Denmark has only few specific fungicides for control of powdery mildew. In 2017 Talius got a dis-pensation for use once in the season, which was a major step forward as this product is very effective.
Flexity only performs moderately in line with or poorer than azole solutions. Input EC 460 also got an authorisation, but only very late in the season. Input EC 460 performed in line with azole solutions (Prosaro EC 250), while Talius showed a very good and long-lasting control. Several of the cultivars grown (Benchmark, Sheriff, Pistoria) provided good resistance to mildew, while for instance Torp showed high susceptibility.
Photo from a drone above the mildew trial at Jyndevad. Yellow areas suffer from severe mildew attack.
Table 1. Control of powdery mildew using different mildewicides in 1 trial from 2017 (17344).
Treatments, l/ha % powdery mildew Yield and
increase
1. Untreated Untreated 15.0 31.3 46.3 16.3 -
-2. Untreated Viverda 0.6 + Ultimate S 0.6 9.0 18.8 33.8 4.5 13.0 9.5
3. Talius 0.25 + Prosaro EC 250 0.25 Viverda 0.6 + Ultimate S 0.6 4.5 5.0 10.0 0.9 29.0 22.3 4. Talius 0.20 + Prosaro EC 250 0.25 Viverda 0.6 + Ultimate S 0.6 6.0 7.0 12.5 1.3 26.8 20.4 5. Talius 0.15 + Prosaro EC 250 0.25 Viverda 0.6 + Ultimate S 0.6 4.3 8.8 16.3 2.0 26.5 20.5 6. Talius 0.10 + Prosaro EC 250 0.25 Viverda 0.6 + Ultimate S 0.6 5.8 11.5 18.8 2.0 23.2 17.5 7. Talius 0.15 + Prosaro EC 250 0.25 Viverda 0.6 + Ultimate S 0.6 + Talius 0.1 5.5 8.8 15.5 0.9 31.3 24.6
8. Prosaro EC 250 0.25 Viverda 0.6 + Ultimate S 0.6 8.3 20.0 32.5 4.0 15.9 10.9
No. of trials 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LSD95 3.6 5.5 8.7 2.0 4.0
-In a second trial (17339) different azole solutions (Prosaro EC 250 and Proline Xpert) were compared with Input EC 460 – all tested at low rates (Table 2, Figure 2). The same solutions were tested as a single solution or as a solution in mixtures with a low rate of Talius (0.1 l/ha). The control from the azole solu-tions and Input EC 460 was short-lived and rather limited, but adding Talius increased the duration of control and also the yield significantly.
Figure 2. Per cent control of powdery mildew using different products with mildew effects. 1 trial from Jyndevad 2017 (17339) assessed at GS 37 and 51 (70% and 12.5% attack in untreated, respectively).
Table 2. Control of powdery mildew using different mildewicides in 1 trial from 2017 (17339).
Treatments, l/ha % powdery mildew Yield and
increase
1. Untreated Untreated 12.5 10.8 35.0 32.5 40.5
-2. - Bell 0.3 + Prosaro EC 250 0.25 11.3 7.8 26.3 23.8 4.6 1.8
3. Prosaro EC 250 0.5 Bell 0.3 + Prosaro EC 250 0.25 11.3 8.8 23.8 21.3 8.7 3.6
4. Proline Xpert 0.45 Bell 0.3 + Prosaro EC 250 0.25 10.0 8.0 23,8 25.0 9.4 4.3
5. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 + Talius 0.1 Bell 0.3 + Prosaro EC 250 0.25 6.0 3.0 13.8 17.5 21.6 16.3 6. Proline Xpert 0.3 + Talius 0.10 Bell 0.3 + Prosaro EC 250 0.25 7.3 5.3 21.3 20.0 16.9 11.7
7. Input EC 460 0.5 Bell 0.3 + Prosaro EC 250 0.25 10.0 7.5 21.3 25.0 8.3 2.8
8. Input EC 460 0.3 + Talius 0.1 Bell 0.3 + Prosaro EC 250 0.25 6.8 6.5 20.0 21.3 15.0 9.6
No. of trials 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LSD 3.5 2.8 7.5 7.8 3.9
-Table 3. Control of powdery mildew using different mildewicides in 1 trial from 2017 (17308). The whole trial was also cover treated at heading with 0.75 l/ha Bell (also untreated).
Treatments, l/ha % powdery mildew Yield and
increase
1. Untreated 5.0 32.5 27.5 12.5 46.3
-2. Flexity 0.133 4.0 28.8 27.5 10.0 0.6 -0.8
3. Flexity 0.2 2.8 27.5 27.5 10.3 0.5 -1.3
-Untreated plots at Jyndevad with a severe attack of powdery mildew.
Plot treated with 0.25 l/ha Talius + 0.25 l/ha Prosaro EC 250 at GS 31.
Talius provided long-lasting effect of powdery mildew.
Control of tan spot (Drechslera tritici repentis)
Four trials were carried out in 2017 testing the efficacy of different fungicides for control of tan spot.
Straw infected with tan spot was spread in the autumn of 2016 at the trial site, which is a method known to provide good attack of this disease. In early April the first clear symptoms of tan spot were recognised at the site. The trial developed minor attacks of Septoria and severe attacks of tan spot. When first established, tan spot is found to be the faster of the two diseases, particularly when developing on newly developed upper leaves.
Different timings and combinations of treatments were tested (Table 4). As tan spot has a very short latent period (less than a week), it is important to keep on controlling this disease also during flowering.
This is in contrast to Septoria, which due to its long latent period will stop creating a yield reducing attack at an earlier stage. As in previous seasons, all treatments only provided very moderate control.
However, as also seen in previous seasons, it was clear that the late timing improved the control at the last assessments.
Both Bumper 25 EC and Proline EC 250 provided moderate to good control of tan spot. Bumper 25 EC is Only few fungicides provide high levels of tan spot control. Bumper 25 EC and Proline EC 250 are the best products and provide very similar control. The efficacy does not last when severe outbreaks occur. Cultivar resistance is only moderate. Only Creator showed again in 2017 a clear reduction in the level of attack.
Untreated. Bumper 25 EC/Proline EC 250/Bumper 25 EC/
Proline EC 250.
GF-3307, which includes a mixture of Inatreq + prothioconazole, showed moderate control of tan spot using 1.5-2.0 l/ha GF-3307 (Table 6). The efficacy provided control in line with or better than Propulse SE 250 but slightly superior to 2.5 l/ha Ascra Xpro. Two treatments were clearly superior in both control and yields compared to solo treatments applied at GS 59.
Table 4. Effects of different fungicides on tan spot and yield responses following 2-4 applications in wheat. 1 trial (17326).
Treatments, l/ha % tan spot Yield and
increase
1. Bumper 0.25 Proline Xpert 0.5 Bumper 0.5 Proline EC 0.4 2.0 13.8 16.8 13.2 5.4
2. Bumper 0.25 Proline Xpert 0.5 Propulse 0.5 Bumper 0.5 4.3 20.0 23.0 14.5 6.5
3. Bumper 0.25 Proline Xpert 0.5 Bumper 0.5 Propulse 0.5 1.5 10.0 12.0 18.9 10.9
4. Bumper 0.25 Proline Xpert 0.5 Propulse 0.5 - 4.8 17.5 35.0 14.2 7.9
5. Bumper 0.25 Bumper 0.5 Bumper 0.5 - 2.3 12.0 21.3 14.9 10.5
6. Bumper 0.25 Propulse 0.5 Proline Xpert 0.5 - 7.0 17.5 35.0 13.9 7.6
7. Bumper 0.25 Viverda 0.5 + Proline EC 0.2 Viverda 0.5 + Proline EC 0.2 - 6.5 26.3 33.8 13.3 4.6
8. Bumper 0.25 Proline EC 250 0.4 Armure 0.4 - 4.3 17.5 30.8 15.9 9.9
9. Untreated - - - 15.0 42.5 55.0 71.6
-LSD95 - - - 2.7 7.8 10.2 5.2
-Table 5. Results of 2 trials from 2016 (16326-1) and 2017 (17326-1) with tan spot.
*Tr. 1-4 were at GS 37 treated with 0.4 l/ha Proline EC 250 in 2016 and 0.5 l/ha Proline Xpert in 2017.
Treatments, l/ha 2016
1. Bumper 0.25 Proline Xpert 0.5* Bumper 0.5 Proline EC 0.4 8.9 25.3 10.3 2.5
2. Bumper 0.25 Proline Xpert 0.5* Propulse 0.5 Bumper 0.5 12.8 29.0 12.1 4.1
3. Bumper 0.25 Proline Xpert 0.5* Bumper 0.5 Propulse 0.5 3.6 23.5 14.4 6.4
4. Bumper 0.25 Proline Xpert 0.5* Propulse 0.5 - 6.8 38.2 12.3 6.0
5. Bumper 0.25 Bumper 0.5 Bumper 0.5 - 11.0 31.3 9.6 5.2
6. Bumper 0.25 Propulse 0.5 Proline Xpert 0.5 - 11.3 40.0 11.2 4.9
7. Bumper 0.25 Viverda 0.5 + Proline EC 0.2 Viverda 0.5 + Proline EC 0.2 - 16.9 38.2 10.5 1.8
8. Bumper 0.25 Proline EC 250 0.4 Armure 0.4 - 15.0 38.6 11.4 5.4
9. Untreated - - - 34.0 66.9 71.7
-LSD95 - - - - - 4.8
-Table 6. Effects of different fungicides on tan spot and yield responses following 1 or 2 applications in wheat. 1 trial (17316-1).
Treatments, l/ha % DTR Yield and increase
hkg/ha, 2017
GS 37-39 GS 59 GS 71
L 1 GS 71
L 2 GS 77
L 1
1. Untreated 10.0 31.3 43.8 64.0
2. GF-3307 1.5 4.8 17.5 21.3 4.0
3. Viverda + Ultimate S 0.6 + 0.6 GF-3307 0.5 2.4 13.8 16.8 12.0
4. GF-3307 1.5 GF-3307 1.5 1.6 7.8 17.5 12.0
5. Propulse SE 250 1.0 2.8 16.0 25.0 5.0
6. Ascra Xpro 1.5 2.0 17.5 17.3 9.0
7. Proline EC 250 0.8 6.6 24.5 26.3 4.0
8. GF-3307 2.0 3.6 16.8 18.8 6.0
LSD95 7.3 19.0 20.1 0.9
Tan spot: More resistant cultivar such as Creator.
Tan spot: Susceptible cultivar such as Ritmo.
Tan spot (DTR) in winter wheat
Approximately 20 cultivars were tested for sensitivity to tan spot. The cultivars were placed in a field with debris of infected straw spread in the field in the autumn 2016. This is known to stimulate the at-tack of this disease. The trial layout was similar to the Fusarium trial using small plots with 2 x 1 metre row and 4 replicates. The trial was assessed several times. The ranking for DTR susceptibility among the cultivars was not very consistent, but Creator has in several seasons proved to be one of the most resistant cultivars – this year also Informer looked like having moderate to good resistance (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Ranking of cultivars resistance to tan spot. Based on data from a small plot trial with straw infected with tan spot spread in the autumn to ensure good attack.
Control of Septoria (Zymoseptoria tritici)
Comparison of azoles (17329)
Two trials testing different azoles were carried out in the cultivars KWS Cleveland at Flakkebjerg and Hereford at Horsens. The trials included two treatments using 2 half rates applied at GS 33 and 45-51. In line with previous seasons, a moderate control was achieved from the old azoles and mixtures of azoles (Table 7). The ranking in efficacy is shown in Figures 4 and 5. A new triazole, Revyzol, was included in the testing in 2017 under the name Code 1. This product showed an outstanding control (approx. 90%) compared with the old single azoles as well as the azole mixtures. Single azoles gave between 25 and 50% control. The better of the azole mixtures provided as an average 60% control. In the 2017 season prothioconazole and epoxiconazole performed very differently at the two sites; epoxiconazole perfor-med best at Flakkebjerg, while prothioconazole perforperfor-med best at the site near Horsens. This variation in control is in line with experiences also seen in other seasons where the better of the two has varied between years and sites.
Including data from all azoles across several years has shown a clear drop in efficacy from all azoles.
Compared with previous years the last four seasons have especially shown a reduced control from epoxi-conazole and prothioepoxi-conazole. Summarised across years, the trials represent results from two sites – Flakkebjerg and LMO (Horsens/Hadsten) (Figure 5, Table 8).
Looking at the performance of azoles during a longer time spell, the drop in performance began in 2014, was less pronounced in 2015 but continued in 2016 and 2017 (Figure 5). Some of the yearly variation can be linked to the levels of attack, but as discussed in chapter xx the Septoria populations have changed and do now include many more mutations than previously. The mutations are known to influence the sensitivity to azoles in general but are also seen to influence specific azoles differently. The drop in efficacy from tebuconazole has been known since about 2000 and has been quite stable. The drop in performance from tebuconazole used alone was not pronounced in 2017 where tebuconazole was seen as the only azole not dropping further; in fact, this product gained slightly better efficacy, which is seen as linked to higher proportions of D134G and V136A. Again in 2017 it was seen that the mixtures prothioconazole + tebuconazole and difenoconazole + propiconazole performed best as the two actives are seen to support each other, when it comes to controlling the different strains with different muta-tions.
In Table 9, trials with azoles are summarised acros many sites and indicate that the epoxiconazole and Septoria attack in 2017 was moderate to high. In line with data from the two previous seasons, triazo-les again showed a reduced control from epoxiconazole and prothioconazole. Mixtures with triazotriazo-les showed better efficacy than single azoles. Mixtures of SDHIs generally showed better control than azoles used as solo products.
Table 7. Effects of triazoles on Septoria and yield responses following 2 applications in wheat. 2 trials (17329).
Treatments, l/ha % Septoria Yield and
increase
1. Rubric 0.5 Rubric 0.5 53.8 26.0 10.8 5.9
2. Proline EC 250 0.4 Proline EC 250 0.4 57.5 32.5 9.2 4.2
3. Juventus 90 0.5 Juventus 90 0.5 55.6 30.6 7.5 4.2
4. Bumper 25 EC 0.25 Bumper 25 EC 0.25 67.5 35.3 3.5 1.2
5. Folicur EW 250 0.5 Folicur EW 250 0.5 46.9 28.9 11.9 8.2
6. Proline EC 250 0.4 Armure 0.4 27.5 18.5 15.3 10.5
7. Prosaro EC 250 0.5 Prosaro EC 250 0.5 37.5 22.3 15.0 10.4
8. Proline Xpert 0.25 + Juventus 90 0.25 Proline Xpert 0.25 + Juventus 90 0.25 45.0 27.9 12.6 8.5
9. Code 1 Code 1 10.6 7.5 24.6
-10. Untreated Untreated 86.9 48.4 77.9
-No. of trials 2 2 2 2
LSD95 15.2 11.8 4.2
Table 8. Effect of triazoles on Septoria and yield responses following 2 applications in wheat. 8 trials from 4 seasons (14329, 15329, 16329, 17329).
Treatments, l/ha % Septoria
1. Rubric 0.5 Rubric 0.5 9.5 13.3 26.3 10.0
2. Proline EC 250 0.4 Proline EC 250 0.4 12.3 4.1 32.5 12.5
3. Juventus 90 0.5 Juventus 90 0.5 10.8 13.1 34.4 12.0
4. Bumper 25 EC 0.25 Bumper 25 EC 0.25 12.3 22.8 40.7 16.6
5. Folicur EW 250 0.5 Folicur EW 250 0.5 14.3 24.3 42.1 9.7
6. Proline EC 250 0.4 Armure 0.4 10.0 6.3 33.2 8.2
7. Prosaro EC 250 0.5 Prosaro EC 250 0.5 9.5 8.5 26.9 8.2
8. Untreated Untreated 25.0 41.2 54.4 21.2
No. of trials 2 2 2 2
Figure 4. Control of Septoria and yield increases from treatments with azoles. Average of 2 trials from 2017 (17329). Untreated with 87% Septoria attack on 1st leaf and 48% on 2nd leaf. Yield in untreated = 77.9
Table 9. Average effect of epoxiconazole and prothioconazole for control of Septoria using full and half rates applied between GS 37 and 51. Data were extracted from different trial plans in which the two products were included – in most cases as reference products. Data are summarised for 2015-17. The lower table com- pares efficacy of Proline EC 250 with SDHI solutions, which shows that a major difference exists between solo azoles and SDHI solutions.
Opus/Rubric Proline EC 250
Flag leaf 2nd leaf Flag leaf 2nd leaf
Full rate (9 trials) 2015 65 63 73 68
Half rate (8 trials) 2015 59 48 68 55
Full rate (9 trials) 2016 64 50 72 48
Half rate (8 trials) 2016 48 37 33 32
Full rate (4 trials) 2017 73 77 68 66
2017 Flag leaf 2nd leaf
Proline EC 250 0.8 58.3 36.8
Viverda 1.25 + Ultimate S 1.0 83.7 71.2
Aviator Xpro 1.0 85.1 72.4
No. of trials 4 5
Figure 5. Per cent control of Septoria using 2 half rates of different triazoles. Average of 2 applications at GS 33-37 and 51-55.
EuroWheat project
The EuroWheat project, which was initiated in 2015, has included a total of 40 field trials in wheat, fol-lowing one protocol with 4 azoles used alone or in mixture. Results were published in 2017 (Jørgensen et al., 2017).
The project continued in 2017 with a new protocol, which also included azoles tested in 6 countries.
The project aims at testing the current European situation regarding control efficacies of different single triazole products against wheat diseases with focus on Septoria.
The compositions of CYP51 mutations of Septoria populations were investigated, and isolates were ana-lysed for EC50 values for main triazoles. The data are being presented on the platform www.EUROwheat.
au.dk. The test sites are shown in Figure 6.
The Danish trial was carried out in the cultivar Hereford, and a clear difference was seen between the tested products. Revysol was included in the trial and outperformed the other tested azoles (Table 10).
Also pyraclostrobin was included, which gave results in line with the weaker of the azoles. It was seen as a slight surprise that Folicur EW 250 performed so well in this trial, which most likely is the result of Figure 6. Locations of 11 trials carried out in 2017.
Table 10. % control of Septoria using different azoles in the EuroWheat project. Yield and yield
1. Untreated 31.3 82.5 7.7 78.6
-2. Code 1 (Revysol) 1.5 4.5 10.5 55.7 15.7
Figure 7. Control of SEPTTR. a) % control of SEPTTR on flag leaf – average of 5 trials. Treatments are reflecting preventive treatments. Assessments were carried out at GS 69-85, 30-44 DAA. b) % control of SEPTTR on 2nd leaf – average of 8 trials. Treatments are reflecting curative treatments. Assessments were carried out at GS 69-73, 30-43 DAA.
Comparison of available solutions for ear treatments (17325)
In line with trials from previous years, treatments with different fungicides were tested when applied during heading (GS 51-55) (Table 11). A cover spray was applied at GS 32 using a low dose of Prosaro EC 250 (0.35 l/ha). The control of Septoria on the flag leaf varied between 30 and 85% control. Elatus Era and GF-3307 provided the best control, and 0.4 l/ha Proline EC 250 and 0.5 l/ha Rubric gave least con-trol (Figure 8). The benefit from adding SDHI was clear when compared to using triazoles alone. This is illustrated in Figure 9, which indicated that the per cent point between Viverda and Rubric is increasing.
This is not because SDHIs perform better but is a result of the reduced efficacy of triazoles.
Yield increases in all 3 single trials were significant. As an average of the 3 trials the best yield increases were approximately 17 hkg/ha and were measured from applying 1.0 l/ha GF-3307. This was followed by 0.5 l/ha Elatus Era, which also provided both excellent control and high yield responses.
Solutions with boscalid and fluopyram (Bell, Viverda and Propulse SE 250) also performed better than the single azole solutions. Prosaro EC 250 (0.35 l/ha) used at the early timing as a single treatment provided insufficient control and did only add very little to the final net yield.
Table 11. Effect of ear applications for control of Septoria in wheat. 3 trials (17325).
Treatments, l/ha % Septoria %
1. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Rubric 0.5 20.5 26.3 17.8 7.9 3.7
2. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Proline EC 250 0.4 26.1 29.8 16.9 6.9 2.6
3. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Bell 0.75 13.3 18.0 35.9 13.9 8.2
4. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Armure 0.4 22.1 22.1 23.4 9.9 5.8
5. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Viverda + Ultimate S 0.75 + 0.75 13.4 18.2 35.0 12.5 6.4
6. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Viverda + Ultimate S 1.25 + 1.0 6.8 12.9 44.4 15.3 6.9
7. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Bell + Prosaro EC 250 0.375 + 0.25 13.8 17.9 34.8 12.9 8.0
8. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Proline Xpert 0.5 25.2 32.7 21.6 7.9 3.6
9. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Propulse SE 250 1.0 10.3 15.1 33.8 13.7 7.2
10. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Propulse SE 250 0.5 20.1 27.9 21.8 9.6 5.1
11. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Proline Xpert + Viverda 0.25 + 0.375 16.5 22.5 25.9 10.5 5.5
12. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 GF-3307 1.0 9.1 12.8 47.8 17.0
-13. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Elatus Era 0.5 6.1 14.9 50.9 15.4
-14. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 - 32.1 42.5 8.4 2.0 0.2
15. Untreated - 48.3 58.8 2.2 80.9
-No. of trials 3 3 3 3 3
LSD95 5.2 7.5 15.8 3.4
-A summary of data from 5 seasons is given in Table 12, and the yield response from 2 seasons is shown in Figure 10. The net yield as an average of the 15 trials is varying from 4.9 to 6.9 hkg/ha for the most effective solutions. The data from two seasons given in Figure 10 show a similar pattern, but here also Propulse SE 250 is included – giving control that is slightly inferior to solutions with Bell and Viverda.
Figure 8. Per cent control of Septoria and yield responses using half rates of several solutions (17325).
Average following a T1 treatment and 1 application at GS 45-51.
Table 12. Effect of ear applications for control of Septoria in wheat. Summary of 15 trials from 5 seasons.
Treatments, l/ha
2013-2017 % Septoria Yield and
increase hkg/ha
Net yield hkg/ha
GS 31-32 GS 51-55 GS 77
Leaf 1 GS 77
Leaf 2
1. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Rubric 0.5 35.1 24.6 9.1 4.9
2. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Proline EC 250 0.4 34.9 24.2 9.9 5.6
3. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Bell 0.75 27.3 18.4 11.5 5.8
4. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Armure 0.4 30.7 22.9 10.2 6.1
5. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Viverda + Ultimate S 0.75 + 0.75 23.8 18.9 12.5 6.4
6. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 Viverda + Ultimate S 1.25 + 1.0 17.2 14.2 15.3 6.9
7. Prosaro EC 250 0.35 - 54.6 44.8 3.0 1.1
8. Untreated - 61.0 52.3 84.6
-No. of trials 15 15 15 15
LSD95 (excl. untreated) 4.0
Figure 9. Per cent control of Septoria using half rates of several solutions seen across several years for Rubric, Bell and Viverda. Average of 1 application at GS 45-51.
Control strategies and their impact on selection (17328 & 17345)
In 2017 two other trial plans were tested investigating different control strategies and their impact on control and yield. Leaf samples from these trials will also be investigated for impact on selection for CYP51 mutations. The results from 2017 are shown in Figures 11 +12 and Table 13. Currently only effi-cacy and yield data are available. The aim of the investigation was to provide most diversity in the choice of actives applied. Most of the solutions provided more than 80% control, and only treatments with 3 x Proline EC 250 were providing less control and were used as lower baseline. The more diverse the fun-gicide programme, the better the level of Septoria control and yield response. Treatments with 3 sprays only added a little more to the control and yield compared with two spray strategies.
The new fungicides GF-3307 and GF-3308 were included in the trial plan. These contain Inatreq, which is a new active that provided a clearly better control than the triazole-based solutions and also a signi-ficantly better yield than all other treatments (Table 13 and Figure 12). Yield responses were high (>20 hkg/ha), and many treatments gave very similar responses. Solutions with GF-3307 generally provided the best yield increases.
Figure 10. Yield increase from two seasons with control of Septoria. Average of 6 trials. Average of 1 application at GS 45-51. Cover spray was applied using 0.5 l/ha Ceando in 2016 and 0.35 l/ha Prosaro EC 250 in 2017.
Table 13. Control of Septoria and yield response in 2 trials (17328) both carried out in the cultivar Here-ford, using either 2 or 3 applications.
Treatments, l/ha % Septoria TGW
0.75 + 0.75 Proline Xpert 0.5 7.6 23.4 38.3 18.1 11.4
4. Propulse SE 250 0.5 Proline Xpert 0.5 8.4 26.3 36.9 18.3 13.1
9. Elatus Era 0.5 Proline Xpert 0.5 5.6 15.0 34.5 20.3
-10. Prosaro EC 250 0.5 Bell 0.375 +
Prosaro EC 250 0.25 Proline Xpert 0.5 6.0 18.8 35.0 23.2 15.3
11. Prosaro EC 250 0.5 Propulse SE 250 0.5 Proline Xpert 0.5 7.0 22.5 38.2 21.4 13.9
12. GF-3307 1.0 GF-3307 1.0 Armure 0.4 2.0 7.4 40.5 29.4
-13. GF-3307 1.0 GF-3307 1.5 1.9 16.0 36.0 26.8
-14. GF-3307 1.0 GF-3308 1.5 2.9 17.2 39.3 26.7
-15. GF-3308 1.0 GF-3308 1.0 14.4 28.1 38.6 18.8
-No. of trials 2 2 2 2 2
LSD95 6.0 13.3 7.8 8.0
Figure 11. Per cent control of Septoria on flag leaf from different strategies using different timings. Av-erage of 2 trials from 2017 (17328). 51% attack on flag leaves in untreated.
Figure 12. Yield increase from different control strategies using different spray strategies. Average of 2 trials from 2017 (17328).
Euro–Res (17345)
A common EU project – Euro-Res – with partners from Sweden, Belgium, Germany, Ireland and Den-mark carries out investigations into fungicide resistance in the populations of Zymoseptoria tritici. The project aims at testing the sensitivity of populations to different fungicides using both leaf samples and air samples. The project also screens different strategies with the aim to investigate how different treat-ments and timings select for resistant mutations. The data from the first Danish trials in 2017 are shown in Table 14. In this year’s trials the late timing provided best control and best yield responses. Combi-nations of GF-3307 plus Elatus Era or Elatus Era plus Ascra Xpro provided the best control and yields.
Table 14. Control of Septoria and yield responses in 2 trials (17345) in Hereford using different timings.
Euro-Res project.
Control of Septoria using Inatreq (fenpicoxamid) solutions
In several different trial plans it was tested how GF-3307 (fenpicoxamid + prothioconazole) performed in combination with other fungicides using different dose rates and timings. The trials showed that most combinations provided good control and significant yield responses (17315, 17316) – Tables 15 and 16.
Trials showed a good robustness using GF-3307 from 2.0 to 1.0 l/ha. Dose rates below 1.0 l/ha have shown inferior control and yield responses (Figure 13). The best yield responses were obtained from GF-3307 applied at GS 37-39.
Trial plan 17317. Using single treatments, GS 37-39 was the most optimal timing although GS 55 only gave slightly lower control and yields. Double treatments in 3 different timing combinations using either 0.75 and 1.5 l/ha at GS 33 plus GS 37-39 or GS 37-39 plus GS 55 or GS 33 plus GS 55 gave very similar responses. The lower rate provided only slightly lower control and yield responses. GF-3307 gave con-trol in line with or slightly better than Propulse SE 250 (Table 17).
In a greenhouse trial using artificial inoculation with Zymoseptoria tritici, GF-3308 (fenpicoxamid as
In a greenhouse trial using artificial inoculation with Zymoseptoria tritici, GF-3308 (fenpicoxamid as