 E 102 M ADMN252185 ADM 1 4171 1.1 4.7 3.3 G 94 E

ADMN3284 ADM 4 4033 1.8 2.0 2.1 E 103 L ADMN3724 ADM 16 3707 1.7 3.9 2.7 G 100 M ADMN3467 ADM 3 4072 1.3 3.9 3.8 P 103 L

Sailor (ROG417) Rogers 22 3100 2.3 4.4 3.3 G 86 E COOP0076 COOP 18 3674 1.5 4.4 2.1 E 98 M

COOP99081 COOP 14 3719 1.0 4.0 1.9 E 100 M COOP01054 COOP 13 3737 1.3 4.8 2.3 E 96 M COOP01051 COOP 11 3767 1.5 4.1 2.2 E 101 M COOP03026 COOP 21 3226 2.7 5.2 2.1 E 96 M

T9905 Hyland 10 3795 0.9 4.2 2.3 E 101 M Mean 3802 1.4 3.9 2.8 99 Seed Quality: 1 = good 5 = poor

Plant Blight: 1 = no blight 5 = all plants blight damage C.V. 5.9 28.1 14.2 13.0 2.6

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD(0.05) 263 .5 .6 .4 3

Maturity: <96=E, 96-102=M, >102= L Suitability for Direct Harvest <2.4=Excellent, 2.4-3.6=Good, >3.6= Poor

Check Variety

Trial Summary

Design: RCBD (nearest neighbour) Harvest Dates: Sept. 4,&26(direct combined) Row Width: 15 inch (38 cms) Planting Date: June 6 Number of Rows Per Plot: 6 Fertilizer: 0-0-0 NPK 10 lbs of Zinc actual ppi (May 10) Number of Rows Harvested Per Plot: 4 Liquid 3-12-3 actual at planting (June 6) Plot Length: 6m. Crop Booster 1 L. /ac. (July 18) Harvest Length: 4m. Seeding Rate: 20 seeds / m.



166

Narrow Row PYT (Blacks Only)- Kippen 06DVWCK Seed Plant Suitability Days

Cultivar Source Yield Yield Quality Blight Harvestibility For Direct to Maturity Rank (kg/ha) (1-5) (1-5) Harvest Maturity

Black Rhino (115M-CIAT) MSU 13 3709 1.2 4.2 3.0 G 101 M

MSUB01741 MSU 12 3846 0.9 2.2 3.0 G 104 L SEM08560866 Seminis 7 4031 1.2 3.3 2.2 E 101 M Black Velvet Seminis 8 4005 0.9 2.6 1.9 E 104 L CORN96-148 Cornell 2 4215 1.1 2.8 2.0 E 104 L

Midnight Patterson 10 3875 1.0 2.8 2.4 G 102 M Condor MSU 4 4150 1.2 2.7 2.6 G 103 L

AC Black Violet Agricore 14 3691 1.1 2.1 2.7 G 97 M T39 U. Calif. 11 3854 1.0 4.7 4.9 P 99 M

Black Knight ADM 16 3357 1.5 4.3 2.8 G 102 M Eclipse NDSSD 3 4215 1.0 3.8 2.0 E 97 M

ADMB201240 ADM 5 4101 1.3 2.2 2.4 G 102 M ADMB210237 ADM 9 3920 1.0 4.4 2.2 E 103 L ADMB315039 ADM 15 3503 1.2 3.7 3.1 G 100 M

Onyx Rogers 6 4051 1.2 3.7 2.8 G 99 M COOP99066 COOP 17 3327 1.8 5.2 3.2 G 93 E COOP00044 COOP 1 4253 1.2 3.3 2.1 E 104 L


PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD(0.05) 263 .5 .6 .4 3

Maturity: <96=E, 96-102=M, >102= L Suitability for Direct Harvest <2.4=Excellent, 2.4-3.6=Good, >3.6= Poor

Check Variety

Trial Summary

Design: RCBD (nearest neighbour) Harvest Dates: Sept. 4,&26(direct combined) Row Width: 15 inch (38 cms) Planting Date: June 6 Number of Rows Per Plot: 6 Fertilizer: 0-0-0 NPK 10 lbs of Zinc actual ppi (May 10) Number of Rows Harvested Per Plot: 4 Liquid 3-12-3 actual at planting (June 6) Plot Length: 6m. Crop Booster 1 L. /ac. (July 18) Harvest Length: 4m. Seeding Rate: 20 seeds / m.



167

Wide Row PYT - Kippen 06DVCDK Seed 100

Cultivar Type Yield Yield Quality Pick Seed Blight Days to Maturity Rank (kg/ha) (1-5) **(%) Weight (1-5) Maturity

Chinook 2000 LRK 6 2870 1.7 4.6 47.8 3.1 111 L ADML637-153 LRK 5 2911 1.7 5.0 49.5 2.5 113 L ADMOLC 409 LRK 4 3085 2.1 4.1 51.6 2.9 112 L CORN 18-V96 LRK 2 3230 1.7 3.6 49.9 2.2 114 L

CORN 1132-V96 LRK 7 2801 1.7 5.3 58.0 2.9 105 L Cal. LRK LRK 11 2369 1.1 1.5 56.8 5.2 88 E

Pink Panther LRK 8 2570 1.7 2.3 55.0 4.8 92 E Blush LRK 3 3144 2.6 9.9 62.6 1.8 116 L

ADML4015082 LRK 10 2426 3.0 13.7 51.4 3.2 110 L ADML4015071 LRK 9 2464 2.6 9.3 52.3 2.6 107 M

ROGER 773 LRK 12 2360 1.8 4.9 58.4 4.9 89 E Red Kanner LRK 1 3272 1.9 3.8 52.1 2.0 114 L

Average 2792 2.0 5.7 53.8 3.2 106

Cabernet DRK 2 2796 1.5 1.6 43.5 4.4 94 E Fiero DRK 3 2747 1.8 6.5 50.6 3.3 105 L

SEM08530721 DRK 6 2497 1.7 3.3 45.8 4.8 89 E COB-2258-99 DRK 7 2466 2.1 5.3 60.9 3.4 113 L COB-2179-99 DRK 1 2855 2.4 4.4 48.4 4.1 102 M

ADMD203 DRK 11 2261 2.5 6.0 46.8 4.5 96 E ADMD000264 DRK 12 2196 1.7 4.0 44.2 5.0 91 E ADMD200207 DRK 10 2318 1.5 2.8 47.9 5.2 89 E ADMD107271 DRK 8 2406 2.2 7.5 49.8 4.1 106 L ADMD109267 DRK 9 2347 1.4 4.2 45.6 4.6 88 E ADMD210289 DRK 5 2585 2.1 5.9 49.7 4.0 114 L ROGER 802

(RUBY) DRK 4 2706 1.3 0.8 44.0 5.0 88 E

Average 2515 1.8 4.3 48.1 4.4 98

MSUC03108 CRAN 2 2847 3.3 7.6 46.9 3.9 99 M Chiante CRAN 6 2335 3.0 8.7 55.1 3.1 98 M Capri CRAN 5 2560 3.1 10.0 53.1 3.4 95 E Etna CRAN 3 2645 1.4 3.7 52.8 5.1 89 E

ADMC000117 CRAN 4 2571 2.7 5.3 51.7 4.5 89 E

Hooter CRAN 1 3005 2.5 5.5 56.0 2.8 105 L

Average 2660 2.7 6.8 52.6 3.8 96

Mean 2655 2.1 5.4 51.3 3.8 101 Seed Quality: 1 = good 5 = poor Plant Blight: 1 = no blight 5 = all plants blight damage C.V. 8.3 23.4 40.8 4.0 14.2 2.8

PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD(0.05) 259 .6 2.6 2.4 .6 3

Pick: a subjective estimate of percent discolouration which may be due to blight ,uneven drydown etc. Maturity: <98=E, 98-104=M, >104= L

Trial Summary Design: RCBD (nearest neighbour) Harvest Dates: Sept. 4,19&28 Row Width: 30 inch (75 cms) Planting Date: June 6 Number of Rows Per Plot: 2 Fertilizer: 0-0-0 NPK 10 lbs of Zinc actual ppi (May 10) Number of Rows Harvested Per Plot: 2 Liquid 3-12-3 actual at planting (June 6) Plot Length: 6m. Crop Booster 1 L. /ac. (July 18) Harvest Length: 4m. Seeding Rate: 17 seeds / m.



168

Miscellaneous Wide Row PYT - Kippen 06DVWEK Seed 100 Plant Days

Cultivar Source Type Yield Yield Quality Seed Blight to Maturity Rank (kg/ha) (1-5) Weight (1-5) Maturity

Erimo HDC Adzuki 10 3148 1.3 14.2 1.0 105 L Hime HDC Otebo 1 3984 2.0 28.6 2.6 97 M Myasi ADM Yellow 8 3245 2.6 41.0 4.5 96 M Sedona MSU Pink 11 3095 4.4 35.7 3.1 95 M Merlot MSU SRM 5 3723 1.8 36.6 3.3 94 E Ryder Rogers SRM 6 3596 1.8 36.9 3.6 89 E

Desert Rose ADM Flor de Mayo 4 3759 2.6 32.6 4.5 88 E

Arikara SPARC Yellow 12 2823 1.6 39.6 4.3 88 E MSUK01974 MSU WK 9 3237 3.0 63.1 2.4 115 L Matterhorn MSU GWN 7 3299 2.3 33.4 4.6 89 E

T9905 Hyland Navy 2 3873 2.3 22.7 2.4 98 M Red Kanner Hyland LRK 3 3829 1.8 51.0 1.8 114 L


PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LSD(0.05) 249 .6 4.8 .5 1.8

Maturity: <95=E, 95-99=M, >99= L Check Variety

Trial Summary

Design: RCBD (nearest neighbour) Harvest Dates: Sept. 4,19&28 Row Width: 30 inch (75 cms) Planting Date: June 6 Number of Rows Per Plot: 2 Fertilizer: 0-0-0 NPK 10 lbs of Zinc actual ppi (May 10) Number of Rows Harvested Per Plot: 2 Liquid 3-12-3 actual at planting (June 6) Plot Length: 6m. Crop Booster 1 L. /ac. (July 18) Harvest Length: 4m. Seeding Rate: 17 or 20 seeds / m.



169

Appendix A: Pesticide Information

Trade Name AI AI Rate Group Name Rainfast (hours)

Risk of Resistance Mode of Action

ALLEGR 500F fluazinam 500 g

a.i./l Pyridinamine disrupts energy production in the fungus mitochondria

APRON MAXX RTA

metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil

3.8g + 2.5g ai. /100kg.

Phenylamide Phenylpyrole NA

M L-M

(metalaxyl-m) systemic activity; (fludioxonil) derived from exudates of the soil bacterium Pseudomonas.

CYGON 4E dimethoate 480 g ai/l OP broad-spectrum – systemic and contact insecticide

CRUISER 5 FS thiamethoxam 50 g ai

/100 kg Neonicitinoid NA M-H systemic insecticide that interferes with the acetylcholine receptor of the insect's nervous system.

DCT

diazinon + captan

+thiophanate methyl

18% + 6% + 14% w/w

OP Phthalimide

Benzimidazole NA

L H

(diazinon) non-systemic, (captan) protective seed treatment, (thiophanate methyl) systemic; protective and curative action

DYNASTY azoxystrobin .5 & 1.0

g. ai. /100 kg

Strobilurin NA H locally systemic; protective and curative action; absorbed by roots

HEADLINE pyraclostrobin 100 g ai. /ha. Strobilurin 1 H

locally systemic; protective and antisporulant action; interferes with the respiration of the fungal cell; absorbed by the leaves

LANCE boscalid 70% Anilid Inhibits spores and spore germination

MATADOR 120EC

cyhalothrin-lambda

10 g ai /ha Pyrethroid <1 L

contact with spray, and through ingestion of treated material; low risk to beneficial insects

QUADRIS 250 SC azoxystrobin 125 g ai.

/ha. Strobilurin 4-6 H


QUILT 200 SC

azoxystrobin propiconazole

200 & 300 g ai.

/ha

Strobilurin/ Triazole

4-6 1

H L


RONILAN 500EG vinclozolin 500 g

a.i./kg Dicarboximide 2

prevents spore germination and has activity that effectively controls spore infections that occurred up to 36 hours prior to application

SENATOR thiophanate methyl

1050 g ai. /ha. Benzimidazole <1 H systemic; protective and curative;

absorbed by leaves and roots

TILT 250EC propiconazole 250 g ai/l Triazole 1 L inhibits the development of fungal haustorium and mycelium by inhibiting of photosynthesis at photosystem II

VITAFLO 280

carbathiin + thiram

44g + 39 g ai. /100

kg

Carboxamide Dithiocarbamat

e NA L (carbathiin) systemic fungicide

(thiram) contact fungicide

edible bean agronomy and pest …...this report is a compilation of agronomy and pest management...

Documents