Chatterton, S.

Hubbard, Michelle

Keene, C.

May, William

Ostlie, M.

Shaw, Lana

English

University of Saskatchewan Research Archive

Intercropping as a disease management strategyMichelle Hubbard, Research Scientist – Pulse PathologyAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Swift Current, SK, CanadaMarch 11, 2020Co-authors: Shaw L, May W, Chatterton S,Ostlie M, Keene CTwo or more crops in the same space with at least some overlap in timeWhat is intercropping?2• Mixed Intercropping– Seeded together, harvested together• Row Intercropping– Alternate rows or set of rows / Strip cropping – Alley cropping with trees  • Fast Crop / Slow Crop – Seeded together, not harvested together• Relay Cropping– 2nd crop sown after 1st, but before harvest of 1st– Harvest of 1st crop allows 2nd crop to fully developTypes of intercropping3• Increased diversity • Multiple potential benefits (Brooker et al. 2015) – Increased yield (over yielding)– Increase diversity and resource utilization– Change microclimate– Manage disease– Reduce riskWhy intercropping?Booker et al. 2015. New Phytologist 206: 107-1174– Improve soil health– Manage weeds– Manage insect pests• Lack of knowledge• Weed control• Rotations• Technological– Seeding– Harvest– Seed separationBarriers5Derek Axten seeder6Harvest7On-farm seed separationHursh FarmPhoto: M Hubbard02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,000Insured Acres2018 2019Insured Acres in Saskatchewan8• Acres ~ doubled from 2018 to 2019• Many uninsured acres9• dfdPea lentil mustard (Photo – Lana Shaw)Carinata mustard and fababean (Photo – Lana Shaw)ExamplesIntercropping Pea & Canola:Row/Crop Configuration & N FertilityChris Holzapfel, IHARFScott Chalmers, WADO• Acres are growing• Economic benefitsChickpea-Flax (commercial)11Derek AxtenSaskatchewan• Ascochyta rabiei• Severe crop loss (Chongo and Gossen 2001, 2003)Ascochyta blight in ChickpeaChongo and Gossen. 2001. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 23: 358-363Chongo and Gossen. 2003. Diseases of chickpea. in Bailey et al. eds. Diseases of field crops in Canada. Can Phytopath Society, Saskatoon, SK.12L. ShawM. HubbardL. Shaw• High humidity ↑ risk (Armstrong et al. 2004; Riaz et al. 2017)• Most disease risk at ~20°C (Riaz et al. 2017)EnvironmentArmstrong-Cho et al. 2004. Can J Plant Path . 26: 134-141Riaz et al. 2017. Pakistan J Bot. 49: 1971-1974.13Fig. 1. Effect of temperature and wetness period on … Ascochyta rabiei (Raiz et al. 2017)• Fungicides (Gan et al. 2006; Gossen et al. 2014)– $$– Time consuming– Risk of fungicide resistance • Especially to strobilurinsCurrent managementGan et al. 2006. Field Crops Res. 97:121-134Gossen et al. 2014. Can. J. Plant Path. 36: 327-34014• Disease-free seed• Seed treatments• Crop rotation• Genetic resistance– Incomplete– Can be overcome• Acres are growing• Economic benefitsCommercial acres of Chickpea-Flax150246810121416010002000300040005000600070002012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018# of FarmsAcresCanadian Acres # of GrowersShaw. 2018Trial sites in Saskatchewan16• Four small plot field sites– Swift Current– Indian Head– Redvers– Melfort• Saskatoon site planned for 2020-2022Swift CurrentIndian HeadRedversMelfortSaskatoonDisease and yield in a wet year17Shaw. 2015. ADOPT Interim Report. Project Number: 20130457KI 1KI 2KI 3DI 1DI 2 DI 3K MonoD Mono 01020304050600 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800Disease incidence (%)Chickpea yield (Kg/ha)KabuliDesiK MonoD MonoRedvers 2014IntercropsMonocrops• Chickpea seeding rate constant• Flax planting rate varied• Flax placement: – Mixed rows: chickpea and flax in the same row– Alternating rows (Omitted in Swift Current, 2018)– Paired rows (Swift Current, 2018)• Nitrogen fertilizer (0 or 60 kg/ha)Treatments2018 & 2019-202118• Higher in monocrop chickpeas than any intercrop treatmentAscochyta severity in Redvers, 2018190.01.02.03.04.05.06.00 4.75 10 19 38Ascochyta Severity (0-9) ±SEFlax (lb/ac)abb b b0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.08.09.00 75 150 300 600Average Disease Rating (0-9) ±SEFlax seeding rate (seeds/m2)Significant factor:– Flax seeding rate Redvers, July 201920abbccd dNo significant differences in AugustRelative humidity• Flax seeding rate has significant impact• ↑ at higher flax• Only at some time pointsRedvers canopy microclimate21Temperature• Flax seeding rate and row placement  have significant impact• Cooler with higher flax and alternating rows• Differences very small (<1°C)• Only at some time points828384858687880 10 38Relative humidity (%)Flax seeding rate (lb/ac)19.819.920.020.120.220.320.420.520.620.70 10 38Temperature (°C)Flax seeding rate (lb/ac)Mixed rows Alternate rows0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.50 75 150 300 600Disease severity (0-9) ±SEFlax seeding rate (seeds/m2)Mixed Alternate rowsSignificant factors:– Flax seeding rate – Row placement: ↑ disease in mixed rows Melfort, Aug 2019abbbb22Relative humidity• Flax seeding rate has significant impact• ↓ at higher flax – opposite of Redvers• Only at some time pointsMelfort canopy microclimate23Temperature• Only flax seeding rate has significant impact• Cooler at lower rates of flax –opposite of Redvers• Only at some time points14.814.915.015.115.215.315.40 150 600Temperature (°C)Mixed rows Alternating rows828384858687880 150 600Relative humidity (%)Mixed rows Alternating rows24Disease: Survey SK 2019 All chickpea/flax All monocrops0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5Disease severity (0-9) ±SE n = 17 n = 3025Fungicidesn = 15 n = 190.00.51.01.52.02.53.0All chickpea/flax All monocropsNumber of fungicide applications ±SEAll fungicides Strobilurin-containing fungicides• Sometimes higher in monocrop chickpeas than intercrop• 2 proline applicationsWilliston, ND26• Sometimes higher in monocrop chickpeas than intercrop• 2 proline applicationsWilliston, ND, 201827Ascochyta severity (0-10)Clair Keene, Ph.D.Extension Specialist in Cropping SystemsWilliston Research Extension Center14120 Hwy 2, Williston, ND 58801p: 701-774-4315clair.keene@ndsu.edu0510152025303540455066/33 50/50 33/66 100 100 66/66Chickpea/Flax Chickpea/Flax Chickpea/Flax Chickpea Flax Chickpea/FlaxSclerotinia severity (%) ±SE• Sclerotinia (white mold) ONLY in monocropCarrington, 201828LSD (0.05) = 5.9%Mike Ostlie, Ph.D.Research Agronomist / Carrington Research Extension CenterNORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITYPhone: 701-652-2951010203040506070125/0 0/30 84/20 84/10 42/20 63/15 125/30 125/20 125/15Ascochyta incidence (%)Fungicide No FungicideFungicide = proline 2xCarrington, 201929LSD (0.05) = 11.9Mike Ostlie• Chickpea/flax intercropping can help manage Ascochyta blight and sclerotinia in chickpea– Not in all situations – more research needed• Improve chickpea adaptation to wetter environments• Compliments fungicide application• Impacts canopy microclimate– More research needed• Mechanisms remain to be exploredConclusions 30• Foliar disease• Impacts pea around the worldMycosphaerella blight in pea 31Mycosphaerella pinodesPhotos: S. Boecher• Canopy density• Leaf wetness/ humidity• Weather forecast• SymptomsCurrent management• Clean seed• Fungicide ~ early flower• Moderate genetic resistance (4-5 on 0-9 scale)• Crop rotationRisk factors32• Foliar disease• Impacts pea around the worldMycosphaerella blight in intercrops33Most effectivePea : faba beanPea : triticalePlanting rate34• Reduced pea planting rate ↓ diseasePea : triticale more effectivePlant organs and disease severity35• Intercropping with wheat did not change disease on stipules• ↓ disease on stems and pods if disease was moderate or severeMild disease Moderate disease Severe diseaseMonocropMonocropMechanisms36• Canopy microclimate– ↓ leaf wetness at and after flowering • Barrier to spore dispersal / dilution of host plants– Splash spreading of spores ↓Schoeny et al. (2010) Eur J Plant Pathol 126:317–331Monocrop Host dilution Intercrop• Foliar disease • Caused by Botrytis fabaeand/or Botrytis cinereaChocolate spot in faba bean37Surinder Kaur, Sabine Banniza, Carter Peru, and Syama Chatterton. Survey for Chocolate Spot and Other Foliar Disease on Faba Bean in Saskatchewan in 2019 in 2019 Pulse Situation Report• Moisture• Dense canopy• Diseased seed• No Canadian resistant varieties availableRisks     Management38• Avoid high seeding rates• Plant clean seed• Early seeding• FungicidesIntercropping39Faba bean + cereal more effective than faba bean + legumeM. Fernández-Aparicio et al. / Crop Protection 30 (2011) 1015e1023Different regions40M. Fernández-Aparicio et al. / Crop Protection 30 (2011) 1015e1023• Results consistent between regionsFaba bean planting rate41M. Fernández-Aparicio et al. / Crop Protection 30 (2011) 1015e1023• 50% faba bean seeding only sometimes ↓ disease– Even under high disease pressureShort vs. tall faba beans42M. Fernández-Aparicio et al. / Crop Protection 30 (2011) 1015e1023• Tall cultivars > disease than short cultivars• Intercropping more effective in short cultivarsM. Fernández-Aparicioet al. / Crop Protection 30 (2011) 1015e1023N fertilizer43• ↑ N → ↑ disease, or no difference• Monocrop had more disease than intercropIntercrop: Faba bean + wheat• Monocrop more humid (Guo et al. 2020 Crop Protection 127 104972)• Monocrop potentially drier (M. Fernández-Aparicio et al. / Crop Protection 30 (2011) 1015e1023)Canopy microclimate44Faba bean - barleyFaba bean monocropFaba bean - oatGreater drop in morning could ↑ sport release• Can reduce disease in some situations• Have to choose crop combinations well• Potential mechanisms– Barrier– Host dilution– Canopy microclimate– Changes to crop growth– Stimulation of plant defensesIntercropping and foliar diseaseRoot rot is caused by a complex of• Fusarium species• Pythium species• Rhizoctonia solani• Aphanomyces euteichesIntercropping and root rot FusariumCourtesy of F. Dokken-Bouchard, SMACourtesy of S. Chatterton, AAFCInfects many different plantsAphanomycesCourtesy of F. Dokken-Bouchard, SMACourtesy of S. Chatterton, AAFC• Infects pea and lentil• Oospores = resting spores• More vulnerable after they germinate• Zoospores: can swim short distancesOospores Root rot & Pea/brassica Intercropping• Soil “bio-fumigation”Photo: M Hubbard, Axten FarmPea/mustardGlucosinolatesIsothiocyanates• 2018 results: not significantly different on intercrop compared to monocrop pea roots 0123456Pea Pea:Can 30:70 Pea:Can 50:50 Pea:Mus 30:70 Pea:Mus 50:50Disease Severity Taber SaskatoonChatterton et al. 2019. Can. Phytopath. Society Annual meeting. Root rotYield and Land Equivalency Ratio (LER)• 2018 resultsSaskatoon TaberPea yield Total yield LER^ Pea yieldTotal yield LER^Pea 637.7 637.7 1.00 542.7 594.2 1.00Canola (Can) 1066.2 604.5Mustard (Mus) 826.3 387.9Pea:Can 30:70 102.5 1040.0 1.00 287.0 709.7 1.16Pea:Can 50:50 276.2 1028.0 1.18 250.0 705.8 1.27Pea:Mus 30:70 227.2 987.6 1.28* 246.5 456.2 0.99Pea:Mus 50:50 583.9 1083.9* 1.53* 310.0 624.6* 1.35*^LER = yield crop A in intercrop/ yield crop A in monocrop + yield crop B in intercrop/ yield crop B in monocrop*significantly different than monocrop yield or LER at P = 0.05 Chatterton et al. 2019. Can. Phytopath. Society Annual meeting. AcknowledgementsWe thank Z. Hossain, C. Vucurevich, A. Erickson, N. Thangam, T. Dubitz, G. Daniels, D. Burke, L. Poppy, L. Syrovy,E, Leatherdale, R. Davies, G. Peng, S. Ginter, B. Evans, S. Campbell and numerous laborers and students. CROP DEVELOPMENTCENTRETechnicians: Lee Poppy, Elijah Leatherdale, Rebecca Davies, Orla Willoughby, Randy Shiplack, Darwin LeachGeneral labor: Eric Walker, Clint Dyck, Other staff: Kevin Willoughby, Gordon Leatherdale, Pat Leatherdale, Kathy Ringdal, Joanne MacKayStudents: Ben Kellough, Alex Menun, Dale Eung, Danielle Beaudoin-KwanIntern: Louis Gegu, Ophélie Grossemy, Flavien Orillard Questions?Michelle.Hubbard@Canada.caOffice: 1 (306) 770-4461

Intercropping as a disease management strategy

https://harvest.usask.ca/bitstream/10388/12760/1/04%20Hubbard.pdf

Intercropping as a disease management strategy

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Saskatchewan Research Archive