Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-bnl7t Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T04:08:20.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean Management System Effect on Sclerotinia Stem Rot

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Chad D. Lee ,
Karen A. Renner ,
Donald Penner ,
Ray Hammerschmidt  and
James D. Kelly
Chad D. Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences
Karen A. Renner
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences
Donald Penner*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences
Ray Hammerschmidt
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology
James D. Kelly
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: pennerd@msu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The impact of the management variables soybean cultivar, row spacing, population density, and shading was evaluated on the incidence of Sclerotinia stem rot (SSR) on glyphosate-resistant soybeans in an irrigated glyphosate-resistant soybean management system. Soybean canopy development, flower number, soil moisture, disease severity, and soybean yield were evaluated on three glyphosate-resistant cultivars, Pioneer ‘92B71’ (upright), Asgrow ‘AG2701’ (bushy), and Asgrow ‘AG2702’ (bushy). Three different row spacing–target population combinations of 76 cm, 430,000 seeds/ha; 19 cm, 430,000 seeds/ha; and 19 cm, 560,000 seeds/ha were evaluated. Cultivars 92B71 and AG2701 had 42 and 15% lower disease severity indexes and 38 and 19% greater yields than AG2702, respectively. The actual average population of 92B71 was 9 and 20% lower than actual average populations of AG2701 and AG2702, respectively. Disease severity indexes were lower and yield was higher when population was reduced from 560,000 seeds/ha to 430,000 seeds/ha in 19-cm rows. When averaged over the entire study, population was positively correlated with disease severity index (r 2 = 0.33; P < 0.0001) and negatively correlated with yield (r 2 = −0.13; P = 0.0140). Reduction of soybean population was more important than increasing row spacing to manage SSR in an irrigated system. Average actual spacing between plants within a row was 18 and 4 cm for 19- and 76-cm rows, respectively, at a target population of 430,000 seeds/ha, which may have contributed to greater plant-to-plant transfer of the Sclerotinia sclerotiorum pathogen in the 76-cm rows.

Keywords

Glyphosatesoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. Pioneer ‘92B71’, Asgrow ‘AG2701’, and Asgrow ‘AG2702’Sclerotinia stem rot (white mold), Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de BaryDisease severity indexpopulation densityrow spacingDSI, disease severity indexLAI, leaf area indexSSR, Sclerotinia stem rot

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 580 - 588
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Ball, R. A., Purcell, L. C., and Vories, E. D. 2000. Short-season soybean yield compensation in response to population and water regime. Crop Sci. 40:1070–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boland, G. J. and Hall, R. 1987a. Epidemiology of white mold of white bean in Ontario. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 9:218–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boland, G. J. and Hall, R. 1987b. Evaluating soybean cultivars for resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum under field conditions. Plant Dis. 71:934–936.Google Scholar
Boland, G. J. and Hall, R. 1988. Epidemiology of Sclerotinia stem rot of soybean in Ontario. Phytopathology 78:1241–1245.Google Scholar
Buzzell, R. I., Welacky, T. W., and Anderson, T. R. 1993. Soybean cultivar reaction and row spacing effect on Sclerotinia stem rot. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73:1169–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, D., Kao, B., and Lockwood, J. L. 1987. Laboratory and field assessment of resistance in soybean to stem rot caused by Sclerotinia sclerotiorum . Plant Dis. 71:811–815.Google Scholar
Coyne, D. P., Steadman, J. R., and Anderson, F. N. 1974. Effect of modified plant architecture of great northern dry bean varieties (Phaseolus vulgaris) on white mold severity, and components of yield. Plant Dis. Rep. 58:379–382.Google Scholar
Dalley, C. D., Kells, J. J., and Renner, K. A. 2004a. Effect of glyphosate application timing and row spacing on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) yields. Weed Technol. 18:165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalley, C. D., Kells, J. J., and Renner, K. A. 2004b. Effect of glyphosate application timing and row spacing on weed growth in corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 18:177–182.Google Scholar
Dann, E. K., Diers, B. W., and Hammerschmidt, R. 1999. Suppression of Sclerotinia stem rot of soybean by lactofen herbicide treatment. Phytopathology 89:598–602.Google Scholar
Fehr, W. R. and Caviness, C. E. 1977. Stages of Soybean Development. Special Report 80. Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Fitter, A. H. and Hay, R. K. M. 1987. Environmental Physiology of Plants. New York: Academic. 423 p.Google Scholar
Grau, C. R. and Radke, V. L. 1984. Effects of cultivars and cultural practices on Sclerotinia stem rot of soybean. Plant Dis. 68:56–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grau, C. R., Radke, V. L., and Gillespie, F. L. 1982. Resistance of soybean cultivars to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum . Plant Dis. 66:506–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H. S. and Diers, B. W. 2000. Inheritance of partial resistance to Sclerotinia stem rot in soybean. Crop Sci. 40:55–61.Google Scholar
Kim, H. S., Sneller, C. H., and Diers, B. W. 1999. Evaluation of soybean cultivars for resistance to Sclerotinia stem rot in field environments. Crop Sci. 39:64–68.Google Scholar
Kolkman, J. M. and Kelly, J. D. 2002. Agronomic traits affecting resistance to white mold in common bean. Crop Sci. 42:693–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurle, J. E., Grau, C. R., Oplinger, E. S., and Mengistu, A. 2001. Tillage, crop sequence, and cultivar effects on Sclerotinia stem rot incidence and yield in soybean. Agron. J. 93:973–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C. D., Penner, D., and Hammerschmidt, R. 2000. Influence of formulated glyphosate and activator adjuvants on Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in glyphosate-resistant and -susceptible Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:710–715.Google Scholar
Legere, A. and Schreiber, M. M. 1989. Competition and canopy architecture as affected by soybean (Glycine max) row width and density of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 37:84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y., Kiddle, G., Bennett, R. N., and Wallsgrove, R. M. 1999. Local and systemic changes in glucosinolates in Chinese and European cultivars of canola (Brassica napus L.) after inoculation with Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (stem rot). Ann. Appl. Biol. 134:45–58.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Nelson, B. D., Helms, T. C., and Olson, M. A. 1991. Comparison of laboratory and field evaluations of resistance in soybean to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Plant Dis. 75:662–665.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. 2000. Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr] Growth and Development, White Mold [Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary] Incidence, and Yellow Nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) Control as Affected by Glyphosate and Other Herbicides. Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Pp. 73–114.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 1999. Weed management in wide- and narrow-row glyphosate resistant soybean. J. Prod. Agric. 12:460–465.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 2001. Soybean growth and development as affected by glyphosate and postemergence herbicide tank mixtures. Agron. J. 93:428–434.Google Scholar
Orellana, R. G. 1975. Photoperiod influence on the susceptibility of sunflower to Sclerotinia stalk rot. Phytopathology 65:1293–1297.Google Scholar
Pennypacker, B. W. and Risius, M. L. 1999. Environmental sensitivity of soybean cultivar response to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum . Phytopathology 89:618–622.Google Scholar
Purdy, L. H. 1979. Sclerotinia sclerotiorum: history, diseases, and symptomology, host range, geographic distribution, and impact. Phytopathology 69:875–880.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. SAS/STAT Software: Changes and Enhancements. Release 8.1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Schwartz, H. F., Steadman, J. R., and Coyne, D. P. 1978. Influence of Phaseolus vulgaris blossoming characteristics and canopy structure upon reaction to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum . Phytopathology 68:465–470.Google Scholar
Yang, X. B. 1999. Consistency of variety response to white mold. Integr. Crop Manage. 15:17–18.Google Scholar