|
Background
and Objective:
The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of several seed treatments
supplied by Gustafson (3 years), Rhone-Poulenc (2 years) and Zeneca (1 year) in protecting
wheat plants against leaf spotting diseases. The yield loss caused by leaf spotting
diseases may be reduced if the amount of disease on the early leaf stages can be reduced.
Procedure and Project Activities:
Growth Room Experiments
In growth room experiments, the effectiveness of a set of chemicals on two pathogens was
evaluated: Pyrenophora tritici-repentis (the cause of tan spot) and Septoria
tritici (the cause of septoria leaf blotch). Both pathogens were evaluated on two
wheat cultivars: Katepwa and Glenlea. Each experiment consisted of four pots of the six
treatments. The plants were inoculated at either the 1st, 2nd or 3rd
leaf stage. Disease severity was assessed 7 and 20 days post-inoculation for tan spot and
septoria leaf blotch, respectively. Throughout this study, a color image analysis system
was used to quantify the amount of disease on the leaves. Each experiment was repeated at
least twice. Field Plot Experiments
Field plots were established in 1998 and 1999 at the Carman Research Station on land where
wheat stubble remained from the previous year. The wheat stubble provided a natural source
of inoculum. Samples of 20 leaves (one leaf per plant) from each plot were sampled at
intervals during the growing season. This provided a means of determining the
effectiveness of the treatments at different leaf stages. The leaf area affected was
measured using an image analysis system. In 1999, a total of nine chemicals or mixtures of
chemicals were tested.
Laboratory Experiments
Fungicides can have two effects on disease: they can reduce the amount of the leaf area
affected, and/or they can reduce the number of spores produced. Because reducing the
number of spores can lower the potential for spread, it can be just as important as
reducing the amount of leaf area affected. Leaves were inoculated with the tan spot
pathogen Pyrenophora tritici-repentis. After allowing the disease to
develop, infected leaves were placed in a high humidity chamber in order to favour the
formation of spores. Once sporulation had occurred, the spores were washed off and
counted.
Results and Discussion:
Growth Room Experiments
A complete set of results for first leaf infections in the growth room experiments is in
the Appendix. Based on results from the growth room experiments, two important conclusions
could be reached:
- The fungicides provided different levels of protection from leaf spotting
diseases.
Figure 1 shows that Baytan at the 30gai/100 kg (grams active ingredient applied to 100
kg seed) reduced the amount of septoria leaf blotch by a factor of three over the
untreated control. Baytan (15 gai/100kg) and Dividend also showed some effect, but this
was limited to about a 40% reduction.
The effect of the seed treatments on tan spot is shown in Figure 2. Baytan
(15 gai/100kg) reduced tan spot by a factor of three. The higher application rate of
Baytan (30 gai/100kg) resulted in a four times reduction. Raxil and Dividend also had an
effect, but significantly less than the Baytan treatments.

- The protection provided by the best fungicides, in the context of these
experiments, is measurable primarily at the 1st and 2nd leaf stages.
Some residual protection was observed at the 3rd leaf (mainly on septoria leaf
blotch), although only a limited amount of testing was carried out at the 3rd
leaf and beyond.
The results of growth room portion of this study suggest that seed treatments with some
systemic fungicides may provide protection not only on their seed-borne targets, but may
also be translocated to the leaves to provide additional benefit in reducing early damage
by foliar pathogens. Because of the low costs associated with fungicide seed treatment, as
opposed to foliar sprays, this area of applied research will be explored further in our
research program to investigate the potential used of fungicide seed treatments in the
early control of stubble-borne foliar pathogens.
Field Plot Experiments
The results for two of the treatments can be seen in Figure 3.
The results for all nine
chemicals can be found in Table 1.
Table 1. 1999 Field
Data
|
Treatment |
1st
Leaves |
2nd
Leaves |
Flag-3 |
Flag-2 |
Flag-1 |
|
Untreated Check |
13.6a |
7.9a |
5.8b |
8.8a |
5.5b |
|
R(2.1g) |
12.3a |
8.5a |
7.8a |
11.6a |
5.2b |
|
B(15g) |
15.4a |
7.8a |
9.5a |
9.1a |
5.6b |
|
B(30g) |
11.0a |
7.6a |
7.7a |
9.2a |
6.5ab |
|
G(2.0g) |
10.7a |
8.9a |
7.5a |
8.9a |
6.5ab |
|
G(5.0g) |
12.0a |
9.9a |
6.3b |
11.5a |
6.2ab |
|
G(10g) |
13.2a |
7.7a |
7.0a |
7.4a |
6.5ab |
|
R(1.5g)+M(2.0g)+G(10g) |
8.6b |
8.6a |
8.6a |
8.0a |
9.2a |
|
R(1.5g)+M(1.9g)+G(2.0g)+I(10g) |
14.8a |
8.5a |
8.4a |
9.9a |
6.7ab |
|
V(56g)+T(50g) |
8.6b |
7.5a |
5.9b |
9.1a |
6.7ab |
R-Raxil B-Baytan
G-Gusai0001 M-Metalaxyl
I-Imidacloprid V-Vitavax
T-Thiram
The ultimate purpose of reducing disease is to increase yield. Each plot was harvested
and the yield weighed. Table 2 shows that there was no significant difference in yield
between the treatments.
Table 2. Effect of
the treatment on yield. 1999 data.
|
Treatment |
Yield (g) |
|
Untreated Check |
1622.8a |
|
R(2.1g) |
1623.3a |
|
B(15g) |
1673.8a |
|
B(30g) |
1623.3a |
|
G(2.0g) |
1674.5a |
|
G(5.0g) |
1647.0a |
|
G(10g) |
1599.3a |
|
R(1.5g)+M(2.0g)+G(10g) |
1561.0a |
|
R(1.5g)+M(1.9g)+G(2.0g)+I(10g) |
1566.5a |
|
V(56g)+T(50g) |
1532.3a |
R-Raxil B-Baytan
G-Gusai0001 M-Metalaxyl
I-Imidacloprid V-Vitavax
T-Thiram
Means with same letters do not differ
significantly at P<=0.05.
One reason for the lack of significant difference in yield between the
treatments could be inadequate disease pressure. If there is not enough disease pressure
then no treatment, no matter how effective, will result in an increase in yield. To check
for this, a subset of plots was treated with the foliar fungicide Tilt. Table
3 shows that
plots treated with tilt had a significant yield increase. This means that there would have
been enough disease pressure for a successful treatment to be detected. In addition to
leaf spot diseases, rust was quite severe and may have contributed significantly to the
reduction of yields shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Effect of
Tilt applications of yield showing that there
was enough disease pressure to cause a disease loss.
|
Fungicide |
Yield (g) |
|
No Tilt |
1622.8b |
|
Tilt |
2027.0a |
Means with same letters do not differ
significantly at P<=0.05.
Field results were not as conclusive as those obtained under a controlled environment.
We observed some control at the 1st leaf only, but subsequent measurements of
disease on later leaf stages were not significant and, more importantly, there was no
difference in yield. One of the problems identified in this type of evaluation is that of
timing of infection. The weather was not conducive to infection at the time the 2nd
and 3rd leaves emerged, resulting in low infection pressure even on the
non-treated controls. As the season progressed, inoculum from non-treated plots and
adjacent fields contributed to the development of the disease on our experimental plots,
thereby canceling the basic hypothesis that early control of leaf spot diseases would
result in lower inoculum levels. This confounding effect can only be circumvented by using
large fields (> 100 acres) to ensure that most of the inoculum is of local origin. Only
then could we test the effect of reducing inoculum at the 1st - 3rd
leaves on late leaf stages and on yield. To prevent, or minimize the effect of rust,
cultivars with known genetic resistance to this disease would have to be used.
Laboratory Experiments
Figure 4 shows that leaves produced from treated seeds produce considerably less spores
per unit area. This suggests that the effect of fungicidal seed treatments may result in
reduced sporulation.
What have we achieved?
We have established that some systemic fungicide seed treatments can provide early control
of foliar diseases such as tan spot and septoria leaf blotch, two major diseases of wheat
in Manitoba.
We learned that small and medium size plots are not adequate for measuring the effect
of seed treatments on foliar diseases, when the effects are only present early in the
season (first few leaves)
Whats next?
In order to publish our results in a refereed scientific journal, we need to do more work
to characterize the effect of the fungicides on disease development (sporulation of
pathogen, fungal growth in tissue, residual protection at 3rd leaf and after).
We have also agreed with Gustafson to extend the study to spot blotch, a third leaf
spotting disease. These studies are underway and will continue through the winter of 2001.
We will submit a manuscript for publication shortly after.
Training
We have hired at least five undergraduate students over the two years of the project.
These students were trained in basic plant pathology work at the field, lab and greenhouse
levels.
Acknowledgements:
Funding for this project was provided by Gustafson, Rhône-Poulenc
Canada Ltd., Zeneca and the Canada-Manitoba Agri-Food Research and Development Initiative.
Appendix:
Growth Room Data -
First Leaf -
The tables below provide a summary of the data for each
experiment conducted on first leaves. Means with same letters in the grouping column do
not differ significantly at P<=0.05. Each treatment consisted of four pots with six
plants providing a total of 24 leaves. Treatment 1 is the untreated control. Glenlea is
resistant to Septoria so this combination was not tested.
Pyrenophora on Glenlea 1st leaves
-
Experiment 1
|
Treatment |
Grouping |
Mean |
# of Leaves Measured |
|
Trt-1 |
AB |
24.1 |
24 |
|
Trt-2 |
A |
25.8 |
24 |
|
Trt-3 |
D |
8.9 |
24 |
|
Trt-4 |
C |
16.1 |
24 |
|
Trt-5 |
BC |
18.7 |
24 |
|
Trt-6 |
D |
6.0 |
24 |
Pyrenophora on Glenlea 1st leaves
-
Experiment 2
|
Treatment |
Grouping |
Mean |
# of Leaves Measured |
|
Trt-1 |
A |
10.2 |
24 |
|
Trt-2 |
B |
6.9 |
24 |
|
Trt-3 |
B |
6.0 |
24 |
|
Trt-4 |
B |
6.8 |
24 |
|
Trt-5 |
B |
6.9 |
24 |
|
Trt-6 |
C |
3.3 |
24 |
Pyrenophora on Glenlea 1st leaves
-
Experiment 3
|
Treatment |
Grouping |
Mean |
# of Leaves Measured |
|
Trt-1 |
A |
23.2 |
24 |
|
Trt-2 |
A |
24.2 |
24 |
|
Trt-3 |
B |
14.7 |
24 |
|
Trt-4 |
AB |
18.0 |
24 |
|
Trt-5 |
AB |
12.3 |
24 |
|
Trt-6 |
B |
11.2 |
24 |
Pyrenophora on Katepwa 1st leaves
-
Experiment 1
|
Treatment |
Grouping |
Mean |
# of Leaves Measured |
|
Trt-1 |
A |
21.1 |
24 |
|
Trt-2 |
A |
22.8 |
24 |
|
Trt-3 |
A |
20.3 |
24 |
|
Trt-4 |
A |
22.5 |
24 |
|
Trt-5 |
A |
24.9 |
24 |
|
Trt-6 |
B |
12.2 |
24 |
Pyrenophora on Katepwa 1st leaves
-
Experiment 2
|
Treatment |
Grouping |
Mean |
# of Leaves Measured |
|
Trt-1 |
A |
11.5 |
24 |
|
Trt-2 |
A |
11.6 |
24 |
|
Trt-3 |
A |
9.9 |
24 |
|
Trt-4 |
A |
10.4 |
24 |
|
Trt-5 |
A |
9.7 |
24 |
|
Trt-6 |
A |
6.5 |
24 |
Pyrenophora on Katepwa 1st leaves
-
Experiment 3
|
Treatment |
Grouping |
Mean |
# of Leaves Measured |
|
Trt-1 |
A |
26.0 |
24 |
|
Trt-2 |
AB |
23.1 |
24 |
|
Trt-3 |
B |
16.2 |
24 |
|
Trt-4 |
AB |
19.0 |
24 |
|
Trt-5 |
AB |
19.8 |
24 |
|
Trt-6 |
B |
15.8 |
24 |
Septoria on Katepwa 1st leaves
-
Experiment 1
|
Treatment |
Grouping |
Mean |
# of Leaves Measured |
|
Trt-1 |
A |
50.9 |
24 |
|
Trt-2 |
A |
50.7 |
24 |
|
Trt-3 |
B |
33.1 |
24 |
|
Trt-4 |
A |
52.5 |
24 |
|
Trt-5 |
B |
36.0 |
24 |
|
Trt-6 |
C |
15.4 |
24 |
Septoria on Katepwa 1st leaves
-
Experiment 2
|
Treatment |
Grouping |
Mean |
# of Leaves Measured |
|
Trt-1 |
B |
17.0 |
24 |
|
Trt-2 |
A |
32.0 |
24 |
|
Trt-3 |
B |
| |