Effects of Foliar Applied Fungicides and Fungicide-Insecticide Combinations

in Early Maturing Soybeans Aaron Abrahamson Master of Science In Agronomy Iowa State University April 1, 2009

Background

n Grew up on family farm near Redwood Falls, MN in southwestern Minnesota

n Graduated from South Dakota State University in 2002

n Ag-Business Major

n Started MS Agronomy program in the fall semester of 2003

Background

n Currently live in Moorhead, MN

n Employed as a Soybean Research Associate for Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl. – Started May 2003

n Main responsibilities include purification of breeder seed and regulatory compliance

n Married with 1 daughter

Overview

n  Introduction and Background n Materials and Methods n Results n Discussion

Introduction

n Threat and arrival of Asian soybean rust in U.S. raised awareness of foliar applied fungicides.

n Reports surfaced that certain foliar fungicides could increase soybean yields in the absence of disease- due to a “Plant Health” effect.

n Research project focused on group 0 soybeans in east central North Dakota / Northwestern Minnesota environments.

Soybean Fungicide Research

n  Iowa State University - X.B. Yang, et al. –  6-year study found economic returns on fungicide use higher when

disease severity was high

n  North Dakota State University Extension - Carrington, ND research center - Fungicide trial in 2007 –  no statistically significant yield increases –  there was a 2 day maturity delay at one location

n  University of Minnesota - Ryan Miller and Dean Malvick - 65 replicated trials in north-central region –  strobilurin applications had a positive economic return about one-third of

the time –  economic return about one quarter of the time

Soybean Fungicide Research

n  South Dakota State University - Dr. Marty Draper - 2005 Midwestern fungicide trials –  Headline resulted in a statistically significant yield increase in 10 of 35

trials –  Folicur yielded statistically higher in 3 of 19 trials

n  Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl Agronomy Sciences - studies in Southern Minnesota, Nebraska, Illinois, Indiana –  Headline: 100 comparisons, +3.7 bushels per acre, yield response

78% of the time, economic response 51% of the time (2004-2008) –  Headline+Asana: 52 comparisons, +5.5 bpa, yield response 90% of

the time, economic response 73% of the time (2007-2008)

1. Source: www.Farmassist.com/promo/quadris_landing/assets/13600074C.pdf

Plant Health

n  Quadris® (Azoxystrobin) n  Inhibits ethylene biosynthesis n  Protects against oxidative stress n  Increases nitrogen uptake and utilization n  Improve water efficiency1

1. Source: www.agproducts.basf.com

Plant Health

n  Headline® (pyraclostrobin)

n  Increased growth efficiency –  Better use of nutrients –  Increased photosynthesis efficiency

n  Stress Tolerance1

–  Drought –  Hail –  Ozone –  Frost

Plant Health

n  American Phytopathological Society: n  Growth enhancement n  Kresoxim methyl causes hormonal changes in wheat

–  Delayed senescence, increase water efficiency

n  Observed in several other species –  Dependent of crop, specific fungicide, and environment

Source: American Phytopathological Society (www.apsnet.org)

1. Source: www.agproducts.basf.com

Diseases

n Headline labeled1 on soybeans for: – Asian Soybean Rust – Cercospora Blight – Anthracnose – Frogeye Leaf Spot – Septoria Brown Spot – Pod and Stem Blight

ND/ NW MN Fungal Diseases

n  Phytophthora root rot (Phytophthora sojae)

n  Sclerotinia stem rot (white mold) (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum)

n  Rhizoctonia root rot (Rhizoctonia solani)

n  Fusarium root rot (Fusarium solani) n  Pythium root rot (Pythium spp.)

n  Brown stem rot (Phialophora gregata) - rare for North Dakota and Northwestern Minnesota

n  Downy Mildew (Peronospora manshurica )- is common but usually not serious

Objectives

n Determine the yield response of soybeans treated with foliar applied fungicides and fungicides tanked mixed with insecticides.

n Focus on disease free environments

n Observe physiological differences: –  leaf color – maturity date

Materials and Methods

n Experiment was established during the 2006 and 2007 growing season

n 3 locations, 3 reps at each location – Valley City, ND; Prosper, ND; Fergus Falls, MN

n Randomized complete block in a split plot arrangement – Variety as main plot – Fungicide treatment as subplot

Analysis

n Adjusted means – Adjustments for lost plots

n ANOVA n 2 X SED used to determine mean differences

– alpha level=.05

Environment n  Source: North Dakota State University

n  www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu

Treatments

n  Headline (locally systemic, preventative, prevents energy production in fungus)

n  Folicur (xylem systemic, curative, sterol inhibiting)

n  Charisma (systemic, preventative and curative, inhibition of energy production and interferes with fungal membrane function)

n  All fungicide treatments applied with or without the insecticide Asana.

n  Applications were made when all varieties reached the R3 (beginning pod) growth stage.

Soybean Varieties

Variety Maturity BSR SDS White Mold

90M20 0.2 7 ND 3

90M40 0.4 2 ND ND

90M60 0.6 5 4 5

S06-L6 0.6 4 ND 4

BSR = brown stem rot SDS = sudden death syndrome

1. Photo taken from www.almaco.com

Planting

n  Almaco® 4-row cone planter with John Deere® planter units1

n  Target population of 150,000 plants per acre

Spraying

n  Turbo Teejet® Duo –  Leaf coverage and canopy

penetration –  QJ90-2XTT110015-VP –  Medium Droplet

n  15 gpa n  40 psi

Spraying

Product Active Ingredient Type Rate

Oz/acre Manufacturer

Headline pyraclostrobin preventative 6-12 BASF

Folicur tebuconazole curative 3-4 Bayer Crop Science

Charisma flusilazole + famoxate

preventative/ curative 10 DuPont

Asana esfenvalerate 2 DuPont

Spraying

Boom and Shields

Spraying

Physiological Observations

n  Leaf color score taken when differences observed

n  Date to physiological maturity recorded –  Scored as mature when

90% of pods in plot were brown

1. Source: www.almaco.com

Harvesting

n Almaco SPC 40 with onboard weigh system1

2006 Results-Leaf Color

n  1-8 Score n  2 x SED = 0.3 n  Taken 2 weeks

following application

Treatment Leaf Color Score Level Folicur 6.9 A Folicur+Asana 6.6 ABC Headline 6.9 A Headline+Asana 6.7 AB Charisma 6.4 BC Charisma+Asana 6.2 C Asana 6.4 BC Untreated 6.3 BC Average 6.6

2006 Leaf Color

2 X SED = 0.4

Location Treatment Score Level

Prosper Folicur 7.6 A

Prosper Folicur+Asana 7.1 B

Prosper Headline 7.9 A

Prosper Headline+Asana 7.8 A

Prosper Charisma 7.0 B

Prosper Charisma+Asana 7.1 B

Prosper Asana 6.7 B

Prosper Untreated 6.7 B

Prosper Average 7.2

2006 Leaf Color

2 X SED = 0.4

Location Treatment Score Level

Valley City Folicur 7.6 A

Valley City Folicur+Asana 7.2 AB

Valley City Headline 7.5 A

Valley City Headline+Asana 7.3 A

Valley City Charisma 6.8 BC

Valley City Charisma+Asana 6.8 BC

Valley City Asana 6.8 BC

Valley City Untreated 6.6 C

Valley City Average 7.1

Maturity Data

n 2006: No significant differences detected at any location

n 2007: Headline + Asana matured one day later – Statistically Significant – Variety X Treatment Interaction occurred at Prosper

location

90M40-Prosper

90M40

90M40-Prosper

90M40

90M40

90M40 Maturity Dates at 2007 Prosper Location

Days to Maturity

B

ABAB

AA

BBB

117

117.5

118

118.5

119

119.5

120

120.5

Charisma

Charisma+AsanaFolicu

r

Folicur+Asana

Headline

Headline+Asaa

Untreated

Asana

Days to Maturity

2 X SED = 1 Day

2006 Yield - All 3 Locations

No Statistically Significant

Differences

Year Treatment Yield (bu/a)

2006 Folicur 48.6

2006 Folicur+Asana 47.2

2006 Headline 48.9

2006 Headline+Asana 48.5

2006 Charisma 47.7

2006 Charisma+Asana 47.8

2006 Asana 47.5

2006 Untreated 48.4

2006 Average 48.1

2006 Yield Data

n No significant differences at Fergus Falls – Treatments actually yielded lower

n No significant differences at Prosper

n Significant differences were detected at Valley City

Fergus Falls Variability Y

IELD

bu/a

60# A

BS

MH

FE

RG

MH

PR

OB

MH

VA

LG

30

40

50

60

30

40

50

60

2006 - MHFUNGICIDE - YIELD bu/a 60# ABS - 3 LOCs

Pioneer Hi-Bred International confidential Thu Jan 08 09:41:46 CST 2009

90M60

MA

T c

ount A

BS

MH

FE

RG

MH

PR

OB

MH

VA

LG

840

860

880

900

840

860

880

900

2006 - MHFUNGICIDE - MAT count ABS - 3 LOCs

Pioneer Hi-Bred International confidential Thu Jan 08 09:41:46 CST 2009

90M20 90M20

Coefficient of Variation- Yield

Location Trait CV

Prosper YIELD 10.4

Fergus Falls YIELD 28.0

Valley City YIELD 14.3

Valley City

n  2*SED=2.3 2006 Valley City Yield

A

AB AB

A

AB

B

AB

B

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Folicur

Folicur+Asana

Headline

Headline+Asana

Charisma

Charisma+Asana

Asana

Untreated

Yield

2 X SED =2.3 bu/a

2007 Yield Data

n  Headline + Asana - 2 bushel advantage over untreated

n  Significant differences again detected at Valley City

n  Variety X Treatment interaction at Prosper location

Year Treatment Yield (bu/a)

Level

2007 Folicur 43.1 ABC

2007 Folicur+Asana 42.3 BC

2007 Headline 42.9 ABC

2007 Headline+Asana 44.0 A

2007 Charisma 41.9 C

2007 Charisma+Asana 43.4 AB

2007 Asana 42.1 BC

2007 Untreated 42.0 BC

2007 Average 42.7 -

2007 Yield Data

n  2 X SED=1.4

2007 Yield Data, All Locations

CBCBCBC

ABCABC

AB

A

40.5

41

41.5

42

42.5

43

43.5

44

44.5

Headlin

e+Asa

na

Charism

a+Asa

na

Folicu

r

Headlin

e

Folicu

r+Asa

naAsa

na

Untreate

d

Charism

a

Treatment

Bus

hels

Per

Acr

e

Yield

2007 Yield Data - Valley City 2007 Yield Data, Valley City Location

BBBBB

AB

AA

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Charisma+Asana

Headline+Asana

Folicur

Headline

Asana

Folicur+Asana

Charisma

Untreated

Bushels per Acre

Trea

tmen

t

Yield

2 X SED=3.2

2007 Yield Data- 90M40 at Prosper

2 X SED = 3.4 b/a

Treatment Yield (bu/a)

Level

Headline 37.1 A Headline+Asana 34.3 AB Folicur+Asana 33.1 BC Charisma+Asana 32.7 BC Asana 32.1 BC Folicur 30.4 C Untreated 30.3 C Charisma 29.9 C

Prosper 90M40 Yield Map

90M40 Rep 1 90M40 Rep 2 90M40 Rep 3

22.4 24.7 24.3 26.8 30.6 29.5 30.3 32 38.6 38.4 38.6 33.4

28.9 27.5 27.6 29.9 32.1 33.9 36.8 33.1 35.7 39.8 44.6 40.1

47.9 46.1 48.1 47.9 51.7 49.7 50.3 50.4 47.8 49.7 48.9 49.6

49 42.9 49.1 51.4 53.2 48.3 50.1 51.8 46.1 48.6 45.3 48.4

46.4 42.7 49.6 48 49.7 47.7 47.4 45.4 50.2 48.5 50.9 48.1

45.7 42.8 49.5 48.3 49.8 48.6 49.4 48.8 47 49.4 47.8 48.9

46.6 42.4 46.6 50.2 48.2 48.7 48.9 48.3 49 43.9 44.4 47.4

48.2 48.9 51.4 52.9 51.1 51.5 53.2 52.1 55.4 51.7 51 51.5

2006 Summary

n Headline, Headline+Asana, Folicur, Folicur+Asana applications resulted in darker leaf score – Significant differences detected at 2 of 3 locations

n No overall maturity differences detected

n No overall yield differences detected – Significant differences detected at 1 of 3 locations

2007 Summary

n  No leaf color differences detected

n  Headline+Asana treatments matured 1 day later than untreated –  Variety x Treatment interaction detected at Prosper

n  Headline+Asana statistically significant yield advantage over untreated –  2 bushel advantage –  Statistically significant yield differences found at one location –  Variety x Treatment interaction detected at Prosper

Economic Return

n  Source: http://ipcm.wisc.edu/WCMNews/tabid/53/EntryId/591/Foliar-Fungicides-for-Corn-and-Soybean-Don-t-Rush-to-Spray.aspx

Application Cost (Dollars per Acre)

Fungicide Cost (Dollars Per Acre) Soybean Value (Dollars per bushel)

$10 $12 $14 $6 $10 1.6 1.3 1.1 $15 2.1 1.8 1.5 $20 2.6 2.2 1.9

$8 $10 1.8 1.5 1.3 $15 2.3 1.9 1.6 $20 2.8 2.3 2.0

$10 $10 2.0 1.7 1.4 $15 2.5 2.1 1.8 $20 3.0 2.5 2.1

Economic Return Application Cost

(Dollars per Acre)

Fungicide Cost (Dollars Per Acre)

Insecticide Cost (Dollars Per

Acre) Soybean Value (Dollars per bushel)

$10 $12 $14 $6 $10 $5 2.1 1.8 1.5

$15 $5 2.6 2.2 1.9 $20 $5 3.1 2.6 2.2

$8 $10 $5 2.3 1.9 1.6 $15 $5 2.8 2.3 2.0 $20 $5 3.3 2.8 2.4

$10 $10 $5 2.5 2.1 1.8 $15 $5 3.0 2.5 2.1 $20 $5 3.5 2.9 2.5

n  Source:http://ipcm.wisc.edu/WCMNews/tabid/53/EntryId/591/Foliar-Fungicides-for-Corn-and-Soybean-Don-t-Rush-to-Spray.aspx

Economic return

n 2006 Valley City Location

n Folicur: +3.2 bushels per acre

n Headline+Asana: +3.6 bushels per acre

Partial Budget Valley City-2006 Untreated Folicur Headline+Asana

Soybeans

Yield (bu/a) 51.6 54.8 55.2

Additional Costs

Application $0 $8.00 $8.00

Chemical $0 $15.00 $20.00

Additional Revenue $0 $32.00 $36.00

Difference $0 $9.00 $8.00

Discussion

n  Results inconsistent

n  Headline consistently above untreated, but usually not by a statistically significant margin

n  Leaf color score did not always correlate with higher yield

n  In 2007, Headline+Asana one day later, +2.0 yield advantage

n  Variety X Treatment interaction in 2007 at one location

Headline Technical Bulletin

Improved Stress Tolerance Untreated Control Soybeans grown in the greenhouse were treated with Headline (6 oz/a) and not watered for 7 days. Treated soybeans were healthier and continued to grow despite the drought stress.

n  Source: Headline Technical Bulletin from B.A.S.F.

Variety X Treatment Interaction Discussion

n Headline treatments n Water stressed early in growing season n 2 days later n +6.8 and +4.0 bu/a yield advantage

– 1 location, 3 reps, 1 year

Variety X Treatment Interaction Discussion

n  Donald Hershman, Plant Pathologist University of Kentucky categorized chances for crop response1

n  Good response-light/moderate stress –  90M40 at Prosper

n  Poor response - little crop stress or overwhelming stress –  Most environments in this study subjected to very little stress

1. Source:http://www.ca.uky.edu

Discussion

n Even when significant yield differences were detected, margins were typically less than 3.0 bushels per acre

n Narrow yield increase margins make it more difficult to ensure a positive economic return

n Addition of a insecticide usually did not increase yield

n Yield increases at Valley City both years – Reason is unclear

Conclusion

n  Miller and Malvick (U. of Minn.): “inconsistency of soybean yield response to foliar fungicides

makes their use an economically risky proposition.”

n  This study supports that statement –  Lack of foliar diseases that cause significant yield loss

n  strobilurin treatments may be most beneficial in light to moderately stressed environments

Acknowledgements

n Allan Ciha-ISU n Dr. Nadia Krasheninnik-Pioneer Hi-Bred n Ron Mowers n Palle Pederson-ISU n  Jon Holte and Kevin Sinner-Pioneer Hi-Bred n  Jim Harbour-DuPont Crop Protection n Craig Lant-DuPont Crop Protection n Randall Mutters- Univ. of California extension

Thank You!

Questions