SOYBEAN DISEASE MANAGEMENT

1Soybean Disease Management

CPN-1019-W

Fungicide Efficacy for Control of Soybean Foliar Diseases

The North Central Regional Committee on Soybean Diseases (NCERA-137) has developed the following information on foliar fungicide efficacy for control of major foliar soybean diseases in the United States. Efficacy ratings for each fungicide listed in the table were determined by field testing the materials over multiple years and locations by the members of the committee. Efficacy ratings are based upon level of disease control achieved by product, and are not necessarily reflective of yield responses obtained from product application. Efficacy depends upon proper application timing, rate, and application method to achieve optimum effectiveness of the fungicide as determined by labeled instructions and overall level of disease in the field at the time of application. Differences in efficacy among fungicide products were determined by direct comparisons among products in field tests and are based on a single application of the labeled rate as listed in the table, unless otherwise noted.

For application timing and use considerations, contact your local cooperative extension service. The table includes systemic fungicides available that have been tested over multiple years and locations. It is not intended to be a list of all labeled products. This information is provided only as a guide. It is the applicator’s and user’s legal responsibility to read and follow all current label directions. Reference in this publication to any specific commercial product, process, or service, or the use of any trade, firm, or corporation name is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute an endorsement, recommendation, or certification of any kind by members of the group. Individuals using such products assume responsibility for their use in accordance with current directions of the manufacturer. Efficacy categories: E=Excellent; VG=Very Good; G=Good; F=Fair; P=Poor; NR=Not Recommended; NL=Not Labeled for Use Against this Disease; U=Unknown efficacy or insufficient data to rank product.

2Soybean Disease Management

Fungicide Efficacy for Control of Soybean Foliar DiseasesFu

ngic

ide

Effic

acy

for C

ontr

ol o

f Soy

bean

Fol

iar D

isea

ses1

FUNG

ICID

E(S)

Aeria

l W

eb

Blig

htAn

thra

cnos

eBr

own

Spot

2 Ce

rcos

pora

Le

af B

light

3 Fr

ogey

e Le

af Sp

ot4

Diap

orth

e (P

od an

d St

em B

light

)

Soyb

ean

Rust

Targ

et

Spot

Whi

te

Mol

d5 Ha

rves

t Re

stric

tion6

Clas

sAc

tive I

ngre

dien

t (%

)Pr

oduc

t/

Trad

e Nam

eRa

te/A

fl.

oz.)

QoI S

trobil

urins

Grou

p 11

azox

ystro

bin 22

.9%Qu

adris

2.08

SC®

mult

iple g

ener

ics7

6.0-1

5.5VG

VGP-

GP

PU

G-VG

P-F

P14

days

fluox

astro

bin 40

.3%Af

tersh

ock 4

80SC

® Ev

ito 48

0SC®

2.0-5

.7VG

GP-

GP

PU

UU

NLR5

(beg

inning

se

ed)

30 da

ys

picox

ystro

bin 22

.5%Ap

roac

h 2.08

SC®

6.0 -1

2.0VG

GP-

GP

PU

GU

G-VG

1114

days

pyra

clostr

obin

23.6%

Head

line 2

.09EC

/SC®

6.0-1

2.0VG

VGP-

GP

PU

VGP-

FNL

21 da

ys

DMI T

riazo

lesGr

oup 3

cypr

ocon

azole

8.9%

Alto

100S

L®2.7

5-5.5

UU

VGF

FU

VGU

NL30

days

flutri

afol 1

1.8%

Topg

uard

1.04

SC®

7.0-1

4.0U

VGVG

P-G

G-VG

UVG

-EP

F21

days

prop

icona

zole

41.8%

Tilt 3

.6EC®

mult

iple g

ener

ics7

4.0-6

.0P

VGG

NLF

NLVG

UNL

R5

(beg

inning

se

ed)

prot

hioco

nazo

le 41

.0%Pr

oline

480S

C®8

2.5-5

.0NL

NLNL

NLG-

VGNL

VGU

F21

days

tetra

cona

zole

20.5%

Dom

ark 2

30M

E®4.0

-5.0

NLVG

VGP-

GF-

GU

VG-E

PF

R5 (b

eginn

ing

seed

)

MBC

Thiop

hana

tes

Grou

p 1th

iopha

nate

-met

hyl

Tops

in-M

® m

ultipl

e gen

erics

10.0-

20.0

UU

UF

VGU

GU

F21

days

2,6-

dinitr

o-an

ilines

Grou

p 29

fluaz

inam

40.0%

Omeg

a 500

DF®

Lekt

ivar 40

SC®

12.0-

16.0

NLNL

NLNL

NLNL

NLNL

GR3

(b

eginn

ing

pod)

SDHI

Ca

rbox

amide

s Gr

oup 7

bosc

alid 7

0%En

dura

0.7D

F®3.5

-11.0

UNL

VGU

PNL

NLU

VG21

days

Mixe

d Mod

es

of Ac

tion

azox

ystro

bin 25

.3%flu

triafo

l 18.6

3%To

pgua

rd EQ

4.29

SC®

5.0-7

.0U

UVG

UG-

VGU

UP

U21

days

azox

ystro

bin 18

.2%dif

enoc

onaz

ole 11

.4%Qu

adris

Top 2

.72SC

®8.0

-14.0

UU

G-VG

P-G

VGF-

GVG

PNL

14 da

ys

azox

ystro

bin 19

.8%dif

enoc

onaz

ole 19

.8%Qu

adris

Top S

BX

3.76S

C®7.0

-7.5

UU

G-VG

P-G

VGF-

GVG

F-G

U14

days

azox

ystro

bin 7.

0%pr

opico

nazo

le 11

.7%Qu

ilt 1.

66SC

® m

ultipl

e gen

erics

714

.0-20

.5U

UG

FF

UVG

PNL

21 da

ys

azox

ystro

bin 13

.5%pr

opico

nazo

le 11

.7%Qu

ilt Xc

el 2.2

SE®

10.5-

21.0

EVG

GF

FU

VGP

NLR6

3Soybean Disease Management

Fungicide Efficacy for Control of Soybean Foliar DiseasesFu

ngic

ide

Effic

acy

for C

ontr

ol o

f Soy

bean

Fol

iar D

isea

ses1

(con

tinue

d)FU

NGIC

IDE(

S)Ae

rial

Web

Bl

ight

Anth

racn

ose

Brow

n Sp

ot2

Cerc

ospo

ra

Leaf

Blig

ht3

Frog

eye

Leaf

Spot

4

Diap

orth

e (P

od an

d

Stem

Blig

ht)

Soyb

ean

Rust

Targ

et

Spot

Whi

te

Mol

d5 Ha

rves

t Re

stric

tion6

Clas

sAc

tive I

ngre

dien

t (%

)Tr

ade N

ame

Rate

/A

fl. oz

.)

Mixe

d Mod

es

of Ac

tion

(continued)

benz

ovind

iflup

yr 2.

9%az

oxys

trobin

10.5%

prop

icona

zole

11.9%

Triva

pro®

13.7-

20.7

EU

VGP-

GF-

GG

VG-E

UNL

14 da

ysR6

cypr

ocon

azole

7.17

%pic

oxys

trobin

17.94

%Ap

roac

h Prim

a 2.3

4SC®

5.0-6

.8U

UG

P-G

F-G

UVG

F-G

NL14

days

fluop

yram

17.4%

prot

hioco

nazo

le 17

.4%Pr

opuls

e 3.34

SC®9

6.0-1

0.2NL

NLU

NLU

UU

NLG

21 da

ys

flutri

afol 2

6.47%

bixafe

n 15.5

%Lu

cent

o 4.17

SC®

3-5.5

UU

VGU

VGU

UF-

GU

21 da

ys

flutri

afol 1

9.3%

fluox

astro

bin 14

.84%

Forti

x SC®

Pree

mpt

or SC

®4.0

-6.0

UU

G-VG

P-G

G-VG

UU

PU

R5

prot

hioco

nazo

le 16

.0%tri

floxy

strob

in 13

.7%De

laro 3

25SC

®8.0

-11.0

UU

VGU

G-VG

UU

NLNL

21 da

ys

pydif

lumet

ofen

7.0%

az

oxys

trobin

9.3%

pr

opico

nazo

le 11

.6%M

iravis

® Ne

o13

.7-20

.8U

UU

UVG

UU

UU

14 da

ys

pydif

lumet

ofen

6.9%

difen

ocon

azole

11.5%

Mira

vis To

p 1.67

SC®

13.7

UU

VGP-

GVG

GU

F-G

U14

days

pyra

clostr

obin

28.58

%flu

xapy

roxa

d 14.3

3%Pr

iaxor

4.17

SC®

4.0-8

.0E

VGG-

VGP-

GP-

FU

VGF-

GP

21 da

ys

pyra

clostr

obin

28.58

%flu

xapy

roxa

d 14.3

3%te

traco

nazo

le 20

.50%

Priax

or D

4.17

SC®

1.9SC

®

4.0

(eac

h co

mpo

nent

)U

UVG

P-G

GG

VG-E

F-G

P21

days

R5

triflo

xystr

obin

32.3%

prot

hioco

nazo

le 10

.8%St

rate

go YL

D 4.1

8SC®

104.0

-4.65

VGVG

GF

F-G

UVG

PNL

21 da

ys

tetra

cona

zole

7.48%

azox

ystro

bin 9.

35%

Affia

nce 1

.5SC®

10.0-

14.0

UVG

VGF

F-G

UU

UU

R5

14 da

yste

traco

nazo

le 17

.76%

fluox

astro

bin 17

.76%

Zoler

a FX 3

.34SC

®4.4

-6.8

UU

UU

F-G

UU

UU

R530

days

thiop

hana

te-m

ethy

l 21.3

%te

traco

nazo

le 4.2

%Ac

ropo

lis®

20.0-

23.0

NLU

UU

VGU

VG-E

UU

R5

Mefen

triflu

cona

zole

11.61

%Py

raclo

strob

in 15

.49%

Fluxa

pyro

xad 7

.74%

Revy

tek12

8.0-1

5.0U

UVG

UVG

UU

F-VG

P21

days

1 Mul

tiple

fung

icid

es ar

e lab

eled

for s

oybe

an ru

st on

ly, p

owde

ry m

ildew

, and

Alte

rnar

ia le

af sp

ot, i

nclu

ding

tebu

cona

zole

(mul

tiple

prod

ucts)

and

myc

lobu

tani

l (La

redo

). C

onta

ct fu

ngic

ides

such

as ch

loro

thal

onil

may

also

be l

abele

d fo

r use

.2 In

area

s whe

re Q

oI-fu

ngic

ide r

esist

ant i

solat

es o

f the

bro

wn

spot

pat

hoge

n ar

e pre

sent

, QoI

fung

icid

es m

ay re

sult

in p

oor d

iseas

e con

trol.

3 Cer

cosp

ora l

eaf b

light

effic

acy r

elies

on

accu

rate

appl

icat

ion

timin

g, an

d sta

ndar

d R3

appl

icat

ion

timin

gs m

ay n

ot p

rovi

de ad

equa

te d

iseas

e con

trol. F

ungi

cide

effic

acy m

ay im

prov

e with

earli

er o

r lat

er ap

plic

atio

ns; h

owev

er, e

ffica

cy h

as

been

inco

nsist

ent w

ith so

me p

rodu

cts.

Fung

icid

es w

ith a

solo

or m

ixed

QoI

or M

BC m

ode o

f act

ion

may

not

be e

ffect

ive i

n ar

eas w

here

QoI

or M

BC re

sista

nce h

as b

een

dete

cted

in th

e fun

gal p

opul

atio

n th

at ca

uses

Cer

cosp

ora l

eaf b

light

.4 In

area

s whe

re Q

oI-fu

ngic

ide r

esist

ant i

solat

es o

f the

frog

eye l

eaf s

pot p

atho

gen

are n

ot p

rese

nt, Q

oI fu

ngic

ides

may

be m

ore e

ffect

ive t

han

indi

cate

d in

this

tabl

e.5 W

hite

mol

d ef

ficac

y is b

ased

on

R1-R

2 ap

plic

atio

n tim

ing,

and

low

er ef

ficac

y is o

btai

ned

at R

3 or

late

r app

licat

ion

timin

gs, o

r if d

iseas

e sym

ptom

s are

alre

ady p

rese

nt at

the t

ime o

f app

licat

ion.

6 H

arve

st re

stric

tions

are l

isted

for s

oybe

an h

arve

sted

for g

rain

. Res

tric

tions

may

vary

for o

ther

type

s of s

oybe

an (e

dam

ame,

etc.)

and

soyb

ean

for o

ther

use

s suc

h as

fora

ge o

r fod

der.

7 Mul

tiple

gene

ric p

rodu

cts c

onta

inin

g th

is m

ode o

f act

ion

may

also

be l

abele

d in

som

e sta

tes.

8 Pr

olin

e has

a su

pplem

enta

l lab

el (2

ee) f

or w

hite

mol

d in

NY.

9 Prop

ulse

is n

ot la

beled

for u

se o

n so

ybea

n in

all s

tate

s as o

f Jan

uary

202

0.

10St

rate

go Y

LD h

as a

supp

lemen

tal l

abel

(2ee

) for

whi

te m

old

on so

ybea

n on

ly in

IL, I

N, I

A, M

I, M

N, N

E, N

D, O

H, S

D, W

I.11

Ratin

g is

base

d on

two

appl

icat

ions

of a

9 fl

oz/

A ra

te o

f Apr

oach

at R

1 an

d R3

. 12

Revy

tek

is no

t lab

eled

for u

se o

n so

ybea

n in

all s

tate

s as o

f Jan

uary

202

0.

4Soybean Disease Management

Fungicide Efficacy for Control of Soybean Foliar Diseases

Find Out MoreThe Crop Protection Network (CPN) is a multi-state and international collaboration of university and provincial extension specialists, and public and private professionals who provide unbiased, research-based information to farmers and agricultural personnel. Our goal is to communicate relevant information that will help professionals identify and manage field crop diseases.Find more crop disease resources at CropProtectionNetwork.org.

Technical Editor: Kevin Leigh Smith, Purdue Agricultural Sciences Education and Communication. Design: Purdue Agricultural Communication. Production and layout by Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Agriculture and Natural Resources.

The information in this publication is only a guide, and the authors assume no liability for practices implemented based on this information. Reference to products in this publication is not intended to be an endorsement to the exclusion of others that may be similar. Individuals using such products assume responsibility for their use in accordance with current directions of the manufacturer.

March 2020

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

©2020 by the Crop Protection Network. All rights reserved.

CROP PROTECTION NETWORKA Product of Land Grant Universities

cropprotectionnetwork.org