plant sheri strydhorst, phd - agric.gov.ab.cadepartment/deptdocs.nsf... · plant growth regulators...

Plant

Growth

Regulators

– Behind

the Scenes

Agronomy Update

January 19, 2016

Red Deer

Sheri Strydhorst, PhDResearch Scientist – Agronomy

Adjunct Professor

Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science

University of Alberta

[email protected]

780.674.8248

@SheriStrydhorst

Plant Growth Regulators (PGRs)

• In western Canada, Manipulator was recently registered (for

wheat) and a 2nd PGR is in the process of registration (for

wheat).

• These PGRs produce shorter (2-15cm), thicker & stronger stems

which reduce lodging in intensive management systems

(Syngenta, 2013; Taminco, 2013).

• The primary use of PGRs is as a harvest management aid.

Syngenta. 2013. Palisade2EC Label. Accessed November 27, 2013. Available online at:

http://www.syngentacropprotection.com/Labels/p-1197/Palisade_2EC

Taminco. 2013. Manipulator Technical Data Sheet. Accessed November 27, 2013. Available

online at: http://www.taminco.com/

PGRs Under

Stress

Environmental conditions

to avoid with PGRs

andWhen?• 3 years (2014-2016)

Where?• Lethbridge (irrigated)

• Lethbridge dryland• High River (2014)

• Magrath (2015)

• Killam

• Bon Accord

• Falher

★

★

★

★

★Prepared by Laurel

Perrott, MSc. Student

AC Foremost

Wheat

Yield Response to

PGR

Lethbridge -Irrigated

Lethbridge -Dryland

Killam Bon Accord Falher

2014 Yield (bu/ac) Response to PGR treatments

Control 92 60 109 91 71

Manipulator 90 NS 59 NS 109 86 NS 65 NS

PGR B 98 65 NS 115 NS 91 71

2015 Yield (bu/ac) Response to PGR treatments

Control 101 64 52 73 65

Manipulator 96 NS 64 49 NS 68 NS 68 NS

PGR B 102 NS 68 NS 55 NS 65 70

AC Foremost Wheat – Yield Response to PGRs

• Manipulator yields were NOT statistically different than the control, but trended down at 7 of 10 sites; and upwards at 1 of 10 sites

• PGRB yields were statistically higher at 2 of 10 sites and statistically lower at 1 of 10 sites. PGRB trended higher at 7 of 10 sites

• Note: these yields are with PGR use alone; means separation with LSDhttp://depositphotos.com/4169647/stock-photo-dry-soil-crack-earth.html

Environmental ConditionsLethbridge -

IrrigatedLethbridge -

DrylandKillam Bon Accord Falher

2014 Environmental Conditions at time of PGR Application

Soil Water content 32.2%(0-20 cm)

Volumetric June

24

26.7 % (0-20 cm)

volumetric

n/a 10.1% (0-5 cm)

volumetric

25.8 % (0-5 cm)

gravimetric

Avg. Air Temperature 10.6 oC 14.6 oC 16.2 oC 11.7 oC 17.2 oC

Humidity 88% 72% 72% 72% 42%

Date of PGR Application June 13 June 25 June 26 June 16 June 27

2015 Environmental Conditions at time of PGR Application

Soil Water content 34.7% (0-20 cm)

volumetric

32.4%(0-20 cm)

volumetric

n/a 7.8%(0-5 cm)

Volumetric

22% (0-5cm)

gravemetric

Air Temperature 15.6 oC 18.4 oC 15.4 oC 12.1 oC 14.3 oC

Humidity 67% 49% 63% 69% 65%

Date of PGR Application June 5 June 9 June 22 June 13 June 18

• Volumetric soil water content = ratio of water volume to soil volume• Gravemetric soil water content = ratio of water weight to soil weight

AC Foremost

Wheat

Height Response to

PGR


Lethbridge -Dryland


2014 Height (cm) Response to PGR treatments

Control 89 c 77 c 78 c 70 b 61 ab

Chlormequat Chloride 81 a 72 a 71 a 67 a 60 a

PGR B 87 b 75 b 74 b 70 b 63 b

2-8 cm Reduction

2-5 cm Reduction

4-7 cm Reduction

3 cm Reduction

NS vs Control


Control 78 a 67 c 63 a

Chlormequat Chloride 74 b 60 a 60 b

PGR B 77 a 62 b 60 b

4 cm Reduction

5-7cmReduction

3 cm Reduction

AC Foremost Wheat – Height Response to PGRs

Manipulator reduced plant height by -1 to -8 cm; average: - 4.8cm

PGRB changed plant height by +2 (Falher 2014) to -5 cm; average: -1.9 cm

AC Foremost Wheat

NIR Protein Response to PGR vs PGR + Fungicide

• Some evidence of PGRs reducing NIR protein content – but no consistent trends

• When PGRs are used in combination with fungicides – the protein reductions are not observed• POSSIBLE SYNERGY???

16/02/2016


Lethbridge -Dryland


2014 Protein Response to PGR treatments

Control 11.4 a 11.3 b 11.5 13.2 15.3 a

Manipulator 10.8 b 10.8 a 11.5 13.2 15.2 a

PGR B 11.2 ab 11.1 ab 11.4 13.3 14.7 b

NS NS

2015 Protein Response to PGR treatments

Control

Manipulator

PGR B

AC Foremost Wheat – Protein Response to PGRs

• Manipulator protein content was statistically less than the control at 2 of

5 sites

• PGRB protein content was statistically less than the control at 1 of 5

sites

• Note: these yields are with PGR use alone; means separation with LSD

10.8 a

11.6 b12.1 b

11.2 a

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

Control FlagFung LateFung DualFung CCC CCC+Flag CCC+Late CCC+Dual PGB2 PGB+Flag PGB+Late PGB+Dual

NIR

Pro

tein

(% P

rote

in a

dju

sted

to 1

3.5%

m

ois

ture

; N x

5.8

)Wheat Stacked 2014 - NIR Protein Response to PGR x Fungicide

Treatments – Lethbridge Irrigated 2014

When Manipulator is used in combination with fungicides – the

protein reductions are not observed that we see with Manipulator

alone. POSSIBLE SYNERGY???

11.411.2

AC Foremost Wheat Trends

• PGRs – Manipulator:

• yields were not statistically different than the control but often trended lower than the control

• Shortened AC Foremost by an average of 4.8cm (significant reduction in 7 of 8 site yrs)

• Caused significant protein reductions in 2 of 5 site years

• When used with a fungicide, the protein reductions were often avoided

– PGRB:• yields were often trended higher than the

untreated control

• Shortened AC Foremost by an average of 1.9 cm (significant reduction in 5 of 8 site years)

• Caused significant protein reductions in 1 of 5 site years

• When used with a fungicide, the protein reductions was avoided

But do PGRs

work the same

on all wheat

cultivars?

12 Wheat Cultivars Tested

Cultivar Class % of 2013 acres % of 2014 acres Height Lodging % Yield of Check Distributor

AC Foremost CPS 7.1% 7.1% 73 cm VG 116% SeCan

AAC Penhold CPS new new 72 cm Excellent 110% SeCan

5700PR CPS 3.7% 3.2% 75 cm VG 122% CPS Canada

KWS Sparrow GP new new 90 cm VG 113% SeCan

KWS Belvoir GP new new 88 cm VG 111% SeCan

Harvest HRS 15.5% 11.1% 84 cm VG 102% FP Genetics

CDC Go HRS 10.9% 12.5% 83 cm G 110% Public

Stettler HRS 15.7% 18.6% 84 cm G 112% SeCan

CDC Stanley HRS 3.0% 4.1% 87 cm G 113% CPS Canada

Thorsby HRS new new 97 cm 2.7 105% Canterra

Coleman HRS new new 92 cm 1.9 105% Public -

AC Andrew SWS 0.2% 0.3% 79 cm VG 100% SeCan

Standard versus Advanced ManagementStandard Agronomic Management

Product Rate Timing

Supplemental UAN n/a Only N applied at seeding for area average yield goals

PGR n/a n/a

Foliar Fungicide n/a n/a

Advanced Agronomic Management

Product Rate Timing

Supplemental UAN 34 kg N/ha Just prior to GS 30 (just before elongation). June 13,

2014; June 9, 2015 in Bon Accord

PGR - Manipulator 1.73 L/ha GS 30-31. June 18, 2014; June 13, 2015 in Bon Accord

1st Foliar FungicideTwinline

499 mL/ha GS 39 Flag leaf fully unrolled. July 2, 2014; June 24,

2015 Bon Accord

2nd Foliar FungicideProsaro

791 mL/ac ~ 2 weeks later . July 15, 2014; July 10, 2015 Bon

Accord

Lethbridge Irrigated 2015 – Changes in Height and Lodging Ratings

Class Cultivar

Height with Standard

Management (cm)

Height with Advanced

Management (cm)

Height Reduction

with Advanced

Management (cm)

Lodging Index under

Standard Management (0 = No Lodging;

100 = Flat)

Lodging Index under

Advanced Management (0 = No Lodging;

100 = Flat)

5700PR 87 81 -6 0 0CPS AC Foremost 83 75 -8 2 0

AAC Penhold 83 75 -8 1 0GP Belvoir 88 73 -15 0 0

Sparrow 93 80 -12 0 0SWS AC Andrew 90 84 -6 0 0

CDC Go 91 86 -5 4 0

Coleman 113 102 -11 67 30HRS AC Harvest 103 89 -14 39 0

CDC Stanley 105 92 -13 13 0Stettler 98 90 -8 5 1Thorsby 105 98 -7 38 26

16/02/2016Height Reduction 100%

Improvement in Standabiltiy

Height Reduction ~ 50% Improvement in Standability

Large Height Reduction (> 10cm)

No Improvement in Standability

Wheat Height Response to PGRs

• PGRs reduced plant height in most cultivars, but to varying degrees– Height reduction ranged from (+1 cm to -27cm); avg -

8.9cm– Averaged over 8 site years, the following cultivars had

heights reductions > 10cm:• Belvoir (-14 cm), Sparrow (-10 cm), Coleman (-13cm), Harvest (-11

cm) and CDC Stanley (-11 cm)

– Averaged over 8 site years, the following cultivars had heights reductions ≤ 6cm:• 5700PR (-5 cm) and AC Andrew (-6 cm)

• Height reduction was not specific to a certain class of wheat

• Height reduction was not correlated with plant height16/02/2016

Wheat Lodging Response to PGRs

• Lodging was reported at 4 of 8 sites

• Lodging differed between cultivars:– Best standability: AAC Penhold, Belvoir, Sparrow

– Worst standability: Coleman and Thorsby

– Intermediate standability: Harvest, CDC Stanley, CDC Go

• PGR standability Response:– Harvest, CDC Stanley and CDC Go tended to have

100% standability with PGR use

– Coleman and Thorsby tended to have improvements in standability, but lodging was still noted

16/02/2016

Amisk BarleyYield Response to

PGR

Prepared by Laurel Perrott,

MSc Student, University of Alberta

Note: Manipulator is not registered for use on barley in Canada

Advanced Agronomic Management Treatments

In – Crop UAN

Treatment Rate Timing

UAN 1.25x Yield Goal 30 lbs N/ac Just prior to GS 30 (just before elongation) - June 13th, 2014 in Bon Accord- June 9th, 2015 in Bon Accord

UAN 1.25x + Agrotain 30 lbs N/ac +

3.4 mL Agrotain /lb UAN

UAN 1.5x Yield Goal 60 lbs N/ac

PGR x Fungicide Treatments

Manipulator 0.93 L/ac (barley)

GS 30-31- June 18th, 2014 in Bon Accord- June 13th, 2015 in Bon Accord

1st Foliar FungicideTwinline

202 mL/ac GS 39 Flag leaf fully unrolled - July 2nd, 2014 in Bon Accord- June 24th, 2015 in Bon Accord

2nd Foliar FungicideProsaro

320 mL/ac Late Fungicide application ~ 2 weeks later - July 15th, 2014 in Bon Accord- July 10th, 2015 in Bon Accord


Amisk Barley Yield Response to

PGR

- Significant positive yield response

(1-6%) at 6 of 9 site years

-Yield increases were seen in both dry

and high moisture environments

-No negative yield responses were

observed


Amisk Barley – Economic Yield Response to PGR

Based on Oct 27 Leth feed barley price of $4.68/bu


Lethbridge -Dryland


2014 Yield (bu/ac) and Economic Response to PGR treatments

Control 147 a 107a 140a 148 93 a

Manipulator 149 b 113b= $2.34 148b= $11.70 150 96 b

1.2% increase 5.6% increase 5.7% increase NS 3% increase

2015 Yield (bu/ac) and Economic Response to PGR treatments

Control 170 a 100 a 96 112

Manipulator 172 b 103 b 94 113

1.3% increase 3.4% increase NS NS

• Positive yield response at 6 of 9 sites• Positive economic response at 2 of 9 sites

Prepared by Laurel Perrott, MSc Student,


PGR Cost of PGR & Application

Feed Barley Price(Leth)

Yield Increase Required to Break Even

Chlormequat chloride @0.93L/ac

$25.39 /ac $4.68/bu (Oct27) 5.4 bu/ac


16/02/2016

Amisk Barley Height & Lodging Response to PGRs

• Height decrease at 3 of 8 site years (decreases ranged between 1.6 - 4.0 cm)

• Decreases did not occur under irrigated conditions

• PGR did NOT improve Lodging



Lethbridge -Dryland



Control 77 83 a 73 76 67 a

Manipulator 77 79 b 72 77 65 b

NS 4 cm decrease NS NS 2 cm decrease


Control 91 53 60 a

Manipulator 91 53 58 b

NS NS 1.6 cm decrease with Manipulator

Amisk Barley – Height Response to PGRs

Barley Stacked Management – Lodging Response to PGRs

Amisk is a good standing variety.

Sites with Lodging: Bon Accord 2014; Lethbridge 2015

At these sites -- No lodging improvement with PGR use.


Marketing PGR

Treated Crops

Manipulator and the Registration Process

• Chlormequat chloride (active ingredient in Manipulator) is

registered for use in all of Europe, Australia and most wheat

producing countries

– but not the US

– there is a Codex standard for chlormequat chloride

• Health Canada’s PMRA approved use of Manipulator (active

ingredient: chlormequat chloride) effective for wheat in the 2015

growing season

Manipulator and the Registration Process

• There is no Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) for chlormequat

chloride in the USA – therefore a zero tolerance for any

Manipulator residues

• MRL application is currently under review by the US

Environmental Protection Agency

• Engage Agro does not have

timelines for the EPA approval

of a chlormequat chloride MRL

– Hopefully something will be in

place for 2017

Selling Grain Treated with Manipulator

• Grain buyers are requiring producers to sign a declaration

indicting if Manipulator was used on the wheat crop

– This will prevent shipment of Manipulator treated wheat into the US

• Some grain buyers are refusing to accept wheat which received

an application of Manipulator

• Some grain buyers are accepting

Manipulator treated wheat

There is no “list” of buyers

who will or will not accept

Manipulator treated grain –

producers should ask

individual grain buyers

http://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/2010/08/20/sexsmith-

grain-terminal-officially-opened

Take Home

Messages

Wheat Take Home

Messages …

- PGRs on Wheat:

- Yield trends need to be monitored

- Height reductions and standability

improvements are cultivar specific

- Protein reductions need better

monitoring. PGR + Fungicide as a

safener maybe an opportunity

- Check with your grain buyer to

ensure they will accept

Manipulator treated wheat

Barley Take Home Messages…

• On Amisk barley, Manipulator increased yield modestly in most site

years, and broke even at 2 of 9 years.

–PGR did not increase standability• Selecting an appropriate cultivar is a more effective method than

PGR to manage height and lodging in feed barley

Prepared by Laurel Perrott,

MSc Student, University of Alberta


This work would not have been possible without technical support

from:

• Doon Pauly’s Technical Staff: Allan Middleton, Pat Pfiffner, Chris

Hietamaa, Darryle Thiessen, Colin Enns

• Robyne Bowness’ Technical Staff: Trina Dubitz, Joshua Beaucheane

• CDCN/Barrhead Technical Staff: Jackie Tieulie, Sue Jess, Alex Fedko,

Chelsea Jaeger, Brandi Kelly, Ruoxi, Xia, Suzie Spearin, Emily Flock,

Boris Henriquez, Mathew Webster, Laurel Perrott

• SARDA: JP PettyJohn, Kabal Gill, summer staff

Professional Support from:

• Bill Chapman, Rong-Cai Yang, Mark Olson, Darcy Driedger, Tabitha

MacKinnon, Elsie Gross, Cam Stevenson, Linda Hall, Kelly Kelly

Advanced Agronomic Practices in

Wheat, Barley and Pea to Maximize

Yield and Harvestability

Anderson Seed Growers Ltd.

Beamish Seed Farms Ltd.

Galloway Seeds Ltd.

Canterra Seeds

Field Crop Development Centre

KL Nelson and KWS – UK

Kittle Farms Ltd.

Lefsrud Seed & Processors Ltd.

McNelly Seed Farms Ltd.

N. Jonk Seed Farms

Don Schmermund

Stony Plain Seed Cleaning Plant

Trueblood Farms Ltd.


Westlock Seed Cleaning Co-op Ltd.

Financial Support of this Research is Provided By:

In-Kind Support of this Research is Provided By:

Thank You for

Your Time!

Questions?

Sheri Strydhorst, PhD Research Scientist – Agronomy

@SheriStrydhorst [email protected]

plant sheri strydhorst, phd - agric.gov.ab.cadepartment/deptdocs.nsf... · plant growth regulators...

Documents