Stability of Hybrid Maize Reaction to Gibberella Ear Rot and Deoxynivalenol Contamination of Grain.

Trials were conducted to quantify the stability (or lack of G × E interaction) of 15 maize hybrids to Gibberella ear rot (GER; caused by Fusarium graminearum) and deoxynivalenol (DON) contamination of grain across 30 Ohio environments (3 years × 10 locations). In each environment, one plot of each hybrid was planted and 10 ears per plot were inoculated via the silk channel. GER severity (proportion of ear area diseased) and DON contamination of grain (ppm) were quantified. Multiple rank-based methods, including Kendall's concordance coefficient (W) and Piepho's U, were used to quantify hybrid stability. The results found insufficient evidence to suggest crossover G × E interaction of ranks, with W greater than zero for GER (W = 0.28) and DON (W = 0.26), and U not statistically significant for either variable (P > 0.20). Linear mixed models (LMMs) were also used to quantify hybrid stability, accounting for crossover or noncrossover G × E interaction of transformed observed data. Based on information criteria and likelihood ratio tests for GER and DON response variables, the models with more complex variance-covariance structures-heterogeneous compound symmetry and factor-analytic-provided a better fit than the model with the simpler compound symmetry structure, indicating that one or more hybrids differed in stability. Overall, hybrids were stable based on rank-based methods, which indicated a lack of crossover G × E interaction, but the LMMs identified a few hybrids that were sensitive to environment. Resistant hybrids were generally more stable than susceptible hybrids.

Meta-Analysis of the Effects of QoI and DMI Fungicide Combinations on Fusarium Head Blight and Deoxynivalenol in Wheat.

Field trials were conducted in 17 U.S. states to evaluate the effects of quinone outside inhibitor (QoI) and demethylation inhibitor (DMI) fungicide programs on Fusarium head blight index (IND) and deoxynivalenol (DON) toxin in wheat. Four DMI-only treatments applied at Feekes 10.5.1, five QoI-only treatments applied between Feekes 9 or Feekes 10.5, three QoI+DMI mixtures applied at Feekes 10.5, and three treatments consisting of a QoI at Feekes 9 followed by a DMI at Feekes 10.5.1 were evaluated. Network meta-analytical models were fitted to log-transformed mean IND and DON data and estimated contrasts of log means were used to obtain estimates of mean percent controls relative to the nontreated check as measures of efficacy. Results from the meta-analyses were also used to assess the risk of DON increase in future trials. DMI at Feekes 10.5.1 were the most effective programs against IND and DON and the least likely to increase DON in future trials. QoI-only programs increased mean DON over the nontreated checks and were the most likely to do so in future trials, particularly when applied at Feekes 10.5. The effects of QoI+DMI combinations depended on the active ingredients and whether the two were applied as a mixture at heading or sequentially. Following a Feekes 9 QoI application with a Feekes 10.5.1 application of a DMI reduced the negative effect of the QoI on DON but was not sufficient to achieve the efficacy of the Feekes 10.5.1 DMI-only treatments. Our results suggest that one must be prudent when using QoI treatments under moderate to high risk of FHB, particularly where the QoI is used without an effective DMI applied in combination or in sequence.