July
2012
, Volume
96
, Number
7
Pages
957
-
967
Authors
K. T. Willyerd,
C. Li, and
L. V. Madden, Department of Plant Pathology, The Ohio State University, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster 44691;
C. A. Bradley, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801;
G. C. Bergstrom, Department of Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853;
L. E. Sweets, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211;
M. McMullen, Department of Plant Pathology, and
J. K. Ransom, Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo 58108;
A. Grybauskas, Department of Plant Science and Landscape Management, University of Maryland, College Park 20742;
L. Osborne, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Brookings SD 57006;
S. N. Wegulo, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln 68583;
D. E. Hershman, Department of Plant Pathology, The University of Kentucky, Princeton, 42445;
K. Wise, Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907;
W. W. Bockus, Department of Plant Pathology, Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506;
D. Groth, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center Rice Research Station, Rayne 70578;
R. Dill-Macky, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul 55108;
E. Milus, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 72701;
P. D. Esker, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison 53706;
K. D. Waxman, Department of Plant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology, Cornell University;
E. A. Adee and
S. E. Ebelhar, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois;
B. G. Young, Department of Plant, Soil, and Agricultural Systems, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale 62901; and
P. A. Paul, Department of Plant Pathology, The Ohio State University, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
Affiliations
Go to article:
RelatedArticle
Accepted for publication 30 November 2011.
Abstract
Integration of host resistance and prothioconazole + tebuconazole fungicide application at anthesis to manage Fusarium head blight (FHB) and deoxynivalenol (DON) in wheat was evaluated using data from over 40 trials in 12 U.S. states. Means of FHB index (index) and DON from up to six resistance class–fungicide management combinations per trial (susceptible treated [S_TR] and untreated [S_UT]; moderately susceptible treated [MS_TR] and untreated [MS_UT]; moderately resistant treated [MR_TR] and untreated [MR_UT]) were used in multivariate meta-analyses, and mean log response ratios across trials were estimated and transformed to estimate mean percent control (C) due to the management combinations relative to S_UT. All combinations led to a significant reduction in index and DON (P < 0.001). MR_TR was the most effective combination, with a C of 76% for index and 71% for DON, followed by MS_TR (71 and 58%, respectively), MR_UT (54 and 51%, respectively), S_TR (53 and 39%, respectively), and MS_UT (43 and 30%, respectively). Calculations based on the principle of treatment independence showed that the combination of fungicide application and resistance was additive in terms of percent control for index and DON. Management combinations were ranked based on percent control relative to S_UT within each trial, and nonparametric analyses were performed to determine management combination stability across environments (trials) using the Kendall coefficient of concordance (W). There was a significant concordance of management combinations for both index and DON (P < 0.001), indicating a nonrandom ranking across environments and relatively low variability in the within-environment ranking of management combinations. MR_TR had the highest mean rank (best control relative to S_UT) and was one of the most stable management combinations across environments, with low rank stability variance (0.99 for index and 0.67 for DON). MS_UT had the lowest mean rank (poorest control) but was also one of the most stable management combinations. Based on Piepho's nonparametric rank-based variance homogeneity U test, there was an interaction of management combination and environment for index (P = 0.011) but not for DON (P = 0.147), indicating that the rank ordering for index depended somewhat on environment. In conclusion, although the magnitude of percent control will likely vary among environments, integrating a single tebuconazole + prothioconazole application at anthesis with cultivar resistance will be a more effective and stable management practice for both index and DON than either approach used alone.
JnArticleKeywords
Page Content
ArticleCopyright
© 2012 The American Phytopathological Society
