Saturday, January 23, 2016

CARTA A W. SPURRIER

Econ. Spurrier

Estudie en la Universidad Central, Universidad de Minnesota y ahora en la Universidad Estatal de Dakota del Norte, lo cual me permite conocer la educación por dentro, además que soy profesor universitario en Ecuador.
Debo contarle que los profesores aquí en Estados Unidos de América deben tener título de Doctorado, luego de varios Post Doctorados para ser docentes. Por otra parte, un puesto de profesor se llena luego de un concurso internacional, de manera que 50% de profesores son de aquí y el otro 50% del exterior, una de las razones por las que ganan los Premio Novel.
En el Ecuador todavía estamos lejos de llegar a tener profesores del alto nivel académico y científico con títulos de Ph. D.
Con estos datos, espero que usted medite antes de escribir artículos como el del día 19 de enero del presente año en El Comercio. No hacerlo, significa que opina desde la envidia o mala fe, porque estoy convencido que ignorante no es, ya que usted en uno de los pocos editorialistas de El Comercio a quien leo desde que era estudiante de pregrado.

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Tratamiento de semillas: una herramienta de manejo o una solución buscando un problema.
El caso de leguminosas

José Vásquez Guzmán, Ecuador

Especies infecciosas de hongos como Fusarium, Rhizoctonia, Pythium y otros son habitantes comunes del suelo; junto a especies benéficas como Trichoderma, Micorrizas y algunas especies de bacterias. La infección causada por los primeros en los estados iniciales de desarrollo  causa su deterioro o muerte de las plantas (mal de semillero, damping off). Estos pertenecen al grupo denominado parásitos facultativos (hemi-biotróficos), también llamados hongos oportunistas que atacan a las plantas si las condiciones ambientales son favorables para ellos y desfavorables para las plantas.

Existen varios métodos de control para proteger las plántulas: químicos, biológicos, culturales, resistencia genética, rotación de cultivos, cultivos múltiples, cultivos alelopáticos, fertilización y preparación del suelo adecuados. Entre estos, los más usados son el tratamiento químico de la semilla, uso de variedades resistentes y rotación de cultivos.

Describiremos el primero. Una práctica generalizada para proteger las plántulas es tratar la semilla con productos de síntesis química. El tratamiento generalmente incluye el uso de fungicidas e insecticidas, lo cual dificulta medir separadamente el efecto de cada uno de ellos. Sin embargo, si es posible medir el efecto de estos con relación a la utilización de semilla sana no tratada.

Para conocer los beneficios agronómicos del tratamiento de semillas se efectuó un estudio para la presentación en un seminario académico. Se utilizaron las publicaciones sobre el tema de revistas indexadas y no indexadas, provenientes de universidades e instituciones de investigación y de extensión agrícola realizadas a partir del año 2004 hasta el 2012.

 De 45 experimentos realizados en Brasil y Estados Unidos en soya, frejol y arveja,  únicamente en 11 (24%) hubo incremento en rendimiento de grano en forma significativa con respecto a la semilla no tratada. En otro estudio, Glogoza (2012) encontró únicamente  en 6 (21%) de  28 experimentos incrementos significativos en rendimiento con respecto a la semilla no tratada. El autor utilizo experimentos de pesticidas en semilla de soya. Resultado que concuerda con el presente estudio.

Por otra parte,  los organismos benéficos como Rhizobium y Trichoderma también resultarían afectadas por la acción de los pesticidas en igual proporción que los patógenos. En consecuencia,  al neutralizar su efecto positivo, los protectantes de semilla resultan ineficientes; o, en el mejor de los casos eficientes solo cuando la infectación del suelo es alta.

Este estudio solo toma en consideración el efecto agronómico, sin considerar que los fungicidas también tienen efecto negativo en la salud y el ambiente. La siembra en pequeñas parcelas, especialmente en las zonas de ladera, es realizada a mano, lo cual afecta directamente la salud de las personas al entrar en contacto con los pesticidas. De igual manera, al aplicar innecesariamente, se contamina el suelo, el agua y el aire afectando la vida silvestre.

Como conclusión de este estudio bibliografico, se puede afirmar que la mayoría de suelos no están infectados y las pudriciones de raíz difícilmente llegan al umbral económico de daño. Por tanto, es necesario primero conocer el riesgo real (suelo arcilloso, inundable, estado nutricional, eficiencia del producto) si se quiere recomendar el uso de una semilla tratada. Caso contrario, un manejo adecuado de la rotación, de la fertilidad y preparación del suelo, uso de semilla sana y resistencia varietal serían suficientes.

Referencias

Bradley, C.A. 2007. Effect of fungicide seed treatments on stand establishment, seedling disease, and yield of soybean in North Dakota. Plant Dis. 92:120-125.
Behnken, L.M., F.R. Breitenbach, R.P. Miller, and D.A. Nicolai. 2007. The effect of insecticide and fungicide seed treatment on soybean emergence, insect populations and yield in southeast Minnesota in 2007. http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/crops-research/south/2007/docs/2007-soybean-insecticide-fungicide-seed-treatment.pdf
Campo, R.J. R. Silva, F.L. Mostasso, and M. Hungria. 2010. In-furrow inoculation of soybean as alternative to fungicide and micronutrient seed treatment. R. Bras. Ci. Solo. 34: 1103-1112.
Henson, B., C. Bradley, S. Halley, B. Hanson, K. McKay, and M. Halvorson. 2005. Fungicide seed treatment effects on disease and nodulation of Field Pea in North Dakota.  http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/carringtonrec/documents/plantpathologyrd/docs2004/04%20FP%20Fungicide%20Seed%20Treatment.pdf
Glogoza, P. 2012. Seed Treatments for Soybeans: A Management Tool or a solution looking for a Problem? Available in: http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/smallgrains/presentations/2012-best-of-the-best-in-wheat-and-soybean/Glogoza.pdf
Goswami, R.S., B.G. Schatz, F.M. Mathew, and S.G. Markell. 2009. Evaluation of Fungicide Seed Treatments as Management Tools for Root Rot of Field Peas in North Dakota. Available in: http://www.legumematrix.com/images/563/2009%20Evaluation%20of%20Seed%20Treatments%20in%20Field%20Pea.pdf
Robertson, A., D.M., and S. Wiggs. 2011. Evaluation of fungicide and insecticide seed treatments on soybean in Iowa. IPM news. Available in: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/CropNews/2012/0222robertsonhodgsonmueller.htm.
Strausbaugh, C.A. and A. C. Koehn. 2004. Seed treatments for improved stand and yield in dry beans in Twin Falls County, ID, 2004. University of Idaho. Available in: https://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/trial/fntests/reports/2005/ST001.pdf
Zilli, J.E., K. Gonçalves, R.J. Campo, and M. Hungria. 2009. Influence of fungicide seed treatment on soybean nodulation and grain yield. R. Bras. Ci. Solo. 33:917-923.




Friday, April 17, 2015

HALO BLIGHT 2015 BIC ARTICLE

Screening Field Resistance to Halo Blight Within the Andean Diversity Panel (ADP)

Jose Vasquez, Kiran Ghising, Albert Jody VanderWal, Michael Kloberdanz, and Juan M. Osorno
North Dakota State University, Dept. of Plant Sciences, Fargo, ND 58102

INTRODUCTION
During the evaluation of the ADP genotypes for root rot complex in the field, the leaf canopy also was attacked by Halo Blight disease (caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola or Psp) during 2013 and 2014 planting cycles. This provided an opportunity to also screen the ADP genotypes for their reaction to this disease under field conditions. Psp is a seed-borne bacterial disease that cause yield losses in dry bean ranging from 10 to 40% depending on disease pressure, environmental conditions, and cultivar (Asencio and Singh, 2005).

MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 310 genotypes from the Andean Diversity Panel (ADP) (Cichy et al., 2015) were planted at Perham, MN in 2013. From those, 51 genotypes were photoperiod sensitive or did not complete the production cycle. Remnant 259 genotypes were screened again in 2014 in two trials separated by days to maturity. The early maturity trial consisting of 144 genotypes, and the late maturity trial consisting of 121 genotypes. Six common checks, one resistant, four intermediate, and one susceptible were used. The early and late maturity trials were planted in a 12 x 12 and 11 x 11 alpha-lattice design respectively, with two replications per trial. Bacterial disease severity was determined on a scale 1-9 (1= healthy, 9= death plant) in the whole plot at pod-filling stage (R8). In addition to Psp, seed size and seed yield were also measured. Resistant genotypes were considered those ranging from 1 to 3, intermediate from 4 to 6, and susceptible from 7 to 9.  

RESULTS
In 2013, from the selected 259 genotypes, 137 were in the range 1 to 3, 115 in the range 4 to 6, and 7 in the range 7 to 9 (data not shown). Table 1 shows the top 20 high resistant genotypes in 2014 early and late trials in addition to the checks. From the top 20, 17 were also resistant in 2013. Using the analysis of variance, in the early trial there were significant differences (P<0.01) among genotypes. Using Least Square Means, 5 genotypes are in the range 1 to 3, 74 in the range 4 to 6, and 65 in the range 7 to 9. In the late trial also there were significant differences (P<0.01) among genotypes. Using Least Square Means, 42 genotypes are in the range 1 to 3, 64 in the range 4 to 6, and 15 in the range 7 to 9. The mean 6 for early and 4 for late trials and the extreme values of the checks and genotypes suggest the high disease pressure in the field during the 2014 season. If the environmental conditions are favorable in the next cycle, a set of contrasting genotypes for root rot also will be evaluated for Psp in order to confirm results.

REFERENCES
Asensio, C., and S. P. Singh. 2005. Gamete selection for resistance to common and halo bacterial blights in dry bean intergene pool populations. Crop Sci. 46:131–135.

Cichy et al. 2015. A Phaseolus vulgaris Diversity Panel for Andean Bean Improvement.  Crop Sci. (in press).

Table 1. Halo blight reaction to 16 early-maturity and to 16 late-maturity ADP genotypes at Perham, MN, 2014.
Genotype
Seed type
Halo blight(1-9)
100 seed weight (g)
Seed yield
kg ha-1
2014 Early maturity
VAX3 (resistant check)
Small red
1
29.9
2856
ADP43  Bwana shamba
Dark red kidney
3
38.4
1436
ADP678 Hooter*
Cranberry
3
50.1
1107
ADP2   W6_16444*
Red mottled
4
47.9
1444
ADP647 Red kanner*
Light red kidney
4
50.5
1753
ADP614 Rosie*
Light red kidney
4
53.4
1952
ADP624 Dolly*
Cranberry
4
60.7
1579
ADP477 PI527512*
Pink spotted
4
44.6
1332
ADP649 Kamiakin*
Light red kidney
4
59.8
1329
ADP112 Uyole96*
Red
4
47.4
1314
ADP685 Chianti*
Cranberry
4
51.5
1233
ADP636 Montcalm(inter. check)
Dark red kidney
5
47.7
  927
Dynasty (intermediate check)
Dark red kidney
5
56.8
1495
Talon (intermediate check)
Dark red kidney
6
49.2
1152
GTS104 (intermediate check)
Dark red kidney
6
50.9
1195
Cabernet (susceptible check)
Dark red kidney
9
41.0
  453
Mean

6
43.4
  892
Coefficient of variation (%)

16.8
  7.0
       33.9
2014 Late maturity
ADP50  Salunde*
Yellow
2
47.0
1313
ADP71  Njano dolea*
Yellow
2
45.0
1616
ADP122 Kranskop*
Cranberry
2
44.3
1278
VAX3 (resistant check)
Small red
3
29.1
2772
ADP57  Kijivu*
Dark red kidney
3
34.0
1337
ADP84  Kablanketi ndefu*
Black spotted
3
37.5
1311
ADP454 Iniap429*
Red spotted
3
45.1
1886
ADP626 Badillo*
Light red kidney
3
48.0
1289
ADP621 JaloEEP558*
Yellow
3
35.7
1309
ADP523 Canario cela*
Yellow
3
39.1
1267
ADP37  W6_16488
Brown
3
49.1
1252
ADP636 Montcalm(inter. check)
Dark red kidney
6
51.0
1198
Talon (intermediate check)
Dark red kidney
6
51.5
1433
Dynasty (intermediate check)
Dark red kidney
6
55.1
1305
GTS104 (intermediate check)
Dark red kidney
7
46.3
  666
Cabernet (susceptible check)
Dark red kidney
9
43.6
  759
Mean

4
39.2
1001
Coefficient of variation (%)

22.0
  5.6
       31.3

*Resistant in 2013 and 2014 seasons

FUSARIUM 2015 ROOT ROT BIC ARTICLE

Screening Field Resistance to the Root Rot Complex Within the
Andean Diversity Panel (ADP)

Jose Vasquez, Kiran Ghising, Albert Jody VanderWal, Michael Kloberdanz, and Juan M. Osorno
North Dakota State University, Dept. of Plant Sciences, 7670 Fargo, ND 58102

Introduction
Dry bean root rot is caused by a fungal complex mostly including Fusarium solani f. sp. phaseoli, in association with Rhizoctonia solani, F. oxysporum, Phythium spp., among others. Root rots are an increasing problem in Minnesota, the largest producer of kidney beans in the U.S. Root rot can reduce seed yield up to 100% under severe disease pressure (Schwartz, 2014). Large seeded-cultivars planted in the area are especially susceptible to the Fusarium root rot complex when conditions are favorable. F. solani is the primary pathogen involved in bean root rot in Minnesota (Estevez de Jensen, 1998), and few sources of resistance exist, especially within the Andean Gene Pool. The objective of this study was to evaluate the reaction of a set of Andean genotypes to the root rot complex in the field.

Materials and methods
A total of 310 genotypes from the Andean Diversity Panel (ADP) (Cichy et al., 2015) were screened at Perham, MN in 2013. From those, 45 genotypes were photoperiod-sensitive or did not complete the production cycle. Remnant 265 genotypes were screened again in 2014 in two trials separated by days to maturity. The early maturity trial consisted of 144 genotypes, and the late maturity trial of 121 genotypes. Six common checks, one resistant, two intermediate, and three susceptible were used.  The early and late maturity trials were planted in a 12 x 12 and 11 x 11 alpha-lattice design with two replications per trial. Root rot disease severity was determined on a scale 1-9 (1= healthy, 9= dead plant) at flowering stage (R6) using four plants per plot, evaluating individually and computing the average. In addition to root rot, seed size and seed yield were also measured. Resistant genotypes were considered those ranging from 1 to 3, intermediate from 4 to 6, and susceptible from 1 to 9.

Results
Plant samples collected in the field allowed to confirm that the most abundant pathogen was F. solani. In the early trial there were significant differences (P<0.05) among genotypes for Fusarium root rot. Using Least Square Means, 23 genotypes are in the range 1 to 3, 102 in the range 4 to 6, and 19 in the range 7 to 9. VAX 3 was resistant, Talon and Dynasty were intermediate, Montcalm, Cabernet, GTS-104 were susceptible as expected. The average 5 and the reaction of the checks suggest high disease pressure in the field. Table 1 shows the top 10 resistant and high seed yield early and late genotypes in addition to the checks. In the late trial there were also significant differences (P<0.1) among genotypes for Fusarium root rot. Using Least Square Means, 21 genotypes are in the range 1 to 3, 62 in the range 4 to 6, and 38 in the range 7 to 9. The average 5 and similar reaction of the checks (compared to early trial) suggest high disease pressure in the field. A subset of contrasting genotypes will be evaluated again in the field in order to confirm results.

References
·         Cichy et al. 2015. A Phaseolus vulgaris Diversity Panel for Andean Bean Improvement.  Crop Sci. (in press).
·         Estévez de Jensen, C., R. Meronuck, and J.A. Percich. 1998. Etiology and control of kidney bean root rot in Minnesota. Annu. Rpt. Bean Improv. Coop. 41:55-56.
·         Schwartz, H.F. 2014. Root rots of dry beans. Colorado State University. Ext. Bull. No. 2.938.  

Table 1. Root rot reaction to 16 early-maturity and 16 late-maturity ADP genotypes at Perham, MN, 2014.
Genotype
Seed type
Root rot
(1-9)
100 seed weight (g)
Seed yield
kg ha-1
Early-Maturity
VAX 3 (resistant check)
Small Red
1
29.9
2856
ADP462 PI527540B*
Yellow
2
32.1
1897
ADP608 UI_51*
Cranberry
3
54.8
1111
ADP640 Beluga*
White kidney
3
48.2
1500
ADP172*
Dark red
3
25.7
1632
ADP624 Dolly*
Cranberry
3
60.7
1579
ADP12  W6_16489
Dark red kidney
3
52.2
1398
ADP467 PI209808
Pink spotted
3
43.4
1121
ADP680 Clouseau
Light red kidney
3
59.1
1540
ADP477 PI527512*
Pink mottled
3
44.6
1332
ADP438 46_1
Red mottled
3
31.8
1308
Talon (intermediate check)
Dark red kidney
5
49.2
1152
Dynasty (intermediate check)
Dark red kidney
5
56.8
1495
ADP636 Montcalm(susceptible check)
Dark red kidney
5
47.7
  927
Cabernet (susceptible check)
Dark red kidney
7
41.0
  453
GTS-104 (susceptible check)
Dark red kidney
7
50.9
1195
Mean

5
43.4
  892
Coefficient of variation (%)

 28.8
  7.0
       33.9
Late Maturity
ADP48  W6_6534*
Dark red
1
28.0
1716
ADP465 PI321094D
Cream
2
28.1
1001
VAX3 (resistant check)
Small red
2
29.1
2772
ADP621 JaloEEP558
Yellow
2
35.7
1309
ADP93  Moro*
Yellow
2
29.5
977
ADP84  Kablanketi ndefu*
Black spotted
2
37.5
1311
ADP628 H9659_27_7*
Light red kidney
3
43.7
1459
ADP105 Sewani_97
Dark red
3
40.7
1102
ADP454 Iniap429*
Red mottled
3
45.1
1886
ADP122 Kranskop*
Cranberry
3
44.3
1278
ADP474 PI527519
Red mottled
3
33.7
1258
Talon (intermediate check)
Dark red kidney
5
51.5
1433
Dynasty (intermediate check)
Dark red kidney
6
55.1
1305
Cabernet (susceptible check)
Dark red kidney
7
43.6
  759
ADP636 Montcalm (susceptible check)
Dark red kidney
7
51.0
1198
GTS-104 (susceptible check)
Dark red kidney
7
46.3
  666
Mean

5
39.2
1001
Coefficient of variation (%)

36.3
  5.6
       31.3

* Resistant in 2013 and 2014 seasons