Disease and Mycotoxin Considerations for Corn Silage Harvest In Wisconsin

Damon Smith, Extension Field Crops Pathologist, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

We are quickly approaching that time of year where we will see silage choppers working the 2024 corn crop. This means it is time to understand overall crop health and how diseases might be affecting the crop so that you can make the best silage product you can.

Overall, the corn crop in Wisconsin looks good. Yes, I can find some sort of disease in any field I visit, but I would say for the most part, most fields that were planted relatively on time, and didn’t experience early-season flooding, have a decent crop. With that said, we need to monitor the crop closely as we approach harvest as foliar disease issues can sneak up quickly as cool, wetter weather moves in near the early fall harvest.

Foliar diseases such as southern rust, tar spot, gray leaf spot (GLS), and northern corn leaf blight (NCLB) can be problematic for silage production. Not only do these diseases lead to a reduction in overall silage quality, they can force the plant to scavenge carbohydrates in the stalk which can result in standability issues and lodging. These diseases can also influence whole plant moisture making harvesting at optimal moisture difficult. If silage is harvested at sub-optimal moisture, then packing the bunker properly can be a challenge which can lead to slow fermentation and continued growth of aerobic organisms like fungi. This can indirectly lead to an increase in mycotoxins and “mold” issues from these aerobic fungi.

Tar spot and silage harvest

Tar spot of corn has been an issue on silage corn in Wisconsin since 2016. In fact, the first finding of tar spot was on corn for silage that year. Since 2016 the largest and most consistent impacts happen on corn for silage vs. corn for grain. Yes, tar spot can result in significant grain losses, but tar spot can also affect the overall plant in other ways such as loss in dry-matter yield (Fig. 1) and whole plant moisture contents well below optimal, making bunker-packing a significant issue. In recent work in Wisconsin, we see significant dry-matter yield reductions when tar spot severity on the ear leaf reaches over 10% at the time of chopping. This can result in as much as 15% reduction in yield, with these impacts dramatically increasing at severity levels of 20% or more on the ear leaf (Fig. 1). If tar spot (or any foliar disease) is moving quickly in your silage crop, you might consider chopping a bit earlier to reduce dry-matter yield losses and to try to optimize whole plant moisture, prioritizing good bunker management. If moisture at chopping is not prioritized, then subsequent storage issues such as mold and mycotoxin concerns can arise indirectly, due to poor bunker management. This brings us to Gibberella ear and stalk rot in silage corn.

Figure 1. Impact of tar spot severity on the ear leaf at harvest time compared to dry-matter yield in whole-plant chopped silage corn.

Gibberella and silage harvest

Gibberella ear rot is caused by Fusarium graminearum (a.k.a. Gibberella zea). The same pathogen can cause Gibberella crown and stalk rot in corn. We have observed both diseases on silage corn in Wisconsin in recent years. Our environment here in the Great Lakes region makes a perfect place for this pathogen to cause these diseases. In addition to the damage that the pathogen can cause, the fungus can also produce various mycotoxins, most importantly deoxynivalenol (DON or Vomitoxin). Our laboratory has conducted quite a bit of research recently trying to understand where in the plant DON accumulates. In detached plant part experiments, we have noted that DON can accumulate in both the stalk and ear portions of the plant, AND that these two phases of accumulation are not linked to each other (Chibuogwu et al., 2024). The fungus can infect these parts separately at different times during the season and the subsequent accumulation of DON can happen differentially in the stalks vs. the ears. This is partially why you can go out to the field and scout for ear rot and not see a lot of infection (moldy ears), but still have high DON levels at chopping time. Some of that DON is likely accumulating in the stalks.

We have also been following the fate of DON in silage harvested and chopped from a brown midrib (BMR) hybrid and a dual-purpose hybrid that were grown in the field and treated with fungicides at white silk (R1). We chopped the plants in each plot and then used mini-silos (polyethylene bags vacuum-sealed using a commercial grade vacuum packer) to conduct a time-course experiment following DON levels in the mini-silos (Chibuogwu et al. 2025). In all cases we saw DON levels generally increasing in the first 30 days after chopping (Fig. 2). They then leveled off and became stable at 60, 90, and 120 days after chopping. Some of this increase could be due to oxygen still in the system during the first 30 days after chopping. DON-producing fungi are aerobic and continue to consume some of the minute levels of oxygen still in the system, thereby still producing DON. However, this likely only explains some of the DON levels we detected.

Figure 2. DON concentration of chopped field-grown silage corn over time of ensiling.

There are also “masked” or conjugated forms of DON that are detectable in routine DON analyses. One such conjugate is DON-3-glucoside (D3G). D3G can be produced by fungi or during a plant’s attempt to protect itself from the toxicity of DON. Either way, D3G is not detectable in routine test and must be tested for specifically. We investigated our samples further during the first 30 days of ensiling and found that the level of D3G at harvest, explained a significant level of the DON recorded in samples after 30 days of ensiling. This is to say that D3G present at harvest, is likely metabolized in the first 30 days of ensiling releasing DON and resulting in higher DON levels 30-days later (Fig 3). Again, this relationship only partially explains why DON increases in silage during the first 30 days of storage. The full explanation is likely due to both metabolization of D3G and continued fungal respiration leading to an increase in DON at feed out compared to when it was packed in the bunker.

Figure 3. Relationship of DON-3-Glucoside (log) at harvest and DON concentration after 30 days of ensiling.

The Take Home

So, what are we to do with all of this information? Well, knowledge is power. You need to balance foliar disease management with Gibberella/DON management when making high-quality silage in Wisconsin. Diseases like tar spot are the new normal. As you prepare to harvest, it is a good idea to get out in the field and see how bad the foliar disease is and how much ear rot you are seeing. You will want to prioritize harvest on fields showing more disease. In fields where there are high levels of tar spot, southern rust, or NCLB, monitor moisture carefully and try to chop to optimize moisture. Concentrate on good bunker hygiene and spend time packing the material as best you can, focusing on getting as much oxygen out of the system as you can. If a corn crop becomes too dry to make good silage, you might consider harvesting it for high-moisture grain to try to circumvent bigger issues that could arise at feed out, by making less than ideal silage. Finally, it is important to test for DON frequently and understand what you are dealing with. You want to start with the lowest levels of DON coming from the field that you can. DON will likely increase in the bunker no matter how well you pack it. Thus, starting with the lowest levels at harvest will help keep final levels of DON below critical thresholds. Moving forward, mycotoxin testing in corn should include not only DON but also for conjugates of DON that can be metabolized back to DON and increase the final DON concentration during ensiling.

Have a safe and productive silage harvest season!

Citations

Chibuogwu, M.O., Groves, C.L., Mueller, B., and Smith, D.L. 2024. Effects of fungicide application and corn hybrid class on the presence of Fusarium graminearum and the concentration of deoxynivalenol in ear and stalk parts of corn (Zea mays) used for silage. Plant Disease. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-12-23-2662-RE.

Chibuogwu, M.O., Reed, H., Groves, C.L., Mueller, B., Barrett-Wilt, G., Webster, R.W., Goeser, J., and Smith, D.L. 2025. Influence of hybrid class and ensiling duration on deoxynivalenol accumulation and its derivative deoxynivalenol-3-glucoside while ensiling corn for silage. Plant Disease. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-06-24-1166-RE.

Wisconsin Soybean and Corn Disease Update – August 2, 2021

Damon Smith, Extension Field Crops Pathologist, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Brian Mueller, Assistant Field Researcher, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Camila Primieri Nicolli, Post-Doctoral Research Associate, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

It has been a while since I posted a corn and soybean disease update for Wisconsin in 2021, and that is because it has been reasonably quiet in the disease world up to this point. However, recent scouting and incoming reports indicate that this could change a bit as we move into August. Let’s take a look at what has happened so far this season and what to keep an eye out for over the next month or so.

The Soybean Situation

Figure 1. Phytophthora Root and stem rot of soybean

The Phytophthora Issue in Soybeans. During July we saw, and received reports, of some fields with Phytophthora root and stem rot of soybean (Fig. 1). I have received a lot of questions on why this happened. Are we seeing changes in the races of the Phytophthora organism in Wisconsin? My short answer is probably not. However, we have found a new species of Phytophthora in some fields that can affect soybean. The new species, Phytophthora sansomeana, can be found in mixed infections with P. sojae. Thus, even if we deployed the proper Rps resistances genes in our varieties, this “new” organisms might be causing some of the damage we observed this year.

We also are seeing fewer available soybean varieties with Rps 1K form of resistance. This form of resistance should be effective on about 99% of the fields in Wisconsin. Instead, we see varieties deployed that have the Rps 1c, Rps 1a, or no Rps gene indicated. Rps 1C is effective on about 75% of the acres in Wisconsin, just to give you some perspective. Thus, I don’t think this is necessarily an issue where we have seen race shifts in P. sojae, but a combination of issues where perhaps we aren’t deploying the correct resistance genes and we might have a new species of Phytophthora adding to the mix. You can learn more about managing Phytophthora root and stem rot of soybean in Wisconsin by clicking here. You will note that seed treatments can also be used to manage Phytophthora root and stem rot. You can click here to learn more about fungicide seed treatments and fungicide resistance in this group of organisms.

What’s Up with White Mold? For most of the state of Wisconsin, we are through the critical bloom time for infection by the white mold fungus. It is now really too late to make a fungicide application that is economically viable. However, scouting fields through August can help you determine what worked, what didn’t, and to figure out your harvest order. Remember, a great way to move the white mold fungus around is by contaminated combines at harvest. Start harvesting fields with no or low white mold incidence and work your way to those fields that look worse. Also consider cleaning combines between fields to limit movement of the fungal survival structures (a.k.a apothecia – the things that look like rat turds!) from one field to the next.

Look out for SDS. Now is also a good time to be scouting for sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soybeans. I’m not sure we will have a bunch of SDS this year in Wisconsin, but we will see pockets for sure. Knowing where you see it and what you did in 2021 can help with making variety and seed treatment decisions for 2022 and beyond. Remember that we do have decent partial resistance to SDS in many commercial varieties. Start here and choose the most resistant variety that fits your environment. Then consider layering a seed treatment (either Saltro or ILeVO) for improved management of SDS. You can learn more about seed treatment performance by studying the Fungicide Efficacy for Control of Soybean Seedling Diseases chart. You can also learn more about the performance of ILeVO in multi-state research trials by reading this report.

The Corn Situation

Corn in Wisconsin has been reasonably free of disease up to this point this season. However, we have noted a few foliar diseases beginning to pop up. We have observed gray leaf spot (GLS) becoming easy to find in most fields, while northern corn leaf blight (NCLB) is starting to show up in a handful of fields we have visited. We are also paying close attention to the tar spot and southern rust situations, I’ll expand on these below.

How bad is tar spot? The Tarspotter app has been running at moderate to high risk of tar spot increase over the last couple of weeks in Wisconsin. Our scouting has confirmed that tar spot is present in at least 5 counties so far in Wisconsin (Fig. 2). All but Grant County show tar spot to be easy to find, but it is present in the lower canopy at low severity. In Grant County, we had to hunt a long time to find 2 spots in a research field on a known susceptible. These observations align with Tarspotter as it indicated just moderate risk in the southwest quadrant of Wisconsin, with high risk from south central to the north. If you plan on spraying a fungicide to manage tar spot, we recommend that this be done soon, prior to the R3/R4 growth stage. The goal here is to protect the leaves from the ear leaf up from continued increase by the fungus. If you would like to learn more about tar spot check out the new web book published by the Crop Protection Network.

Figure 2. County-level confirmations of tar spot in the U.S. as of August 2, 2021.

Continue to scout for tar spot and let us know what you are finding. We are now accepting good pictures of tar spot to confirm its presence in counties where we have observed it in years past, in Wisconsin. In counites that tar spot has never been confirmed, we would like to get a physical sample to verify (Fig 2). Feel free to reach out to me if you do find tar spot or any other disease of corn or soybean for that matter.

Figure 3. County-level confirmations of southern rust on corn in the U.S. as of August 2, 2021.

Has southern rust hit Wisconsin yet? The short answer is NO, not that we can find. We have scouted and asked several folks in our network, and nobody has observed and lab-confirmed southern rust in Wisconsin. However, figure 3 show county-level confirmations of southern rust of corn in the U.S. Based on this map, I would not be surprised if southern rust is confirmed in the next week or so in Wisconsin. Like tar spot, fungicides can be applied up to the R3/R4 growth stage with some benefits. Spraying after R4 will not yield economic returns. To learn more about managing southern rust of corn, check out the electronic fact sheet from the Crop Protection Network.

Keep an eye on the soybean and corn disease situation and scout, scout, scout. Let us know what you are finding!

Corn Disease and Nutritive Value Considerations for the 2019 Silage Harvest

Damon L. Smith, Associate Professor and Extension Field Crops Pathology Specialist, University of Wisconsin-Madison

John Goeser, Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison and Animal Nutrition Director, Rock River Laboratory, Inc

The 2019 silage corn harvest is finally starting to ramp up in Wisconsin. With the excitement of finally getting into the field comes the need to be aware of the corn disease situation this season. As most of you will remember, the 2018 field season was an extreme challenge when it came to making quality corn silage in Wisconsin. Foliar diseases of corn, forced the plants to lose photosynthetic capability pre-maturely, resulting in cannibalization of stalks for carbohydrates to fill ears. Loss in stalk integrity meant extreme lodging, not to mention that is was a struggle to find optimum moisture in any field. Throw in frequent rains, and trying to chop on time to achieve quality fermentation was nearly impossible in 2018. The consequences of the challenging season are still being felt with poor quality, wild yeast issues, and higher than typical mycotoxin loads. So what does 2019 look like?

Foliar Disease of Silage Corn in 2019 

Compared to 2018, the foliar disease situation has been less significant in 2019. However, there are still some important diseases to consider as you prepare for harvest. Statewide, gray leaf spot did appear early again this season. However, unseasonably cool weather kept this disease relegated to the lower canopy. For most fields we have visited, gray leaf spot will likely be of little impact on yield and feed quality this year. 

Figure 1. Tar spot on a leaf of corn located in Arlington, WI on August 7, 2019. Photo Credit: Hannah Reed, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The flipside of the cooler weather meant that tar spot (Fig. 1) has become an issue again this year. Tar spot is favored by persistent temperatures between 60 and 70 F and high relative humidity averaging above 75% for a 30-day period. Periods of extended leaf wetness further facilitate increase and spread. We have been right in the ideal growth zone for the pathogen that causes tar spot since the first part of August. Over the last month, tar spot has been found in many areas of the state (CLICK HERE to view the latest national map for tar spot confirmations), leading to the 4th straight field season where this disease has impacted silage corn. While the disease has moved in later this season, compared to 2018, it is moving quickly. Tar spot can kill leaves prematurely, or reduce photosynthetic capacity. 

 

Figure 2. Northern corn leaf blight on corn.

Northern corn leaf blight (NCLB; Fig. 2) can also be readily found in the upper canopy in some fields in 2019. This disease has historically been a more significant problem on silage hybrids, increasing when the weather is cool and the humidity high. Depending on the severity and interaction of both NCLB and tar spot, these diseases can influence whole plant moisture levels and also cause stalk-cannibalization, leading to increased risk for lodging. As you prepare to chop silage, scout fields to understand the severity of foliar disease levels along with whole plant moisture and kernel maturity. Fields with the highest levels of foliar disease should be closely monitored for whole plant moisture and prioritized for harvest first. Then work your way to those fields with less visible disease.       

Ear rots and mycotoxins of silage corn in 2019 

Figure 3. Gibberella ear rot on corn.

In 2018, corn production in Wisconsin was also plagued by high levels of Gibberella ear rot (Fig. 3) and high levels of deoxynivalenol (DON or vomitoxin) in finished grain and silage. Remember that vomitoxin is a secondary metabolite produced by the fungus that causes Gibberella ear rot. We believe that 2019 will be another year with high levels of Gibberella ear rot and vomitoxin levels. Weather has been wet, especially during silking on late-planted fields in 2019. This increases the risk of Gibberella ear rot. Furthermore, the fungus that causes Gibberella ear rot can cause Fusarium head blight (FHB or scab) in wheat. Vomitoxin can also accumulate in wheat grain resulting in unusable grain, or grain subjected to dockage at the elevator. The 2019 wheat season saw high levels of FHB in winter wheat, with subsequent reports of high levels of vomitoxin. Anecdotal reports of very high DON levels have been reported in wheat straw harvested in 2019. This situation further substantiates the possibility that corn might also be hit hard with Gibberella this year. When scouting fields, pull back some husks to see if there is visible ear rot. Note these fields where high levels of severity exist. Also, check fields for lodging and assess stalk integrity. The fungus that causes Gibberella ear rot can also cause Gibberella stalk rot. We also know that from some preliminary research, vomitoxin can accumulate in the stalk portions of the plant in addition to the ears. Fields with high levels of ear rot and/or stalk rot should be prioritized for harvest first. You might also consider keeping silage from these higher-severity fields separate from other fields you harvest. Also consider testing for nutritive quality and mycotoxin load as you chop silage, so you know how much vomitoxin is present and potentially from which fields. Information on testing grain and silage can be found by clicking here. An additional list of testing labs can be found in A3646-Pest Management in Wisconsin Field Crops in table 2-16. Remember that mycotoxins like vomitoxin are very stable. They cannot be removed by heating or freezing. When storing corn grain for long periods of time, we recommend drying grain down to 13%. This will help stop the continued growth of the fungus that can cause vomitoxin and reduce any subsequent accumulation of the mycotoxin. In silage corn production, harvesting at optimum moisture and packing the bunker and inducing fermentation and anaerobic conditions as quickly as possible will limit any further growth of the fungus and any additional accumulation of vomitoxin.

If you sprayed silage corn with fungicide in 2019, this might help reduce the levels of foliar disease, ear rot, and vomitoxin levels. However, it will not “cure” the situation nor is it anywhere near perfect. Research in 2018 demonstrated that fungicides could reduce disease levels, but in a year when weather conditions were conducive for ear rot and vomitoxin accumulation expectations needed to be lowered. In 2018 certain fungicide programs had the capability of reducing vomitoxin levels by 50% or more, but that still meant that a lot of the silage made was still considered unacceptable for feeding due to high vomitoxin levels. Remember that hybrid choice, in addition to treating with fungicide, can play an important role in how much vomitoxin is present and the nutritive value of the finished feed.

What are the impacts of poor silage quality and mycotoxin accumulation? 

Animal nutritionists have observed many impacts of mycotoxin and microbial growth challenges in animals, including dairy cattle. Performance and health issues can range from milk fat or milk protein percentage decreases, to decreased milk production and all the way on up to feed refusal, intestinal or gut hemorrhaging, and death. For this reason, nutritionists have devised guidelines for dietary limits of some mycotoxins to reduce harm to the animal. Dr. John Goeser has assembled the “Mycotoxin Guidelines and Dietary Limits” fact sheet to help producers better understand the potentially harmful toxin levels in the total diet (DM). You will see in that chart that for vomitoxin (DON), the suggested total mixed ration (TMR) concern limit is just 0.5 to 1.0 ppm for dairy cattle. The fact sheet also provides a helpful formula to understand the contribution of toxin in a particular component of feed, relative to the total diet.

Also recognize microbial growth (mold, yeast and negative bacteria) challenges will increase with wetter conditions. Both mycotoxin load and microbial contamination need to be checked if performance or health appear challenged for your herd. Start by checking the TMR and then work backward from there with your advisory team.

We are expecting a prolonged harvest this year due to unprecedented planting growing conditions earlier this season. As discussed previously, step up your crop scouting efforts to optimize harvest this year. Consider using the approach discussed in this recent Hoard’s Dairyman HD Intel newsletter to be proactive and stay in control this harvest.

The Take-Home

  1. Spend some time scouting fields for foliar, ear, and stalk disease. Prioritize harvest for fields with high disease severity.
  2. Be proactive. Consider testing corn silage for mycotoxins, specifically vomitoxin, a couple times as your farm begins harvest. If results come back greater than expected, consider increasing frequency so you know what you are dealing with before silage is ensiled.
  3. Consider keeping fields with high disease levels and/or high vomitoxin levels segregated from better feed. 
  4. Take time to target optimum harvest moisture and packing conditions to shorten time to anaerobic conditions and fermentation.
  5. Keep oxygen out of the silo. After the silo, bunker, pile, or bag have been sealed, continue watching for holes or leaks on a regular basis and repair damaged plastic or seams. 

Wisconsin Corn Tar Spot and General Disease Update – July 18, 2019

Damon Smith, Extension Field Crops Pathologist, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Figure 1. Tarspotter risk predictions for the state of Wisconsin on July 19, 2019.

Figure 1 shows the calculated risk from Tarspotter for July 19, 2019, for various locations in Wisconsin. As you can see, the present risk has dropped substantially over the past week, leaving much of the state at low risk. The drop is due to the high temperatures and drier conditions. Tar spot is favored by persistent temperatures between 60 and 70 F and high relative humidity averaging above 75% for a 30-day period. We have also scouted fields in southern and southwestern WI and have not found tar spot in our travels.

Gray Leaf Spot, Common Rust, and Northern Corn Leaf Blight, Oh My!

Figure 2. Gray leaf spot on a corn leaf.

While scouting we have observed other foliar diseases of corn, including gray leaf spot (GLS: Fig. 2), common rust (Fig. 3), and northern corn leaf blight (NCLB; Fig. 4). Out fo these three, GLS has been the most consistent to find in fields we have visited. In Grant Co., GLS has made its way to the mid-canopy of some corn planted no-till in a field that had corn last season. It will be important to keep an eye on GLS and NCLB over the next couple of weeks. These two disease can become yield limiting if they reach the ear leaf of corn at high severity levels before the R3 corn growth stage. Scouting to determine the number of plants showing symptoms and the severity will be important in determining if a fungicide application at the tasseling growth stage is needed. Right now I’m most concerned about GLS and NCLB in field corn in Wisconsin, while keeping an eye out for tar spot.

What Should I Spray, and When Should I Spray for Corn Foliar Diseases In Wisconsin? Fungicide should be used to preserve yield and reduce disease level. 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 2019 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 GLS along with efficacy against tar spot. 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.

Figure 3. Common rust on a corn leaf.

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 over not treating across a range of environments. But in our current market, will this average gain cover the fungicide application? Today’s corn future price for September has a bushel of corn at $3.76.

Let’s Take a Closer Look at Corn Fungicide Return on Investment (ROI): While most of the early work on fungicide use in corn has focused on Headline® Fungicide, much of the industry has transitioned to using multi-mode-of-action products. These would be products mostly containing strobilurin (QoI) and triazole (DMI) fungicides in the same jug. Products such as Headline AMP® or Quilt Xcel® would fall into this category. These combination products have also been fairly consistent in response in my fungicide trials. You can find summaries of these trial results here. If we consider using Quit Xcel® at 10.5 fl oz or Headline AMP® at 10.0 fl oz, the list pricing of the product alone ranges from $15/acre (Quit Xcel®) to $22/acre (Headline AMP®). If the fungicide will be flown on with an aircraft, that cost will likely add nearly $15/acre to the application. Thus, fungicide plus application would range from $30/acre to $37/acre. If we can sell corn at $3.76 per bushel then we would need to preserve 8 bu/acre to nearly 10 bu/a in yield over not treating to break even! In a recent analysis of corn yield data where DMI+QOI products were applied at the tasseling period across the entire corn belt, the average yield preservation over not treating was 7.20 bu/a. This average projection is short of the 8 bu/a minimum we would need in the scenario above. However, the probability of preserving yield in the 8-10 bu/a range in this range is estimated to be 25% – 50%. This means that if we apply Quit Xcel® at 10.5 fl oz or Headline AMP® at 10.0 fl oz aerially, we will only break even 25% – 50% of the time with corn priced at $3.76 per bushel. If we can sell our corn for a better price or make the applications cheaper, then the odds will improve, but probably not climb above 70% even under the best case scenario. We do know that in Wisconsin, the odds of breaking even do improve if NCLB or GLS are active and increasing during the tasseling period. Get out there and scout!

Figure 4. Northern corn leaf blight on a corn leaf.

So What About Fungicide Application Timing? We can investigate this question over the U.S. corn belt using the same dataset. Applications focused on an early (V6) timing, a VT-R2 timing, or a combination of V6 plus a VT-R2 application. Let’s again focus on the QoI+DMI products. Based on observations across the corn belt the V6 timing averaged almost 3 bu/a of preserved yield over not treating. The VT application resulted in nearly 8 bu/a in preserved yield, while the two-pass program only offered a little over 8 bu/a. Clearly the higher average yield preservation occurs using a single application of fungicide at the VT-R2 timing. Wisconsin data has been consistent with this observation. Thus it is recommended that a single application of fungicide be used around the VT-R2 growth stages, when NCLB or GLS are active and increasing on or near the ear leaves.

What About Silage Corn and Ear Rot? When it comes to ear rot control and reducing the accumulation of mycotoxins in grain or silage corn, fungicide application should be made when white silks are out. Spores of fungicide that generally cause mycotoxin issues in the grain portion of corn will infect the plant through silks. Thus, apply fungicides during silking or with 5 days after silking starts, can be beneficial. Note though that if the goal is to target mycotoxin production and reduce deoxynivalenol (DON) accumulation in the grain portion of the plant, Products containing a DMI should be used. Like winter wheat, the application of some QoI-containing fungicides can increase DON accumulation in the grain portion of corn plants. Some work has been done using Proline® to control Fusarium ear rot. This DMI only product has shown promise in reducing ear rot and DON accumulation in the grain portion of the corn plant and has a label for suppressing Fusarium ear rot in Wisconsin. Performance of some additional products in Wisconsin in a 2018 silage corn trial can be viewed by CLICKING HERE and scrolling down to pages 4 and 5.

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 2019. Here is what you should consider:

1) Corn hybrid disease resistance score for NCLB and GLS – 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 weather is conducive for NCLB or GLS, 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 needed.

4) Consider your costs to apply a fungicide and the price you can sell your corn grain – Will you preserve enough yield 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. See fact sheet A3878 below for more information.

Other Resources

Video: Disease Management in Low-Margin Years (fast forward to 10:00 for corn information)

Fact Sheet: A4137 – Grain Management Considerations in Low-Margin Years

Fact Sheet: A3878 – Fungicide Resistance Management in Corn, Soybeans, and Wheat in Wisconsin

References

Munkvold, G.P. and White, D.G., editors. 2016. Compendium of Corn Diseases, Fourth Edition. 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.

Wise, K., Mueller, D., Sisson, A., Smith, D., Bradley, and Robertson, A., editors. 2016. A Farmer’s Guide to Corn Diseases. APS Press.

Late Season Corn Foliar Disease Update and Hail-Damaged Corn

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

Scouting by my team and phone calls from extension personnel, consultants, and farmers have made it evident that there are several foliar diseases of corn showing up  in this first part of August. Gray leaf spot (GLS), northern corn leaf blight (NCLB), and tar spot have all been found in various locations over the last week or so. It is becoming very late in the season to try to control GLS or NCLB. Current data on tar spot indicate it likely doesn’t need to be controlled. Thus, there is likely not much to do at this point, but to document which fields have which diseases. This can help in fall scouting to make harvest decisions, as fields with higher levels of leaf disease may not have experienced any yield loss, but might have stalk integrity issues, which could lead to lodging. Determining which fields might be more prone to lodging can help establish harvest order to minimize any losses due to severely lodged plants. Below is more information about each foliar disease.

Gray leaf spot (GLS)

Figure 1. Gray leaf spot on a corn hybrid. Photo Courtesy of Craig Grau, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Gray leaf spot is cause by a fungus named Cercospora zeae-maydis. During times of very warm temperature and high humidity (greater than 90%), GLS can increase rapidly on susceptible hybrids. In fields with large amounts of corn residue (e.g. corn-on-corn rotation, minimal tillage, etc.) GLS may be more prominent due to higher levels of inoculum. Symptoms start as small narrow, blocky lesions that might be tan in the center and have a darker margin (Fig. 1). Lesion can increase in size and number and will typically move from lower leaves to upper leaves. Yield loss is most prominent when lesions reach the ear leaves either 2 weeks before tasseling or two weeks after tasseling. Currently, in Wisconsin, we have seen few fields where lesions have reached the ear leaves prior to brown silk. However, in a small number of fields planted to a susceptible hybrid, there has been rapid increase to the ear leaves prior to tassel. In those fields a fungicide application may result in adequate yield protection to cover the cost of fungicide application. See my previous article on how to make the decision to spray fungicide on corn.

Northern Corn Leaf Blight (NCLB)

Figure 2. Northern corn leaf blight on corn.

Northern corn leaf blight is caused by the fungus Setosphaeria turcica. The fungus is most active when wet weather coincides with temperatures between 65 F and 80 F. During these conditions, the fungus will readily make microscopic spores (called conidia) inside the symptomatic areas of leaves and those spores will get splashed onto more leaves. Therefore, the disease typically moves from the lower canopy, up the corn plant as the season progresses. When temperatures get above 80 F and it is dry, growth and spread of the fungus slows dramatically. This is why little NCLB was observed in July, but is showing up now. It is all about the temperature at which the fungus likes to grow. Lesions initiate as cigar-shaped lesions on lower leaves. When conditions are conducive lesions can expand and increase, moving rapidly up the plant (Fig. 2). Occasionally a gray-to-black fuzzy growth is evident in the center of lesions. This growth is sporulation of the fungus. Like GLS, yield loss is greatest when lesions reach the ear leaf either two weeks before or two weeks after tasseling. Again, consult my previous article on how to make the decision to spray fungicide on corn.

Tar Spot

Tar spot is a relatively new disease in the U.S. and Wisconsin. It is caused by a fungus called Phyllachora maydis. Tar spot causes small tar-like spots on the surface of corn leaves. For great information about tar spot and what it looks like, consult this Purdue Extension fact sheet. Tar spot was first found in the U.S. in 2015. In 2016 and 2017, tar spot was identified in Green, Iowa, Grant, and Lafayette counties in Wisconsin. In 2018 confirmations have been made in these same general areas. In Latin America Phyllachora maydis can be found in a complex with another fungus called Monographella maydis. In areas where the complex occurs significant yield loss has been described. However, in the U.S. Monographella maydis has not been found in complex with Phyllachora maydis. Furthermore, Phyllachora maydis is not known to cause yield loss on corn in the U.S. While it can be a striking disease, fungicide applications are not recommended for tar spot in the U.S. Much more work is needed to characterize this pathogen and understand the disease. We are working with Dr. Nathan Kleczewski at the University of Illinois to improve our understanding of this pathogen in the U.S. If you would like to confirm tar spot on corn, or provide samples for research purposes, you can send samples to the University of Wisconsin Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic.

What about Spraying Fungicide After Hail Damage?

The best study on this subject was conducted by my colleagues at Iowa State University a couple years back. They found that for the most part application of fungicide after hail does not result in any benefits. Especially after the R2 growth stage. We also had an opportunity to look at a natural hail event in 2014 at Arlington. This happened around VT.  We were also unable to find a significant difference in treating with  a fungicide versus not treating after late season hail-damage. In addition, it isn’t likely that fungal infections will increase after hail. In fact in the Iowa State University study, they found a negative correlation between hail damage and fungal disease. Hail CAN increase Goss’s wilt risk. However, Goss’s wilt is caused by a bacterium. Thus, fungicide application does not work for this disease. For more information on Goss’s Wilt and how to manage it click here. In summary, given the current market prices and the fact that corn is generally through the silking period, fungicide application on hail-damaged corn is not needed.

Midseason Corn Disease Update

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

Northern Corn Leaf Blight symptoms on a corn leaf.

The Wisconsin Field Crops Pathology crew has scouted corn from the southern portion of Wisconsin, to as far north as Spooner. Overall, disease levels are low. We have run into northern corn leaf blight (NCLB) in fields in the southern and central portions of the state. In most cases incidence was in the 10% or less range, with severity in the 5-10% range on leaves below the ear leaf. We have also had several samples arrive in the diagnostic clinic and confirmed with NCLB. For more information on managing NCLB or other corn diseases in Wisconsin, see my previous post here.

Goss’s wilt has been confirmed in Grant Co. via the diagnostic clinic. Other samples have also been submitted that were suspected for Goss’s wilt. However, these turned out to be NCLB. For assistance in differentiating these two diseases, click here to view a PDF quick diagnostic guide.

Common rust remains super common. I have received several questions about spraying fungicide to control common rust. For field corn hybrids, no fungicide will be needed. In any specialty corn situations (inbreds for seed production, sweet corn, etc.) spraying for  common rust might need to be considered. Most field corn hybrids have excellent resistance to common rust and will yield well, despite finding some pustules on a corn plant.

Southern rust has not yet been found in Wisconsin. However, it has been reported very close to Wisconsin (http://ext.ipipe.org). You should continue to be diligent in scouting for this rust disease. Yield reductions can be substantial if the fungus moves in over the next several weeks. Fortunately, our weather systems have been moving into Wisconsin from Canada and Minnesota. This has likely slowed progress of the southern rust fungus from moving into Wisconsin. Click here to view a great new resource on southern rust by the Crop Protection Network.

 

In-Season Corn Disease Management Decisions – 2017

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

Tasseling has begun on field corn in the southern region of Wisconsin. With this, comes many questions about applying fungicide to control disease and preserve yield. What diseases are out there? What disease(s) should I focus on in-season? When should I spray? What should I spray? On top of these questions, we are also confronted with corn prices, which are less than ideal and create tight profit margins. So what should we consider for in-season disease management? Lets consider the diseases first, then the management decisions.

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.

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.

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

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. Incidentally, we did confirm our first NCLB lesions of the year in the diagnostic lab last week. So now is a good time to get out and scout!

Figure 3. Gray Leaf Spot lesions on a corn leaf.

Gray Leaf Spot (GLS): Gray leaf spot typically starts as small blocky or jagged, light tan spots. These can expand to become long, narrow, rectangular lesions (Fig. 3) that may have yellow or orange halos around them. Gray leaf spot is typically worse when temperatures are warm and humidity is frequently above 90%. Thus, in Wisconsin, this disease is generally more frequent in the southern and southeastern portion of the state. Conditions that favor GLS often do not favor NCLB. The GLS pathogen and NCLB pathogen have different temperature requirements. Yield loss from GLS will be the greatest if lesions develop on the ear-leaves right before and right after tasseling. Like NCLB, hybrids rated as susceptible will generally suffer greater yield reductions due to gray leaf spot. Management of GLS should focus on choosing hybrids with excellent resistance and managing corn residue. Corn residue allows the pathogen to overwinter.

Like NCLB, fungicides can also be used to manage gray leaf spot. However, these should be applied as preventative applications. Thus using the same rule of thumb to make a spray decision for GLS, as for NCLB, can help you make the decision to spray fungicide. As for fungicide choice and timing, I will also consider that further below.

Figure 4. Brick-red Pustules of the common rust fungus on a corn leaf.

Common Rust: Symptoms of common rust can include chlorotic flecks that eventually rise and break through the epidermis to produce pustules of brick-red spores (Fig. 4). Typically these pustules are sparsely clustered on the leaf. They can also appear on other parts of the plant including the husks and stalks. Conditions that favor the development of common rust are periods of high humidity and nighttime temperatures that remain around 70F with moderate daytime temperatures. This fungus needs very little free moisture for infection to occur. Very hot and dry weather can slow or stop disease development.

Common rust is a extremely common (pun intended) and often results in little yield loss in Wisconsin. Most field corn hybrids planted in Wisconsin are very resistant to the disease. Management for common rust primarily focuses on using these resistant hybrids. Remember resistance is not immunity, so some pustule development can be observed even on the most resistant hybrids. Some inbred corn lines and specialty corn can be highly susceptible to common rust. Under these circumstances a fungicide may be necessary to control common rust. Most of the hybrids I have scouted this season have some pustules, however incidence and severity is relatively low. Therefore, a fungicide application to control common rust isn’t needed for most of these hybrids in Wisconsin. Residue management or rotation is typically not needed for this disease as inoculum (spores) have to be blown up on weather systems from the southern U.S.

Figure 5. 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. 5).  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 Disease(s) Should I Focus on In-Season? Based on the information above, the greatest emphasis for Wisconsin should be placed on controlling NCLB and GLS. Most hybrids planted in Wisconsin will be resistant to eyespot and common rust.

What Should I Spray, and When Should I Spray for Corn Foliar Diseases In Wisconsin? Fungicide should be used to preserve yield and reduce disease level. 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 2017 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 GLS. 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 over not treating across a range of environments. But in our current market, will this average gain cover the fungicide application? Today’s corn future price for September has a bushel of corn at $3.76.

Let’s Take a Closer Look at Corn Fungicide Return on Investment (ROI): While most of the early work on fungicide use in corn has focused on Headline® Fungicide, much of the industry has transitioned to using multi-mode-of-action products. These would be products mostly containing strobilurin (QoI) and triazole (DMI) fungicides in the same jug. Products such as Headline AMP® or Quilt Xcel® would fall into this category. These combination products have also been fairly consistent in response in my fungicide trials. You can find summaries of these trial results here. If we consider using Quit Xcel® at 10.5 fl oz or Headline AMP® at 10.0 fl oz, the list pricing of the product alone ranges from $15/acre (Quit Xcel®) to $22/acre (Headline AMP®). If the fungicide will be flown on with an aircraft, that cost will likely add nearly $15/acre to the application. Thus, fungicide plus application would range from $30/acre to $37/acre. If we can sell corn at $3.76 per bushel then we would need to preserve 8 bu/acre to nearly 10 bu/a in yield over not treating to break even! In a recent analysis of corn yield data where DMI+QOI products were applied at the tasseling period across the entire corn belt, the average yield preservation over not treating was 7.20 bu/a. This average projection is short of the 8 bu/a minimum we would need in the scenario above. However, the probability of preserving yield in the 8-10 bu/a range in this range is estimated to be 25% – 50%. This means that if we apply Quit Xcel® at 10.5 fl oz or Headline AMP® at 10.0 fl oz aerially, we will only break even 25% – 50% of the time with corn priced at $3.76 per bushel. If we can sell our corn for a better price or make the applications cheaper, then the odds will improve, but probably not climb above 70% even under the best case scenario. We do know that in Wisconsin, the odds of breaking even do improve if NCLB or GLS are active and increasing during the tasseling period. Get out there and scout!

So What About Fungicide Application Timing? We can investigate this questionover the U.S. corn belt using the same dataset. Applications focused on an early (V6) timing, a VT-R2 timing, or a combination of V6 plus a VT-R2 application. Let’s again focus on the QoI+DMI products. Based on observations across the corn belt the V6 timing averaged almost 3 bu/a of preserved yield over not treating. The VT application resulted in nearly 8 bu/a in preserved yield, while the two-pass program only offered a little over 8 bu/a. Clearly the higher average yield preservation occurs using a single application of fungicide at the VT-R2 timing. Wisconsin data has been consistent with this observation. Thus it is recommended that a single application of fungicide be used around the VT-R2 growth stages, when NCLB or GLS are active and increasing on or near the ear leaves.

What About Silage Corn and Ear Rot? When it comes to ear rot control and reducing the accumulation of mycotoxins in grain or silage corn, fungicide application should be made when white silks are out. Spores of fungicide that generally cause mycotoxin issues in the grain portion of corn will infect the plant through silks. Thus, apply fungicides during silking or with 5 days after silking starts, can be beneficial. Note though that if the goal is to target mycotoxin production and reduce deoxynivalenol (DON) accumulation in the grain portion of the plant, DMI only products should be used. Like winter wheat, the application of QoI containing fungicides can increase DON accumulation in the grain portion of corn plants. Some work has been done using Proline® to control Fusarium ear rot. This DMI only product has shown promise in reducing ear rot and DON accumulation in the grain portion of the corn plant and has a label for suppressing Fusarium ear rot in Wisconsin.

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 2017. Here is what you should consider:

1) Corn hybrid disease resistance score for NCLB and GLS – 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 weather is conducive for NCLB or GLS, 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 needed.

4) Consider your costs to apply a fungicide and the price you can sell your corn grain – Will you preserve enough yield 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. See fact sheet A3878 below for more information.

Other Resources

Video: Disease Management in Low-Margin Years (fast forward to 10:00 for corn information)

Fact Sheet: A4137 – Grain Management Considerations in Low-Margin Years

Fact Sheet: A3878 – Fungicide Resistance Management in Corn, Soybeans, and Wheat in Wisconsin

References

Munkvold, G.P. and White, D.G., editors. 2016. Compendium of Corn Diseases, Fourth Edition. 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.

Wise, K., Mueller, D., Sisson, A., Smith, D., Bradley, and Robertson, A., editors. 2016. A Farmer’s Guide to Corn Diseases. APS Press.

Wisconsin Late-Season Corn Disease Update

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

Figure 1. Anthracnose stalk rot symptoms in a cut corn stalk.

Figure 1. Anthracnose stalk rot symptoms in a cut corn stalk.

NCLB and Anthracnose Stalk Rot

As corn silage harvest has begun and the corn grain crop is finishing, there have been some disease issues of note in Wisconsin. Northern corn leaf blight (NCLB) activity has picked up quickly over the last several weeks. This is due to the fact that the weather has become much cooler and has remained wet. These conditions are favorable for the fungus. You will remember that NCLB was observed very early this season. See my previous post on this topic by clicking here.The hotter and dryer weather we saw mid-season was not only good for corn growth, but it kept the NCLB pressure minimal during the critical time of silking and pollination. As stated in the fourth edition of the “Compendium of Corn Diseases” (Carson, 2016) direct yield losses from NCLB are typically minimal if infection is moderate or delayed until 6 weeks after silking. Therefore, the expected direct yield loss from NCLB in Wisconsin in 2016 is expected to be low, due to its late onset.

Figure 2. Corn field with considerable lodging due to anthracnose stalk rot.

Figure 2. Corn field with considerable lodging due to anthracnose stalk rot.

Certainly, there are other issues to consider with this late onset of NCLB. Dry-down will be accelerated. If you have a considerable epidemic in silage corn, then it would be advisable to try to chop as quickly as possible or consider taking the crop as high-moisture corn. Another issue to consider is the fact that a late-season NCLB epidemic can increase the risk for stalk rot issues. We have observed earlier than typical onset of anthracnose stalk rot this season (Fig. 1). Anthracnose stalk rot has been observed in many fields, with a range in severity dependent on the hybrid resistance and field history. Fields in a corn-on-corn rotation, and/or no-tilled, and planted to a susceptible hybrid are at high risk of severe symptoms. We have observed several fields with significant lodging and wind damage where anthracnose stalk rot has advanced quickly (Fig. 2). In other fields lodging has been minimal, but some anthracnose stalk rot can be found.

Management of anthracnose stalk rot is multi-faceted. First, choose hybrids with best resistance available. Hybrids that also have good resistance to foliar diseases will also offer an advantage when managing stalk rot, as foliar disease can stress corn plants and lead to increased risk of anthracnose stalk rot. Cultural practices such as crop rotation and tillage to manage surface residue can also help. Other practices that reduce plant stress such as balanced fertilization, proper planting population, providing suitable drainage, and using well adapted hybrids for your location will reduce the risk of anthracnose stalk rot. Finally, in fields were stalk rot is an issue, harvest as early as possible to avoid yield losses from lodging.

Fungicides are not recommended for managing anthracnose stalk rot. Attempts to use fungicides to manage anthracnose stalk rot often result in high variability and little translation to a yield advantage. In 2015 we conducted a corn fungicide trial where anthracnose stalk rot was detected at harvest. While higher levels of stalk rot were observed, and some treatments did lead to a significant reduction in stalk rot severity, no differences in lodging or yield were identified among the treatments. To view results of this 2015 trial, click here and scroll down to pages 2 and 3.

Bacterial leaf streak – A new disease of corn in the U.S.

Bacterial leaf streak (BLS) of corn has recently been reported for the first time on corn in the U.S. The first reports were in Nebraska with subsequent reports coming in from other states in the U.S. corn belt including Iowa, Illinois, Colorado, and Kansas. Efforts are underway in Wisconsin to monitor for the disease. As of this writing, BLS has not been found in Wisconsin. However, survey and scouting efforts are continuing, to monitor for this disease.

Bacterial leaf streak is caused by a bacterium named Xanthomonas vasicola pv. vasculorum. Very little is understood about this disease on corn, as it is so new. This pathogen presents no risk to humans or animals and there is little evidence to suggest that it will have an adverse effect on corn yield and quality. You can click here to read the USDA APHIS Statement on Xanthomonas vasicola pv. vasculorum. To learn more about the disease and to watch a video by Dr. Tamra Jackson-Ziems at the University of Nebraska CLICK HERE. Helpful information and hints on initially diagnosing BLS can be found HERE.

If you suspect that you have BLS in your corn crop in Wisconsin, leaf samples of corn plants can be sent in a sealed plastic bag with NO added moisture to the University of Wisconsin Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC). Information about the clinic and how to send samples can be found by CLICKING HERE.

References

Esker, P. 2016. Anthracnose stalk rot: in “Farmers Guide to Corn Diseases” Edited by: K. Wise, D. Mueller, A. Sisson, D. Smith, C. Bradley, and A. Robertson. APS PRESS.

M.L. Carson. 2016. Northern Corn Leaf Blight: in “Compendium of Corn Diseases, Fourth Edition.” Edited by: G.P. Munkvold and D.G. White. APS PRESS.

 

Wisconsin Corn Disease Update – July 27, 2016

Damon Smith, Extension Field Crops Pathologist, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Northern Corn Leaf Blight

Over the last week concerns have been increasing over corn diseases as we are at the critical time to make fungicide application decisions. See my previous post about the early onset of northern corn leaf blight (NCLB) in Wisconsin in 2016 by CLICKING HERE. While NCLB can be observed in many corn fields in the state, it can be difficult to find. The hot weather this year has managed to keep that disease in check. While now is a good time to scout and make spray decisions, remember that it would take 50% or more of plants in the field with 10% or more of the ear leaves covered with lesions of NCLB prior to the milk growth stage before significant yield loss will occur.

Goss’s Wilt

Just this week, the University of Wisconsin-Madison Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic (PDDC) positively confirmed the first Goss’s wilt sample of 2016. This sample came from Grant Co. Other samples have arrived, but no definitive confirmation has been made in other counties in the state. For information on Goss’s Wilt you can visit my previous posting from 2015 by CLICKING HERE.

Rusts

Figure 1. 2016 Southern Rust Advancement in The U.S. as of July 27. Red highlights indicate counties where southern rust has been confirmed.

Figure 1. 2016 Southern Rust Advancement in The U.S. as of July 27. Red highlights indicate counties where southern rust has been confirmed.

Southern rust continues to be a disease to scout for in Wisconsin. No positive confirmations have been made in Iowa, Illinois, or Wisconsin. However, the disease has been confirmed in parts of Nebraska (Fig. 1). We have scouted several fields of dent corn and also sweet corn. Only pustules of common rust have been observed in these fields. Conditions have been suitable for this disease over the last several weeks. Remember that rust pathogens have to be blown in from the south. The inoculum of the fungi that cause these diseases do not overwinter in Wisconsin. To learn more about the two types of rust that can affect corn in Wisconsin and how to manage them, CLICK HERE to visit my post from last week.

Remember to get out there and SCOUT, SCOUT, SCOUT!

Wisconsin Northern Corn Leaf Blight Update – June 29, 2016

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

Since the first 2016 confirmation of northern corn leaf blight (NCLB) in Wisconsin on June 16, we have received additional corn samples from other areas of the state in my laboratory and also in the University of Wisconsin Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic. All confirmations have been made in the laboratory, confirming the presence of the pathogen. Figure 1 shows counties, highlighted in red, where corn samples originated and were confirmed with NCLB.

While it is unusually early to find NCLB at this incidence level in Wisconsin, I continue to urge you to remain patient. All samples that we have examined have had low severity (very few and/or small lesions present on a single leaf). In addition, most of the damage has been confirmed on lower leaves which do not contribute as much to yield as the ear leaves eventually will. As I mentioned in my previous post on June 16, Our economic analyses indicate that the likelihood of positive return on investment from a fungicide will be higher when the application is made as close to the tasseling period as possible. Considering that the weather this week is very dry and severity of NCLB has been relatively low, I would encourage growers to wait until closer to tasseling before making the decision to apply fungicide. If weather over the next week or two begins to turn continually wet, then this decision should be re-evaluated at that time. To learn more about NCLB and return on investment when using fungicide CLICK HERE. To watch a video about corn diseases in Wisconsin and fungicide use in corn, CLICK HERE. Remember to continue to SCOUT, SCOUT, SCOUT!