Is that soybean mosaic virus or herbicide injury?
click image to zoomCraig GrauFigure 4. Leaf epinasty and cupping as a result of injury by a growth regulator herbicide. Regardless of the viruses present this year, most symptoms on soybean plants being sent to the diagnostic lab are mostly not indicative of the viruses described above. While symptoms included some bumpiness on the surface, most of the leaves on the plants exhibited cupping, strapping, and shoe-stringing which is more indicative of growth regulator-herbicide injury. In addition, the incidence (number of plants exhibiting symptoms) within fields this year in Wisconsin is often very high (>75%). Giesler and Ziems (2006) conducted a survey of AMV, BPMV, and SMV in Nebraska in 2001 and 2002. In that survey it was possible to find an occasional field with incidence of these viruses as high as 90-100%. However, the majority of fields that tested positive for one or more of these viruses, had incidence levels of 50% or less. High incidence levels (>50%) are considered unusual for these viruses in soybean fields. Therefore, incidence of leaf cupping or other abnormal leaf growth at incidence levels of 90% or 100% are more likely suggestive of an abiotic disorder, such as herbicide injury.
While insect vectors can transmit these viruses, thereby increasing observed incidence in the field, it isn’t likely that insects have played a major role this season in transmission. Soybean aphid populations were approaching economic thresholds in the southern portions of Wisconsin in June and early July. However, once cooler, wet weather moved in, populations have fallen to nearly non-existent. The same has been true for other insect vectors this season. So again it is unlikely that significant transmission of viruses via insect vectors has occurred.
click image to zoomDamon SmithFigure 5. “Shoe-stringing” of leaves on a soybean plant. Mild to severe leaf cupping and epinasty are suggestive of damage from a growth regulator herbicide (Fig. 4). Growth regulator herbicides commonly used in corn and other grass crops include 2,4-D, dicamba, and clopyralid. Damage can occur on soybean after being exposed by these herbicides through spray drift during nearby applications or by carryover from an application in a previous crop on the same field. Due to the drought last year, herbicide carryover might be playing a larger role this year than expected following normal growing conditions. Issues from drift this time of year would most likely come from 2,4-D or dicamba products, whereas damage from carryover are more likely to be from herbicides containing clopyralid. In addition to herbicide damage from growth regulator herbicides, several samples from counties in the northern soybean production tier of the state have also been sent in exhibiting “shoe-stringing” or “draw-stringing” symptoms (Fig. 5). These symptoms are commonly observed when conditions are cool and wet after chloroacetamide herbicides like S-metolachlor, acetochlor, or diamethenamid are used as pre or post-emergence herbicides to soybeans.
- DuPont Crop Protection to sell certain assets to Bayer
- New research study shows the value of neonicotinoids
- Alltech Crop Science acquires South African distributor
- Monsanto invests to transform plant breeding
- Fungicide-resistant soybean diseases spreading
- Most crop futures are starting Thursday on a strong note
- ValueAct buys stake in fertilizer dealer Agrium
- Critics of Dow herbicide sue U.S. EPA over approval
- Six tips to help professionals take leaps of faith
- Nitrogen fertilization rates for corn production
- Landmark Services Co-op, Curry Seeds sign agreement
- No-till may not bring boost in global crop yields
- Los Angeles City Council votes to explore ban on GMO plants
- ASA issues statement on EPA’s neonicotinoid study
- Economist: Taxing P could reduce risk of algal blooms
- Commentary: Government wants farmers to quit farming
- Resistant weeds not controlled by fall residuals
- First responders need to prepare for agroterrorism