ontario sugar beet growers - Atrium - University of Guelph

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CROP: Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) cv. El 7 PEST: Rhizoctonia Crown Rot, Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn NAME AND AGENCY: PITBLADO, R E Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, NOP 2C0 Tel: (5 19) 674-1 605 Fax: (5 19) 674-1 600 E-mail: rpitblad@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca TITLE: EVALUATION OF HEADS UP FOR THE CONTROL OF RHIZOCTONIA CROWN ROT IN SUGARBEETS - 2005 MATERIALS: HEADS UP (disease regulator experimental product), HEADLINE 250EC (pyraclostrobin) METHODS: Sugarbeet seeds were spray misted with a lg/L concentration of HEADS UP to the point of wetness (1 6ml onto 10 g of seed) and mixed thoroughly and allowed to air dry - treatment #l. In treatment #2 the sugarbeet seeds were submerged for 5 minutes in a 1 g/L solution of HEADS UP to allow more of the chemical to move into the seed and then was allowed to air dry. Sugarbeet seeds were planted at the research station in Ridgetown, on May 6,2005. Plots were two rows, 7 m in length spaced 0.75 cm apart, replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. The in-furrow spray applications were directed over the seed and then covered on May 6 using a specialized small plot research CO, sprayer with a single nozzled hand-held boom applying 200L/ha of spray mixture. The at emergence spray was applied over the planted row in a 15 cm band on May 26. The Rhizoctonia crown rot organism was grown out onto wheat seeds and sprinkled along the length of each row to encourage a level of disease pressure. Assessments were conducted by counting the number of emerged plants on June 2, a plant vigour rating on July 15 and a total plant count on July 28. Results were analysed using the Duncan's multiple range test (P< 0.05). RESULTS: Data are presented in Table 1. CONCLUSIONS: The in-furrow sprays of both HEADS UP and HEADLINE 250EC significantly allowed more seedlings to emerge, especially were HEADLINE l5OEC was used. This may have been due to some growth promotant characteristic of these products or more realistically due to the manner in which the ground was disturbed, loosened for the in-furrow application that then allowed for faster sugarebeet emergence. This same rational may be used to explain the improved plant vigour ratings with both of these treatments showing greater plant growth than the other treatments that were held back. HEADS UP when applied as a seed treatment or when sprayed at time of emergence did not reduce or control Rhizoctonia crown rot in sugarbeets. The in-furrow treatments were much more effective in promoting healthy plants and increased plant stands. This could have been a combination of effective Rhizoctonia Crown Rot fungicides andlor the differences in soil compaction around the seed at time of planting.
Table 1. The control of Rhizoctonia Root Rot using HEADS UP in sugarbeets. Treatments 1 g/L product rate Application Emergence Cts Plant Vigour Ratings (0- 10) l1 Total Plant Cts June 2 July 15 July 28 HEADS UP Seed 7.0 c* 3.5 c 11.0 c Treatment - seed mist HEADS UP Seed 3.5 c 2.3 d 8.0 c Treatment - imbibe HEADS UP In- furrow 14.5 b . 7.0 b 30.3 b HEADS UP At emergence 6.0 c 2.8 cd 12.3 c HEADLINE 250EC In-hrrow 26.0 a 7 g/100m of row CONTROL 4.5 c 2.8 cd 7.3 c ANOVA P50.05 s s s Coefficient of Variation (%) 32.6 18.7 28.3 *These values are the means of four replications. Numbers within a column followed by the same small letter are not significantly different according to a Duncan's Multiple Range Test (Ps0.05). 'I Plant Vigour Ratings (0-10); 0- plants in poor health, 10- plants are very vigorous and growing well.
Page 1 and 2: Submitted to the ONTARIO SUGAR BEET
Page 3 and 4: SPECIAL ACKNOWLDEGMENTS I wish to p
Page 5 and 6: REPORTS IRRIGATION STRATEGIES FOR S
Page 7 and 8: Research Results and Milestone Stat
Page 9 and 10: applications, severely costing the
Page 11 and 12: Table 1. Foliar disease control rat
Page 13 and 14: CROP: Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)
Page 15 and 16: Table la. Cercospora Foliar disease
Page 17: BeetCast Evaluation for the Control
Page 23 and 24: CROP: PEST: Sugar beet (Beta vulgar
Page 25 and 26: CONTROL OF RHlZOCTONlA CROWN ROT IN
Page 27 and 28: Table 1. Effect of fungicides appli
Page 29 and 30: Table 1. Foliar insect damage ratin
Page 31 and 32: CROP: Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)
Page 33 and 34: effective in combating the crown ro
Page 35 and 36: Table 1. Field assessments of sugar
Page 37 and 38: Table 1. Common leaf rust ratings i
Page 39 and 40: IRRIGATION STRATEGIES FOR SUGAR BEE
Page 41 and 42: Fig. 1. Irrigation test sites, Mich
Page 43: Fig. 5. Commercial Pivot Irrigation
Page 50 and 51: Irr 1-7: dates where grower applied
Page 52 and 53: Fig. 8b. Location A Pivot Irrigatio
Page 54 and 55: COMMENTS: Location A CONTROL lOcm T
Page 56 and 57: Fig. 9a Location B Control 10cm Dep
Page 58 and 59: 1Ocm Depth Hand lrrigated (Reif) -
Page 60 and 61: SUGAR BEET MELD AND SUGAR CONTENT O
Page 62 and 63: COMMENTS The reference ETo at each
Page 64 and 65: graphs indicated that too much wate
Page 66 and 67: 1. PRODUCTION BENEFITS OF IRRIGATIO
Page 68 and 69: of 10 (Fig. 6). Plant growth charac
Page 70 and 71:
Table 1: Seed corn irrigation analy
Page 72 and 73:
Fig. 8. Irrigation plot layout show
Page 74 and 75:
Cob Length Irrigation significantly
Page 76 and 77:
Seed Corn Yields Irrigation signifi
Page 78 and 79:
BENEFITS OF IRRIGATING SEED CORN IN
Page 80 and 81:
C-probe Scaled Frequency Unit V I +
Page 82 and 83:
CONCLUSIONS: The initial intent was
Page 84 and 85:
Fig. >rip tape along side of seed c
Page 86 and 87:
Table 8b: Drip Irrigation - Seed co
Page 88 and 89:
Fig. 18. Drip Irrigation - Non-irri
Page 90 and 91:
Fig. 20. Rainfall accumulations in
Page 92 and 93:
Fig. 22. Soil moisture profile in f
show all

ontario sugar beet growers - Atrium - University of Guelph

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?