An Integrated Approach for Managing Fusarium head blight and Deoxynivalenol in Wheat: Lessons Learned After 12 Years of Multistate Research Dr. Pierce A. Paul Associate Professor

2 Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Department of Plant Pathology Fusarium graminearum Infection –Warm, humid weather –Anthesis and early grain-fill –Shriveled light-weight kernels –Fusarium damaged kernels (FDK) Grain yield and quality losses –Low test weight and grain grade Fusarium Head Blight (FHB) Grain contamination with mycotoxin -DON (Vomitoxin), 3A-DON, 15A-DON, and NIV -Livestock health concerns Flour yield and milling and baking quality

3 Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Department of Plant Pathology Components of FHB-related losses Lower grain yield, price discounts due to DON contamination, Fusarium damaged kernels (FDK), and low test weight. Costs associated with FHB management To minimize losses due to FHB and DON, growers are advised to implement management strategies such as: Tillage, crop rotation, cultivar resistance, and timely fungicide application, as well as grain harvesting strategies. Impact on gross cash income (GCI) FHB-related Losses

4 Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Department of Plant Pathology Costs associated with management are not always offset by gains in grain yield and quality. Fungicides only provide about 50% control and the benefit of applying a fungicide is not always sufficient to offset application cost. Resistant varieties are not always high-yielding. Modifying combine harvester configurations to remove diseased kernels during harvest improves grain quality, but it may also reduce expected yield. Benefits depend on yield, baseline FHB and DON levels, grain prices and price discounts due to poor grain quality. Factors Affecting Decision making

5 Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Department of Plant Pathology National Coordinated Project

6 Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Department of Plant Pathology National Coordinated Project Integrated Management Core Treatments o Resistance (S, MS, MR) o Fungicide application  Prosaro (Tebuconazole+Prothioconazole) o Inoculation Cropping sequence/Rotation Responses o FHB Incidence and Severity o FDK,DON, NIV

7 Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Department of Plant Pathology National Coordinated Project Fungicide/Resistance treatment Combinations

8 Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Department of Plant Pathology National Coordinated Project Lots of data and highly variable results Lots of questions o How effective? o Is the combined effect additive? o How stable is the effect? o Is it economical?

9 Efficacy and Additivity Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Department of Plant Pathology

10 Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Department of Plant Pathology Efficacy: Overall Percent Control Measures of efficacy (effect size)

11 Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Department of Plant Pathology Efficacy: Overall Percent Control A formal probabilistic approach for synthesizing evidence from multiple sources Estimated Mean Percent Control Individual Percent Control Meta-Analysis: Quantitative Research Synthesis

12 Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Department of Plant Pathology Efficacy: Overall Percent Control Effect size for study i (the result from study i becomes a data point in the meta-analysis) Expected effect size, overall Among-study variability term. Random effect of study i on the effect size.  i ~ N (0,  2 ) Within-study variability term; residual or “sampling variation”. Assume known.  i ~ N (0, s 2 ) Meta-Analysis: The Model

13 Estimate and its sampling variance, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Department of Plant Pathology Efficacy: Overall Percent Control Log of R as effect size: PROC Mixed From each study obtain treatment means, and residual variance, V Back-transform to obtain

14 Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Department of Plant Pathology Efficacy: Overall Percent Control

15 Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Department of Plant Pathology Additivity of the integrated effect Additive: Observed C (F+R) = Expected C (F+R) D|R = (1 – C R ) = (1 – 0.54) = 0.46 C (F+R) = C R + C F (1 – C R ) = = 0.78 C F|R = C F (1 – C R ) = 0.53 x 0.46 = 0.24 C R = 0.54 C F = 0.53 Observed C (F+R) = 0.76 Expected C (F+R) = 0.78

16 Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Department of Plant Pathology So, what have we learned? 1.Combining resistance with fungicide is more efficacious than either approach alone; 2.Relative to fungicide alone, the integrated approach leads to comparable levels of index and DON reduction; 3.There is an additive effect of fungicide and resistance on both index and DON; 4.The integrated approach is more stable across environment; and 5.The integrated approach is more economically beneficial for a range of baseline FHB levels, grain prices and fungicide application costs.

17 Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center Department of Plant Pathology L. Madden and K. Willyerd (OSU) G. Milus (University of Arkansas) C. Bradley (University of Illinois) G. Bergstrom (Cornell) M. McMullen (NDSU) J. Ransom (NDSU) K. Wise (Purdue) B. Padgett (LSU) S. Wegulo (UNL) L. Osborne (SDSU) L. Sweets (University of Missouri) P. Esker (University of Wisconsin) W. Bockus (Kansas State University) D. Hershman (University of Kentucky) A. Grybauskas (University of Maryland) R. Dill-Mackey (University of Minnesota) U.S. Wheat & Barley Scab Initiative "This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Agreement No This is a cooperative project with the U.S. Wheat & Barley Scab Initiative. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture." Acknowledgments Dr. JD Salgado Dr. KT Willyerd