Corn Diseases of 2015 and Should I Spray Fungicide?

/in , , , , /by

Damon L. Smith, Extension Field Crops Pathologist, University of Wisconsin

The phone has been ringing a lot lately and the primary questions are:

  • What corn diseases should I be concerned with this year in Wisconsin?
  • Should I spray a fungicide? And If so, what product and timing?

Lets start with the first question. As far as foliar disease issue, I think we need to scout closely for northern corn leaf blight (NCLB) in Wisconsin. The Midwest is already seeing high levels of this disease and it is showing up in the lower canopy in corn fields in southern Wisconsin. Remember, that this disease can be easily confused with Goss’s wilt. Earlier this season I wrote a post about differentiating these two diseases. I encourage you to revisit that post as a refresher. In addition to NCLB, our scouting has revealed a second foliar disease present in the lower and mid-canopy of the corn crop. That second disease is eyespot. Lets talk about NCLB and eyespot in a little greater detail.

Figure 1. NCLB Lesions on a corn leaf

Figure 1. NCLB Lesions on a corn leaf

Northern Corn Leaf Blight (NCLB): The most diagnostic symptom of NCLB is the long, slender, cigar-shaped, gray-green to tan lesions that develop on leaves (Fig. 1).  Disease often begins on the lower leaves and works it way to the top leaves.  This disease is favored by cool, wet, rainy weather, which has seemed to dominate lately. Higher levels of disease might be expected in fields with a previous history of NCLB and/or fields that have been in continuous and no-till corn production. The pathogen over-winters in corn residue, therefore, the more residue on the soil surface the higher the risk for NCLB.  Management should focus on using resistant hybrids and residue management.  In-season management is available in the form of several fungicides that are labeled for NCLB. However, these fungicides should be applied at the early onset of the disease and only if the epidemic is expected to get worse.

Figure 2: A computer simulation of 5% NCLB severity on a corn leaf.

Figure 2: A computer simulation of 5% NCLB severity on a corn leaf.

While I hate talking about threshold levels for managing disease, it can be helpful in your decision making process to know what might be severe. While scouting look in the lower portion of the canopy. If some symptoms are present in the lower canopy, make a visual estimation of how frequent (percentage of plants with lesions) NCLB is in a particular area and how severe (how much leaf area is covered by NCLB lesions.  The lower leaves aren’t responsible for much yield accumulation in corn, but spores produced in NCLB lesions on these leaves can be splashed up to the ear leaves where disease can be very impactful. So by scouting the lower canopy and getting an idea of how much disease is present, you can “predict” what might happen later on the ear leaves to make an informed spray decision. The other consideration you should make while scouting is the resistance rating that the hybrid has for NCLB. If it is rated as resistant, then NCLB severity might not be predicted to get very severe, while in  a susceptible hybrid, NCLB might be present on 50% or more of plants at high severity levels. Note however, that even if a hybrid is rated as resistant, it can still get some disease. Resistance isn’t immunity! If NCLB is present on on at least half the plants and severity is at least 5-10% and weather is forecast to be rainy and cool, a fungicide application will likely be needed to manage the disease. So what does 5% leaf severity look like? Figure 2 is a computer generated image that shows 5% of the corn leaf with NCLB lesions. You can use this image to train your brain to visually estimate how severe the disease might be on a particular leaf. As for fungicide choice and timing, I consider that further below.

Figure 3. Eyespot symptoms on a corn leaf.

Figure 3. Eyespot symptoms on a corn leaf.

Eyespot: Eyespot typically first develops as very small pen-tipped sized lesions that appear water-soaked.  As the lesions mature they become larger (¼ inch in diameter) become tan in the center and have a yellow halo (Fig. 3).  Lesions can be numerous and spread from the lower leaves to upper leaves. In severe cases, lesions may grow together and can cause defoliation and/or yield reduction. Eyespot is also favored by cool, wet, and frequently rainy conditions.  No-till and continuous corn production systems can also increase the risk for eyespot, as the pathogen is borne on corn residue on the soil surface.  Management should focus on the use of resistant hybrids and residue management.  In-season management is available in the form of fungicides. Severity has to reach high levels (>50%) before this disease begins to impact yield. I often have eyespot present in my corn trials each year as we plant into continuous corn and use no-till. However, we typically do not see yield reductions from this disease even in non-sprayed plots. When scouting, note the disease and keep track of the severity. Again, fungicides should be applied early in the epidemic and may not be cost effective for this disease alone.

What fungicide should I spray and should I spray at all? My question is what are you trying to do? Control a disease or simply boost yield? Fungicide should be used as a tool to control a disease and preserve yield. There is no silver bullet fungicide out there for all corn diseases. However, there are many products which work well on a range of diseases. The Corn Fungicide Efficacy table lists products that have been rigorously evaluated in university research trials across the country. You can see there are several products listed that perform well on both NCLB and eyespot. So obviously, if a disease is present and you are trying to control the disease, you might expect more return on your investment, compared to simply spraying fungicide and hoping that there might be a yield increase.

Paul et al. (2011) conducted research to investigate the return on investment (ROI) of using fungicide at low and elevated levels of disease. Data from 14 states between 2002 and 2009 were used in the analysis. They looked at 4 formulations of fungicide products across all of these trials. I won’t go into detail about all products, but will focus on one here, pyraclostrobin. This is the active ingredient in Headline® Fungicide. In all, 172 trials were evaluated in the analysis and Paul et al. found that on average there was a 4.08 bu/acre increase in corn grain yield when pyraclostrobin was used. So there does appear to be some increase in yield with the use of fungicide, but in our current market, will this average gain cover the fungicide application?

Figure 4. Break-even scenarios for corn when foliar fungicide was applied.

Figure 4. Break-even scenarios for corn when foliar fungicide was applied.

The suggested application rate for Headline® Fungicide is 6 to 12 fl oz/acre. My latest cost sheets indicate that at the 6 fl oz/acre rate, the cost of the product alone would be about $20/acre. Note that this does not include the custom applicator cost. This is a variable expense that would need to be added in to get an accurate ROI for your operation. Today we can estimate that we might sell corn grain somewhere between $4 and $5 per bushel. We can then use the cost of the fungicide product and the price of grain to figure out how many bushels of corn we need to make in the crop that would be treated with pyraclostrobin vs. non-treating. Figure 4 is a table with various corn prices along the vertical axis and fungicide costs per acre along the horizontal axis. The cells indicate the bushels of corn per acre needed to break even when using a fungicide at the corresponding cost and corn grain sale price. Using the above scenario, we see that with corn priced between $4 and $5 per acre and a fungicide application cost of $20/acre, we would need to gain 4-5 bushels per acre when using Headline® Fungicide in the current corn market. Obviously these calculations are for just one product, but you can do the same for your farm and fungicide program and use the table to figure out what break-even yield gain you will need to cover your costs.

What are the odds of getting that 4 to 5 bushel per acre yield gain when using Headline® Fungicide? Paul et al. went further and calculated the probability of return at various corn prices and fungicide costs. They did separate analyses for foliar disease severity less than 5% and greater than 5%. In our current corn market with around $4/bu corn prices and a cost of Headline® Fungicide at $20/acre, Paul et al. found that at low foliar disease levels (<5% severity) the odds of a positive ROI using the fungicide would be around 50%. The odds of a positive ROI improve if disease severity is greater than 5%. In their calculations with higher levels of disease (>5% severity), the odds of a positive ROI would be between 60% and 70%. The morale of this story is that if you are going to use fungicides on corn, they should be targeted toward fields that will have, or are at risk, for disease!

So what about fungicide application timing? Over the last several years corn pathologists in the U.S. corn belt have conducted fungicide application timing trials on corn for grain. Programs included various products, but applications focused on an early (V5-V8) timing, a VT-R2 timing, or a combination of V5-V8 plus a VT-R2 application. Over a 5 year period and nearly 1,500 observations, the average yield gain when using fungicide at V5-V8 alone was 1.4 bu/acre, while that at the VT-R2 timing was 4.4 bu/acre, and 4.7 bu/acre for the two pass program. In Wisconsin in 2013, the best gain in yield when using fungicide was at the VT application timing with almost 10 bu/acre over the non-treated. In 2014, we saw the opposite, with an average loss of grain yield at the VT timing of around 10 bu/acre. In Wisconsin, we see that yield gain in fungicide trials is highly variable and depends on the hybrid and weather for that particular season. You can check out results of the fungicide trials and the performance of various products over the last two years by visiting my Fungicide Test Summaries page and viewing the results in the 2013 and 2014 reports.

Finally, be aware that in some cases, application of fungicide in combination with nonionic surfactant (NIS) at growth stages between V8 and VT in hybrid field corn can result in a phenomenon known as arrested ear development. The damage is thought to be caused by the combination of NIS and fungicide and not by the fungicide alone. To learn more about this issue, you can CLICK HERE and download a fact sheet from Purdue Extension that covers the topic nicely. Considering that the best response out of a fungicide application seems to be between VT-R2, and the issues with fungicide plus NIS application between V8 and VT, I would suggest holding off for any fungicide applications until at least VT.

Summary

As we approach the critical time to make decisions about in-season disease management on corn, it is important to consider all factors at play while trying to determine if a fungicide is right for your corn operation in 2015. Here is what you should consider:

1) Corn hybrid disease resistance score – Resistant hybrids may not have high levels of disease which impact yield.

2) Get out of the truck and SCOUT, SCOUT, SCOUT – Consider how much disease and the level of severity of disease present in the lower canopy prior to tassel.

3) Consider weather conditions prior to, and during, the VT-R2 growth stages – if it is cool and wet, disease may continue to increase in corn and a fungicide application might be necessary. If it turns out to be hot and dry, disease development will stop and a fungicide application would not be recommended.

4) Consider your costs to apply a fungicide and the price you can sell your corn grain – Will you gain enough out of the fungicide application to cover its cost?

5) Hold off with making your fungicide application in Wisconsin until corn has reached the VT-R2 growth stages – The best foliar disease control and highest likelihood of a positive ROI will occur when fungicide is applied during this timing when high levels of disease are likely.

6) Be aware that every time you use a fungicide you are likely selecting for corn pathogen populations that will become resistant to a future fungicide application – Make sure your fungicide application is worth this long-term risk. To learn more about fungicide resistance, you can CLICK HERE to download a UW Extension fact sheet.

Other Resources

Wisconsin Field Crops Fungicide Information Page 

Diseases Showing up in Iowa Corn, 2015

UNL CropWatch: Worn Disease Update

References

White, D.G., editor. 2010. Compendium of Corn Diseases. APS Press.

Paul, P. A., Madden, L. V., Bradley, C. A., Robertson, A. E., Munkvold, G. P., Shaner, G., Wise, K. A., Malvick, D. K., Allen, T. W., Grybauskas, A., Vincelli, P., and Esker, P. 2011. Meta-analysis of yield response of hybrid field corn to foliar fungicides in the U.S. Corn Belt. Phytopathology 101:1122-1132.

Wisconsin Corn and Soybean Disease Update – August 21, 2014

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Damon L. Smith – Extension Field Crops Pathologist, University of Wisconsin

Figure 1. IPM Pipe Southern Corn Rust Advisory for August 21, 2014.

Figure 1. IPM Pipe Southern Corn Rust Advisory for August 21, 2014.

I have spent the last several days rating and scouting corn and soybeans in the southern tier of Wisconsin. There are a few active diseases out there to keep track of.

Field Corn

In field corn we have found a few fields with low levels of northern corn leaf blight (NCLB). Levels of NCLB seem to be a bit higher in southwestern Wisconsin. Severity on lower leaves in field corn was in the 10 – 15% range, with no damage apparent on ear leaves. Around the Arlington, WI area, NCLB is very limited with only a few lesions evident every 100 ft. or so.

Eyespot is becoming more evident in field corn.  In fields with corn debris from a previous crop, the severity levels are in the 25-30% range on lower leaves and 10-15% on ear leaves.

Low levels of common rust (less than 5%) can also be found on some field corn hybrids in Southern Wisconsin.

Southern rust has been reported as far north as east-central Nebraska. The southern rust epidemic is being monitored closely in the Midwest. No southern rust has been found or reported in Wisconsin (Fig. 1).

For more information about corn diseases in Wisconsin, see my previous article by clicking here.

Sweet Corn

Several fields with severe epidemics of NCLB on sweet corn have been reported.  These were late-planted fields. Sweet corn is generally more susceptible to NCLB than field corn. Common rust and eyespot can also be found at varying levels on sweet corn in the central and southern portion of Wisconsin.

In research plots at the Arlington Agricultural Research Station, sweet corn planted on June 25th is beginning to tassel. Levels of NCLB are currently low in this field, but common rust is increasing rapidly. Some leaves have 20-25% severity. Any late-planted and/or susceptible varieties of sweet corn should be monitored closely for foliar disease and any decision to spray fungicide should be made by the tasseling/R1 growth stage.

Soybean

The most widespread disease on soybean that we have observed is Septoria brown spot.  Overall levels of Septoria brown spot are low, and can mostly only be found on lower leaves, which is typical for this disease. In many cases a fungicide specifically for this disease is not warranted in Wisconsin, unless there are factors that might lead to increased levels of severity, including continuous soybean rotation, very susceptible varieties, or extremely conducive weather. Most soybean fields are past the R3 growth stage , when a fungicide application might be beneficial for control of foliar diseases. However, this disease should be monitored in fields that were planted late.

Downy mildew has also been observed on soybean in various areas from central to southern Wisconsin. Fungicide application for control of this disease has not proven beneficial in university research trials. Therefore, fungicide application is not recommended for this disease under most circumstances. In soybean fields that are irrigated, the frequency between irrigation events should be lengthened in order to reduce the levels of downy mildew. Warmer, dry weather will also further reduce the level of downy mildew.

Figure 2. Damage from white mold in a soybean field under irrigation.

Figure 2. Damage from white mold in a soybean field under irrigation.

Active white mold has been found in fields in the central and southern portions of Wisconsin. Severity levels vary greatly depending on the fields and level of previous infestation by the white mold fungus. We have observed levels ranging from a few plants in spotty areas of a field to widespread damage with plant mortality across the entire field. The latter case was in a field with a history of white mold and frequent overhead irrigation (Figure 2). Application of fungicide for control of white mold is not recommended after the R3 growth stage. However, fields should be scouted and damage noted to facilitate future planting and management decision in that field. Fields with white mold should be harvested after fields that do not have white mold. The black survival structures (sclerotia; resemble rat droppings) of the white mold fungus can be easily spread on combines from one field to the next. If harvesting white mold infested fields last is not feasible, care should be taken to thoroughly clean combine mechanisms where soybean trash and debris can be trapped, between fields. For more information about white mold and management of the disease, click here.  To watch a short video about white mold you can click here.

Other diseases such as brown stem rot, sudden death syndrome, and stem canker have been found at extremely low levels in soybean fields in Wisconsin this season. This situation should be monitored closely as soybeans approach the R6 and R7 growth stages. These two diseases may become more apparent at that time. Again, good record keeping of where these diseases are found can facilitate future management decisions for those fields.

Tasseling Corn – Scout Now for Foliar Diseases and What About Fungicide?

/in , , , , /by

Damon L. Smith, Extension Field Crops Pathologist, University of Wisconsin

I have been riding through much of the southern tier of Wisconsin this week and am noticing quite a few corn fields that are beginning to tassel. This growth stage presents itself as a good time to scout for foliar diseases of corn and make decisions on in-season management for any diseases you might find.

As for which diseases might be important this year? I wish I had a crystal ball. However, if I had to make an educated guess, three come to mind: Northern corn leaf blight, Eyespot, and Anthracnose leaf blight.

Figure 1. NCLB symptoms on a corn leaf.

Figure 1. NCLB symptoms on a corn leaf.

Northern Corn Leaf Blight (NCLB): The most diagnostic symptom of NCLB is the long, slender, cigar-shaped, gray-green to tan lesions that develop on leaves (Fig. 1).  Disease often begins on the lower leaves and works it way to the top leaves.  This disease is favored by cool, wet, rainy weather, which has seemed to dominate lately. Higher levels of disease might be expected in fields with a previous history of NCLB and/or fields that have been in continuous and no-till corn production. The pathogen over-winters in corn residue, therefore, the more residue on the soil surface the higher the risk for NCLB.  Management should focus on using resistant hybrids and residue management.  In-season management is available in the form of several fungicides that are labeled for NCLB. However, these fungicides should be applied at the early onset of the disease and only if the epidemic is expected to get worse.

Figure 2. Eyespot symptoms on a corn leaf.

Figure 2. Eyespot symptoms on a corn leaf.

Eyespot: Eyespot typically first develops as very small pen-tipped sized lesions that appear water-soaked.  As the lesions mature they become larger (¼ inch in diameter) become tan in the center and have a yellow halo (Fig. 2).  Lesions can be numerous and spread from the lower leaves to upper leaves. In severe cases, lesions may grow together and can cause defoliation and/or yield reduction. Eyespot is also favored by cool, wet, and frequently rainy conditions.  No-till and continuous corn production systems can also increase the risk for eyespot, as the pathogen is borne on corn residue on the soil surface.  Management should focus on the use of resistant hybrids and residue management.  In-season management is available in the form of fungicides.  Again, fungicides should be applied early in the epidemic and may not be cost effective for this disease alone.

Figure 3. Anthracnose leaf blight symptoms on a corn leaf.

Figure 3. Anthracnose leaf blight symptoms on a corn leaf.

Anthracnose leaf blight (ALB): ALB symptoms include oval or elongated lesions that are brown in color and surrounded by a yellow or orange area (Fig. 3). Sometimes on older lesions, small black hair-like structures (setae) can be observed erupting from the leaf surface in the center of the lesions. In severe cases, ALB can result in leaf death that can affect yield. Again, the ALB pathogen overwinters on corn residue. Therefore fields in no-till and/or continuous corn production might be at higher risk for ALB. Long periods of rainy overcast and warm weather can favor ALB. Fields with poor soil fertility can also be at higher risk for ALB development.  Management should focus on selecting resistant hybrids and residue management. Some fungicides are labeled for management of ALB, but control and yield increase in response to applications have been inconsistent.

Over the last several years there has been a lot of interest in applying foliar fungicides on corn to protect or increase yield.  There are many products on the market and we tested several of these at various timings in 2013 on hybrid grain corn.  The results of that trial can be found by clicking here and scrolling to page 2. In this study we had very low levels of common rust. Yield was highly variable in the trial and only one product/timing resulted in a yield increase over the non-treated plots. This high level of variability and inconsistency in treatment has also been observed in trials conducted throughout the corn belt of the U.S. over the last several years.

In a recent summary of foliar fungicide trials on corn from 2010-2013, 985 site/trials were conducted. No single product was identified to be more effective than another in these trials, however disease ratings were not the focus. When timing of fungicide application was analyzed, the best time to apply a fungicide and expect some yield increase over the non-treated control was between the VT and R2 growth stages.  The average yield increase across all trials and years at the VT to R2 timing was 3.5 bushels per acre.

Figure 4. Break-even scenarios for corn foliar fungicide application costs.

Figure 4. Break-even scenarios for corn foliar fungicide application costs.

While there seems to be an overall positive response in yield with the application of fungicide, that increase is likely not high enough to recover the cost of application.  A quick review of fungicide prices and expected application costs reveals that to apply fungicide one time might cost around $28 USD. Figure 4 shows a table of various costs to apply fungicide along the top, corn prices along the left column, and the bushel advantage required by the fungicide application to break-even with the cost of fungicide application in the center.  The red box in figure 4 shows our 3.5-bushel average advantage that we saw across the region-wide trial. The arrow shows the corn price needed to recover the cost of one $28 fungicide application. This $8.00/bushel corn price is more than twice today’s average corn price!

The previous point on economics was made in the absence of disease on corn, however.  When might we expect more consistent yield benefit from a fungicide? The answer is in the situations where disease levels are high of course! These situations include the following factors:

  1. Hybrids susceptible to foliar disease are used in fields with a history of disease
  2. Continuous corn production systems
  3. No-till or reduced tillage systems
  4. Late-planted corn
  5. Where irrigation is used
  6. Weather conditions are favorable for disease development

If one or more of these factors are important in your field, then scouting during the tasseling period will be important.  Gauge the present levels of disease and look at the weather forecast to see if the epidemic might increase. Then make a consideration on if a fungicide application is needed in your field. Consider the economics of that application and also the fact that repeated application of fungicide can also promote fungicide resistance in some of the pathogens you might be targeting.  So spray responsibly.

For more information about fungicides and fungicide mode of action visit my fungicide information page by clicking here.