EFS12- Book of abstracts - Contact

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SESSION 5: DISEASE CONTROL AND FORECASTING MODELS P111 - Effect of time of application of the fungicide prothioconazole on Fusarium Mycotoxins in maize V. Limay-Rios, A. Schaafsma University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada E-mail: vlimayri@uoguelph.ca Maize ear rot, caused by the fungus Fusarium graminearum (FG), is the most important maize disease associated with deoxynivalenol (DON) and zeralenone (ZON) contamination in the Great Lakes region of North America. Two major outbreaks occurred in Ontario in 2006 and 2011 resulting in high DON levels problematic to the swine, ethanol, sweetener and corn industries. Although fungicides sprays are common for FG control in wheat, no product had been registered for maize until very recently. In 2010 and 2011, studies to determine the optimal timing of prothioconazole application (200g a.i./ha) for reducing mycotoxin accumulation in grain were conducted in controlled replicated experiments in small-plots under mist irrigation trials and in field scale trials using two susceptible hybrids. Harvested grain was analysed for a total of 23 mycotoxins using a triple quadruple ESI-LC-MS/MS system. There was not year x trial interactions. Combined results showed the greatest decrease in total DON [TDON= DON +15-acetyl-DON +DON-3-glucoside +3-acetyl-DON] and ZON concentrations (P80% of silks were completely emerged) and R1 (full silking, when >80% of silks were fully elongated) followed by applications at V18 (18 th leaf fully elongated, when >80% silk emergence) and R2 (early blister; when >80% of silks begin to brown, P0.05). Targeting exposed silks is the most important criterion to maximize prothioconazole effectiveness in reducing FG toxins. Further work on the interaction between genotype and fungicide as well as spray application technology are warranted. Keywords: Fusarium, mycotoxin, maize, fungicide 205
SESSION 5: DISEASE CONTROL AND FORECASTING MODELS P112 - Timing and efficacy of fungicides against Fusarium head blight in malting barley L. K. Nielsen 1 , S. G. Edwards 2 , D. J. Cook 1 , R. V. Ray 1 1 University of Nottingham, School of Biosciences, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE12 5RD, United Kingdom; 2 Harper Adams University, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 8NB, United Kingdom E-mail: Linda.Nielsen@nottingham.ac.uk Fungicide efficacy and timing of application against Fusarium Head Blight (FHB) in UK malting barley have not been previously determined. The objectives of the present study were to evaluate a range of fungicide treatments and their timing of application against FHB in malting barley. Field experiments using the commercial cultivar Quench were conducted over two seasons (2011/12) at five different locations in England. Two locations (one misted and one non-misted) were artificially inoculated with a mixture of F. poae, F. langsethiae and F. tricinctum. Two more locations (one misted and one non-misted) were artificially inoculated with a mixture of F. graminearum, F. culmorum, F. tricinctum, F. poae, F. langsethiae, F. avenaceum, M. majus and M. nivale. One location relied on natural infection with Fusarium and Microdochium species. Nine fungicide combinations with four replicates were tested at each experimental location and year. The key treatments applied at GS 39/45 were a formulation of 263 g ha -1 cyprodinil and 87 g ha -1 isopyrazam or a formulation of 100 g ha -1 fluoxastrobin and 100 g ha -1 prothioconazole. At GS 59 the following fungicides were tested, 99 g ha -1 prothioconazole, a formulation of 100 g ha -1 fluoxastrobin and 100 g ha -1 prothioconazole, or a mixture of 94 g ha -1 isopyrazam and 99 g ha -1 prothioconazole. The incidence and severity of FHB and brown foot rot disease were assessed at GS 75. Fungicide application at GS 39/45 reduced brown foot rot severity by 17%. Reductions of more than 30% in FHB severity were achieved by all fungicide treatments applied at GS 59. The fungal biomass of Fusarium and Microdochium spp. were quantified in harvested grain and stems using species specific real-time PCR assays and will be used together with quality parameters to further evaluate the effects of chemical control of FHB. Keywords: Malting barley, Fusarium Head Blight, fungicides, timing 206
Page 1 and 2:
Bordeaux EFS12 12 th European Fusar
Page 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Welcome from the
Page 7:
4 SPONSORSHIP The 12 th European Fu
Page 11 and 12:
8 13:00 - 14:00 Lunch 14:00 - 15:00
Page 13 and 14:
10 Session 4: Genetics of Hosts - P
Page 15 and 16:
12 Thursday, May 16 th Session 6: F
Page 17 and 18:
Evidence for birth-and-death evolut
Page 19 and 20:
Future challenges of Fusarium and m
Page 21 and 22:
P35 - Screening deoxynivalenol in o
Page 23 and 24:
P76 - Fusarium verticillioides and
Page 25 and 26:
P113 - Agronomic practices and risk
Page 28:
ORAL PRESENTATIONS 25
Page 32 and 33:
KEYNOTE LECTURE SESSION 1: FUSARIUM
Page 34 and 35:
SESSION 1: FUSARIUM - GENETICS, GEN
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
KEYNOTE LECTURE SESSION 2: SECONDAR
Page 44 and 45:
SESSION 2: SECONDARY METABOLITES -
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50:
Page 53 and 54:
SESSION 3: PATHOGENESIS - EPIDEMIOL
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 64 and 65:
KEYNOTE LECTURE 1 SESSION 4: GENETI
Page 66 and 67:
SESSION 4: GENETICS OF HOSTS - PLAN
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
KEYNOTE LECTURE 2 SESSION 4: GENETI
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
KEYNOTE LECTURE SESSION 5: DISEASE
Page 80 and 81:
SESSION 5: DISEASE CONTROL AND FORE
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86:
Page 89 and 90:
SESSION 6: FUTURE CHALLENGE FOR EUR
Page 91 and 92:
SESSION 6: FUTURE CHALLENGE FOR EUR
Page 94:
POSTER PRESENTATIONS 91
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
134
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158: SESSION 3: PATHOGENESIS - EPIDEMIOL
Page 177 and 178: SESSION 4: GENETICS OF HOSTS - PLAN
Page 207: 204
Page 211 and 212: SESSION 5: DISEASE CONTROL AND FORE
Page 233 and 234: SESSION 6: FUTURE CHALLENGE FOR EUR
Page 241 and 242: de Hoog G. S., 89, 114, 236 de Kler
Page 243 and 244: Ponts N., 33, 36, 82, 94, 104, 106,
Page 245 and 246: 242
Page 247 and 248: BOKU-University of Natural Resource
Page 249 and 250: touatisihem03@yahoo.fr He Xinyao In
Page 251 and 252: steve.oliver@bioc.cam.ac. uk Ortega
Page 253 and 254: Subramaniam Gopal Agriculture and A
show all

EFS12- Book of abstracts - Contact

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?