Rhizoctonia in Sugarbeet Ashok K. Chanda Assistant Professor & Extension Sugarbeet Pathologist

Management of Rhizoctonia
in Sugarbeet
Ashok K. Chanda
Assistant Professor & Extension Sugarbeet Pathologist
Department of Plant Pathology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul
Northwest Research and Outreach Center, Crookston, MN
SMBSC Production Seminar, Jan 20, 2016
Summary of 2015 Field Samples
70
No. of fields
60
58
50
40
29
30
20
10
10
0
Rhizoctonia
Aphanomyces
Rhizoctonia +
Aphanomyces
Cause of problem
1
1
Fusarium
Chemical
Summary of 2015 Field Samples
20
No. of samples
Rhizoctonia
15
Aphanomyces
10
5
0
May May June June July July Aug Aug Sept Sept
1-15 16-31 1-15 16-30 1-15 16-31 1-15 16-31 1-15 16-30
Dates samples received
2015 Monthly Rainfall in the RRV and
Southern
Minnesota
9.00
8.00
St. Thomas
Hillsboro
Grand Forks
Fargo
Wahpeton
Raymond
7.00
Rainfall (inches)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
April
May
June
July
August
September
Source: NDAWN Center, NDSU and SMBSC
4-inch Soil Temperature, Raymond, MN
80
75
70
65
60
55
~6 days
60 – 65 F
50
45
40
35
June 06
June 01
30
Source: SMBSC
Damping-off
Root Rot
Control methods for Rhizoctonia
on sugarbeet
• Rotation
– Length
– Crop choice & weed control
• Early planting
• Genetic resistance
• At-planting fungicides
– Seed treatments ($13+ per acre)
– In-furrow ($24+ per acre)
• Postemergence fungicides ($24+ application cost)
Integrated Management Trial
Varieties
Rhizoc rating
(2-Yr mean)
Emerg.
(2-Yr %)
Rev/Ton
(2-Yr %)
Rev/Acre
(2-Yr %)
Resistant
(HM 4302RR)
3.4
71
103
99
Moderately Resistant
(HM 9528RR)
4.0
75
105
106
Variety
Susceptible
5.3
72
107
103
(HM 4303RR)
Data from American Crystal Sugar Company official variety trials (Niehaus, 2015)
Methods
• Plots inoculated with Rhizoctonia solaniinfested barley grain prior to planting
• Plot size: 6 rows by 30 ft long
• 4 replicates in RCB design
• Planted May 08 at 4.5-inch spacing
– Counter 20G applied at 8 lb/A
– Glyphosate - May 28, June 5 & 23, and
Aug. 17
At-planting treatments
Application
Product
Active ingredient
Rate (g a.i./unit)
Control
None
None
-
Seed
Kabina ST
Penthiopyrad
14
Seed
Vibrance
Sedaxane
2.0
In-furrow
Quadris
Azoxystrobin
9.5 fl oz prod/A
Postemergence treatments
• Each variety by at-planting treatment combination
1. Stand-alone (no postemergence)
2. Postemergence Quadris application
•
•
14.3 fl oz product/A in a 7-inch band
Applied June 18 (6 weeks after planting)
Environment
• Early planting (May 05) into cool and dry soil
• Average 4-inch soil temp reached 65 F
4 weeks after planting
Month
Rainfall (inches)
May
4.60
June
3.49
July
2.46
August
4.70
• Low early-season disease pressure
• Low mid- to late-season disease pressure
Data collected
•
•
•
•
•
Stand counts
Rhizoctonia root rot ratings (0-7 scale)
Number of harvested roots
Yield
Quality
Stand
• No significant variety by at-planting treatment
interactions
– Relative efficacy of treatments was same on resistant,
moderately resistant, and susceptible varieties
– Significant difference between varieties
MDFC
SMBSC
Effect of Variety - Stand
MDFC
SMBSC
Variety
2 wks
4 wks
4 wks
8 wks
Resistant
230 b
225 b
173 a
167 a
Moderately
Resistant
228 b
209 b
172 a
163 a
Susceptible
241 a
225 a
164 b
154 b
ANOVA p-value
0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
LSD
8.4
8.2
7.8
7.6
NWROC
Effect of Variety - Stand
No significant variety by at-planting treatment interactions
MDFC
SMBSC
Effect of at-planting treatment
MDFC
SMBSC
Treatment
Untreated
2 wks
223 c
4 wks
200 b
4 wks
162 b
8 wks
152 c
Kabina ST 14 g
243 a
230 a
174 a
165 ab
Vibrance 2 g
9.5 fl oz
Quadris Infurrow
237 ab
229 a
175 a
169 a
230 bc
220 a
167 b
160 b
ANOVA p-value
0.0008
<.0001
.0001
<.0001
LSD
9.8
12.5
6
6.3
NWROC
Effect of at-planting treatment - Stand
No significant variety by at-planting treatment interactions
Harvest data
• No significant interactions
– Relative efficacy of treatments was similar on
resistant, moderately resistant, and susceptible
varieties
• Significant difference between varieties
• No Significant differences among treatments
• Effect of postemergence Quadris
SMBSC
Variety matters
RCRR
RCRR
Yield
Variety
(0-7)
ton/A
%
lb/ton
lb/A
Resistant
0.1 b
%
Incidence
2b
25.4 a
16.7 a
293 a
7420 a
Moderately
Resistant
0.3 b
4b
27.4 a
16.2 b
283 b
7730 a
Susceptible
1.0 a
17 a
21.6 b
15.7 c
268 c
5797 b
ANOVA p-value
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.2
3.8
2.0
0.3
8.7
605
LSD
Sucrose
SMBSC
At-planting treatments
At-planting
RCRR
RCRR
Yield
Sucrose
treatment
(0-7)
ton/A
%
lb/ton
lb/A
Untreated control
0.4
%
Incidence
6
24.7
16.2
283
6995
Kabina ST @14 g
0.5
7
25.2
16.3
283
7110
Vibrance @ 2.0 g
0.6
9
24.3
16.0
276
6740
Quadris @ 9.5 fl.
oz
0.5
8
24.9
16.3
284
7085
ANOVA p-value
0.7373
0.5046
0.9167
0.4570
0.4616
0.7071
LSD (P=.05)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
LSD = Fisher’s protected least significant difference
NS = not significantly different
NWROC
At-planting treatments
At-planting
No.
harv.
RCRR
Yield
Sucrose
treatment
Untreated control
roots
123 b
(0-7)
1.3 a
ton/A
22.1 b
%
15.9
lb/ton
296
lb/A
6536 b
Kabina ST @14 g
128 b
1.4 a
22.8 ab
15.3
282
6451 b
Vibrance @ 2.0 g
131 ab
1.1 ab
22.6 b
15.9
294
6648 b
Quadris @ 9.5 fl. oz
141 a
0.5 b
24.4 a
16.1
298
7278 a
ANOVA p-value
0.0116
0.0165
0.0347
0.0859
0.1020
0.0102
LSD (p=.05)
10.4
0.54
1.6
NS
NS
520
LSD = Fisher’s protected least significant difference
NS = not significantly different
SMBSC
Postemergence is effective when late-season
environment is favorable for disease
Postemerg.
RCRR
RCRR
Yield
Sucrose
treatment
(0-7)
ton/A
%
lb/ton
lb/A
24.2
16.1
279
6772
None
0.6 a
%
Incidence
10 a
Quadris
0.3 b
5b
25.3
16.3
284
7192
ANOVA pvalue
0.0019
0.0062
0.1744
0.2675
0.2338
0.0942
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS = not significantly different
At-planting Treatments – Susceptible Variety
Sucrose
Treatment
10 fl oz Quadris IF
12 fl oz Headline IF
10 fl oz Equation IF
Metlock Suite
10 fl oz Satori IF
Met. Suite + 7 g
Kabina
Untreated control
14 g Kabina ST
7 g Kabina ST
2 g Vibrance
ANOVA p-value
LSD (p = 0.05)
No. harv.
RCRR
Roots/100
(0-7)
ft.
141
2.1
122
2.9
124
2.9
122
3.4
123
3
lb ton1
lb A-1
17.1
16.8
16.3
16.6
16
317
309
297
305
289
9023 a
7940 ab
7501 abc
7372 abc
6625 abcd
Yield
%
28.4
25.6
25.1
23.8
22.9
95
4.3
20.6
16.9
309 6419 bcd
80
94
83
76
4.2
4.3
4.6
4.5
19.2
19.7
19
16.2
17
15.8
15.7
16.2
311
288
282
294
0.0014
34.6
0.0301
1.6
0.0280
7.2
0.1658
NS
0.1565
NS
NS = not significantly different
5965 bcd
5818 bcd
5302 cd
4766 d
0.0393
2488
Compatibility with 10-34-0 starter
Just after mixing with 10-34-0
Quadris
Satori
Equation
10-34-0
Starter
Compatibility with 10-34-0 starter
10 minutes after mixing with 10-34-0
Quadris
Satori
Equation
10-34-0
Starter
Compatibility with 10-34-0 starter
2 hours after mixing with 10-34-0
Quadris
Satori
Equation
10-34-0
Starter
Seed vs In-furrow Treatments - Susceptible Variety
Sucrose
No. harv.
RCRR
Roots/100
(0-7)
ft.
Treatment
Yield
%
lb ton-1
lb A-1
Mean of Seed trts.
Mean of In-furrow trts.
98
127
3.9
2.7
20.1
25.5
16.6
16.5
304
303
6181
7772
Seed trts. vs in-furrow
trts. Contrast analysis
p-value
0.001
0.006
0.0032
NS
NS
0.0148
14 g Kabina ST
Metlock Suite
Met. Suite + 7 g Kabina
7 g Kabina ST
2 g Vibrance
12 fl oz Headline IF
10 fl oz Quadris IF
10 fl oz Equation IF
10 fl oz Satori IF
NS = not significantly different
Rhizoctonia affects Extractable Sucrose
Susceptible Variety and At-planting Treatments
Extractable Sucrose (lb/A)
14000
ESA = -1416.5 (Root Rot Rating)+ 11713
R² = 0.903, p<0.0001
12000
Non-Inc
Untreated
Seed Treatment
In-Furrow
10000
8000
6000
In-furrow
4000
Seed
2000
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Rhizoctonia Root Rot Rating
6.0
7.0
Postemergence Treatments - Susceptible Variety
Percen RCRR
t
stand
(0-7)
loss
Treatment
Non-inoculated
No-fungicide control
R. solani-inoculated
Equation @ 14 fl oz/A
Quadris @ 14 fl oz/A
Satori @ 14 fl oz/A
Priaxor @ 6.7 fl oz/A + NIS
Priaxor @ 6.7 fl oz/A
Proline @ 5.7 fl oz/A + NIS
No-fungicide control
ANOVA P-value
LSD (P = 0.05)Z
Yield
T/A
Sucrose
%
lb/ton
lb recov./A
35
3.4
24.3
14.8
257
6263
22 bc
25 bc
20 c
34 abc
49 a
44 ab
55 a
1.9 d
2.4 d
2.4 d
4.0 bc
4.8 ab
4.7 abc
5.5 a
31.0 a
29.9 a
29.6 a
23.4 ab
21.0 bc
20.4 bc
14.0 c
14.7
15
14.9
14.9
14.1
13.5
14
261
265
266
261
246
232
244
8066 a
7908 a
7790 a
6177 ab
5112 bc
4677 bc
3411 c
0.043
23.6
0.0001
1.4
0.004
8.3
NS = not significantly different
0.829
NS
0.804
NS
0.002
2284
Rhizoctonia & Resistant Variety
200
200
180
180
160
160
140
140
No Low Med
120
0
20
40
High
60
4"ST
Soil temp. (°F)
220
No. plants/100 ft. of row
220
120
60°F
Date
8/18
8/11
0
8/4
0
7/28
20
7/21
20
7/14
40
7/7
40
6/30
60
6/23
60
6/16
80
6/9
80
6/2
100
5/26
100
Rhizoctonia & Moderately Resistant Variety
Soil temp. (°F)
8/18
8/11
Date
60°F
8/4
4"ST
7/28
60
7/21
40
7/14
20
7/7
6/9
6/2
5/26
0
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Med High
6/30
Low
6/23
No
6/16
No. plants/100 ft. of row
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
No
0
Low
20
Med High
40
60
4"ST
Date
60°F
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Soil temp. (°F)
No. plants/100 ft. of row
Rhizoctonia & Susceptible Variety
Summary
• Resistant variety can make a big
difference
• Quadris, Satori, and Equation in-furrow
were very effective
• Newer seed treatments, Kabina or
Vibrance, provided excellent early-season
control of Rhizoctonia
• Postemergence fungicide application
– may not provide a benefit if later part of the
growing season is not favorable for disease
Management of
Aphanomyces in Sugarbeet
Is it beneficial to add supplemental lime to
previously limed soil for managing
Aphanomyces on sugarbeet?
Jason R. Brantner
Senior Research Fellow, University of Minnesota
Northwest Research and Outreach Center, Crookston, MN
Aphanomyces can be a full-season pathogen
Aphanomyces damping-off
Aphanomyces root rot
Objectives
• How much spent lime is needed to reduce Aphanomyces
root rot on sugarbeet and improve yield and quality?
• How long can the spent lime be effective?
• Is there a benefit to adding 5 ton/A spent
lime to supplement previously limed soils?
Research Site
Trial location
Aph Soil Index Value
Soil pH
Date limed
Rates (Ton wet wt/A)
Rates (Ton dry wt/A)
Breckenridge, MN
98
6.3
April, 2004
0, 5, 10, 15, 20
0, 2.7, 5.3, 8, 10.6
Experiments (2005 – 2015)
I
II
2005 (1 yr)
2009 (5 yr)
2013 (9 yr)
2006 (2 yr)
2010 (6 yr)
2014 (10 yr)
III
2007 (3 yr)
2011 (7 yr)
2015 (11 yr)
Sugarbeet sown in 1 experiment/year
Rotation crops sown 3 experiments/year
IV
2008 (4 yr)
2012 (8 yr)
Experiments (2005 – 2014)
I
2015
Soybean
II
Soybean
III
Sugarbeet
IV
Soybean
Original lime added April, 2004
60 ft
10
15
0
5
20
r4
15
5
20
0
10
r3
20
10
15
0
5
r2
0
5
10
15
20
r1
33 ft
Original main plot size was 33 ft
wide by 60 ft long
Sugarbeet sown across trial area
and alleys cut leaving 40 ft plots
Supplemental lime added Oct. 31, 2014
r4
Main plots split and 5 ton/A added to
half of each
r3
r2
40 ft
16.5 ft
r1
Grower cooperator chisel plowed
field Nov. 11, 2014
Sugarbeet sown across trial area
and alleys cut leaving 40 ft plots
Materials and Methods
• Sown May 22, 2015 (4.7-inch seed spacing)
– Susceptible (Aph 2-yr = 5.9)
• Soil samples collected (pH & SIV)
• Stand counts 2, 4, and 7 wks after planting
• Harvested September 21, 2014
– Rated for Aphanomyces root rot
– Sugarbeet yield and quality
2015 Wahpeton Rainfall
7
Rainfall (inch)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
May
June
July
August
September
Statistical analysis
• Effect of original rates of lime: linear
and quadratic contrasts
Original lime still reduces Aphanomyces
Aphanomyces root rot rating (0-7)
6.0
5.0
4.0
y = -0.166x + 4.5314
R² = 0.9399
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
5
10
15
Original lime rate (ton/A)
20
25
Original lime still improves sugar yield
9000
Recov. sucrose (lb/A)
8000
7000
y = 220.88x + 4110.6
R² = 0.9811
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0
5
10
15
Original lime rate (ton/A)
20
25
Statistical analysis
• Does whether or not I get a benefit from
adding supplemental lime depend on the
rate of original lime?
– Original lime by supplemental lime interaction
– Interaction significant – answer is yes and we
need to compare supplemental lime vs no
supplemental lime for each original lime rate
– Interaction not significant – answer is no and
we look at main effect of supplemental lime
No original lime
+5 ton supplemental lime
5 ton original lime
+5 ton supplemental lime
10 ton original lime
+5 ton supplemental lime
15 ton original lime
+5 ton supplemental lime
20 ton original lime
+5 ton supplemental lime
Original by supplemental lime interaction
Sugar beet stand
No. plants/100 ft of row
250
200
NS
*
*
NS
NS
150
No supplemental lime
5 ton supplemental lime
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
Original lime rate (ton/A)
20
Original by supplemental lime interaction
Aphanomyces root rot
Aphanomyces root rot rating (0-7)
6.0
5.0
*
4.0
NS
NS
3.0
No supplemental lime
5 ton supplemental lime
2.0
NS
NS
15
20
1.0
0.0
0
5
10
Original lime rate (ton/A)
Original by supplemental lime interaction
Root yield
30.0
NS
25.0
Root yield (ton/A)
*
20.0
NS
NS
NS
No supplemental lime
15.0
5 ton supplemental lime
10.0
5.0
0.0
0
5
10
15
Original lime rate (ton/A)
20
Original by supplemental lime interaction
Recoverable sucrose
9000
Recov. sucrose (lb/A)
8000
7000
NS
NS
NS
*
NS
6000
5000
No supplemental lime
4000
5 ton supplemental lime
3000
2000
1000
0
0
5
10
15
Original lime rate (ton/A)
20
Summary and conclusions
• Effect of original lime is still strong after 11 years
• Where lime had not been previously applied,
application of 5 ton/A significantly decreased
Aphanomyces and increased sugarbeet yield
• Where lime had been previously applied at 5
ton/A, application of additional 5 ton/A
significantly increased sugarbeet stand, but not
yield
• Application of 5 ton/A spent lime in the late fall
was beneficial the following growing season
For fields with Aphanomyces:
Current lime rate
No lime
5 ton/A
10+ ton/A
• Add 5-10 ton/A spent lime
• Add 5 ton/A spent lime
• You’re taking your chances
Acknowledgements
• Sugarbeet Research and Education Board of Minnesota
and North Dakota
• Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative
• Pat Freese – Grower Cooperator
• Andrew Lueck and other colleagues at NDSU
• Scott Pahl, Germains Seed Technology
• Seed, chemical, and allied industries
• American Crystal Sugar Company quality lab
• Jeff Nielsen and Hal Mickelson
• Tim Cymbaluk, Katie Sheetz, Irwin Sylvah, and Brandon
Kasprick
• Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative
Thank You & Questions?
All the best for 2016 crop season!
Ashok Chanda
Phone: 218-281-8625
Email: [email protected]
@BeetPath