CFAES Give Today
Agronomic Crops Network

Ohio State University Extension

CFAES

C.O.R.N. Newsletter: 2016-22

  1. Spider Mite Be a Problem

    With continued hot, dry weather it is important to remain vigilant for emerging twospotted spider mite problems in field crops.  Look for characteristic yellow stippling on leaves and confirm the presence of mites by tapping vegetation over a piece of black construction paper (which works better than white paper, though white will do) and looking for dust that crawls.  Increasing mite populations often start on field edges, and edge treatments may work if problems are caught early.  But if mites are found beyond the field borders and if conditions are very favorable for mite increase (continued hot, dry weather with low chance of rain), either make your treatment decision for the whole field, or be prepared to scout often and vigilantly and treat quickly when interior populations increase.

    Threshold recommendations for spider mites in soybean are summarized in a previous newsletter article:

    https://agcrops.osu.edu/newsletter/corn-newsletter/insect-pests-we%E2%80%99re-watching-now

    For thresholds for spider mites in corn we follow recommendations developed by Texas A&M, which can be found at this link:

    http://lubbock.tamu.edu/files/2011/11/Corn_Guide_2010.pdf

  2. Seeking a Twospotted Spider Mite Trial Location

    As we mentioned in a previous newsletter article, there is a product newly labeled for spider mite control in soybean and sweet corn (Agri-Mek SC).  We would like to test this product in Ohio soybeans, and are looking for a producer field for this trial.  The soybean field must have an at-threshold spider mite population to treat, and the producer must be willing to leave some untreated check strips.  The product will be free.  If you would like to participate in this trial please contact Kelley Tilmon at tilmon.1@osu.edu or 330-202-3529

  3. Marestail Control in Wheat Stubble - Part 2: Cover Crop Considerations

    Author(s): Mark Loux

    Following last week’s article about marestail control in wheat stubble, a number of people asked about options where cover crops are going to be planted later this summer.  The options can be fewer for this situation, especially for small-seeded broadleaf cover crops, for which the residual activity of several herbicides can affect the ability to get an adequate stand when planted too soon after application.  Where there is an issue with residual activity of a herbicide used for marestail control – 2,4-D, dicamba, or Sharpen – planting a grass cover crop instead of a broadleaf crop usually reduces risk of problems.  Information on various herbicides follows, although some herbicide labels are less than clear on this. 

    Glyphosate – no waiting period for any cover and no residual soil activity, but won’t control marestail of course.

    Gramoxone - no waiting period for any cover and no residual soil activity, but needs considerable help from another herbicide in the mix to adequately control marestail.

    Glufosinate (Liberty etc) – no residual soil activity so would be safe to plant any cover crop.  The label allows use in fallow situations but does not directly address cover crop planting following application in fallow.  Rotational crop guidelines on the label appear to specify 70 to 180 days between application and cover crop planting, depending upon species, which is not due to any possibility of stand loss.  Interpretation directly from Bayer is that as long as the cover is not fed or grazed, it is not considered a crop, and the 70- to 180-day wait does not apply here.

    2,4-D – ester has shorter soil residual than amine.  Generally safe to plant anything 30 or more days after application.  Grasses will be safer than broadleaf crops when planted less than 30 days after application. 

    Dicamba – soil residual is rate dependent.  For small grains and grasses, the minimum interval between application and planting is 15 days per 8 fl oz applied (so 16 oz = 30 days).  Labels do not appear to address the waiting period to plant broadleaf covers.

    Sharpen – has soil residual that is rate-dependent, and is primarily on broadleaf plants.  The label allows preplant/preemergence use on small grains and for cool-season grass establishment, so cereal rye and ryegrass could be planted safely following use in wheat stubble.  For all other “cover crops”, the label specifies 1 or 2 months between application and planting for 1 or 2 oz/A, respectively.  Potential for stand reduction is noted on the label and the cover crop cannot be grazed or fed.   The label does not technically appear to address cover crop planting following use in wheat stubble, but instead assumes use of Sharpen in a crop that goes to harvest followed by cover planting, or interseeding of the cover into a crop.  We assume that this discrepancy doesn’t matter as long as the prohibition on feeding or grazing is followed.

  4. Got waterhemp? – Find Out the Herbicide Resistance Characteristics Now

    Author(s): Mark Loux

    We have spent a lot of time educating and warning about Palmer amaranth, but while we were doing this, waterhemp has become a more widespread problem.  Waterhemp is only a little less fun to deal with than Palmer amaranth, and has a tendency to fairly rapidly develop resistance to any new sites of action used repeatedly against it in POST treatments.  Submitted questions and photos to confirm identification of this weed increased substantially this summer over previous years.  Waterhemp infestations can be found around the state, with a concentration in west central Ohio.  We assume all waterhemp populations are resistant to site 2 herbicides (ALS), but in our screening so far, not all populations are resistant to glyphosate.  Populations in western Ohio tend to be glyphosate-resistant at this point, but populations in other parts of Ohio not necessarily so.  Some populations that are glyphosate-resistant appear to have developed at least a low level of resistance to site 14 (PPO) herbicides as well. 

    In areas of the corn belt further west where waterhemp has been the major glyphosate-resistant weed problem for some time, the evolution of multiple resistance is common.  Recent surveys by the University of Illinois determined that approximately 60% of Illinois waterhemp populations were resistant to glyphosate and also to site 2 and 14 herbicides.  Due to the tendency for waterhemp to evolve resistance to new sites of action used against it, the U of I recommends a strategy of not using a new site of action (usually PPO) until resistance to glyphosate has been confirmed.  So in a field situation where a grower is unsure about resistance, they suggest applying glyphosate to small waterhemp plants, and then monitoring to determine if the population is responding.  If there is no response, the next step is immediate application with a PPO inhibitor.  The drawback here of course is that glyphosate-resistant waterhemp will continue to grow during this brief period of evaluation following glyphosate application, possibly reducing the effectiveness of the PPO herbicide. 

    Waterhemp requires a combination of residual and POST herbicides, with the goal of applying POST herbicides to plants not more than 6 inches tall.  In a number of Ohio fields with waterhemp that we know of, growers were either unaware they had waterhemp and inadvertently let it get far bigger than this, or were apparently still adhering to the “I’ll spray glyphosate whenever I get around to it – what, me worry” approach.  Waterhemp produces a lot of seed and one or two years of this approach will guarantee the presence of waterhemp for years to come. 

    It’s largely too late to provide much helpful guidance for this summer’s waterhemp control programs.  What’s essential to accomplish still this year though, for future planning, is to figure out whether a waterhemp population is resistant to glyphosate and/or site 14 herbicides.  Fortunately, there is a painless way to do this, through a service offered by the University of Illinois Plant Clinic.  Link to the U of I newsletter article that provides the needed info - http://bulletin.ipm.illinois.edu/?p=3619.  In a nutshell, you collect five new leaves that have developed following an herbicide application, and send them to U of I via rapid delivery along with one sample submission form per sample.  Cost is $50 per sample, which includes screening for both glyphosate and site 14 herbicides.  We highly recommend making this investment where resistance characteristics of a waterhemp population are unknown.  This information will inform future decisions on herbicides for control of waterhemp, ensuring that appropriate herbicides are used and that the population does not develop resistance to site 14 herbicides as rapidly.  The LibertyLink soybean system is, of course, another option for management of waterhemp, as well as Xtend and Enlist soybean systems whenever they become available.  It should be noted that: 1) use of glufosinate, dicamba, or 2,4-D to help manage this weed does not change the approach, and these herbicides must be applied to small plants to control waterhemp; and 2) the assumption is that inappropriate and continued use of these herbicides would lead to the development of resistance to them.  And in fact there are already some populations of waterhemp farther west with resistance to 2,4-D.

  5. Hot, Dry Conditions Stressing Corn

    Author(s): Peter Thomison

    Throughout Ohio, especially northern Ohio, there are corn fields exhibiting drought and temperature stress. Leaf rolling is common and uneven, stunted corn growth is widespread. Moreover, most of these stressed corn fields are at a stage of development that is especially susceptible to drought and high temperature injury – pollination.

    High temperature stress is usually associated with drought.  Heat stress and drought intensify damage to corn and soybean but either may cause major crop injury alone.  The recent high temperatures have generated questions about the impact of high temperatures on corn. How much heat stress can these crops withstand without incurring major yield losses even when adequate soil moisture is available?

    Corn originated as a tropical grass and can tolerate exposures to adverse temperatures as high as 112 degrees F for brief periods. Optimal daytime temperatures for corn typically range between 77 degrees F and 91 degrees. Growth decreases when temperatures exceed 95 degrees F.

    University of Illinois agronomist Dr. Emerson Nafziger notes that “afternoon temperatures in the mid-90s are not a problem for corn….. if they have enough soil water available. …. plant temperatures have been raised to 110 or higher without doing direct damage to photosynthetic capacity. The level required to damage leaves depends on the temperature the leaf has experienced before, but it generally takes temperatures above 100 in field-grown plants”

    According to Iowa State University agronomists, high temperatures may have a double impact on corn “The first is the increase in rolling of corn leaves in response to moisture deficiency. By rule-of-thumb, the yield is diminished by 1 percent for every 12 hours of leaf rolling - except during the week of silking when the yield is cut 1 percent per 4 hours of leaf rolling. ….The second impact is less obvious initially. When soil moisture is sufficient, as it is for the most part this July, the crop does not have a measurable yield response to one day of temperatures between 93F to 98 F. However, the fourth consecutive day with a maximum temperature of 93 F or above results in a 1 percent yield loss in addition to that computed from the leaf rolling. The fifth day there is an additional 2 percent loss; the sixth day an additional 4 percent loss. Data are not sufficient to make generalizations for a heat wave of more than six days, however firing of leaves then becomes likely and very large yield losses are incurred.  Generally a six-day heat wave at silking time is sufficient to assure a yield not to exceed trend.” Some corn agronomists believe newer corn hybrids may have more tolerance to heat and drought than the hybrids did when this rule of thumb was originated.

    Are corn hybrids that show greater leaf rolling more susceptible to drought injury than other less affected hybrids? Not necessarily. In a recent OSU evaluation comparing two drought tolerant and two drought sensitive hybrids, differences in leaf rolling were not readily evident. However, they were observed at Hoytville, OH in 2012, a site-year that experienced severe drought stress. Leaf rolling ratings for the drought tolerant hybrids were lower or about the same as the drought sensitive hybrids. However, other types of drought tolerant hybrids may express difference leaf rolling responses.

    References

    Elmore, R. and E. Taylor. 2011. Corn and “a Big Long Heat Wave on the Way” Iowa Integrated Crop Management Newsletter Iowa State Univ. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/CropNews/2011/0715elmoretaylor.htm

    A.J. Lindsey and P. R. Thomison. 2016 Drought-Tolerant Corn Hybrid and Relative Maturity Yield Response to Plant Population and Planting Date. Agron. J. 108:229–242.

    Nafziger, E. 2011. High Temperatures and Crops. University of Illinois http://bulletin.ipm.illinois.edu/article.php?id=1537

     

  6. Late Summer Seeding of Perennial Forages

    Author(s): , Mark Sulc

    Although it may be a dim memory at this point, we started the 2016 growing season on the wet side.  Some planned spring forage seedings did not happen due to wet conditions and a compressed spring planting season.  Add to this the fact that some alfalfa stands are not holding up as planned because of harvest injury during the wet and rainy conditions of 2015 and now the dry summer conditions of 2016 and there are potentially a lot of acres of alfalfa or another perennial forage that need to be planted as we look ahead to 2017.  August gives us another window of opportunity to establish a perennial forage stand and it fits nicely into rotations after wheat grain harvest. 

    Typically the main risk with an August planting is a question of sufficient moisture for seed germination and plant growth and it looks like this year will not be an exception, as the weather outlook for August is for rainfall to be below normal.   Most of our perennial forage grasses and legumes are shallow seeded crops and should be planted no deeper than ½ inch and ideally closer to ¼ inch.  If the seed bed is too dry germination and emergence will be poor.  This year’s weather pattern needs to be considered and planting may depend upon a favorable forecast for rain. It is best to plant right into moist soil or right before a large rain system is forecast. No-till planting is very helpful for preserving valuable moisture this time of year.

    There are some advantages to late summer forage planting as compared to a spring planting. One big plus is that planting time and field preparation is not competing with corn and soybean field work. No-till planting following a small grain crop often works well. Late summer planting means forage seedlings are not competing with the flush of annual spring and summer weed emergence/growth. The soil borne root rot and damping off disease organisms that thrive in cool, wet soils are not an issue. However, late summer forage planting has some other risks that must be managed.

    Ideally, planting should be completed by mid-August in Northern Ohio and by the end of August in Southern Ohio. These timelines are based on average frost dates and the time needed for forage plants to develop a root system capable of overwintering.   For example, at about 8 to 10 weeks after emergence alfalfa plants pull the growing point below the soil surface, a process is called ‘contractile growth’.   Once contractile growth occurs the alfalfa plant is considered a true perennial.  The alfalfa plant needs to reach this growth stage to overwinter. Clover plants also need to have a crown formed, and grasses should be at least in the tillering stage of development before the onset of winter. 

    If the fall is warm and extended, similar to what we have experienced the past few years, it might be possible for successful establishment with later planting dates.  Some alfalfa growers believe that the late summer planting deadline dates can be moved back by several weeks due to climate change.  But who can predict the weather? How lucky do you feel? Late summer and early fall planting dates of forages were tested in Pennsylvania in the mid-1990’s at two locations that historically are a little milder than most of Ohio’s winters. The year after seeding legumes, forage yield declined as planting dates were delayed after early August. For each day planting was delayed after August 1, total forage dry matter yields the next year were reduced by an average of 158, 105, and 76 lbs./acre for alfalfa, red clover, and birdsfoot trefoil.  Grasses were usually less affected by later planting dates. For example, orchardgrass yields only decreased significantly when planting was delayed past late-August and perennial ryegrass yields were actually greater in late-August than in early August. However, for each day planting was delayed after August 30, yields declined 100 lb. /acre for orchardgrass and 153 lb. /acre for perennial ryegrass. Reed canarygrass, a slow establisher, was more sensitive to planting dates. Reed canarygrass yields the year after seeding declined 120 lbs. /acre for each day planting was delayed after August 1.  So the best policy is usually to plant most perennial forages as soon in August as possible, when soils conditions allow and when soil moisture is present.

    Sclerotinia crown and stem rot is a concern with no-till seedings of alfalfa in late summer and especially where clover has been present in the past. This is a pathogen that causes white mold on alfalfa seedlings. They become infected during cooler rainy spells in late October and November, the disease develops during the winter, and seedlings literally "melt away" in winter and early spring. It can be devastating where the pathogen is present. No-till is especially risky where clover has been present because the sclerotia germinate from a shallow depth. Early August plantings dramatically improve the alfalfa's ability to resist the infection. Late August seedings are very susceptible, with mid-August plantings being intermediate.

    In a no-till situation, minimize competition from existing weeds by applying a burndown application of glyphosate before planting. Post-emergence herbicide options exist for alfalfa. After the alfalfa is up and growing, late summer and fall emerging winter annual broadleaf weeds must be controlled. A mid- to late fall application of Butyrac, Pursuit or Raptor and Buctril are the primary herbicide options. Fall application is much more effective than a spring application for control of these weeds especially if wild radish/wild turnip are in the weed mix. Pursuit and Raptor can control winter annual grasses in the fall but should not be used with a mixed alfalfa/grass planting. Consult the 2016 Ohio and Indiana Weed Control Guide and always read the specific product label for guidelines on timing and rates before applying any product.

    If tillage is used to prepare the soil for planting, a firm seedbed is needed to ensure good seed-to-soil contact. Follow the "footprint guide" that soil should be firm enough for a footprint to sink no deeper than one-half inch. A pre-plant herbicide is not needed for a tilled seed bed.  Generally, the risk associated with establishing a tilled seed bed for a late summer planting is the loss of moisture.  Finally, keep in mind that any time forages are planted the following factors must be managed:

    • Soil fertility and pH: The recommended soil pH for alfalfa is 6.8. Forage grasses and clovers should have a pH of 6.0 or above. The minimum or critical soil phosphorus level for forage legumes is 25 ppm and the critical soil potassium level is somewhere between 100 and 125 ppm for many of our soils.
    • Seed selection: Be sure to use high quality seed of adapted, tested varieties and use fresh inoculum of the proper Rhizobium bacteria. “Common” seed (variety not stated) is usually lower yielding and not as persistent, and from our trials the savings in seed cost is lost within the first year or two by lower forage yields.
    • Planter calibration: If coated seed is used, be aware that coatings can account for up to one-third of the weight of the seed. This can affect the number of seeds planted if the planter is set to plant seed on a weight basis. Seed coatings can also dramatically alter how the seed flows through the drill, so be sure to calibrate the drill or planter with the seed being planted.
    • Seed placement: The recommended seeding depth for forages is one-quarter to one-half inch deep. It is better to err on the side of planting shallow rather than too deep.
    • Do not harvest a new perennial forage stand this fall. The ONLY exception to this rule is perennial and Italian ryegrass plantings, which should be mowed or harvested to a two and a half to three-inch stubble in late November to improve winter survival. All other species, especially legumes, should not be cut.
  7. Data Retention and Availability –The Big Data Confusion: Part 11

    Author(s): John Fulton,

    Data retention policies represent a set of guidelines that outlines data will be archived, how long it will be kept, how it will be removed, and either destructed or returned to the farmer.  The American Farm Bureau Federation’s “Privacy and Security Principles for Farm Data” includes the principle of Data Retention and Availability stating that “Each ATP (Ag Technology Provider) should provide for the removal, secure destruction and return of original farm data from the farmer’s account upon the request of the farmer or after a pre-agreed period of time. The ATP should include a requirement that farmers have access to the data that an ATP holds during that data retention period. ATPs should document personally identifiable data retention and availability policies and disposal procedures, and specify requirements of data under policies and procedures.”  Similar to other principles outlined in the AFBF document, the data retention and availability policies and procedures should be clear and concise so that growers are fully aware of how their data is being managed.

    Key elements of this principle include the need for famers to understand the period of time in which data will remain in an ATP’s system and if removed through a farmer’s request, is destructed or returned.  The request process to retrieve and remove data from a system should be noted in a contract with an ATP.  Farmers, who should have access to their data at all times, must understand the exact availability options provided by their ATP.  An important part of data retention and availability is the protection that comes with utilizing an ATP for data management.  Farmers need to be assured that their personally identifiable information (PII) is protected and that data is being properly destroyed to limit leaks of protected and confidential data.  Of note, GPS tagged or georeferenced data could be considered personally identifiable information, so keep this point in mind.

    Understanding how data is being stored, for how long, and how that data will be destroyed upon the termination of the agreed upon contract or retention timeline is imperative to farmers.  By having an understanding of data retention and availability policies, farmers have more power to access their own data as well as the peace of mind that the data is being stored and saved with the farmer’s best interest in mind.

Crop Observation and Recommendation Network

C.O.R.N. Newsletter is a summary of crop observations, related information, and appropriate recommendations for Ohio crop producers and industry. C.O.R.N. Newsletter is produced by the Ohio State University Extension Agronomy Team, state specialists at The Ohio State University and the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center (OARDC). C.O.R.N. Newsletter questions are directed to Extension and OARDC state specialists and associates at Ohio State.

Contributors

Amanda Bennett (Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources)
Glen Arnold, CCA (Field Specialist, Manure Nutrient Management )
Greg LaBarge, CPAg/CCA (Field Specialist, Agronomic Systems)
Jason Hartschuh, CCA (Field Specialist, Dairy & Precision Livestock)
Les Ober, CCA (Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources)
Mark Badertscher (Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources)
Sam Custer (Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources)
Sarah Noggle (Educator, Agriculture and Natural Resources)
Steve Culman (State Specialist, Soil Fertility)

Disclaimer

The information presented here, along with any trade names used, is supplied with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement is made by Ohio State University Extension is implied. Although every attempt is made to produce information that is complete, timely, and accurate, the pesticide user bears responsibility of consulting the pesticide label and adhering to those directions.

CFAES provides research and related educational programs to clientele on a nondiscriminatory basis. For an accessible format of this publication, visit cfaes.osu.edu/accessibility.