Agronomy Notes Vol 30, No EARLY MATURING VARIETIES AND SOYBEAN CYST NEMATODES: WILL THIS MARRIAGE WORK?

Similar documents
Institute of Agric ulture and Natural Resourc es Department of Plant Pathology

Funding for this research was provided by the Nebraska Soybean Board.

Institute of Agric ulture and Natural Resourc es Department of Plant Pathology

ABSTRACT: 67 SOYBEAN CYST NEMATODE RESISTANCE HOW IT ALL COMES TOGETHER IN THE MIDWESTERN UNITED STATES

2017 ILeVO Trial Harvest Report

Institute of Ag Professionals

MANAGING MARESTAIL AND GIANT RAGWEED IN WHEAT

Managing Soybean Cyst Nematode

Improving Management Of Soybean Cyst Nematode Through Extension Demonstration And Outreach

Institute of Ag Professionals

RESPONSE OF DEKALB CORN PRODUCTS TO POPULATION

A 2015 multi-site field study on the effects of seed treatment on soybean yield and Soybean Cyst Nematode reproduction

Evaluation of Soybean Varieties Resistant to Soybean Cyst Nematode in Iowa 2009

SOIL PH IN RELATION TO BROWN STEM ROT AND SOYBEAN CYST NEMATODE N.C. Kurtzweil 1, C.R. Grau 2, A.E. MacGuidwin 3, J.M. Gaska 4, and A.W.

Loren Giesler, Nebraska Extension Plant Pathologist John Wilson, Nebraska Extension Educator Burt Co. Sclerotinia stem rot (White Mold)

DORIAN GATCHELL JANUARY 5, 2016 GRANITE FALLS, MN JANUARY 6, WATERTOWN, SD JANUARY 7, GRAND FORKS, ND

Soybean Cyst Nematode: a Continually Growing Problem in Soybeans?

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SDS AND SCN IN COMMERCIAL SOYBEAN FIELDS IN WISCONSIN 1. Introduction

Soybean Cyst Nematode and other disease issues in soybean. Sam Markell, Ph.D. Extension Plant Pathologist North Dakota State University

SOYBEAN CYST NEMATODE MANAGEMENT ADVANCED CROP ADVISORS

2006- Foliar insecticide effects on soybean aphid and soybean yield. Summary Background Objective Site and application description

An IPM 1 Approach to Managing Herbicide Resistant Ryegrass in Northeast Texas. October, 2014 J. Swart, A. Braley, R. Sutton, S. Stewart, D.

The soybean cyst nematode (SCN), Heterodera glycines, is the number one yield reducer for

Managing Tobacco Nematodes Using Isothiocyanate Products

Shift in Virulence of Soybean Cyst Nematode is Associated with Use of Resistance from PI 88788

MANAGING GIANT RAGWEED & MARESTAIL IN WHEAT

In-depth studies initiated: Results:

Managing Soybean Cyst Nematode with the Soil Test and Crop Rotation

Brian Diers University of Illinois

Residual herbicides in Liberty Link soybeans at Rosemount, MN Treatment Date May 23 June 17 June 23 July 10

In mid-october, all plots were again soil sampled to determine residual nutrients.

2011 VERMONT ORGANIC CORN SILAGE VARIETY TRIAL MATERIALS AND METHODS

2017 Michigan Regional Trial

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Iron Chelates in Managing Iron Deficiency Chlorosis in Grain Sorghum

Using Tissue and Soil Tests Together Helps Make Better Decisions. John Lee Soil Scientist AGVISE Northwood, ND

Fusarium root rot of soybean occurrence, impact, and relationship with soybean cyst nematode

Final 2013 Delaware Soybean Board Report

Balance GT/Balance Bean/LL Systems in Soybeans at Rochester, MN Breitenbach, Fritz R., Lisa M. Behnken, Annette Kyllo and Matthew Bauer

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Foliar fungicide effects on soybean disease suppression, senescence and yield I.

Corn and soybean yield responses to micronutrients fertilization

Murray State Theses and Dissertations

2017 Meetings. ILeVO

5/23 6/26 6/30 7/21 CONCLUSIONS

2013 Flax Variety Trial

Management of Fusarium and other Soil Borne Diseases in Tomatoes and Vegetables

What s new with micronutrients in our part of the world?

2016 Soybean Update. A) Variety options for 2016

THE RIGHT SEEDS. THE RIGHT PROTECTION.

Using silicon, Stimplex and plant resistance in pumpkin production systems to reduce plant disease loss

Fertility management in soybean

Heterodera glycines. A Threat to Dry Bean production. Berlin Nelson Jr., Professor, North Dakota State Univ., Plant Pathology

Managing transplant size and advancing field maturity of fresh tomatoes and peppers

GAINES COUNTY IPM NEWSLETTER Manda G. Cattaneo, Extension Agent - IPM 101 S. Main RM B-8. Seminole, TX 79360

2005 RESEARCH SUMMARY WITH HERBICIDE-RESISTANT COMMON RAGWEED

Management of Corky Ringspot Disease in Potato Using Vydate C-LV Irrigated Trial Rice, MN 2009

Soybean seed quality response among maturity groups to planting dates in the Midsouth. Larry C. Purcell & Montserrat Salmeron

AGVISE Laboratories Established 1976

Project Title: Evaluating the Distribution and Potential Impacts of Soybean Vein Necrosis Virus in Delaware

USE OF OCEANGROWN PRODUCTS TO INCREASE CROP YIELD AND ESSENTIAL NUTRIENT CONTENT. Dave Franzen, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND

Gerald Brust IPM Vegetable Specialist. Vegetable Fertility

Treatment Date May 27 June 16 July 13 July 21 Application preemergence early post sequential sequential

Optimum Spraying Time and Management Guidelines for Soybean Aphid Control

Research. Plant Health Progress :

M. S. ZUBER A. J. KEASTER N. G. WEIR C. F. STARK P. J. LOESCH, JR. January,1970

Larry Stein, Texas A & M AgriLife Extension Service. Nitrogen fertilization materials, rates and timing

Table 1 Disease Ratings* May 22 May 30 Tst Treatment and rate/a Inc Sev Fld Sev Inc Sev Fld Sev Bu/A** LSD P=

Integrated Management of White Mold and the Use of Foliar Fungicides

RESULTS OF AGRONOMIC AND WEED SCIENCE RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN SOUTH CENTRAL MONTANA

2011 Lygus Bug Management Trial in Blackeyes Kearney Research and Extension Center, Parlier, CA C.A. Frate 1, S.C. Mueller and P.B.

EAR AND KERNEL ROTS. When to look for: Mid-August to October (and during storage)

Breeding for SCN Resistance in the South

Cultivar Specific Nitrogen Management Profiles For Irrigated Process Varieties Inkster, ND 2009

STALK COLD TOLERANCE OF COMMERCIAL SUGARCANE VARIETIES DURING THE HARVEST SEASON

COMPARISON OF IMPREGNATED DRY FERTILIZER WITH S AND ZN BLENDS FOR CORN AND SOYBEANS

Section 5: Wheat Scab Research

Micronutrient Management. Dorivar Ruiz Diaz Soil Fertility and Nutrient Management

Methods and Materials:

Fusarium Diseases of Tomato. Hung Doan, Gene Miyao and Mike Davi Department of Plant Pathology University of California, Davis

2015 Forage Brassica Variety Trial

Survey of Insecticide Use in Sugarbeet in Eastern North Dakota and Minnesota Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports.

2013 Johnsongrass Control Trials

Aphid Management on Head Lettuce Using Imidacloprid and Foliar Insecticides

THRIPS EFFICACY TRIALS IN SOUTH GEORGIA. J. D. Griffin, J.R. Ruberson, R.J. Ottens and P.M. Roberts Dept. of Entomology, Univ. of Georgia Tifton GA

Effect of Soybean Cyst Nematode on Fatty Acid Levels of Soybean Seed

LYGUS BUG MANAGEMENT IN SEED ALFALFA. Eric T. Natwick and M. Lopez 1 ABSTRACT

Evaluation of Assail for the Control of Early Season Cotton Aphids in Upland Cotton COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROJECT 2001

Thermo-Therapy and Use of Biofungicides and Fungicides for Management of Internal Discoloration of Horseradish Roots

2012 Johnsongrass Control Trials

Impact of High Glucosinolate Mustard Soil Amendments on Black Bean Yield 2014

5. Plant Physiology/Chemistry Section

1. Sooty molds in wheat 1 2. Barley yellow dwarf infections this year 2 3. Sericea lespedeza control 3 4. Plant analysis for soybeans 4

The Ohio State University Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Wooster, Ohio

Onion Weed Control Trial, 2004 Objective: Materials and Methods: Results:

Maize redness. a serious threat to corn production Disease epidemiology and strategies for control of the insect-vector Reptalus panzeri

Processing Tomato Breeding and Genetics Research 2005.

Interpretation of Soil Tests for Environmental Considerations

Nutrient Recommendations Agronomic Crops Last Updated 12/1/16. Grain Corn. Crop Highlights Target ph: 6.0

2014 Standard Seed Treatment (2700 Series)

Management of Root Diseases in Sugarbeet

Transcription:

Agronomy Notes Vol 30, No. 7 1997 EARLY MATURING VARIETIES AND SOYBEAN CYST NEMATODES: WILL THIS MARRIAGE WORK? C.C. STEELE AND L.J. GRABAU INTRODUCTION Soybean cyst nematode (SCN) is widely distributed in Kentucky s soybean growing areas. The use of SCN-resistant varieties has long been a recommended production practice for infested fields. However, continuous use of such varieties can result in a shift to a race of SCN which is able to vigorously attack previously resistant varieties. For this reason, many states recommend that producers periodically grow a crop of SCN-susceptible soybeans within a crop rotation when SCN populations are at minimal levels (causing less than a 5% loss in yield). The UK Plant Pathology Department recommends a four year rotation in SCN-infested fields [PPA3; Wanted: Soybean Cyst Nematode (video)]. Year one should be a nonhost crop (like corn), followed by an SCN-resistant soybean variety, then another nonhost crop (corn or milo). Producers would grow an SCN-susceptible soybean variety in the fourth year of this rotation. This is, of course, provided that the three previous years have brought SCN populations down to a safe level. In the 1990s, some Kentucky producers reported good yields from SCN-susceptible Maturity Group (MG) II varieties in infested fields. Perhaps, earlier maturing varieties sustain less damage from SCN because the nematodes simply have less time to inflict that damage. If this turned out to be true, the use of SCN-susceptible MG II varieties would give soybean producers another option in their effort to manage SCN. Thus, the goal of this research was to determine if SCN-susceptible MG II varieties could produce better yields than MG IV, SCN-susceptible varieties under SCN pressure in Kentucky fields. This test was supported by the Kentucky Soybean Promotion Board. MATERIALS AND METHODS We planted four high-yielding varieties from each of the following classes: 1) MG II, SCNresistant 2) MG II, SCN-susceptible 3) MG IV, SCN-resistant, and 4) MG IV, SCN-susceptible. These 16 varieties were planted on May 31 and June 20, 1995 and on May 20 and June 17, 1996 on the Darren Luttrell farm in Ohio County. For the 1995 test, the soil was a Melvin/Newark intergrade; for the 1996 test, the soil was a Newark. Both test sites had been planted to corn in the previous season with a history of high SCN levels in earlier seasons. Conventional tillage was done prior to each planting date. Plots were six, 15-inch wide rows by 20 feet long. Initial SCN egg counts

were determined from seven samples of the surface six inches of soil taken between the two middle rows of each plot immediately after planting. The nematicide aldicarb (Temik) was applied on the date of planting at a broadcast rate of 20 pounds/a on one-half of the SCN-susceptible plots. Thus, each susceptible variety was present in each of the four replications both with and without Temik. This treatment is labeled for band application in both Kentucky and Ohio. We broadcasted Temik in an effort to document that SCN was, in fact, responsible for measurable yield losses of SCN-susceptible varieties. Note: we did not apply Temik to any plots of SCN-resistant varieties. Weed control was accomplished both years using a post emergence treatment of bentazon, fluazifop, and fomesafen. We measured canopy closure at both R1 (beginning flowering) and R5 (beginning seed fill), mature plant height, and lodging. The four central rows of each plot were harvested with a small plot combine as each MG dried down. After harvest, we took a final SCN egg count (using the same techniques as for the initial count). Egg count data are shown as final:initial (f/i) ratios to make clear the change in SCN activity as the growing season progressed (Tables 1 & 2). A final:initial egg count ratio greater than 1 indicates that SCN were multiplying during the season, whereas, a finial:initial egg count ratio less than one indicates that SCN numbers actually declined during the season. In 1996, the same 16 varieties were planted on May 14 and June 14 in Fayette County on a Maury soil site which had no detectable nematodes in samples taken prior to planting. The same procedures were employed as in the Ohio County tests except that alachlor, imazaquin, and quizalofop were used to control weeds and no SCN samples were taken during the season. Temik was not applied in Fayette County. The purpose of this test was to determine how well the varieties would perform in the absence of nematodes. All three tests were statistically analyzed as follows: the 16 resistant and susceptible varieties were compared without Temik (using a split plot analysis with planting dates as whole plots and varieties as split plots). Then, for the two Ohio County tests, the 8 susceptible varieties were compared, both with and without Temik (using a split plot analysis with planting dates as whole plots and combinations of susceptible varieties and Temik treatments as split plots). RESULTS Table 1 shows results from the 1995 Ohio County tests. SCN f/i ratios and yields were averaged across the two planting dates. The averages of the 4 varieties from each MG x SCN reaction class are shown in italics. Initial egg counts averaged 2495 eggs/100cm 3 of soil in 1995. That corresponds to a cyst count of about 50 cysts/100cm 3, with an expected SCN damage to range between 15 and 20% yield reduction.

SCN f/i ratios were less than 1 for all 8 SCN resistant varieties but greater than 1 for all 8 susceptible varieties (Table 1). Wide variability in SCN f/i ratios was observed, making it hard to show very many statistically significant differences. Temik tended to reduce SCN f/i ratios of MG II susceptible varieties, but had no clear effect on those of MG IV susceptible varieties. Final egg counts averaged 667 and 5188 for resistant and susceptible varieties, respectively. MG IV varieties from both resistant and susceptible classes slightly out-yielded their counterpart varieties from MG II (Table 1). For both MGs, resistant classes yielded higher than did susceptible classes. Temik tended to have a small positive effect on yields of most of the susceptible varieties, but this effect was not statistically significant. Table 2 shows the 1996 results from both Ohio and Fayette Counties. Initial egg counts averaged 2060 eggs/100 cm 3 of soil in 1996; SCN damage at that level of infestation would be expected to range between 15 and 20%. SCN f/i ratios and yields were again averaged across the two planting dates. Like 1995, SCN f/i ratios were less than 1 for all 8 susceptible varieties, but greated than 1 for all 8 resistant varieties. MG II susceptible varieties tended to have less SCN reproduction than did MG IV susceptible varieties, but this difference was not significant. Final egg counts averaged 687 and 4266 for resistant and susceptible varieties, respectively. In the 1996 Ohio County test, MG II varieties from both susceptible and resistant groups outyielded MG IV varieties (Table 2). For MG II, the trend was for greater yields for resistant varieties, but there was no consistent difference between MG IV susceptible and MG IV resistant varieties. In the 1996 Fayette County tests, under no detectable SCN pressure and with excellent growing conditions, yields of the same 16 varieties were considerably higher than in Ohio County (Table 2). Interestingly, susceptible varieties in both MGs had a solid yield advantage over their resistant counterparts. Further, under these excellent growing conditions, MG IV varieties had an advantage over MG II varieties from either SCN reaction group. Table 3 summarizes the yield information from the three tests we conducted. While MG IV varieties produced higher yields than MG II varieties in Ohio County in 1995, the reverse was true in the 1996 Ohio County test. As a result, our Ohio County data showed the choice of MG II or IV varieties to be a toss-up. In both MGs, resistant varieties did slightly better than susceptible varieties, when averaged across both SCN-infested tests. In Fayette County where there was no SCN infestation, the susceptible varieties out-performed the resistant varieties in both MGs, and the MG IV varieties had higher yields than did the MG II varieties. CONCLUSIONS We designed this study to learn if MG II susceptible varieties could produce greater yields than MG IV susceptible varieties. For the averages of the two tests conducted on SCN-infested fields in Ohio County, there were no yield differences between susceptible varieties from the two MGs. This

indicates that growers could use susceptible MG II varieties as an alternate choice for susceptible MG IV varieties when rotations had SCN levels under control. Growers may want to consider planting susceptible MG II varieties since they can be harvested earlier in the fall. Growers should consider planting susceptible varieties in fields known to have low SCN levels in order to minimize race shifts. On the other hand, broadcast Temik applications had little effect on yields, and would seem not to be an economically rewarding management practice. In the state of Ohio, some producers are using a banded Temik treatment at 7 lbs/a; however, our study doesn t provide much support for this practice, since we found very little yield response to our broadcast treatment. Finally, careful variety selection is an important decision, no matter which MG or SCN reaction variety class a grower is considering.

Table 1. Response of SCN-resistant and SCN-susceptible MG II and IV soybean varieties to nematode pressure and Temik applications on Darren Luttrell s Ohio County farm in 1995. SCN Ratio (f/i) Yield (bu/a) Variety name MG resist. w/otemik w/temik w/otemik w/temik MWS 210 CN II yes 0.43 -- 41.1 -- Wilken 2571 II yes 0.37 -- 42.6 -- Callahan 892311-04N II yes 0.16 -- 42.9 -- Jack II yes 0.23 -- 50.9 -- Average of 4 MG II resistant varieties 0.30 -- 44.4 -- Asgrow A2396 II no 5.53 2.21 38.6 39.5 Ciba 3253 II no 4.55 3.39 39.8 43.8 Pioneer 9273 II no 1.94 1.84 47.2 44.1 Lynks 5298 II no 6.99 1.30 42.1 43.1 Average of 4 MG II susceptible varieties 4.75 2.19 41.9 42.6 Delsoy 4210 IV yes 0.50 -- 45.4 -- Pioneer 9451 IV yes 0.22 -- 49.4 -- Asgrow A4715 IV yes 0.83 -- 48.9 -- Pioneer 9481 IV yes 0.73 -- 52.1 -- Average of 4 MG IV resistant varieties 0.57 -- 49.0 -- SS FFR-439 IV no 2.39 4.82 42.3 44.6 So. Cross Jacob IV no 7.10 3.05 45.1 46.1 So. Cross Joshua IV no 5.33 6.40 44.3 48.4 Caverndale Farm. 492 IV no 3.93 7.53 46.1 49.4 Average of 4 MG IV susceptible varieties 4.69 5.45 44.4 47.1 LSD(0.10) for comparing varieties 3.04 3.12 5.0 3.3 within a Temik treatment. Note: Temik treatment did not significantly affect f/i ratio or yield of susceptible varieties.

Table 2. Response of SCN-resistant and SCN-susceptible MG II and IV soybean varieties to nematode pressure and Temik applications on Darren Luttrell s Ohio County farm in 1996 and to no nematode pressure in Fayette County in 1996. Ohio Co. Ohio Co. Fay. Co. SCN Ratio (f/i) Yield bu/a Yield Variety name MG resist. w/otemik w/temik w/otemik w/temik (bu/a) MWS 210 CN II yes 0.25 -- 47.9 -- 58.2 Wilken 2571 II yes 0.26 -- 54.7 -- 72.4 Callahan 892311-04N II yes 0.42 -- 51.8 -- 67.0 Jack II yes 0.28 -- 55.4 -- 74.2 Average of 4 MG II resistant varieties 0.33 -- 52.4 -- 68.0 - Asgrow A2396 II no 2.33 1.48 45.2 48.2 75.4 Ciba 3253 II no 3.09 1.20 51.3 51.5 69.7 Pioneer 9273 II no 2.30 2.19 53.6 52.6 71.8 Lynks 5298 II no 2.83 2.72 49.7 52.6 76.2 Average of 4 MG II susceptible varieties 2.64 1.90 50.0 51.2 73.3 --- Delsoy 4210 IV yes 0.61 -- 45.4 -- 78.6 Pioneer 9451 IV yes 0.62 -- 41.5 -- 67.4 Asgrow A4715 IV yes 0.41 -- 49.9 -- 75.2 Pioneer 9481 IV yes 0.41 -- 50.8 -- 76.6 Average of 4 MG IV resistant varieties 0.51 -- 46.9 -- 74.4 - SS FFR-439 IV no 4.72 4.27 51.5 48.9 86.2 So. Cross Jacob IV no 6.02 0.90 42.0 45.2 84.1 So. Cross Joshua IV no 2.56 1.66 48.1 48.1 85.8 Cavrendale Farm. 492 IV no 3.41 5.12 44.1 43.3 66.5 Average of 4 MG IV susceptible varieties 4.18 2.99 46.6 46.4 80.6 - LSD(0.10) for comparing varieties 3.05 NS 3.3 2.8 4.7 within a Temik treatment. Note: Temik treatment did not significantly affect f/i ratio or yield of susceptible varieties.

Table 3. Average yield responses of SCN-resistant and SCN-susceptible MG II and IV soybean varieties at three Kentucky locations. Maturity SCN Ohio County Fayette Co. Group resist. 1995 1996 2-year Ave. 1996 II yes 44.4 52.4 48.4 68.0 II no 41.9 50.0 45.9 73.3 IV yes 49.0 46.9 47.9 74.4 IV no 44.4 46.6 45.5 80.6 LSD(0.10) to compare 3.3 2.1 2.0 3.2 averages in that column. Note: Ohio county data in this table are for plots which were not treated with Temik.