RICE CULTURE Utilization of On-Farm Testing to Evaluate Rice ...

arkansasagnews.uark.edu
  • No tags were found...

RICE CULTURE Utilization of On-Farm Testing to Evaluate Rice ...

RICE CULTUREUtilization of On-FarmTesting to Evaluate Rice CultivarsD.L. Frizzell, J.D. Branson, C.E. Wilson Jr.,C.E. Parsons, R.D. Cartwright, J.W. Gibbons, and R.J. NormanABSTRACTRice diseases reduce yield, milling quality, and profit in Arkansas rice productioneach year. Resistant cultivars are the first line of defense against disease, and the correctcultivar choice for a particular field will result in lower production costs and higherprofits to the grower by minimizing disease problems. Diseases are greatly influencedby the environment and thus, rice is grown in numerous field situations around thestate. Therefore, performance evaluations across many environments are importantto overall cultivar selection. The Disease Monitoring Program (DMP) was initiatedin 1995 with three main objectives. These objectives are: 1) to monitor the diseasepressure in the different regions of Arkansas, 2) to determine disease reactions of ricecultivars to diseases not commonly observed on experiment stations, and 3) comparethe yield potential of commercially available cultivars and advanced experimental lines.Field studies consisting of 25 to 30 commercial cultivars and experimental lines areimplemented in 6 to 10 grower fields annually. Beginning in 2007, an additional fourlocations were dedicated to only Clearfield cultivars.INTRODUCTIONRice diseases are an important constraint to profitable rice production in Arkansas.Based on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) methods, we encourage the use ofhost resistance, optimum cultural practices, and fungicides when necessary to reducedisease potential. These options provide growers the maximum profit at the lowestdisease control cost, all other factors being equal.179


B.R. Wells Rice Research Studies 2010cultivars were planted in Clearfield rice fields. These tests received two applications ofNewpath and one application of imazamox (Beyond ® ) per Clearfield rice stewardship.Application of this herbicide allows evaluation of cultivar tolerance and hopefullyprovides advanced knowledge of cultivars that may not have complete resistance.Plots were managed by the grower with the rest of the field with respect to fertilization,irrigation, weed and insect control, but in most cases did not receive a fungicideapplication. If a fungicide was applied, it was considered in the disease ratings. Plotswere inspected periodically and rated for disease, then harvested at maturity with yieldadjusted to 12% grain moisture. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance withmeans separation using Fisher’s least significant difference test (α = 0.05). Millinganalysis was conducted following harvest on selected locations.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONConventional Disease Monitoring ProgramAcross all six harvested locations, the top three entries were Roy J (160 bu/acre),Francis (159 bu/acre) and Taggart (157 bu/acre) during 2010 (Table 1). Jupiter wasthe highest yielding medium cultivar averaging 146 bu/acre across all locations. Atthe Faulkner, Lawrence, and Jackson county locations, Roy J was the highest yieldingcultivar. Cheniere and Wells were the highest yielding cultivars at Cross County andPoinsett County, respectively. Grain yield was highest at Prairie County in CL151.Monitoring the severity of disease and the reaction of the various cultivars to thepresence of disease is a significant part of this program (Table 2). The observationsobtained from these plots are often the basis for disease ratings developed for use bygrowers. This is particularly true for minor diseases that may not be encountered frequently,such as narrow brown leaf spot, false smut, and kernel smut.Diseases in general were not substantial in the 2010 DMP trials and the hot dryweather in June and July diminished foliar disease development in the state. However,the hot dry weather conditions were more favorable for development of bacterial panicleblight in susceptible cultivars. For the three locations sampled, Rex attained the bestmilling yield with an average of 55% head rice (Table 3). Cheniere and JazzMan wereboth very similar, averaging 54% head rice. Wells, CL142AR, and JES had the smallesthead rice percentage of all cultivars sampled during 2010.Clearfield Disease Monitoring ProgramDuring 2010, grain yield averaged 160 bu/acre across both cultivars and locations(Table 4). The RiceTec hybrids CLXL729 and CLXL745 were the highest yieldingcultivars at three of the four locations. In contrast, CL131 and CL142AR were thehighest yielding entries in the St. Francis County test.181


AAES Research Series 591SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGSThe 2010 on-farm rice evaluation and disease monitoring program provided additionaldata to the rice breeding and disease resistance programs. The program alsoprovided supplemental performance and disease reaction data on new cultivars that willbe more widely grown in Arkansas during 2011.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors appreciate the cooperation of all participating rice producers andthank all Arkansas rice growers for financial support through the rice Check-Off fundsadministered by the Arkansas Rice Research and Promotion Board. The authors especiallythank the following county agents who made this work possible: Craig Allen,Hank Chaney, Randy Chlapecka, Mitch Crow, Herb Ginn, Brent Griffin, Chad Norton,Branon Thiesse, Rick Thompson, Gus Wilson, and Rick Wimberley.182


B.R. Wells Rice Research Studies 2010Table 1. Yield performance of selected cultivars in replicated rice diseasemonitoring tests located in grower fields (county) in Arkansas during 2010.Grain yieldCultivar Cross Faulkner Lawrence Jackson Poinsett Prairie Mean z-------------------------------------------------------------------- (bu/acre)--------------------------------------------------------------------Bengal 172 167 81 203 82 157 144Bowman 141 112 72 196 74 155 125Catahoula 148 129 77 178 54 178 127Cheniere 165 114 79 189 75 173 132CL111 191 93 73 167 109 167 133CL131 166 138 88 166 94 185 140CL142AR 172 170 86 195 95 172 148CL151 170 99 94 148 107 210 138CL181AR 149 128 86 173 95 134 127CL261 158 149 85 191 60 119 127Cocodrie 157 135 90 184 76 157 133Francis 184 137 108 226 100 197 159JazzMan 155 58 59 176 87 157 115JES 142 101 109 132 106 188 130Jupiter 163 153 92 212 104 150 146Rex 160 150 97 191 108 182 148Roy J 164 189 82 227 102 196 160Taggart 164 154 116 212 110 185 157Templeton 154 138 106 199 115 169 147Wells 174 157 74 206 117 153 147Mean 162 134 88 189 93 169 139LSD(0.05) 42 48 29 25 17 49 ---zMean = average grain yield of cultivar across 6 locations.183


AAES Research Series 591Table 2. Rice cultivar reactions to diseases, 2010.NarrowBacterial brown BlackSheath Straight- panicle leaf Stem Kernel False sheathCultivar blight Blast head blight spot rot smut smut Lodging rotBengal MS z S VS VS S VS MS MS MR MRCL 261 MS VS S VS S VS MS S MS MSJupiter S S S MR y MS VS MS MS MS MRNeptune MS MS VS VS MS VS MS MS MR MRRTCLXL729 MS R MS MR MS S MS S S SRTCLXL745 S x R R MR MS S MS S S SRTXL723 MS R S MR MS S MS S MS SCL111 VS MS S VS VS VS S S MS SCL131 VS MS VS VS VS VS S S MR SCL142AR MS S MS S S S S S MS SCL151 S VS VS VS S VS S S S VSCL181AR VS MS MS VS S VS S S MR SRex S S S S MS S S S MR SCatahoula VS R MS S MR S S S MR MSCheniere S VS VS w VS S S S S MR SCocodrie S S VS S S VS S S MR SFrancis MS VS MR VS S S VS S MS MSRoy J MS S S S MR S S S MR MSTaggart MS MS R S MS S S S MS MSTempleton MS R S S S MS S S MS MSWells S S MS S S VS S S MS MSJazzMan MS S S S S S MS S MS MSJES S R VS v MS R VS MS MS S MRzReaction: R = resistant; MR = moderately resistant; MS = moderately susceptible; S = susceptible; VS = very susceptible. Reactions were establishedfrom both historical and recent observations from test plots and in grower fields across Arkansas. In general, these reactions would beexpected under conditions that favor severe disease development including excessive nitrogen rates (most diseases) or low flood depth (blast).yBased on limited observations in 2010, a new strain of the bacterial panicle blight pathogen may be developing that can attack Jupiter under idealconditions, but does not appear to be widespread.continued184


B.R. Wells Rice Research Studies 2010Table 2. Continued.xThis hybrid appears to be more susceptible to sheath blight in Arkansas the past two seasons. About 10% of CLXL745 acreage is currently beingtreated in the state for sheath blight, and in several fields observed, justifiably so.wCheniere in some parts of Arkansas in 2010 reacted differently to certain diseases than in the past, in particular straighthead, blast,and bacterialpanicle blight. This bears watching in the future.vBased on reactions noted at the Newport Station in Jackson County during 2010, very susceptible.Table prepared by R.D. Cartwright, Professor/Extension Plant Pathologist and F.N. Lee, Professor of Plant Pathology.185


AAES Research Series 591Table 3. Milling yield of selected cultivars in replicated rice diseasemonitoring tests located in grower fields (county) in Arkansas during 2010.Milling yeldCultivar Cross Lawrence Prairie Mean z--------------------------- (% head rice - % total rice)---------------------------Bengal 55-69 44-63 58-67 52-66Bowman 52-67 52-64 56-66 53-66Catahoula 37-68 37-63 57-69 44-67Cheniere 58-70 47-62 57-68 54-67CL111 54-68 35-58 57-66 49-64CL131 50-68 38-61 61-68 50-66CL142AR 31-67 30-63 53-68 38-66CL151 46-68 43-60 61-69 50-66CL181AR 44-66 36-63 56-67 45-65Cl261 47-67 45-63 57-66 49-65Cocodrie 56-69 45-60 54-66 52-65Francis 39-66 40-62 52-66 44-65JazzMan 51-67 52-67 58-67 54-67JES 33-64 43-64 46-64 41-64Jupiter 48-64 42-64 54-63 48-64Rex 56-67 49-64 59-67 55-66Roy J 45-67 46-66 50-66 47-66Taggart 43-67 44-66 52-68 47-67Templeton 56-67 41-63 52-66 50-65Wells 28-67 33-63 51-68 37-66Mean 46-67 42-63 55-67 48-66zMean = average milling yield of cultivar across 3 locations.Table 4. Yield performance of selected Clearfield varieties in replicated ricedisease monitoring tests located in grower fields (county) in Arkansas during 2010.Grain yieldCultivar Chicot Craighead Poinsett St. Francis Mean z---------------------------------------(bu/acre)---------------------------------------CL111 191 230 117 106 161CL131 170 212 104 138 156CL142AR 159 224 100 129 153CL151 176 243 106 103 157CL181AR 163 209 105 117 149CL261 153 160 62 127 125RTCLXL729 243 263 156 123 196RTCLXL745 221 249 143 111 181Mean 185 224 112 119 160LSD(0.05) 38 64 17 30 ---zMean = average grain yield of cultivar across all locations.186

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines