|
Click
here for printer-friendly version
|
|
Ground vs. Aerial Applied Folicur
|
|
for Fusarium Head Blight Control |
|
North Central Research Extension Center,
Minot, ND. 2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kent
McKay, Area Extension Agronomist/Cropping Systems, NCREC |
|
|
|
|
Marcia
McMullen, NDSU Extension Plant Pathologist, Fargo, ND |
|
|
|
|
Kristie Michels, Research Specialist, NCREC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vern
Hofman, NDSU Extension Ag and Biosystems, Fargo, ND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trial Information: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
objective of this trial was to compare ground versus aerial application of
Folicur for Fusarium head blight (FHB) control in durum wheat. The trial was
conducted on the Ron St.Croix farm near Kenmare, North Dakota in 2003.
'Mountrail' durum was planted May 28 on previous field pea residue. The
trial design was a randomized complete block with three replications. Each
plot was 120 feet wide by 1000 feet long. A high-wheel John Deere 4700
sprayer applying 18 GPA with twin jet nozzles was used to apply the
fungicide treatments by ground. An airplane (flown by Hank Bodmer) applying
5 GPA with CP nozzles was used to apply the aerial applications.
|
|
Four
fungicide treatments were included along with the untreated. Treatments
included one application of Folicur at 4 fl oz, plus a split application of
Folicur at 2 fl oz applied four days apart, both applied by ground and air.
The single and first split fungicide applications were made July 21 at
Feekes 10.51 (early flower). The second split fungicide application was made
July 25 at the end of flower. A non-ionic surfactant at 0.125% v/v was added
to all fungicide treatments. FHB and leaf disease ratings were taken August
11 at the soft dough stage. Plots were harvested with a John Deere 9610
combine on September 4. A 30 foot by 1000 foot strip was combined from the
center of each plot. Plot yield was determined by weighing the combined
grain in a weigh wagon. A sub-sample was taken for quality analysis. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Results: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There
was no significant difference in yield or test weight among treatments.
However, all fungicide treatments increased yield by 2 to 4 bushels per acre
compared to the untreated check. All fungicide treatments significantly
decreased the level of leaf disease on the flag leaf compared to the
untreated check. There were no differences measured with ground versus
aerial application or with one single application versus the split
application of Folicur. FHB levels were low and did not have any impact on
the trial. Durum samples from each plot were sent to the Toxicology Lab at
NDSU for DON evaluation. All plot samples recorded DON levels below 0.5 ppm. |
|
Table 1. Ground vs Aerial
Applied Folicur for Fusarium Head Blight Control, Kenmare, ND 2003. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FHB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test |
Flag Leaf |
FHB |
Head |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
|
Yield |
Weight |
Disease |
Incidence |
Severity |
|
|
Treatment |
Rate/A |
Timing |
bu/A |
lb/bu |
% |
% |
% |
|
|
Untreated |
|
--- |
--- |
60.3 |
60.4 |
17.2 |
12.7 |
7.9 |
|
|
Folicur - Aerial |
2 |
fl oz |
7/21 |
63.4 |
61.0 |
3.5 |
6.0 |
5.3 |
|
|
Folicur - Aerial |
2 |
fl oz |
7/25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Folicur - Ground |
2 |
fl oz |
7/21 |
62.0 |
60.8 |
1.5 |
4.0 |
6.0 |
|
|
Folicur - Ground |
2 |
fl oz |
7/25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Folicur - Aerial |
4 |
fl oz |
7/21 |
64.7 |
61.1 |
3.5 |
7.3 |
5.4 |
|
|
Folicur - Ground |
4 |
fl oz |
7/21 |
62.4 |
60.7 |
2.0 |
6.7 |
5.6 |
|
|
LSD 5% |
|
NS |
NS |
5.7 |
NS |
NS |
|
|
C.V.% |
|
2.4 |
0.4 |
51.5 |
39.4 |
25.3 |
|
|
Grand
Mean |
|
62.6 |
60.8 |
5.8 |
7.3 |
6.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Coverage Area,
VMD and GPA on Water Sensitive Paper Mounted Horizontally and
|
|
Vertically Oriented Cards
by Spray Application and Droplet Size at Kenmare, ND. 2003 |
|
Trt. |
|
GPA |
Horizonal Cards |
Vertical Cards |
|
No. |
Appl. Method |
Applied |
% Area |
VMD |
GPA |
% Area |
BMD |
GPA |
|
1 |
Untreated |
0 |
0 |
48 |
0 |
0.01 |
122 |
0.002 |
|
4 |
Aerial |
5 |
508 |
267 |
2.16 |
4.8 |
309 |
1.75 |
|
5 |
Ground |
18 |
* |
421** |
* |
29.5 |
538 |
6.64 |
|
* No
data -- Water sensitive cards were overloaded with spray drops. |
|
|
|
|
**
Drop size was obtained at faster than normal spraying speeds to spread out
the drops. |
|
|
Information in Table 2 was measured with water sensitive cards mounted on
stands at the height of the
grain heads. Water sensitive cards were mounted in the vertical plane and
back-to-back. One half were
mounted parallel to the sprayer travel direction, and the other half were
mounted perpendicular to the sprayer travel direction. The cards were
placed in this manner to measure the spray being deposited on the durum
heads. Other cards were placed horizontally facing up to intercept spray
drops and determine drop size. Only two of the treatments were measured, as
the gallons per acre being applied were the same as the treatments measured.
The column title "% Area" estimates the percent of the card covered with
spray drops. This may also provide a relative comparison to coverage on a
grain head. The column titled "VMD" is the volume median diameter. The VMD
is a value where one-half the volume of spray drops are smaller, and one
half the volume is spray drops larger than this value. The column titled
"GPA" is a relative estimate of the gallons per acre deposited on the water
sensitive cards. It must be realized that this is only an estimate. The gpa
being applied is based on the calibration and operation of the sprayer.
|
|
Spray Drop Results: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table
2 indicates very few drops were deposited in the untreated area. This is
indicated with the near zero values in the "% Area" and "GPA" columns. The
drops showing up are 48 and 122 microns in size. The treatements labeled
"4" and "5" are shown as all aerial treatments were applied at the same
application rate, and the ground applications were also done at the same
rate. The aerial treatment indicates that 5.8% of the surface on the
horizontal cards were covered with spray drops with a VMD of 267 microns.
The vertical cards indicate that 4.8% of the card was covered with spray
drops of 309 microns. This includes the front and back, as the cards were
fastened back-to-back. The ground sprayer produced spray drops of 421
microns on horizontal cards and were produced by operating the sprayer at a
higher speed to avoid "flooding" the cards, which happened at normal
spraying speeds to apply 18 gpa. This is the reason no data was obtained
for the "% Area" and "GPA". The vertical cards for the ground sprayer
covered 29.5% of the cards, producing a 538 micron drop. The coverage was
higher for the ground sprayer, but did not produce higher grain yields as
shown in Table 1. |
|
|
|
This
trial was funded by a grant from the National Scab Initiative. Special
thanks to Ron and Dave St. Croix, Hank Bodmer, and Bayer Crop Science for
their cooperation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
