Plant Growth Regulators - Behind the Scenes
Transcript of Plant Growth Regulators - Behind the Scenes
Plant
Growth
Regulators
– Behind
the Scenes
Agronomy Update
January 19, 2016
Red Deer
Sheri Strydhorst, PhDResearch Scientist – Agronomy
Adjunct Professor
Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science
University of Alberta
780.674.8248
@SheriStrydhorst
Plant Growth Regulators (PGRs)
• In western Canada, Manipulator was recently registered (for
wheat) and a 2nd PGR is in the process of registration (for
wheat).
• These PGRs produce shorter (2-15cm), thicker & stronger stems
which reduce lodging in intensive management systems
(Syngenta, 2013; Taminco, 2013).
• The primary use of PGRs is as a harvest management aid.
Syngenta. 2013. Palisade2EC Label. Accessed November 27, 2013. Available online at:
http://www.syngentacropprotection.com/Labels/p-1197/Palisade_2EC
Taminco. 2013. Manipulator Technical Data Sheet. Accessed November 27, 2013. Available
online at: http://www.taminco.com/
PGRs Under
Stress
Environmental conditions
to avoid with PGRs
andWhen?• 3 years (2014-2016)
Where?• Lethbridge (irrigated)
• Lethbridge dryland• High River (2014)
• Magrath (2015)
• Killam
• Bon Accord
• Falher
★
★
★
★
★Prepared by Laurel
Perrott, MSc. Student
AC Foremost
Wheat
Yield Response to
PGR
Lethbridge -Irrigated
Lethbridge -Dryland
Killam Bon Accord Falher
2014 Yield (bu/ac) Response to PGR treatments
Control 92 60 109 91 71
Manipulator 90 NS 59 NS 109 86 NS 65 NS
PGR B 98 65 NS 115 NS 91 71
2015 Yield (bu/ac) Response to PGR treatments
Control 101 64 52 73 65
Manipulator 96 NS 64 49 NS 68 NS 68 NS
PGR B 102 NS 68 NS 55 NS 65 70
AC Foremost Wheat – Yield Response to PGRs
• Manipulator yields were NOT statistically different than the control, but trended down at 7 of 10 sites; and upwards at 1 of 10 sites
• PGRB yields were statistically higher at 2 of 10 sites and statistically lower at 1 of 10 sites. PGRB trended higher at 7 of 10 sites
• Note: these yields are with PGR use alone; means separation with LSDhttp://depositphotos.com/4169647/stock-photo-dry-soil-crack-earth.html
Environmental ConditionsLethbridge -
IrrigatedLethbridge -
DrylandKillam Bon Accord Falher
2014 Environmental Conditions at time of PGR Application
Soil Water content 32.2%(0-20 cm)
Volumetric June
24
26.7 % (0-20 cm)
volumetric
n/a 10.1% (0-5 cm)
volumetric
25.8 % (0-5 cm)
gravimetric
Avg. Air Temperature 10.6 oC 14.6 oC 16.2 oC 11.7 oC 17.2 oC
Humidity 88% 72% 72% 72% 42%
Date of PGR Application June 13 June 25 June 26 June 16 June 27
2015 Environmental Conditions at time of PGR Application
Soil Water content 34.7% (0-20 cm)
volumetric
32.4%(0-20 cm)
volumetric
n/a 7.8%(0-5 cm)
Volumetric
22% (0-5cm)
gravemetric
Air Temperature 15.6 oC 18.4 oC 15.4 oC 12.1 oC 14.3 oC
Humidity 67% 49% 63% 69% 65%
Date of PGR Application June 5 June 9 June 22 June 13 June 18
• Volumetric soil water content = ratio of water volume to soil volume• Gravemetric soil water content = ratio of water weight to soil weight
AC Foremost
Wheat
Height Response to
PGR
Lethbridge -Irrigated
Lethbridge -Dryland
Killam Bon Accord Falher
2014 Height (cm) Response to PGR treatments
Control 89 c 77 c 78 c 70 b 61 ab
Chlormequat Chloride 81 a 72 a 71 a 67 a 60 a
PGR B 87 b 75 b 74 b 70 b 63 b
2-8 cm Reduction
2-5 cm Reduction
4-7 cm Reduction
3 cm Reduction
NS vs Control
2015 Height (cm) Response to PGR treatments
Control 78 a 67 c 63 a
Chlormequat Chloride 74 b 60 a 60 b
PGR B 77 a 62 b 60 b
4 cm Reduction
5-7cmReduction
3 cm Reduction
AC Foremost Wheat – Height Response to PGRs
Manipulator reduced plant height by -1 to -8 cm; average: - 4.8cm
PGRB changed plant height by +2 (Falher 2014) to -5 cm; average: -1.9 cm
AC Foremost Wheat
NIR Protein Response to PGR vs PGR + Fungicide
• Some evidence of PGRs reducing NIR protein content – but no consistent trends
• When PGRs are used in combination with fungicides – the protein reductions are not observed• POSSIBLE SYNERGY???
16/02/2016
Lethbridge -Irrigated
Lethbridge -Dryland
Killam Bon Accord Falher
2014 Protein Response to PGR treatments
Control 11.4 a 11.3 b 11.5 13.2 15.3 a
Manipulator 10.8 b 10.8 a 11.5 13.2 15.2 a
PGR B 11.2 ab 11.1 ab 11.4 13.3 14.7 b
NS NS
2015 Protein Response to PGR treatments
Control
Manipulator
PGR B
AC Foremost Wheat – Protein Response to PGRs
• Manipulator protein content was statistically less than the control at 2 of
5 sites
• PGRB protein content was statistically less than the control at 1 of 5
sites
• Note: these yields are with PGR use alone; means separation with LSD
10.8 a
11.6 b12.1 b
11.2 a
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
Control FlagFung LateFung DualFung CCC CCC+Flag CCC+Late CCC+Dual PGB2 PGB+Flag PGB+Late PGB+Dual
NIR
Pro
tein
(% P
rote
in a
dju
sted
to 1
3.5%
m
ois
ture
; N x
5.8
)Wheat Stacked 2014 - NIR Protein Response to PGR x Fungicide
Treatments – Lethbridge Irrigated 2014
When Manipulator is used in combination with fungicides – the
protein reductions are not observed that we see with Manipulator
alone. POSSIBLE SYNERGY???
11.411.2
AC Foremost Wheat Trends
• PGRs – Manipulator:
• yields were not statistically different than the control but often trended lower than the control
• Shortened AC Foremost by an average of 4.8cm (significant reduction in 7 of 8 site yrs)
• Caused significant protein reductions in 2 of 5 site years
• When used with a fungicide, the protein reductions were often avoided
– PGRB:• yields were often trended higher than the
untreated control
• Shortened AC Foremost by an average of 1.9 cm (significant reduction in 5 of 8 site years)
• Caused significant protein reductions in 1 of 5 site years
• When used with a fungicide, the protein reductions was avoided
But do PGRs
work the same
on all wheat
cultivars?
12 Wheat Cultivars Tested
Cultivar Class % of 2013 acres % of 2014 acres Height Lodging % Yield of Check Distributor
AC Foremost CPS 7.1% 7.1% 73 cm VG 116% SeCan
AAC Penhold CPS new new 72 cm Excellent 110% SeCan
5700PR CPS 3.7% 3.2% 75 cm VG 122% CPS Canada
KWS Sparrow GP new new 90 cm VG 113% SeCan
KWS Belvoir GP new new 88 cm VG 111% SeCan
Harvest HRS 15.5% 11.1% 84 cm VG 102% FP Genetics
CDC Go HRS 10.9% 12.5% 83 cm G 110% Public
Stettler HRS 15.7% 18.6% 84 cm G 112% SeCan
CDC Stanley HRS 3.0% 4.1% 87 cm G 113% CPS Canada
Thorsby HRS new new 97 cm 2.7 105% Canterra
Coleman HRS new new 92 cm 1.9 105% Public -
AC Andrew SWS 0.2% 0.3% 79 cm VG 100% SeCan
Standard versus Advanced ManagementStandard Agronomic Management
Product Rate Timing
Supplemental UAN n/a Only N applied at seeding for area average yield goals
PGR n/a n/a
Foliar Fungicide n/a n/a
Advanced Agronomic Management
Product Rate Timing
Supplemental UAN 34 kg N/ha Just prior to GS 30 (just before elongation). June 13,
2014; June 9, 2015 in Bon Accord
PGR - Manipulator 1.73 L/ha GS 30-31. June 18, 2014; June 13, 2015 in Bon Accord
1st Foliar FungicideTwinline
499 mL/ha GS 39 Flag leaf fully unrolled. July 2, 2014; June 24,
2015 Bon Accord
2nd Foliar FungicideProsaro
791 mL/ac ~ 2 weeks later . July 15, 2014; July 10, 2015 Bon
Accord
Lethbridge Irrigated 2015 – Changes in Height and Lodging Ratings
Class Cultivar
Height with Standard
Management (cm)
Height with Advanced
Management (cm)
Height Reduction
with Advanced
Management (cm)
Lodging Index under
Standard Management (0 = No Lodging;
100 = Flat)
Lodging Index under
Advanced Management (0 = No Lodging;
100 = Flat)
5700PR 87 81 -6 0 0CPS AC Foremost 83 75 -8 2 0
AAC Penhold 83 75 -8 1 0GP Belvoir 88 73 -15 0 0
Sparrow 93 80 -12 0 0SWS AC Andrew 90 84 -6 0 0
CDC Go 91 86 -5 4 0
Coleman 113 102 -11 67 30HRS AC Harvest 103 89 -14 39 0
CDC Stanley 105 92 -13 13 0Stettler 98 90 -8 5 1Thorsby 105 98 -7 38 26
16/02/2016Height Reduction 100%
Improvement in Standabiltiy
Height Reduction ~ 50% Improvement in Standability
Large Height Reduction (> 10cm)
No Improvement in Standability
Wheat Height Response to PGRs
• PGRs reduced plant height in most cultivars, but to varying degrees– Height reduction ranged from (+1 cm to -27cm); avg -
8.9cm– Averaged over 8 site years, the following cultivars had
heights reductions > 10cm:• Belvoir (-14 cm), Sparrow (-10 cm), Coleman (-13cm), Harvest (-11
cm) and CDC Stanley (-11 cm)
– Averaged over 8 site years, the following cultivars had heights reductions ≤ 6cm:• 5700PR (-5 cm) and AC Andrew (-6 cm)
• Height reduction was not specific to a certain class of wheat
• Height reduction was not correlated with plant height16/02/2016
Wheat Lodging Response to PGRs
• Lodging was reported at 4 of 8 sites
• Lodging differed between cultivars:– Best standability: AAC Penhold, Belvoir, Sparrow
– Worst standability: Coleman and Thorsby
– Intermediate standability: Harvest, CDC Stanley, CDC Go
• PGR standability Response:– Harvest, CDC Stanley and CDC Go tended to have
100% standability with PGR use
– Coleman and Thorsby tended to have improvements in standability, but lodging was still noted
16/02/2016
Amisk BarleyYield Response to
PGR
Prepared by Laurel Perrott,
MSc Student, University of Alberta
Note: Manipulator is not registered for use on barley in Canada
Advanced Agronomic Management Treatments
In – Crop UAN
Treatment Rate Timing
UAN 1.25x Yield Goal 30 lbs N/ac Just prior to GS 30 (just before elongation) - June 13th, 2014 in Bon Accord- June 9th, 2015 in Bon Accord
UAN 1.25x + Agrotain 30 lbs N/ac +
3.4 mL Agrotain /lb UAN
UAN 1.5x Yield Goal 60 lbs N/ac
PGR x Fungicide Treatments
Manipulator 0.93 L/ac (barley)
GS 30-31- June 18th, 2014 in Bon Accord- June 13th, 2015 in Bon Accord
1st Foliar FungicideTwinline
202 mL/ac GS 39 Flag leaf fully unrolled - July 2nd, 2014 in Bon Accord- June 24th, 2015 in Bon Accord
2nd Foliar FungicideProsaro
320 mL/ac Late Fungicide application ~ 2 weeks later - July 15th, 2014 in Bon Accord- July 10th, 2015 in Bon Accord
Note: Manipulator is not registered for use on barley in Canada
Amisk Barley Yield Response to
PGR
- Significant positive yield response
(1-6%) at 6 of 9 site years
-Yield increases were seen in both dry
and high moisture environments
-No negative yield responses were
observed
Note: Manipulator is not registered for use on barley in Canada
Amisk Barley – Economic Yield Response to PGR
Based on Oct 27 Leth feed barley price of $4.68/bu
Lethbridge -Irrigated
Lethbridge -Dryland
Killam Bon Accord Falher
2014 Yield (bu/ac) and Economic Response to PGR treatments
Control 147 a 107a 140a 148 93 a
Manipulator 149 b 113b= $2.34 148b= $11.70 150 96 b
1.2% increase 5.6% increase 5.7% increase NS 3% increase
2015 Yield (bu/ac) and Economic Response to PGR treatments
Control 170 a 100 a 96 112
Manipulator 172 b 103 b 94 113
1.3% increase 3.4% increase NS NS
• Positive yield response at 6 of 9 sites• Positive economic response at 2 of 9 sites
Prepared by Laurel Perrott, MSc Student,
University of Alberta
PGR Cost of PGR & Application
Feed Barley Price(Leth)
Yield Increase Required to Break Even
Chlormequat chloride @0.93L/ac
$25.39 /ac $4.68/bu (Oct27) 5.4 bu/ac
Note: Manipulator is not registered for use on barley in Canada
16/02/2016
Amisk Barley Height & Lodging Response to PGRs
• Height decrease at 3 of 8 site years (decreases ranged between 1.6 - 4.0 cm)
• Decreases did not occur under irrigated conditions
• PGR did NOT improve Lodging
Note: Manipulator is not registered for use on barley in Canada
Lethbridge -Irrigated
Lethbridge -Dryland
Killam Bon Accord Falher
2014 Height (cm) Response to PGR treatments
Control 77 83 a 73 76 67 a
Manipulator 77 79 b 72 77 65 b
NS 4 cm decrease NS NS 2 cm decrease
2015 Height (cm) Response to PGR treatments
Control 91 53 60 a
Manipulator 91 53 58 b
NS NS 1.6 cm decrease with Manipulator
Amisk Barley – Height Response to PGRs
Barley Stacked Management – Lodging Response to PGRs
Amisk is a good standing variety.
Sites with Lodging: Bon Accord 2014; Lethbridge 2015
At these sites -- No lodging improvement with PGR use.
Note: Manipulator is not registered for use on barley in Canada
Marketing PGR
Treated Crops
Manipulator and the Registration Process
• Chlormequat chloride (active ingredient in Manipulator) is
registered for use in all of Europe, Australia and most wheat
producing countries
– but not the US
– there is a Codex standard for chlormequat chloride
• Health Canada’s PMRA approved use of Manipulator (active
ingredient: chlormequat chloride) effective for wheat in the 2015
growing season
Manipulator and the Registration Process
• There is no Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) for chlormequat
chloride in the USA – therefore a zero tolerance for any
Manipulator residues
• MRL application is currently under review by the US
Environmental Protection Agency
• Engage Agro does not have
timelines for the EPA approval
of a chlormequat chloride MRL
– Hopefully something will be in
place for 2017
Selling Grain Treated with Manipulator
• Grain buyers are requiring producers to sign a declaration
indicting if Manipulator was used on the wheat crop
– This will prevent shipment of Manipulator treated wheat into the US
• Some grain buyers are refusing to accept wheat which received
an application of Manipulator
• Some grain buyers are accepting
Manipulator treated wheat
There is no “list” of buyers
who will or will not accept
Manipulator treated grain –
producers should ask
individual grain buyers
http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/2010/08/20/sexsmith-
grain-terminal-officially-opened
Take Home
Messages
Wheat Take Home
Messages …
- PGRs on Wheat:
- Yield trends need to be monitored
- Height reductions and standability
improvements are cultivar specific
- Protein reductions need better
monitoring. PGR + Fungicide as a
safener maybe an opportunity
- Check with your grain buyer to
ensure they will accept
Manipulator treated wheat
Barley Take Home Messages…
• On Amisk barley, Manipulator increased yield modestly in most site
years, and broke even at 2 of 9 years.
–PGR did not increase standability• Selecting an appropriate cultivar is a more effective method than
PGR to manage height and lodging in feed barley
Prepared by Laurel Perrott,
MSc Student, University of Alberta
Note: Manipulator is not registered for use on barley in Canada
This work would not have been possible without technical support
from:
• Doon Pauly’s Technical Staff: Allan Middleton, Pat Pfiffner, Chris
Hietamaa, Darryle Thiessen, Colin Enns
• Robyne Bowness’ Technical Staff: Trina Dubitz, Joshua Beaucheane
• CDCN/Barrhead Technical Staff: Jackie Tieulie, Sue Jess, Alex Fedko,
Chelsea Jaeger, Brandi Kelly, Ruoxi, Xia, Suzie Spearin, Emily Flock,
Boris Henriquez, Mathew Webster, Laurel Perrott
• SARDA: JP PettyJohn, Kabal Gill, summer staff
Professional Support from:
• Bill Chapman, Rong-Cai Yang, Mark Olson, Darcy Driedger, Tabitha
MacKinnon, Elsie Gross, Cam Stevenson, Linda Hall, Kelly Kelly
Advanced Agronomic Practices in
Wheat, Barley and Pea to Maximize
Yield and Harvestability
Anderson Seed Growers Ltd.
Beamish Seed Farms Ltd.
Galloway Seeds Ltd.
Canterra Seeds
Field Crop Development Centre
KL Nelson and KWS – UK
Kittle Farms Ltd.
Lefsrud Seed & Processors Ltd.
McNelly Seed Farms Ltd.
N. Jonk Seed Farms
Don Schmermund
Stony Plain Seed Cleaning Plant
Trueblood Farms Ltd.
University of Alberta
Westlock Seed Cleaning Co-op Ltd.
Financial Support of this Research is Provided By:
In-Kind Support of this Research is Provided By:
Thank You for
Your Time!
Questions?
Sheri Strydhorst, PhD Research Scientist – Agronomy
@SheriStrydhorst [email protected]