Wisconsin Corn Disease Update – July 27, 2016

/in , , , , , /by

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!

Corn Rusts in Wisconsin

/in , , , /by

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

Figure 1. Brick-red Pustules of the common rust fungus on a corn leaf.

Figure 1. Brick-red Pustules of the common rust fungus on a corn leaf.

I have been receiving lots of questions over the last couple of weeks about rusts in corn. Folks are identifying pustules of common rust on field and silage corn in Wisconsin. Common rust is caused by the fungus Puccinia sorghi. Symptoms can include chlorotic flecks that eventually rise and break through the epidermis to produce pustules of brick-red spores (Fig. 1). 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. Thus, the weather conditions in Wisconsin over the last month have been somewhat conducive for this disease. However, very hot and dry weather can slow or stop disease development.

Management of Common Rust

Management for common rust primarily focuses on resistant hybrids. Most modern commercial hybrids have excellent resistance to common rust. 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. Fungicides with efficacy toward common rust can be found on the Corn Fungicide Efficacy Table. 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 2. Southern rust pustules on a corn leaf. Photo credit: Department of Plant Pathology., North Carolina State University, Bugwood.org

Figure 2. Southern rust pustules on a corn leaf. Photo credit: Department of Plant Pathology., North Carolina State University, Bugwood.org

A related rust that we need to pay close attention to this season is southern rust. Southern rust is caused by the fungus Puccinia polysora. Symptoms of southern rust are different from common rust in that they are typically smaller in size and are often a brighter orange color (Fig. 2). Pustules of southern rust also typically only develop on the upper surface and will be be more densely clustered. Favorable conditions for southern rust development are similar to those for common rust. high humidity and temperatures around 80F encourage disease development. However, very little free moisture is need for infection to occur. Southern rust is typically a rare occurrence in Wisconsin. When it does occur, it is usually in the southern and southern western portions of the state, with epidemics initiating late in the season. Spores of this fungus have to be blown up from tropical regions or from symptomatic fields in the southern U.S. The fungus can not overwinter in Wisconsin. While southern rust epidemics can be rare events in Wisconsin, the disease can be serious when it occurs. Therefore close monitoring of forecasts and scouting are needed to make timely in-seaosn management decision.

Figure 3. Corn Southern Rust Observations as of July 22, 2016

Figure 3. Corn Southern Rust Observations as of July 22, 2016

Currently the Corn Southern Rust iPIPE map is showing numerous confirmed cases of southern rust in the southern, southeastern U.S. and Kansas and Kentucky. No confirmed cases have been identified in Illinois, Iowa or Wisconsin. However, close attention should be paid to this disease in 2016 as the confirmed cases this year have been earlier than in the past. This could mean that conditions are ripe for movement of southern rust inoculum into Wisconsin.

Management of Southern Rust

Traditionally resistance was used to manage southern rust. However, in 2008 a resistance-breaking race of the southern rust fungus was confirmed in Georgia. Thus most modern hybrids are considered susceptible to southern rust. Rotation and residue management have no effect on the occurrence of southern rust. The southern rust fungus has to have living corn tissue in order to survive and can not overwinter in Wisconsin. Fungicides are typically used to control southern rust in parts of the U.S. where this is a consistent problem. Efficacy ratings are also available for fungicides against southern rust on the Corn Fungicide Efficacy Table. Should southern rust make its way to Wisconsin prior to the “milk” (R3) growth stage in corn, it could cause yield reductions. Growers and consultants should scout carefully through the R3 growth stage and be sure to properly identify the type of rust observed. If you need assistance in identifying rust on corn, 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.

Other Useful Resources about Rusts on Corn

Purdue Extension Fact Sheet – Common and Southern Rusts of Corn

2014 Crop Alert – University of Nebraska

Video by Dr. Tamra Jackson-Ziems of the University of Nebraska – Identifying Rust Diseases of Corn

Wisconsin Northern Corn Leaf Blight Update – June 29, 2016

/in , , /by

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!

Northern Corn Leaf Blight Positively Identified in Wisconsin in 2016

/in , , , /by

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

I was hoping that I would write this article later in the year. But it has happened relatively early for us. We have positively confirmed northern corn leaf blight (NCLB) on field corn at about the V7-V8 growth stage near Janesville, WI this week. This is a bit early for us, however, not entirely surprising given the levels of residual inoculum from the fungus that causes NCLB left from 2015 in many fields and the cool wet conditions we have had this spring. The situation has been similar to that in Iowa. Dr. Alison Robertson also reported the first find of NCLB in southeast Iowa this week. While this find is relatively early for Wisconsin, I don’t think the world is going to come to an end. Patience will be key over the next couple of weeks. I’ll explain why folks should be cautious in making management decisions below.

Figure 1. Northern Corn Leaf Blight symptoms on a corn leaf.

Figure 1. Northern Corn Leaf Blight symptoms on a corn leaf.

What is the Organism that Causes Northern Corn Leaf Blight (NCLB)? 

A fungus called Setosphaeria turcica (synonym: Exserohilum turcicum) causes NCLB (Fig. 1). The fungus loves it wet and cool. 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 (Fig. 2) will get splashed onto more leaves. Therefore, the disease typically moves form 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. Remember the disease triangle?  It takes three things for a plant disease to occur – susceptible plants, fungal inoculum present near those susceptible plants, and favorable weather. Early this season, all three legs of the triangle were present. We have lots of residual inoculum left from 2015, we have lots of corn planted again in many fields that had corn last year, and we had cool rainy conditions early on this season. However, as we think about the disease triangle moving forward, and look at forecasts over the next 7-10 days, weather is not going to be conducive for the NCLB fungus. Temperatures are forecasts to be above 80 F and there isn’t much rain in site. Without the weather component of the triangle, fungal growth, spread, and subsequent disease development will be halted.

Figure 2. A photo-micrograph of spores produced by the NCLB fungus.

Figure 2. A photo-micrograph of spores produced by the NCLB fungus.

What should I do About Managing NCLB in 2016?

Farmers and consultants should start actively scouting corn fields in Wisconsin and keep track of disease and disease development. Remember, that while the disease is manifesting early, it is currently affecting leaves that will be in the lower canopy of the plant and are not responsible for a large portion of grain yield. 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 disease. 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

Figure 3: A computer simulation of 5% NCLB severity on a corn leaf.

Figure 3: A computer simulation of 5% NCLB severity on a corn leaf.

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 3 is a computer generated image that shows 5% of the corn leaf area 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.

When Should I Spray and What Should I Spray?

While it might seem tempting to spray fungicide now (between the V6-V8 growth Stages) because of NCLB, remember that the disease will likely slow due to the hot dry weather pattern we are about to encounter. I would encourage you to be patient and save your fungicide spray until as close to tassel (VT growth Stage) as you can. 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 (two fungicide applications). Over a 6 year period and well over 1,500 observations, the average yield gain when using fungicide at V5-V8 alone was 1.9 bu/acre, while that at the VT-R2 timing was 4.7 bu/acre, and 5.6 bu/acre for the two-pass program. Now consider the price of corn and the fungicide cost. Figure 4 is a breakeven table for fungicide cost compared to corn price. You will see that I have called out a couple of possibilities depending on the price of your fungicide. If we consider the price of corn grain to be somewhere between $3 and $4 and the cost of a fungicide to be in the $10 to $14 range, you can see from the table that you would need 2.5 to 4.7 bu/acre of additional corn grain in the treated fields, over not treating, to cover the cost of fungicide. Considering these numbers, and the nationwide average bushel return when using fungicide at various corn growth stages, you can see that the VT application timing for fungicide seems to make the most sense.

So what about fungicide application on corn in Wisconsin? We have compiled a 3-year dataset where we have looked at return on investment when using fungicide in fields where little disease was active (< 5% NCLB ear-leaf severity) or where diseases active (>5% NCLB ear-leaf severity). When NCLB was active, we found that there was a positive yield response when using fungicide about 74% of the time with an average yield gain of 5.4 bushels per acre (Figure 5). When disease activity was low, that positive yield response dropped to just 32% with little gain over zero bushels (Figure 5).

How about the return on investment in the current corn market? If we consider the current corn pricing and a fungicide cost of $10 to $14, Figure 6 shows that in Wisconsin a positive return on investment (ROI) occurs about 50-65% of the time when disease is active on ear-leaves (Figure 6). When disease is not active, the odds of positive ROI drop to just 12% – 20%. For a full discussion and explanation, I would encourage you to watch this video about corn disease and fungicide applications in Wisconsin.

Also 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.

For information on fungicide efficacy for NCLB you can consult fungicide efficacy trial data in Wisconsin BY CLICKING HERE. You can also consult the National Corn Disease Working Group fungicide efficacy table that was recently updated. The fungicide efficacy table can be found BY CLICKING HERE.

Summary

While it is earlier than normal to see NCLB in Wisconsin, I would encourage people to be patient in managing this disease with fungicide. Remember that conditions are going to be hot and dry over the next 1 – 2 weeks, which will dramatically slow the progress of NCLB. Also, 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 closer to VT. With the price of corn grain comparatively lower than in years past, one application of fungicide is about all that Wisconsin farmers can afford, therefore I would maximize that application and apply it as close to the VT growth stage as you can. As you approach that growth stage, continue scouting and consider if the disease is active. If it isn’t active and the weather pattern continues to be hot and dry, a fungicide application may not be needed at all.

Wisconsin Corn Disease Management Update Video

/in , , , /by

Corn Disease Management UpdateDamon L. Smith, Extension Field Crops Pathologist, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Now that the corn crop has been planted, you are probably thinking about disease and pest management once the crop emerges. After the 2015 field season, disease management is on everyones mind. To complicate this issue, corn prices are low. Is a fungicide application going to be worthwhile in this market? Watch this video to learn about potential corn disease issues in Wisconsin and what we have learned about using fungicide on field corn in the state.

2015 UW Extension Pest Management Update Meeting Series

/in , , , /by
General Agronomy

Be sure to get the latest field crop pest management updates, by attending the 2015 PMU Meetings!

Damon Smith, Extension Plant Pathology Specialist

Mark your calendars as the UW Extension’s Pest Management Update meetings are just around the corner (November 9-19). This year’s program will follow the new format established in the 2014 series, with more interaction between presenters and the audience, and participation by Bryan Jensen and Dan Heider with the University of Wisconsin Integrated Pest and Crop Management Program.

We will focus the entire morning (10-noon) on integrated pest management updates by crop (corn, soybean, alfalfa, and small grains). This session will be streamlined to focus on new pesticide registrations, pest updates, and highlight important issues from 2015. After lunch, topics will be more focused on specific updates and diagnostic training. These topics will include:

  • Herbicide resistance update and identification
  • Managing corn rootworms
  • Soybean stem disease identification

These diagnostic and focused trainings were a big hit in 2014 so don’t miss out in 2015!

The full schedule with dates, meeting locations, topics and registration contact information are in the link below. Please register with the host agent at least 1 week prior to the meeting at the location you wish to attend.

Note that due to low turnout in past years, the Arlington location has been dropped from the rotation in 2015. There will only be 7 locations to attend the update meetings, rather than 8 locations as in previous years. Be sure to look at the 2015 schedule included with this article when selecting your preferred date and location.

Please attend the meeting location at which you registered. Each meeting in the series is a separate county-based event and host agents cannot interchange registrant fees or meal counts.

Four hours of CCA CEU pest management credits are requested and available at each location.

The speakers will be extension specialists Mark Renz, weed scientist, perennial cropping systems; Dan Heider, IPM outreach specialist, Bryan Jensen, entomologist, and Damon Smith, field crop plant pathologist.

2015 Pest Management Update Topics:

  • Integrated Pest Management Updates in corn, soybeans, alfalfa, and small grains: Update on new products and/or use of existing products as well as brief highlights of the 2015 pest situations in each crop.
  • Herbicide resistance update and identification: Dan Heider and Mark Renz discuss the herbicide resistant weed situation in Wisconsin and how to identify problematic situations.
  • Managing corn rootworms: Bryan Jensen will take you through identifying corn rootworm problems and how to manage them in field corn.
  • Soybean stem disease identification: Damon Smith will discuss the 2015 soybean stem disease situation in Wisconsin. He will offer tips on how to identify and manage the various stem diseases that cause problems in Wisconsin.

Check out the full meeting schedule at this link.

What Should You Know about Corn and Soybean Diseases as You Prepare for Harvest?

/in , , , /by

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

As the fall is approaching and crop harvest plans are being made, it is important to continue to assess disease issues in corn and soybean. These assessments aren’t being made in order to make plans for in-field management, but to improve the quality of grain that is harvested and allow for some educated decision-making for 2016.

Some Diseases to Consider in Corn at Harvest

Figure 1. Gibberella stalk rot on corn. Severe stalk rot on the left and less severe stalk rot on the right.

Figure 1. Gibberella stalk rot on corn. Severe stalk rot on the left and less severe stalk rot on the right.

Now is the best time to begin scouting corn for stalk rot issues and also fungal ear rot potential. Diseases such as Anthracnose stalk rot and Gibberella stalk rot are becoming apparent in corn.  Inspect the stalks integrity on the outside.  Be sure to squeeze the outside of the stalk to gauge the potential severity of the rot on the inside of the stalk.  Cut a few stalks from diverse areas of the field to see how rotted stalks might be. In figure 1, the stalk on the left has a severe case of Gibberella stalk rot, while the stalk on the right is far less rotted.  Fields that had high levels of norther corn leaf blight (NCLB) this season, are going to be more prone to stalk rot due to the added stress of the foliar disease. The more severely rotted stalks are, the more likely they will lodge.  Therefore timely harvest is important. Growers should target harvesting of fields with severe stalk rot before fields that have less stalk rot, in order to minimize harvest losses due to lodging.

Figure 2. Diplodia ear rot.

Figure 2. Diplodia ear rot.

Ear rots can also be an issue at harvest time. Fusarium ear rot, Gibberella ear rot, and Diplodia ear rot (Fig. 2) are just a few that can damage corn in Wisconsin. It will be critical to check fields in the next several weeks in order to make decisions on what fields to harvest first.  Harvest priority should be placed on fields with a high level of ear rot.  As corn stands late into the fall, certain ear rot fungi can continue to grow, damage ears, and cause increases in mycotoxins in grain. The quicker these fields dry and can be harvested, the more likely the losses due to ear rot and mycotoxin accumulation can be minimized.

Soybean White Mold Management at Harvest

Figure 3. Sclerotia of the white mold fungus inside a soybean stem.

Figure 3. Sclerotia of the white mold fungus inside a soybean stem.

In Wisconsin, the main disease to consider when making harvest plans in soybean is white mold. White mold is present in some soybean fields in the state and has caused considerable damage in a few of those fields. Remember that the white mold fungus not only causes stem blight and damage, but also causes the formation of sclerotia (fungal survival structures that look like rat droppings) on and in soybean stems (Fig. 3). These scelrotia serve as the primary source of fungal inoculum for the next soybean crop. They also get caught in combines during harvest. These sclerotia can then be spread in combines to other fields that might not be infested with the white mold fungus.  Therefore, it is important to harvest non-infested soybean fields first, followed by white mold-infested fields, to be sure the combine does not deposit any residual sclerotia in the non-infested fields.  If this is not an option and you must harvest white mold infested fields before non-infested fields, be sure to clean the combine thoroughly between fields.

For more information about white mold management in soybean you can click here and scroll down to “white mold” or watch a video by clicking here.

Identify Corn and Soybean Diseases Now to Make Decisions for 2016

While most of the focus during this time of season is on equipment and calibrating yield monitors, it is important to get an accurate diagnosis on any soybean and corn diseases you are seeing now.  This information will help this winter as you review variety and hybrid trials and make decisions about what you are going to plant in 2016. Have knowledge of the primary disease issues in your fields. This will allow you to choose varieties and hybrids with the best disease resistance package to combat those diseases. Finally, now is a great time to sample for soybean cyst nematode (SCN). For more information on sampling for SCN in Wisconsin, CLICK HERE.

Goss’s Wilt Confirmed in Wisconsin in 2015

/in , , /by
Figure 1. Foliar symptoms of Goss's wilt on a corn leaf. Photo Credit: Larry Osborne, Bugwood.org.

Figure 1. Foliar symptoms of Goss’s wilt on a corn leaf. Photo Credit: Larry Osborne, Bugwood.org.

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

Goss’s wilt on field corn was confirmed for the first time in the 2015 season in Wisconsin this week in Grant County. Goss’s wilt has been confirmed in past years in Wisconsin, including the 2014 field season.

Symptoms and Signs

Goss’s wilt is caused by the bacterium Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. nebraskensis. First visual symptoms usually appear as gray or yellow stripes on leaves that tend to follow the leaf veins (Fig. 1). Often “freckles”, or brown or green irregular spots, can be observed within the leaf lesions (Fig. 2). Freckles are an excellent diagnostic symptom to confirm Goss’s wilt. Vascular tissue (Fig. 3), husks, and kernels can sometimes take on an orange hue. Occasionally, bacterial ooze or dried ooze can be observed on symptomatic leaves. This disease is often confused with northern corn leaf blight (NCLB), which is a fungal disease. Earlier this season I wrote an article on differentiating between NCLB and Goss’s will. You can visit that article by CLICKING HERE.

Figure 2. "Freckles" on a corn leaf with Goss's wilt. Photo credit: Larry Osborne, Bugwood.org.

Figure 2. “Freckles” on a corn leaf with Goss’s wilt. Photo credit: Larry Osborne, Bugwood.org.

Factors that Cause Disease Development

The Goss’s wilt bacterium overwinters in old corn residue. The bacterium enters the plant through wounds or natural openings. Yield losses will depend on the susceptibility of the hybrid being grown. Factors that put corn fields at higher risk include:

  1. Reduced Tillage
  2. Continuous corn rotation
  3. Planting a susceptible hybrid
  4. Poor grassy weed control
  5. Hail, wind, or severe weather events causing injury on corn plants

Storms with hail and wind were prominent this past weekend in areas of Wisconsin. Fields with wind and hail damage should also be monitored closely for Goss’s wilt. This type of damage creates excellent entry points for the Goss’s wilt pathogen.

Figure 3. Orange vascular tissue of a corn plant with Goss's wilt. Photo credit: Howard F. Schwartz, Colorado State University, Bugwood.org.

Figure 3. Orange vascular tissue of a corn plant with Goss’s wilt. Photo credit: Howard F. Schwartz, Colorado State University, Bugwood.org.

Management

There is currently no research-based method of in-season management of Goss’s wilt. There are some foliar products being marketed for the control of Goss’s wilt, but university-based research has indicated that these products have little efficacy on Goss’s wilt in the field. Because this disease is caused by a bacterium, the application of fungicide WILL NOT control Goss’s wilt. Planting resistant hybrids in fields with a history of Goss’ wilt is recommended.  Residue management and crop rotations should also be implemented in at-risk fields. Some grassy weed hosts can be alternative hosts for the Goss’s wilt pathogen. Therefore, a sound weed management program in and around corn fields can be useful in managing Goss’s wilt. Colleagues at Purdue University have developed an excellent fact sheet covering alternative grassy weed hosts of Goss’s wilt. They also include some recommendations for controlling these weedy hosts. You can download a PDF version of the fact sheet by CLICKING HERE.

Additional Goss’s Wilt Information

University of Nebraska – http://pdc.unl.edu/agriculturecrops/corn/gosswilt

Purdue University – https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/bp/BP-81-W.pdf

References

Article modified from original version posted in 2014

L.E. Claflin. Goss’s Bacterial Wilt and Blight, in: Compendium of Corn Diseases, 3rd edition. Ed. D.G. White. APS Press.

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.

Time to Start Looking for Corn Diseases in Wisconsin

/in , , , , /by
Figure 1. NCLB Lesions on a corn leaf

Figure 1. NCLB Lesions on a corn leaf

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

The 2014 field season was a bit of a challenge for corn growers in Wisconsin, to say the least. We had poor growing conditions, which made for a lot of challenges including diseases. On the top of that list in Wisconsin was Northern Corn Leaf blight (NCLB). A close second was Goss’s Wilt.  Already in 2015, states like Iowa and Nebraska have already reported both diseases on corn. This is among the earliest reports of both diseases in many years. In Wisconsin, we haven’t seen either of these yet, but given the weather patterns recently, I think it is only a matter of time.

For many folks, identification of these two diseases can be challenging. Many are confused by the subtleties of each disease “signature.” Diagnosis is critical in making your management decisions properly. Obviously, the best way to properly diagnose any plant disease problem is to send a sample to the Plant Disease Diagnostic Clinic. A sample can be sent by following their helpful sample guidelines, which can be found by clicking here. In addition to sending a diagnostic sample, there are some signs and symptoms that can be identified in the field, to help get you closer to diagnosing the right disease. Here are some helpful details for each disease.

Figure 2. Foliar symptoms of Goss's wilt on a corn leaf. Photo Credit: Larry Osborne, Bugwood.org.

Figure 2. Foliar symptoms of Goss’s wilt on a corn leaf. Photo Credit: Larry Osborne, Bugwood.org.

Northern Corn Leaf Blight (NCLB): NCLB is caused by a fungus called Exserohilum turcicum. 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. Often the best time to apply fungicides to field corn to maximize the benefits is near the VT/R1 growth stage. However, if NCLB is visible on leaves earlier than this time, a fungicide might be beneficial at those earlier stages. The only way to determine this is to scout frequently and keep an eye on the disease situation in your corn crop.

If you elect to control NCLB with fungicides, you might consider taking a look at my page on FUNGICIDE INFORMATION. This page talks about fungicide use in general and also includes the Corn Fungicide Efficacy Table. You will find products listed with good efficacy toward NCLB on this table.

Additional NCLB Information

Purdue University – https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/BP/BP-84-W.pdf

Iowa State University – http://www.extension.iastate.edu/CropNews/2014/0714Robertson.htm

Figure 3. "Freckles" on a corn leaf with Goss's wilt. Photo credit: Larry Osborne, Bugwood.org.

Figure 3. “Freckles” on a corn leaf with Goss’s wilt. Photo credit: Larry Osborne, Bugwood.org.

Goss’s Wilt: Goss’s wilt is caused by the bacterium Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. nebraskensis. First visual symptoms usually appear as gray or yellow stripes on leaves that tend to follow the leaf veins (Fig. 2). Often “freckles”, or brown or green irregular spots, can be observed within the leaf lesions (Fig. 3). Freckles are an excellent diagnostic symptom to confirm Goss’s wilt. Vascular tissue, husks, and kernels can sometimes take on an orange hue. Occasionally, bacterial ooze or dried ooze can be observed on symptomatic leaves. Fungicides do not work for Goss’s wilt, because this is caused by a bacterium, not a fungus. Management is preventative for Goss’s wilt. Choose hybrids with the best possible resistance, manage excessive amounts of corn surface residue, and rotate crops. The longer the rotation between corn crops, the better. There are some foliar products being marketed for the control of Goss’s wilt, but no efficacy data are currently available.

Additional Goss’s Wilt Information

University of Nebraska – http://pdc.unl.edu/agriculturecrops/corn/gosswilt

Purdue University – https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/bp/BP-81-W.pdf

Corn Diagnostics Quick Guide: Many of you likely attended the 2014 Pest Management Update Series and obtained the corn diagnostics quick guide sheet to help differentiate between Goss’s wilt and NCLB. I have again attached it to this post for download as a PDF. This is a quick guide to help you differentiate the diseases in the field. Remember, the only way to definitively differentiate the diseases is to send a sample to the diagnostic clinic. Get out there and SCOUT, SCOUT, SCOUT!