Corynespora cassiicola affecting soybean

Yield and economic losses caused by Corynespora cassiicola on soybean under chemical control
Deivid Sacon1, Alexandre Jacques Bottan2, Laura Caroline Zanella2, Aline Netto2 and Leandro Luiz Borges3
1Instituto de Biotecnologia Aplicada à Agropecuária, Viçosa, MG, Brasil.
2ABC Agrícola, Sapezal, MT, Brasil.
3Universidade do Estado de Minas Gerais, Passos, MG, Brasil.

Abstract
Target Spot is an important disease in soybean caused by the necrotrophic fungus Corynespora cassiicola. Recently, this fungus has gained importance in large crops such as soybeans and for its insensitivity fungicides reports. In this study, three assays were carried out with different application treatments in order to evaluate fungicide applications to control Target Spot and their interference on soybean productivity. Different application treatments were tested including fungicide products, doses, mixtures and number of applications, as well as estimate the application’s economic viability. Cultivar TMG 2378 IPRO was used and the applications were performed with a CO2 sprayer pressurized in a randomized block design with four replications. The harvest of 2.7 m2 useful area in the plot center was carried out with a stationary plot harvester and the yield was estimated for kg ha-1. For an economic analysis of the application treatments, the soybeans sale was considered at a fixed price of US$ 264 t-1, while the operating cost at a value of US$ 8. The fungicides spraying cost was estimated in kg of grains ha-1 based on the average of two budgets made. The fungicide mixtures bixafen+prothioconazole+trifloxystrobin+mancozeb and trifloxystrobin+ prothioconazole+mancozeb presented both yield increase and economic viability compared to control.

Highlighted Conclusion
Mixtures of bixafen+prothioconazole+trifloxystrobin+mancozeb and trifloxystrobin+ prothioconazole+mancozeb have yield and economic viability to control Corynespora cassiicola.


Communications in Plant Sciences | 2021 | vol.11 | p.039-045
DOI: 
10.26814/cps2021005 | Article code: cps2021005
Keywords: Glycine max, Fungicide, Target Spot

Correspondence to: Deivid Sacon <deividsacon@hotmail.com>

free_download_pdf

Submission on January 26, 2021 | First Publication on June 01, 2021 | Open Access
Authors declared no conflict of interest
Article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International


Yield and economic losses caused by Corynespora cassiicola on soybean under chemical control

INTRODUCTION

Ascomycete Corynespora cassiicola (Berk. & M. A. Curtis) C. T. Wei is a cosmopolitan specie often found in the tropics that causes necrotic spots in more than 400 different plant hosts (Sinclair 1999; Farr and Rossman 2020). Many of these host species are plants of economic importance, such as soybean (Boosalis and Hamilton 1957), cotton (Jones 1961), tomato (Blazquez 1972), eucalyptus (Reis et al. 2014), cocoa (Duarte et al. 1978) and rubber tree (Gasparotto et al. 1988). The pathogen was first identified in soybean in the USA in 1945 under the name Helminthosporium vignae (Olive et al. 1945). On soybean, C. cassiicola causes the disease known as Target Spot and the first report in Brazil occurred in 1974 in the state of Mato Grosso and two years later in the state of Paraná (Almeida et al. 1976).

Corynespora cassiicola is a necrotrophic fungus able to survive in cultural remains; also survives in alternative hosts and soybean seed (Sinclair 1999). The most common symptoms are spots on the leaves, circular in shape with concentric rings, yellowish halo and dark punctuation in the center. The lesions grow up to two centimeters in diameter and due to the concentric rings resemble the shape of a target. Premature defoliation can occur in susceptible cultivars, as well as spots on the stems and pods, reaching the seeds. The fungus can infect the roots, mainly in no-till crops, causing root rot and intense sporulation (Almeida et al. 2005). Yield losses caused by the target stain on soybean vary among the two largest soybean producing countries. In Brazil, losses vary from 8% up to 40% (Molina et al. 2018) and in the United States, losses ranged from 18% to 40% (Koenning et al. 2006).

Several strategies are recommended for the control of target stain, such as the use of resistant cultivars, the treatment of seeds, the rotation of crops with grass species and spraying with fungicides (Almeida et al. 2005). Currently, the fungicides regulated and in the process of being regulated to control target spot belong to the benzimidazois, strobilurins, carboxamides and triazoles groups (Xavier et al. 2013).

Modern systemic fungicides block only one specific pathogen site. For example, benzimidazoles prevent the assembly of tubulin units inhibiting cell division; strobilurins and carboxamides act in cell respiration hindering ATP synthesis; triazoles blocks membrane lipids synthesis. Although fungicides generally have a specific site of action, fungi can quickly develop resistance to them if handled improperly (Baibakova et al. 2019).

The Fungicide Resistance Action Committee (FRAC) classifies C. cassiicola as a high-risk pathogen for the development of fungicide resistance (FRAC 2019). Therefore, the knowledge of the most effective fungicides or combinations for controlling target spot in soybeans and data regarding productivity losses caused by this pathogen can provide useful information in combating this emerging disease in soybean culture.

The main objective of this study was to evaluate soybean yield under fungicides applications for controlling C. cassiicola. Different application treatments were tested including fungicide products, doses, number of applications, mixtures, as well as economic viability estimation of the applications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Genetic material and experimental design. The cultivar TMG 2378 IPRO was sown on 10/16/2019 using a precision seeder spacing of 0.45 m between rows and 15 seeds per linear meter density, in order to obtain a final stand of 300 thousand plants ha-1. Three assays were conducted in the 2019/20 crop season in the experimental area of Fazenda Chapada II in Sapezal-MT, Brazil (-13º 39′ 11” S, -58º 34′ 0” W) to assess the interference of application treatments on crop yield. The experimental design used was randomized blocks, with four replications. Each plot had dimensions of 1.8 m wide by 5.0 m long, totaling 9.0 m², and it was considered a useful area of 2.7 m2 in the plot center.

Fungicides assays. Before sowing, the seeds were previously treated with 250 mL of a mixture containing carboxine (200 g L-1) + tiram (200 g L-1) fungicides, 50 mL of the product containing chlorantraniliprole insecticide (625 g L-1), for each 100 kg of seeds and 50 mL ha -1 of Co-Mo was added. After chemical treatment, the seeds were inoculated with the strains SEMIA 5079 (CPAC 15) and SEMIA 5080 (CPAC 7), components of the BIOMAX® product in the recommended concentration of 250 g 100 kg-1 of seeds. Fertilization was also carried out with Super Triple mineral fertilizer (41% P2O5 and 7 to 12% Ca), in the proportion of 130 kg ha-1. Area history counts on pasture until the 2018/19 crop season. In 2019/19, the Cowpea beans culture was introduced and after the bean harvest this experiment was installed.

The treatments are described in Table 1. In Assay I, four applications were performed, the first in R1 stage and the others in 14-days intervals, evaluating isolated products and mixtures. In the second assay, applications were performed with 14-days intervals with mancozeb applications between application intervals (7-days). In the third assay, the multisite chlorothalonil and mancozeb were evaluated in mixtures with two applications, the first in R5 (in the presence of symptoms) and the second with an interval of 14 days. Fungicide applications were carried out using a pressurized CO2 sprayer, with a pressure of 30 psi, equipped with a 2 m long bar and a conical tip ATR 2.0, with a 0.5 m spacing between tips regulated for a flow of 120 L ha-1.

Table 1. Description of the treatments applied in each assay.

Code

Fungicide a.i ha-1 **

g active ingrediente (a.i.) ha-1

Treatment cost

(kg ha-1)*

Assay I

EI.T1

Control

EI.T2

mancozeb -1.5

1125

112.7

EI.T3

mancozeb -2.5

1875

167.7

EI.T4

copper oxychloride-0.7

411

126.4

EI.T5

copper oxychloride-1.17

688

191.1

EI.T6

Carbendazim

500

101.9

EI.T7

trifloxystrobin + prothioconazole-0.4

60 + 70

311.1

EI.T8

trifloxystrobin + prothioconazole-0.7

105 + 122,5

521.9

EI.T9

bixafen + prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin

62.5 + 87.5 + 75

467.7

EI.T10

fluxpyroxade + pyraclostrobin

50 + 81

327.2

EI.T11

Diphenoconazole

75

132.9

EI.T12

diphenoconazole + cyproconazole

75 + 45

146.9

EI.T13

propiconazole + diphenoconazole

37.5 + 37.5

118.0

EI.T14

trifloxystrobin + prothioconazole + mancozeb

60 + 70 + 1125

393.7

EI.T15

fluxpyroxade + pyraclostrobin+ copper oxychloride

50 + 81 + 688

423.5

EI.T16

bixafen + prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin + mancozeb

62.5 + 87.5 + 75 + 1125

550.2

EI.T17

mancozeb + carbendazim

1125 + 500

239.4

EI.T18

copper oxychloride + carbendazim

688 + 500

198.1

EI.T19

copper oxychloride + mancozeb + carbendazim

688 + 1125 + 500

280.7

EI.T20

copper oxychloride + mancozeb + diphenoconazole

688 + 1125 + 75

287.1

EI.T21

copper oxychloride + diphenoconazole + carbendazim

688 + 75 + 500

300.9

EI.T22

fluxpyroxade + pyraclostrobin + diphenoconazole

50 + 81 + 75

430.0

Assay II

EII.T1

Control

EII.T2

mancozeb -1.5 (14 day intervals)

1125

112.7

EII.T3

mancozeb -1.5 + tebuconazole (14 day intervals)

1125 +100

207.8

EII.T4

mancozeb -1.25 (7 day intervals)

937

180.61

EII.T5

mancozeb -1.25 + tebuconazole (14 day intervals) + aplicação de mancozeb – 1.25 entre as aplicações de mancozeb -1.25 + tebuconazole.

937 +100  +

937

 

276.71

EII.T6

Application treatment: (14 day intervals)

1st-mancozeb -1.5 + tebuconazole

2nd– copper oxychloride + mancozeb + tebuconazole

3rd– chlorothalonil + tebuconazole

4th– chlorothalonil + tebuconazole

 

1125 +100

688 + 1125 + 100

1080 +100

1080 +100

322.7

Assay III 2

EIII.T1

Control

EIII.T2

trifloxystrobin + prothioconazole-0.7

105 + 122.5

261.0

EIII.T3

bixafen + prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin

62.5 + 87.5 + 75

233.9

EIII.T4

trifloxystrobin + prothioconazole + mancozeb

60 + 70 + 1125

196.9

EIII.T5

bixafen + prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin + mancozeb

62.5 + 87.5 + 75 + 1125

275.2

EIII.T6

chlorothalonil + diphenoconazole

1080 +75

116.2

EIII.T7

chlorothalonil + tebuconazole

1080 +100

112.4

EIII.T8

chlorothalonil + carbendazim + diphenoconazole

1080 + 500 + 75

152.0

EIII.T9

chlorothalonil + carbendazim + tebuconazole

1080 + 500 + 100

148.2

EII.T10

chlorothalonil + diphenoconazole + tebuconazole

1080 + 75 + 100

163.9

*Average price quoted for products, plus operating cost, converted to kg ha-1. **Oil was added to the mixture based on the manufacturer’s indication. 1 It was added to the 2x operating cost. 2Both applications were considered half operating cost (US $ 4).

After harvesting, the plants present in the useful area of each plot were harvested with the stationary plot harvester aid to estimate the productivity (kg ha-1) of each treatment.  And then continuing with thousand kernel weight (TKW) and the samples humidity determination (Brasil 2009), the humidity was corrected to 13%.

Statistical analysis. The data was subjected to analysis of residues normality (Shapiro-Wilk, p ≤ 0.05) and variance homogeneity (Neill and Mathews, p ≤ 0.05). Subsequently, the variance analysis was performed by the F test (p ≤ 0.05) and the means when significant were compared using the Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05), using the statistical software R, version 3.6.1 and the ExpDes.pt data package (R Core Team 2017).

Economic analysis. For economic analysis applications, fixed operating prices were set at US $ 8 ha-1; fungicide costs were calculated as the average of the two market prices paid for each product in the states of Rio Grande do Sul and Mato Grosso, Brazil, in April 2020, converted to kg ha -1 (Table 1); and the exchange rate of BRL 5.16 = US$ 1 was used. The price considered for soybeans sale was US$ 264 t-1, the average price in March 2020 for Brazil (CONAB 2020).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Applications interference in crop yield. To the detriment of the experiment sowing time in the state of Mato Grosso, Asian rust no incidence was found in the assay plots, with no interference of this disease in the results obtained. The climatic conditions were favorable to the Target spot occurrence (Figure 1), severity percentages of 3 to 30% were observed in the plots, reaching levels considered to be of high severity (33%) (Molina et al. 2019). Due to higher severity percentages, premature defoliation was observed and this parameter was not evaluated in these assays. cps2021005_fig1

Figure 1. Average daily temperature (°C), rainfall (mm) and relative humidity (%) between November 12, 2019, and February 18, 2020, the period between the R1 stage and the crop harvest in the plots in Sapezal-MT. Source: weather station in the area.

In the first assay, fungicidal treatments that obtained statistical difference in yield regarding the control were: EI.T14 (trifloxystrobin + prothioconazole + mancozeb) and EI.T16 (bixafen + prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin + mancozeb), with 5,381.6 and 5,234.5 kg ha-1, respectively. Regarding TKW, again the treatments EI.T14 (174.2 g) and EI.T16 (172.6 g) showed higher values, followed by EI.T10 (fluxpyroxade + pyraclostrobin – 168.3 g), EI.T8 (trifloxystrobin + prothioconazole – 0.7 – 167.9 g) and EI.T7 (trifloxystrobin + prothioconazole – 0.4 – 167.7 g) (Table 2).

Table 2. Yield (kg ha-1) and a Thousand Kernel Weight (TKW – g) according to different treatments with chemical fungicides to control the target spot on soybean, crop season 2019/2020; Assay I.

Treatment

            Yield

TKW

Net Yield1

EI.T1

4,499.3 cd

152.1 d

4,499.3 b

EI.T2

4,859.9 abc

161.9 bcd

4,747.2 a

EI.T3

4,896.1 abc

161.1 bcd

4,728.4 a

EI.T4

4,478.6 cd

156.3 cd

4,352.2 b

EI.T5

4,585.4 cd

152.8 d

4,394.3 b

EI.T6

4,405.2 cd

154.3 d

4,303.4 b

EI.T7

4,903.5 abc

167.7 abc

4,592.4 a

EI.T8

4,736.7 bcd

167.9 abc

4,387.0 b

EI.T9

4,549.1 cd

155.5 d

4,269.0 b

EI.T10

4,908.8 abc

168.3 abc

4,221.9 b

EI.T11

4,560.9 cd

160.5 bcd

4,428.0 b

EI.T12

4,247.6 d

151.9 d

4,100.7 b

EI.T13

4,658.5 bcd

153.6 d

4,540.5 a

EI.T14

5,381.6 a

174.2 a

4,988.0 a

EI.T15

4,593.2 cd

158.2 cd

4,169.7 b

EI.T16

5,234.5 ab

172.6 ab

4,684.3 a

EI.T17

4,374.2 cd

160.8 bcd

4,134.7 b

EI.T18

4,331.0 cd

153.5 d

4,132.9 b

EI.T19

4,859.7 abc

159.6 cd

4,579.0 a

EI.T20

4,813.4 abcd

158.7 cd

4,526.3 a

EI.T21

4,728.3 bcd

150.7 d

4,427.4 b

EI.T22

4,806.3 abcd

159.6 cd

4,376.4 b

CV (%)

            4.1

2.9

5.16

p value

            10,200×10-8

1,000×10-9

82,431×10-6

* Means followed by the same lower case letter in the column do not differ statistically by Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). 1 The cost in kg ha-1 was subtracted from the estimated productivity for each treatment, compared by Scott-Knott’s test (p ≤ 0.05). Treatments: EI.T1: Control; EI.T2: mancozeb – 1.5; EI.T3: mancozeb – 2.5; EI.T4: copper oxychloride-0.7; EI.T5: copper oxychloride-1.17; EI.T6: carbendazim; EI.T7: trifloxystrobin + prothioconazole – 0.4; EI.T8: trifloxystrobin + prothioconazole-0.7; EI.T9: bixafen + prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin; EI.T10: fluxpyroxade + pyraclostrobin; EI.T11: diphenoconazole; EI.T12: diphenoconazole + cyproconazole; EI.T13: propiconazole + diphenoconazole; EI.T14: trifloxystrobin + prothioconazole + mancozeb; EI.T15: fluxpyroxade + pyraclostrobin + copper oxychloride; EI.T16: bixafen + prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin + mancozeb; EI.T17: mancozeb + carbendazim; EI.T18: copper oxychloride + carbendazim; EI.T19: copper oxychloride + mancozeb + carbendazim; EI.T20: copper oxychloride + mancozeb + diphenoconazole; EI.T21: copper oxychloride + diphenoconazole + carbendazim; EI.T22: fluxpyroxade + pyraclostrobin + diphenoconazole.

In the second assay, there was no statistical difference between the yields obtained in the different treatments. Like as for TKW, the treatments EII.T5 (mancozeb – 1.25 + tebuconazole (14 day intervals) + application of mancozeb – 1.25 between applications); EII.T4 (mancozeb – 1.25 – 7-day interval) and EII.T3 (mancozeb – 1.5 + tebuconazole) presented values different from those obtained in plots with no application, with an increase of 9 to 11.3 g compared to the control (Table 3).

Table 3. Yield (kg ha-1) and a Thousand kernel Weight (TKW – g) according to different treatments with chemical fungicides to control the target spot on soybean, crop season 2019/2020; Assay II.

Treatment

Yield

TKW

Net Yield1

EII.T1

4,387.2ns

153.4 b

4,387.2ns

EII.T2

4,758.2

158.8 ab

4,645.5

EII.T3

4,793.9

162.4 a

4,586.1

EII.T4

4,763.9

163.0 a

4,583.3

EII.T5

4,909.3

164.7 a

4,632.6

EII.T6

4,593.3

161.6 ab

4,270.2

CV (%)

7.5

2.3

7.8

p value

0.41

0.009

0.64

* Means followed by the same lower case letter in the column do not differ statistically by Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). ns Not significant. 1 The cost in kg ha-1 was subtracted from the estimated productivity for each treatment. Treatments: EII.T1: Control; EII.T2: mancozeb – 1.5 (14-day intervals); EII.T3: mancozeb -1.5 + tebuconazole (14-day intervals); EII.T4: mancozeb -1.25 (7-day intervals); EII.T5: mancozeb -1.25 + tebuconazole (14-day intervals) + mancozeb application – 1.25 between mancozeb applications -1.25 + tebuconazole; EII.T6: Application treatment with 14-day intervals: 1º-mancozeb -1.5 + tebuconazole, 2º- copper oxychloride + mancozeb + tebuconazole, 3º-chlorotalonil + tebuconazole and 4º- chlorotalonil + tebuconazole.

The third assay with a late application, positioned at R5, after symptoms visualization in the field, we intended to simulate spray application treatment performance and viability after the symptom presence. In this assay, only the treatment EIII.T5 (bixafen + prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin + mancozeb) showed a difference in the control plots for both crop yield and TKW, with 952 kg ha-1 and 16.4 g increase, respectively compared with the plots without application (Table 4).

Table 4. Yield (kg ha-1) and a Thousand kernel Weight (TKW – g) according to different treatments with chemical fungicides to control the target spot on soybean, crop season 2019/2020; Assay III.

Treatment

Yield

TKW

Net yield1

EIII.T1

4,127.5 b

154.4 b

4,112.5 b

EIII.T2

4,771.6 ab

161.6 ab

4,480.6 a

EIII.T3

4,569.4 ab

161.3 ab

4,305.5 b

EIII.T4

4,353.3 ab

159.7 ab

4,126.4 b

EIII.T5

5,079.1 a

170.8 a

4,773.9 a

EIII.T6

4,187.5 b

158.7 ab

4,041.3 b

EIII.T7

4,331.5 b

155.9 b

4,189.1 b

EIII.T8

4,455.4 ab

163.2 ab

4,273.4 b

EIII.T9

4,237.6 b

157.7 ab

4,059.4 b

EIII.T10

4,098.8 b

164.4 ab

3,904.8 b

CV (%)

6.9

3.5

7.2

p value

0.002

0.018

0.02

* Means followed by the same lower case letter in the column do not differ statistically by Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). 1 The cost in kg ha-1 was subtracted from the estimated productivity for each treatment, compared by Scott-Knott’s test (p ≤ 0.05). Treatments: EIII.T1: Control; EIII.T2: trifloxystrobin + prothioconazole-0.4; EIII.T3: bixafen + prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin; EIII.T4: trifloxystrobin + prothioconazole + mancozeb; EIII.T5: bixafen + prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin + mancozeb; EIII.T6: chlorothalonil + difeconazole; EIII.T7: chlorothalonil + tebuconazole; EIII.T8: chlorothalonil + carbendazim + diphenoconazole; EIII.T9: chlorothalonil + carbendazim + tebuconazole; EII.T10: chlorothalonil + diphenoconazole + tebuconazole.

The treatments with products containing double mixture plus multisite (EI.T14: prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin + mancozeb) and triples mixtures plus multisite, mainly EI.T16 (bixafen + prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin + mancozeb), showed a higher average yield. In the first case due to it has active ingredients of a specific action, allied to the multisite; in the second situation to the detriment of having the same active ingredients added to another action mode (they are SDHI, DMI and QoI) plus a multisite, thus expanding the action spectrum (Godoy et al. 2018).

Studies that evaluated the application interference of prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin reported an increase in yield of 276 (2 applications); 546 (3 applications) and 647 (4 applications) kg ha-1 (Ribeiro et al. 2017; Godoy et al. 2018; Molina et al. 2018). The bixafen + prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin application the increments were on average 628.5 kg ha-1 (Godoy et al. 2018, 2019).

The prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin applications increased by 404 and 646 kg ha-1 in assay I and III, respectively, while bixafen + prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin application presented 50 (assay I) and 444 (assay III) kg ha-1 on crop yield increases. However, the application of only specific site fungicides showed a significant difference compared with mixtures containing specific and multisite fungicides because there is an expansion of action spectrum, reducing the pressure on the specific action mechanisms (Reis et al. 2016). The observed increments were 881.7 kg ha-1 for the prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin + mancozeb application (assay I) and 734.7 and 954 kg ha-1 with the bixafen + prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin + mancozeb application in assay I and III, respectively.

Economic analysis of application treatments. The soybean sale was considered at a fixed price of US $ 264 t-1 (CONAB 2020), while the operating cost at a value of US$ 8 (Molina et al. 2018). The fungicides spraying cost was estimated in kg of grains per ha (Table 1). In the economic evaluation, treatments that obtained a good productive response but had a high cost were not interesting, while others of lower-cost gained prominence, as occurred with EI.T13.

When comparing treatments when the cost in kg ha-1 was subtracted from the yield crop the first assay, treatment EI.T14 (prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin + mancozeb) showed higher net yield (4988.0 kg ha-1), followed by EI.T2 treatments (mancozeb -1.5: 4747.2 kg ha-1), EI.T3 (mancozeb -2.5: 4728.4 kg ha-1), EI.T14 (bixafen + prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin + mancozeb: 4684.3 kg ha-1), EI.7 (trifloxystrobin + prothioconazole-0.4: 4592.4 kg ha-1), EI.T13 (propiconazole + diphenoconazole: 4540.5 kg ha-1) and T20 (copper oxychloride + mancozeb + diphenoconazole: 4526.3 5 kg ha-1).

In Assay III, the treatment EIII.T5 (bixafen + prothioconazole + trifloxystrobin + mancozeb) showed higher productivity, and when subtracted the application treatment cost remained with a higher net yield (4773.9 kg ha-1), followed by the treatment EIII.T2 (trifloxystrobin + prothioconazole-0.4), with 4480.6 kg ha-1.

The economic response under the application treatment is complex and takes into account many factors that may vary over the crop seasons, among these factors we can highlight the pathogen population constitution, which may present individuals with resistance to different chemical groups thus directly affecting control and consequently crop yield. Even considering the pathogen, environmental conditions interfere for a year with more or less pressure from the disease. Other factors like fungicide price and counting of soybean sales are also relevant factors that interfere in the final response.

This is in line with what was observed in a set of experiments with fungicides in producer fields in Texas (USA). From the fungicide treatments used, the application treatment with prothioconazole plus trifloxystrobin considering two applications (R3 + R5) was the only treatment resulting on significant yield increases between 14 and 23%. However, the amount increase over untreated control was observed only in two of the eight experiments (Grichar 2013, Molina et al. 2019).

References

  1. Almeida AMR et al. 1976. Ocorrência de Corynespora cassicola no Estado de São Paulo. Fitopatologia Brasileira 1:111-112.
  2. Almeida AMR et al. 2005. Doenças da soja. In: Kimati H et al. (Eds). Manual de Fitopatologia – Vol. 2. Doenças de plantas cultivadas. Staut: São Paulo. pp.570-588.
  3. Baibakova EV et al. 2019. Modern fungicides: mechanisms of action, fungal resistance and phytotoxic effects. Annual Research & Review in Biology 32:1-16.
  4. Blazquez CH et al. 1972. Target spot of tomato. Plant Disease Reporter 56:243.
  5. Boosalis MG and Hamilton RTmH. 1957. Root and stem rot of soybean caused by Corynespora cassiicola. Plant Disease Reporter 41:696-698.
  6. Brasil. 2009. Regras para Análise de Sementes. Brasília: Mapa/ACS.
  7. CONAB – Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. 2020. Acompanhamento da safra Brasileira: Grãos 2019/2020, Brasília: Sétimo levantamento. https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras/graos/boletim-da-safra-de-graos
  8. Duarte MLR et al. 1978. Uma nova enfermidade foliar do cacaueiro (Theobroma cacao L.) causada pelo fungo Corynespora cassiicola (Berk. & Curt.) Wei. Fitopatologia Brasileira 3:259-265.
  9. Farr DF and Rossman AY. 2020. Fungal Databases, U.S. National Fungus Collections, ARS, USDA. https://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/
  10. FRAC – Fungicide Resistance action committee. 2019. Pathogen risk list. Available at https://www.frac.info/docs/default-source/publications/pathogen-risk/frac-pathogen-list-2019.pdf. Accessed on Feb. 21, 2021.
  11. Gasparotto L et al. 1988. Mancha de Corynespora em folhas de seringueira (Hevea brasiliensis) no Brasil. Fitopatologia Brasileira 13:278-280.
  12. Godoy CV et al. 2018. Eficiência de fungicidas para o controle da mancha-alvo, Corynespora cassiicola, na cultura da soja, na safra 2017/18: resultados sumarizados dos ensaios cooperativos. Embrapa Soja-Circular Técnica, 2018. https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/181793/1/CT139-ManchaAlvo-OL.pdf
  13. Godoy CV et al. 2019. Eficiência de fungicidas para o controle da mancha-alvo, Corynespora cassiicola, na cultura da soja, na safra 2018/19: resultados sumarizados dos ensaios cooperativos. Embrapa Soja-Circular Técnica. https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/200094/1/CT149-OL.pdf
  14. Grichar WJ. 2013. Soybean (Glycine max L.) response to fungicides in the absence of disease pressure. International Journal of Agronomy 1:1-5.
  15. Jones JP. 1961. A leaf spot of cotton caused by Corynespora cassiicola. Phytopathology 1: 305-308.
  16. Koenning SR et al. 2006. Increased occurrence of target spot of soybean caused by Corynespora cassiicola in the southeastern United States. Plant Disease 90: 974.
  17. Molina JPE et al. 2018. Effect of target spot on soybean yield and factors affecting this relationship. Plant Pathology 68:107-115.
  18. Molina JPE et al. 2019. Meta‐analysis of fungicide efficacy on soybean target spot and cost–benefit assessment. Plant Pathology 68: 94-106.
  19. Olive LS et al. 1945. A leaf spot of cowpea and soybean caused by undescribed species of Helminthosporium. Phytopathology 35: 822-831.
  20. R Core Team. 2017. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
  21. Reis BP et al. 2014. First report of Corynespora cassiicola causing severe leaf blight on Eucalyptus in Brazil. New Disease Report 29:7.
  22. Reis EM et al. 2016. Manual de fungicidas: guia para o controle químico racional de doenças de plantas. Staut: Passo Fundo.
  23. Ribeiro FC et al. 2017. Controle químico da mancha-alvo da soja (Corynespora cassiicola) no cerrado tocantinense- Brasil. Journal of Bioenergy and Food Science 4:26-36.
  24. Sinclair JB. 1999. Target spot. In: Hartman GL et al. (Eds). Compendium of soybean diseases. Staut: St. Paul. p.27.
  25. Xavier SA et al. 2013. Sensitivity of Corynespora cassiicola from soybean to carbendazim and prothioconazole. Tropical Plant Pathology 38:431-435.

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s