Lexington, KY 40546

Online at: www.uky.edu/KPN

Number 1348
TOBACCO - Severe Spotting and Scorch of Burley Tobacco Leaves FRUIT CROPS - Spotted Wing Drosophila Widespread and Active in KY ORNAMENTALS -Aerial Blight Infections on Vinca and Herbaceous Annuals TOBACCO Severe Spotting and Scorch of Burley Tobacco Leaves by Bob Pearce, Kenny Seebold, and Julie Beale Massive amounts of rain fell through much of the burley production area of Kentucky over the 4th of July weekend. This has led to a number of problems such as drowning, leaf scald, and black shank, as we would expect. We have also begun to see rapid development of spotting on lower leaves, weather flecking and in many cases severe scorching of bottom leaves (see images below). Before the rains came, we were already seeing foliar symptoms of deficiencies of nutrients like nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus, which we suspected were directly related to poor root development resulting from generally wet soil conditions that had prevailed during the early season. The presence of symptoms before the rains and the sudden development of severe spotting after the heavy rains have raised concerns that a new and explosive leaf disease is occurring. However, even though some of the symptomology is similar to what we would see with angular leaf spot (which, in fact, is present in some areas); we have examined numerous samples and are sure that this problem is not caused by a pathogen. Instead, what we are seeing is the result of an interaction between stressed tobacco and the environment.

July 16, 2013

FUNGICIDES - Some Principles of Fungicide Resistance VI: Application Rate and Fungicide Resistance DIAGNOSTIC LAB HIGHLIGHTS INSECT TRAP COUNTS

So why did these symptoms appear so suddenly and across a wide area of the burley region? The short answer is that we dont know for sure. The problem may be related to one specific factor, or a combination of factors. Weather flecking may have a lot to do with what we are seeing, and it is possible that we are seeing worst-case examples of weather fleck. Some of the spotting seems to be actual physical or mechanical injury from rain drops driving into the leaves. The symptoms of severe scorching between the veins of lower leaves and nutrient deficiency symptoms (like potassium and phosphorus) have also been common. One possibility that would explain this sudden onset of symptoms is nutrient imbalance in the affected plants. Plants with impaired root systems would not have been able to take up nutrients at a sufficient rate to supply the growing points, and would have re-mobilized these from the lower leaves. More than one nutrient could be involved, but we dont really know with certainty. We are in the process of having leaves analyzed for nutrient content to try and pinpoint what might be deficient. The scorching has a passing resemblance to Spartan injury, which can occur when excess rainfall washes herbicide into the root zone. However, these symptoms are showing up in fields that were not treated with Spartan as well as Spartan-treated fields, so our feeling is that we are not dealing with herbicide injury in most cases.

The biggest question of all is what to do in fields where this syndrome is occurring. The difficulty in making a recommendation right now is that we really dont know the exact cause (or causes) of the problem. Until we get a better handle on the situation, the following are some points of discussion to share with producers. Although theres not a pathogen associated with what we are seeing, we are concerned that extensive damage to the foliage will make it more susceptible to target spot and possibly brown spot. Because of this, and because theres quite a bit of active target spot right now, an application of Quadris is recommended for growers who have not applied it already. The standard 8 fl oz./A rate should be sufficient for protection, and growers who are seeing disease already should consider a rate of 10 to 12 fl oz./A. The nutritional problems that were seeing right now are not generally associated with deficiencies in the soil, but instead are a result of the inability of roots to reach nutrients that are already there. Side-dressing would be of potential value if nutrients can be placed into the root zone without creating additional damage. For tobacco that is waist-high or bigger, do not apply more than 25 lb. of actual N per acre. For tobacco that is smaller than waist-high, use no more than 50 lb. of actual N. Ammonium nitrate would be the ideal N source, but liquid N (UAN) would be an acceptable alternative. For potash, 100 lb. /A of sulfate of potash (0-0-50) should be sufficient.

application may be effective to deliver a quick dose of nutrients to the crop. The most likely benefit from foliar application of fertilizer would be correction of micronutrient deficiencies. It will be less likely to see benefits from N, P, and K with a foliar application. Be aware that foliar fertilizers can cause leaf burn; do not apply excessive amounts in any one treatment.

Figure 1. Weather flecking.

Foliar nutrient applications historically have not resulted in yield increases. However, under current conditions a foliar

Figure 2. Interveinal scorching and weather flecking.

FRUIT CROPS Spotted Wing Drosophila Widespread and Active in KY By Ric Bessin, Entomologist We have been working with producers in a number of KY counties to monitor spotted wing Drosophila (SWD) this summer. The first traps positive for SWD were in Breathitt and Bourbon Counties, but since the start of July, trapping locations in seven addition counties have been positive for SWD. SWD is a serious threat to small fruit production, the adults lay eggs under the skin of otherwise sound fruit. This can result in small maggots in the fruit at harvest or just after harvest. Blueberries, blackberries and raspberries are very susceptible to this new invasive pest. In addition to damaging a large percentage of a crop, this pest also has the potential to upset customers and ruin markets.

Figure 3. Severe scorching between veins.

Figure 4. Weather flecking and spotting between veins.

Figure 6. The end of the female SWD abdomen with the enlarged, toothed ovipositor.

So far we have recorded SWD in Breathitt, Bourbon, Larue, Warren, Daviess, Caldwell, Crittenden, McCracken, and Meade counties. So it isnt restricted to one region of the state, it is in the western, central, and eastern parts of the state. This past year we have recorded SWD only from Warren and Daviess Counties. We are finding it again in these two counties as well as the additional new counties.
Figure 5. Severe scorching on lower leaves.

In other states were SWD has become established, producers that have detected SWD often need to

spray periodically during the harvest period to reduce losses. Because of this, producers need to coordinate their harvests and spray timing in order to comply with pre-harvest intervals (PHIs) with the respective insecticides. As the small fruit crops are harvested several times a week, this limits the types of materials that can be used. Insecticide trials at Michigan State have indicated that some insecticides in the organophosphate, pyrethroid, and spinosyn classes have good activity against SWD. The neonicotinoids have not been effective. Several states have developed extension recommendations and have factsheets available on line. I would recommend the following of blueberry and blackberry/raspberry producers. They list monitoring methods (that we have been using) and available insecticides. SWD Management Recommendations for Michigan Blueberry Growers http://www.ipm.msu.edu/uploads/files/SWD/Mana gementRecommendsBlueberry-May2012.pdf Spotted Wing Drosophila Management Recommendations for Michigan Raspberry and Blackberry Growers http://www.ipm.msu.edu/uploads/files/SWD/Mana gementRecommendationsRaspberryBlackberrySep2012.pdf There are several cultural controls that may be helpful. The first is timely and clean harvests. This includes removal of overripe and damaged berries. Burial of infested fruit has not been effective as the SWD can still emerge. Placing fruit in clear bags that are sealed and left in the sun will kill any SWD that emerge. Removal of wild hosts (brambles, poke, honeysuckle, wild grape) near commercial plantings may help. When SWD has been detected on a farm, growers may need to begin insecticidal control. But insecticides need to be applied correctly in order to be effective. They need to be in place prior to oviposition (egg laying), coverage needs to be thorough as the adults often hide in the dense portions of the canopy. So, higher pressure and higher spray volume will be needed to reach these difficult to reach spots. Even the best of the insecticides will not consistently last more than 7

days, so at minimum, weekly applications will be needed. With heavy rains, sprays may need to be reapplied. Producers should also rotate among insecticides with different modes of action to prevent/delay resistance. A general rule of thumb is to switch modes of action with each new pest generation, which would mean switching to a new IRAC insecticide group. Since this pest can complete a generation in less than two weeks, we need to have multiple types of insecticides available.

ORNAMENTALS Aerial Blight Infections on Vinca and Herbaceous Annuals By Nicole Ward Gauthier, Extension Plant Pathologist Aerial blight (also referred to as shoot blight) has been popping up in landscapes and garden centers. Typically, two different organisms can cause aerial blight symptoms Rhizoctonia solani (a true fungus) and Phytophthora parasitica (a water mold). Recent outbreaks of aerial blight in Kentucky have been reported on vinca (Figures 79), calibrachoa (Figure 10), and petunia, each caused by the Phytophthora pathogen. Thus, the following information will be specific to Phytophthora aerial blight. Phytophthora species are water mold pathogens. Briefly, that means that they must have free water to complete their life cycles (produce spores, infect, and cause disease). During wet weather (frequent rains) or under excessive water or humidity (greenhouse conditions or heavy irrigation), water mold pathogens proliferate. Clearly, this years rainy conditions are favorable for disease. Phytophthora aerial blight, like other water mold pathogens, is no different. It thrives in soils of heavily irrigated or otherwise wet landscapes and in production greenhouses. Infections occur when soilborne pathogens splash up onto stems and foliage. Leaves become blighted (rapid collapse) (Figure 7) and then infection spreads to petioles

(Figure 8) and stems (Figure 9). Lesions on lower stems cause girdling and entire branches then fail. Once plants are infected, fungicides do not cure disease. Affected plants should be destroyed as soon as possible to prevent diseased tissue (and the pathogen) from building up in landscape soil and greenhouse floors. Homeowners should consider improving drainage, mulching to prevent splash, and switching to drip irrigation. No fungicides are recommended for residential or landscape use. Commercial growers, on the other hand, should employ a preventative program for healthy plants if nearby plants become infected. Phosphorus acid fungicides (e.g. Aliette) are effective against water mold pathogens and are recommended for protection against Phytophthora aerial blight. More information for commercial greenhouse growers can be found at http://www2.ca.uky.edu/agcollege/plantpathology/ ext_files/PPFShtml/PPFS-GH-4.pdf http://www2.ca.uky.edu/agcollege/plantpathology/ ext_files/PPFShtml/PPFS-GH-3.pdf Landscape and homeowner information can be found at http://www2.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/id/id87/id87.pdf

Figure 8. Infection spreads from leaves, down petioles, and then to stems.

Figure 9. Progression of symptoms to stems.

Figure 7. Initial infections by the aerial blight pathogen occur on leaves of vinca.

Figure 10. Advanced symptoms of aerial blight on calibrachoa (million bells).

FUNGICIDES Some Principles of Fungicide Resistance VI: Application Rate and Fungicide Resistance By Paul Vincelli, Extension Plant Pathologist This sixth article in this series addresses several practical questions about application rate and the buildup of fungicide resistance. First, it is important to understand the two broad ways that fungicide resistance shows up in fields. In quantitative resistance 1, resistant spores are less sensitive than the wildtype 2 spores, much like an undersized, partially effective shield (compare Figures 11 & 12). If quantitative resistance is present, you may notice you arent getting the level of control you once did, but that you can still achieve decent control at high rates and short spray intervals. Common examples of this would be cases of resistance to DMI fungicides (=FRAC Code 3, see previous article on FRAC Codes). In qualitative resistance, resistant spores are completely insensitive to normal field rates of the fungicide. It is as if a large shield prevented all fungicide from contacting the spores (Figure 13). To the producer, qualitative resistance looks like a complete loss of disease control. In fact, sometimes these resistant spores can actually cause more disease when the fungicide is applied, a phenomenon called hormesis. (See Table 1 for a real-world example of hormesis.)
Figure 11. In a population of fungal spores (orange objects at right), sensitive spores are killed by fungicide.

Figure 12. Quantitative resistance: Some spores are partially resistant. It is as if a small, partially effective shield protected some of the spores. Some of them will survive the application, though many will also die. (Image of shield from office.microsport.com)

Figure 13. Qualitative resistance: The large majority of Surviving spores are completely resistant to fungicide. It is as if a large shield prevented fungicide from contacting the spores. (Image of shield from office.microsport.com)

Quantitative resistance is sometimes referred to as reduced sensitivity. 2 Wild-type spores refers to the spore population that predominates before the widespread use of a fungicide. These spores would be predominantly sensitive to the fungicide.

Table 1. Disease enhancement following application of a QoI fungicide on perennial ryegrass infected with QoI-resistant Pyricularia oryzae Treatment (formulation & % of plot amt product/1000 sq ft affecteda 53 b Water 2c Thiophanate-methyl + chlorothalonil 90WDG, 8 oz. 66 a Azoxystrobin 50WG, 0.2 oz. a Waller-Duncan statistical test, k=100, P~0.05

With that background, here are two common questions relating to application rate and fungicide resistance. If disease pressure is very low, doesnt it make sense to apply a fungicide at a half-rate? Yes, in a sense, it does. Reducing the application rate of a pesticide benefits ones pocketbook, the environment, field workers, and consumers. However, applying a fungicide at rates below those listed on the label does increase the risk of fungicide resistance. This is especially so for cases of quantitative resistance, such as resistance to DMI fungicides (=FRAC Code 3). Lets consider a fictional example, called BlightBe-Gone. Suppose Blight-Be-Gone is labeled to control a disease at 3-6 oz./acre. However, disease pressure is really low, so we may logically decide that we probably dont need the fungicide. Nevertheless, suppose I decide to include it with a post-emergence herbicide spray, because I am already in the field, and it gives me peace of mind. Since disease pressure is so low, I might spray it at 1.5 oz./acre (which is half the minimum labeled rate). It is seems like sensible plan. However, the risk in using the half-rate is that I am allowing the spores with partial resistance to build up over time. And the more opportunity they have to multiply, the greater the risk that even more resistant spores will emerge. In cases of qualitative resistance 3, half-rates probably have little influence on the buildup of resistance. This is because spores that exhibit qualitative resistance thrive even at the highest labeled rate of the fungicide. Cant I prevent fungicide resistance by using the high, labeled rate of a fungicide? No, definitely not. If a fungus has the genetic potential to develop resistance to the product we are using, there is no way to prevent fungicide resistance, short of never using the at-risk fungicide. We can only slow down the buildup of

resistance. See the first article in this series for more on this. So, can we slow down the development of resistance using a high, labeled rate? Yes and no. Yes, if the resistance is quantitative, no if it is qualitative. If resistance in your field is quantitative (Figure 2), high doses can suppress many of the spores, even many of those that have partial resistance. In these cases, higher doses may indeed slow down the buildup of resistant populations. If resistance in your field is qualitative (Figure 3), high doses essentially have no effect on the fungus. The mutant spores survive even the highest doses, so typically no disease control occurs following the application of even the highest labeled rate. Bottom line Fungicide resistance appears as a partial loss of disease control (quantitative resistance) or complete loss of disease control (qualitative resistance). In cases of quantitative resistance, using less than labeled rates is inadvisable, because it may accelerate the buildup of resistance. Use of labeled rates may slow down (though not prevent) the development of quantitative resistance. In cases of qualitative resistance, even high rates dont suppress resistance buildup.

DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY HIGHLIGHTS By Julie Beale and Brenda Kennedy Agronomic samples diagnosed in the PDDL in the past week have included Pythium and Rhizoctonia root rots on corn; Rhizoctonia root and crown rots and Mycoleptodiscus crown rot on alfalfa; leaf streak on orchardgrass; Fusarium head blight on wheat; angular leaf spot, environmental leaf spotting and/or weather fleck (see Dr. Seebolds article), black shank, soreshin and Rhizoctonia root rot, Fusarium wilt, alfalfa mosaic virus, tomato spotted wilt virus, manganese toxicity and frenching on tobacco.

Examples of qualitative resistance would include many cases of resistance to strobilurin/QoI fungicides (=FRAC Code 11) or to benzimidazole fungicides (FRAC Code 1).

On fruit and vegetable samples, we have diagnosed black rot and anthracnose on grape; raspberry ringspot virus on black raspberry; cedarapple rust on apple; scab on peach; black knot on plum; bacterial spot and powdery mildew on cherry; Rhizoctonia root/stem rot on bean; southern blight on potato; Septoria leaf spot, early blight and Botrytis leaf blight on tomato. On ornamentals and turf, we have seen black root rot on petunia; Fusarium root/stem rot on sunflower; rust on snapdragon; Phytophthora aerial blight on annual vinca, petunia and calibrachoa; Cercospora leaf spot on rose; fire blight and cedar-quince rust on hawthorn; leaf blight on honeysuckle; Fusarium wilt on mimosa; Pythium root rot on annual bluegrass and ryegrass; and brown patch on fescue.

2013 INSECT TRAP COUNTS

July 5 12 Location Black cutworm Armyworm European corn borer Corn earworm Southwestern corn borer Fall armyworm Princeton, KY 15 49 0 6 3 0 Lexington, KY 1 398 0 4 2 0

Graphs of insect trap counts for the 2013 season are available on the IPM web site at http://www.uky.edu/Ag/IPM/ipm.htm.

Note: Trade names are used to simplify the information presented in this newsletter. No endorsement by the Cooperative Extension Service is intended, nor is criticism implied of similar products that are not named.