Local Governments • U.S. Department of Agriculture

It is the policy of the University of Maryland, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station, and University of

Maryland Extension that all persons have equal opportunity and access to programs and facilities without regard to race, color, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, age, marital or parental status, or disability.

The University of Maryland Extension Agriculture and Food Systems and Environment and Natural Resources Focus Teams proudly present this publication for commercial agronomic field crops and livestock industries.

Volume 6 Issue 7 “Special Research Edition” October 23, 2015

Evaluating Benefits and Non-Target

Impacts of Repeated Use of Neonicotinoid Treated Seed in

Grain Crop Rotations By Aditi Dubey, Kelly Hamby, and Galen Dively

Department of Entomology, University of Maryland Neonicotinoids are a class of systemic, broad-spectrum insecticides that are applied as foliar sprays as well as soil or seed treatments. The latter treatments are one of the most convenient and economical ways to protect a variety of crops from insect damage. Compared to older classes of insecticides, neonicotinoids have low toxicity to fish and mammals, and have become the most widely used classes of pesticides in the US, since their introduction in the 90s. Seed treatments are a safer and less invasive way to apply pesticides, minimizing off-site drift of the active ingredient. They play an important role in grain crops, as they are used to control soil and seedling pests on the majority of corn and about half the soybean grown in the country. They can also be used on wheat (Figure 1). This is not as common, but usage is growing. In the mid-Atlantic regions, these grain crops are typically grown in a crop rotation.

Previous research on the effects of neonicotinoids has shown that seed treatments may improve yield under high pest pressure; however, treatment decisions are made before target pest populations are known.

Therefore, treatment may not improve yield over untreated seed. Repeated exposure to neonicotinoids could also lead to insect pests developing resistance against them. Additionally, research has found some negative impacts of neonicotinoids on beneficial insects. When neonicotinoids are used as seed treatments, the majority of the insecticide active ingredient leaches into the soil. Because neonicotinoids are slow to degrade, using treated seeds year after year as part of a crop rotation system could lead to an accumulation of neonicotinoid residues within the soil. This could impact the soil microorganism community, which provides valuable ecosystem services such as improving fertility by increasing the quantity of nitrogen in the soil. Therefore, we are conducting a three-year study to better understand both the benefits and risks of using two neonicotinoid seed treatments, Cruiser ® 5FS (Syngenta) and Gaucho 600 Flowable (Bayer) (thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, respectively) in a 3-year grain crop rotation. The study is being conducted at the Central Maryland Research and Education Center in Beltsville, MD, and at the Wye Research and Education Center in Queenstown, MD. At each site, we are planting four replicate plots of each treatment using no-tillage practices. Treatments include: Cruiser and fungicide treated seed, Gaucho and fungicide treated seed, fungicide treated seed, and untreated seed (Figure 2). The same active ingredients will be planted into the same physical location for each grain in the rotation in each plot every year. Standard mid-Atlantic seeding rates, varieties, irrigation, and fertilizer programs are used to achieve plots that best

Figure 1. Wheat seeds that have been treated with Cruiser and fungicide.

Figure 2. Plot Map. Blue is untreated seed, green is fungicide treated seed, red is Gaucho + fungicide treated seed, and purple is Cruiser + fungicide seed.

2

represent mid-Atlantic grain production. We planted full season soybeans this last growing season and will soon be planting wheat. We will plant double cropped soybean in 2016 and corn in 2017.

Figure 3. Sticky card and pitfall trap (with a cover to prevent entry of water) to capture arthropods in a soybean field. At each site, the abundance and diversity of invertebrate communities on plants and in the soil are determined throughout the season using various sampling methods, such as sweep-net samples, sticky cards (Figure 3), pitfall traps (Figure 3, 4), litter samples, and visual counts (Figure 5). This allows us to measure both pest and beneficial communities present in the field. We are also sampling the soil for earthworms and measuring soil microbial activity to determine whether neonicotinoid residues in the soil impacts soil fauna. To see if seed treatments increase yield by reducing pest damage or increasing plant growth and establishment, we will measure grain yield and stand density. The neonicotinoid residue from the soil may also be taken up by weedy plants, and be present in pollen and nectar, representing a potential route of neonicotinoid exposure to pollinators. In winter wheat, we will analyse for the presence of neonicotinoids in winter annual flowers, such as chickweed, which serves as an early spring source of pollen and nectar for beneficial pollinators. Physical properties of the soil like carbon, available nitrogen, mineralized nitrogen, and pH were measured at the beginning of the study and will be measured again at the end.

Neonicotinoid seed treatments play an important role in grain crop systems and can be very beneficial. Although they provide a convenient and economical ways to protect crops, long-term use of these pesticides could have undesirable effects. This study looks at the effects of neonicotinoids in two novel ways. First, we are not studying the use of seed treatments in a single crop but are addressing potential cumulative effects over a back-to-back three-year rotation. Second, this is one of the first studies to consider the effects of neonicotinoid seed treatment not on a few select species or a single type of organism, but on a wide range of organisms, including soil and plant dwelling arthropods, soil microbes and winter annual plants. Through this study, we plan to investigate both the positive and negative effects of using neonicotinoid seed treatments over several consecutive years. We hope that the information we collect will help producers make the best use of neonicotinoid seed treatments and make informed management decisions about protecting seeds and seedlings in a sustainable and cost-effective way. First year funding for this study was provided by the Maryland Grain Producers Utilization Board and the Maryland Soybean Board. We would like to thank Maggie Lewis, Terry Patton, Emily Zobel, and the many undergraduate students who have helped with sampling this year.

Figure 4. Pitfall trap set up in soybean field to capture ground-dwelling arthropods such as beetles.

Figure 5. Visual inspection of soybean trifoliate leaf for insect pests such as thrips and beneficial insects such as minute pirate bugs.

3

Farm Bill Commodity Elections By Howard Leathers, Associate Professor

Agricultural & Resource Economics &

Paul Goeringer, Research Associate and Extension Legal Specialist

The USDA Farm Service Agency has released results of the 2014 Farm Bill signups for the three program options: Price Loss Coverage (PLC), county Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC-CO), and individual Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC-IC). Information is available here: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/arcplc_program/index. State of Maryland results include corn and soybeans heavily enrolled into ARC-CO, based on the expectation that high historical yields in those crops might fall back in future years. Barley went heavily into PLC, based on the expectation (and USDA projection) that barley prices would be quite low in future years. Wheat was about evenly split between PLC and ARC-CO probably based on county differences in the expected payouts of the ARC-CO for that crop. Participation in ARC-IC was very low. It appears that 14 farms in the state opted for ARC-IC; those farms primarily had base acres in corn, wheat, and soybeans. FSA publishes the data for calculating benchmark revenue for each crop in each county on their website at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/arcplc_program/arcplc-program-data/index. Using county data and national statistics the following estimations for ARC-CO payments for 2014 are:

− For corn, 5 of the 21 counties with data show positive estimated payments; the other 16 counties show a zero payment.

− For wheat, none of the counties shows a positive payment.

− For barley, 1 of the 7 counties estimated shows a positive payment.

− For soybeans, 4 of the 24 counties estimated show a positive payment.

For the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program, the projected payments are zero for wheat, barley, and soybeans, and 5 cents per bushel for corn. To get a “per acre” number for corn PLC comparable to the ARC-CO f multiply the program yield for corn base acres on your farm by .05 (five cents). So if the program yield on your farm for corn base acres is 120 bushels per acre, the PLC payment per acre for your corn base acres would be 120 x .05 = $6 per acre. Charts and more explanation of calculations are available at: http://www.arec.umd.edu/extension/crop-insurance/2014-farm-bill.

Lessons Learned in Choosing Disease Resistant Corn Varieties

By Dave Myers Principal Agent, UME

Lessons learned are sometimes quite accidental. While working with a local farmer in Anne Arundel County, it was evident that a particular corn variety was not performing when it was inadvertently placed in two row units to finish planting a corn field. Notice the two rows of poor corn in the picture (Fig. 1). A sample of the poor performer was sent to the University of Maryland Diagnostics Lab. The results were conclusive and reinforce the necessity of choosing the best disease resistant corn packages, especially when planting successive corn crops in reduced tillage or no-tillage systems. The neighboring corn was disease free. “Two stalk rot diseases, anthracnose stalk rot and Gibberella stalk rot were confirmed on the "bad" sample. In addition, there were red lesions on the roots of this sample that are suggestive of pink root rot, which is a common secondary fungal pathogen in our area. The single ear of the bad sample showed incomplete pollination near the tip of the ear, but I saw no evidence of ear rot.” Excerpted from Dr. Karen Rane’s Diagnostics Report.

Fig 1. Arrow depicts two rows of a susceptible corn variety to stalk rot diseases, Anthracnose and Gibberella.

4

Identifying Palmer Amaranth

By Burkhard Schulz, Weed Science, University of

Maryland, bschulz1@umd.edu

Palmer amaranth is an aggressive weed of the “pigweed” family (Amaranthus spp.) that invades more and more counties in Maryland and poses a significant threat to our regional cropping systems as it can overwhelm soybean and corn fields in just a few years. Already well known as the most troublesome weed in cropping systems in Midwestern and Southern states, Palmer amaranth has become established in Maryland and the Delmarva region. This weed deserves to be met with a “zero-tolerance” attitude concerning its control, as it is able to grow and spread with so far unseen speed and vigor. Seedling growth can exceed 2 inches per day and a female plant can produce up to a million seeds per growing season. Figure1. Five hundred Palmer amaranth seeds. A female plant can produce up to one million very small seeds per year.

Plants can reach more than 6 feet tall in one season. Flowering time is from June to September. Growers in Maryland cannot rely on established weed control tools as nearly all Palmer amaranth in our region shows multiple-resistance to glyphosate (Roundup, mechanism of action group 9) and ALS inhibitor herbicides (mechanism of action group 2). Especially in soybean cropping systems the control of Palmer amaranth has to include coordinated herbicide programs with the integration of non-herbicide weed control strategies. Long-lasting control will require a multi-year strategy of integrated weed management, which includes scouting and monitoring of fields before and after planting and spraying, coordinated application of burn-down and residual herbicides in a timely manner (before Palmer amaranth seedlings exceed 3-4 in. in height), rotation of crops and rotation of mechanisms of herbicide action,

complete control of Palmer amaranth plants also in off-field areas, cleaning of harvest equipment from Palmer amaranth seeds and if possible collect seed heads prior to seed set to remove the potential of increasing weed seeds in infested fields.

The first and often critical step in dealing with Palmer amaranth is to identify the plants at the seedling stage. Next would be to design an effective herbicide program that includes pre-emergence residual herbicide(s) that can be applied as close to planting as possible.

Palmer amaranth belongs to the pigweed family (Amaranthus) and shares a number of characteristics with other species of this group of weeds. Pigweeds are annual plants, which grow in open fields with full sun. They produce a great number of very small seeds (10,000 to 1,000,000) (Fig. 1), which usually do not go into long periods of dormancy. They thrive in no-till cropping systems as their small seeds germinate at the soil surface. Within the pigweeds we find either species which have separate male and female flowers on the same plant (monoecious) or have separate male and female plants (diecious). Palmer amaranth belongs to the latter group together with tall waterhemp (A. tuberculatus) and common waterhemp (A. rudis). This characteristic can be used as the first hint for the identification of mature plants. If you find male and female plants within a pigweed population it is likely that these plants are either Palmer amaranth or waterhemp. Both weeds have also smooth and hairless stems and petioles (short stems that connect leaves with the main stem). Palmer amaranth and waterhemp share this feature with spiny amaranth (A. spinosus). All other pigweeds have hairs on stems and petioles (Fig. 2). Figure 2. Hairless stems of Palmer amaranth. Stems of Palmer amaranth are hairless (left), stems of smooth and redroot pigweed are covered with hairs (right).

The first developed seed leaves (cotyledons) are oar-shaped with shorter petioles than waterhemp. Palmer amaranth has longer, wider seed leaves with a longer petiole. A very striking identification characteristic of older plants is the petiole length of mature leaves. Palmer amaranth has very long petioles that are as long or longer than the leaf blade. In most cases if one bends the petiole over the leaf blade it will be longer or at least as long as the leaf blade. Waterhemp and other pigweed

5

plants have much shorter petioles than leaf blades (Fig. 3). The shape of the mature leaves is diamond-shape in Palmer amaranth and oblong lancet-shaped in waterhemp. Waterhemp plants often exhibit a glossy surface on leaves and stems as if covered with a thin layer of oil. Figure 3. Petiole length of Palmer amaranth. The length of the petiole of mature Palmer amaranth leaves surpasses the length of the leaf blades in most cases. This is not true for most other pigweeds. Palmer amaranth petioles (upper panel) are longer than the leaf blade, petiole of smooth pigweed (lower panel) are about half the length of the leaf blade.

Palmer amaranth plants often show a v-shaped white “watermark” on the leaves. Similar “watermarks”, however, can also be found in some cases in spiny amaranth (Fig. 4). However, spiny amaranth has sharp spines and can be eliminated from consideration based on that feature. Another characteristic of Palmer amaranth is a hair formed at the leaf tip (Fig. 5). Again, this is a feature that is not exclusively found in Palmer amaranth but has also been observed in some populations of waterhemp in Nebraska. Figure 4. “Watermarks” on Palmer amaranth leaves. Two Palmer amaranth plants are shown in a soybean field with (left) and without (right) the typical chevron-shaped “watermark” discoloration on the leaf surface.

Figure 5. Hair formation on leaf tip in Palmer amaranth. Many Palmer amaranth plants show a hair on the tip of the leaf.

Young Palmer amaranth plants show a poinsettia-like rosette shape with symmetrical leaf arrangement when viewed from above (Fig. 6). This plant shape symmetry is not found in other Amaranthus species. Figure 6. Poinsettia-shaped rosette of younger Palmer amaranth plant.

Flower structures and seed heads of Palmer amaranth can be a long as 3 feet and have a diameter of more than 1⁄2 inch. Some branching occurs in both male and female flower structures (Fig. 7). Waterhemp will have somewhat shorter seed heads that are more slender and branched. All other Amaranthus species have much shorter and often more compact flower and seed heads. Female Palmer amaranth flower and seed heads feel prickly to the touch, whereas male flower structures feel soft (Fig. 8). Female as well as male waterhemp flower heads do not have spines and are smooth when touched. Figure 7. Flower heads of Palmer amaranth. Palmer amaranth has male and female flowers on separate plants. The flower heads of Palmer amaranth are the longest found within the pigweed family (left panel). Flower heads of other pigweed species such as smooth pigweed are often more compact and shorter than in Palmer amaranth (right panel).

6

Researchers identify potential alternative to CRISPR-Cas genome editing tools

An international team of CRISPR-Cas researchers has identified three new naturally-occurring systems that show potential for genome editing. The discovery and characterization of these systems is expected to further expand the genome editing toolbox, opening new avenues for biomedical research. The research, published today in the journal Molecular Cell, was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health…. Read More at: http://www.nih.gov/news/health/oct2015/nlm-22.htm

Figure 8. Female flowers are spiny and feel prickly to the touch (right), male flower heads are smooth (left).

Summary of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) identification criteria:

Petiole (leaf stem): as long or longer as leaf blade (bending over test)

Leaves often with chevron-shaped watermarks Leaves with hair at the tip Male and female plants separated

EPA Proposes Changes to Private Applicator Rule Comment Period

Open Until November 23, 2015 The EPA is proposing to change rules for certification of private applicators. You can read about it here: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/cb/csb_page/updates/2015/ct-proposal.html They have proposed changes to standardize rules across state borders. This includes:

• Stricter standards • All applicators being at least 18 years old. • A CEU being 50 minutes long (it is currently 30). • Private applicators would need 5 hours of

education every three years. Read all of the proposed changes in bold here: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/certification_rule_detailed_comparison_chart.pdf Comment on the proposed changes at http://www.regulations.gov in docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0183. EPA is accepting comments on the proposal until November 23, 2015.

Agricultural Law Education Initiative http://umaglaw.org

CDMS: Pesticide Labels and MSDS On-Line at: http://www.cdms.net/

7

Meet the researchers that authored your favorite articles in Agronomy News at the Fall & Winter Meetings

Mark your calendars now and plan to be a part of the fall and winter meetings.

Southern Maryland Crops Conference December 1, 2015… 4:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Baden Fire Hall, Baden, Maryland. Register at St Mary’s Extension Office 301 475-4484. The 2015 Lambing & Kidding School December 5, 2015 North Harford High School Pylesville, Maryland. Agenda and registration form at: www.sheepandgoat.com Online registration at: http://2015lambkidschool.eventbrite.com Northern Maryland Field Crops Day December 10, 2015 … 8:45 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Friendly Farm, Foreston Rd. in Upperco, Maryland. Register by calling UM Extension Baltimore County Office at 410-887-8090 or visit our webpage: http://extension.umd.edu/baltimore-county 2015 Agricultural Outlook and Policy Conference December 16, 2015 … 8:45 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Double Tree Hotel, Annapolis, Maryland. Event registration can be found here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-2015-agricultural- outlook-and-policy-conference-tickets-18977517265 Wheat Quality and Marketing Conference January 13, 2016… 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. DE State Fairgrounds, Harrington, Delaware. Cecil County Winter Agronomy Meeting January 27, 2016 … 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Calvert Grange, Rising Sun, Maryland. Contact Doris Behnke at: dbehnke@umd.edu or 410-996-5280.

See the Attachments!

1) 2015 Wheat & Barley Trial Results

2) Charcoal Rot of Soybean 3) Stagonospora Leaf and Glume

Blotch of Wheat

Agronomy News A timely publication for commercial agronomic field crops and livestock industries available electronically in 2015 from April through October. Archived online at: https://extension.umd.edu/anne-arundel-county/agriculture-natural-resources/agronomy-news Published by the University of Maryland Extension Focus Teams 1) Agriculture and Food Systems; and 2) Environment and Natural Resources. Submit Articles to: Editor, R. David Myers, Extension Educator Agriculture and Natural Resources 97 Dairy Lane Gambrills, MD 21054 410 222-3906 myersrd@umd.edu The University of Maryland Extension programs are open to all and will not discriminate against anyone because of race, age, sex, color, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, religion, ancestry, national origin, marital status, genetic information, political affiliation, and gender identity or expression. Note: Registered Trade Mark® Products, Manufacturers, or Companies mentioned within this newsletter are not to be considered as sole endorsements. The information has been provided for educational purposes only.

Maryland State Wheat Trials 2014-15 Yield Summary Table

Yield Test Wt Yield Test Wt Yield Test Wt Yield Test Wt Yield† Test Wt†

Entry bu ac-1 lbs bu-1 bu ac-1 lbs bu-1 bu ac-1lbs bu-1 bu ac-1 lbs bu-1 bu ac-1 lbs bu-1

USG 3523 80.9 * 55.4 68.5 * 54.9 70.4 56.0 57.8 * 51.8 69.4 * 52.9

SC 1325TM 79.5 * 53.5 60.6 * 52.9 68.1 55.5 na na 69.4 * 52.8

USG 3895 77.9 * 53.6 60.5 * 52.9 79.1 * 57.2 57.3 * 52.6 68.7 * 52.8

USG EXP 3756 75.8 * 55.8 67.2 * 53.5 74.8 * 56.0 50.9 54.2 67.2 * 53.3

MAS #49 75.1 * 55.6 59.4 * 52.6 65.1 55.9 na na 66.5 * 53.3

VA10W-21 71.4 57.9 63.9 * 55.4 69.6 57.1 60.3 * 54.4 66.3 * 54.4

9233 74.0 * 55.2 61.6 * 54.1 63.0 57.5 na na 66.2 * 55.6

SS EXP 8513 74.5 * 54.5 66.3 * 54.6 76.2 * 57.0 44.0 51.1 65.3 * 53.0

Jamestown 77.1 * 57.0 57.4 56.3 63.3 58.6 61.5 * 52.1 64.8 * 54.4

Hilliard 73.6 56.4 59.6 * 54.9 69.7 57.0 54.9 * 54.3 64.4 * 54.0

MD07W64-13-4 66.9 56.1 62.4 * 54.9 63.6 56.4 na na 64.3 * 54.4

MD04W249-11-7 73.1 56.9 61.9 * 56.2 70.1 57.3 51.1 56.3 64.0 * 55.0

SY547 69.7 54.5 68.9 * 55.6 71.5 57.4 45.8 55.8 64.0 * 54.2

SW550 72.2 55.0 65.9 * 54.3 70.7 57.6 47.0 52.9 63.9 * 53.4

LCS 3211 79.6 * 56.4 62.3 * 54.9 69.1 55.8 43.8 50.2 63.7 * 52.6

FSX 866 77.1 * 55.4 59.6 * 52.7 na na 53.5 53.4 63.4 * 52.6

FSX 860 76.4 * 55.2 60.2 * 53.6 63.5 54.9 52.3 54.2 63.1 * 53.1

MAS #46 75.9 * 54.2 63.6 * 52.4 68.1 56.7 44.9 51.7 63.1 * 52.5

USG 3404 71.3 54.0 56.7 53.6 76.2 * 57.9 47.5 50.8 62.9 * 52.7

MAS #37 71.1 56.0 58.7 * 53.9 71.5 56.3 50.1 52.9 62.9 * 52.5

FSX 867 75.5 * 53.3 63.7 * 53.2 67.2 56.1 44.8 49.2 62.8 * 50.5

FSX 862 76.4 * 55.9 57.6 54.6 66.7 56.5 50.4 48.9 62.8 * 52.2

9522 78.4 * 54.9 64.1 * 52.7 66.8 57.9 41.4 54.8 62.7 * 55.1

Shirley 74.0 * 55.4 69.5 * 53.6 52.4 56.9 53.5 54.1 62.3 * 53.5

SS 8415 65.6 55.7 64.8 * 54.3 74.1 * 57.0 44.6 54.9 62.3 * 53.8

LCS 2564 68.3 57.0 62.0 * 55.8 70.6 57.2 48.2 53.5 62.3 * 54.4

MD04W249-11-12 77.5 * 58.1 62.6 * 56.2 70.6 57.6 38.1 52.8 62.2 * 54.1

FS 850 66.6 56.5 53.7 54.4 71.4 56.9 56.8 * 50.9 62.1 * 54.7

MDC07026-F2-19-13-4 68.3 57.7 62.3 * 55.9 65.9 58.8 51.7 56.6 62.1 * 54.9

MAS #51 74.5 * 54.0 57.1 54.5 70.6 57.7 45.4 52.6 61.9 * 52.0

FSX 869 71.3 54.2 59.4 * 52.9 69.1 56.2 47.6 50.9 61.9 * 52.2

Newport 77.8 * 51.8 58.8 * 53.5 71.2 55.0 39.3 50.8 61.8 * 51.8

USG 3251 72.8 54.1 61.5 * 54.1 67.0 56.9 45.8 50.0 61.8 * 51.6

USG 3013 77.5 * 55.6 61.1 * 54.5 60.1 57.4 48.3 52.5 61.8 * 53.3

EXP 1510 72.3 55.4 54.1 54.3 70.4 56.6 50.0 52.4 61.7 * 54.7

FSX 868 77.1 * 53.8 55.7 53.9 57.7 55.3 55.6 * 54.0 61.5 * 52.3

MBX 11-V-258 56.7 56.6 65.6 * 55.0 72.3 * 57.5 50.8 54.9 61.4 * 53.2

TN 1201 76.8 * 54.5 58.0 53.4 61.1 56.4 49.4 53.1 61.3 * 53.4

SC 1315TM 69.4 57.6 54.1 53.2 68.7 55.7 52.8 52.5 61.3 * 53.3

MAS #59 71.2 55.7 54.8 54.2 71.2 56.8 47.7 52.9 61.2 * 53.3

GA04417-12E33 72.2 58.6 60.8 * 56.0 58.7 58.6 52.5 56.7 61.1 * 55.7

MAS #32 76.2 * 54.6 59.7 * 53.0 na na 47.3 53.6 61.0 52.7

MBX 14-S-210 72.0 56.7 61.6 * 54.6 66.8 54.9 43.2 52.9 60.9 53.2

USG 3201 72.1 58.3 58.0 55.7 na na 52.6 52.8 60.9 54.3

MAS #6 75.2 * 52.5 60.7 * 52.2 56.6 54.9 50.9 53.5 60.9 52.2

MAS #35 76.0 * 55.1 67.0 * 54.4 62.0 56.5 38.3 52.5 60.8 53.3

LCS NEWS 13EF171 69.7 58.1 56.5 53.9 63.7 59.1 53.1 56.1 60.7 55.0

FS 854 76.2 * 53.7 56.0 54.2 67.9 57.2 42.8 53.0 60.7 52.9

FSX 863 75.9 * 55.2 62.3 * 55.6 na na 43.8 53.6 60.7 53.6

SC 1342TM 75.9 * 54.4 62.9 * 53.5 63.8 56.1 39.0 51.6 60.4 52.3

SS EXP 8530 76.2 * 53.6 63.9 * 52.9 64.6 55.0 36.1 54.5 60.2 52.7

MAS #42S 75.0 * 55.8 58.4 * 54.3 67.4 56.6 39.8 54.1 60.2 53.5

MAS #45 77.0 * 55.5 48.9 54.6 72.2 56.4 41.8 52.2 60.0 53.3

FS 888 72.6 57.2 54.2 55.6 68.5 57.3 43.8 54.0 59.8 54.3

WX 14611 71.2 54.7 60.3 * 54.8 63.9 55.9 43.6 49.7 59.7 52.6

SS 8360 71.0 55.2 57.0 54.8 75.0 * 56.9 35.7 49.4 59.7 52.3

LCS 2141 71.5 55.6 60.5 * 53.2 64.8 56.1 41.7 49.6 59.6 52.1

MAS #53 64.1 58.4 56.5 56.8 67.3 59.6 50.4 53.0 59.6 54.2

9552 78.1 * 55.4 59.3 * 53.4 64.3 57.4 35.7 52.3 59.3 54.6

Featherstone 73 (VA09W-73) 63.8 56.7 59.7 * 54.9 68.0 55.9 45.4 54.4 59.2 55.5

SW 52 68.0 57.1 56.7 55.5 73.0 * 58.0 39.3 53.6 59.2 54.5

SY483 66.2 54.4 69.9 * 53.3 62.0 56.7 38.8 51.2 59.2 52.5

GA03564-12E6 71.5 57.5 55.4 56.5 62.5 57.1 45.5 57.4 58.7 54.1

SY474 65.8 56.5 61.3 * 56.1 61.6 55.0 46.0 55.4 58.7 54.0

MAS # 7 70.7 55.2 66.0 * 53.1 51.5 55.2 46.1 53.4 58.6 52.6

VA 11W-106 68.7 55.3 65.8 * 54.4 56.1 58.4 43.5 54.2 58.5 54.0

MBX 15-E-229 67.5 53.8 59.5 * 53.8 64.7 56.1 42.0 50.1 58.4 52.3

Laurel 76.9 * 53.0 60.6 * 53.8 43.3 56.5 52.4 51.8 58.3 52.3

WX 15733 71.2 52.5 59.4 * 51.1 63.7 53.8 37.2 51.1 57.9 51.2

MERL 72.6 55.9 62.2 * 56.8 50.6 59.0 45.7 52.7 57.8 54.5

USG 3315 72.6 57.4 64.2 * 54.1 51.5 58.8 41.9 52.0 57.6 53.7

GA04434-12LE28 63.9 53.8 59.6 * 56.1 57.2 57.6 48.8 53.4 57.4 53.8

FS 820 77.4 * 58.0 59.7 * 56.2 45.5 58.0 45.4 54.3 57.0 56.6

MBX 14-K-297 69.4 55.2 60.1 * 55.1 56.2 57.8 39.2 51.0 56.2 51.9

MAS #47 68.4 53.7 55.7 53.0 57.8 55.9 42.1 55.7 56.0 53.1

MBX 12-V-251 62.0 54.2 60.0 * 54.8 67.2 56.7 34.7 53.4 56.0 53.5

SS 8340 81.9 * 55.9 69.3 * 56.1 36.3 58.2 35.9 49.5 55.9 53.4

FSX 861 73.0 55.0 57.2 55.2 45.1 54.6 47.1 50.8 55.6 52.7

SS 5205 65.0 56.4 63.2 * 54.9 54.9 57.3 38.1 53.7 55.3 54.1

MD09W272-8-4-13-3 62.7 58.4 49.7 55.3 53.8 59.3 52.0 57.7 54.6 56.0

EXP 1502 67.1 54.6 57.6 53.6 50.9 56.8 38.3 51.5 53.5 54.1

SY007 69.2 57.5 52.8 53.7 52.5 56.3 37.8 50.0 53.1 51.7

Mean 72.3 55.5 60.4 54.3 63.6 56.8 46.1 52.8 60.8 53.4

Coefficient of Variation (%) 8.9 3.4 11.6 2.9 14.0 2.3 16.1 4.5 16.4 4.1

LSD05‡

8.0 2.1 10.4 2.4 6.8 1.3 7.0 3.6 8.0 1.9

† All yields and test weights are reported at a 13.5% grain moisture content.‡ Values followed by * are not significantly different from the leading entry.

Wye Beltsville Clarksville Keedysville Statewide

More information can be found online at: https://www.psla.umd.edu/extension/extension-project-pages/small-grains-maryland

Management and Results Notes:

An extraordinarily cold and wet planting and harvest season reduced tillering and raised variability in the

test sites. This increased our coefficients of variance to higher than normal, but the Fishers’LSD05, which

is the test used to separate which means are significantly different from each other, are acceptable.

However, Poplar Hill data were not published, because these data are not representative, due to values

being low and highly variable.

It is notable that as harvest dates progressed from Late June and into the first week of July, variability

increased. There were many rains throughout the state, which tends to and decrease grain test weight

and increase variability. The data exhibiting the lowest variability were those sites harvested earliest,

from the Wye and Beltsville locations, and as such may be considered more representative and with the

greatest ability to detect differences between entries.

Generally, it is recommended for producers to select entries that perform consistently as well as the top

entry across the majority of testing locations. These entries include, but are not limited to: USG 3523, SC

1325TM, MAS # 49, VA10W21, SS EXP 8513, and Hilliard. Choosing these varieties is not a guarantee of

yield, and many other entries could perform similarly to those previously stated under a given

environment and management system. Further, it is recommended for producers planting a new variety

to do so utilizing a relatively small acreage.

Management Summary:

Plant Date 20-Oct 9-Oct 9-Oct 6-Oct

Harvest Date 25-Jun 1-Jul 2-Jul 7-Jul

Tillage Minimum Minimum Minimum Conventional

Fertilization 100 lbs March 45lbs Mar., 45lbs Apr.10lbs Sept, 65 lbs Apr. 50 lbs Mar., 40 lbs Apr.

Weed Control Harmony Harmony Extra Harmony SG Volta Extra

Maryland State Barley Trials 2014-15 Yield Summary Table

Yield† Test Wt† Yield Test Wt Yield Test Wt

bu ac-1 lbs bu-1 bu ac-1 lbs bu-1 bu ac-1 lbs bu-1

AMAZE 10 (VA07H-31WS) 67.5 * 56.5 82.3 58.1 52.6 * 54.8

Atlantic 73.5 * 47.6 99.0 * 48.8 48.1 * 46.4

FS 501 70.2 * 44.6 88.8 * 46.1 51.6 * 43.1

FS 950 77.2 * 46.1 103.3 * 47.6 51.0 * 44.5

Nomini 72.2 * 44.4 94.7 * 45.1 49.6 * 43.8

Secretariat (VA08B-85) 74.7 * 47.7 96.7 * 48.2 52.6 * 47.2

Thoroughbred 67.6 * 47.2 84.2 48.9 51.0 * 45.4

Mean 71.8 47.7 92.7 49.0 50.9 46.5

Coefficient of Variation (%) 31.8 8.5 11.3 8.3 12.4 8.0

LSD05‡ 8.4 0.7 16.6 0.9 11.2 1.0

† All yields and test weights are reported at a 13.5% grain moisture content.

‡ Values followed by * are not significantly different from the leading entry.

Plant Date 20-Oct 9-Oct

Harvest Date 25-Jun 2-Jul

Tillage Minimum Minimum

Fertilization 80 lbs March 10lbs Sept, 55 lbs Apr.

Weed Control Harmony Harmony SG

Statewide Wye Clarksville

Produced by: Dr. Jason P. Wight, Field Trials Coordinator Dr. Angus Murphy, Plant Science & Landscape Architecture Department Chair Mr. Dave Myers, Principal Agent & Program Leader Agriculture, Maryland Extension Mr. Aaron Cooper, Technician Mr. Andy Bauer, Undergraduate Research Assistant Ms. Alyssa Mills, Undergraduate Research Assistant

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance and experience of the personnel of the University of Maryland Research and Experiment Centers.

Maryland Crop Improvement

Association, Inc.

P.O. Box 581

Preston, MD 21655

Serving Maryland Agriculture Since 1908

Maryland Grain Producers Utilization Board

Charcoal Rot of Soybean Date Published: 10/16/2015 Author(s): Andrew Kness, M.Sc. Extension Research Assistant Nathan Kleczewski, Ph.D. Extension Plant Pathologist Charcoal rot of soybean can be a major yield-robber of drought-stressed soybeans in Delaware. The disease is caused by Macrophomina phaseolina, a common soil-borne fungal pathogen that inhabits much of Delaware’s agricultural soils. This article will explain how to properly identify the disease, review its disease cycle, and outline management options. Disease Identification Signs and symptoms typically manifest late in the year when soybeans have reached reproductive maturity and symptoms usually do not appear unless plants are heat or drought stressed. Symptomatic plants generally appear in spots of the field that are moisture limited, such as high spots or compacted headlands. Plants may be stunted, wilted, bearing abnormally small leaves that turn chlorotic and necrotic but remain attached to the plant. Roots and stems near the soil surface of infected plants will appear gray with tiny black specks or dots (resembling charcoal dust) on the tissue surface or just inside the stem (figure 1). The presence of black lines/zones within the stem may or may not occur. Disease Cycle M. phaseolina persists in the soil as tiny black survival structures called microsclerotia. These structures are recalcitrant and can survive in dry soil for over 2 years, but only for a couple of months in saturated soil [1]. Microsclerotia will germinate in the spring in the presence of a host. The pathogen colonizes young soybean roots, typically within the first few weeks after planting. The fungus remains in the plant throughout the growing season, during which time the pathogen will remain latent and soybeans will not likely show signs of infection. As the soybeans reach reproductive

Figure 1. Internal (top) and external colonization of M. phaseolina on a soybean stem. Notice the small, black specks, which are microsclerotia, a diagnostic sign of the pathogen. Image used with permission from University of Wisconsin Extension [3].

M. Chilvers

S. Markell

stages and soil moisture becomes low and plants become heat and drought stressed, the fungus starts to grow more rapidly and colonizes the water-conducting tissues of the plant. This causes wilting, stunting, necrosis, and premature death of entire plants. The pathogen then overwinters as microsclerotia in the soil or in infected plant debris. Management Managing charcoal rot can be difficult due to the fact that M. phaseolina has a host range of over 500 plant species, many of which are weeds and common agronomic crops [2]. In addition, foliar fungicides and seed treatments are ineffective at managing the disease. A combination of good management practices should be utilized that reduce plant stress and promote healthy soybean growth. Crop Rotation Crop rotation has a modest impact on managing this disease because of its survivability and large host range, which includes most major agronomic and vegetable crops commonly grown in Delaware (see table 1). Rotating away from soybean for at least one year may help. Cereal grains are good crops to plant in rotation for managing this disease, as well as corn and sorghum, as they are relatively poor hosts under normal growing conditions. Avoid growing soybean or other bean crops back-to-back in problematic fields. Table 1. List of common agronomic and vegetable hosts for M. phaseolina.

Common Name Genus Mustard Brassica Pepper Capsicum

Watermelon Citrullus Cucumber, muskmelon, and cantaloupe Cucumis Gourd, squash, zucchini, and pumpkin Cucurbita

Strawberry Fragaria Soybean Glycine Sunflower Helianthus

Alfalfa Medicago Bean (including snap and lima) Phaseolus

Pea Pisum Tomato, potato, and eggplant Solanum

Sorghum and sudangrass Sorghum Clover Trifolium Vetch Vicia Corn Zea

Irrigation Charcoal rot has a severe impact when plants become heat and drought stressed. Therefore, use irrigation if it is available, especially if plants begin to show signs of water and heat stress during flowering and pod development. Soil Fertility and General Plant Health It is important to keep soybeans healthy and reduce the amount of stress as much as possible. Ensure your fertility levels are optimum, but avoid over-fertilization and high plant populations, as these conditions will stress plants. Variety Selection and Planting There are no soybean varieties that have complete resistance to the pathogen; however, planting dates and maturity groups can be used in your favor. Early maturing full-season soybeans (groups II, III, and some IV) are generally more severely affected by charcoal rot because they are planted earlier and tend to set pods during the driest part of the summer. Double cropped soybeans flower later and generally avoid the hot, dry summer weather and thus avoid drought stress that brings on severe charcoal rot symptoms. Microsclerotia can survive in small cracks on seed, so be sure to plant certified seed. Tillage Tillage practices will have a small impact on this disease, but a no-till or reduced tillage cropping system can increase soil moisture and reduce drought stress. Be aware that plowing can bring microsclerotia buried deep in the soil to the surface, which can serve as inoculum. Compacted soils will exacerbate drought conditions and amplify yield loss caused by charcoal rot, so consider sub-soiling or other management options to alleviate or reduce soil compaction. References 1. Smith, D., Chilvers, M., Dorrance, A., Hughes, T., Mueller, D., Niblack, T., Wise,

K. 2015. Charcoal rot. Soybean Disease Management. Crop Production Network. 2. Sinclair, J. 1984. Compendium of soybean diseases, 2nd edn. American

Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minn. 3. Smith, D., Chilvers, M., Dorrance, A., Hughes, T., Mueller, D., Niblack, T., Wise,

K. 2014. Charcoal rot management in the north central region. University of Wisconsin Extension.

Figure 1. A typical cats eye lesion indicative of S. nodorum. Photo obtained from bugwood image archive (www.bugwood.org).

Stagonospora leaf and glume blotch of wheat Date Published: 10/15 Author(s): Nathan Kleczewski, Ph.D. Extension Plant Pathologist Introduction

Stagonospora nodorum blotch occurs frequently throughout the Mid-Atlantic and other regions where wheat is grown. The disease has the potential to significantly reduce yields, particularly if the environment favors their development before or during grain fill. The incidence and severity of Stagonospora blotch has been increasing in many areas where wheat is grown in a no-till system. Under optimal conditions the disease can result in losses upwards of 30%. Infection of the head can cause grain to shrivel. This fact sheet describes how to identify Stagonospora lead and glume blotch in wheat, the pathogen disease cycle, and management recommendations.

Disease Identification

Wheat plants are susceptible to Stagonospora nodorum blotch at any time during development. Often the disease is first detected in the lower canopy, typically after canopy closure. Over time, given a proper environment, the disease may spread to the upper canopy and heads. Foliage infected with Stagonospora nodorum will develop light brown lesions surrounded by a smooth, thin yellow boarder. Lesions start as small black flecks which expand to oval or, “cat

eyed” lesions (Figure 1). Over time a dark brown or black structure may be visible at the center of the lesion. Initial symptoms of head infection start with small gray, purple, or brown spots on the chaff, which often are found on the upper ½ of the glume. Significant losses may occur If leaves and glumes are affected before grain fill is complete.

Disease Cycle

Several sources can be responsible for initial infections of tissues by Stagonospora nodorum. The most common source of the pathogen in Delaware and Maryland is from infected wheat residue, which serves as an overwintering site for the pathogen. S. nodorum can survive on wheat residue up to three years. Spores are locally disseminated by rain or dispersed into the atmosphere, where they may spread several miles. In addition infested seed lots can be a source of primary inoculum.

Once established, the pathogen produces spores which are dispersed upwards in the canopy. As a result, the disease often progresses vertically from the lower canopy to the upper canopy and eventually the heads. Infection requires at least 12 hours of continuous moisture; optimal infection and disease occurs between 68 and 81°F. After infecting a leaf 10 and 20 days are required before spores are produced from that lesion. Disease progress, lesion development, and spore production stops during dry periods. Although symptoms can develop throughout the growing season, older wheat, particularly plants near heading, tend to be more susceptible to the disease.

Disease Management

Cultural

Tillage to bury crop residue will reduce the amount of inoculum available to produce spores during the growing and facilitate residue decomposition. Rotation to non-host crops such as soybean, corn, or vegetables for 2-3 years will help further reduce inoculum. Avoid planting at excessive populations and applying excessive nutrients as this promotes a dense canopy and increases the potential for disease development. Avoid excessive overhead irrigation, particularly if the disease has been detected in the canopy. Irrigation after flower is not recommended and may facilitate glume infection.

Resistant wheat varieties

In fields with a history of glume blotch, plant varieties with excellent glume blotch resistance ratings. Resistance to glume blotch is not complete, meaning that it is not a yes or no resistance reaction. Instead, lesion development may be slower or sporulation reduced compared to susceptible varieties, resulting in lower overall disease. Investment in a highly resistant variety with good yield potential can save growers additional input costs associated with pesticide application.

Chemical controls

Fungicides applied to protect the head and flag leaf can significantly reduce the effects of glume blotch (Figure 2). In Delaware, S. nodorum typically starts to develop later in the season. Consequently, applications made between feekes growth stages 8-10.5.1 have been shown to be the most efficacious. Fungicide profitability is likely to occur under high yield potential environments (>75 bu/A), in no-till environments, and when wheat is exposed to persistent rain or irrigation. Several fungicides belonging to the DMI (Group 3; triazole) QoI (Group 11- strobilurin) and group 7 (SDHI) are very effective for managing this disease if applied preventatively. See the University of Delaware factsheet on Wehat Fungicide Reccomedations for Small grains for more information.

Figure 2. Fungicides can significantly reduce glume blotch. Left, no fungicide,

Right, fungicide applied at heading. Photo: N Kleczewski