The information contained in this publication is based on knowledge and understanding at the time of writing (July 2017) and may not be accurate, current or complete. The State of New South Wales (including the NSW Department of Industry), the author and the publisher take no responsibility, and will accept no liability, for the accuracy, currency, reliability or correctness of any information included in the document (including material provided by third parties). Readers should make their own inquiries and rely on their own advice when making decisions related to material contained in this publication. The product trade names in this publication are supplied on the understanding that no preference between equivalent products is intended and that the inclusion of a product name does not imply endorsement by the department over any equivalent product from another manufacturer.
Researcher(s) |
Bill Manning (North West Local Land Services) Stuart Marshman (NSW DPI) Joop van Leur (NSW DPI) |
---|---|
Year(s) | 2016 |
Contributor | Department of Primary Industries NSW |
Trial location(s) |
Breeza, NSW
|
Further information | View external link |
KEY FINDINGS:
Conclusions
Genotypes differed in there susceptibility to rust, chocolate spot and Stemphylium blight, with one of the northern breeding lines (11NF001a-10) showing rust resistance equal to current commercial varieties and superior chocolate spot resistance. Fungicides were highly effective in reducing rust symptoms and improving leaf retention but in this trial had no effect on chocolate spot. Note that the permit for tebuconazole allows for only three applications of 145ml/ha in commercial crops.
Conclusion:
The high rust pressure and frequent rainfall towards the end of the season was likely responsible for the poor fungicide response in the LF experiment in terms of reducing symptoms and improving yield and seed size. In the HF experiment, mancozeb and
tebuconozole were most effective overall in reducing symptoms and improving yield and seed size. Four of the five fungicides were effective in increasing yield in the HF experiment compared with only one in the LF experiment, indicating the need for repeated sprays when disease pressure is high.
Note that the permit for tebuconazole allows for only three applications of 145 mL/ha in commercial crops.
Lead research organisation |
Department of Primary Industries NSW |
---|---|
Host research organisation | N/A |
Trial funding source | PBA UA00127 |
Trial funding source | GRDC DAN00176 |
Related program |
Northern NSW integrated disease management |
Acknowledgments |
This research is part of the projects PBA Australian faba bean breeding program (UA00127) and Northern NSW integrated disease management (DAN00176), with joint investment by NSW DPI, NWLLS and GRDC. Thanks to Merv Riley and Ivan Stace for technical assistance. |
Other trial partners | Pulse Breeding Australia; Scott Goodworth |
Crop type | Grain Legume: Faba beans |
---|---|
Treatment type(s) |
|
Trial type | Experimental |
Trial design | Randomised,Replicated,Blocked |
Sow rate or Target density | 20 plants/m2 |
---|---|
Sow date | 27 May 2016 27 May 2016 |
Harvest date | 21 November 2016 21 November 2016 |
Plot size | Not specified |
Plot replication | 3 |
Plot blocking | Split plot design with fungicide as the main plot and varieties as subplots; three replications. |
Fertiliser |
Nil fertiliser used. |
Herbicide |
Post-sowing/pre-emergent Terbyne® 1 kg/ha (terbuthylazine 750 g/kg) applied on 27 April. |
Insecticide |
Insect pressure was low and no insecticides were used. |
Fungicide |
Application of either mancozeb 1kg/ha (750g/kg mancozeb) or tebuconozole 350ml/ha (430 g/L tebuconozole) on 16 June, 1 August, 18 August and 9 September. |
Pesticide |
Insect pressure was low and no insecticide was used |
Other trial notes |
Results: Early disease development The experiments were located next to a faba bean rust (Uromyces viciae-fabae) screening experiment where a high disease level was initiated by sowing rust-susceptible spreader plots, distributing pots with greenhouse-grown rust-infected plants and repeated inoculations with rust spore suspension. The resulting high disease pressure provided a continuous load of rust inoculum to the fungicide experiments. Rust was noted in the disease management experiments soon after plant emergence and developed rapidly in non-fungicide-treated plots. Towards the end of July a high incidence of Stemphylium blight (Stemphylium spp) symptoms was noted. On 10 August, plots were scored (% leaf coverage) for both rust and Stemphylium blight. Impact of early fungicide application on disease symptoms On 10 August both the LF and HF experiments showed a significant (P<0.05) reduction of rust infection levels for the tebuconazole and mancozeb treatments compared with the carbendazim, procimidone and unsprayed control. No difference for Stemphylium blight was noted in the LF experiment on 10 August, but the extra tebuconazole application in the HF experiment on 1 August resulted in a significant (P<0.05) difference from the control, with procymidone and carbendazim treatments both showing a non-significant trend to greater incidences of Stemphylium blight. No interactions were found between fungicide treatment and variety for rust or Stemphylium blight scores. Varietal differences in disease Averaged over treatments, Fiord had significantly (P<0.05) more rusted leaf area in August than PBA NasmaA or PBA WardaA (data not shown). For Stemphylium blight, the genotype effect in both experiments was highly significant (P<0.001) with PBA WardaA showing a very high level of susceptibility and PBA NasmaA significantly less affected than Fiord (data not shown). Late disease development Chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae) became noticeable in late August and progressed very fast after a number of high intensity, long duration rainfall events. Rust and chocolate spot severities were recorded on 27 September. On 30 September, plots were scored for leaf retention using a 1–5 scale (1 = no leaves dropped; 3 = 50% of the leaves dropped; 5 = > 90 % of the leaves dropped). Stemphylium blight appeared not to progress further after August. On 27 September only minor Stemphylium blight symptoms were noted on the top leaves, but both rust and chocolate spot reached high incidences. Impact of late fungicide application on disease symptoms Fungicide treatments were less successful in reducing rust and chocolate spot symptoms later in the season. There was little difference amongst treatments for rust on leaves, while rust severity of the procymidone treatments was significantly (P<0.05) higher than the control in both LF and HF application, and carbendazim was higher (P<0.05) in the HF application. There was no difference in chocolate spot severity between treatments in the LF experiment. In the HF experiment chlorothalonil gave a significantly better (P<0.05) result than carbendazim and tebuconazole, but was no different from mancozeb and procymidone. The poor performance of carbendazim and procymidone for chocolate spot control was surprising, given that both are considered to be the fungicides of choice for chocolate spot control. The tebuconazole-treated plots showed a significantly higher level of leaf retention than all other treatments in the HF experiment Grain yield Under severe rust pressure, tebuconazole was clearly the best treatment with a 20% and 68% increase in grain yield compared with the unsprayed control in the LF and HF experiments respectively (Tables 4 and 5). Fungicide treatments had a significant (P<0.05) effect on seed weight in the HF experiment where tebuconazole clearly provided a more positive effect than other treatments. Comparing the effect of the different fungicides on the three diseases present, it is likely that most of the yield gains in these experiments resulted from controlling rust, but not chocolate spot or Stemphylium blight. It should be noted that the rust inoculum pressure in the experiments was far higher than would normally be present under commercial conditions. |
# | Variety |
Treatment 1
|
Disease severity (% leaf area affected) |
---|---|---|---|
1 | █ Doza | █ Control | 16.4 |
2 | █ PBA Warda | █ Control | 13.3 |
3 | █ PBA Nasma | █ Control | 20.6 |
4 | █ IX474/4-12 | █ Control | 16.7 |
5 | █ IX486/7-6 | █ Control | 11.4 |
6 | █ IX561f/4-2 | █ Control | 26.7 |
7 | █ 11NF001a-10 | █ Control | 7 |
8 | █ Fiesta | █ Control | 45.6 |
9 | █ PBA Samira | █ Control | 30.6 |
10 | █ PBA Zahra | █ Control | 22.2 |
11 | █ AF09169 | █ Control | 15.8 |
12 | █ AF11212 | █ Control | 14.4 |
13 | █ Doza | █ Mancozeb | 4.3 |
14 | █ PBA Warda | █ Mancozeb | 2 |
15 | █ PBA Nasma | █ Mancozeb | 1.8 |
16 | █ IX474/4-12 | █ Mancozeb | 1.2 |
17 | █ IX486/7-6 | █ Mancozeb | 0.8 |
18 | █ IX561f/4-2 | █ Mancozeb | 4.9 |
19 | █ 11NF001a-10 | █ Mancozeb | 1.1 |
20 | █ Fiesta | █ Mancozeb | 5.2 |
21 | █ PBA Samira | █ Mancozeb | 5.8 |
22 | █ PBA Zahra | █ Mancozeb | 3.1 |
23 | █ AF09169 | █ Mancozeb | 2 |
24 | █ AF11212 | █ Mancozeb | 2.9 |
25 | █ Doza | █ Tebuconazole | 0.9 |
26 | █ PBA Warda | █ Tebuconazole | 1.1 |
27 | █ PBA Nasma | █ Tebuconazole | 0.7 |
28 | █ IX474/4-12 | █ Tebuconazole | 0.2 |
29 | █ IX486/7-6 | █ Tebuconazole | 0.2 |
30 | █ IX561f/4-2 | █ Tebuconazole | 0.7 |
31 | █ 11NF001a-10 | █ Tebuconazole | 0.3 |
32 | █ Fiesta | █ Tebuconazole | 1.4 |
33 | █ PBA Samira | █ Tebuconazole | 1 |
34 | █ PBA Zahra | █ Tebuconazole | 0.8 |
35 | █ AF09169 | █ Tebuconazole | 0.1 |
36 | █ AF11212 | █ Tebuconazole | 1.2 |
# | Variety |
Treatment 1
|
Disease severity (% leaf area affected) |
---|---|---|---|
1 | █ Doza | █ Control | 2.4 |
2 | █ PBA Warda | █ Control | 16.9 |
3 | █ PBA Nasma | █ Control | 10.6 |
4 | █ IX474/4-12 | █ Control | 5.1 |
5 | █ IX486/7-6 | █ Control | 2.6 |
6 | █ IX561f/4-2 | █ Control | 26.7 |
7 | █ 11NF001a-10 | █ Control | 8.6 |
8 | █ Fiesta | █ Control | 8 |
9 | █ PBA Samira | █ Control | 0.7 |
10 | █ PBA Zahra | █ Control | 4.9 |
11 | █ AF09169 | █ Control | 0.9 |
12 | █ AF11212 | █ Control | 32.2 |
13 | █ Doza | █ Mancozeb | 6.6 |
14 | █ PBA Warda | █ Mancozeb | 14.8 |
15 | █ PBA Nasma | █ Mancozeb | 4.9 |
16 | █ IX474/4-12 | █ Mancozeb | 5.3 |
17 | █ IX486/7-6 | █ Mancozeb | 6.8 |
18 | █ IX561f/4-2 | █ Mancozeb | 13.9 |
19 | █ 11NF001a-10 | █ Mancozeb | 3.3 |
20 | █ Fiesta | █ Mancozeb | 2.9 |
21 | █ PBA Samira | █ Mancozeb | 0.1 |
22 | █ PBA Zahra | █ Mancozeb | 0.4 |
23 | █ AF09169 | █ Mancozeb | 0.8 |
24 | █ AF11212 | █ Mancozeb | 37.8 |
25 | █ Doza | █ Tebuconazole | 2 |
26 | █ PBA Warda | █ Tebuconazole | 5.3 |
27 | █ PBA Nasma | █ Tebuconazole | 4.1 |
28 | █ IX474/4-12 | █ Tebuconazole | 1.4 |
29 | █ IX486/7-6 | █ Tebuconazole | 1.8 |
30 | █ IX561f/4-2 | █ Tebuconazole | 2.4 |
31 | █ 11NF001a-10 | █ Tebuconazole | 0.6 |
32 | █ Fiesta | █ Tebuconazole | 2 |
33 | █ PBA Samira | █ Tebuconazole | 0.3 |
34 | █ PBA Zahra | █ Tebuconazole | 0.2 |
35 | █ AF09169 | █ Tebuconazole | 0.6 |
36 | █ AF11212 | █ Tebuconazole | 18.7 |
# | Variety |
Treatment 1
|
Disease severity (% leaf area affected) |
---|---|---|---|
1 | █ Doza | █ Control | 10.8 |
2 | █ PBA Warda | █ Control | 12.3 |
3 | █ PBA Nasma | █ Control | 16.7 |
4 | █ IX474/4-12 | █ Control | 14.5 |
5 | █ IX486/7-6 | █ Control | 11.7 |
6 | █ IX561f/4-2 | █ Control | 22 |
7 | █ 11NF001a-10 | █ Control | 12.8 |
8 | █ Fiesta | █ Control | 24.2 |
9 | █ PBA Samira | █ Control | 17.5 |
10 | █ PBA Zahra | █ Control | 9.7 |
11 | █ AF09169 | █ Control | 17.5 |
12 | █ AF11212 | █ Control | 19.2 |
13 | █ Doza | █ Mancozeb | 1.7 |
14 | █ PBA Warda | █ Mancozeb | 1.5 |
15 | █ PBA Nasma | █ Mancozeb | 1.5 |
16 | █ IX474/4-12 | █ Mancozeb | 1.2 |
17 | █ IX486/7-6 | █ Mancozeb | 1.3 |
18 | █ IX561f/4-2 | █ Mancozeb | 2.2 |
19 | █ 11NF001a-10 | █ Mancozeb | 1.3 |
20 | █ Fiesta | █ Mancozeb | 2.8 |
21 | █ PBA Samira | █ Mancozeb | 2.2 |
22 | █ PBA Zahra | █ Mancozeb | 2.5 |
23 | █ AF09169 | █ Mancozeb | 1.5 |
24 | █ AF11212 | █ Mancozeb | 1.7 |
25 | █ Doza | █ Tebuconazole | 0.7 |
26 | █ PBA Warda | █ Tebuconazole | 1.7 |
27 | █ PBA Nasma | █ Tebuconazole | 1.7 |
28 | █ IX474/4-12 | █ Tebuconazole | 1.7 |
29 | █ IX486/7-6 | █ Tebuconazole | 1.5 |
30 | █ IX561f/4-2 | █ Tebuconazole | 1.5 |
31 | █ 11NF001a-10 | █ Tebuconazole | 1 |
32 | █ Fiesta | █ Tebuconazole | 2.2 |
33 | █ PBA Samira | █ Tebuconazole | 1.5 |
34 | █ PBA Zahra | █ Tebuconazole | 0.8 |
35 | █ AF09169 | █ Tebuconazole | 0.7 |
36 | █ AF11212 | █ Tebuconazole | 2.5 |
# | Variety |
Treatment 1
|
Leaf retention score (1-5) |
---|---|---|---|
1 | █ Doza | █ Control | 4 |
2 | █ PBA Warda | █ Control | 4 |
3 | █ PBA Nasma | █ Control | 4 |
4 | █ IX474/4-12 | █ Control | 3.7 |
5 | █ IX486/7-6 | █ Control | 3.5 |
6 | █ IX561f/4-2 | █ Control | 5 |
7 | █ 11NF001a-10 | █ Control | 3.7 |
8 | █ Fiesta | █ Control | 5 |
9 | █ PBA Samira | █ Control | 3.5 |
10 | █ PBA Zahra | █ Control | 4.2 |
11 | █ AF09169 | █ Control | 3.7 |
12 | █ AF11212 | █ Control | 4 |
13 | █ Doza | █ Mancozeb | 3.2 |
14 | █ PBA Warda | █ Mancozeb | 3.2 |
15 | █ PBA Nasma | █ Mancozeb | 3.3 |
16 | █ IX474/4-12 | █ Mancozeb | 3.2 |
17 | █ IX486/7-6 | █ Mancozeb | 2.8 |
18 | █ IX561f/4-2 | █ Mancozeb | 2.7 |
19 | █ 11NF001a-10 | █ Mancozeb | 2.8 |
20 | █ Fiesta | █ Mancozeb | 3.7 |
21 | █ PBA Samira | █ Mancozeb | 3.2 |
22 | █ PBA Zahra | █ Mancozeb | 2.7 |
23 | █ AF09169 | █ Mancozeb | 2.8 |
24 | █ AF11212 | █ Mancozeb | 3 |
25 | █ Doza | █ Tebuconazole | 2.3 |
26 | █ PBA Warda | █ Tebuconazole | 2.8 |
27 | █ PBA Nasma | █ Tebuconazole | 2.5 |
28 | █ IX474/4-12 | █ Tebuconazole | 2 |
29 | █ IX486/7-6 | █ Tebuconazole | 2 |
30 | █ IX561f/4-2 | █ Tebuconazole | 2.2 |
31 | █ 11NF001a-10 | █ Tebuconazole | 1.8 |
32 | █ Fiesta | █ Tebuconazole | 2.3 |
33 | █ PBA Samira | █ Tebuconazole | 2 |
34 | █ PBA Zahra | █ Tebuconazole | 2.3 |
35 | █ AF09169 | █ Tebuconazole | 1.8 |
36 | █ AF11212 | █ Tebuconazole | 2.7 |
Rainfall avg ann (mm) | 637.5mm |
---|---|
Rainfall avg gsr (mm) | 367.6mm |
Rainfall trial gsr (mm) | 495mm |
SILO weather estimates sourced from https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/silo/
Jeffrey, S.J., Carter, J.O., Moodie, K.B. and Beswick, A.R. (2001). Using spatial interpolation to construct a comprehensive archive of Australian climate data , Environmental Modelling and Software, Vol 16/4, pp 309-330. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-8152(01)00008-1.