Advertisement

Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 36, Supplement 6, pp 677–681 | Cite as

Chemical control of FHB in wheat with different nozzle types and fungicides

  • Szabolcs Lechoczki-Krsjak
  • Beáta Tóth
  • Csaba Kótai
  • Imre Martonosi
  • László Farády
  • László Kondrák
  • Ágnes Szabó-Hevér
  • Ákos Mesterházy
Session 7 Chemical, Cultural and Biological Control

Abstract

Four nozzle types were tested on large scale trials with 2500 m2 plot size. The AIC TeeJet, the TeeJet XR, the Turbo FloodJet and the Turbo TeeJet Duo nozzles were tested in 2006 and 2007. 250 l/ha spray amount was used for all nozzles at 7–8 km/hr speed. Nine fungicides generally used to control FHB were tested. Across nine fungicides the mean reduction in symptoms was 60 % for both AIC TeeJet and XR TeeJet nozzles, but the more effective fungicides performed better with the XR TeeJet nozzle. The Turbo TeeJet Duo nozzles reduced the symptoms by 70 % and the Turbo FloodJet nozzle by 80 %. Among the fungicides the Prosaro 1 l/ha was the most effective. The coverage was controlled by water sensitive paper stripes and UV sensitive color mixed into the spray. Data show better uniformity by paper stripes, the UV pictures show that the all-side protection by the Turbo FloodJet nozzle is not perfect, the coverage is less than anticipated. Therefore, further work is necessary for improve the coverage being necessary to an even more effective control. However, the existing improvements allow 80 % or higher reduction with the best fungicides giving a chance for a better protection. Small plot tests with the same fungicides gave highly similar results achieved with the large-scale farm application. Farm efficacy could be forecasted with r = 0.90 correlation based on small plot hand sprayed tests.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anonymous, 2005. Commission Regulation (EC) No 856/2005 of 6 June 2005, Official Journal of European Union 7.6.2005, L 143/3Google Scholar
  2. Hershman, D., Draper, M. 2004. Analysis of 2004 uniform wheat fungicide trials across locations and wheat classes. In: Proc. 2nd International Symposium on Fusarium head blight. Orlando, FL., p.318–322Google Scholar
  3. Hershman, D., Bachi, P.R., TeKrony, D.M., van Sanford, D.A. 2001. Management of Fusarium head blight in wheat using selected biological agents and foliar fungicides, 2001. In: 2001 National Fusarium Head Blight Forum Proceedings, Erlanger, KY., p. 59–63.Google Scholar
  4. Hooker, D.C., Schaafsma, A.F. 2004. Effective application of fungicides on wheat heads: what’s the best? (Fungicide application systems for controlling Fusarium head blight). In: Proc. 2nd International Symposium on Fusarium head blight. Orlando, FL., p. 330Google Scholar
  5. Maufras, J.Y., Maumené, C., Bourdin, M.M., Leroux, M.M. 1994. Fongicides céréales et protéagineux. ITCF, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  6. Mauler-Machnik, A., Zahn, K. 1994. Ear fusarioses in wheat-new findings on their epidemiology and control with Folicur® (tebuconazole). Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer (Ger. Ed.) 47:129–155.Google Scholar
  7. Mesterházy Á., Bartók, T., Lamper, Cs. 2003. Influence of cultivar resistance, epidemic severity, and Fusarium species on the efficacy of fungicide control of Fusarium head blight in wheat and deoxynivalenol (DON) contamination of grain. Plant Disease 87:1107–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mesterházy, Á., Bartók, T. 1996. Control of Fusarium head blight of wheat by fungicides and its effect on the toxin contamination of the grains. Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer 49:181–197.Google Scholar
  9. Mielke, H., Weinert, J. 1996. Investigations on the effect of various fungicides on the pathogen of partial head blight (Fusarium culmorum/W. G. Sm./Sacc.). Nachrbl. Dt. Pflschutzdienst 48:93–95.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2008

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Szabolcs Lechoczki-Krsjak
    • 1
  • Beáta Tóth
    • 1
  • Csaba Kótai
    • 1
  • Imre Martonosi
    • 1
  • László Farády
    • 3
  • László Kondrák
    • 2
  • Ágnes Szabó-Hevér
    • 1
  • Ákos Mesterházy
    • 1
  1. 1.Cereal Research non-profit Co.SzegedHungary
  2. 2.Chemtura Europe LtdBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Bayer Hungária Kft.BudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations