EDIBLE BEAN AGRONOMY AND PEST MANAGEMENT RESEARCH RESULTS C.L. GILLARD S. WILLIS D. DEPUYDT

EDIBLE BEAN AGRONOMY AND PEST MANAGEMENT RESEARCH RESULTS 2007 C.L. GILLARD S. WILLIS D. DEPUYDT

Table of Contents Acknowledgements. 3 Executive Summary 4 2007 Weather.. 8 Control of Anthracnose in Dry Beans with Foliar Fungicides and Seed Treatments... 9 Field Validation of Common Bacterial Blight (CBB) Resistance in Dry Bean Cultivars 35 Evaluation of Narrow Row Production Methods for Cranberry and Kidney Beans. 47 Evaluation of the Incidence of Marsh Spot in Cranberry Bean Varieties..... 53 Evaluation of Repeated Applications of Cygon at Various Rates in Dry Beans 61 Tolerance of Dry Bean Cultivars to Potato Leafhoppers. 64 Efficacy of Foliar Insecticides for Potato Leafhoppers in Dry Beans 68 Evaluation of Foliar Fungicides for Plant Health in Dry Beans 73 Herbicide and Insecticide Tankmix Efficacy in Dry Beans 78 Lentil Cover Crop Following Dry Beans 0 Dry Bean Variety Registration/Performance Trials 2 Dry Bean Variety Preliminary Yield Trials 9 Appendix A.. 117 2

Agronomy and Pest Management Research Results for Dry Edible Beans 2007 This report is a compilation of agronomy and pest management research results in dry edible beans at Ridgetown College and the Huron Research Station for 2007. It has been produced as a reference for growers and industry personnel. A number of the pesticides that are included in this report are not currently registered for use in dry edible beans in Ontario. Always follow label directions when applying pesticides. Acknowledgments Funding for this research was received from: Agricultural Adaptation Council CanAdvance Program Syngenta Crop Protection The Ontario White Bean Producers Dupont Canada Summer Experience Program The Ontario Coloured Bean Growers BASF Canada Bayer Crop Protection Summer Career Placement Program The Bean Team Steve Willis Chris Gillard Don Depuydt Student Assistance by: Allison Vandermeer Laura McKenzie Diane Murray John Stuart Matt Wick Katarina Komesarovic Copyright by University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus Ridgetown Ontario Canada N0P 2C0 Telephone: (519) 674-1632 Facimile (519)674-1600 Email:cgillard@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY For each of the following summaries, there are individual reports attached that will provide additional details and data summaries for the reader. 2007 Weather Heat unit accumulation for 2007 was average to above average at all locations. Temperatures were quite moderate all summer, with little extreme heat. Precipitation was generally below average for the entire growing season. The Brussels and Wingham area was particularly hard hit. Irrigation was used for much of July to minimize plant stress. By August, the pond was low, and irrigation water had to be rationed. Harvest proceeded quickly, with few rain delays. The stems of later maturing bean plants stayed green and this made threshing difficult at times. A killing frost was not observed until late in November. Anthracnose Experiments This was the third year for the national anthracnose project. The project has three objectives: - develop a rapid DNA based test to detect anthracnose in seed and plant samples - develop new IPM tools by surveying the disease races present in commercial fields, develop a comprehensive list of genetic resistance present in commercial varieties, and fill in gaps in existing chemical and cultural control measures. - develop breeding lines with pyramided genes for resistance Collaborating partners in the project include Dr. R. Conner and Dr. P. Balasubaramanian at AAFC Morden, and Dr. G. Boland at U of Guelph. A number of field studies, including seed treatment and foliar fungicide experiments, were completed in 2006. The data will be summarized and published in a refereed journal article. A number of other experiments will be completed before the project is finished in early 2009. The crop rotation experiments were established in 2005 and 2006 in Ontario, and 2006 and 2007 in Morden MB. To date, the disease has survived in infected residue for two years in the longest running experiment. Studies detailing disease movement will be repeated in 2008. In Ontario, dry weather in 2007 resulted in the lowest anthracnose disease pressure in three years. In Morden, good precipitation and moderate temperatures resulted in good disease pressure. Control of Anthracnose with Seed Treatments The purpose of the study was to measure the efficacy of the foliar fungicides Quadris and Headline with and without a crop oil concentrate surfactant. The fungicides were compared alone, or with two seed treatment combinations (Apron Maxx + Dynasty or DCT). The disease pressure was lower than normal, due to dry weather conditions. All of the fungicide treatments were better than the untreated check. However, differences between the seed treatment and foliar fungicide treatments were inconsistent, due to low disease pressure. An analysis of crop value suggests a return of $116-121 for a single foliar fungicide application, and a return of $7-120 for a seed treatment application. Field Validation of Common Bacterial Blight (CBB) Resistance in Dry Bean Cultivars A total of eleven white, black and dark red kidney lines were tested from breeding programs at Guelph, Harrow (Ag Canada, Soon Park), Michigan State (J. Kelly) and Hyland Seeds (J. Van Herk). Clear differences in disease severity were seen between susceptible checks (Envoy, AC Compass, and Navigator), moderately resistant (HR67, OAC02-2 and USDK-CBB-15) and resistant lines (HR45, HR164, HR145, OAC Rex, OAC07-2, OAC06-B1, T601 and MSU05055), particularly in the experiment inoculated with CBB. Inoculation with Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli resulted in a mean yield reduction of 35% in the 4

susceptible lines, and only 20% in the resistant material. This indicates that the resistance gene(s) had a significant protective effect in fields challenged with the pathogen. In addition, it is clear that the resistance trait has been transferred to black beans (HR145, OAC06-B1 and MSU05055). The Response of Cranberry and Kidney Varieties to Narrow Row Production Methods Two cranberry (Hooter/Etna) and two kidney (Red Hawk/Red Kanner) varieties were compared under two row width management systems (76 and 38 cm) at three locations (Thorndale, Exeter and the Huron Research Station) in 2006 and two locations (Thorndale and the Huron Research Station) in 2007. The varieties were selected on their popularity, and differences in maturity and architecture. Seeding rates were increased by 25% in the narrow row system. In 2006, some variation in plant stands was noticed between varieties, in each row width so in 2007 each plot was overplanted, and thinned at five weeks after planting. The narrow row system produced significantly higher yields at each site in each year of the study, The yield advantage of the narrow row system in the four studies was 258, 287, 158 and 276 kg/ha. In a combined analysis, there was no significant effect due to environment, market class or variety (data not shown). In the combined analysis, the average yield advantage for the narrow row system was 244 kg/ha (2.15 bags/acre). Evaluation of Marsh Spot in Dry Beans The cranberry cultivars entered into the variety trials at the Kippen, Thorndale and St. Thomas locations were evaluated for marsh spot and compared to Messina, a highly susceptible cultivar which was also planted at each trial location. Marsh spot was quite noticeable at the Thorndale site. HR161-4199 and HR167-4099 had marsh spot scores equal to Messina. This agrees with results from 2006. The cranberry cultivars entered into a preliminary yield trial at Kippen and Thorndale were compared to Messina for marsh spot incidence and severity. The breeding line BD04 was equal to or worse than Messina at each location. The breeding lines BD02 and BD03 were equal to Messina at the Thorndale location. This research will continue in 2008. Evaluation of Repeated Applications of Cygon at Various Rates on White Beans Three rates of Cygon (25, 50 and 0% of the label rate) were applied three times to two dry bean varieties (T9905 and SVM Taylor), to document the impact of repeated applications of Cygon on dry bean cultivars. Insecticide application was done every two weeks for a six week period. A standard PLH nymph threshold was used to initiate the timing of the first insecticide application. No differences in yield were recorded. This research has been conducted for five years, and there is no evidence that repeated applications of Cygon, even at the full label rate, have any effect on yield. A combined analysis of the data is needed to determine the treatment response over environments. Tolerance of Dry Bean Cultivars to Potato Leafhoppers A study at the Huron Research Station evaluated nine potato leafhopper (PLH) tolerant breeding lines to three susceptible white (OAC Thunder, OAC Silvercreek, OAC Rex) and one very susceptible brown (Berna) cultivar. PLH populations were considered low for most of the growing season. The tolerant lines had lower PLH nymph counts and leaf burn scores than Berna, but the tolerant lines were no better than the susceptible white bean cultivars. There were not clear trends in yield. Efficacy of Foliar Insecticides for the Control of Potato Leafhoppers Two experimental insecticides were compared to standard insecticides (Matador and Cygon) for the control of potato leafhoppers (PLH). The treatments were applied in two experiments (white 5

and Berna brown beans) at the Huron Research Station. PLH nymphs appeared at the unifoliate leaf stage, but populations did not increase dramatically until pod filling stage of crop development. The experimental insecticide treatments consistently controlled PLH nymphs for up to three weeks, which was equal to the control provided by Matador. The product Cygon tended to provide the best PLH control. The PLH pressure was not sufficient to provide yield differences in either experiment. Efficacy of Foliar Fungicides for Plant Health in Dry Beans The purpose of the experiment was to measure the effect of foliar fungicides on plant health, in the absence of any disease pressure. In 2006, Quadris and Headline were tested at ½ and full label rates in four replicated studies. Each study used a different bean cultivar (OAC Rex, T9905, Red Hawk and Etna). In each experiment, the fungicides had no effect on yield. A combined analysis over locations did not identify any significant yield responses. The treatment list was doubled this year, to include a crop oil concentrate surfactant with each rate of Quadris and Headline. Four studies were done, each using a different bean cultivar (OAC Rex, T9905, Red Hawk and Etna). In each experiment, the fungicides had no effect on yield. A combined analysis over locations did not identify any significant yield responses (data not shown). A combined analysis of the original 4 treatments (1/2 rate Quardris, full rate Quadris, ½ rate Headline and full rate Headline) combined over 8 locations over two years, did not identify any significant yield response (data not shown). It is our conclusion that the yield response to fungicide application is quite small, in the absence of any disease pressure. Herbicide and Insecticide Tankmixes in Dry Beans A total of four tankmix experiments were established at the Huron Research Station. The first experiment determined the efficacy of herbicide/insecticide tankmixes on annual grass weeds and potato leafhopper (PLH) populations. The second experiment evaluated the efficacy of broadleaf herbicide/insecticide tankmixes. The last two experiments determined the tolerance of two dry bean market classes (white and cranberry) to various grass herbicide/insecticide and broadleaf herbicide/insecticide tankmixes. The cranberry tolerance experiment was abandoned after planting due to a seeding error. PLH were present in the crop early, but populations were low for most of the growing season. In the efficacy experiments, the herbicide/insecticide tankmixes controlled PLH from 27-33 days after application, compared to the control. There were almost no differences between the herbicide/insecticide combinations evaluated. In the tolerance experiment, the herbicide + Matador treatments had higher PLH scores than the herbicide + Cygon treatments. These results agree with previous insecticide efficacy studies. Differences between the herbicide treatments were not detectable. Lentil Covercrops After A Dry Bean Crop This study evaluates the feasibility of using extra small red lentil seed as a cover crop following dry beans. Lentil seed was applied following cranberry and kidney bean harvest in the fall of 2006. Plant development and nutrient uptake was measured. Three tillage treatments were applied (chisel, disk and control), with four replicates per treatment. Plant populations and plant fresh and dry weights were measured following the tillage treatments. By April 2007, there was no visible evidence that the lentil plants had overwintered. Variety Evaluation Trials There were 5 registration/performance trials planted in 2007. The Brussels location (whites) suffered severe drought stress, yet still produced acceptable results (C.V. =.2). The Kippen 6

location (white, major coloured, minor coloured) was an excellent looking site, despite some variability due to drought. The trials results were very good with C.V. ranging from 3.4-8.3. The Thorndale location (major coloured) had good plant stands and good early season growth. A late season drought pressure caused some variability in results, but the results were still very good (C.V. = 8.0). Cranberry and kidney entries were tested for halo blight infection if the seed was produced in Ontario. Testing was done by Saskatchewan Wheat Producers lab, and the cost was borne by the sponsor of the entry. Several entries were found to have moderate Pseudomonas infection. These lines were removed from the entry list for 2007. There was no halo blight infection at any location in 2007. The Kemptville white bean trial data has been added to this report, to provide this information to the participants in the trial. This site was rejected, due to white mold disease pressure. It was not inspected by an OPCC member. Preliminary Yield Trials There were 6 preliminary yield trials (PYT) planted in 2007. The primary site was the Kippen location, with cultivars separated into 4 trials based on market class and suitability for wide or narrow row production. The narrow row PYT trial tested 21 white bean lines from 8 institutions (ADM, Co-op, Pro-Vita, Rogers, ISB, MSU, Seminis and Gentec). The wide row PYT trial tested 28 kidney and cranberry lines from 12 institutions (Cornell, WSU, ADM, MSU, ARS, Asgrow, Gentec, Seminis, U of Idaho, Basin, Seedway, Rogers). A second narrow row PYT trial tested 27 black and miscellaneous (pink, adzuki, white kidney, otebo, pinto) lines from 12 institutions (Seminis, Co-op, ADM, Gentec, MSU, Hyland, Patterson, Rogers, Cornell, NDSU, HDC, Pro-Vita). A final wide row PYT trial tested selected white, black and miscellaneous lines from 6 institutions (Hyland, MSU, ISB, HRS, HED, WSU). Secondary PYT trials were set up for the first time at Thorndale and Brussels. At Brussels, a narrow row PYT trial tested 7 lines selected from the narrow row PYT trials at Kippen. At Thorndale, a wide row PYT trial tested 9 lines selected from the wide row PYT trials at Kippen. The Preliminary Yield Trials were planted at the same time as the Registration and Performance Trials at each location, and common check cultivars were used in each trial. This will allow for some comparisons to be made between the PYT entries and the entries from the official trials. 7

2007 Heat Unit and Precipitation Summary for Ridgetown, Exeter and Brussels Ontario Corn Heat Units (OCHU) Huron Research (Exeter) Brussels Ridgetown College Norm Norm Norm Month 2007 2006 (29 yr) 2007 2006 (19 yr) 2007 2006 (35 yr) May 381 298 336 138 308 288 481 464 358 June 687 636 650 640 612 603 671 640 684 July 735 809 774 706 779 701 723 807 797 August 757 731 741 723 645 677 760 736 769 September 625 555 546 568 418 437 602 527 579 October 48 194 62 0 159 32 507 207 199 Total 3233 2945 39 2775 2921 2738 3744 3381 3386 Precipitation (mm) Huron Research (Exeter) Brussels Ridgetown College Norm Norm Norm Month 2007 2006 (29 yr) 2007 2006 (19yr) 2007 2006 (35 yr) May 44 28 81 48 57 92 62 84 78 June 56 30 78 57 54 90 34 57 75 July 31 78 79 55 179 85 68 98 80 August 2 91 69 61 48 90 92 76 92 September 66 60 8 55 97 4 46 1 88 October 67 174 85 69 134 75 118 65 Total 366 461 500 345 569 536 311 543 477 20% or more below average 20% or more above average 8

TITLE: CONTROL OF ANTHRACNOSE IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS WITH NO LESIONS USING DIFFERENT FOLIAR FUNGICIDE AND TWO DIFFERENT SEED TREATMENTS (EXETER) CROP: Edible beans, Common white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cv. OAC Rex, common white bean PEST: Anthracnose, Colletotrichum lindemuthianumi NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS S., DEPUYDT D., Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: cgillard@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca MATERIALS: APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 3.8g + 2.5g ai/ha.); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w 197.6 & 98.9 g ai/ha) QUADRIS 250 SC (azoxystrobin 125g ai/ha); HEADLINE (pyraclostrobin 0g ai/ha) ; Dynasty (azoxystrobin 1.0 g ai/0 kg seed) ; Agral 90 (non-ionic surfactant 90% a.i.) ; Kornoil Concentrate (paraffin based mineral oil 83% ai./emulsifer 17% ai.) METHODS: The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of Headline and Quadris, with and without Kornoil concentrate, alone and in combination with two seed treatments (DCT and Apron Maxx/Dynasty). The seed for this trial was obtained from previous studies.the disease pressure was modified by using mixtures of seed with and without visible anthracnose lesions. The seed was sorted using a SORTEX ELECTRIC EYE which separated the seed into white and off-white seed. The off-white seed was an assortment of some light green and grey seeds, but most had anthracnose lesions. For the remainder of this report the off-white seed will be called seed with lesions. All of the seed used in this experiment was infected, but had no visible lesions. The trial was set up using a RCBD with 4 replications. Plots contained 5 rows which were 0.43 m apart and 6.0 m in length. The centre 3 rows contained the infected white beans and the outside two rows contained soybeans. The soybean rows were used to help prevent disease transmission from plot to plot. The seeding rate was 18 seeds per metre for the white beans and 25 seeds per metre for the soybeans. The trial was planted at a farm near Exeter on 14 June 2007 using a five-row cone-seeder with John Deere Max Emerge planter units. The fungicides were sprayed using a CO 2 pressurized sprayer with three - 002 BILLERICAY AIR BUBBLE NOZZLES spaced at 50 cm, at 346kPa (50 psi) in 200 L/ha water. Sentinel plots were set using all the untreated infected plots. Each plot had ten random plants identified with plastic corn tags. Every 2-3 days these tagged plants had severity rating done. This provided the timetable for doing general rating on the all the trials. These observations also provided an overview of when the disease started to spread as well as the speed of the disease. Assessments for crop emergence and vigour were done using the middle 4 meter long area located in the centre row of the three infected rows of the plot. Plant emergence was assessed for 3 weeks starting on 1 week after planting (WAP). Plant emergence ratings were then converted to a percentage of seed planted. Plant vigour was assessed using a scale of 0 - (0 = best plant development and = poorest plant development) and was assessed for 2 weeks starting at 2 WAP. Disease ratings were accessed on leaves and pods. Leaf ratings were done for 2 weeks, starting at 7 WAP, by observing the percentage of the leaf vein area that was purple. Pod disease severity ratings were done 2 weeks, starting at 7 WAP. A disease index which combines destroyed pods with a % damage rating on the remaining pods was documented. A 4 meter section from the centre of the three infected rows was harvested on Sept 17. The seed from each plot was weighed and the seed moisture was measured. The seed was then put through a hand sieve with a X ¾ screen (industry standard). The difference between the weight before and the weight after was calculated as a percent dockage. A weight of 0 randomly selected seeds from each plot was obtained. Of these 0 seeds a weight of the seeds rejected for discolouration and/or misshapen 9

appearance was established as a percent and called pick. The dry bean industry uses larger sample (minimum 500 grams) to determine the pick but this is not practical for this study. A visual seed quality rating was done using a 1 to 5 scale (1 = excellent seed quality and 5 = poor seed quality). The yield was calculated using all of the seed harvested from each plot, after cleaning to remove any foreign material. Each plot weight was adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%, and then converted to kg/ha. The value of the crop ($/acre) was determined by reducing the seed yield for two possible quality deficiencies; dockage and pick. Dockage (undersized seed and diseased splits) is removed as a straight percentage. For pick (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) the percentage is doubled (as per industry standards) to allow not only for the actual poor seed but also for the cost of removing that seed. The remaining large clean seed yield was adjusted to a yield per acre, and multiplied by a price of $0.25 per pound to calculate a value per acre. In calculating the value of the crop, the goal was to mirror the grading standards used by the dry bean industry for commercial production as much as possible. RESULTS: See Tables 1, Figures 1,2. CONCLUSIONS: Hot dry weather conditions from planting until mid-august resulted in excellent plant growth and very light disease pressure. Percent disease incidence on leaves in the sentinel plants was recorded starting on July 23. Rain on August 7 and lower temperatures starting August 17 (Figure 2) increased the disease pressure exponentially (Figure 1), while higher than average temperatures on Aug 23-24 caused a lag in disease development. Favourable environmental conditions for disease development came very late, and the total disease damage was less than levels recorded in last 3 years. There were few consistent differences between treatments for crop emergence (Table 1). Treatments containing DCT tended to have better crop vigour at 2 WAP, but these differences were less pronounced by 3 WAP (Table 2). All of the fungicide treatments were significantly better than the untreated check and the COC treatment for leaf disease (Table 4), pod disease (Table 5), crop seed assessment (Table 7) and crop value assessment (Table 8). No consistent differences were found between the seed treatments and the foliar fungicide treatments. This is demonstrated in the analysis of variance in Table 9. The seed treatments tended to provide better early season disease protection. The return on investment favoured DCT + a foliar fungicide, compared to other treatment combinations. Total disease control was not possible with up to four applications of fungicide (treatment 2). In order to better estimate the severity of pod damage an index was designed (Table 6) to allow for pods already destroyed. Shriveled pods (< 50 % in size of a normal sized pod) were counted as 0 % destroyed and the remaining pods had a damage estimate done (using the % of the pod area with lesions). No differences were found between the seed treatments and the foliar fungicide treatments. Tables documents the return in crop value for specific treatments. A single foliar fungicide application increased crop value by $116 per acre. An application of seed treatment increased crop value by $7.

Figure # 1 Sentinel plot disease severity ratings in white beans at Exeter, ON. 2007 Comparison of Lesion to Non Lesion on Navy Bean Leaves.00 9.00 Percentage of Leaf Infection 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 No lesion severity Lesion severity 0.00 23-Jul 26-Jul 30-Jul 3-Aug 8-Aug -Aug 13-Aug 16-Aug 20-Aug 24-Aug 27-Aug 31-Aug Date Figure # 2 Temperature and Rainfall Conditions for the nearest Weather Station 2007 HRS Weather July 23-Aug 29 2007 degrees celsius 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0.0 5.0 Average Temperature 21 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0.0 mm per day 0.0 23-Jul 28-Jul 2-Aug 7-Aug 12-Aug 17-Aug 22-Aug 27-Aug 0.0 Average Temperature Rainfall 11

Table 1. Foliar application timing for the foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2007 Treatment Timing 2 Rate Per Product ha 36 (July 20) 1 Infected Seed Check Days After Planting (date) 48 (Aug 1) 55 (Aug 8) 67 (Aug 20) 2 Quadris ABCD 500 ml. * * * * 3 Headline + Agral 90 B 400 ml.+.2% * v/v 4 Quadris B 500 ml. * 5 Quadris + COC B 500 ml. +1% v/v * 6 Headline B 400 ml. * 7 Headline + COC B 400 ml. +1% v/v * 8 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty 9 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris B 500 ml. * Apron Maxx RTA + 500 ml. Dynasty + Quadris + B +1% v/v COC * 11 Apron Maxx RTA + B 400 ml. * 12 Dynasty + Headline Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Headline + COC 13 DCT B 400 ml. +1% v/v 14 DCT + Quadris B 500 ml. * 15 DCT + Quadris + COC B 500 ml. +1% v/v * 16 DCT + Headline B 400 ml. * 17 DCT + Headline + COC B 400 ml. +1% v/v * 18 COC B 1% v/v * * indicates when the foliar fungicides was applied 2 Timing A = 5 th trifoliate leaf stage, Timing B = mid flower, Timing C = late flower, Timing D = days after late flower * 12

Table 2 Crop Emergence the foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2007 Treatment Product Rate (g/0 kg seed or ml/ha) % Crop Emergence 1 WAP 2 WAP 3 WAP 1 Infected Seed Check 70 e 84 f 89 cde 2 Quadris 80 cde 89 def 92 b-e 3 Headline + Agral 90 400 ml.+.2% v/v 81 cde 86 ef 84 e 4 Quadris 500 ml. 84 a-d 97 abc 97 ab 5 Quadris + COC 500 ml. +1% v/v 73 de 86 ef 89 cde 6 Headline 400 ml. 80 cde 94 a-d 91 b-e 7 Headline + COC 400 ml. +1% v/v 84 a-d 90 c-f 88 de 8 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty 80 cde 91 b-f 91 b-e Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + 9 Quadris 500 ml. 82 b-e 94 a-d 96 a-d Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris + COC 500 ml. +1% v/v 79 cde 88 def 91 b-e Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + 11 Headline 400 ml. 85 a-d 95 a-d 96 abc Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + 12 Headline + COC 400 ml. +1% v/v 84 a-d 91 c-f 92 b-e 13 DCT 91 abc 97 abc 97 abc 14 DCT + Quadris 500 ml. 85 a-d 99 ab 97 abc 15 DCT + Quadris + COC 500 ml. +1% v/v 93 ab 97 abc 96 a-d 16 DCT + Headline 400 ml. 95 a 2 a 1 a 17 DCT + Headline + COC 400 ml. +1% v/v 87 abc 92 b-e 96 a-d 18 COC 1% v/v 81 cde 90 c-f 90 b-e Mean 83 92 93 PR>F 0.0 0.0 0.0 LSD (P=. 05) 11.5 7.9 8.2 CV 9.8 6.0 6.2 13

Table 3 Crop Vigour for the foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2007 Treatment Timing % Crop Vigour (0-) 2 WAP 3 WAP 1 Infected Seed Check 3.0 a 2.5 a 2 Quadris ABCD 3.0 a 2.3 ab 3 Headline + Agral 90 B 2.5 abc 2.0 abc 4 Quadris B 2.8 ab 1.3 cd 5 Quadris + COC B 2.0 b-e 1.8 a-d 6 Headline B 2.3 a-d 1.5 bcd 7 Headline + COC B 2.8 ab 2.5 a 8 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty 2.3 a-d 2.3 ab 9 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris B 2.5 abc 1.5 bcd Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris + COC B 2.3 a-d 1.8 a-d Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + 11 Headline B 2.5 abc 2.0 abc Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + 12 Headline + COC B 2.5 abc 2.0 abc 13 DCT 1.5 def 1.5 bcd 14 DCT + Quadris B 1.8 c-f 1.8 a-d 15 DCT + Quadris + COC B 1.3 ef 1.0 d 16 DCT + Headline B 1.0 f 1.0 d 17 DCT + Headline + COC B 1.0 f 2.0 abc 18 COC B 2.0 b-e 2.0 abc Mean 2.2 1.8 PR>F 0.0 0.0 LSD (P=. 05) 0.8 0.9 CV 26.2 35.5 14

Table 4. Leaf vein ratings in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2007 Treatment Timing Leaf Vein Rating 7 WAP 9 WAP 1 Infected Seed Check 2.7 a 9.6 a 2 Quadris ABCD 0.0 c 0.3 b 3 Headline + Agral 90 B 0.1 c 1.3 b 4 Quadris B 0.2 c 1.1 b 5 Quadris + COC B 0.5 bc 1.5 b 6 Headline B 0.3 c 1.1 b 7 Headline + COC B 0.0 c 0.9 b 8 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty 0.0 c 0.3 b 9 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris B 0.5 bc 0.7 b Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris + COC B 0.1 c 0.5 b Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + 11 Headline B 0.1 c 0.2 b Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + 12 Headline + COC B 0.3 c 0.2 b 13 DCT 0.4 bc 1.0 b 14 DCT + Quadris B 0.0 c 0.3 b 15 DCT + Quadris + COC B 0.0 c 0.7 b 16 DCT + Headline B 0.0 c 0.2 b 17 DCT + Headline + COC B 0.0 c 0.8 b 18 COC B 1.4 b.5 a Mean 0.4 1.7 PR>F 0.0 0.0 LSD (P=. 05) 1.1 3.5 CV 202.7 140.6 15

Table 5. Severity of pod lesions in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, ON 2007. Treatment Timing Pod Rating 7 WAP 9 WAP 1 Infected Seed Check 3.2 a 4.4 a 2 Quadris ABCD 0.1 b 0.2 d 3 Headline + Agral 90 B 0.3 b 2.3 b 4 Quadris B 0.2 b 0.9 bcd 5 Quadris + COC B 0.5 b 2.0 bc 6 Headline B 0.9 b 1.4 bcd 7 Headline + COC B 0.3 b 0.5 cd 8 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty 0.0 b 0.1 d 9 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris B 0.0 b 0.1 d Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris + COC B 0.0 b 0.0 d Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + 11 Headline B 0.0 b 0.0 d Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + 12 Headline + COC B 0.1 b 0.0 d 13 DCT 0.0 b 0.4 cd 14 DCT + Quadris B 0.0 b 0.0 d 15 DCT + Quadris + COC B 0.0 b 0.1 d 16 DCT + Headline B 0.0 b 0.0 d 17 DCT + Headline + COC B 0.0 b 0.3 cd 18 COC B 3.0 a 5.5 a Mean 0.5 1.0 PR>F 0.0 0.0 LSD (P=. 05) 1.4 1.8 CV 2.2 125.9 16

Table 6. Severity of pod lesions in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, Ontario 2007 Treatment Timing Severity of Pod Lesions (12 WAP) % Pod Area With Lesions % of Pods Destroyed Pod Destruction Index ** 1 Infected Seed Check 8 a 5 a 12 a 2 Quadris ABCD 0 b 0 b 0 cd 3 Headline + Agral 90 B 2 b 0 b 2 cd 4 Quadris B 2 b 1 b 3 cd 5 Quadris + COC B 2 b 2 ab 4 bc 6 Headline B 2 b 1 b 3 cd 7 Headline + COC B 0 b 0 b 0 cd 8 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty 0 b 0 b 0 cd 9 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris B 0 b 0 b 0 d Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris + COC B 0 b 0 b 0 d 11 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Headline B 0 b 0 b 0 d 12 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Headline + COC B 0 b 0 b 0 d 13 DCT 0 b 1 b 1 cd 14 DCT + Quadris B 0 b 0 b 0 d 15 DCT + Quadris + COC B 0 b 0 b 0 d 16 DCT + Headline B 0 b 0 b 0 d 17 DCT + Headline + COC B 0 b 0 b 0 cd 18 COC B 7 a 0 b 7 b Mean 1 1 2 PR>F 0.0 0.3 0.0 LSD (P=. 05) 2.3 3.2 4.0 CV 119.2 406.9 153.8 ** pod destruction index = (0%*%of dest. pods) + (% pod area with lesions*(1- % of dest.pods))*0 17

Table 7. Seed quality ratings of pod lesions in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, Ontario 2007 Treatment Timing Seed Moisture Crop Seed Assessment 0 Seed Weight Seed Quality Dockage 1 Infected Seed Check 14.9 cd 21.6 ef 2.6 a 1.4 ab.5 a 2 Quadris ABCD 14.6 d 22.4 b-e 1.1 cd 0.9 bcd 1.3 bc 3 Headline + Agral 90 B 15.9 a-d 22.2 de 1.4 bcd 0.9 cd 2.8 bc 4 Quadris B 15.7 a-d 22.3 cde 1.6 bc 0.7 d 5.0 b 5 Quadris + COC B 14.9 cd 22.0 def 1.9 b 0.7 d 3.2 bc 6 Headline B 15.9 a-d 22.4 b-e 1.4 bcd 0.7 d 2.3 bc 7 Headline + COC B 16.4 ab 22.5 a-d 1.4 bcd 0.8 cd 2.3 bc Apron Maxx RTA + 8 15.5 a-d 22.5 a-d 1.5 bcd 0.7 d 0.8 c Dynasty Apron Maxx RTA + 9 B 15.4 bcd 22.6 a-d 1.0 d 0.8 d 0.0 c Dynasty + Quadris Apron Maxx RTA + B 16.5 ab 22.1 de 1.0 d 0.9 bcd 1.2 c Dynasty + Quadris + COC Apron Maxx RTA + 11 B 16.0 a-d 23.2 a 1.0 d 0.6 d 0.2 c Dynasty + Headline Apron Maxx RTA + 12 B 16.0 a-d 23.1 ab 1.0 d 0.5 d 0.0 c Dynasty + Headline + COC 13 DCT 15.8 a-d 21.6 ef 1.5 bcd 1.1 bcd 3.1 bc 14 DCT + Quadris B 16.0 a-d 22.0 def 1.1 cd 1.4 abc 1.2 c 15 DCT + Quadris + COC B 15.6 a-d 23.0 abc 1.1 cd 0.7 d 0.3 c 16 DCT + Headline B 16.9 a 22.3 b-e 1.1 cd 1.0 bcd 0.8 c 17 DCT + Headline + COC B 16.3 abc 22.2 de 1.1 cd 0.9 bcd 0.8 c 18 COC B 15.8 a-d 21.3 f 3.0 a 1.8 a 12.5 a Mean 15.8 22.3 1.4 0.9 2.7 PR>F 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LSD (P=. 05) 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.6 3.8 CV 6.4 2.5 26.2 45.7 99.1 Pick 18

Table 8. Crop Value Assessment of pod lesions in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (no lesions) at Exeter, Ontario 2007 Treatment Timing Yield (kg ha 1 ) Crop Value Assessment Value ($ per ac.) 1 Infected Seed Check 2434 cd 422.79 d Additional Value ($ per ac.) Additional Costs* ($ per ac.) Return on Investment ($ per ac.) 2 Quadris ABCD 2606 abc 561.59 abc 138.8 120.36 18.44 3 Headline + Agral 90 B 2634 abc 550.12 abc 127.33 27.27 0.06 4 Quadris B 2630 abc 524.33 bc 1.54 30.09 71.45 5 Quadris + COC B 2622 abc 543.48 abc 120.69 32.67 88.02 6 Headline B 2612 abc 553.54 abc 130.75 24.69 6.06 7 Headline + COC B 2669 ab 562.31 abc 139.52 27.27 112.25 Apron Maxx RTA + 8 2490 abc 542.39 abc 119.6 4.07 115.53 Dynasty Apron Maxx RTA + 9 B 2625 abc 580.96 ab 158.17 34.16 124.01 Dynasty + Quadris Apron Maxx RTA + B 2476 abc 534.05 abc 111.26 36.74 74.52 Dynasty + Quadris + COC Apron Maxx RTA + 11 B 2579 abc 569.41 abc 146.63 28.76 117.87 Dynasty + Headline Apron Maxx RTA + 12 B 2565 abc 569.27 abc 146.48 31.34 115.14 Dynasty + Headline + COC 13 DCT 2496 abc 516.47 c 93.68 5.78 87.9 14 DCT + Quadris B 2434 cd 522.00 bc 99.21 35.87 63.34 15 DCT + Quadris + COC B 2647 abc 583.28 ab 160.49 38.45 122.04 16 DCT + Headline B 2698 a 587.19 a 164.41 30.47 133.94 17 DCT + Headline + COC B 2466 bc 537.71 abc 114.91 33.05 81.86 18 COC B 2232 d 365.23 d -57.56.58-68.14 Mean 2551 534.78 PR>F 0.0 0.0 LSD (P=. 05) 223.5 62.5 CV 6.2 8.3 Seed Treatments had no application costs attached. * 2007 grower list price : Headline $ 16.69 /ac., Quadris $ 22.09/ac., Apron Maxx/Dynasty $ 4.07/ac., DCT $ 5.78/ac, COC or Agral 90 $ 2.58/ac. * foliar application rate $ 8.00 /ac 19

Table 9. Variance Analysis of No Lesion Anthracnose Foliar or Seed Treatments on the Crop Value 1 per Acre. Source Individual Trial Treatments df SS MS F-value P >F Blocks 3 31278 426 5.34 0.00 Treatments 17 214894 12641 6.48 0.00 Maximum Foliar (*ABC) vs. Control #2 vs. #1 (1) 38534 38534 19.74 0.00 Minimum Foliar (*B) vs. Control # 4, #6 vs. #1 (1) 35973 3597 18.43 0.00 Quadris vs. Headline Quadris COC vs. Quadris Quadris COC vs. Headline #4,#5,#9,#, #14,#15 vs. #6, #7,#11,#12, #16,#17 #5,#,#15 vs. #4,#9,#14 #5,#,#15 vs. #6,#11,#16 (1) 2782 2782 1.42 0.24 (1) 749 749 0.38 0.54 (1) 1624 1624 0.83 0.37 Seed Treatment vs. Control #8,#13 vs. # 1 (1) 30328 30328 15.54 0.00 ApronMaxx & Dynasty vs. Control #8 vs. #1 (1) 28611 28611 14.66 0.00 DCT vs. Control #13 vs. #1 (1) 17553 17553 8.99 0.00 ApronMaxx/Dynasty + Foliar vs. DCT + Foliar # 8-12 vs. #13-17 (1) 277 277 0.14 0.71 Error 51 99555 1952 * indicates when the foliar fungicides was applied Timing A = 5 th trifoliate leaf stage, Timing B = mid flower, Timing C = late flower, Timing D = days after late flower 1 Final Value Per Acre is : [yield (lbs/ac.)] * [ 1- dockage (%)] * [ 2 * [1- pick(%)]] * value of a pound of beans ($.25/lb)*** *** dockage is removed as a straight percentage *** pick is doubled not only to allow for the discoloured seed but also the cost of removing it Note : Bartlett s test for homogeneity of variances has failed for pick. 20

Table. Numerical Differences and Standard Error for the Contrasts Partitions of Treatment Means for the Anthracnose Foliar or Seed Treatment s Crop Value 1 per Acre Parameter 2 Individual Trial Treatments $ Value Difference Standard Error P >F Maximum Foliar (*ABC) vs. Control #2 vs. #1 139 31 0.00 Minimum Foliar (*B) vs. Control # 4, #6 vs. #1 116 27 0.00 Quadris vs. Headline Quadris COC vs. Quadris Quadris COC vs. Headline #4,#5,#9,#, #14,#15 vs. #6, #7,#11,#12, #16,#17 #5,#,#15 vs. #4,#9,#14 #5,#,#15 vs. #6,#11,#16-30 26 0.24 11 11 0.54-16 18 0.37 Seed Treatment vs. Control #8,#13 vs. # 1 7 27 0.00 ApronMaxx & Dynasty vs. Control #8 vs. #1 120 31 0.00 DCT vs. Control #13 vs. #1 94 31 0.00 ApronMaxx/Dynasty + Foliar Vs DCT + Foliar # 9-12 vs. #14-17 - 6 16 0.71 * indicates when the foliar fungicides was applied Timing A = 5 th trifoliate leaf stage, Timing B = mid flower, Timing C = late flower, Timing D = days after late flower 1 Final Value Per Acre is : [yield (lbs/ac.)] * [ 1- dockage (%)] * [ 2 * [1- pick(%)]] * value of a pound of beans ($.25/lb)*** *** dockage is removed as a straight percentage *** pick is doubled not only to allow for the discoloured seed but also the cost of removing it 2 The comparison of Maximum Foliar (*ABC) vs. Control for example would read the Maximum Foliar (treatment or treatments) has or have a $ 139.00 value advantage over the control (treatment or treatments). As seen in Chart #1 this comparison shows a highly significant difference as indicated by the P > F value < 0.001. Note : Bartlett s test for homogeneity of variances has failed for pick 21

TITLE: CONTROL OF ANTHRACNOSE IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS WITH LESIONS USING DIFFERENT FOLIAR FUNGICIDE AND TWO DIFFERENT SEED TREATMENTS (EXETER) CROP: Edible beans, Common white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cv. OAC Rex, common white bean PEST: Anthracnose, Colletotrichum lindemuthianumi NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS S., DEPUYDT D., Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: cgillard@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca MATERIALS: APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 3.8g + 2.5g ai/ha.); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w 197.6 & 98.9 g ai/ha) QUADRIS 250 SC (azoxystrobin 125g ai/ha); HEADLINE (pyraclostrobin 0g ai/ha) ; Dynasty (azoxystrobin 1.0 g ai/0 kg seed) ; Agral 90 (non-ionic surfactant 90% a.i.) ; Kornoil Concentrate (paraffin based mineral oil 83% ai./emulsifier 17% ai.) METHODS: The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy of Headline and Quadris, with and without Kornoil concentrate, alone and in combination with two seed treatments (DCT and Apron Maxx/Dynasty). The seed for this trial was obtained from previous studies. The disease pressure was modified by using mixtures of seed with and without visible anthracnose lesions. The seed was sorted using a SORTEX ELECTRIC EYE which separated the seed into white and off-white seed. The off-white seed was an assortment of some light green and grey seeds, but most had anthracnose lesions. For the remainder of this report the off-white seed will be called seed with lesions. The seed used in this experiment was infected, and was a mixture of seed with visible lesions, and seed without visible lesions. The trial was set up using a RCBD with 4 replications. Plots contained 5 rows which were 0.43 m apart and 6.0 m in length. The centre 3 rows contained the infected white beans and the outside two rows contained soybeans. The soybean rows were used to help prevent disease transmission from plot to plot. The seeding rate was 18 seeds per metre for the white beans and 25 seeds per metre for the soybeans. The trial was planted at a farm near Exeter on 14 June 2007 using a five-row cone-seeder with John Deere Max Emerge planter units. The fungicides were sprayed using a CO 2 pressurized sprayer with three - 002 BILLERICAY AIR BUBBLE NOZZLES spaced at 50 cm, at 346kPa (50 psi) in 200 L/ha water. Sentinel plots were set using all the untreated infected plots. Each plot had ten random plants identified with plastic corn tags. Every 2-3 days these tagged plants had severity rating done. This provided the timetable for doing general rating on the all the trials. These observations also provided an overview of when the disease started to spread as well as the speed of the disease. Assessments for crop emergence and vigour were done using the middle 4 meter long area located in the centre row of the three infected rows of the plot. Plant emergence was assessed for 3 weeks starting on 1 week after planting (WAP). Plant emergence ratings were then converted to a percentage of seed planted. Plant vigour was assessed using a scale of 0 - (0 = best plant development and = poorest plant development) and was assessed for 2 weeks starting at 2 WAP. Disease ratings were accessed on leaves and pods. Leaf ratings were done for 2 weeks, starting at 7 WAP. by observing the percentage of the leaf vein area that was purple. Pod disease severity ratings were done 2 weeks, starting at 7 WAP. A disease index which combines destroyed pods with a % damage rating on the remaining pods was documented. A 4 meter section from the centre of the three infected rows was harvested on Sept 17. The seed from each plot was weighed and the seed moisture was measured. The seed was then put through a hand sieve with a X ¾ screen (industry standard). The difference between the weight before and the weight after was calculated as a percent dockage. A weight of 0 randomly selected seeds from each plot was obtained. Of these 0 seeds a weight of the seeds rejected for discolouration and/or misshapen 22

appearance was established as a percent and called pick. The dry bean industry uses larger sample (minimum 500 grams) to determine the pick but this is not practical for this study. A visual seed quality rating was done using a 1 to 5 scale (1 = excellent seed quality and 5 = poor seed quality). The yield was calculated using all of the seed harvested from each plot, after cleaning to remove any foreign material. Each plot weight was adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%, and then converted to kg/ha. The value of the crop ($/acre) was determined by reducing the seed yield for two possible quality deficiencies; dockage and pick. Dockage (undersized seed and diseased splits) is removed as a straight percentage. For pick (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) the percentage is doubled (as per industry standards) to allow not only for the actual poor seed but also for the cost of removing that seed. The remaining large clean seed yield was adjusted to a yield per acre, and multiplied by a price of $0.25 per pound to calculate a value per acre. In calculating the value of the crop, the goal was to mirror the grading standards used by the dry bean industry for commercial production as much as possible. RESULTS: See Tables 1, Figures 1-2. CONCLUSIONS: Hot dry weather conditions from planting until mid-august resulted in excellent plant growth and very light disease pressure. Percent disease incidence on leaves in the sentinel plants was recorded starting on July 23. Rain on August 7 and lower temperatures starting August 17 (Figure 2) increased the disease pressure exponentially (Figure 1), while higher than average temperatures on Aug 23-24 caused a lag in disease development. Favourable environmental conditions for disease development came very late, and the total disease damage was less than levels recorded in last 3 years. Treatments containing DCT tended to have better crop emergence (Table 1) and crop vigour (Table 2), compared to the other seed treatment and foliar fungicide treatments. were less pronounced by 3 WAP (Table 2). All of the fungicide treatments were usually better than the untreated check and the COC treatment for leaf disease (Table 4), pod disease (Table 5) and crop seed assessment (Table 7). No consistent differences were found between the seed treatments and the foliar fungicide treatments for leaf or pod disease. For pick values (Table 7), the seed treatments combined with a foliar fungicide were usually better than a foliar fungicide alone. DCT + Headline + COC had the highest yield, but there were not consistent trends in the yield data. For crop value, DCT + a foliar fungicide was significantly better than DCT or a foliar fungicide alone, but it equal to Apron Maxx/Dynasty with or without a foliar fungicide. In order to better estimate the severity of pod damage an index was designed (Table 6) to allow for pods already destroyed. Shriveled pods (< 50 % in size of a normal sized pod) were counted as 0 % destroyed and the remaining pods had a damage estimate done (using the % of the pod area with lesions). Either seed treatment + a foliar fungicide had less pod area with lesions than a foliar treatment alone. There were few differences between treatments for destroyed pods or for the destruction index. In Table 9, the analysis of variance indicates that the Headline treatments have a greater crop value than the Quadris or Quadris + COC treatments. Also, DCT + a foliar is superior to Apron Maxx/Dynasty + a foliar. These differences were approaching the limit of significance (p>f = 0.02-0.04). Tables documents the return in crop value for specific treatments. A single foliar fungicide application increased crop value by $121 per acre, while the application of a seed treatment increased crop value by $120. 23

Figure # 1 Sentinel plot disease severity ratings in white beans at Exeter, ON. 2007 Comparison of Lesion to Non Lesion on Navy Bean Leaves.00 9.00 Percentage of Leaf Infection 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 No lesion severity Lesion severity 0.00 23-Jul 26-Jul 30-Jul 3-Aug 8-Aug -Aug 13-Aug 16-Aug 20-Aug 24-Aug 27-Aug 31-Aug Date Figure # 2 Temperature and Rainfall Conditions for the nearest Weather Station 2007 HRS Weather July 23-Aug 29 2007 degrees celsius 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0.0 5.0 Average Temperature 21 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0.0 mm per day 0.0 23-Jul 28-Jul 2-Aug 7-Aug 12-Aug 17-Aug 22-Aug 27-Aug 0.0 Average Temperature Rainfall 24

Table 1. Foliar application timing for the foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2007 Treatment Timing 2 Rate Per Product ha 36 (July 20) 1 Infected Seed Check Days After Planting (date) 48 (Aug 1) 55 (Aug 8) 67 (Aug 20) 2 Quadris ABCD 500 ml. * * * * 3 Headline + Agral 90 B 400 ml.+.2% * v/v 4 Quadris B 500 ml. * 5 Quadris + COC B 500 ml. +1% v/v * 6 Headline B 400 ml. * 7 Headline + COC B 400 ml. +1% v/v * 8 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty 9 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris B 500 ml. * Apron Maxx RTA + 500 ml. Dynasty + Quadris + B +1% v/v COC * 11 Apron Maxx RTA + B 400 ml. * 12 Dynasty + Headline Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Headline + COC 13 DCT B 400 ml. +1% v/v 14 DCT + Quadris B 500 ml. * 15 DCT + Quadris + COC B 500 ml. +1% v/v * 16 DCT + Headline B 400 ml. * 17 DCT + Headline + COC B 400 ml. +1% v/v * 18 COC B 1% v/v * * indicates when the foliar fungicides was applied 2 Timing A = 5 th trifoliate leaf stage, Timing B = mid flower, Timing C = late flower, Timing D = days after late flower * 25

Table 2 Crop Emergence the foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2007 Treatment Product Rate (g/0 kg seed or ml/ha) % Crop Emergence 1 WAP 2 WAP 3 WAP 1 Infected Seed Check 80 cde 91 95 a-e 2 Quadris 73 e 84 88 ef 3 Headline + Agral 90 400 ml.+.2% v/v 78 de 92 97 a-d 4 Quadris 500 ml. 82 b-e 92 94 b-f 5 Quadris + COC 500 ml. +1% v/v 75 e 90 91 b-f 6 Headline 400 ml. 80 cde 93 95 a-e 7 Headline + COC 400 ml. +1% v/v 78 de 89 87 f 8 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty 80 cde 93 91 def 9 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris 500 ml. 78 de 91 95 a-d Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris + COC 500 ml. +1% v/v 81 b-e 93 97 a-d Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + 11 Headline 400 ml. 78 de 91 91 c-f Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + 12 Headline + COC 400 ml. +1% v/v 74 e 91 97 a-d 13 DCT 85 a-d 96 98 abc 14 DCT + Quadris 500 ml. 85 a-d 94 98 ab 15 DCT + Quadris + COC 500 ml. +1% v/v 89 ab 96 92 b-f 16 DCT + Headline 400 ml. 88 abc 96 98 a-d 17 DCT + Headline + COC 400 ml. +1% v/v 93 a 98 2 a 18 COC 1% v/v 78 de 91 94 b-f Mean 81 92 94 PR>F 0.00 0.09 0.01 LSD (P=. 05) 8.7 n/a 8.7 CV 7.6 5.5 7.6 26

Table 3 Crop Vigour for the foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2007 Treatment Timing Crop Vigour (0-) 2 WAP 3 WAP 1 Infected Seed Check 2.8 bcd 2.8 2 Quadris ABCD 3.0 abc 2.0 3 Headline + Agral 90 B 2.5 cde 2.5 4 Quadris B 2.5 cde 1.8 5 Quadris + COC B 3.5 ab 2.3 6 Headline B 3.8 a 2.3 7 Headline + COC B 2.8 bcd 1.8 8 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty 2.5 cde 2.0 9 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris B 2.8 bcd 2.0 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris + COC B 2.5 cde 1.5 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + 11 Headline B 2.5 cde 2.0 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + 12 Headline + COC B 2.8 bcd 2.0 13 DCT 2.0 de 1.8 14 DCT + Quadris B 2.0 de 2.3 15 DCT + Quadris + COC B 2.0 de 1.5 16 DCT + Headline B 2.0 de 1.5 17 DCT + Headline + COC B 1.8 e 1.3 18 COC B 2.3 cde 2.5 Mean 2.5 2.0 PR>F 0.00 0.14 LSD (P=. 05) 0.9 n/a CV 25.4 33.3 27

Table 4. Leaf vein ratings in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, Ontario. 2007 Treatment Timing Leaf Vein Rating 7 WAP 9 WAP 1 Infected Seed Check 1.1 ab 1.3 a 2 Quadris ABCD 0.2 c 0.1 bc 3 Headline + Agral 90 B 0.8 bc 0.4 bc 4 Quadris B 0.5 bc 0.1 c 5 Quadris + COC B 0.4 bc 0.3 bc 6 Headline B 0.1 c 0.1 c 7 Headline + COC B 0.2 bc 0.2 bc 8 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty 0.1 c 0.1 c 9 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris B 0.0 c 0.0 c Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris + COC B 0.0 c 0.0 c Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + 11 Headline B 0.0 c 0.0 c Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + 12 Headline + COC B 0.1 c 0.0 c 13 DCT 0.3 bc 0.3 bc 14 DCT + Quadris B 0.4 bc 0.0 c 15 DCT + Quadris + COC B 0.0 c 0.0 c 16 DCT + Headline B 0.0 c 0.1 c 17 DCT + Headline + COC B 0.0 c 0.0 c 18 COC B 1.9 a 0.7 ab Mean 0.3 0.2 PR>F 0.01 0.01 LSD (P=. 05) 0.9 0.6 CV 195.7 216.7 28

Table 5. Severity of pod lesions in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, ON 2007. Treatment Timing Pod Rating 7 WAP 9 WAP 1 Infected Seed Check 2.2 ab 4.4 a 2 Quadris ABCD 0.7 cd 0.5 b 3 Headline + Agral 90 B 0.6 cd 0.6 b 4 Quadris B 2.2 ab 1.5 b 5 Quadris + COC B 0.4 cd 1.4 b 6 Headline B 0.5 cd 0.4 b 7 Headline + COC B 0.3 cd 0.6 b 8 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty 0.6 cd 0.5 b 9 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris B 0.0 cd 0.1 b Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris + COC B 0.0 cd 0.1 b Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + 11 Headline B 0.0 d 0.2 b Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + 12 Headline + COC B 0.1 cd 0.2 b 13 DCT 0.3 cd 1.2 b 14 DCT + Quadris B 1.5 bc 1.1 b 15 DCT + Quadris + COC B 0.0 cd 0.1 b 16 DCT + Headline B 0.2 cd 0.2 b 17 DCT + Headline + COC B 0.1 cd 0.1 b 18 COC B 3.0 a 3.8 a Mean 0.7 1.0 PR>F 0.00 0.00 LSD (P=. 05) 1.5 1.8 CV 151.5 136.6 29

Table 6. Severity of pod lesions in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, Ontario 2007 Treatment Timing Severity of Pod Lesions (12 WAP) % Pod Area With Lesions % of Pods Destroyed Pod Destruction Index ** 1 Infected Seed Check 7 a 4 a 11 a 2 Quadris ABCD 1 f 0 c 1 f 3 Headline + Agral 90 B 4 bcd 1 bc 4 cde 4 Quadris B 5 ab 3 ab 8 bc 5 Quadris + COC B 3 b-e 0 c 3 def 6 Headline B 2 def 1 bc 2 ef 7 Headline + COC B 4 bc 2 bc 6 cd 8 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty 1 ef 1 bc 2 ef 9 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris B 0 f 0 c 0 f Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris + COC B 1 f 0 c 1 ef 11 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Headline B 0 f 0 c 0 f 12 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Headline + COC B 0 f 0 c 0 f 13 DCT 3 c-f 0 c 3 def 14 DCT + Quadris B 1 def 0 c 1 ef 15 DCT + Quadris + COC B 0 f 0 c 0 f 16 DCT + Headline B 0 f 0 c 0 f 17 DCT + Headline + COC B 0 f 0 c 0 f 18 COC B 8 a 3 ab ab Mean 2 1 3.0 PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00 LSD (P=. 05) 2.3 2.2 3.7 CV 71.2 202.4 86.2 ** pod destruction index = (0%*%of dest. pods) + (% pod area with lesions*(1- % of dest.pods))*0 30

Table 7. Seed quality ratings of pod lesions in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, Ontario 2007 Treatment Timing Seed Moisture Crop Seed Assessment 0 Seed Weight Seed Quality Dockage 1 Infected Seed Check 11.5 21.7 3.0 a 2.0 13.4 a 2 Quadris ABCD 11.2 23.0 1.3 cd 1.1 2.0 de 3 Headline + Agral 90 B 12.0 23.1 1.6 bc 1.7 6.2 b 4 Quadris B 12.1 23.5 1.6 bc 1.2 6.1 bc 5 Quadris + COC B 11.6 23.2 1.9 b 1.6 5.6 bcd 6 Headline B 12.0 23.3 1.0 d 1.3 2.2 cde 7 Headline + COC B 12.1 23.6 1.3 cd 0.8 5.7 bcd 8 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty 12.2 23.5 1.3 cd 1.3 2.6 b-e Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty 9 + Quadris B 11.7 23.5 1.0 d 1.3 1.4 e Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris + COC B 12.0 23.2 1.0 d 1.3 1.3 e Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty 11 + Headline B 11.7 23.3 1.0 d 1.1 1.0 e Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty 12 + Headline + COC B 11.6 23.1 1.0 d 1.3 1.6 e 13 DCT 12.7 23.4 1.6 bc 1.2 6.3 b 14 DCT + Quadris B 12.1 23.7 1.1 cd 1.2 2.0 de 15 DCT + Quadris + COC B 12.1 23.5 1.0 d 0.8 0.7 e 16 DCT + Headline B 12.1 23.8 1.0 d 0.8 1.0 e 17 DCT + Headline + COC B 12.2 23.9 1.3 cd 0.7 1.8 de 18 COC B 11.4 22.1 3.1 a 2.1 15.8 a Mean 11.9 23.2 1.4 1.3 4.3 PR>F 0.56 0.07 0.00 0.13 0.00 LSD (P=. 05) n/a n/a 0.6 n/a 3.9 CV 6.4 3.6 26.7 51.1 64.9 Pick 31

Table 8. Crop Value Assessment of pod lesions in foliar fungicide x seed treatment (lesions) at Exeter, Ontario 2007 Treatment Timing Yield (kg ha 1 ) Crop Value Assessment Value ($ per ac.) 1 Infected Seed Check 1902 ef 303.62 e Additional Value ($ per ac.) Additional Costs* ($ per ac.) Return on Investment ($ per ac.) 2 Quadris ABCD 24 a-e 446.53 abc 142.91 120.36 22.55 3 Headline + Agral 90 B 2056 b-f 395.60 cd 91.98 27.27 64.71 4 Quadris B 2045 b-f 395.34 cd 91.72 30.09 61.63 5 Quadris + COC B 1964 def 382.87 d 79.25 32.67 46.58 6 Headline B 2157 a-d 453.88 abc 150.26 24.69 125.57 7 Headline + COC B 2178 a-d 426.68 bcd 123.06 27.27 95.79 8 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty 2129 a-d 445.66 abc 142.04 4.07 137.97 9 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris B 2005 c-f 429.17 bcd 125.55 34.16 91.39 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Quadris + COC 2099 a-e 451.02 abc 147.40 36.74 1.66 11 Apron Maxx RTA + Dynasty + Headline B 2139 a-d 462.68 ab 159.06 28.76 130.3 Apron Maxx RTA + 12 Dynasty + Headline + COC B 2035 c-f 434.27 a-d 130.65 31.34 99.31 13 DCT 2084 a-e 401.18 cd 97.56 5.78 91.78 14 DCT + Quadris B 2188 abc 463.09 ab 159.47 35.87 123.60 15 DCT + Quadris + COC B 2120 a-d 462.18 ab 158.56 38.45 120.11 16 DCT + Headline B 2255 ab 489.44 a 185.82 30.47 155.35 17 DCT + Headline + COC B 2293 a 489.63 a 186.01 33.05 152.96 18 COC B 1852 f 272.30 e -31.32.58-41.9 Mean 2089 422.51 PR>F 0.02 0.00 LSD (P=. 05) 215.9 59.7 CV 7.3.0 Seed Treatments had no application costs attached. * 2007 grower list price : Headline $ 16.69 /ac., Quadris $ 22.09/ac., Apron Maxx/Dynasty $ 4.07/ac., DCT $ 5.78/ac, COC or Agral 90 $ 2.58/ac. * application rate $ 8.00 /ac 32

Table 9. Variance Analysis of Lesion Anthracnose Foliar or Seed Treatments on the Crop Value 1 per Acre. Source Individual Trial Treatments df SS MS F-value P >F Blocks 3 6483 2161 1.21 0.32 Treatments 17 228457 13439 7.53 0.00 Maximum Foliar (*ABCD) vs. Control #2 vs. #1 (1) 40849 40849 22.90 0.00 Minimum Foliar (*B) vs. Control # 4, #6 vs. #1 (1) 39037 39037 21.88 0.00 Quadris vs. Headline Quadris COC vs. Quadris Quadris COC vs. Headline #4,#5,#9,#, #14,#15 vs. #6, #7,#11,#12, #16,#17 #5,#,#15 vs. #4,#9,#14 #5,#,#15 vs. #6,#11,#16 (1) 9966 9966 5.59 0.02 (1) 48 48 0.03 0.87 (1) 8057 8057 4.52 0.04 Seed Treatment vs. Control #8,#13 vs. # 1 (1) 38273 38273 21.46 0.00 ApronMaxx & Dynasty vs. Control #8 vs. #1 (1) 40352 440352 22.62 0.00 DCT vs. Control #13 vs. #1 (1) 19036 19036.67 0.00 ApronMaxx & Dynasty vs. DCT With A Foliar # 9-12 vs. #14-17 (1) 8091 8091 4.54 0.04 Error 51 90972 1784 * indicates when the foliar fungicides was applied Timing A = 5 th trifoliate leaf stage, Timing B = mid-late flower, Timing C = late flower, Timing D = days after late flower 1 Final Value Per Acre is : [yield (lbs/ac.)] * [ 1- dockage (%)] * [ 2 * [1- pick(%)]] * value of a pound of beans ($.25/lb)*** *** dockage is removed as a straight percentage *** pick is doubled not only to allow for the discoloured seed but also the cost of removing it Note : Bartlett s test for homogeneity of variances has failed for pick and will have to be transformed for the final draft 33

Table. Numerical Differences and Standard Error for the Contrasts Partitions of Treatment Means for the Anthracnose Foliar or Seed Treatment s Crop Value 1 per Acre Parameter 2 Individual Trial Treatments $ Value Difference Standard Error P >F Maximum Foliar (*ABCD) vs. Control #2 vs. #1 143 30 0.00 Minimum Foliar (*B) vs. Control # 4, #6 vs. #1 121 26 0.00 Quadris vs. Headline Quadris COC vs. Quadris Quadris COC vs. Headline #4,#5,#9,#, #14,#15 vs. #6, #7,#11,#12, #16,#17 #5,#,#15 vs. #4,#9,#14 #5,#,#15 vs. #6,#11,#16-58 24 0.02 3 17 0.87-37 17 0.04 Seed Treatment vs. Control #8,#13 vs. # 1 120 26 0.00 ApronMaxx & Dynasty vs. Control #8 vs. #1 142 30 0.00 DCT vs. Control #13 vs. #1 98 30 0.00 ApronMaxx/Dynasty + Foliar vs. DCT + Foliar # 9-12 vs. #14-17 -32 15 0.04 * indicates when the foliar fungicides was applied Timing A = 5 th trifoliate leaf stage, Timing B = mid flower, Timing C = late flower, Timing D = days after late flower 1 Final Value Per Acre is : [yield (lbs/ac.)] * [ 1- dockage (%)] * [ 2 * [1- pick(%)]] * value of a pound of beans ($.25/lb)*** *** dockage is removed as a straight percentage *** pick is doubled not only to allow for the discoloured seed but also the cost of removing it 2 The comparison of Maximum Foliar (*ABC) vs. Control for example would read the Maximum Foliar (treatment or treatments) has or have a $ 143.00 value advantage over the control (treatment or treatments). As seen in Chart #1 this comparison shows a highly significant difference as indicated by the P > F value < 0.001. Note : Bartlett s test for homogeneity of variances has failed for pick and will have to be transformed for the final draft 34

TITLE: FIELD VALIDATION OF THE COMMON BACTERIAL BLIGHT (CBB) RESISTANCE GENE(S) IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS (HURON RESEARCH STATION) CROP: Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. Envoy, Compass, Navigator, HR67, HR45, HR164, HR145, OAC Rex, OAC 02-2, OAC 07-2, OAC 06-B1, T601, MSUB05055, I051 (USDK-CBB-15) PEST: Bacterial Blight (Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli) NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD,C, WILLIS, S., and DEPUYDT, D Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: cgillard@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca MATERIALS: DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w); CRUISER 5 FS (thiamethoxam, 50 g ai /0 kg seed); Streptomycin sulfate salt 95.9%; Sylgard 309 (siloxylated polyether + surfactant mixture, 76% + 24%); Sigma-Aldrich S6501(streptomycin sulfate salt); Bacterial Blight Culture METHODS: This study contains two experiments. In the first experiment, the treatments were inoculated with a CBB culture, while the second experiment was not inoculated. The susceptible checks were Envoy, Compass and Navigator. The resistant checks were HR45, HR67, and OAC Rex. The level of susceptibility (or resistance) varies within each group. The remaining treatments are entries to be tested for CBB resistance. Seed was treated in individual plastic bags by adding 0.7 g/kg of seed of streptomycin sulfate to a slurry of water (9 ml/kg), CRUISER (1.0 ml/kg) and DCT (5.2 g/kg) was also applied for protection against early season seedling diseases and insect pressure. The seed was then mixed for 1 minute to ensure thorough seed coverage. The streptomycin will minimize surface seed coat contamination but will not impact internal blight levels. The two experiments in this study were separated from one another in order to minimize any cross contamination. Care was taken to obtain land that had similar soil conditions in order to minimize variation between the two experiments. Each plot had a guard row of soybeans on either side of the plot, and every other tier was planted to soybeans, to minimize the potential cross contamination. The seed was planted June 11 th using a four row cone-mounted planter mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter. The seeding rate was 20 seeds per metre. An experimental unit contained 2 rows 75 cm apart, 6 m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. Nitrogen was applied at 60 kg actual / hectare to promote growth. The bacterial blight culture was grown in Luria Bertani (LB) media. The protocol is as follows: To 980 ml of double distilled water add g of Bacto-tryptone (Difco), 5g Bacto-yeast extract (Difco) and 5 g Sodium Chloride (NaCl). 1 M Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) was added to the solution until a ph of 7.0-7.2 was reached. Double distilled water was then added to a final volume of one litre. The flask containing the LB media was autoclaved for purpose of sterilization of the media on wet cycle for 25 minutes. An initial culture of the four Xap strains was started two days before inoculation of the main cultures. The culture was started by taking a loop full of bacteria from a frozen stock of the four mixed strains or by taking a loop from each of the separately frozen strains and dipping the loop into a 150 ml flask of LB media. The inoculated flask was placed on a shaker (150 rpm) at 28 o C for 2 days (the flask should gradually turn cloudy and clumps of cells should be visible when swirled). It is very important that proper sterile technique is used to inoculate the media as contamination will lead to other unwanted bacteria and fungus growing in the media. For the mass inoculations Erlenmayer flasks were filled to 70% of listed volume (00 ml flask was filled to 700 ml) with LB media. To the flasks 0.07% (700 ul to 00 ml flask) of the volume of the flask was added in inoculum from the initial culture. The cultures were placed on a shaker at 28 o C for 2 days and should appear cloudy at the second day. To determine 35

how much the cultures must be diluted the optical density (O.D.) of the cultures was taken using the spectrophotometer (Beckmann Instruments Inc., USA). The cultures must be diluted to an O.D. of 0.32 corresponding to 1x 8 colony forming units ml -1. Dilution of the inoculum was carried out in the sprayer tank using non-chlorinated tap water. Ten sentinel plants were identified in each of two control treatments a susceptible control (Navigator) and a resistant control (OAC Rex). The sentinel plants were evaluated every 2-3 days for disease incidence and severity, and they were used to document the start of disease infection, and the rate of disease spread in each experiment. The experiments were rated for disease incidence and severity once a minimum disease score was recorded in the sentinel plants. The blight culture was applied twice in the inoculated experiment. The first application was applied on July 30 th at 11:30 pm at the start of a heavy dew. In order to increase moisture in the canopy, 25 mm of irrigation water was applied on each of two dates; July 26 th and July 31 th. A second blight culture application was made on the evening of Aug 1 at 11:00 pm in the midst of a medium dew. The inoculum was applied using a CO 2 pressurized sprayer with three 005 Teejet split fan nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 242kPa (35 psi). Rate of application of the bacterial culture was 130 ml per meter of row + 0.2% Sylgard 309. Disease severity for blight on leaves using a 0-5 scale: 0 = no infection, 1 =0-20%, 2 = 21-40%, 3 = 41-60%, 4 = 61-80%, 5 = 80-0%. Leaf ratings were taken on August 15 th, 21 s, 27 th, and Sept. 4 th. A visual rating for disease severity and incidence using a % value of total area of infected leaves was done on Aug 27 th. An incidence rating was also completed at the time with a % of plants with infected leaves. Both experiments were harvested on September 27 th. Visual seed quality was determined using a scale of 1-5 (1 = excellent seed quality, 5 = poor seed quality). Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 0 randomly selected seeds from each plot. The same 0 seeds were evaluated for blight symptoms, and a weight was obtained of the diseased seed and recorded as a percent of the total 0 seed weight (reported as % Pick). The yield was calculated using all of the seed harvested from each plot, after cleaning to remove any foreign material. Each plot weight was adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%, and then converted to kg/ha. The pick was The value of the crop ($/acre) was determined by removing 2X the pick weight from the seed yield. In this experiment, the pick included seed that was discoloured by CBB. The dry bean industry removes 2X the pick weight, to account for the diseased seed removed, and to account for the cost of removing the diseased seed. The remaining large clean seed yield was adjusted to a yield per acre, and multiplied by a price of $ 0.25 per pound for all varieties (except the Dark Red Kidney I051 USDK-CBB-15 which is $ 0.35 per pound ) to calculate a value per acre. In calculating the value of the crop, the goal was to mirror the grading standards used by the dry bean industry for commercial production as much as possible. Each experiment was analyzed using a Nearest Neighbour analysis from the statistical software package AgroBase 20. An RCBD design was used for each experiment using ARM 6 (Gylling Data Management, Inc. ). However the data was analyzed using a Nearest Neighbour analysis with AGROBASE 20, (Agronomix Software, Inc., Winnipeg, Canada), to mimimize variability between treatments within blocks. METHODS: RESULTS: See Charts 1-2, Tables 1-8. CONCLUSIONS: Hot dry weather conditions from planting until mid-august resulted in excellent plant growth in both experiments. Percent disease severity in the sentinel plants of the susceptible and resistant control treatments were recorded, starting on August 11 (Figure 1). The susceptible control (Navigator) had 5% of the total leaf area infected by August 14. The resistant control (OAC Rex) did not reach the same level of total leaf area infected until August 31. The disease severity for both controls increased linearly over time, except for the time period of August 20-25. This may be due to a period of below normal 36

temperatures, from August 17-20 (Figure 2). A low level of CBB infection was documented for each treatment in the non-inoculated experiment (Table 1 and 4). The significant difference between treatments in disease severity and % pick suggests that the seed of some cultivars was infected with CBB, prior to planting. Every effort was made to obtain disease free seed, grown in a dry climate like Idaho. The only seed available for some cultivars was harvested in 2006 from research experiments in Ontario and Michigan. Disease pressure was very high in most of the dry bean crop grown in Michigan and Ontario in 2006. The infected seed may have contributed to some of the yield differences in the non-inoculated experiment, shown in Table 6. In the inoculated experiment, a high level of CBB infection was documented (Table 2). Most of the CBB tolerant treatments were significantly better than the three susceptible treatments. OAC 07-2 and HR45 consistently had the lowest disease severity ratings. MSUB05055 showed a significant amount of bronzing. In Table 3, ten plants from each plots had their blight severity and incidence evaluated (Table 3). Blight severity was scored as the infected area as a percent of the total leaf area on the plant. All of the CBB tolerant cultivars except HR67 and I051 had disease severity scores lower than the susceptible controls. OAC 07-2 and MSUB05055 varieties had lowest combination of disease incidence and severity.. The seed assessment ratings in the inoculated experiment are shown in Table 5. Navigator, and to a lesser extent Envoy, were very susceptible and had high pick ratings. All of the CBB tolerant cultivars were significantly better than Envoy, except OAC 06-B1 and I051. There were large differences between treatments for yield, and for the resulting crop values calculated using the seed yields (Tables 6 and 7). These differences were likely due to cultivar differences in yield potential, drought tolerance, as well as differences in CBB infection in the seed used to plant the experiments. OAC 07-2 had the highest yield and crop value in both experiments. In order to compare the seed yields from non-inoculated experiment to the inoculated experiment, an index calculation was devised using the following formula: Yield (kg/ha.) Not Inn. - Yield (kg/ha.) Inn. --------------------------------------------------- X 0 = % decrease in yield Yield (kg/ha.) Not Inn. An example of the yield index for the cultivar Navigator is as follows: 2034-869 ------------------------- X 0 = 57 % decrease in yield 2034 Care must be taken in the interpretation of the results, especially for treatments where infected seed was planted. HR45 demonstrated strong CBB resistance, using the index scores, while Navigator demonstrated strong susceptibility to the disease. T601 had disease symptoms in the field, but had a strong yield index. Most of the CBB tolerant cultivars demonstrated moderately resistance, but OAC 02-2, OAC 06-B1, HR 67 and I051 appeared susceptible. 37

Figure 1. Sentinel plot disease severity ratings in susceptible (Navigator) and resistant (OAC Rex) treatments at Exeter, ON. 2007 Sentinel CBB Spread 30 25 Percent Severity 20 15 Final Inoculation Date 5 0 23- Jul 27- Jul 31- Jul 4- Aug 8- Aug 12- Aug 16- Aug 20- Aug 24- Aug 28- Aug Date Navigator OAC REX Figure 2. Temperature and Rainfall Conditions for the nearest Weather Station 2007 HRS Weather July 23-Aug 29 2007 degrees celsius 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0.0 5.0 Average Temperature 21 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0.0 mm per day 0.0 23-Jul 28-Jul 2-Aug 7-Aug 12-Aug 17-Aug 22-Aug 27-Aug 0.0 Average Temperature Rainfall 38

Table 1. Leaf blight severity ratings in the non-inoculated blight trial at Exeter, Ontario 2007 Variety Check Rating (Susceptible - S / Resistant - R) Leaf Blight Severity Rating Aug. 9 Aug. 15 Aug. 21 Aug. 27 Sept. 4 1 Envoy S 1.1 b 1.8 d 2.1 d 1.9 d 2.1 c 2 Compass S 1.0 a 1.1 a 1.9 d 1.7 c 2.1 c 3 Navigator S 1.0 a 1.4 b 1.4 b 1.2 b 1.3 a 4 HR 67 R 1.1 b 2.0 d 1.7 c 1.8 c 2.2 d 5 HR 45 R 1.0 a 1.1 a 1.3 b 1.6 c 1.8 b 6 HR 164 1.0 a 1.1 a 1.2 b 1.2 b 1.6 b 7 HR 145 1.0 a 1.2 a 1.8 d 1.6 c 2.0 c 8 OAC Rex R 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.1 a 1.4 a 9 OAC 02-2 1.0 a 1.1 a 1.2 b 1.3 b 1.4 a OAC 07-2 1.0 a 1.0 a 0.8 a 0.8 a 1.1 a 11 OAC 06-B1 1.0 a 1.0 a 0.9 a 1.1 a 1.4 a 12 T601 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.6 c 1.2 b 1.5 b 13 MSUB05055 1.0 a 1.0 a 1.2 b 1.2 b 1.4 a 14 I051 (USDK-CBB-15) 1.1 b 1.2 a 1.6 c 3.0 g 3.2 e Mean 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.7 PR>F 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LSD (P=. 05).06.25.33.35.38 CV 5.0 17.6 20.0 20.1 18.3 39

Table 2. Leaf blight severity ratings in the inoculated blight trial at Exeter, Ontario 2007 Variety Check Rating (Susceptible - S / Resistant - R) Leaf Blight Severity Rating Aug. 9 Aug. 15 Aug. 21 Aug. 27 Sept. 4 1 Envoy S 2.5 c 3.7 f 4.0 f 5.0 f 5.0 f 2 Compass S 2.8 d 2.7 d 3.0 d 4.0 d 4.2 d 3 Navigator S 3.0 d 3.3 e 3.5 e 4.5 e 4.9 e 4 HR 67 R 3.0 d 3.2 e 3.5 e 4.3 e 4.2 d 5 HR 45 R 2.0 b 1.8 b 1.5 a 1.8 a 2.2 a 6 HR 164 1.3 a 2.0 c 2.8 d 2.8 c 3.7 c 7 HR 145 1.5 a 1.7 b 1.5 a 2.5 c 3.8 c 8 OAC Rex R 1.0 a 0.8 a 1.0 a 2.0 b 3.0 b 9 OAC 02-2 1.5 a 2.0 c 1.8 b 2.5 c 3.5 c OAC 07-2 1.0 a 1.1 a 1.0 a 1.3 a 2.6 a 11 OAC 06-B1 1.0 a 1.8 b 2.0 b 2.5 c 3.5 c 12 T601 2.0 b 2.2 c 2.5 c 3.0 c 3.9 d 13 MSUB05055 1.5 a 2.1 c 2.0 b 1.8 a 3.0 b 14 I051 (USDK-CBB-15) 2.5 c 2.7 d 3.5 e 4.0 d 4.9 e Mean 1.9 2.2 2.4 3.0 3.7 PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LSD (P=. 05).55.50.52.58.55 CV 24.6 18.9 18.2 16.2 12.4 40

Table 3 Leaf blight ratings in the inoculated blight trial at Exeter, Ontario 2007 Variety Check Rating (Susceptible - S / Resistant - R) Leaf Blight Rating ( plants rated on Aug 27) Severity (% of total leaf area) Incidence (% of plants with blight symptoms) 1 Envoy S 25.3 d 0.0 y 2 Compass S 12.9 b 0.0 y 3 Navigator S 14.7 b 0.0 y 4 HR 67 R 12.3 b 97.5 w 5 HR 45 R 0.1 a 75.0 h 6 HR 164 3.4 a 97.5 w 7 HR 145 2.6 a 97.5 w 8 OAC Rex R 2.1 a 92.5 s 9 OAC 02-2 4.4 a 90.0 q OAC 07-2 0.0 a 60.0 a 11 OAC 06-B1 5.4 a 0.0 y 12 T601 2.5 a 95.0 u 13 MSUB05055 0.4 a 65.0 c 14 I051 (USDK-CBB-15) 16.3 c 0.0 y Mean 7.3 90.7 PR>F 0.00 0.00 LSD (P=. 05) 3.5 1.7 CV 39.8 16.1 41

Table 4. Seed assessment ratings in the non-inoculated blight trial at Exeter, Ontario 2007 Variety Check Rating (Susceptible- S / Resistant - R) 0 Seed Weight Crop Seed Assessment Seed Quality Pick (%) 1 Envoy S 19.9 1.5 0.7 a 2 Compass S 22.3 2.0 3.8 b 3 Navigator S 21.6 1.8 2.0 a 4 HR 67 R 23.4 1.9 3.3 b 5 HR 45 R 22.5 2.1 2.8 b 6 HR 164 23.5 1.4 1.6 a 7 HR 145 24.9 1.6 1.7 a 8 OAC Rex R 21.1 1.3 0.9 a 9 OAC 02-2 21.7 1.5 0.8 a OAC 07-2 22.5 1.1 1.0 a 11 OAC 06-B1 23.6 1.5 3.0 b 12 T601 23.1 1.5 1.1 a 13 MSUB05055 21.2 1.1 0.5 a 14 I051 (USDK-CBB-15) 52.8 1.9 6.0 d Mean 24.6 1.6 1.9 PR>F 0.00.17 0.00 LSD (P=. 05) 1.2 n/a 1.7 CV 4.0 28.9 75.3 42

Table 5. Seed assessment ratings in the inoculated blight trial at Exeter, Ontario 2007 Variety Check Rating (Susceptible - S / Resistant - R) 0 Seed Weight Crop Seed Assessment Seed Quality Pick (%) 1 Envoy S 18.1 2.6 c 5.1 b 2 Compass S 20.7 2.3 b 3.0 a 3 Navigator S 19.1 4.7 g 11.6 e 4 HR 67 R 21.1 1.9 b 1.7 a 5 HR 45 R 23.0 1.3 a 2.0 a 6 HR 164 22.5 1.9 b 2.1 a 7 HR 145 24.3 1.9 b 2.0 a 8 OAC Rex R 20.8 1.6 a 1.1 a 9 OAC 02-2 21.2 2.0 b 2.2 a OAC 07-2 21.8 1.8 b 1.2 a 11 OAC 06-B1 22.1 2.3 b 3.9 b 12 T601 22.0 2.1 b 1.0 a 13 MSUB05055 21.3 1.7 a 0.6 a 14 I051 (USDK-CBB-15) 52.2 2.7 c 5.3 b Mean 23.6 2.2 3.1 PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00 LSD (P=. 05) 1.2.5 2.2 CV 4.3 18.3 60.0 43

Table 6. Crop assessment ratings in the non-inoculated blight trial at Exeter, Ontario 2007 Variety Check Rating (Susceptible - S / Resistant - R) Crop Assessment Yield (kg ha 1 ) Value ($ per ac.) 1 Envoy S 1719 d 379 d 2 Compass S 2186 c 480 b 3 Navigator S 2034 c 436 c 4 HR 67 R 1341 e 278 e 5 HR 45 R 1532 e 328 e 6 HR 164 2350 b 509 b 7 HR 145 2189 c 471 c 8 OAC Rex R 1801 d 399 d 9 OAC 02-2 2089 c 453 c OAC 07-2 2831 a 615 a 11 OAC 06-B1 2494 b 520 b 12 T601 1798 d 394 d 13 MSUB05055 1702 d 380 d 14 I051 (USDK-CBB-15) 1781 d 479 b Mean 1989 428 PR>F 0.00 0.00 LSD (P=. 05) 312 70 CV 13.2 13.8 44

Table 7. Crop assessment ratings in the inoculated blight trial at Exeter, Ontario 2007 Variety Check Rating (Susceptible - S / Resistant - R) Crop Assessment Yield (kg ha 1 ) Value ($ per ac.) 1 Envoy S 1224 c 238 c 2 Compass S 1747 a 384 a 3 Navigator S 869 d 146 e 4 HR 67 R 882 d 189 d 5 HR 45 R 1344 c 276 c 6 HR 164 1858 a 398 a 7 HR 145 1608 b 336 b 8 OAC Rex R 1361 c 290 c 9 OAC 02-2 1383 c 296 c OAC 07-2 2061 a 449 a 11 OAC 06-B1 1729 b 354 b 12 T601 1829 a 406 a 13 MSUB05055 1330 c 292 c 14 I051 (USDK-CBB-15) 88 d 319 b Mean 1450 312 PR>F 0.00 0.00 LSD (P=. 05) 317 74 CV 18.4 20.0 45

Table 8. Quality loss assessment for the blight trials at Exeter, Ontario 2007 Variety Check Rating (Susceptible - S / Resistant - R) Quality Loss Assessment Due to Blight Yield (% decrease)* 1 Envoy S MR 29 2 Compass 1 S MR 20 3 Navigator S VS 57 4 HR 67 1 R S 34 5 HR 45 1 R R 12 6 HR 164 MR 21 7 HR 145 1 MR 27 8 OAC Rex R MR 24 9 OAC 02-2 S 34 OAC 07-2 MR 27 11 OAC 06-B1 S 31 12 T601 1 R -2 13 MSUB05055 MR 22 14 I051 (USDK-CBB-15) 1 S 39 1 The index value presented above for these treatments may not be a true reflection of the cultivars performance under CBB disease pressure. There was evidence of early CBB infection in these treatments in the non-inoculated experiment. This would result in a yield reduction in this experiment, which would negatively affect the index calculations. * Scale < 0 = R., 0 149 = MR., 150 199 = S., > 199 = VS 46

TITLE: CROP: PEST: EVALUATION CRANBERRY AND KIDNEY VARIETIES FOR THEIR ADAPTABILITY TO NARROW ROWS AT HURON RESEARCH STATION, ONTARIO IN 2007 Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv., Hooter, Etna, Red Hawk & Red Kanner Row Width NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS, S. and DEPUYDT, D Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: cgillard@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca MATERIALS: CRUISER 5FS (thiamethoxam, 600 g ai /L); CYGON 4E (dimethoate,480 g ai/l); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w). METHODS: The experiment was conducted to determine the adaptability of cranberry and kidney bean cultivars to narrow row production. Four cultivars were selected on their popularity, maturity and plant type or architecture: 1. Hooter cranberry late maturity, large plant 2. Etna cranberry late maturity, compact plant 3. Red Hawk DRK mid maturity, very compact plant 4. Red Kanner LRK late maturity, large plant The experiment was designed as a split plot with row width as the main effect and variety as the split effect. Two row widths were compared; the traditional wide rows at 30 inches or 75 cm and narrow rows at 15 inches or 38 cm. The target stand rate was set at 63000 plants/ac (157,500 plants/ha or 3.6 plants per foot of row) for the wide rows. The stand rate was increased by 25% to 79000 plants/ac (197500 plants/ha or 2.25 plants per foot of row) for the narrow rows. This stand rate was achieved by over planting and thinning to this stand. DCT and Cruiser 5FS seed treatments were applied at label rates, for protection against early season seedling diseases and insects. Each experimental unit contained either four wide rows or six narrow rows. Each experimental unit was six meters in length. The experiment was planted May 29 th, 2007 using a six row cone-mounted planter mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter which is convertible to planting either four wide rows or six narrow rows. All assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and in the center 2 or 4 rows, for the wide or narrow row treatments, respectively. A plant emergence count was performed on July 5th at 37 days after planting (DAP), and the harvest area of each plot was thinned to the desired population. On July th and 24 th Cygon was applied to the trial at label rates. The wide row plots were scuffled at about six weeks after planting to follow a standard practice used in wide row production systems. The experiment was irrigation with about 30 mm of water twice on July 13 th and 24 th using a 64 m Briggs low pressure boom and a Cadman 4000S reel. A harvestability rating using a scale of 1-5 (1 = erect with no pods touching the ground, 5 = flat with majority of pods touching the ground) were taken just before harvest. The experiment was harvested on August 31 th and September 20 th. Visual seed quality was labelled as Pick (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) and calculated as a % of the total seed yield. Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 0 randomly selected seeds from each plot. Yield and seed weights were adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%. RESULTS: See Tables 1-2. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in harvestability and maturity (days to harvest) were expected between the four cultivars, but there were no differences in harvestability or maturity between row widths (Table 1). For the main effect (row width), significant differences were detected for yield (Table 2). The narrow row treatments had a yield advantage of 158 kg, averaged over varieties. There was a difference in 0 47

seed weight with the wide row plots having slightly larger seed (Table 2). Differences in seed weight for the split effect (variety) were expected between the four cultivars. Table 1: Harvestability and maturity ratings for the row width experiment at Huron Research Station, Ontario. 2007. Treatments Row Width Analysis Row Width Variety (Factor A) (Factor B) Harvestability (1-5) Days to Harvest Wide Row 3.2 3 Narrow Row 3.2 3 Hooter 3.1 ab 112 b Etna 3.0 a 93 a Red Hawk 3.3 b 93 a Red Kanner 3.5 c 114 c Wide Row Hooter 3.1 112 c Narrow Row Hooter 3.0 112 c Wide Row Etna 3.0 93 b Narrow Row Etna 3.0 92 a Wide Row Red Hawk 3.1 93 b Narrow Row Red Hawk 3.4 93 b Wide Row Red Kanner 3.5 113 d Narrow Row Red Kanner 3.5 114 e Mean 3.2 3 PR>F (A) 0.59 0.74 PR>F (B) 0.00 0.00 PR>F (A x B) 0.16 0.03 LSD(.05) (A) N/A N/A LSD(.05) (B) 0.2 1 LSD(.05) (A x B) N/A 1 48

Table 2: Crop assessment for the row width experiment at Huron Research Station, Ontario. 2007. Treatments Crop Assessment Row Width (Factor A) Variety (Factor B) Yield (kg / ha) 0 Seed Weight (g) Pick (%) Yield - Pick (kg / ha) Wide Row 1292 b 57.1 a 2.0 1266 b Narrow Row 1450 a 54.4 b 2.4 1415 a Hooter 1315 58.1 a 2.6 1280 Etna 1459 59.7 a 2.1 1429 Red Hawk 1295 52.1 b 1.8 1272 Red Kanner 1415 53.0 b 2.4 1382 Wide Row Hooter 1211 58.0 2.4 1181 Narrow Row Hooter 1418 58.2 2.8 1378 Wide Row Etna 1481 62.5 1.8 1454 Narrow Row Etna 1438 56.9 2.3 1403 Wide Row Red Hawk 1141 53.1 1.6 1123 Narrow Row Red Hawk 1449 51.1 2.0 1420 Wide Row Red Kanner 1337 54.7 2.3 1307 Narrow Row Red Kanner 1493 51.4 2.5 1457 Mean 1371 55.8 2.2 1341 PR>F (A) 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.03 PR>F (B) 0.25 0.00 0.30 0.24 PR>F (A x B) 0.30 0.26 0.98 0.29 LSD(.05) (A) 135 2.1 N/A 131 LSD(.05) (B) N/A 3.0 N/A N/A LSD(.05) (A x B) N/A N/A N/A N/A 49

TITLE: CROP: PEST: EVALUATION CRANBERRY AND KIDNEY VARIETIES FOR THEIR ADAPABILITY TO NARROW ROWS AT THORNDALE, ONTARIO IN 2007 Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv., Hooter, Etna, Red Hawk & Red Kanner Row Width NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS, S. and DEPUYDT, D Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: cgillard@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca MATERIALS: CRUISER 5FS (thiamethoxam, 600 g ai /L); CYGON 4E (dimethoate,480 g ai/l); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w); HEADLINE (pyraclostrobin 0g ai/ha). METHODS: The experiment was conducted to determine the adaptability of cranberry and kidney bean cultivars to narrow row production. Four cultivars were selected on their popularity, maturity and plant type or architecture: 5. Hooter cranberry late maturity, large plant 6. Etna cranberry late maturity, compact plant 7. Red Hawk DRK mid maturity, very compact plant 8. Red Kanner LRK late maturity, large plant The experiment was designed as a split plot with row width as the main effect and variety as the split effect. Two row widths were compared; the traditional wide rows at 30 inches or 75 cm and narrow rows at 15 inches or 38 cm. The target stand rate was set at 63000 plants/ac (157,500 plants/ha or 3.6 plants per foot of row) for the wide rows. The stand rate was increased by 25% to 79000 plants/ac (197500 plants/ha or 2.25 plants per foot of row) for the narrow rows. This stand rate was achieved by over planting and thinning to this stand. DCT and Cruiser 5FS seed treatments were applied at label rates, for protection against early season seedling diseases and insects. Each experimental unit contained either four wide rows or six narrow rows. Each experimental unit was six meters in length. The experiment was planted May 31 th, 2007 using a six row cone-mounted planter mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter which is convertible to planting either four wide rows or six narrow rows. All assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and in the center 2 or 4 rows, for the wide or narrow row treatments, respectively. A plant emergence count was performed on July 6th at 36 days after planting (DAP), and the harvest area of each plot was thinned to the desired population. On July 12 th, Headline was applied to the trial and on July 26 th Headline and Cygon was applied at label rates. The wide row plots were scuffled at about six weeks after planting to follow a standard practice used in wide row production systems. A harvestability rating using a scale of 1-5 (1 = erect with no pods touching the ground, 5 = flat with majority of pods touching the ground) were taken just before harvest. The experiment was harvested on September 13 th and 19 th. Visual seed quality was labelled as Pick (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) and calculated as a % of the total seed yield. Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 0 randomly selected seeds from each plot. Yield and seed weights were adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%. RESULTS: See Tables 1-2. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in the harvestability rating (Table 1). Differences in maturity (days to harvest) were expected between the four cultivars, but there were no differences in maturity between row widths (Table 1). For the main effect (row width), significant differences were detected for yield (Table 2). The narrow row treatments had a yield advantage of 276 kg, averaged over cultivars. It is assumed that differences for the split effect (cultivar) were due to the differences in yield 50

potential between cultivars. Table 1: Harvestability and maturity ratings for the row width experiment at Thorndale, Ontario. 2007. Treatments Row Width Variety Harvestability (1-5) Days to Harvest (Factor A) (Factor B) Wide Row 3.3 7 Narrow Row 3.5 7 Hooter 3.4 113 c Etna 3.5 0 a Red Hawk 3.6 1 b Red Kanner 3.2 113 c Wide Row Hooter 3.1 113 Narrow Row Hooter 3.6 113 Wide Row Etna 3.4 0 Narrow Row Etna 3.6 0 Wide Row Red Hawk 3.6 1 Narrow Row Red Hawk 3.5 1 Wide Row Red Kanner 3.3 113 Narrow Row Red Kanner 3.1 113 Mean 3.4 7 PR>F (A) 0.42 0.64 PR>F (B) 0.12 0.00 PR>F (A x B) 0.17 0.73 LSD(.05) (A) N/A N/A LSD(.05) (B) N/A 1 LSD(.05) (A x B) N/A N/A 51

Table 2: Crop assessment for the row width experiment at Thorndale, Ontario. 2007. Treatments Crop Assessment Row Width (Factor A) Variety (Factor B) Yield (kg / ha) 0 Seed Weight (g) Pick (%) Yield - Pick (kg / ha) Wide Row 2145 b 57.9 1.1 2121 b Narrow Row 2421 a 58.5 1.5 2363 a Hooter 26 bc 62.3 1.5 2071 bc Etna 2572 a 60.3 1.3 2540 a Red Hawk 2088 c 54.7 1.3 2060 c Red Kanner 2366 ab 55.6 1.2 2337 ab Wide Row Hooter 1724 60.2 b 1.2 ab 1703 Narrow Row Hooter 2487 64.4 a 1.9 b 2440 Wide Row Etna 2374 61.7 ab 1.0 ab 2350 Narrow Row Etna 2771 59.0 bc 1.5 ab 2730 Wide Row Red Hawk 2083 54.8 c 1.4 ab 2053 Narrow Row Red Hawk 2094 54.6 c 1.2 ab 2067 Wide Row Red Kanner 2399 55.1 c 0.9 a 2377 Narrow Row Red Kanner 2332 56.2 c 1.6 ab 2296 Mean 2283 58.2 1.3 2242 PR>F (A) 0.01 0.36 0.03 0.01 PR>F (B) 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 PR>F (A x B) 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02 LSD(.05) (A) 133 N/A 0.3 128 LSD(.05) (B) 275 2.4 N/A 269 LSD(.05) (A x B) N/A 3.3 0.8 N/A 52

TITLE: EVALUATION OF MARSH SPOT IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS VARIETY TRIALS 2007 (THORNDALE, KIPPEN, AND ST. THOMAS) CROP: PEST: Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. as per treatment Marsh Spot NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS, S. and DEPUYDT, D Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: cgillard@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca MATERIALS: CRUISER 5FS (thiamethoxam, 600 g ai /L); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w) METHODS: Cranberry beans are prone to a disorder known as Marsh Spot, that discolors the interior of the cotyledon and can create marketing issues. Seed samples were collected to determine if any of the Ontario registered or candidate cranberry varieties are susceptible to Marsh Spot compared to Messina, a highly susceptible variety of cranberry beans. Seed was treated with DCT and Cruiser 5FS at registered rates, for protection against early season seedling diseases and insects. Three locations were planted across southern Ontario; Thorndale, Kippen and St. Thomas. The experiments were part of the Ontario dry bean variety registration and performance trials. The experiments were arranged as a RCBD design with 4 replications. Samples of seed harvested from these experiments were sent to the Huron Research Station, and scored for marsh spot incidence and severity. Fifty seeds were split and each half was rated for marsh spot incidence. The percentage incidence was then calculated for each variety. If Marsh Spot was present, its severity was visually rated on a scale of one to five, using the standards found in Figure 1. RESULTS: See Tables 1-3. CONCLUSIONS: Marsh spot scores for each of three locations are presented in Tables 1-3. Marsh Spot was quite noticeable at Thorndale (Table 1) with Messina at a incidence percentage of 11.25. Incidence by severity at Thorndale showed Messina also to be worst than any other variety. At Kippen the pressure was quite low (0.75%) and therefore differences between treatments were minimal (Table 2). The St. Thomas location had about 3% incidence and incidence by severity numbers showed HR 167-4099 to be significantly higher than most of the treatments (Table 3). 53

Figure 1: Marsh Spot Severity Ratings 54

Table 1: Marsh Spot Analysis from Thorndale, Ontario. 2007. Treatments Marsh Spot Analysis % Incidence Average Severity Incidence by Severity (0 5) 1 SVM Taylor Cran 0.50 b 0.38 b 0.01 b 2 Hooter 0.50 b 0.25 b 0.00 b 3 Etna 0.25 b 0.50 b 0.00 b 4 HR 167-4099 0.75 b 1.00 ab 0.01 b 5 HR 168-4246B 1.00 b 0.63 b 0.01 b 6 HR 163-4099 0.00 b 0.00 b 0.00 b 7 HR 161-4199 2.25 b 0.89 ab 0.03 b 8 Messina 11.25 a 1.84 a 0.21 a Mean 2.06 0.69 0.04 C.V. 77.3 3.2 6.5 PR>F 0.00 0.04 0.00 LSD(.05) 2.35 1.04 0.06 Table 2: Marsh Spot Analysis from Kippen, Ontario 2007. Treatments Marsh Spot Analysis % Incidence Average Severity Incidence by Severity (0 5) 1 SVM Taylor Cran 0.00 b 0.00 0.00 b 2 Hooter 0.00 b 0.00 0.00 b 3 Etna 0.00 b 0.00 0.00 b 4 HR 167-4099 0.00 b 0.00 0.00 b 5 HR 168-4246B 3.25 a 1.33 0.04 a 6 HR 163-4099 0.00 b 0.00 0.00 b 7 HR 161-4199 0.50 b 1.13 0.02 ab 8 Messina 2.25 a 0.81 0.03 ab Mean 0.75 0.41 0.01 C.V. 111.7 200.4 159.1 PR>F 0.00 0. 0.01 LSD(.05) 1.23 N/A 0.03 55

Table 3: Marsh Spot Analysis from St. Thomas, Ontario 2007. Marsh Spot Analysis Treatments Incidence by Severity % Incidence Average Severity (0 5) 1 SVM Taylor Cran 2.75 bcd 1.25 b 0.03 b 2 Hooter 0.25 d 0.25 cd 0.00 b 3 Etna 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 b 4 HR 167-4099 5.25 abc 1.46 b 0.07 ab 5 HR 168-4246B 2.50 cd 0.88 bc 0.03 b 6 HR 163-4099 1.50 d 1.00 bc 0.02 b 7 HR 161-4199 5.75 ab 2.51 a 0.16 a 8 Messina 6.25 a 1.40 b 0.09 ab Mean 3.03 1.09 0.05 C.V. 71.3 54.0 124.8 PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.03 LSD(.05) 3.18 0.87 0. 56

TITLE: CROP: PEST: EVALUATION OF MARSH SPOT IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS PRELIMINARY YIELD TRIALS (THORNDALE, AND KIPPEN) Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. as per treatment Marsh Spot NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, WILLIS, S. and DEPUYDT, D Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: cgillard@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca MATERIALS: CRUISER 5FS (thiamethoxam, 600 g ai /L); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w) METHODS: Cranberry beans are prone to a disorder, known as Marsh Spot, that discolors the interior of the cotyledon and can create marketing issues. Seed samples were collected to determine if any of the varieties in the Preliminary Yield Trials are susceptible to Marsh Spot compared to Messina, a highly susceptible variety of cranberry beans. Seed was treated with DCT and Cruiser 5FS at registered rates, for protection against early season seedling diseases and insects. The two Preliminary Yield locations were; Thorndale, and Kippen. The experiments were arranged as a RCBD design with 4 replications. Samples of seed harvested from these experiments were sent to the Huron Research Station, and scored for marsh spot incidence and severity. Fifty seeds were split and each half was rated for marsh spot incidence. The percentage incidence was then calculated for each variety. If marsh spot was present, its severity was visually rated on a scale of one to five, using the standards found in Figure 1. RESULTS: See Tables 1-2. CONCLUSIONS: Marsh spot scores for the two locations are presented in Tables 1-2. Marsh spot was quite high at the Thorndale site (Table 1). Incidence and incidence by severity calculations show that BD 04 and BD 03 was significantly worse than most of the treatments at this location (Table 1). BD 04 and Messina were significantly worse than all other treatments at the Kippen location (Table 2). 57

Figure 1: Marsh Spot Severity Ratings 58

Table 1. Marsh Spot Analysis Preliminary Yield Trial, Thorndale, Ontario. 2007. Marsh Spot Analysis Treatments Incidence by Severity % Incidence Average Severity (0 5) 1 MSUC038 1.5 c 1.00 b-e 0.02 c 2 Messina 6.5 b 1.36 a-d 0.08 bc 3 Etna 0.3 c 0.25 de 0.00 c 4 ADMC000117 0.3 c 0.25 de 0.00 c 5 Capri 1.3 c 2.08 ab 0.03 c 6 Chiante 0.0 c 0.00 e 0.00 c 7 ADMC213259 1.8 c 1.29 bcd 0.03 c 8 HS C 0.5 c 0.75 cde 0.01 c 9 BD 02 2.3 c 1.58 abc 0.04 bc BD 03 8.8 b 1.48 abc 0.13 b 11 BD 04 26.0 a 2.48 a 0.65 a Mean 4.5 1.14 0.09 C.V. 52.9 72.1 72.7 PR>F 0.00 0.00 0.00 LSD(.05) 3.4 1.19 0. 59

Table 2. Marsh Spot Analysis Preliminary Yield Trial, Kippen, Ontario 2007. Marsh Spot Analysis Treatments Incidence by Severity % Incidence Average Severity (0 5) 1 MSUC038 2.0 bc 1.50 0.03 b 2 Messina 7.0 ab 2.24 0.16 a 3 Etna 0.0 c 0.00 0.00 b 4 ADMC000117 0.0 c 0.00 0.00 b 5 Capri 0.5 c 1.00 0.02 b 6 Chiante 0.5 c 0.50 0.00 b 7 ADMC213259 1.0 c 0.75 0.03 b 8 HS C 0.5 c 0.38 0.01 b 9 BD 02 1.5 c 1.19 0.02 b BD 03 1.8 c 1.33 0.03 b 11 BD 04.5 a 1.35 0.18 a Mean 2.3 0.93 0.04 C.V. 151.3 7.7 166.0 PR>F 0.00 0.09 0.01 LSD(.05) 5.0 N/A 0.11 60

TITLE: CROP: PEST: EVALUATION OF REPEATED APPLICATIONS OF CYGON AT VARIOUS RATES ON WHITE AND CRANBERRY BEANS (HURON RESEARCH STATION) IN 2007 Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. T9905, SVM Taylor Potato Leafhopper Empoasca fabae Harris NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C.L., DEPUYDT D., WILLIS S. Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: cgillard@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca MATERIALS: CYGON 4E (dimethoate 480 g ai/l); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w) METHODS: The trial seed was treated with DCT and planted May 29 th 2007 using a four row conemounted planter mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter. The seeding rate was 20 seeds per metre for the white beans and 17 seeds per metre for the cranberry beans. Plots contained 2 rows 0.75 m apart, 6 m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. An untreated check was compared with quarter, half and full rate of Cygon applied every two weeks once leafhopper nymph populations reached standard threshold numbers. Cygon was applied at rates of 0.25, 0.5 and 1.0 L of product per hectare using a CO 2 pressurized sprayer with three 002 Airbubble nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 277 kpa (40 psi) in 200 L/ha water. The experiment was sprayed three times during the growing season (Tables 1 & 2). The experiments were irrigated twice in July for a total of 60 mm to alleviate drought stress from a lack of rainfall. The cranberry bean trial was harvested on August 31 th and the white bean trial on September 18 th. Visual seed quality was labelled as Pick (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) and calculated as a percent of the total seed yield for each plot. Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 0 randomly selected seed from each plot. Yield and seed weights were adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%. RESULTS: See Table 3 and 4 CONCLUSIONS: The insecticide application dates and plant developmental stages are included in Tables 1 and 2. Leafhopper pressure was considered very low at the Huron Research Station in 2007 with a late population arriving at pod fill. There were few differences in the crop assessments between the treatments in the white and cranberry bean experiments (Table 3&4). 61

Table 1. Application Dates and Crop Stage for each application of Cygon in white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment Leafhopper Nymph Threshold at Specific Growth Stages Unifoliate 2 nd Trifoliate 4 th Trifoliate First Bloom Early Pod Fill Pod Fill 1 Untreated Check N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Cygon 25% Rate 3 Cygon 50% Rate 4 Cygon 0% Rate July 6 ( 38 DAP) July 6 ( 38 DAP) July 6 ( 38 DAP) July 20 (52 DAP) July 20 (52 DAP) July 20 (52 DAP) Aug 3 (66 DAP) Aug 3 (66 DAP) Aug 3 (66 DAP) Table 2. Application Dates and Crop Stage for each application of Cygon in cranberry beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment Leafhopper Nymph Threshold at Specific Growth Stages Unifoliate 2 nd Trifoliate 4 th Trifoliate First Bloom Early Pod Fill Pod Fill 1 Untreated Check N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Cygon 25% Rate 3 Cygon 50% Rate 4 Cygon 0% Rate July 6 ( 38 DAP) July 6 ( 38 DAP) July 6 ( 38 DAP) July 20 (52 DAP) July 20 (52 DAP) July 20 (52 DAP) Aug 3 (66 DAP) Aug 3 (66 DAP) Aug 3 (66 DAP) 62

Table 3. Crop assessments for white beans treated with different rates of Cygon at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment Seed weight (g) Crop Assessment % Pick Yield (kg / ha) Yield Pick (kg / ha) 1 Untreated Check 23.8 ab 1.3 2238 2208 2 Cygon 25% Rate 24.4 a 0.9 2408 2386 3 Cygon 50% Rate 22.3 b 1.5 2420 2383 4 Cygon 0% Rate 22.5 b 1.0 2539 2513 Mean 23.3 1.2 2401 2373 C.V. 4.2 31.0 8.1 8.3 PR>F 0.04 0.14 0.26 0.25 LSD(.05) 1.6 N/A N/A N/A Table 4. Crop assessments for cranberry beans treated with different rates of cygon at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment Seed weight (g) Crop Assessment % Pick Yield (kg / ha) Yield Pick (kg / ha) 1 Untreated Check 60.3 1.3 1412 1401 2 Cygon 25% Rate 60.9 0.6 1618 1612 3 Cygon 50% Rate 60.1 0.7 1919 1907 4 Cygon 0% Rate 60.5 1.0 1552 1542 Mean 60.5 0.9 1625 1616 C.V. 4.2 74.7 15.8 16.0 PR>F 0.97 0.50 0.15 0.15 LSD(.05) N/A N/A N/A N/A 63

TITLE: TOLERANCE OF DRY BEAN CULTIVARS TO POTATO LEAFHOPPERS HURON RESEARCH STATION 2007 CROP: PEST: Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), 13 Varieties Potato Leafhopper Empoasca fabae Harris NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, DEPUYDT, D and WILLIS, S. Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: cgillard@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca MATERIALS: APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 1.07% + 0.73%) METHODS: Lines were selected from a breeding program that exhibited tolerance to potato leafhoppers (PLH). An experiment was conducted to determine the tolerance of these lines to potato leafhopper nymphs. Seed was treated with a fungicide ApronMaxx RTA, for protection against early season seedling diseases. The experiment was planted May 29 th, 2007 using a four row cone-mounted planter mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter. The seeding rate was 17 seeds per metre of row for the large seeded cultivars and 20 seeds per metre of row for smaller seeded varieties. An experimental unit contained 2 rows 0.75 m apart, 6 m in length, with 4 replications. All of the assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. The experiment was monitored weekly to determine if potato leafhoppers (PLH) were present. PLH nymph counts were performed for eleven weeks starting at 24 DAP. The average number of nymphs per leaf was calculated, based on a leaf sample per experimental unit. At the trifoliate leaf stages of development, a single leaf sample included all three leaflets of the trifoliate leaf. Leaf burn due to PLH feeding was assessed each time a nymph count was performed, using a 1 - scale (1 = low leaf burn, = high leaf burn). The experiment was irrigated twice in July for a total of 60 mm to alleviate drought stress from a lack of rainfall. The experiment was harvested on September 21 st 2007. Yield was adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%. RESULTS: See Tables 1-3. CONCLUSIONS: Leafhopper pressure at the Huron Research Station in 2007 was considered low for most of the season, but increased at pod fill time (middle of August). Most of the PLH tolerant cultivars had lower PLH nymph counts and leaf burn than the susceptible control, Berna Brown (Tables 1 and 2). However, there were no differences in nymph counts or leaf burn between the tolerant cultivars and the susceptible white bean cultivars evaluated (treatments -12). Differences in maturity were expected between the treatments (Table 3). There is not a correlation between insect tolerance and yield for the highest yielding treatment (SWX2045), but a correlation may exist for the next highest treatment (SCX2098). 64

Table 1. Leafhopper nymph counts in the leafhopper tolerant cultivar experiment, Huron Research Station, Exeter Ontario 2007. Treatment July 6 (38 DAP) July 13 (45 DAP) Number of Nymphs per Leaf July 20 (52 DAP) July 27 (59 DAP) Aug (73 DAP) 1 EMP 336 0.28 b 0.30 0.18 f 0.17 d 0.40 de 2 EMP 339 0.08 d 0.40 0.30 def 0.30 d 0.38 e 3 EMP 340 0. cd 0.45 0.28 ef 0.25 d 0.40 de 4 EMP 479 0.50 a 0.48 0.68 a-e 0.23 d 0.75 cde 5 SWX2053 0.20 bcd 0.42 0.30 def 0.73 bc 1.08 cd 6 SCX2098 0.25 bc 0.68 0.38 c-f 0.40 cd 0.35 e 7 SWX2130 0.23 bcd 0.55 0.38 c-f 0.52 bcd 0.85 cde 8 SWX2045 0.28 b 0.85 0.52 b-f 0.82 b 1.90 ab 9 SWX2068 0. cd 0.60 0.73 a-d 0.52 bcd 0.70 cde OAC Thunder 0.15 bcd 0.43 0.20 f 0.57 bcd 1.35 bc 11 OAC Silvercreek 0.18 bcd 0.58 0.82 ab 0.55 bcd 0.75 cde 12 OAC Rex 0.25 bc 0.57 0.80 abc 0.52 bcd 0.90 cde 13 Berna Brown 0.55 a 1.17 1.08 a 1.80 a 2.38 a Mean 0.24 0.57 0.51 0.57 0.94 C.V. 43.9 62.5 59.4 51.0 52.3 PR>F 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 LSD (P=.05) 0.15 N/A 0.43 0.42 0.70 65

Table 2. Leaf burn ratings in the leafhopper tolerant cultivar experiment, Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment July 6 (38 DAP) Leaf Burn (0 = none, = high) July 13 (45 DAP) July 20 (52 DAP) July 27 (59 DAP) Aug (73 DAP) 1 EMP 336 4.0 b 2.5 d 3.3 cd 3.0 d 4.0 de 2 EMP 339 4.0 b 3.3 cd 3.3 cd 3.8 bcd 3.8 e 3 EMP 340 4.8 a 3.5 bcd 4.5 ab 4.3 bc 4.3 cde 4 EMP 479 4.0 b 3.5 bcd 3.3 cd 3.5 cd 4.5 b-e 5 SWX2053 4.3 b 2.5 d 3.3 cd 3.5 cd 5.0 bc 6 SCX2098 4.0 b 3.3 cd 3.8 bcd 3.3 d 3.8 e 7 SWX2130 4.0 b 3.3 cd 3.0 d 3.3 d 4.8 bcd 8 SWX2045 4.0 b 4.5 ab 3.8 bcd 4.5 b 5.0 bc 9 SWX2068 4.0 b 3.8 abc 4.0 bc 4.5 b 4.5 b-e OAC Thunder 4.0 b 3.5 bcd 3.3 cd 3.5 cd 5.3 b 11 OAC Silvercreek 4.0 b 3.8 abc 4.0 bc 3.8 bcd 4.3 cde 12 OAC Rex 4.0 b 4.3 abc 4.5 ab 4.5 b 5.3 b 13 Berna Brown 4.0 b 4.8 a 5.3 a 6.3 a 7.0 a Mean 4.1 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.7 C.V. 5.0 23.8 18.2 17.4 13.8 PR>F 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 LSD (P=.05) 0.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 66

Table 3. Crop assessment in the leafhopper tolerant cultivar experiment, Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment Day to Maturity Crop Assessment Yield (kg / ha) 1 EMP 336 1 efg 548 f 2 EMP 339 1 fg 509 f 3 EMP 340 9 g 529 f 4 EMP 479 111 def 942 e 5 SWX2053 1 efg 1,450 bc 6 SCX2098 111 cde 1,571 ab 7 SWX2130 113 a 1,245 cd 8 SWX2045 1 fg 1,745 a 9 SWX2068 112 bc 1,456 bc OAC Thunder 112 bc 1,150 de 11 OAC Silvercreek 113 ab 1,437 bc 12 OAC Rex 112 cd 1,228 cd 13 Berna Brown 111 def 1,133 de Mean 111 1149 C.V. 0.8 14.9 PR>F 0.00 0.00 LSD (P=.05) 1.2 245 67

TITLE: EFFICACY OF A13623B AND ACTARA FOR POTATO LEAFHOPPER CONTROL IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS (BROWN BEANS) AT THE HURON RESEARCH STATION IN 2007 CROP: PEST: Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. Berna Dutch Brown Potato Leafhopper Empoasca fabae Harris NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, DEPUYDT, D and WILLIS, S. Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: cgillard@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca MATERIALS: A13623B; ACTARA 25WG (thiamethoxam, 25%); APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 1.07% + 0.73%); CYGON 4E (dimethoate,480 g ai/l); MATADOR 120EC (lambdacyhalothrin 120g ai/l). METHODS: Dry bean seed was treated with ApronMaxx RTA for the control of soil-borne fungi, and planted on May 29 using a four cone-mounted units mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter. The seeding rate was 20 seeds per metre of row. An experimental unit contained 2 rows 0.75 m apart, 6 m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All of the assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. A13623B and Actara were applied and compared to standard insecticide treatments when potato leafhopper (PLH) nymph counts reached a threshold for the specific growth state of the crop (Table 1). Nymphs were counted for 11 weeks, starting at 17 DAP. The average number of nymphs per leaf was calculated, based on a leaf sample per experimental unit. At the trifoliate leaf stages of development, a single leaf sample included all three leaflets of the trifoliate leaf. Leaf burn due to PLH feeding was assessed each time a nymph count was performed, using a 1 - scale (1 = low leaf burn, = high leaf burn). The spray treatments were applied once during the growing season, on June 22 (24 DAP) using a CO 2 pressurized sprayer with a three 002 Airbubble nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 277 kpa (40 psi) in 200 L/ha water. The treatments were assessed for phytotoxicity at 0, 2, 6 and days after spray application (DAA). The experiment was harvested on September 18th. Pick (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) was calculated as a percent of the total yield for each plot. Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 0 randomly selected seed from each plot. Yield was adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%. RESULTS: See Tables 2-5. the treatments were significantly better than the control for about at about 3 weeks (Table 2&3). The high rate of A13623B and Cygon were significantly better than the untreated plot for a similar 3 weeks (Table 4). Phytotoxicity ratings were all zeros and therefore are not shown in a table. The differences in nymph counts and PLH leaf burn however did not translate in differences in Crop Assessments (Table 4). CONCLUSIONS: PLH nymphs appeared quite early at the site, with significant pressure at the unifoliate leaf stage of plant development. Populations increased dramatically at the pod stage of plant development, but this was past the threshold stage for insecticide application (Table 1). The insecticide treatments were applied at 23 DAP. There was no phytotoxicity recorded from the insecticide application (data not shown). The insecticide treatments had less nymphs and less leaf burn than the control for approximately 3 weeks (Table 2-4). The high rate of A12623B was equal to Matador, but Cygon tended to provide the best PLH control. Differences between treatments for PLH counts and leaf burn did not translate in differences in yield (Table 5). 68

Table 1. Insecticide application thresholds for potato leafhoppers. Treatment Standard Thresholds Leafhopper Nymph Threshold at Specific Growth Stages Unifoliate 2 nd Trifoliate 4 th Trifoliate First Bloom Early Pod Fill 0.25 0.5 1.0 2.0 N/A Table 2. A12623B Evaluation Trial Leafhopper counts for brown beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA 20 DAP Unifoliate 23 DAP Unifoliate Number of Nymphs per Leaf 29 DAP 1 st Tri. 35 DAP 2 nd Tri. 41 DAP 4 th Tri. Standard Thresholds(see Table 1) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 1.0 1 Untreated Check 0.00 0.48 1.00 a 0.65 a 1.50 a 2 Actara 25WG 26 0.00 0.45 0.03 b 0.40 ab 0.40 b 3 Matador 120EC 0.00 0.52 0.00 b 0.15 bc 0.28 b 4 A13623B 11.7 0.00 0.52 0.05 b 0.32 abc 0.40 b 5 A13623B 23.3 0.00 0.77 0.00 b 0.25 bc 0.30 b 6 Cygon 480 0.00 0.57 0.00 b 0.05 c 0.17 b Mean 0.00 0.55 0.18 0.30 0.51 C.V. 0.0 38.5 69.1 76.2 77.9 PR>F 1.00 0.36 0.00 0.03 0.00 LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A 0.19 0.35 0.60 * Bold Text indicates leafhoppers reached threshold and were sprayed 69

Table 3. A12623B Evaluation Trial Leafhopper counts for brown beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA 51 DAP Flower 58 DAP Pod Number of Nymphs per Leaf 73 DAP Pod 78 DAP Pod 87 DAP Pod Standard Thresholds (see Table 1) 2.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Untreated Check 1.38 1.70 6.17 a 2.05 0.03 2 Actara 25WG 26 0.98 1.42 4.40 b 2.08 0.05 3 Matador 120EC 0.75 1.45 5.35 ab 2.60 0.00 4 A13623B 11.7 1.08 2.15 4. b 3. 0.00 5 A13623B 23.3 0.88 1.22 4.43 b 1.68 0.08 6 Cygon 480 0.58 1.05 4.70 b 2.15 0.00 Mean 0.94 1.50 4.86 2.27 0.03 C.V. 53.1 34.5 17.7 45.1 321.1 PR>F 0.34 0. 0.04 0.48 0.69 LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A 1.30 N/A N/A * Bold Text indicates leafhoppers reached threshold and were sprayed 70

Table 4. A12623B Evaluation Trial Leaf Burn Assessment for brown beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA 23 DAP Unifoliate 29 DAP 1 st Tri. Leafhopper Burn (0-) 45 DAP Flower 58 DAP Pod 78 DAP Pod 1 Untreated Check 2.8 4.0 a 5.8 a 6.8 7.3 2 Actara 25WG 26 2.8 3.0 b 5.5 a 6.5 7.0 3 Matador 120EC 3.0 3.0 b 5.0 ab 6.8 7.0 4 A13623B 11.7 2.8 3.0 b 5.3 ab 6.8 7.0 5 A13623B 23.3 2.8 3.0 b 4.3 b 7.0 7.0 6 Cygon 480 3.0 3.0 b 4.3 b 6.3 7.0 Mean 2.8 3.2 5.0 6.7 7.0 C.V. 14.9 0.0 13.7 7.4 7.0 PR>F 0.86 1.00 0.03 0.05 0.45 LSD (P=.05) N/A 0.00 1.0 N/A N/A 71

Table 5. A12623B Evaluation Trial Crop Assessment for white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA 0 Seed Weight (grams) Yield (kg / ha) Crop Assessment % Pick Yield-Pick (kg/ha) 1 Untreated Check 47.8 1306 2.7 1270 2 Actara 25WG 26 48.3 1273 2.4 1243 3 Matador 120EC 47.7 1397 2.6 1361 4 A13623B 11.7 47.9 1295 3.0 1256 5 A13623B 23.3 48.4 1476 2.6 1438 6 Cygon 480 46.0 1277 2.4 1247 Mean 47.7 1337 2.6 1302 C.V. 4.8 15.9 26.2 16.3 PR>F 0.71 0.71 0.82 0.73 LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A N/A N/A 72

TITLE: CROP: PEST: EFFICACY OF A13623B AND ACTARA FOR POTATO LEAFHOPPERS IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS (WHITE BEANS) AT THE HURON RESEARCH STATION IN 2007 Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. T9905 Potato Leafhopper Empoasca fabae Harris NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, DEPUYDT, D and WILLIS, S. Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: cgillard@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca MATERIALS: A13623B; ACTARA 25WG (thiamethoxam, 25%); APRONMAXX RTA (metalaxyl-m + fludioxonil, 1.07% + 0.73%); CYGON 4E (dimethoate,480 g ai/l); MATADOR 120EC (lambdacyhalothrin 120g ai/l). METHODS: Dry bean seed was treated with ApronMaxx RTA for the control of soil-borne fungi, and planted on May 29 using a four cone-mounted units mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter. The seeding rate was 20 seeds per metre of row. An experimental unit contained 2 rows 0.75 m apart, 6 m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All of the assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. A13623B and Actara were applied and compared to standard insecticide treatments when potato leafhopper (PLH) nymph counts reached a threshold for the specific growth state of the crop (Table 1). Nymphs were counted for weeks, starting at 23 DAP. The average number of nymphs per leaf was calculated, based on a leaf sample per experimental unit. At the trifoliate leaf stages of development, a single leaf sample included all three leaflets of the trifoliate leaf. Leaf burn due to PLH feeding was assessed each time a nymph count was performed, using a 1 - scale (1 = low leaf burn, = high leaf burn). The spray treatments were applied once during the growing season, on June 22 (24 DAP) using a CO 2 pressurized sprayer with a three 002 Airbubble nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 277 kpa (40 psi) in 200 L/ha water. The treatments were assessed for phytotoxicity at 0, 2, 6 and days after spray application (DAA). The experiment was harvested on September 18th. Pick (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) was calculated as a percent of the total yield for each plot. Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 0 randomly selected seed from each plot. Yield was adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%. RESULTS: See Tables 2-5. CONCLUSIONS: PLH nymphs appeared quite early at the site, with significant pressure at the unifoliate leaf stage of plant development. However, nymph populations did not increase at a normal rate over time. The insecticide treatments were applied at 23 DAP. There was no phytotoxicity recorded from the insecticide application (data not shown). The insecticide treatments had less nymphs and less leaf burn than the control for 4 weeks (Table 2-4). Differences between the insecticides were not consistent, but Cygon tended to provide the best PLH control. Differences between treatments for PLH counts and leaf burn did not translate in differences in yield (Table 5). 73

Table 1. Insecticide application thresholds for potato leafhoppers. Treatment Standard Thresholds Leafhopper Nymph Threshold at Specific Growth Stages Unifoliate 2 nd Trifoliate 4 th Trifoliate First Bloom Early Pod Fill 0.25 0.5 1.0 2.0 N/A Table 2. A12623B Evaluation Trial Leafhopper counts for white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA 23 DAP Unifoliate 29 DAP 1 st Tri. Number of Nymphs per Leaf 35 DAP 2 nd Tri. 41 DAP 3 rd Tri. 45 DAP 3 rd Tri. Standard Thresholds(see Table 1) 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 Untreated Check 0.3 0.55 a 0.43 a 0.93 a 1.08 a 2 Actara 25WG 26 0.25 0.00 b 0.40 ab 0.43 b 0.15 b 3 Matador 120EC 0.13 0.00 b 0. c 0.23 bc 0.23 b 4 A13623B 11.7 0.32 0.00 b 0.15 bc 0.25 bc 0.15 b 5 A13623B 23.3 0.22 0.03 b 0.15 bc 0.30 b 0.18 b 6 Cygon 480 0.32 0.00 b 0.05 c 0.05 c 0. b Mean 0.26 0. 0.21 0.36 0.31 C.V. 55.5 34.4 84.7 38.0 98.7 PR>F 0.38 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 LSD (P=.05) N/A 0.05 0.27 0.21 0.47 * Bold Text indicates leafhoppers reached threshold and were sprayed 74

Table 3. A12623B Evaluation Trial Leafhopper counts for white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA 48 DAP 4 th Tri. 51 DAP 4 th Tri. Number of Nymphs per Leaf 65 DAP Pod 78 DAP Pod 87 DAP Pod Standard Thresholds(see Table 1) 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A N/A 1 Untreated Check 0.28 a 0.80 a 0.38 1.00 0. 2 Actara 25WG 26 0.20 ab 0.20 b 0.45 0.83 0.15 3 Matador 120EC 0.03 c 0.20 b 0.32 0.57 0.18 4 A13623B 11.7 0.23 a 0.18 b 0.35 0.45 0.13 5 A13623B 23.3 0.05 bc 0.13 b 0.43 0.85 0.03 6 Cygon 480 0.00 c 0.22 b 0.28 0.93 0.20 Mean 0.13 0.29 0.37 0.77 0.13 C.V. 82.7 94.4 55.2 44.4 128.2 PR>F 0.01 0.03 0.84 0.23 0.73 LSD (P=.05) 0.16 0.41 N/A N/A N/A * Bold Text indicates leafhoppers reached threshold and were sprayed 75

Table 4. A12623B Evaluation Trial Leaf Burn Assessment for white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA 23 DAP Unifoliate 29 DAP 1 st Tri. Leafhopper Burn (0-) 35 DAP 2 nd Tri. 58 DAP Pod 78 DAP Pod 1 Untreated Check 0.0 4.0 a 3.8 a 5.0 a 4.0 2 Actara 25WG 26 0.3 3.3 b 3.3 b 4.0 b 4.0 3 Matador 120EC 0.0 3.0 b 3.0 b 3.3 b 4.0 4 A13623B 11.7 0.0 3.8 a 3.0 b 3.8 b 4.0 5 A13623B 23.3 0.0 3.0 b 3.0 b 3.5 b 4.0 6 Cygon 480 0.0 3.0 b 3.0 b 3.5 b 4.0 Mean 0.0 3.3 3.2 3.8 4.0 C.V. 489.9 8.4.0 14.8 0.0 PR>F 0.45 0.00 0.02 0.01 1.00 LSD (P=.05) N/A 0.4 0.5 0.9 N/A 76

Table 5. A12623B Evaluation Trial Crop Assessment for white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA 0 Seed Weight (grams) Yield (kg / ha) Crop Assessment % Pick Yield-Pick (kg/ha) 1 Untreated Check 25.7 2352 8.5 2154 2 Actara 25WG 26 24.5 2440 8.5 2229 3 Matador 120EC 24.1 2360 11.7 20 4 A13623B 11.7 24.9 2318.5 2077 5 A13623B 23.3 24.8 2518.7 2254 6 Cygon 480 24.6 2350 12.1 2068 Mean 24.8 2390.3 2147 C.V. 2.6 11.7 46.7 14.0 PR>F 0.05 0.91 0.84 0.92 LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A N/A N/A 77

TITLE: CROP: EVALUATION OF QUADRIS AND HEADLINE TO INCREASE YIELDS WHEN DISEASE PRESSURE IS NOT PRESENT IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS AT THE HURON RESEARCH STATION 2007 Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. OAC Rex, T9905, Red Hawk, Etna NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, DEPUYDT, D and WILLIS, S. Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: cgillard@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca MATERIALS: CRUISER 5FS (thiamethoxam, 600 g ai /L); DCT (diazinon + captan + thiophanate methyl, 18% + 6% + 14% w/w); HEADLINE (pyraclostrobin 0g ai/ha); OIL CONCENTRATE (paraffin based mineral oil + emulsifier, 83% + 17%); QUADRIS 250 SC (azoxystrobin 125g ai/ha). METHODS: The seed for the experiments was treated with DCT and Cruiser 5FS, at label rates, for protection against early season seedling diseases and insects. The experiment was planted June 11, 2007 using a four row cone-mounted planter mounted on a John Deere Max Emerge planter. The seeding rate was 20 seeds per metre of row for the white bean varieties and 17 seeds for the large seeded kidney and cranberry beans. An experimental unit contained 4 rows 0.75 m apart, 6 m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All of the assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 4 m long and 2 rows wide. The spray treatments were applied once during the growing season, when a single flower was present on the majority of plants in that variety. The experiments were sprayed on July 21 (40 DAP) for the Red Hawk and Etna and July 27 (46 DAP) for the white bean varieties. The spray was applied using a CO 2 pressurized sprayer with a three 002 Airbubble nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 277 kpa (40 psi) in 200 L/ha water. The treatments were assessed for any disease and notes were made before harvest. The Etna and Red Hawk experiments were harvested on September 18 th with the white bean trials following on September 20 th. Pick percentage (discoloured and/or misshapen seed) were calculated for each plot. Seed weight was determined by recording the weight of 0 randomly selected seed from each plot. Yield and seed weights were adjusted to the standard storage moisture of 18%. RESULTS: See Tables 1-5. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were seen in yield with or without the use of Headline or Quadris in combination with oil concentrate in these four experiments (Table 1-4). 78

Table 1. Headline/Quadris Evaluation White Beans (OAC Rex) - Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA % V/V Crop Assessment Seed Weight (g/0 seeds) % Pick Yield (kg/ha) Yield Pick (kg/ha) 1 Untreated Check 22.8 0.5 2904 abc 2891 abc 2 Headline (Half Rate) 50 22.6 0.5 2995 ab 2981 ab 3 Headline (Full Rate) 0 22.0 0.4 2932 ab 2921 ab 4 Headline (Half Rate) Oil Concentrate 50 1% 23.0 0.5 3240 a 3225 a 5 Headline (Full Rate) Oil Concentrate 0 1% 22.5 0.5 2783 bc 2770 bc 6 Quadris (Half Rate) 62.5 22.1 0.3 2536 c 2530 c 7 Quadris (Full Rate) 125 22.0 0.6 2718 bc 2701 bc 8 Quadris (Half Rate) Oil Concentrate 62.5 1% 22.7 0.5 2928 ab 2913 ab 9 Quadris (Full Rate) Oil Concentrate 125 1% 22.7 0.4 2963 ab 2951 ab Mean 22.5 0.5 2889 2876 C.V. 2.8 44.2 8.8 8.7 PR>F 0.28 0.70 0.05 0.05 LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A N/A N/A 79

Table 2. Headline/Quadris Evaluation White Beans (T9905) - Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA % V/V Crop Assessment Seed Weight (g/0 seeds) % Pick Yield (kg/ha) Yield Pick (kg/ha) 1 Untreated Check 23.4 0.6 3130 3112 2 Headline (Half Rate) 50 23.4 0.7 3335 3313 3 Headline (Full Rate) 0 23.4 0.7 3169 3147 4 Headline (Half Rate) Oil Concentrate 50 1% 23.4 0.6 3427 3405 5 Headline (Full Rate) Oil Concentrate 0 1% 23.9 0.7 3407 3383 6 Quadris (Half Rate) 62.5 22.8 0.8 3379 3351 7 Quadris (Full Rate) 125 23.8 0.6 3553 3532 8 Quadris (Half Rate) Oil Concentrate 62.5 1% 24.1 1.0 2996 2967 9 Quadris (Full Rate) Oil Concentrate 125 1% 23.3 1.0 3380 3344 Mean 23.5 0.7 3308 3284 C.V. 2.4 38.0 7.5 7.5 PR>F 0.14 0.23 0.09 0.09 LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A N/A N/A 80

Table 3. Headline/Quadris Evaluation - DRK (Red Hawk) - Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA % V/V Crop Assessment Seed Weight (g/0 seeds) % Pick Yield (kg/ha) Yield Pick (kg/ha) 1 Untreated Check 47.9 bcd 1.8 1835 1803 2 Headline (Half Rate) 50 49.0 abc 1.0 2086 2067 3 Headline (Full Rate) 0 47.8 cd 1.5 1887 1859 4 Headline (Half Rate) Oil Concentrate 50 1% 49.4 abc 1.1 1934 1914 5 Headline (Full Rate) Oil Concentrate 0 1% 47.1 d 1.8 1840 1806 6 Quadris (Half Rate) 62.5 49.6 ab 1.5 1833 1805 7 Quadris (Full Rate) 125 50.7 a 1.2 1958 1935 8 Quadris (Half Rate) Oil Concentrate 62.5 1% 50.1 a 1.6 1929 1898 9 Quadris (Full Rate) Oil Concentrate 125 1% 49.7 a 1.0 1835 1817 Mean 49.0 1.4 1904 1878 C.V. 2.5 33.9 9.8 9.8 PR>F 0.00 0. 0.60 0.54 LSD (P=.05) 1.8 N/A N/A N/A 81

Table 4. Headline/Quadris Evaluation Cranberry Bean (Etna) - Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA % V/V Crop Assessment Seed Weight (g/0 seeds) % Pick Yield (kg/ha) Yield Pick (kg/ha) 1 Untreated Check 58.8 c 1.5 2387 2351 2 Headline (Half Rate) 50 60.3 bc 1.2 2419 2391 3 Headline (Full Rate) 0 63.3 a 1.5 2584 2544 4 Headline (Half Rate) Oil Concentrate 50 1% 60.3 abc 1.8 2564 2518 5 Headline (Full Rate) Oil Concentrate 0 1% 58.2 c 1.7 2341 2304 6 Quadris (Half Rate) 62.5 58.3 c 1.8 2463 2418 7 Quadris (Full Rate) 125 61.9 ab 1.4 2407 2374 8 Quadris (Half Rate) Oil Concentrate 62.5 1% 58.5 c 2.1 2417 2366 9 Quadris (Full Rate) Oil Concentrate 125 1% 59.4 bc 2.0 2519 2469 Mean 59.9 1.7 2456 2415 C.V. 3.5 32.1 6.3 6.5 PR>F 0.02 0.30 0.36 0.44 LSD (P=.05) 3.0 N/A N/A N/A 82

TITLE: CROP: PEST: EVALUATION OF HERBICIDE (GRASS) AND INSECTICIDE TANKMIX EFFICACY FOR POTATO LEAFHOPPERS IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS (WHITE BEANS) AT THE HURON RESEARCH STATION IN 2007 Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. OAC Rex Potato Leafhopper Empoasca fabae Harris NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, DEPUYDT, D and WILLIS, S. Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: cgillard@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca MATERIALS: ASSURE II (quizalofop p-ethyl 96g ai/l); BASAGRAN FORTE (bentazon 480 g ai/l); CYGON 4E (dimethoate,480 g ai/l); MATADOR 120EC (lambda-cyhalothrin 120g ai/l); MERGE (surfactant blend + solvent, 50% + 50%); POAST ULTRA (sethoxydim 450g ai/l); REFLEX (fomesafen 240 g ai/l); SURE-MIX (surfactant blend + paraffinic petroleum oil, 35.6% + 60%). METHODS: The experiment was planted May 24, 2007 using a four row precision planter, at a seeding rate of 235,000 seeds per hectare. An experimental unit contained 4 rows 0.75 m apart, m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All of the assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 8 m long and 2 rows wide. A blanket application of Basagran Forte (1.75 l/ha) and Reflex (0.6 l/ha) was applied on June 15 th to control annual broadleaf weeds. Potato leafhopper (PLH) nymph counts were performed for weeks, starting on June 21 th. The average number of nymphs per leaf was calculated, based on a leaf sample per experimental unit. At the trifoliate leaf stages of development, a single leaf sample included all three leaflets of the trifoliate leaf. Leaf burn due to PLH feeding was assessed each time a nymph count was performed, using a 1 - scale (1 = low leaf burn, = high leaf burn). The insecticide treatments were applied once during the growing season, on June 22 (29 DAP) using a CO 2 pressurized sprayer with a three 002 Airbubble nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 277 kpa (40 psi) in 200 L/ha water. The experiment was harvested on August 28 th. RESULTS: See Tables 2-5. CONCLUSIONS: : PLH nymphs appeared quite early at the site, with significant pressure at the unifoliate leaf stage of plant development. However, nymph populations did not increase at a normal rate over time. The timing of the insecticide and grass herbicide treatments corresponded with the appropriate growth stage of annual grass weeds and the appropriate PLH nymph threshold (Table 1). Up to 19 DAA, all of the insecticide treatments controlled nymphs except for treatment (Assure II + Matador), which wasn t significantly better than the control (Table 2). By 26 DAA, this potential antagonism had disappeared. By 33 DAA, PLH nymphs were no longer controlled by the insecticide treatments (Table 3). Differences in leaf burn from PLH feeded was not evident in this experiment (Tables 4 and 5). Yield data will be reported in P. Sikkema s report. 83

Table 1. Insecticide application thresholds for potato leafhoppers. Treatment Standard Thresholds Leafhopper Nymph Threshold at Specific Growth Stages Unifoliate 2 nd Trifoliate 4 th Trifoliate First Bloom Early Pod Fill 0.25 0.5 1.0 2.0 N/A Table 2. Herbicide/Insecticide Tankmix Trial Leafhopper counts for white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA -1 DAA Unifoliate Number of Nymphs per Leaf 7 DAA 2 nd Tri 13 DAA 2 nd Tri 19 DAA 4 th Tri 1 Weedy Check 1.00 0.25 bc 0.60 bcd 1.45 a 2 Weed Free Check 0.68 0.32 b 1.23 a 1.35 ab 3 4 Poast Ultra Merge Assure II Sure-Mix 150 1.0 L/HA 36 0.5 %V/V 0.65 0.23 bcd 0.95 ab 1.50 a 0.63 0.68 a 0.35 cde 0.85 bc 5 Cygon 480 0.70 0.03 de 0. de 0.23 d 6 Matador 120EC 0.88 0.03 de 0.28 cde 0.28 d 7 8 9 Poast Ultra Cygon Merge Poast Ultra Matador 120EC Merge Assure II Cygon Sure-Mix Assure II Matador 120EC Sure-Mix Mean 150 480 1.0 L/HA 150 1.0 L/HA 36 480 0.5 %V/V 36 0.5 %V/V 0.77 0.00 e 0. de 0. d 0.85 0.03 de 0.30 cde 0.30 d 0.68 0.03 de 0.08 e 0.13 d 0.80 0.08 cde 0.67 bc 0.53 cd 0.76 0.16 0.47 0.67 C.V. 38.8 92.2 76.4 52.1 PR>F 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 LSD (P=.05) N/A 0.22 0.52 0.51 84

Table 3. Herbicide/Insecticide Tankmix Trial Leafhopper counts for white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA 26 DAA 4 th Tri Number of Nymphs per Leaf 33 DAA Flower 40 DAA Pod 1 Weedy Check 0.35 a 0.23 0.55 2 Weed Free Check 0.28 a 0.20 0.80 3 4 Poast Ultra Merge Assure II Sure-Mix 150 1.0 L/HA 36 0.5 %V/V 0.30 a 0.45 0.80 0.32 a 0.20 0.55 5 Cygon 480 0.00 b 0.13 0.65 6 Matador 120EC 0.03 b 0.23 0.48 7 8 9 Poast Ultra Cygon Merge Poast Ultra Matador 120EC Merge Assure II Cygon Sure-Mix Assure II Matador 120EC Sure-Mix Mean 150 480 1.0 L/HA 150 1.0 L/HA 36 480 0.5 %V/V 36 0.5 %V/V 0.03 b 0.08 0.32 0.05 b 0.30 0.85 0.00 b 0. 0.73 0. b 0.28 0.75 0.14 0.22 0.65 C.V. 69.6 8.4 50.4 PR>F 0.00 0.57 0.41 LSD (P=.05) 0.15 N/A N/A 85

Table 4. Herbicide/Insecticide Tankmix Trial Leaf Burn Assessment for white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA -1 DAA Unifoliate Leafhopper Burn (0-) 7 DAA 2 nd Tri 13 DAA 2 nd Tri 19 DAA 4 th Tri 1 Weedy Check 2.8 2.0 3.0 3.0 2 Weed Free Check 2.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 3 4 Poast Ultra Merge Assure II Sure-Mix 150 1.0 L/HA 36 0.5 %V/V 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 5 Cygon 480 2.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 6 Matador 120EC 2.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 7 8 9 Poast Ultra Cygon Merge Poast Ultra Matador 120EC Merge Assure II Cygon Sure-Mix Assure II Matador 120EC Sure-Mix Mean 150 480 1.0 L/HA 150 1.0 L/HA 36 480 0.5 %V/V 36 0.5 %V/V 2.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.3 2.0 3.0 3.0 C.V. 19.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 PR>F 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A N/A N/A 86

Table 5. Herbicide/Insecticide Tankmix Trial Leaf Burn Assessment for white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA 26 DAA 4 th Tri Leafhopper Burn (0-) 33 DAA Flower 40 DAA Pod 1 Weedy Check 3.0 ab 2.8 3.0 2 Weed Free Check 3.0 ab 3.3 3.0 3 4 Poast Ultra Merge Assure II Sure-Mix 150 1.0 L/HA 36 0.5 %V/V 3.3 a 3.8 3.0 3.0 ab 3.0 3.3 5 Cygon 480 2.0 c 2.3 3.0 6 Matador 120EC 2.5 bc 2.3 3.0 7 8 9 Poast Ultra Cygon Merge Poast Ultra Matador 120EC Merge Assure II Cygon Sure-Mix Assure II Matador 120EC Sure-Mix Mean 150 480 1.0 L/HA 150 1.0 L/HA 36 480 0.5 %V/V 36 0.5 %V/V 2.3 c 2.5 3.0 2.3 c 3.0 3.0 2.5 bc 2.5 3.0 2.3 c 2.8 3.3 2.6 2.8 3.1 C.V. 15.2 29.7 6.9 PR>F 0.00 0.30 0.46 LSD (P=.05) 0.57 N/A N/A 87

TITLE: CROP: PEST: EVALUATION OF HERBICIDE (BROADLEAF) AND INSECTICIDE TANKMIX EFFICACY FOR POTATO LEAFHOPPERS IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS (WHITE BEANS) AT THE HURON RESEARCH STATION IN 2007 Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. OAC Rex Potato Leafhopper Empoasca fabae Harris NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, DEPUYDT, D and WILLIS, S. Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: cgillard@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca MATERIALS: AGRAL 90 (nonylphenoxy polyethoxy ethanol 90%); BASAGRAN FORTE (bentazon 480 g ai/l); CYGON 4E (dimethoate,480 g ai/l); MATADOR 120EC (lambda-cyhalothrin 120g ai/l); REFLEX (fomesafen 240 g ai/l). METHODS: The experiment was planted May 24, 2007 using a four row precision planter with a seeding rate of 235 000 seeds per hectare. An experimental unit contained 4 rows 0.75 m apart, m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All of the assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 8 m long and 2 rows wide. PLH nymph counts were performed for weeks, starting on June 20 th. The average number of nymphs per leaf was calculated, based on a leaf sample per experimental unit. At the trifoliate leaf stages of development, a single leaf sample included all three leaflets of the trifoliate leaf. Leaf burn due to PLH feeding was assessed each time a nymph count was performed, using a 1 - scale (1 = low leaf burn, = high leaf burn). The spray treatments were applied once during the growing season, on June 21 st (29 DAP) using a CO 2 pressurized sprayer with a three 002 Airbubble nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 277 kpa (40 psi) in 200 L/ha water. The experiment was harvested on August 28 th. RESULTS: See Tables 2-5. CONCLUSIONS: PLH nymphs appeared quite early at the site, with significant pressure at the unifoliate leaf stage of plant development. However, nymph populations did not increase at a normal rate over time. The timing of the insecticide and broadleaf herbicide treatments corresponded with the appropriate growth stage of annual broadleaf weeds and PLH nymph thresholds (Table 1). In Table 2, all of the herbicide + insecticide treatments had lower nymph populations than the control, except for treatment 9 (Basagran Forte + Matador) at 15 DAA. By 27 DAA, PLH nymphs population had decreased to the point that treatment differences were no longed detectable (Table 3). Few differences in leaf burn was recorded (Tables 4 and 5). Yield data will be reported in P. Sikkema s report. 88

Table 1. Insecticide application thresholds for potato leafhoppers. Treatment Standard Thresholds Leafhopper Nymph Threshold at Specific Growth Stages Unifoliate 2 nd Trifoliate 4 th Trifoliate First Bloom Early Pod Fill 0.25 0.5 1.0 2.0 N/A 89

Table 2. Herbicide/Insecticide Tankmix Trial Leafhopper counts for white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA -1 DAA Unifoliate Number of Nymphs per Leaf 6 DAA 2 nd Tri 15 DAA 2 nd Tri 20 DAA 4 th Tri 1 Weedy Check 0.63 1.40 a 0.50 ab 1.00 a 2 Weed Free Check 0.82 1.25 ab 0.48 ab 1.00 a 3 Basagran Forte 840 0.75 0.85 b 0.43 abc 0.80 abc 4 Reflex Agral 90 5 Basagran Forte Reflex 240 0.25 %V/V 840 140 0.67 1.00 ab 0.48 ab 0.88 ab 0.73 0.93 b 0.52 a 0.85 ab 6 Cygon 480 0.55 0.03 c 0.05 ef 0.15 d 7 Matador 120EC 0.85 0.17 c 0. def 0.35 bcd 8 9 11 12 13 Basagran Forte Cygon Basagran Forte Matador 120EC Reflex Cygon Agral 90 Reflex Matador Agral 90 Basagran Forte Reflex Cygon Basagran Forte Reflex Matador Mean 840 480 840 240 480 0.25 %V/V 240 0.25 %V/V 840 140 480 840 140 0.93 0.05 c 0.00 f 0.13 d 0.75 0.08 c 0.30 bcd 0.15 d 0.77 0.03 c 0.00 f 0.18 d 0.55 0. c 0.18 def 0.18 d 0.80 0.05 c 0.15 def 0.15 d 0.98 0. c 0.22 cde 0.28 cd 0.75 0.46 0.26 0.47 C.V. 41.6 70.7 58.4 79.1 PR>F 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 LSD (P=.05) N/A 0.47 0.22 0.53 90

Table 3. Herbicide/Insecticide Tankmix Trial Leafhopper counts for white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA 27 DAA 4 th Tri Number of Nymphs per Leaf 34 DAA Flower 41 DAA Pod 1 Weedy Check 0.17 0.15 0.47 2 Weed Free Check 0. 0.17 0.63 3 Basagran Forte 840 0.15 0.03 0.63 4 Reflex Agral 90 Basagran Forte 5 Reflex 240 0.25 %V/V 840 140 0.15 0.35 0.60 0.05 0.05 0.70 6 Cygon 480 0.00 0.20 0.60 7 Matador 120EC 0. 0.15 0.50 8 9 11 12 Basagran Forte Cygon Basagran Forte Matador 120EC Reflex Cygon Agral 90 Reflex Matador Agral 90 Basagran Forte Reflex Cygon Basagran Forte Reflex Matador Mean 840 480 840 240 480 0.25 %V/V 240 0.25 %V/V 840 140 480 840 140 0.08 0.13 0.68 0.03 0.32 0.55 0.00 0. 0.50 0.03 0.30 0.65 0.03 0.08 0.45 0. 0.30 0.52 0.07 0.18 0.57 C.V. 134.6 3.8 26.6 PR>F 0.22 0.22 0.39 LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A N/A 91

Table 4. Herbicide/Insecticide Tankmix Trial Leafhopper Burn Assessment for white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA -1 DAA Unifoliate Leafhopper Burn (0-) 6 DAA 2 nd Tri 15 DAA 2 nd Tri 20 DAA 4 th Tri 1 Weedy Check 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2 Weed Free Check 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3 Basagran Forte 840 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4 Reflex Agral 90 5 Basagran Forte Reflex 240 0.25 %V/V 840 140 2.0 2.0 1.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 6 Cygon 480 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 7 Matador 120EC 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 8 9 11 12 13 Basagran Forte Cygon Basagran Forte Matador 120EC Reflex Cygon Agral 90 Reflex Matador Agral 90 Basagran Forte Reflex Cygon Basagran Forte Reflex Matador Mean 840 480 840 240 480 0.25 %V/V 240 0.25 %V/V 840 140 480 840 140 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 3.0 C.V. 0.0 0.0 20.7 0.0 PR>F 1.00 1.00 0.56 1.00 LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A N/A N/A 92

Table 5. Herbicide/Insecticide Tankmix Trial Leafhopper Burn Assessment for white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA 27 DAA 4 th Tri Leafhopper Burn (0-) 34 DAA Flower 41 DAA Pod 1 Weedy Check 2.5 ab 2.5 3.0 2 Weed Free Check 2.5 ab 3.0 3.0 3 Basagran Forte 840 2.0 c 2.8 3.0 4 Reflex Agral 90 Basagran Forte 5 Reflex 240 0.25 %V/V 840 140 2.8 a 3.3 3.0 2.0 c 2.5 3.0 6 Cygon 480 2.0 c 2.3 3.0 7 Matador 120EC 2.0 c 2.5 3.0 8 9 11 12 Basagran Forte Cygon Basagran Forte Matador 120EC Reflex Cygon Agral 90 Reflex Matador Agral 90 Basagran Forte Reflex Cygon Basagran Forte Reflex Matador Mean 840 480 840 240 480 0.25 %V/V 240 0.25 %V/V 840 140 480 840 140 2.3 bc 2.3 3.0 2.0 c 2.3 3.0 2.0 c 2.3 3.0 2.0 c 2.3 3.0 2.0 c 2.3 3.0 2.3 bc 2.8 3.0 2.2 2.5 3.0 C.V. 15.4 19.2 0.0 PR>F 0.02 0.08 1.00 LSD (P=.05) 0.48 N/A N/A 93

TITLE: CROP: PEST: EVALUATION OF HERBICIDE AND INSECTICIDE TOLERANCE TRIAL FOR POTATO LEAFHOPPERS IN DRY EDIBLE BEANS (WHITE BEANS) AT THE HURON RESEARCH STATION IN 2007 Edible beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), cv. OAC Rex Potato Leafhopper Empoasca fabae Harris NAME AND AGENCY: GILLARD C L, DEPUYDT, D and WILLIS, S. Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, N0P 2C0 Tel: (519) 674-1632 Fax: (519) 674-1600 Email: cgillard@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca MATERIALS: ASSURE II (quizalofop p-ethyl 96g ai/l); BASAGRAN FORTE (bentazon 480 g ai/l); CYGON 4E (dimethoate,480 g ai/l); MATADOR 120EC (lambda-cyhalothrin 120g ai/l); MERGE (surfactant blend + solvent, 50% + 50%); POAST ULTRA (sethoxydim 450g ai/l); PURSUIT (Imazethapyr 240 g ai/l); REFLEX (fomesafen 240 g ai/l); RIVAL (Trifluralin 500 g ai/l); SURE-MIX (surfactant blend + paraffinic petroleum oil, 35.6% + 60%). METHODS: The experiment was planted May 24, 2007 using a four row precision planter, at a seeding rate of 235,000 seeds per hectare. An experimental unit contained 4 rows 0.75 m apart, m in length, arranged in an RCBD design with 4 replications. All of the assessments and yields were obtained from a harvest area 8 m long and 2 rows wide. A blanket application of a low rate of Pursuit (156 ml/ha) and Rival (0.6 l/ha) was applied on May 22 th PPI to help in the control annual weeds. Potato leafhopper (PLH) nymph counts were performed for weeks, starting on June 21 th. The average number of nymphs per leaf was calculated, based on a leaf sample per experimental unit. At the trifoliate leaf stages of development, a single leaf sample included all three leaflets of the trifoliate leaf. Leaf burn due to PLH feeding was assessed each time a nymph count was performed, using a 1 - scale (1 = low leaf burn, = high leaf burn). The insecticide treatments were applied once during the growing season, on June 22 (29 DAP) using a CO 2 pressurized sprayer with a three 002 Airbubble nozzles spaced at 50 cm, at 277 kpa (40 psi) in 200 L/ha water. The experiment was harvested on August 28 th. RESULTS: See Tables 2-5. CONCLUSIONS: PLH nymphs appeared quite early at the site, with significant pressure at the unifoliate leaf stage of plant development. However, nymph populations did not increase at a normal rate over time. The timing of the insecticide and herbicide treatments corresponded with the appropriate growth stage of annual weeds and the appropriate PLH nymph threshold (Table 1). At 7 DAA (Table 2), treatments containing Cygon had lower PLH nymph populations than the control, and this was also evident at 20 DAA (Table 3). At 7 DAA, several treatments containing Matador had PLH nymph populations that were similar to the control, and by 20 DAA all of the treatments containing Matador were equal to the control. By 28 DAA, treatment differences for PLH nymphs were no longer detectible (Table 3). Few differences in leaf burn scores were not found (Tables 4 and 5). Yield data will be reported in P. Sikkema s report. 94

Table 1. Insecticide application thresholds for potato leafhoppers. Treatment Standard Thresholds Leafhopper Nymph Threshold at Specific Growth Stages Unifoliate 2 nd Trifoliate 4 th Trifoliate First Bloom Early Pod Fill 0.25 0.5 1.0 2.0 N/A 95

Table 2. Herbicide/Insecticide Tolerance Trial Leafhopper counts for white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA -1 DAA Unifoliate Number of Nymphs per Leaf 7 DAA 2 nd Tri 14DAA 3 rd Tri 20 DAA Flower 1 Untreated Check 0.35 0.17 abc 0.25 0.28 a-e 2 Poast Ultra 150 Merge 1.0 L/HA 0.38 0.25 a 0.65 0.30 a-d 3 Assure II 36 Sure-Mix 0.5 %V/V 0.52 0.13 a-d 0.38 0.45 a 4 Basagran Forte 840 0.63 0.25 a 0.30 0.33 abc 5 Reflex 240 Agral 90 0.25 %V/V 0.40 0.23 ab 0.58 0.38 ab 6 Basagran Forte 840 Reflex 140 0.58 0.22 ab 0.35 0.35 abc 7 Cygon 480 0.32 0.00 d 0.00 0.00 f 8 Matador 120EC 0.43 0.13 a-d 0.18 0.08 def 9 Poast Ultra Cygon Merge 150 480 1.0 L/HA 0.43 0.00 d 0.05 0.08 def Poast Ultra Matador 120EC Merge 11 Assure II Cygon Sure-Mix 12 Assure II Matador 120EC Sure-Mix 13 Basagran Forte Cygon 14 Basagran Forte Matador 120EC 15 Reflex Cygon Agral 90 16 Reflex Matador Agral 90 17 Basagran Forte Reflex Cygon 18 Basagran Forte Reflex Matador 150 1.0 L/HA 36 480 0.5 %V/V 36 0.5 %V/V 840 480 840 240 480 0.25 %V/V 240 0.25 %V/V 840 140 480 840 140 0.52 0.00 d 0.20 0.13 c-f 0.45 0.00 d 0.00 0.00 f 0.52 0. bcd 0.05 0.08 def 0.30 0.03 d 0.05 0.05 ef 0.63 0.05 cd 0.15 0.20 b-f 0.38 0.00 d 0.03 0.05 ef 0.28 0.05 cd 0.05 0.17 b-f 0.45 0.00 d 0.03 0.05 ef 0.30 0.03 d 0. 0.13 c-f 0.44 0.09 0.19 0.17 C.V. 46.5 113.9 156.5 94.23 PR>F 0.31 0.00 0.06 0.00 LSD (P=.05) N/A 0.15 N/A 0.23 96

Table 3. Herbicide/Insecticide Tolerance Trial Leafhopper counts for white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA 28 DAA Pod Number of Nymphs per Leaf 34 DAA Pod 49 DAA Pod 1 Untreated Check 0. 0.43 0.52 2 Poast Ultra 150 Merge 1.0 L/HA 0.17 0.50 0.83 3 Assure II 36 Sure-Mix 0.5 %V/V 0. 0.40 0.92 4 Basagran Forte 840 0.18 0.43 0.60 5 Reflex 240 Agral 90 0.25 %V/V 0.18 0.28 0.80 6 Basagran Forte 840 Reflex 140 0.32 0.38 0.70 7 Cygon 480 0.03 0.25 0.93 8 Matador 120EC 0. 0.32 0.70 9 Poast Ultra Cygon Merge 150 480 1.0 L/HA 0.08 0.30 0.98 Poast Ultra Matador 120EC Merge 11 Assure II Cygon Sure-Mix 12 Assure II Matador 120EC Sure-Mix 13 Basagran Forte Cygon 14 Basagran Forte Matador 120EC 15 Reflex Cygon Agral 90 16 Reflex Matador Agral 90 17 Basagran Forte Reflex Cygon 18 Basagran Forte Reflex Matador 150 1.0 L/HA 36 480 0.5 %V/V 36 0.5 %V/V 840 480 840 240 480 0.25 %V/V 240 0.25 %V/V 840 140 480 840 140 0.08 0.38 0.77 0.05 0.20 1.15 0.15 0.38 1.05 0.03 0.22 1.00 0. 0.35 0.85 0.08 0.23 0.85 0.03 0.30 0.60 0.08 0.18 0.95 0.13 0.20 1.05 0.11 0.32 0.85 C.V. 116.0 48.2 35.6 PR>F 0.20 0.14 0.21 LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A N/A 97

Table 4. Herbicide/Insecticide Tolerance Trial Leaf Burn Assessment for white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA -1 DAA Unifoliate Leafhopper Burn (0-) 7 DAA 2 nd Tri 14DAA 3 rd Tri 20 DAA Flower 1 Untreated Check 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2 Poast Ultra 150 Merge 1.0 L/HA 3.8 2.0 2.0 3.0 3 Assure II 36 Sure-Mix 0.5 %V/V 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4 Basagran Forte 840 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 5 Reflex 240 Agral 90 0.25 %V/V 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 6 Basagran Forte 840 Reflex 140 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 7 Cygon 480 2.8 2.0 2.0 3.0 8 Matador 120EC 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 9 Poast Ultra Cygon Merge 150 480 1.0 L/HA 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 Poast Ultra Matador 120EC Merge 11 Assure II Cygon Sure-Mix 12 Assure II Matador 120EC Sure-Mix 13 Basagran Forte Cygon 14 Basagran Forte Matador 120EC 15 Reflex Cygon Agral 90 16 Reflex Matador Agral 90 17 Basagran Forte Reflex Cygon 18 Basagran Forte Reflex Matador 150 1.0 L/HA 36 480 0.5 %V/V 36 0.5 %V/V 840 480 840 240 480 0.25 %V/V 240 0.25 %V/V 840 140 480 840 140 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 C.V. 12.5 0.0 0.0 12.0 PR>F 0.47 1.00 1.00 0.47 LSD (P=.05) N/A N/A N/A N/A 98

Table 5. Herbicide/Insecticide Tolerance Trial Leaf Burn Assessment for white beans Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario 2007. Treatment G A/HA 28 DAA Pod Leafhopper Burn (0-) 34 DAA Pod 49 DAA Pod 1 Untreated Check 3.3 4.5 a 4.0 2 Poast Ultra 150 Merge 1.0 L/HA 3.0 4.5 a 4.3 3 Assure II 36 Sure-Mix 0.5 %V/V 3.0 3.5 abc 4.3 4 Basagran Forte 840 3.0 3.5 abc 4.0 5 Reflex 240 Agral 90 0.25 %V/V 3.0 3.5 abc 4.3 6 Basagran Forte 840 Reflex 140 3.5 4.0 ab 4.0 7 Cygon 480 2.3 2.5 c 4.3 8 Matador 120EC 2.3 3.3 bc 4.5 9 Poast Ultra Cygon Merge 150 480 1.0 L/HA 2.8 3.0 bc 4.5 Poast Ultra Matador 120EC Merge 11 Assure II Cygon Sure-Mix 12 Assure II Matador 120EC Sure-Mix 13 Basagran Forte Cygon 14 Basagran Forte Matador 120EC 15 Reflex Cygon Agral 90 16 Reflex Matador Agral 90 17 Basagran Forte Reflex Cygon 18 Basagran Forte Reflex Matador 150 1.0 L/HA 36 480 0.5 %V/V 36 0.5 %V/V 840 480 840 240 480 0.25 %V/V 240 0.25 %V/V 840 140 480 840 140 2.5 3.0 bc 4.5 2.3 2.5 c 4.5 2.5 3.0 bc 4.5 2.5 3.3 bc 4.3 2.8 2.8 c 4.3 2.8 3.3 bc 4.0 2.8 3.0 bc 4.3 2.5 2.5 c 4.3 2.8 2.8 c 4.8 2.7 3.2 4.3 C.V. 22.3 26.7 11.0 PR>F 0.23 0.03 0.66 LSD (P=.05) N/A 1.22 N/A 99

Title: Using Extra Small Red Lentil Seed as a Cover Crop Following Dry Edible Beans in Ontario Research Objective This is a preliminary study to determine the feasibility of using extra small red lentil seed as a cover crop following dry bean production in southern Ontario. The study will measure plant biomass production and nutrient accumulation, as well as the over wintering ability and spring re-growth of the lentil cover crop. Methods and Materials In 2006, extra small red lentil seed (cv. CDC Robin) was seeded at two sites near Thorndale ON. Seeding was done following cranberry bean harvest. The first site was seeded on August 24, after the bean crop was swathed with a MacDon swather and harvested. The second site was seeded on September 7, after the bean crop was pulled with a rod puller and harvested. An ATV mounted spinner spreader (clover seeder) was used to apply the lentil seed at a seeding rate of approximately 200 seed m -2. Plant stand counts, and plant wet and dry weights were determined on October 28. Plant and soil samples were collected on November 28, for nutrient analysis. Three tillage treatments were applied on November 30, with three replications per treatment. The experimental design was blocked for each tillage treatment, to simply the field operations. The tillage treatments included an untreated control, a single gang of discs, and a chisel plow with a front disc gang. Visual ratings for plant survival were made on April 15 2007, prior to any spring field operations. Results Regional weather conditions were exceptionally wet and cloudy throughout the fall of 2006. A killing frost (-2.6 o C) was not observed until the end of November, almost two months later than normal. These unusual weather conditions impacted the lentil seed germination, plant development and biomass accumulation. The unusually warm wet weather continued until the middle of January, followed by a six week period of below normal temperatures. Figure 1 shows an area at Site One seeded to red lentils, four weeks after seeding. Figure 1. Lentil plant development at Site One, September 22, 2006. Plant stand counts were done about 60 days after seeding. Plant stands at Site One were very consistent (Table 1), with no differences measured between treatments. At this site, 0