contents

11 Corn Breeding
11 A Brief History of Corn

18 Corn Management
18 Managing Corn for Greater Yield Potential
24 Critical Period of Weed Control in Corn
26 Corn Nematode Populations

52
in the Corn Belt Corn Growth and Development
28 Spider Mite Management in Corn
52 Timing of Pollen Shed in Corn
32 Corn Root Lodging
54 Functions of Water in Corn Growth and
34 Brittle Snap in Corn Development
57 Corn Leaf Removal Impact on Yield
and Stalk Quality
60 Kernel Black Layer Formation in Corn:
Anatomy, Physiology, and Causes
64 Kernel Weight Differences by Hybrid in Iowa

67 Corn Dry Down and Harvest

67 Phantom Yield Loss in Corn
– A Five-Year Nebraska Field Study
70 Corn Maturity and Dry Down

35 Corn Planting
35 Planter Preparation for Spring
37 Determining Soil Fitness for Spring Field
Work
39 Effects of Seed Orientation at Planting
on Corn Growth
42 Corn Yield Response to Plant Population
in Eastern Ontario
72 Corn Rootworm
72 Extended Diapause in Northern
45 Soil Temperature and Corn Emergence Corn Rootworm
50 Delayed Corn Planting in the Southern U.S. 74 Corn Rootworm Levels in the
Central Corn Belt - 2022
76 Estimating Corn Rootworm Populations
with Sticky Traps in Ontario

79 Corn Disease Management

79 Tar Spot of Corn in the U.S. and Canada
87 Corn Yield Response to Fungicides
in Eastern Ontario

2
 116 Canola
116 Sclerotinia Stem Rot of Canola
118 Critical Period of Weed Control in Canola

88 Soil Diseases and Insects

88 Seed and Seedling Diseases of Corn
92 Field Performance of Lumiscend™ Pro
Fungicide Seed Treatment
94 Seedcorn Maggot

96 Strip-Till Systems
96 Fall vs. Spring Strip-Till in Indiana*
98 Effects of Potassium Fertilizer Placement
on Availability and Uptake*
100 Can Potassium Fertilizer Rates
Be Reduced in Strip-Till?*

120 Soil Fertility

120 Nitrogen Fertilizers and Stabilizers
for Corn Production
126 Micronutrients for Crop Production

131 Climate Change

131 Crop Management in a Changing Climate
138 Factors Contributing to Rising Global
Temperatures
142 The Greenhouse Effect and
Greenhouse Gases
147 Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Agriculture

102 Soybean
102 Factors Affecting Soybean Nodulation
104 Early Season Soybean Pests and Diseases
106 Soybean Cyst Nematode Populations
Across the Midwest
108 Red Crown Rot in Soybeans
110 Two-Spotted Spider Mites in Soybeans
112 Effects of Cold Temperatures Following
*Research was supported in part by the Pioneer Crop
Soybean Planting Management Research Awards (CMRA) Program. This
114 Sudden Death Syndrome of Soybeans program provides funds for agronomic and precision
farming studies by university and USDA cooperators
throughout North America. The awards extend for up to
four years and address crop management information
needs of Pioneer agronomists, sales professionals, and
customers.

3
introduction
2022 Growing Season in Review
return to table of contents

At this point it’s getting difficult to remember what a “normal”

year in agriculture even looks like. With the widespread
weather impacts of 2019 and early 2020 followed immediately
by the pandemic-related supply chain constraints of 2020
and 2021, one would have to go back to 2018 for the last time
we had a growing season that was not impacted by some
major, widespread disruption. 2022 started right where 2021
left off, with short supplies and high prices for fertilizer, parts,
and other farm inputs as a primary concern on the minds of
many growers. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February
Planting corn in northern Illinois, May 8, 2022.
dashed any hope for a return to normalcy in 2022 and added
a whole new dimension of disruption and uncertainty in Above-average temperatures in May got the crop off to a
agricultural and energy markets. Fertilizer and diesel prices good start in many areas, although a late-spring freeze in
would remain elevated throughout the rest of the year. Nebraska and some early-summer hail events led to some
As the growing season got underway, however, it was often replanting of corn in parts of the western Corn Belt.
much more familiar challenges, such as weather, insects, and 2022 saw another summer of record high temperatures in the
disease pressure that ended up shaping the 2022 season. contiguous U.S. The month of July was the 3rd warmest on
Planting got off to a relatively slow start in 2022. Below normal record (with 2021 being the #1 warmest). As in 2021, the high
temperatures throughout much of the Corn Belt during the temperatures were not driven by extreme daytime highs as
month of April caused widespread delays (Figure 1). Planting much as high nighttime temperatures. Both July and August
was able to proceed relatively quickly in many areas once set new all-time records for daily minimum temperatures, with
temperatures warmed up, but U.S. corn planting progress nearly all of the contiguous U.S. experiencing warmer-than-
overall was about two weeks behind the 2020 and 2021 average-nights (Figure 3).
seasons (Figure 2).

Figure 3. Minimum temperature percentiles, July 2022 (NOAA).

Figure 1. Average temperature percentiles for April 2022 (NOAA).
The warm temperatures helped move crop development
along and, by the time corn reached silking, it was able to
catch up somewhat from its delayed start. Things seemed
2022 2 4 7 14 22 49 72 86 94 97
to lag in the latter half of the season though, with stubbornly
slow maturity and dry down in corn throughout much of the
northern and eastern Corn Belt. However, a relatively dry
2021 2 4 8 17 46 67 80 90 95 October allowed the combines to keep rolling once harvest
got started.
2020 3 7 27 51 67 80 88 93 97 The 2022 season brought a mixed bag of insect, weed, and
disease issues. Dry conditions early in the summer led to poor
efficacy of soil residual herbicides in the western Corn Belt.
3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 Corn rootworm pressure remained relatively high in many
April May June areas following an above average corn rootworm season in
Figure 2. U.S. corn planting progress for 2020, 2021, and 2022 (USDA-
2021. Populations of northern corn rootworm with extended
NASS). diapause continued to show up in rotated corn, with parts

4
 return to table of contents

of Iowa and northwestern Illinois increasingly affected. Dry Successful crop management under constantly evolving
conditions kept foliar diseases largely in check in many areas. conditions requires smart and efficient use of resources, driven
Tar spot continued its westward by sound agronomic knowledge. A commitment to improved
expansion into Nebraska and crop management is a core component of the Pioneer brand,
Kansas but was generally not se- exemplified by our industry-leading network of agronomists
vere outside of parts of southern across North America. The mission of this team is to help
Wisconsin, southeast Minnesota, maximize grower productivity by delivering useful insights built
and northeast Iowa. The slow dry on rigorous, innovative research. Pioneer agronomists work to
down of corn in some areas led help crop producers manage factors within their control and
to widespread occurrence of ear maximize productivity within the environmental constraints
molds. Tar spot in corn, Sept. 2022. unique to a given growing season, be they favorable or not.
Ultimately it was water – often too much or too little – that This Agronomy Research Summary is the latest edition of
determined the fate the 2022 crop, and some of the extremes an annual compilation of Pioneer agronomy information
that occurred at both ends of the spectrum were dramatic. and research results. Highlights of the 2023 edition include
The summer months were generally drier than normal west of updates on two emerging diseases: tar spot in corn and red
the Mississippi, but the situation was much more severe for crown rot in soybeans; field research results for Lumiscend™
large parts of Nebraska and Kansas that experienced well Pro fungicide seed treatment; an overview of nitrogen fertilizer
below average precipitation. Lack of moisture coupled with and stabilizer products; new research on fertility management
high temperatures led to some of the most extreme drought in strip-till systems; and Pioneer on-farm research studies on
conditions in years for both states. East of the Mississippi, corn seed orientation in the furrow at planting, phantom yield
summer precipitation was generally more favorable, but loss in corn, and corn kernel weight differences by hybrid.
portions of Illinois and Indiana experienced drought stress The final section of this book takes a look at the science of
severe enough to significantly impact yield. anthropogenic climate change and how it intersects with
On the other end of the spectrum were numerous instances of crop production. As carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas
extreme rainfall events, including six 1,000-year rain events in reduction, and climate change adaptation become more
the contiguous U.S. that occurred within the span of a month prominent issues for crop management, having a basic
in July and August. On July 26, the St. Louis area received understanding of the underlying science will be increasingly
up to nine inches of rain within 24 hours. Two days later a important to make sense of it all.
10-inch rain led to deadly flash flooding in eastern Kentucky. This Agronomy Research Summary provides insights on
Portions of eastern Illinois were hit with 10-13 inches of rain on numerous crop production topics; however, it represents just
August 1-2. By the end of August, the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, a small portion of the vast array of resources available in the
southern California, and central Mississippi also experienced Pioneer agronomy library at www.pioneer.com. We hope that
1,000-year events. resources available in this book and online will help you drive
Despite these intense rainfall events, very few crop-producing productivity, efficiency, and profitability in 2023.
areas experienced sustained periods of excess moisture in
2022. Rather, it was the dry conditions for a longer duration
and over a much larger area that had the broader impact.
By October, water levels in the Mississippi River had dropped
to the point that barge traffic was restricted, with many
points on the river hitting their lowest levels in decades. The
U.S. Drought Monitor map for October showed that most of
the U.S., including nearly all of the Mississippi River watershed, Mark Jeschke, Ph.D.
was experiencing some degree of drought (Figure 4). Agronomy Manager

Figure 4. U.S. Drought Monitor map, October 25, 2022.

5
webinars return to table of contents

The Forward-thinking Farming webinar series launched

in early 2020 featuring the cutting-edge agronomic
knowledge and expertise of the Pioneer® agronomy
team. Each episode is led by a Pioneer Agronomy
Manager and industry experts, and is focused
on the innovative tools, technology, and
agronomic practices of Pioneer to help
farmers be successful and evolve into
the future.

Listen in on the cutting-edge Pioneer Agronomists and others

insights of the Pioneer Agronomy take to the screen to share insights
team! on topics important to you.
Watch our recent Forward- Scan the QR codes in text to
Thinking Farming webinars at watch videos from your Pioneer
pioneer.com/webinars. team.

6
 return to table of contents

2022 Webinar Series

Listen in on the cutting-edge insights of the Pioneer Agronomy team!
Watch our recent Forward-thinking Farming webinars at pioneer.com/webinars

Managing for Improved Nitrogen Planting with Precision - Crop Check-ins and Adapting
Utilization in Corn Adjustments, Tips, and Watchouts to the Season
One of the top management decisions for Planters have come a long way in a short Interested in how major crops are doing
farmers is how to improve the uptake and time, and today, they are sophisticated across the nation? Tune-in for boots-on-
utilization of nitrogen in their corn crop. pieces of technology capable of planting the-ground field updates from Pioneer’s
Listen to Dr. Daniel J. Quinn, Purdue seed with incredible accuracy and unifor- expert team of field agronomists. Each
University, and Dr. Jason DeBruin, Corteva mity. But these planters can only achieve season has its unique challenges, and we’ll
Agriscience, discuss hybrid interaction with the correct seed placement if adjusted talk through what’s happened so far and
nitrogen uptake, application methods, and maintained properly. hear how some farmers are adapting.
nitrogen sources, and insights on environ- Join Mike Gronski, Jason Kienast, and John Join Pioneer Field Agronomists to discuss
mental interactions that can influence ni- Mick, Pioneer Field Agronomists, as they the unique challenges that growers are
trogen management strategies to optimize discuss top planter adjustment tips and facing this year in their regions, and what
return on nitrogen investment. watchouts to keep in mind during planting new management practices and tools are
to give your seedlings the best possible being adopted to best adapt to them.
Driving Nitrogen Uptake in Corn start to the growing season.
June 24th Featured Speakers:
– New Ways to Get Nitrogen into
How Hot is Too Hot? – ● Clyde Tiffany, Pioneer Field Agronomist –
Your Corn Crop West-Central Minnesota
Understanding How Heat Stress
High nitrogen fertilizer costs have farmers ● Gabe Bathen, Pioneer Field Agronomist –
across the U.S. rethinking how to get the
Affects Corn Southeast Nebraska
most out of their current nitrogen invest- Corn growers know that excessive heat ● Tony Zerrusen, Pioneer Field Agronomist –
ment and considering alternative options. can be detrimental to yield, but how hot is Southern Illinois
Join Mike Koenigs, Corteva Crop Protection, too hot? And what is the risk of yield loss ● William Johnson, Pioneer and PhytoGen
and Dr. Michael Moechnig, Corteva due to excessive heat? Heat stress effects District Field Agronomist – Louisiana/
Research & Development, as we cover on corn are complex and often difficult to Southern Arkansas
opportunities to get the most out of your quantify.
July 17th Featured Speakers:
current fertilizer investment, as well as nov- Join Dr. Mark Jeschke, Pioneer Agronomy
el nitrogen sources – including biological Manager, as he covers how the intensity, ● John Schoenhals, Pioneer Field
products – that can supplement tradition- duration, and timing of heat stress fac- Agronomist – Northern Ohio
al fertilizers. tor into corn growth and yield, how high ● Ron Gehl, Pioneer Field Agronomist –
temperatures can intensify drought stress, Northeast Kansas
Getting the Most from Your and what management options exist to ● Marc Cartwright, Pioneer Field
Fertilizer Using the Pioneer® Yield improve corn resiliency against the effects Agronomist – Northeast North Dakota/
of high heat. Northwest Minnesota
Pyramid™ decision tool
● Kyle Holmberg, Pioneer and PhytoGen
The 2022 crop may see the highest fertilizer How Pioneer Maximizes Corn District Field Agronomist – Tennessee/
prices in history. The “Law of the Minimum” and Soybean Seed Quality Kentucky
states that crop yield is limited by the least
Having a uniform stand of soybeans and August 19th Featured Speakers:
available crop-essential nutrient. With all
of the emphasis on nitrogen, what can corn is important to the foundation of yield. ● Ryan Clayton, Pioneer Field Agronomist –
farmers do to make sure they get the max- Pioneer takes great pride and effort in the Central Iowa
imum benefit from phosphorus, potassium quality of seed we produce. Please join ● Nick Schimek, Pioneer Field Agronomist –
and sulfur? this webinar to learn some of the key steps North Central Minnesota
Pioneer takes to create the highest quality Kevin Fry, Pioneer Field Agronomist –
Join Dr. Eric Miller, Pioneer Field Agronomist, ●
of seed for your operation. Western Pennsylvania
and Dr. Matt Clover, Pioneer Agronomy
Manager, to discuss how to use the Join Kevin Dillion, and Aaron Schwarte, ● Luke Spainhour, Pioneer and PhytoGen
Pioneer® Yield Pyramid™ decision tool to Corteva Seed Production Research District Field Agronomist – North
prioritize secondary nutrient applications Scientists, for an overview of the pro- Carolina/Virginia
and maximize profitability duction process that creates the highest
quality seed, and a review of the quality
testing process that we use to make sure
the highest quality seed ends up in every
Pioneer bag.

7
agronomy team return to table of contents

Dan Berning, Agronomy Manager

Dan earned his B.S. in Agriculture at Kansas State University. In the fall of 1989, he started his
career with Pioneer as an Area Agronomist supporting the sales team and their customers
in western Kansas and southern Colorado. He became the Pioneer Field Sales Agronomist
in northeast and north-central Nebraska in 1994. In 1998, he was promoted to Field Sales
Agronomy Manager for the Plains Sales Area. Dan has had the privilege of supporting the
Pioneer sales team and customers across the Western Corn Belt in the roles of Technical
Information Manager, Technical Services Manager, and now as the Agronomy Manager.

Danny Brummel, M.S., Agronomy Systems Manager

Danny leads the Pioneer UAS/Drone Program and supports the execution, analysis and
delivery of on-farm research trials that drive Pioneer Agronomy innovation. He earned his
B.S and M.S. degrees in Agronomy from Iowa State University and holds CCA and PASp
certifications. Danny started his career with Corteva Agriscience in 2019, where he managed
disease screening trials and supported precision phenotyping efforts for corn, soybean, and
wheat breeding programs. He also serves as chair to the Corteva Grows Science program in
Iowa, promoting STEM Outreach in our local communities.

Matt Clover, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Matt is responsible for helping guide on-farm trials planning, protocol development, analysis,
and communication of trial results. Matt leverages his experience in soil fertility to bolster
expertise of the Agronomy Sciences team and support Pioneer agronomists, and sales teams.
Matt earned his Ph.D. in soil fertility from Iowa State University and his M.S. and B.S. degrees
from the University of Illinois in Crop Sciences. He is a Certified Professional Soil Scientist
(CPSSc). Matt came to Pioneer in April 2017 after a nine-year career in the fertilizer industry
with various roles in agronomy and research and development.

Matt Essick, M.S., Agronomy Manager

Matt is from a small community in northwest Iowa and earned his B.S. in Agricultural Business
and M.S. in Agronomy from Iowa State University. Matt joined Pioneer as a Management
Assistant working at the Cherokee, Iowa, soybean production plant. He transitioned to a
Pioneer Sales Representative where he gained hands-on experience in both sales and
agronomy before becoming a Territory Manager for Pioneer. Matt transitioned to an Area
Agronomist and then to a Product Agronomist before joining the Agronomy Sciences Team.
Matt is responsible for the Northern U.S.

Grant Groene, M.S., Global Seed Agronomy Lead

Grant has been with the Corteva organization since 2010 when he began as a Field Agronomist
in Eastern Kansas. He spent the next several years working as a Territory Manager and Product
Life Cycle Manager, supporting teams in Texas and across the High Plains. Grant relocated to
Iowa and began leading the Global Agronomy efforts in 2018. His primary responsibility is to
plan strategic agronomy initiatives, facilitate agronomy trainings, and share best agronomic
practices with colleagues across the global Corteva business. Grant graduated from Kansas
State University with B.S. in Agronomy and an M.S. in Crop Physiology and Plant Breeding, and
holds an M.B.A. from West Texas A&M.

Mary Gumz, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Mary is a native of northern Wisconsin and earned her B.S. in Agronomy from the University
of Minnesota – Twin Cities and M.S. and Ph.D. in Weed Science from Purdue University. After
working in the crop protection and seed industries as a Technical Service Agronomist, she
joined Pioneer in 2008 as an Area Agronomist and later became Product Agronomist for
northwest Indiana. She is now the Agronomy Manager for the Eastern U.S.

8
 return to table of contents

Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Mark earned his B.S. and M.S. degrees in Crop Sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign and Ph.D. in Agronomy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Mark joined
Pioneer in 2007 and currently serves as Agronomy Manager. His primary role is development
and delivery of useful and timely agronomy information based on Pioneer and university
agronomy research. Mark authors and edits many of the agronomy resources available in the
Pioneer agronomy library. Mark is originally from northern Illinois and is actively involved in the
family corn and soybean farm near Rock City, Illinois.

Darrin Malone, M.S., Agronomy Leader - Midsouth

Darrin holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in agronomy from the University of Arkansas and is a
Certified Crop Adviser and Certified Professional Agronomist. Darrin started his career as
a Territory Manager for DuPont Crop Protection in Indiana and has subsequently served in
a diverse array of roles, including Field Agronomist, Six Sigma Project Manager, Insecticide
Portfolio Manager, Field Development Technical Consultant, Market Development Specialist,
and Crop Protection District Sales Leader for the Midsouth. Darrin currently serves as the
Agronomy Leader for the Midsouth district.

Luke Northway, Agronomy Systems Manager

Luke double majored in Management Information Systems and Agricultural Business at Iowa
State University and received his MBA from the University of Iowa. He started with Pioneer
in 2007 as a support person for FIS and Pioneer® FIT Mapping System. He now works on the
Agronomy Sciences team as Product Owner of Performance Explorer, Trials Planning, and
mobile Trials Data Entry.

Ken O’Brien, M.S., Agronomy Science Leader

Ken serves as the Agronomy Sciences Leader for Corteva’s U.S. seed businesses. In his 16-plus
years with the organization he has held various roles in sales and marketing leadership across
both seed and digital/software product lines. His current role supports the field agronomy
teams for our seed businesses to provide them with the systems, processes, and information
they need in order to provide our customers with successful crop management and product
placement information. Ken holds B.S degrees in Agronomy and Plant Health & Protection
from Iowa State University and M.S. in Agronomy from Iowa State University.

Todd Rowe, M.S., Agronomy Leader - Southeast

Todd is a native of eastern North Carolina and earned his B.S. in Agronomy from North
Carolina State University and M.S. in Seed Technology and Business from Iowa State University.
Todd held Agronomist positions with other companies prior to joining Pioneer in 2010 as Area
IMPACT Lead at the Kinston, North Carolina Research Station. He is now the Agronomy Leader
for the Southeast sales area.

April Battani, Senior Graphic Designer

April earned both a B.A. in Graphic Design and a B.A. in Creative Advertising from Drake
University in Des Moines, Iowa. She started with Pioneer in 2012 as a Publishing Assistant
for Agronomy Sciences. She currently works as a Senior Graphic Designer for the Creative
Services team supporting Agronomy Sciences. Her role includes the design, publication, and
project management of web-based and printed materials, including the Agronomy Sciences
Research Summary books produced annually. In addition, April provides individually tailored
illustrations and charts for internal sales, marketing, and research clients.

Cori Lee, Agronomy Sciences Intern

Cori is a senior at the Ohio State University majoring in Sustainable Plant Systems Agronomy
with a minor in Agribusiness. Following graduation, Cori plans to pursue a master’s degree and
continue helping on her family’s farm.

9
authors return to table of contents

Corteva Authors
Jim Boersma, Product Agronomist
Liam Bracken, Sales Associate - Eastern Canada
Steve Butzen, M.S., Former Agronomy Information Consultant
Paul Carter, Ph.D., Former Agronomy Manager
Troy Deutmeyer, Pioneer Field Agronomist
Dan Emmert, M.S., Former Pioneer Field Agronomist
Ross Ennen, Senior Research Associate – Seed Science
Adam Gaspar, Ph.D., Global Biology Leader
- Seed Applied Technologies
Paul Gaspar, Ph.D., Field Scientist
Lance Gibson, Ph.D., Agronomy Training Manager
Kristin Hacault, Agronomy Information Consultant
Paul Hermans, Pioneer Area Agronomist
Dennis Holland, Pioneer Field Agronomist
Jason Kienast, Sales Representative
Nate LeVan, Pioneer Field Agronomist
Bill Long, Pioneer Field Agronomist
John Mick, Pioneer Field Agronomist
Ron Sabatka, Farm Manager Coordinator
Laura Sharpe, Agronomy Information Consultant
Greg Stopps, Sales Agronomist
Stephen Strachan, Ph.D., Former Research Scientist
Matt Vandehaar, Pioneer Field Agronomist
Brad Van Kooten, Seed Applied Technologies Marketing Leader University Authors
Ryan Van Roekel, Ph.D., Pioneer Field Agronomist
Tony Vyn, Ph.D., Professor,
Alex Woodall, Pioneer Field Agronomist Department of Agronomy,
Purdue University
Lauren Schwarck, M.S.,
Department of Agronomy,
Purdue University

10
 return to table of contents

A Brief History of Corn

Danny Brummel, M.S., Pioneer Agronomy Systems Manager,
and Lance Gibson, Ph.D., Agronomy Training Manager

Summary
● Modern corn is descended from teosinte, a wild grass native to southern Mexico that
was domesticated around 9,000 years ago.
● Cultivation of ancient corn quickly spread and was practiced throughout the
Americas by 2500 BCE.
● The two dominant types of corn grown by indigenous peoples of North America
were the northern flints and southern dents.
● The bulk of commercial corn varieties worldwide are made up of Corn Belt dent
genetics derived from crosses between northern flints and southern dents.
● The advent of hybrid corn in the early 1900s put corn on a trajectory of increasing
yields that continues today.
● During the early hybrid corn era, Pioneer took a different approach than many of its
competitors by heavily investing in its own inbred line development; an effort that
paid off greatly in subsequent decades.
● The adoption of hybrid corn combined with improved breeding techniques and
agronomic practices resulted in a steady increase of the average U.S. yield from
around 26 bu/acre before the 1930s to 125 bu/acre in 1995.

11
 return to table of contents

Corn – A Globally Important Crop

Corn (Zea mays), also known as maize, is an essential crop from the plants that had desired traits and replanting the
to a rapidly growing world population, with major uses being seeds for the next harvest season. Dramatic changes in plant
feed for livestock, fuel ethanol production, and ingredients appearance were quickly accomplished and what would be
for hundreds of foods and industrial products. Globally, corn considered recognizable corn was widely present across the
is grown across six of the seven continents, occupying more Americas by 2500 BCE.
than 20% of the land devoted to crop production. Total annual
When Christopher Columbus arrived on the eastern shores of
corn production is 50% greater than that of wheat or rice and
the Americas in 1492 CE, corn was already being cultivated
nearly three times greater than soybean. The history of corn
throughout both North and South America. While essential to
is a 9,000-year journey of significant breakthroughs from
the diet of Native Americans, the annual acreage of corn in
early domestication to modern advancements that have
North America around the time of early European settlement
occurred over the last decade. For a century, Pioneer has
was thought to be no more than 50,000 acres (compared to
played a significant role in producing key innovations to the
around 110 million acres now.) On Columbus’s return voyage to
modern corn crop. This article reviews the history of corn from
Spain, the explorer brought back corn seed to be cultivated
domestication until 1995, when the current biotechnology era
in Europe and Northern Africa. The vast expansion of corn
of corn production began.
across the globe was extremely swift and like that of no other
agricultural crop.

Origin, Domestication, And Spread

The journey of modern-day corn started around 7000 BCE
in southern Mexico with the domestication of a wild grass
plant called teosinte (Figure 1). In the early 20th Century,
the ancestry of corn was unknown. Research conducted in
the early 1930s pointed to teosinte as corn’s wild progenitor,
due to similarities in chromosomes and the ability of the two
species to produce fertile hybrids. Subsequent research using
more advanced genetic tools confirmed this hypothesis.
Phylogenetic analysis has placed the timing of genetic
divergence between wild teosinte and domesticated corn at
around 9,000 years ago. Archaeological research in Mexico
has shown evidence of corn cultivation dating back at least
8,700 years.
Figure 1. Teosinte (Zea mays subsp. Mexicana), the ancestor of
The physical appearance of corn and its ancestor differs modern corn, native to Mexico and Central America.
considerably. Whereas corn typically has a tall single stalk
and produces an ear up to 12 inches in length with hundreds Early Breeders and Improvements
of kernels, teosinte has many short tillers that produce seeds The domestication of corn from the tropics to northern
on a thin axis that is 3 inches in length and contains a dozen temperate areas has shown how adaptable corn can be to
seeds encased in hard capsules. Despite the significant various growing environments. Significant modifications have
differences in physical appearance, corn and teosinte are been made by farmers and plant breeders that have made
quite similar genetically. corn a successful agricultural crop around the globe. Different
The domestication of corn from teosinte was accomplished varieties of corn can grow at sea level or at altitudes as high
by the inhabitants of the area. These ancient corn breeders as 12,000 ft; and it can reach harvest maturity within as little
practiced selective breeding techniques by saving seed as six weeks or up to thirteen months.

12
 return to table of contents

From its domestication until the 1800s, certain desired traits. (Corn plants have sepa-
improvements were made to corn through In the rate male and female flowers, which natural-
mass selection and geographical isolation. later part of ly leads to open, or cross, pollination when
In mass selection, seed is selected and the 19th century wind blows the pollen from one plant to the
planted based on visual characteristics and the early 20th silks of another.) Farmers continued the
of the plant, such as size of the ear, plant practice of crossing varieties of northern
century, seed selection
height or kernel color. These practices flints and southern dents as they settled
resulted in distinct landraces, which are by farmers was visually the Midwestern U.S., developing many
collections of related individuals with based on the size and Corn Belt open-pollinated varieties. By
enough characteristics in common to permit consistency of the early 1900s, it is estimated that around
their recognition as a discrete grouping. Much corn ears. 1,000 different open-pollinated varieties had
of this work was done by natives of the Americas been created by farmers.
as they identified and planted seeds of corn plants James Reid was a renowned farmer breeder located
that fit their local climate, soil, production practices, and in central Illinois in the mid-1800s. Reid planted a Gourdseed
food preferences. Over a hundred distinct landraces of corn variety that went through many years of cross breeding with a
have been identified. The various landraces can often be local northern flint variety known as “Little Yellow Corn.” Careful
distinguished by ear and kernel characteristics (ear length selection of each generation over many years eventually led
and width, kernel size and color, hard or soft starch, etc.). to the development of the Reid Yellow Dent corn variety. Reid
The two primary groups of corn when European colonization gave seed to his neighbors to ensure the genetic purity of
occurred along the Atlantic Coast of what today is the United his corn by limiting pollen contamination from other strains
States were the northern flints and the southern dents. of corn. The resulting variety was an overwhelming success,
winning corn shows at the Illinois State Fair in 1891 and the
World Columbian Exposition in 1893. Reid Yellow Dent became
exceedingly popular very quickly, being adapted to nearly
every corn producing state and comprising around 75% of all
corn acres at its peak. By the early 1900s, hundreds of strains
of Reid Yellow Dent had been developed by farmer-breeders.
Advent Of Hybrid Corn
Even with the use of improved breeding techniques beginning
in the mid to late 1800s, average U.S. corn yields remained
relatively unchanged, averaging between 20 to 30 bu/acre
from 1860 through the 1930s. In the later part of the 19th
century and the early 20th century, seed selection by farmers
was visually based on the size and consistency of corn ears

Figure 2. Ears from a northern flint (Longfellow), southern dent

This practice was widely promoted by corn shows, competitive
(Gourdseed), and Corn Belt dent (Reid Yellow Dent) variety. events that were common at the time and reached their peak
popularity in the early 1900s. At corn shows, judges awarded
With further selection and refinement, varieties with large trophies to entries of 10 ears deemed most ‘beautiful’
improvements in important traits and reduced variability based on ear and kernel uniformity (Figure 3).
were developed within landraces. Common varieties of
After attending a corn show at the age of sixteen, Henry A.
northern flint corn include Longfellow and Tama Flint. These
Wallace (who would later found the hybrid seed company
varieties are well adapted to northern climates due to
that became Pioneer Hi-Bred) walked up to a judge and
early crop maturity and seedling tolerance to cold soils.
asked how the judge would know that the blue-ribbon
Gourdseed, a common variety of southern dent was grown
winner, if planted the following year, would produce a higher
along the southeastern U.S. coastline, reaching as far north
yield than the ears that did not win a ribbon. Challenging
as Virginia. In the 19th century, farmers discovered that when
the response of the judge, Wallace began his first corn
crossbreeding occurred between the northern flints and
experiment by planting seed from 25 award winning ears and
southern dents, it resulted in superior yielding corn with traits
25 ears that were marked the poorest at the corn show. After
desirable for animal feeding. The combination of northern
collecting yield data from the three-acre plot located in his
flints and southern dents resulted in the formation of the Corn
backyard, the results showed that the highest yielding corn
Belt dents (Figure 2). The creation of the Corn Belt dents is
did not come from an award-winning ear but an ear that was
extremely significant to modern corn production as the bulk
near the bottom of the rankings. In fact, the average yield of
of commercial corn varieties worldwide are derived from Corn
the lowest ranking ears was greater than the average of the
Belt Dent genetics.
highest-ranking ears. These results challenged conventional
New open-pollinated corn varieties can be created by cross- thinking at the time by demonstrating there was no
ing two varieties and saving the seed of the plants that have relationship between appearance of the ears and yield.

13
 return to table of contents

Scientific research by academics Edward East and George

Shull were key to the development of hybrid corn. East
and Shull individually initiated research on self-pollinating
individual corn plants to produce purified lines – East at
Connecticut State College and Shull at Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory in New York. Their pursuits did not turn out as
planned as they quickly discovered that just a couple
generations of inbreeding resulted in plants with significantly
less yield and vigor than the original parent. However, Shull
crossed inbred lines he had created and made an interesting
discovery – the hybrid offspring had growth superior to the
inbred parents and had comparable or better yields and
greater uniformity than the varieties from which the inbreds
were derived. He published a scientific paper on these results
in 1908. Shull had observed the effects of heterosis (also called
hybrid vigor) in corn and began immediately applying it in
further breeding investigations. In a paper published the next
year, he outlined procedures that later became standard in
hybrid corn breeding programs (Figure 5).

Figure 3. The A.E Cook Corn trophy was commissioned in 1904 to

inspire corn development and improvement. The trophy was awarded
to the winning collegiate team in the annual corn-judging contest
held in Chicago between 1904 and 1907. The trophy is presumed to
hold the winning ears from the competition and displays a Native
American chief and an early 20th Century corn breeder. Today, the
trophy resides in Curtiss Hall at Iowa State University. Photo Credit:
Meyer Bohn Ph.D., Iowa State University.

While the breeding techniques used by farmers were effective

at improving easily observed traits, such as plant height,
maturity, ear size, and kernel color, they were not suited to
improving yield. A lack of pollen control within fields used
for seed was also a factor limiting yield improvement. It was
the advent of hybrid corn in the early 1900s that put corn on
a trajectory of ever-increasing yields that continues today
(Figure 4).
200
2021 Average Corn Yield = 177.0 bu/acre
180
Figure 5. Cross pollination of two corn inbreds to produce a hybrid
Average U.S. Corn Yield (bu/acre)

160
with agronomic characteristics and yield superior to those of either
140 100% Hybrid Corn Adoption of the parent lines.
120
Henry A. Wallace attended Iowa State College, graduating
100 50% Hybrid Corn Adoption
in 1910. While in college, he became fascinated with the
80 relatively new science of genetics. After graduation, Wallace
Founding of Hi-Bred Corn Company
60 Average Corn Yield = 25.7 bu/acre began working on corn-breeding experiments and started
40 breeding hybrid corn in 1920 after visiting Edward East at
20
the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. These early
breeding efforts were begun in Johnston, Iowa, on 40 acres
0
1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 of farmland purchased with money from the inheritance of
Figure 4. United States average corn yield, 1866-2021. (USDA NASS) Wallace’s wife, Ilo.

14
 return to table of contents

The mathematically inclined Wallace taught himself statistics

and applied it to his experiments. In 1923, Wallace entered
his newest hybrid “Copper Cross” into the Iowa State Yield
Test, which it won. The Copper Cross hybrid was created by
crossing an inbred created from Leaming corn and an inbred
developed from Bloody Butcher corn (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Ears of
Leaming (left) and
Bloody Butcher (right)
varieties, the parent
lines of Copper
Cross, the first hybrid
produced and sold by
Henry A. Wallace.

Figure 7. A plot of Pioneer® hybrid 307 in the History of Corn demo-

This cross resulted in an ear that had a distinctive copper nstration at the Corteva Agriscience Johnston Global Business
Center (June 26, 2020).
color. Convinced that hybrid corn had a bright future, Wallace
continued to produce and market small quantities of hybrid drought resulted in widespread loss of corn acres in Iowa.
seed. He also promoted hybrid corn through frequent writings Hybrids produced double the yield of open-pollinated
in his family’s magazine, Wallaces’ Farmer, a top agriculture varieties under these extreme conditions. Rapid adoption
periodical. of hybrid corn in Iowa soon followed. Ten percent of acres in
The continued success of his hybrids convinced Wallace Iowa were planted with hybrid corn in 1936; two years later, in
to expand operations and bring new human and financial 1938, it was more than half. By 1942, virtually all corn planted
resources into the business. With the help of several friends, in Iowa was hybrid seed. Within another 20 years, hybrid corn
the Hi-Bred Corn Company was organized and incorporated would achieve essentially 100% adoption across all U.S. corn
in Iowa on April 20, 1926. This was the first company devoted acres. In addition to being more stress tolerant and higher
solely to the production of hybrid seed and the predecessor yielding, hybrids were less variable, stood up better, and were
of Pioneer Hi-Bred. No person was more important to easier to harvest than open-pollinated corn varieties.
commercialization and farmer acceptance of hybrid corn The significance of hybrid corn adoption was recognized by
than Henry A. Wallace. He was one of a handful of people academics such that it was the basis for the classical model
in the world who initially recognized the immense potential of technology diffusion taught in many economics graduate
for significant gains in productivity with hybrid corn. Wallace programs in the 1950s to 1970s. Development of hybrid
was selected as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture by Franklin D. corn also promoted the advancement of statistics and its
Roosevelt in 1932 and elected Vice President of the United establishment as an important field of study. Hybridization of
States in 1940. other agricultural crops followed suit, including canola, rice,
Hybrid Adoption by Farmers sorghum, sunflowers, and wheat. Soybean remains
an exception because its pollen shed occurs
Adoption of hybrid corn was slow during the first decade
within a closed flower, making outcrossing
after its commercial introduction in the mid-1920s. By 1935,
difficult to achieve on a large enough
only around 6% of Iowa corn acreage was planted to hybrids.
scale for economical hybrid
Farmers were not accustomed to purchasing new seed each
seed production.
year, the seed was expensive to produce, and it was in
short supply. The situation began to quickly change No person was
in the mid-1930s. Yield tests and farmer experience more important to
during the “Dust Bowl” years from 1934 to 1940 commercialization and
demonstrated hybrids to be vastly superior to
farmer acceptance of hybrid
open-pollinated varieties under severe drought.
Once farmers had solid evidence of the benefits corn than Henry A. Wallace.
of hybrid corn, the transition away from open- He was one of a handful of
pollinated varieties was astonishingly rapid. people in the world who initially
In 1936, the Pioneer Hi-Bred company released recognized the immense
hybrid 307 (Figure 7). Pioneer 307 was selected potential for significant gains
based on its strong hybrid vigor and drought in productivity with hybrid
tolerance observed on sandy soils. It immediately
showed its value in its first year when a catastrophic
corn.

15
 return to table of contents

Figure 8. Pioneer advertisement from 1949.

Adoption of Single Cross Hybrids

The next significant innovation in corn production was the
wide-scale availability of seed for single-cross hybrids. A
single cross hybrid results from the controlled crossing of two
distinctly different inbred parents. In the early days of hybrid
corn, the creation of an inbred required self-pollinating plants
for 7 or more generations until they were nearly genetically
pure (each successive generation is genetically identical to
the previous generation if no outside pollen is introduced.) As
documented by Shull, the inbreeding process results in a loss
of vigor and seed number per plant. The production of inbred
seed was too inefficient when hybrid corn commercialization
initially began making the cost of hybrid seed out of reach for Figure 9. Diagram produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
most farmers. showing crosses involved in creating a double-cross, or four-way
cross, hybrid.
The problem of too little seed produced by corn inbreds
was overcome using double-cross hybrids. Creation of a Pioneer’s Rise To Industry Leader
double-cross requires successive stages of crossing with
The structure of the seed corn marketplace during the first
two pairs of inbreds. In the first stage, inbreds A and B are
five decades after hybrid corn was introduced consisted
crossed to create a single-cross hybrid and inbreds C and D
of four main players: land grant universities, private
are crossed to produce a second single-cross hybrid. In the
foundation seed companies, farmer seed companies, and
second step, the two single-cross hybrids created in step 1
larger commercial seed companies like Pioneer. The private
are crossed to produce the double-cross hybrid. Production
foundation seed companies and the universities focused their
of a double-cross requires an extra step compared to single-
efforts on population improvement, inbred line development,
cross hybrids, but results in more salable seed at a lower cost.
inbred seed increase, and hybrid testing. The farmer seed
While the plants produced from double-cross hybrid seed
companies produced hybrid seed from university or private
are not as uniform and high-yielding as those for a single-
foundation inbred lines and sold these hybrids in their local
cross, they exhibited greater vigor and performance than the
area and sometimes in neighboring counties and states. The
open-pollinated corn varieties that preceded them.
larger commercial seed companies developed their own
Double-cross hybrids were primarily grown across the United proprietary inbreds and combined them with public lines to
States from the 1930s through the 1960s. Plant breeders create hybrids. They sold seed more widely than farmer seed
steadily improved the seed production of inbred lines over companies, typically across many states and countries.
time to where single-cross corn hybrids became available
Crosses between university-derived inbreds were prevalent
for purchase by farmers in the 1960s. By the early 1970s, the
in the seed corn industry into the 1970s. The B lines (B17, B37,
changeover from double-cross to single-cross corn hybrids
B73), also known as Iowa Stiff Stalk Synthetics, developed by
was mostly complete. It was shortly after this transition
Iowa State University were of particular importance. A hybrid
to single-cross hybrids when Pioneer underwent a rapid
cross of B73 x Mo17 (an inbred from the University of Missouri),
expansion in the hybrid corn marketplace.
released in 1973, was particularly dominant for several years
following its introduction. It was sold by most every Corn Belt
seed company, with Pioneer being an exception.

16
 return to table of contents

Since its inception, Pioneer took a different approach by would result in smaller ears, plants without harvestable ears,
heavily investing in its own inbred line development. These greater root lodging, stalk breakage, and dropped ears.
efforts paid off greatly in the 1970s, as the strong perfor- Plant breeding has increased the stress tolerance of corn to
mance of Pioneer hybrids led to a rapid expansion in corn where it can be planted at much higher plant densities while
market share. Much of this rapid growth can be contribut- maintaining a roughly half-pound ear on each plant. Corn is
ed to a breeding project started in 1942 by Raymond Baker now typically planted at 32,000 to 35,000 plants per acre in
(Baker was the second employee hired by Henry A. Wallace higher-yielding environments in rows 30 inches apart, which
in 1928. He spent over four decades managing Pioneer corn allows more efficient light capture.
breeding programs, retiring in 1971.) Baker obtained Other important innovations in corn production
seed of “Iodent” corn, a Reid Yellow Dent, include synthetic fertilizers, chemical weed
from Iowa State University. Through many control, and mechanization of planting
selection cycles, Pioneer plant breeders and harvesting. A corn field at the be-
optimized the performance of Iodent The structure of the
ginning of the hybrid era would typ-
inbred lines. These lines, as well as seed corn marketplace ically have been sparsely fertilized
other Pioneer-developed inbreds, during the first five decades with animal manures, mechanically
produced industry-leading corn after hybrid corn was introduced weeded, and harvested by hand.
hybrids that outperformed other
consisted of four main players: The increased availability of nitro-
popular products like B73 x Mo17. gen fertilizers made most tillable
land grant universities, private
The unique Pioneer germplasm land suitable for corn production
became a differentiator in the
foundation seed companies, and allowed higher-yielding hy-
market with the introduction of Pi- farmer seed companies, and brids to reach their full potential. The
oneer brand hybrids 3780 and 3732 larger commercial seed development of effective herbicides
in the 1970s. By the early 1980s, the era companies like Pioneer. allowed farmers to remove nearly all
of university-derived corn inbreds had weeds from corn fields and eliminated
passed. Continued investment in breed- the need to use tillage as a weed control
ing superior inbreds allowed Pioneer market tool. Mechanization of corn production has al-
share to continue to expand with the introduction lowed farmers to plant and harvest more quickly, as
of Pioneer brand hybrid 3394 in the early 1990s. This hybrid well as gather yields that are nearly seven times greater than
became so dominant by the mid-90s that, by itself, it outsold when hybrids were introduced.
the entire hybrid lineups of all competitor seed companies.
Conclusions
Changes In Agronomic Practices The adoption of hybrid corn combined with improved
Much of this article has focused on genetic improvements to breeding techniques and agronomic practices resulted in
the corn plant since its domestication. However, the history a steady increase of the average U.S. yield from around 26
of corn is not complete without a discussion of the adoption bushels per acre before the 1930s to 125 bushels per acre in
of other technologies and agronomic practices by farmers 1995. This rate of gain continued in subsequent years with
and their contribution to improving corn production. Before the introduction of several key technologies, including insect
the introduction of hybrids, corn was typically planted at and herbicide resistance traits as well as molecular-assisted
a density of 8,000 to 12,000 plants per acre and grown in breeding, adding another 2 bushels per acre per year since
rows 36 to 42 inches apart. Plant densities above this level 1995. There is little evidence to suggest the rate of gain for
corn yield will level off anytime soon.
After 9,000 years of human manipulation to domesticate,
adapt, and develop, corn has become essential to the success
of humankind. After becoming U.S. Secretary of Agriculture,
Henry A. Wallace, founder of Pioneer, said “Of all the annual
crops, corn is one of the most efficient in transforming sun
energy, soil fertility, and man labor into a maximum of food
suitable for animals and human beings. It is to be regretted
that so few of the millions whose prosperity rests on the corn
plant should have so little appreciation or knowledge of it....”
As authors of this article, we hope you have gained a deeper
appreciation of where corn originated and how it came to be
of such high importance to feeding, fueling, and sustaining
modern civilization. Since its founding in 1926, Pioneer has
been a leader in making corn into the powerhouse crop that
Figure 10. Corn harvest with a tractor-drawn corn picker. it is today.

17
 return to table of contents

Managing Corn
for Greater
Yield Potential
Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Key Points
● Improved hybrids and production practices are helping corn growers
increase yields. Over the past 20 years, U.S. yields have increased by
an average of 1.9 bu/acre/year.
● NCGA winners in the non-irrigated yield contest classes have
increased their yields at more than double the rate of the national
average. What are they doing differently?
● The NCGA National Corn Yield Contest provides a benchmark for
yields that are attainable when conditions and management are
optimized.
● The 2021 contest had 418 entries that exceeded 300 bu/acre, more
than double the number from 2020 and easily surpassing the previous
record high of 224 entries in 2017.

4 Lessons for Increasing Corn Yield

1. Selecting the right hybrid can affect yield by over 30 bu/acre,
making this decision among the most critical of all controllable
factors.
2. High-yielding contest plots are usually planted as early as
practical for their geography. Early planting lengthens the
growing season and moves pollination earlier.
3. Rotating corn with another crop generally reduces its
susceptibility to yield-limiting stresses.
Pioneer® 4. Maintaining adequate nitrogen fertility levels is
brand P1185 critical in achieving highest yields. In-season
and P1563 families applications can help supply nitrogen when
plant uptake is high.
of products were
top performers in
both the 2020
and 2021 yield
contests.

18
 return to table of contents

Benchmarking Your Corn Yield Contest yields exceeding 300 bu/acre were achieved in 33
different states, which was also a record. The majority of high
Since the introduction of hybrid corn nearly a century ago,
yield entries were right in the heart of the Corn Belt. Nebraska
corn productivity improvements have continued through
alone accounted for nearly 100 high yield entries, most of
the present day. Over the last 20 years, U.S. corn yield has
which were irrigated. Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana accounted for
increased by an average of 1.9 bu/acre per year. These gains
another 104 high yield entries, and Kentucky and Ohio added
have resulted from breeding for increased yield potential,
another 49 (Table 1).
introducing transgenic traits to help protect yield, and
agronomic management that has allowed yield potential to Table 1. Number of NCGA National Corn Yield Contest entries over
300 bu/acre by state, 2017-2021.
be more fully realized.
As growers strive for greater corn yields, the National Corn 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
State
Growers Association (NCGA) National Corn Yield Contest number of entries
provides a benchmark for yields that are attainable when AL 3 3 5 4 2
environmental conditions and agronomic management are
AR 2 1 0 1 4
optimized. The average yields of NCGA winners are about
double the average U.S. yields. CA 0 3 3 2 1
CO 4 1 0 1 13
DE 0 0 6 0 7
FL 0 0 0 0 0
GA 7 0 7 5 7
IA 16 8 3 6 33
ID 0 8 1 3 5
IL 25 18 6 19 37
IN 26 17 8 23 34
KS 2 3 2 6 13
KY 17 4 3 3 24
2021 NCGA National Corn Yield Contest Trends
MA 1 2 4 1 0
The 2021 growing season was a good, but not necessarily
MD 4 2 5 3 8
exceptional, year for corn yields. The USDA estimated
MI 7 1 4 3 14
average yield was 177.0 bu/acre, which was the highest ever
but was not above the long term trendline. Regional variation MN 1 0 0 5 3
in yield was largely driven by rainfall. Corn yields were up over MO 12 4 3 11 15
2020 in most of the eastern U.S. where rainfall was generally NC 0 1 3 0 4
adequate, while hot and dry conditions pushed yields down
NE 41 39 7 37 96
slightly in Minnesota and Wisconsin and down sharply in the
Dakotas. NJ 1 1 9 9 10
NM 2 0 1 0 0
However, 2021 was a big year for big yields in the NCGA
National Corn Yield Contest. The number of high-yield entries NY 4 0 0 0 1
– defined for the purposes of this discussion as all entries OH 1 2 2 6 25
yielding over 300 bu/acre – set a new record in 2021 with 418 OK 2 2 0 2 7
in total (Figure 1). This was more than double the number of
OR 3 4 7 0 0
300 bu/acre entries from the 2020 yield contest and easily
surpassed the previous record high of 224 set in 2017. PA 0 0 15 0 2

450 SC 9 0 4 3 5

400 SD 2 0 0 2 3
418
350 TN 9 2 3 3 8
Number of Entries

300 TX 3 7 1 2 5
250
UT 7 6 0 2 6
200 224
VA 5 2 9 0 12
150 180
136 151 WA 2 9 7 3 4
100 130
101
50 66 WI 6 1 1 13 8
0 WV 0 0 1 2 1
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
WY 0 0 0 0 1
Figure 1. Total entries in the NCGA National Corn Yield Contest
exceeding 300 bu/acre by year from 2014 to 2021. Total 224 151 130 180 418

19
 return to table of contents

Select the Right Hybrid 200

180 Pioneer 192
Hybrids tested against each other in a single environment
160 Dekalb
(e.g., a university or seed company test plot) routinely vary

Number of Entries
140 Other
in yield by at least 30 bu/acre. At contest yield levels, hybrid 120
138
differences can be even higher. That is why selecting the right 100 105
hybrid is likely the most important management decision of 80 88
all those made by contest winners. 60 75 71 73
67
55 61
The yield potential of many hybrids now exceeds 300 40 44 43 40
bu/acre. Realizing this yield potential requires matching 20 25 26
hybrid characteristics with field attributes, such as moisture 0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
supplying capacity; insect and disease spectrum and
Figure 2. Seed brand planted in National Corn Yield Contest entries
intensity; maturity zone, residue cover; and even seedbed exceeding 300 bu/acre from 2017 to 2021.
temperature. To achieve the highest possible yields, growers
should select a hybrid with: High-Yield Management Practices
1. Top-end yield potential. Examine yield data from Top performers in the NCGA yield contest not only have
multiple, diverse environments to identify hybrids with produced yields much higher than the current U.S. average,
highest yield potential. they have also achieved a higher rate of yield gain over time.
2. Full maturity for the field. Using all of the available Over the past 20 years, U.S. corn yields have increased at a
growing season is a good strategy for maximizing yield. rate of 1.9 bu/acre per year while winning yields in the non-
3. Good emergence under stress. This helps ensure uniform irrigated yield contest classes have increased by 5.0 bu/acre
stand establishment and allows earlier planting, which per year. Contest fields are planted with the same corn hybrids
moves pollination earlier to minimize stress during this available to everyone and are subject to the same growing
critical period. conditions, which suggests that management practices
are playing a key role in capturing more yield potential.
4. Above-average drought tolerance. This will provide
The following sections will discuss management practices
insurance against periods of drought that most non-
employed in contest entries yielding above 300 bu/acre.
irrigated fields experience.
5. Resistance to local diseases. Leaf, stalk, and ear diseases Table 2. Pioneer hybrid families with the most entries over 300 bu/
disrupt normal plant function, divert plant energy, and acre in the 2021 NCGA National Corn Yield Contest.
reduce standability and yield.
Hybrid 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2017-2021
6. Traits that provide resistance to major insects, such as Family
corn borer, corn rootworm, black cutworm, and western number of entries
bean cutworm. Insect pests reduce yield by decreasing P1185 10 29 39
stands, disrupting plant functions, feeding on kernels, P1563 3 1 11 22 37
and increasing lodging and dropped ears. P0953 11 11
7. Good standability to minimize harvest losses. P1108 1 3 10 14
Pioneer® brand products were used in 207 state-level winning P1847 4 2 9 15
entries – more than any other seed brand. State-level winners P1197 33 11 11 6 8 69
included a total of 92 different Pioneer brand products from P1572 6 7 13
58 different hybrid families ranging from 91 to 120 CRM. P1082 1 2 7 10
The brands of seed corn used in the highest yielding contest P1366 8 10 9 3 6 36
entries in 2017 through 2021 are shown in Figure 2. In all years, P1359 1 6 7
Pioneer brand products were used in more entries exceeding P1828 8 4 6 5 23
300 bu/acre than any other individual seed brand. P0801 9 5 1 5 20
Yields exceeding 300 bu/acre have been achieved using P1222 5 5
Pioneer® brand products from 65 different hybrid families P2042 5 5
over the past five years, ranging from 98 to 121 CRM. The top- P1506 1 4 5
performing Pioneer hybrid families in the National Corn Yield
P0924 4 4
Contest are shown in Table 2. The Pioneer brand P1197 family
P1716 10 4 4
of products has been the top performer in the contest over
P1870 4 1 9 1 3 18
the past five years, topping 300 bu/acre 69 times since 2017.
Pioneer brand P1185 and P1563 families of products were top P1138 4 2 3 9
performers in both the 2020 and 2021 yield contests, and the P1464 3 2 3 8
Pioneer brand P0953 family had a strong debut in 2021. P0720 3 3 6
P2089 2 3 5
P9998 2 3 1 2 7

20
 return to table of contents

400 Plant Early

NCGA Non-Irrigated: +5.0 bu/acre/yr
350 High-yielding contest plots are
usually planted as early as
Corn Yield (bu/acre)

300 Exceptionally practical for their geography.

250 high populations Early planting lengthens the
U.S. Average: +1.9 bu/acre/yr
200 are not necessarily growing season and more im-
150 a prerequisite for portantly, moves pollination
100 high yields. earlier. When silking, pollination
and early ear fill are accom-
50
plished in June or early July, heat
0 and moisture stress effects can be
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021
reduced.
Figure 3. Average yields of NCGA National Corn Yield contest non-
irrigated class national winners and U.S. average corn yields, 2002-
Planting dates for entries exceeding 300 bu/acre ranged
2021. from March 12 to May 30 in 2021 (Figure 5). Mid-April to early-
May planting dates have typically been the most common
Optimize Planting Practices for high-yields in the central Corn Belt. The 2021 contest
Establish Sufficient Population Density had several high yield entries planted in mid- to late-May
One of the most critical factors in achieving high corn yields is (35 entries over 300 bu/acre were planted after May 15),
establishing a sufficient population density to allow a hybrid demonstrating that high yields can still be achieved under
to maximize its yield potential. Historically, population density favorable conditions if planting is not delayed for too long.
has been the main driver of yield gain in corn – improvement
SC
of corn hybrid genetics for superior stress tolerance has al-
GA
lowed hybrids to be planted at higher plant populations and
MO
produce greater yields.
IL
Harvest populations in irrigated and non-irrigated national VA
corn yield contest entries over 300 bu/acre from 2017 through ID
2021 are shown in Figure 4. The average harvest population WI
of non-irrigated entries (36,300 plants/acre) was slightly
IN
greater than that of irrigated entries (35,900 plants/acre)
KY
over five years. Both are well above the USDA average plant
IA
population of 29,000 plants/acre, as would be expected for
OH
high-yielding environments. However, yields over 300 bu/acre
UT
were achieved over a wide range of populations, from 28,000
NE
to 56,000 plants/acre, demonstrating that exceptionally high
DE
populations are not necessarily a prerequisite for high yields.
TX
Although population density is important in establishing the
yield potential of a corn crop, it is just one of many factors OK
that determine yield. CO
MI
180 TN
Irrigated
150 Average = 35,900 KS
120 MD
90 NJ
60
Number of Entries

3/11 3/21 3/31 4/10 4/20 4/30 5/10 5/20 5/30

30
0 Figure 5. Average planting date and planting date range of NCGA
National Corn Yield Contest entries exceeding 300 bu/acre in 2021.
120 Non-Irrigated
(States with 5 or more high-yield entries shown.)
100 Average = 36,300
80 Determine Row Width
60 The vast majority of corn acres in the U.S. are currently
40 planted in 30-inch rows, accounting for over 85% of corn
20 production. A majority of 300 bu/acre contest entries over
0 the past five years have been planted in 30-inch rows (Figure
28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56
6). This proportion has increased slightly in recent years as
Harvest Population (1,000 plants/acre)
wider row configurations (most commonly 36-inch or 38-inch)
Figure 4. Harvest populations and corn yield of irrigated and non-
have remained steady and narrower row configurations (15-
irrigated NCGA National Corn Yield Contest entries exceeding 300
bu/acre, 2017-2021. inch, 20-inch, 22-inch or 30-inch twin) have declined.

21
 return to table of contents

<30 inches 30 inches >30 inches Tillage

100 Over the past five years, over 40% of the high yield entries in the
90 NCGA contest have used conventional tillage, with the other
90 92
80 85 85 88
half using no-tillage or some form of reduced tillage (Figure
Percent of Entries

70
8). The proportion of high-yield entries using conventional
60
tillage has declined over time, offset by increases in no-till
50
and strip-till.
40
30 50
20 14 14 45 5-Year Average
9 10
10 6 40 42 2021
1 2 2

Percent of Entries
0 1 1 35 36
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 30
25
Figure 6. Row width used in NCGA National Corn Yield Contest entries
20 23 23 23
exceeding 300 bu/acre, 2017-2021.
15 17
Row spacings narrower than the current standard of 30 10 12 11
inches have been a source of continuing interest as a way to 5
1 2
4 3
achieve greater yields, particularly with continually increasing 0
seeding rates. However, research has generally not shown Conv. No-Till Strip-Till Minimum Ridge Mulch
a consistent yield benefit to narrower rows outside of the Figure 8. Tillage practices in NCGA National Corn Yield Contest
northern Corn Belt (Jeschke, 2018). entries exceeding 300 bu/acre in 2021 and 5-year averages.

Rotate Crops Optimize Nutrient Management

Rotating crops is one of the practices most often recom- Achieving highest corn yields requires an excellent soil fertility
mended to keep yields consistently high. Rotation can break program, beginning with timely application of nitrogen (N)
damaging insect and disease cycles that lower crop yields. and soil testing to determine existing levels of phosphorous
Including crops like soybean or alfalfa in the rotation can (P), potassium (K), and soil pH.
reduce the amount of nitrogen required in the following Nitrogen
corn crop. A majority of the fields in the 300 bu/acre entries Corn grain removes approximately 0.67 lbs of nitrogen per
were planted to a crop other than corn the previous growing bushel harvested, and stover production requires about 0.45
season (Figure 7). lbs of nitrogen for each bushel of grain produced (IPNI, 2014).
70 This means that the total N needed for a 300 bu/acre corn
58
61 5-Year Average crop is around 336 lbs/acre. Only a portion of this amount
60
2021 needs to be supplied by N fertilizer; N is also supplied by the
Percent of Entries

50 soil through mineralization of soil organic matter. On highly

productive soils, N mineralization will often supply the majority
40
of N needed by the crop. Credits can be taken for previous
30 26 25 legume crop, manure application, and N in irrigation water.
20
Nitrogen application rates of entries exceeding 300 bu/acre
are shown in Figure 9.
10 7 6
4 4 2 1 2 1
30
1 1
0 29 30 5-Year Average
Soybean Corn Wheat fb Veg. Peanuts Cotton Other 25 26 26 2021
Soybean
Percent of Entries

20 21
Figure 7. Previous crop in NCGA National Corn Yield Contest entries
exceeding 300 bu/acre in 2021 and 5-year averages. 17 18
15
The so-called “rotation effect” is a yield increase associated 14
10
with crop rotation compared to continuous corn even when all
8
limiting factors appear to have been controlled or adequately 5
supplied in the continuous corn. This yield increase has 4 4 2
averaged about 5 to 15 percent in research studies but has 0
<200 200-249 250-299 300-349 350-399 400+
generally been less under high-yield conditions (Butzen, 2012). Nitrogen Rate (lbs/acre)
Rotated corn is generally better able to tolerate yield-limiting
Figure 9. Nitrogen rates (total lbs/acre N applied) of NCGA National
stresses than continuous corn; however, yield contest results
Corn Yield Contest entries exceeding 300 bu/acre in 2021 and 5-year
clearly show that high yields can be achieved in continuous- averages.
corn production.

22
 return to table of contents

The N application rates of 300 bu/acre entries varied greatly, 50

but over half were in the range of 200 to 300 lbs/acre. Some 45 5-Year Average
40 44 44 2021
entries with lower N rates were supplemented with N from

Percent of Entries
35
manure application. As corn yield increases, more N is removed
30 32 33
from the soil; however, N application rates do not necessarily
25
need to increase to support high yields. Climatic conditions 20 23
that favor high yield will also tend to increase the amount 20 19 19
15
of N a corn crop obtains from the soil through increased 10
5 3 3 4
mineralization of organic N and improved root growth. 3
0
Total nitrogen applied in high yield entries has trended Any S Zn B Mg Mn
downward in recent years. In the 2016 contest, over half of high Micronutrients Applied
yield entries had over 300 lbs/acre of N applied, compared to Figure 11. Micronutrients applied in NCGA National Corn Yield Contest
less than a quarter of entries in 2021. entries exceeding 300 bu/acre in 2021 and 5-year averages.

Timing of N fertilizer applications can be just as Micronutrients

important as application rate. The less time there
is between N application and crop uptake, the Nearly Micronutrients were applied on nearly half
75% of 300 of the 300 bu/acre entries (Figure 11). The
less likely N loss from the soil will occur and limit
nutrients most commonly applied were sulfur
crop yield. Nitrogen uptake by the corn plant bu/acre entries (S) and zinc (Zn), with some entries including
peaks during the rapid growth phase of included some form boron (B), magnesium (Mg), manganese
vegetative development between V12 and
of in-season nitrogen, (Mn), or copper (Cu). Micronutrients are
VT (tasseling). However, the N requirement is
high beginning at V6 and extending to the either sidedressed sufficient in many soils to meet crop needs.
or applied with However, some sandy soils and other low
R5 (early dent) stage of grain development.
organic matter soils are naturally deficient in
Timing of N fertilizer applications in 300 bu/ irrigation. micronutrients, and high pH soils may reduce
acre entries is shown in Figure 10. Very few included their availability (Butzen, 2010). Additionally, as
fall-applied N. Many applied N before or at planting. yields increase, micronutrient removal increases as well,
Nearly 75% of 300 bu/acre entries included some form of in- potentially causing deficiencies.
season nitrogen, either sidedressed or applied with irrigation.
Multiple nitrogen applications were used in around 85% of
high-yield entries.

100
90 5-Year Average
80 2021
Percent of Entries

70 77 78
60 64
50 59 61 57
52 52
40 42
30 37
20
10 13 12
0
Fall Spring At Plant Starter Sidedress Irrigation
Nitrogen Application Timing
Figure 10. Nitrogen fertilizer application timing of NCGA National
Corn Yield Contest entries exceeding 300 bu/acre in 2021 and 5-year
averages.

23
 return to table of contents

Critical Period of
Weed Control in Corn
Kristin Hacault, Agronomy Information Consultant

Why Control Weeds Early? Take Time to Apply Preplant/PRE Herbicides

● Early season weed control helps protect crop yield ● Weeds that germinate, emerge, and grow with the crop
potential, as corn is not a very competitive crop. cause the most yield loss.
● Weeds and corn compete for the same resources: water, ● Preplant/PRE herbicides provide critical early season
sunlight, and nutrients. weed control when crops are most sensitive to
● Small weeds are easier to control and can absorb and competition.
translocate herbicide better. ● Preplant/PRE herbicides can widen the window of
● Herbicides can be less effective during times of heat and application for postemergence herbicide sprays.
drought stress, which often occur with later applications. ● Weed control programs that rely totally on POST
● A sequential weed control program consisting of both pre- applications carry more risk because weather conditions
plant/emerge (PRE) followed by postemergence (POST) may prevent timely application and weeds may be too
herbicides generally provides the most consistent results. large to achieve sufficient efficacy.
● The key is to control weeds before they start to compete.
Postemergence Applications
● Scout fields to determine what weeds are present and
what products can be safely used in crop.
Figure 1. Field ● If a preplant/PRE application was not applied, apply
infestation of wild postemergence herbicides as soon as possible.
buckwheat and
● Always follow labels and guidelines of registered
lambsquarters.
June 27, 2018. herbicides for maximum efficacy.
Southern Alberta.

Figure 3. Post-
Critical Period of Weed Control emergence sprayer
miss. Coaldale,
● Defined as the growth stages or time during which weeds AB. June 14, 2021.
must be controlled to maintain maximum yield potential Sprayer miss on
(assumes field is clean at time of planting). right hand side of
picture.
● In Western Canada, weeds can reduce corn yield starting
at emergence so controlling weeds from even prior to
the VE (emergence) stage of corn to V6 (6 leaf stage) is
recommended.
● After this stage, the corn is generally too tall and/or
susceptible to glyphosate herbicide injury.
Figure 4. Same field
● Controlling weeds is important for minimizing competitive as shown in figure
effects and subsequent yield reduction, but also for 3. Sprayer miss was
preventing weed seed production. sprayed 7 days after
the first application.
(Illustrates effect of
delaying applica-
tion and weed/
crop competi-
tion). July 7, 2021.
Coaldale, AB.
Figure 2. Critical Period of Weed Control in Corn (VE-V6).

24
 return to table of contents

Crop Staging
● Staging a corn crop appropriately to match label recom-
mendations is key to crop safety and herbicide efficacy.
● The leaf collar method is the preferred method of Pioneer
agronomists as it leaves no discrepancy in staging. Weed Control Timing in Corn
● This method is utilized to stage corn plants from emer- - Zach Fore, Product Agronomist
gence (VE) to tassel (VT).
● Start with the lowermost short rounded-tip true leaf and
end with the uppermost leaf with a visible leaf collar. Herbicide Injury
● Leaf collar: Is a light collared “band” located at the based ● Although many herbicide products are registered on
of an exposed leaf blade where the leaf contacts the corn, some pose a risk of crop injury under certain
stem of the plant (Abendroth et al., 2011). environmental conditions, particularly with early maturity
● With this method, leaves that are still in the whorl with no corn hybrids.
visible leaf collar are NOT included in staging. Ex.: V3 = 3 ● Pioneer has developed a Corn Hybrid-Herbicide
leaves with visible leaf collars. Management Guide to assist producers in selecting
● Check herbicide labels to determine what staging method and managing their herbicide programs (Gaspar, 2019).
is utilized. Contact your local Pioneer representative or Growers are encouraged to contact their Pioneer sales
agronomist for staging assistance. professional for more information. The current Corn
Hybrid-Herbicide Management Guide is available at
www.pioneer.com/us/stewardship
Auxin Herbicides (Group 4)
» Ex.: 2,4-D, MCPA, dicamba
blade » Synthetic auxin herbicides cause tissues to “outgrow”
the cells’ capacity to maintain function.
» Affected plant tissues can exhibit epinasty – stalks
twist, lean and fall over. Leaf rolling and trouble
unfurling can also occur.

collar
sheath

Figure 5. Corn plant showing fully emerged leaves with visible leaf Figure 7. Group 4 herbicide injury in corn.
collars. Photo courtesy of Iowa State University Extension.
Photosystem II Inhibitors (Group 6)
V3 Corn Plant Leaf #5 visible
» Ex.: Bromoxynil
(leaf collar method) » These products can “burn” the cells on the leaves
from whorl
stopping photosynthesis.
» Injury is typically confined to the leaf tissue that has
Leaf #3 Leaf #4 with been contacted by the herbicide.
with collar no visible collar

Figure 8. Group 6 herbicide

Leaf #2 injury in corn.
with collar
Rounded leaf #1
with collar

Figure 6. Corn plant staged as V3 according to the leaf collar

method.

25
 return to table of contents

Corn Nematode Populations

in the Corn Belt
Mary Gumz, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager
Nematode Pressure Levels
Key Findings ● Scientists at Corteva Agriscience have developed high
● This study found 35% of corn fields sampled throughout population indicators for major corn nematode species as
the U.S. Corn Belt had medium to high levels of nema- a relative measure of population levels (Table 1).
tode pressure. ● The Corteva Agriscience nematode rating is based on
● Corn nematodes were present in 99% of the soil sam- a combination of thresholds from seven labs throughout
ples collected in 2022. the Corn Belt. It rates the potential for yield damage due
● Nematodes were widely distributed through all sample to nematodes based on the population and species of
areas and not confined to sandy soils. nematodes present.
● Nematode pressure in a field was classified based on the
high population indicator level for each species
Figure 1. Stunted
growth of the corn
» High: Above indicator level for one or more species
plant on the left due » Medium: Above 50% indicator level for one or more
to corn nematode species
pressure. Above
ground symptoms of » Low: Less than 50% indicator level for all species.
nematodes are often
non-descript and Table 1. Corteva Agriscience population level indicators for major
resemble low fertility, corn nematode species.
weather stress, or insect
Species High Moderate Low
and disease pressure.
nematodes / 100cc soil

Sting 1 NA NA

Rationale and Objectives Needle 1 NA NA

● Corn nematodes can cause significant yield loss by Lance 50 25-49 1-24
damaging corn roots, which impairs water and nutrient Stubby-Root 50 25-49 1-24
uptake and creates entry points for pathogens.
Root Knot 50 25-49 1-24
● In 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 Pioneer agronomists, territory
managers, and sales professionals sampled corn fields Dagger 100 50-99 1-49
across the U.S. Corn Belt to assess nematode population Lesion 150 75-149 1-74
levels and the range of species present
Ring 200 100-199 1-99
● Over 3,100 samples were collected from fields in 19
states: Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Stunt 300 150-299 1-149
North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Spiral 500 250-499 1-249
Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
New York, Maryland, and Delaware. Results: Potentially Damaging Nematode Levels
How We Investigated Nematode Levels ● Nearly all fields sampled had corn nematode species
● A total of 3,164 corn fields were sampled for nematode present at some level (Figure 1).
populations from 2019 to 2022. ● 35% of corn fields sampled had medium to high levels of
● Soil samples were taken at approximately the V6 growth nematode pressure (Figure 2).
stage. ● Medium and high population levels were found across all
● Soil samples were taken from both within and between regions in the study.
the row and contained corn root tissue. ● High nematode population levels were most prevalent
● Samples were submitted to a nematode testing service in the western Corn Belt states – Nebraska, Kansas,
and analyzed using a sugar-flotation method and a 500 Colorado, and Texas.
mesh sieve.

26
 return to table of contents

Nematode Pressure - Overall

3164 Locations
High Low
Medium Zero

Figure 2. Corn nematode pressure at sites sampled in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022.

Managing Corn Nematodes

1% ● Results of this study showed that potentially damaging levels of corn
nematode populations are prevalent throughout corn production areas
18% in the U.S.
● If damaging levels of corn nematodes are found, implementing control
High
measures such as rotation, sanitation or use of nematicide seed
Medium treatments should be considered.
17% Nematode species vary in their host range, so rotation can be effective
Low ●

for reducing populations of some, but not all, corn nematode species.
64% Zero
● Pioneer® brand corn products come with Lumialza™ nematicide seed
treatment for nematode control:
» Lumialza nematicide seed treatment is a biological product that
contains the active ingredient Bacillus amyloliquefaciens – Strain
PTA-4838 and has activity against all primary corn nematode
Figure 3. Corn nematode pressure at sites sampled in
2022. species.
» National trials have shown yield improvements of 3.7 bu/acre under
low pressure and up to 9 bu/acre in high pressure fields.
» Research has shown that nematode protection lasts for over 80 days
in the upper, middle, and lower root zones.

27
 return to table of contents

Spider Mite
Management
in Corn
Grant Groene, M.S., Global Seed Agronomy Lead

Key Points
● The Banks grass mite (BGM) and the two-spotted
spider mite (TSM) are problematic pests for corn pro- Two Common Mite Species in Corn
ducers in the High Plains and Western United States, The two most common and widespread mite species causing
often causing significant economic injury. concern for corn producers across the Western U.S. (Bynum et
● The amount of economic loss that spider mites cause al., 1997) are:
varies from year to year based on several biotic and 1. The Banks grass mite [Oligonychus pratensis (Banks)]
abiotic factors and has been documented as high as (BGM) – predominant earlier in the growing season.
47% in corn grain.
2. The two-spotted spider mite [Tetranychus urticae
● Spider mites damage corn by rupturing leaf cells and Koch] (TSM) – extends later into the growing season.
drinking the contents out; most damage is done when
Spider mites can damage corn from the seedling stage all
feeding is on leaves at or above ear level.
the way to maturity. Both the BGM and TSM feed primarily
● Managing for resistance is a key issue that growers on grass species. They can differ in their susceptibility and
should be aware of when controlling spider mites. resistance to insecticides, making them difficult to manage.
● This article discusses spider mite life cycle, plant dam-
age, identification, and management options. Risk of Spider Mite Infestation in Corn in the Western U.S.

Spider Mites – A Problem in Drought Years

Two-spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae) is a pest
of soybeans that proliferates during extended periods of
drought. Drought conditions accelerate spider mite movement
and reproduction and inhibit fungal pathogens that normally
help keep spider mite populations in check. Economically
damaging outbreaks of spider mites are relatively rare, but
populations can grow rapidly when conditions are favorable.
What Are Spider Mites?
High
Spider mites (Family Tetranycidae, Order Acari) are not insects, Moderate to High
but are tiny arachnids closely related to ticks and spiders. They Moderate
can be problematic pests for corn producers, primarily in the
High Plains and extending through the western US. While high Spider Mite Damage to Corn
spider mite numbers frequently cause significant damage
The BGM and TSM damage plants by using needle-like
to corn (grain, silage, and sweet), the level of economic loss
stylets to rupture leaf cells, pushing their mouth into the torn
is different from season to season. Temperature, humidity,
tissue and drinking the leaf contents. This results in clusters
rainfall, soil type, pesticide applications, host proximity and
of dead cells, leaving a stippled or speckled appearance on
natural enemies affect population dynamics from year to year.
the upper leaf surface. Concentrated chlorotic areas begin
High temperatures and drought stress generally accompany
along the midrib and folded areas of the leaf, spreading
high populations of mites. Higher populations of spider mites
to the basal half of the leaf. In instances of severe feeding,
are often found in sandy soil types, as these soils typically
leaves will become gray, yellow, bronzed, dry, or bleached.
incur drought stress in western states, even under irrigation.
High populations of untreated mites will cause loss of vigor
and eventual death.

28
 return to table of contents

deutonymph instar stage. Adults are eight-legged and range

in color from bright green to red. Females are 1⁄60 inch long and
are slightly larger and more robust than males, which are only
1⁄80 inch long.
Spider mites are an arrenotochous species, meaning a female
will lay both fertilized and unfertilized eggs. The fertilized eggs
will turn into diploid females, and the unfertilized eggs will turn
into haploid males. The ratio of males to females can vary
considerably from one population to the next but is normally
female-biased.
A generation usually proceeds from start to finish in as little
as 5 to 20 days, depending on temperature. Hot and dry
conditions will increase the rate of development. Optimum
Mottled, discolored corn leaf from spider mite feeding. temperatures differ slightly for the BGM and TSM. BGM are
more fecund in climates with lower humidity and 97 to 98°F
Mite activity increases under hot and dry conditions. Crop temperatures. However, the TSM thrives in climates with a
damage is most severe when feeding occurs on the leaves higher percent humidity and 86 to 90°F temperatures. BGM
at or above the ear level between tasseling and hard dough. populations have been shown to increase 70-fold in one
Yield loss attributed to spider mite feeding may be as high as generation. It is typical for both mite species, and all mite
40% (on a dry matter basis) in corn silage, and grain losses stages, to be present with 7 to 10 generations per season
may be as high as 47% (Archer and Bynum, 1993). A long-term overlapping one another.
university study observed yield losses ranging from 6% to 48%
with an 18-year average of 21%.
Biology and Life Cycle
Spider mites have four life stages: egg, larva, nymph, and
adult. Mites may occasionally overwinter in crop residue, but
primarily the BGM will overwinter in crowns of winter wheat
and native grasses. The TSM primarily overwinters in alfalfa
and other broadleaf species bordering fields. Beyond that,
the life cycles of the two mite species are quite similar. When
conditions are favorable, overwintering adult females will
begin to move into the corn crop by crawling short distances
or being carried by the wind.
Two-spotted spider mite eggs, larvae, nymphs, and adult.
Spider Mite Life Cycle
Table 1. Developmental time for spider mites on corn.
Overwintering Adults Adults

77°F 97°F
Egg-Laying Stage
number of days

Larvae Egg 4.3 2.1

Larva 1.7 0.8
Nymphs Protonymph 1.3 0.8
Deutonymph 1.9 1.4
Damage Period
Adult 19.1 5.8
April May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Generation 9.9 5.5
Adapted from Purdue University.2
Adapted from Perring et. al., 1983.
3

Spherical, pearly white eggs are laid and fastened to the Spider Mite Scouting and Identification Tips
underside of the leaf by webbing produced by the adult
● When: Scouting for spider mites should begin as soon
females. Eggs will hatch in a range of 3 to 19 days depending
as wheat, alfalfa, native grasses, and broadleaf weeds
on temperature, and will change in color from pearly white
bordering fields begin to dry down and continue until corn
to a yellowish-green just prior to hatching. The larvae have
reaches dent.
six legs, are colorless, and resemble the nymph and adult.
Little leaf nutrients are consumed in this stage. The nymph ● Where: Early in the season, scouting plants next to grass
has eight legs, looks like the adult, but is smaller and sexually waterways, field edges, or stressed areas will give the best
immature. The nymphs will undergo both a protonymph and indication of whether spider mites are feeding on corn.

29
 return to table of contents

● How: Spider mites will produce fine webbing to protect tacks spider mites and can be beneficial in controlling popu-
themselves and their eggs. Check the underside of lation numbers. Daily temperatures below 85°F with high rel-
discolored leaves for both the webbing and mites. Mites ative humidity create favorable conditions for fungal growth
are small and sometimes hard to see. Taking a white piece on the spider mites.
of paper and shaking the leaf over it can help to visually
Hot and dry climates tend to have higher levels of spider
identify mite presence.
mite infestations as natural enemies cannot keep up with
When scouting, identify which mite species is present. Even increasing spider mite numbers, and the fungal pathogen
though the BGM and TSM are similar in appearance and can Neozygites floridana is not as active. Avoiding drought stress
appear simultaneously, they have several different biological with properly applied irrigations is a key cultural control
characteristics and differ in their susceptibility to pesticides component. However, once spider mite populations are
(Table 2). The BGM will appear earlier in the season from mid- established, irrigation will not decrease the density of the
whorl through the early grain-filling stages and feed mostly population. Other cultural components to consider are later
on the lower leaves before moving to the upper leaves of plantings or planting a fuller-season hybrid if these options
the plant. The TSM will appear mid to late season, usually are feasible.
after flowering, and feed over the entire plant. To identify
Chemical Control with Miticides
the type of mite present, use a 10X hand lens, and observe
20 adult females. It is best to do this procedure in 5 to 10 Biological and cultural control practices can be beneficial
randomly selected areas in the field. Females will be the but often unreliable. Many growers rely heavily on chemical
largest individuals present and have rounded bodies, while control. While chemical control can be effective, this method
males have a more slender, tapered body. does not come without problems or concerns. The TSM is
more tolerant to miticides and is harder to control than the
How to Control Spider Mites in Corn BGM. Additionally, spider mites colonize on the bottom side
The economic damage spider mites can cause varies from of the leaves, leading to difficulties in application coverage.
year to year and depends on several biotic and abiotic It is recommended to use three or more gallons of water per
factors. When deciding how best to manage spider mite acre to increase effectiveness. Aerial applications are most
infestations in a corn crop, consider biological, cultural, and effective. More scouting and secondary treatments can
chemical control methods, individually or in combination. usually be expected as it is difficult to kill eggs with a miticide
application. Reinfestation will likely occur within 7 to 10 days
Table 2. Biological comparison of Banks grass mite and two-spotted
spider mite.4,5 after initial application.
Early season preventative treatments can provide some eco-
Banks Grass Mite Two-Spotted Spider Mite
nomic benefit. Growers should carefully consider:
● The amount of plants infested with small
colonies of mites
● Temperature and humidity patterns
● Any drought stress the crop may be under
● Predatory insect populations
● Field history of mite infestations
Produce less webbing Produce more webbing Again, this places a high emphasis on properly scouting for
Generally less robust, smaller Generally more robust, larger the pest.

Pointed rear Rounded rear

A simple guideline in determining treatment thresholds is to
treat when damage is visible in the lower third of the plant,
More susceptible to miticides Less susceptible to miticides colonies are present in the middle third of the plant, and the
Burn leaves of plant May occur in high numbers corn has not yet reached hard dough stage. Once the corn
from bottom up without burning leaves crop has reached the hard dough to dent stage, no economic
benefit will be gained from a miticide treatment.
Concentrated gut
Generalized gut pigmentation*
pigmentation* Another more sophisticated guideline takes into account
the cost of treatment and expected crop value based
*Visible green markings on spider mites are a result of ingested plant material
and differences in gut structure. on the percent of infested leaves and the amount of leaf
area damaged (Table 3). To use this table, the control cost
Biological and Cultural Control (miticide + application cost) and the expected crop value
In some years, fields may not have to be treated as beneficial (grain bu/acre x market price) must be determined. Then a
predatory insects keep the mite populations below economic two-step sampling method is used. First, select an individual
injury levels. Beneficial predatory insects include the Stetho- plant, and check green leaves for presence or absence of
rus lady beetles, minute pirate bugs, lacewing larvae, and mites to calculate the percentage of infested green leaves
thrips. In addition to predatory insects, Neozygites floridana, (first value listed in table). This should be done 10 times in
a naturally occurring fungus, is a common pathogen that at- different portions of the field. If the percentage of green

30
 return to table of contents

leaves infested exceeds that of the control cost and crop ● Beneficial insects that are predatory on spider mites are
value, then the percent of leaf area damaged will need to better able to thrive when insecticides are not used on
be determined. corn. Planting Pioneer® brand hybrids with aboveground
Example: If the estimated control cost is $20/acre, the crop is insect protection technologies can help preserve yield
valued at $300/acre and the percent of green leaves infested potential while reducing or eliminating the need for
exceeds 39, then the percent leaf area damaged needs to insecticides.
be estimated. If the percent leaf area damaged exceeds 21, ● Only apply miticides when yield is threatened based on
then it will likely pay to apply a miticide treatment. treatment thresholds and application guidelines.
● When miticide applications are necessary, be sure to
Table 3. Economic injury threshold for BGM and TSM in corn. maximize miticidal activity by applying with the proper
carrier volumes and appropriate adjuvants (Table 4).
Cost Crop Value per Acre
per ● Do not consistently use the same miticide year after year.
Acre $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 $500 $550
Table 4. Spider mite management options.7
— % infested leaves per plant / % leaf area damaged —

$5 12/6 10/5 8/5 7/4 7/3 6/3 5/6 Insecticide** Trade Name Rate

$ 10 24/13 20/10 17/9 15/18 13/7 12/6 11/6 0.08 to 0.10 lb.
numerous
Bifenthrin a.i./acre
$ 15 35/19 29/16 25/13 22/12 20/10 18/9 16/9 products
(5.1 to 6.4 fl. oz.)
$ 20 47/25 39/21 34/18 29/16 26/14 24/13 21/11
Etoxazole Zeal® 4 to 6 oz./acre
$ 25 59/31 49/26 42/22 37/20 33/17 29/16 27/14
Fenpyroximate Portal® 2 pt./acre
Developed by Archer and Bynum, 1993. 6

0.073 to 0.176 lb.

Hexythiazox Onager® a.i./acre
(10 to 24 fl. oz.)

Propargite Comite® II 2.25 pt./acre

0.09 to 0.25 lb.

Spiromesifen Oberon® 4 SC a.i./acre
(2.85 to 8.0 fl. oz.)
Zeta-cypermethrin 10.3 fl. oz. of
Hero®
+ Bifenthrin product/acre
Dimethoate, 0.33 to 0.5 lb.
Dimethoate
Dimate® a.i./acre
**Always read and follow manufacturers label, directions, and recommendations.

Leaves showing progression of no damage (top) to intense damage

(bottom) due to spider mite feeding.

Resistance Management
Because spider mites can develop resistance to miticides,
resistance management is a key concern for growers. Con-
tinued use of any one miticide will naturally select against
susceptible mites and increase the number of tolerant mites
in each subsequent generation. In areas where spider mites
are a consistent problem, the following resistance manage-
ment strategies can be extremely helpful.
● If able, keep corn well-watered and avoid drought stress.
● Avoid planting corn next to winter wheat and alfalfa fields,
particularly if mite infestations are known.
Corn leaf infested by spider mites, showing webbing and damage on
● Use insecticides only when faced with serious yield loss. underside of leaf.

31
 return to table of contents

Corn Root Lodging

Cori Lee, Agronomy Sciences Intern, and Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Factors That Can Increase Root Lodging Risk

Key Points
● Compacted soil around the root zone due to wet
● Root lodging often occurs in late June and early July conditions at planting, resulting in restricted root
when severe thunderstorms are common and brace development.
roots on corn plants are not yet fully developed.
● Wet soil early in the season, which reduces the need for
● Wind-induced root lodging is not always related to root expansion.
root injury but is more likely to occur when root systems
● Dry soils later in the season that slow down brace root
are damaged or restricted.
development.
● Corn plants have more ability to recover from lodging
● Water-saturated soils at the time of a wind event.
when it occurs during vegetative growth stages.
● Corn rootworm damage.
● Yield impact is greatest when lodging occurs during
pollination.

Summer Storms Can Cause Root Lodging

● Root lodging in corn can occur when soils are saturated
by heavy rain and the rain is accompanied by high winds.
● Root lodging risk in the Corn Belt is typically greatest in
late June and early July when severe thunderstorms are
common, and corn is most vulnerable.
● Corn in the mid-vegetative stages of development has
sufficient top growth to be impacted by severe winds but
brace roots are not yet fully developed.
● Injury to the root system caused by corn rootworm feeding
can increase susceptibility to lodging.

Impact on Growth and Development

● The impacts of root lodging depend on timing, moisture
availability, and root regeneration after lodging.
● The earlier that root lodging occurs, the less of an impact
it is likely to have on yield.
● Yield loss will likely be greater if root systems have been
damaged by rootworm feeding.
● Lodging in mid-to-late vegetative stages can delay silk
emergence by one to two days.

Figure 1. A combination of wet soils and strong winds can lead to

● Root lodging during pollen shed can cause silks to
lodging even if roots systems are healthy; however, plants with be covered by the leaves of lodged plants, reducing
damaged or restricted roots are more susceptible to lodging. pollination success.
● The later that root lodging occurs in the growing season,
the less able corn is to straighten back up afterward
without pronounced goose-necking.
● As corn nears its full height, stalk elongation is nearly
complete, making recovery after lodging unlikely.

32
 return to table of contents

Managing Lodged Corn

● Although yield loss due to lodging cannot be recovered,
management practices can be used to mitigate
Figure 2. Heavy corn rootworm feeding on unprotected root. Corn
rootworm damage reduces a plant’s structural support and makes it
additional threats to remaining yield and reduce the risk
more susceptible to lodging. of lodging in future crops.
Extension pathologists do not generally recommend
Effect of Root Lodging on Corn Yield
●

rescue applications of fungicide on root lodged corn

● A three year field study by Ohio State University beyond what a grower would normally do.
researchers evaluated effects of root lodging on corn
» Effectiveness of a fungicide application decreases
development and grain yield (Lindsey et al., 2021).
with the severity of lodging because of reduced spray
● Simulated wind lodging treatments were applied by coverage, and the likelihood of an economic return
pushing plants over by hand immediately after irrigation may be lower for corn that already has reduced yield
or heavy precipitation events. potential.
● Recovery from lodging was highly dependent on crop » Diseases favored by injury to plants form wind or
growth stage, with plants that lodged during vegetative hail are primarily bacterial and not controlled by
growth (V10 and V13) able to recover much more than fungicides.
plants that lodged after tasseling (VT-R1 and R3).
● Goose-necked corn can be challenging to harvest. The
● Yield loss resulting from lodging was greatest at VT-R1, use of after-market corn head reels can help guide stalks
stemming from reduced kernel number, poor pollination, through the header and minimize harvest loss.
and increased barren plants (Figure 3).
● If lodging was due to rootworm feeding, practices
● Yield loss from lodging at R3 was mostly attributable to to reduce rootworm population levels should be
reduced kernel weight, and partially to reduced kernel implemented.
number.
● Ears close to the ground at VT-R1 and R3 increased
incidence of vivipary which could also impact grain
marketability.

50
45 43

40
Corn Yield Loss (%)

35 33

30
25 22
20
15
10
5
5
0
V10 V13 VT-R1 R3 Figure 4. Brace roots are important for stabilizing the plant under
high winds and recovery after lodging has occurred. Lodging risk
Figure 3. Yield loss associated with root lodging at different corn is increased when high winds occur before brace roots have fully
development stages in a three year Ohio State University study developed or brace root development has been inhibited by dry soil
(Lindsey et al., 2021). conditions.

33
 return to table of contents

Brittle Snap in Corn

Cori Lee, Agronomy Sciences Intern

Key Points Growing Point

● Brittle snap or green snap refers to breakage of corn
stalks by strong winds, most often occurring during
periods of rapid vegetative growth. Nodes
● There are two periods when corn is most susceptible
to brittle snap – V5 to V8, when the growing point is
just advancing above the soil line, and V12 to R1, or two
weeks prior to tasseling until silking.
● Any conditions which promote rapid growth may also Internode:
increase susceptibility to brittle snap damage. It is Area of rapid
often the most productive fields that incur damage. cell elongation

Contributing Factors Figure 2. Dissected corn plant showing the developing structures
inside the stalk, including the growing point, nodes and internode
● Brittle snap refers to breakage of corn stalks by violent area.
winds and is reported most frequently in the Plains and
Northern Plains areas of the U.S., where high winds are Injury at V12 to R1
more common.
● A key factor which increases the incidence of brittle snap
● During vegetative growth, rapidly elongating internodes from V12 to tasseling is the enlargement in leaf surface
can be brittle and susceptible to breakage. area and plant height, which increases wind resistance
● Many factors affect the severity of brittle snap injury, during a period of potentially severe storms and wind
including growing conditions, field geography, crop events.
management practices, soil type, and hybrid genetics. ● Snapped plants often have visible ear shoots on the
Injury at V5 to V8 stalk shortly after the wind damage event. However, the
reduced leaf surface area usually results in limited grain
● A corn plant at V5 is entering a period of rapid growth. production.
Stalk growth occurs by elongation of internode cells,
● The most common sites for breakage at this stage are at
which increases the rigidity of the stalk. Cell walls are very
the nodes – immediately below, at or above the primary
fragile at this stage.
ear node.
● At the V5 to V8 stage, many nodes and internodes are
● Upon reaching mature height, the risk of brittle snap
stacked together in a small area (see image at top right).
diminishes as cell walls are strengthened by the
This dense concentration may make the plants less
deposition of lignin and other structural materials.
flexible and more susceptible to breakage.
● Brittle snap breakage at V5 to V8 occurs below the
growing point, at a stalk node at or near the soil
surface. Snapped plants will not recover, nor contribute
appreciably to yield.

Figure 1. Brittle snap observed

at V5 to V8 often follows a
surge in corn growth and
development stimulated
by favorable rainfall and
temperature.

34
 return to table of contents

Planter Preparation
for Spring
Laura Sharpe, Agronomy Information Consultant,
and Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Summary and a lack of seed to soil contact. Discs should be replaced

when wear exceeds factory specifications, which is typically
● Preparing your planter for spring planting is critical for
when they have lost ½-inch or more of their original diame-
the success of your next crop.
ter. A good visual indicator that discs need to be replaced is
● Start with the basics like tire pressure, planter lev- when the original bevel on the edge of the discs is gone.
eling and parallel linkage arm wear. Then move to
seed tubes, double disc openers, meters, and closing
wheels.
● Finally, check your technology, including wiring, mon-
itors, and sensors. Store data and prepare for new
fields.

Planter Leveling
For proper disc cutting action, seed delivery, planting depth
accuracy, and press wheel action, planters need to run
slightly uphill, particularly as
they age and the parallel link-
ages become worn. Check
your planter for levelness. If
the planter is running downhill,
it may require adjusting the Depth Gauge Wheels
hitch position. Depth-gauge wheels should be checked to make sure that
Parallel Linkages they turn freely, move up and down easily, and run tightly
against the opening discs. This is important to ensure that soil
Parallel linkages wear over time, which can lead to excessive doesn’t flow between the wheels and the opening discs and
movement of the row unit. Bushing wear will tend to make into the seed trench, which can result in irregular seed place-
a row unit plant slightly shallower with more tendency for ment and planting depth variability. Yearly inspections will tell
erratic seed distribution. With your planter raised in the air you if the gauge wheel arm bushings are worn and if the wheels
stand behind each row unit and push up and side to side. need to be shimmed in against the double disc openers.
If you find that the row unit moves excessively, it is time to
replace the parallel linkage bushings. Seed Tubes
Inspect seed tubes and vacuum for obstructions, leaks, and
Opening Discs
loose fittings, and continue to do this regularly throughout
Sharp cutting double-disc openers can either make or break spring planting season. Clean seed tube sensors routinely,
a planter. A business card can be used to determine if the discs and make sure to adjust vacuum pressure according to seed
have the necessary 2 inches of cutting size and shape.
edge contact. The V-trench Check your seed drop tubes to be sure they are free and clear
they form is critical for good of any obstructions, and make sure that they are not worn by
Discs seed-to-soil contact and your double disc openers. Rough edges caused by wear can
should be uniform emergence. As alter your planter’s seed drop accuracy.
replaced when disc openers wear, they Any hindrance or obstruction that inter-
will no longer form a
wear exceeds factory feres with seed drop can result in erratic
firm cutting point. This seed distribution, even though meters
specifications, which is can lead to an irreg- are functioning perfectly. If seed tubes
typically when they have ular furrow, shaped are worn, they should be replaced. If the
lost ½-inch or more like a “W” instead of a planter is equipped with seed firmers,
of their original “V” resulting in variable they should also be checked for wear
seed depth placement
diameter. and replaced if necessary.

35
 return to table of contents

Chains and Sprockets

Check all chains, sprockets, and shear pins for wear and
proper tension. If they are worn or chain links are stiff, the
chain should be replaced. Make sure chains are lubricated
Planter Setup properly.
- Jonathan Rotz, Field Agronomist

Meters
Meters should be taken apart before each planting season
for cleaning and to check parts for wear. Finger pick-up
metering units should be recalibrated after 100 acres have
been planted per row unit. Confirm that all seals on vacuum
meters are in working order and seed discs are flat and not
warped. Double check the clearance between the seed disc
and the housing to prevent vacuum leaks. Inspect any belt or
brush within the meter, and in high-speed delivery systems, for
wear and misshapen bristles or paddles. It is also important
to check the bowl tension on John Deere ExactEmerge™
planters. If the bowl tension is too loose, seeds may not end
up getting to the brush belt for delivery to the seed furrow.
Technology Check
Coulters and Row Cleaners Check all wiring harnesses, ensure all wiring is connected and
Coulters and other attachments can impact seed to soil in working order. Consider gathering loose cords with zip ties.
contact, especially with heavy residues. Coulter depth and For all add on equipment, check all electric sensors, down
sharpness are important to allow residues to be cut cleanly force compressors etc.
rather than crimping and pushing them into the seed furrow. Review all monitors, remove old prescriptions. Load VRS
Most coulters should be set to run about 1/4 inch above the planting scripts from Granular Insights prior to planting and
depth of the double-disc openers. Be sure that coulters and ensure planter is accepting the prescription. Utilize agronomic
residue attachments are aligned properly with the double- tools from Granular Insights like population charts for hybrids
disc planted too deep and double disc openers not turning based on seed price, yield environment, and commodity
properly. price. Scan corn seed batch tags for final planter settings to
Make sure row cleaners gently sweep residue – you don’t optimize seed drop. Have your planting plan pre-loaded into
want to move soil, just residue. Watch the row cleaners the monitor and onto all employee smart phones for simple
running. Fixed row cleaners shouldn’t turn constantly; they stress-free planting.
should gently turn sporadically, especially through areas of
Safety Check
thick residue. Floating row cleaners should maintain constant
contact with the ground, flowing the contours and providing Perform a safety check on all planting equipment to make sure
a clean and consistent path for the depth gauge wheels to lights and signals work properly so you don’t risk accidents
follow. when moving from one farm or field to another. Ensure that
all farm equipment has the appropriate slow moving vehicle
Closing Wheels signage. Clean windows to ensure operators can see clearly.
For closing wheels to per- Ensure the hitch pin is secure and safety chain is attached,
form properly, it is im- especially for road travel.
portant to ensure that
they are aligned with the
opening discs. To check
alignment, set the plant-
er on the ground and pull
Planting with Precision - Adjustments, Tips,
ahead about 5 feet. Look
and Watchouts
at the mark left behind the
Mike Gronski, Jason Kienast, and John Mick, Pioneer Field
planter by the double disc Agronomists
openers. The mark should Pioneer field agronomists discuss top planter
run right down the center- adjustment tips and watchouts to keep in mind
line between closing wheels. If a closing wheel is running too during planting to give your seedlings the best
close to the seed furrow, adjust the closing wheels to bring it possible start to the growing season.
back to the center.

36
 return to table of contents

Determining Soil Fitness

for Spring Field Work
Laura Sharpe, Agronomy Information Consultant

What Happens When Soils are Worked or

Key Points Seeded When They are Too Wet?
● Evaluate every field for soil moisture conditions before ● Planting into wet soils or working soils too wet can cause
starting any field work. Use the simple “ribbon” test to smearing of the seed furrow sidewall, sidewall compaction
determine soil conditions and fitness. from the disk openers, and a seed trench that does
● Determining when the soil is fit to work or plant in the not close (see Figures 2-4). This can cause uneven crop
spring is a key skill to growing high yielding crops. emergence.
● Tillage and planting operations are best done when ● Compacted soil restricts corn and soybean root systems
soils are dry enough in the top 3 to 4 inches of soil that and causes uneven emergence. Restricted nodal root
they do not form a ribbon with normal compression systems will reduce the plant’s ability to uptake water and
forces from your hand. nutrients, lowering yield potential (see Figure 5).

How to Determine if Soil is Fit for Field Work

● The following soil test is a quick method to accurately
gauge if soil is ready for spring tillage and seedbed
preparation.
● Take your trowel and dig down 3 to 4 inches into the
seedbed.
● Grasp a handful of soil from the trowel and squeeze it
together with your hands; be firm, the action of a cultivator
or disk is not gentle.
● Try to break apart the ball and assess how friable the soil is.
● If the ball is easily broken down to its original crumb
structure, the ground is fit to work.
● If any of the following are true, the soil is too wet:
» The soil smears together
» The ball of soil sticks together Figure 2. Soil that was too wet to plant, leaving the seed trench open
and the seed exposed.
» Soil feels tacky
» A ribbon forms when squeezed between your thumb
and forefinger (as shown in Figure 1)
● If water comes out of the ball when you squeeze it, the soil
is much too wet to be worked or planted.

Figure 3. Wet soils at planting can lead to sidewall smearing that

Figure 1. (Left) Soil that is too wet to plant, as it forms a ribbon when restricts optimum nodal root growth and yield potential. Note that
squeezed between your thumb and forefinger. (Right) Soil that is fit the roots of this corn plant are running horizontally along the seed
for field work when it crumbles when pressed. trench.

37
 return to table of contents

What About a Dry Spring?

● Dry soil in the spring is less susceptible to impacts of
equipment traffic, such as compaction and ruts in the
field.
● However, soil disturbance increases the potential for soil
erosion after any rain events and the loss of soil organic
matter, topsoil, and nutrients.
● Inspect the top 6 inches for soil moisture status and plan
to minimize tillage unless it is absolutely necessary.
● Minimizing tillage passes can save as much as a quarter
of an inch of water per pass (Al-Kaisi, 2020).
How to Tell When Soil is Ready for Field Work
● Soil should be dry enough in the top 3 to 4 inches that it
does not form a ribbon with normal compression in your
hand.
● Soils in proper condition for seedbed preparation should
crumble between your fingers and have favorable tilth.
These properties will optimize early growth and minimize
soil compaction.
● Soil moisture conditions can change between the time the
seedbed is prepared and planting begins in the field.
● If soils become wet, be patient and allow them to dry
out. Try to work fields as close to planting operations as
possible.
How to Tell When Soil is Ready for Planting
Figure 4. Planting into wet soils caused an open seed trench resulting
● When you walk on a field prior to planting, your boots
in uneven emergence and poor stands. Arrows indicate emerged corn
plants. Photo from Paul Hermans, Pioneer Agronomist. should not sink into the soil more than an inch.
● The goal of spring tillage is to prepare a seed bed. Ideal
seed beds are firm. A very loose seedbed will result in
uneven emergence, poor nodal root establishment,
potential for root lodging in summer storms, less root mass
for periods of drought, and lower yields.

Figure 5. The roots on the left are from a

plant that experienced sidewall smearing
– notice how the roots are concentrated
directly underneath the stalk and do not
branch out horizontally. The roots on the
right show what normal roots look like.
Notice the greater root mass and more even
distribution across the area.

38
 return to table of contents

Effects of Seed Orientation

at Planting on Corn Growth
Dan Emmert, M.S., Former Pioneer Field Agronomist, and Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Key Findings Figure 2. Corn seedling that

● A 2022 field demonstration was conducted to study the was planted with the kernel
effects of seed orientation in the furrow at planting on tip angled upward, showing
how both the coleoptile and
corn growth. radicle had to bend as they
● Seeds planted with the kernel tip down emerged about elongated to grow in the
20 GDUs earlier than those planted with the tip point- proper direction.
ed up.
● Seeds planted tip down with the germ oriented toward
the interrow had greater light capture and lower
temperature under the canopy during late vegetative
growth stages.

© Iowa State University Extension

Does Seed Orientation Matter?
Agronomists and corn producers have long been
●
Previous Research on Seed Orientation
interested in the potential to improve corn growth and
yield by controlling the orientation of the corn seed in the ● Several previous research studies have investigated the
furrow at planting. potential for controlled seed orientation to provide:

● The reason that seed orientation could potentially » Better stand establishment
influence corn growth is because of how the initial growth » More uniform emergence
from the germinating seed occurs (Figure 1): » More efficient light utilization
» The radicle root emerges near the tip of the kernel. » Quicker canopy closure
» The coleoptile emerges from the embryo (germ) side ● Results of these studies have been mixed, with some stud-
of the kernel and elongates in the opposite direction ies showing a yield advantage with uniform seed orienta-
toward the dent end of the kernel. tion, while others have shown improvements in emergence
● When a corn kernel planted with the tip pointed uniformity and light capture but no significant effect on
downward, the emerging radicle and coleoptile are yield.
already pointed in the direction they need to grow, ● A three-year Pioneer study comparing seeds planted with
without the need for the seedling to expend additional the germ oriented with the row, across the row, or random-
energy and time to bend their growth downward and ly over a range of plant populations produced different
upward, respectively (Figure 2). results in each year of the study (Paszkiewicz, et al., 2005).
● Furthermore, the direc- ● Research over the years on corn seed orientation has
tion of the germ side of been limited, however; likely due to the labor-intensive
the kernel influences the nature of the work and difficulty in mitigating confounding
orientation of the plant’s coleoptile factors.
leaves, particularly
● The lack of any available planting technology capable
during the early vege-
of controlling seed orientation in the furrow has likely also
tative stages.
limited the amount of interest in researching seed orienta-
● Seeds planted with the tion – even it were shown to matter, growers would have
germ side perpendicular radicle no way of doing anything about it.
to the row will tend to
● However, with the advent of planting technologies such
have leaves oriented
as John Deere’s ExactEmerge, that maintain control of the
across the row rather
seed from the meter until it is deposited in the furrow, ma-
than toward adjacent © Iowa State University Extension nipulating seed orientation seems like much less of a leap
plants in the row.
Figure 1. Germinated corn seed in technology than it would have been 50 years ago when
showing the emerging coleoptile the first research into the question was being conducted.
and radicle.

39
 return to table of contents

2022 Seed Orientation Field Demonstration

● A field demonstration was conducted in 2022 near Mont-
gomery Indiana to investigate the effects of corn seed
orientation on speed of emergence, canopy closure, and
light capture.
Tip up
● The study compared four different seed orientations:
Tip down
1. Tip down, germ across the row
2. Tip up, germ with the row
3. Tip down, germ with the row
4. Seed laying flat in the furrow
● Seed furrows 1.5 inches deep spaced 30 inches apart
were created using a planter with the closing wheels tied
up.
Figure 4. Emerged seedlings from corn seeds planted tip down
● Seeds were then planted by hand in the furrows in each of (foreground) and tip up (background) showing faster emergence
the four different orientations and the seed furrows were with seed planted tip down.
closed (Figure 3).
● Time to emergence and canopy closure were recorded, as Germ across the row Germ with the row
well as measurements of light capture and temperature
under the canopy.
● Light capture was assessed by measuring the amount of
light that was able to penetrate the canopy and reach
ground level using an Apogee DLI-400 light meter.

Figure 3. Seeds that have

been hand planted into
the open furrow in the
2022 seed orientation
demonstration.

Figure 5. Corn plants from seeds planted tip down with the germ
oriented across the row (left) and with the row (right) showing the
impact of germ direction of leaf orientation during early vegetative
Results growth.
Emergence
Canopy Closure and Light Capture
● Seeds planted with the tip down emerged faster than
● Seeds planted with the tip down and germ perpendicular
those planted tip up by approximately 20 GDUs (Figure 4).
to the row resulted in leaves growing across the row which
Leaf Orientation closed the canopy quicker than seeds planted tip down
● The impact of germ direction on leaf orientation for seeds with the germ parallel to the row or seeds planted tip up
planted tip down was apparent during early vegetative (Figure 6).
growth. ● Light penetration through the canopy was measured from
● Seeds planted with the tip down and germ oriented July 3 to July 13. Plots with seeds planted tip down and
perpendicular to the row resulted in leaves growing across the germ oriented across the row captured an average of
the row, while seeds planted tip down with the germ 40% more light than those with the germ oriented with the
parallel to the row resulted in leaves growing with the row row (Figure 7).
(Figure 5). ● A period of high temperatures and drought stress oc-
● Seeds planted with the tip up did not result in uniform leaf curred during late vegetative growth stages. The greater
orientation, even though the germ orientation was uni- light interception in plots with leaves oriented across the
form. This is due to the circuitous path the coleoptile had row was able to reduce daytime soil surface temperatures
to take around the kernel as it emerged. by around 14° F.

40
 return to table of contents

Germ with the row

Germ across the row

Figure 6. Overhead view of plots with seeds planted tip down with the germ oriented with the row (top) and across the row (above).

Tip Down / Germ Perpendicular Tip Down / Germ Parallel

Daily Light Integral (mol m-2 d-1)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
July 3 July 4 July 5 July 6 July 7 July 8 July 9 July 10 July 11 July 12 July 13
Figure 7. Daily light integral at ground level for plots with seeds planted tip down and germ perpendicular to the row and seeds planted tip
down and germ parallel to the row (Larger values = more light penetrating the canopy and reaching the ground).

● Previous research has demonstrated the ability of corn ● Results of this study show that controlling seed orientation
plants to alter their leaf orientation in response to their at planting may offer some benefits to corn growth and
environment during the early vegetative growth stag- performance, particularly under stressful conditions.
es, shifting leaf growth preferentially toward the interrow
(Jeschke and Uppena, 2015).
Acknowledgement
● In this study, however; whatever adjustment occurred was We would like to thank Mike Wagler and Rosedale Ag Service
not enough to overcome the effects of seed orientation at for their many contributions to this demonstration.
planting.

41
 return to table of contents

Corn Yield Response to Plant

Population in Eastern Ontario
Paul Hermans, Pioneer Area Agronomist, and Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager
105
Key Findings All Locations and Hybrids
100
Optimum plant population was greater in higher yield-

Yield (% of maximum)
●

ing environments than in low yielding environments. 95

● Pioneer brand P9301 and P9535 family products dif-
®
90
fered in their response to plant population and opti-
mum population for maximum yield. 85

● Differing effects of plant population on ear length was 80

the primary driver of the different population response
75
between the two hybrid families.
Optimum = 37,600 plants/acre
70
28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Hybrid Response to Population – 2021 Trials Plant Population (1,000 plants/acre)
● On-farm trials evaluating corn hybrid response to plant Figure 1. Corn yield response to population across all hybrids and
population were conducted at 16 locations across Eastern locations. Corn yield is expressed as a percent of the location
Ontario in 2021. maximum.

● Hybrids were planted at three to five different populations 105

at each location. Most locations included four populations: Higher Yielding Locations
100
28,000, 32,000, 36,000, and 40,000 plants/acre.
Yield (% of maximum)

● A total of nine different Pioneer® brand corn products were 95

included in the study, with P9301 family products (P9301AM™
90
or P9301Q™) and P9535AM™ included at the majority of
locations (Table 1). 85
● Each location had either one or two replications. 80

Table 1. Pioneer brand corn products included in 2021 on-farm 75

population trials and the number of locations for each. Optimum = 37,700 plants/acre
70
28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Hybrid/Brand1 Number of Locations
Plant Population (1,000 plants/acre)
P0953AM™ (AM,LL,RR2) 1
Figure 2. Corn yield response to plant population at nine higher yield
P9188AM™ (AM,LL,RR2) 1 level locations. (Location maximum = 220-250 bu/acre.)
P9233AM™ (AM,LL,RR2) 3
105
P9233Q™ (Q,LL,RR2) 2 Lower Yielding Locations
100
P9301AM™ (AM,LL,RR2)
10
Yield (% of maximum)

P9301Q™ (Q,LL,RR2)
95
P9492AM™ (AM,LL,RR2) 1
90
P9535AM™ (AM,LL,RR2) 11
P9815AM™ (AM,LL,RR2) 1 85

● Samples were collected at 11 locations to evaluate 80

population effects on yield components, including kernel 75
rows per ear, kernel row length, and kernel weight. Optimum = 36,000 plants/acre
70
● Samples were collected from the highest and lowest 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
populations at each site (28,000 and 40,000 plants/acre). Plant Population (1,000 plants/acre)
● Ten ears were sampled per entry. Figure 3. Corn yield response to plant population at seven lower yield
level locations. (Location maximum = 180-220 bu/acre).

42
 return to table of contents

Results ● Yield per plant – comprised of kernel number and kernel

weight – generally declines as plant population increases.
● Across all hybrids and locations, the agronomic optimum
The agronomic optimum plant population is the population
plant population was 37,600 plants/acre (Figure 1).
at which this tradeoff is optimized, maximizing overall yield.
● On-farm trial locations were separated out as higher or
● Figures 6, 7, and 8 show plant population effects on yield
lower yielding based on the maximum yield measured
components for P9301 and P9535 family products and
at the location to determine if yield response to plant
across all hybrids.
population differed by yield level.
» P9535 family products had a relatively flat response to
» Nine locations were classified as higher yielding, with a
plant population and a lower optimum. The difference
maximum yield between 220 and 250 bu/acre.
in yield between 28,000 and 40,000 plants/acre was
» Seven locations were classified as lower yielding, with relatively small (Figure 5).
a maximum yield between 180 and 220 bu/acre.
» P9301 family products had a stronger population re-
● Higher yielding environments would be expected to have sponse and higher optimum, with a larger difference in
a higher optimum plant population and that proved to be yield between 28,000 and 40,000 plants/acre (Figure 4).
the case in this study.
18
● The optimum plant population across higher yielding Number of Kernel Rows
locations was 37,700 plants/acre (Figure 2), compared to 17
36,000 plants/acre for lower yielding locations (Figure 3).
16 16.4 16.4 16.3

Kernel Rows
● This study included two Pioneer hybrid families, P9301 and 16.0 16.1 16.2
P9535, that were included at the majority of trial locations. 15
● The optimum plant population for the P9301 family was
37,800 plants/acre (Figure 4), while the optimum for the 14
P9535 family was 35,300 plants/acre (Figure 5). 13
28 40 28 40 28 40
12
105 P9301 P9535 All
P9301
100 Figure 6. Plant population effect on kernel rows per ear for P9301 and
Yield (% of maximum)

P9535 family products and across all hybrids.

95
39
90 Kernel Row Length
37
85 -2.1%
36.5
Kernels per Row

35 36.2 36.0
80 35.4
-9.6% 34.6
33
75
Optimum = 37,800 plants/acre 32.6
70
31
28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Plant Population (1,000 plants/acre) 29
Figure 4. Yield response of Pioneer P9301 hybrid family products to 28 40 28 40 28 40
27
plant population (9 locations).
P9301 P9535 All
105 Figure 7. Plant population effect on kernel row length for P9301 and
P9535 P9535 family products and across all hybrids.
100
0.5
Yield (% of maximum)

95 Kernel Weight
0.4
90
Kernel Weight (g)

0.37 0.35
85 0.3 0.34
0.32 0.31
0.30
80
0.2
75
Optimum = 35,300 plants/acre 0.1
70
28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 28 40 28 40 28 40
Plant Population (1,000 plants/acre) 0.0
P9301 P9535 All
Figure 5. Yield response of Pioneer P9535 hybrid family products to
plant population (11 locations). Figure 8. Plant population effect on kernel weight for P9301 and
P9535 family products and across all hybrids.

43
 return to table of contents

● Plant population had a minimal effect on the number of 90

kernel rows per ear (Figure 6). Kernels per Bushel
80 83.7

1000 Kernels per Bushel

● The maximum number of kernel rows per ear is largely 79.7 81.3
genetically determined and is fixed relatively early in 75.6
70 72.0
the plant’s growth, so plant population would not be 68.0
expected to have much effect on it. 60
● Ear length was more affected by plant population, with
ears averaging two fewer kernels per row at 40,000 50
plants/acre than at 28,000 plants/acre (Figure 7).
40
● Ear length was also the main driver of the difference
in plant population response between the two hybrid 28 40 28 40 28 40
30
families. P9301 P9535 All
» Ear length of P9301 family products was less affected Figure 9. Plant population effect on kernels per bushel for P9301 and
by plant population, decreasing only about 2% at the P9535 family products and across all hybrids.
higher population compared to the lower population. ● Figure 9 shows kernel weight expressed in terms of kernels
» This allowed P9301 family products to continue to add per bushel with lower kernels/bu values corresponding to
yield at higher populations. greater kernel weight.
» Ear length of P9535 family products was more affected ● The average across all hybrids at 40,000 plants/acre
by plant population, decreasing nearly 10% at the was 81,300 kernels/bu, compared to 72,000 kernels/bu at
higher population. 28,000 plants/acre (Figure 9).
» This could be described as more of a “flex ear” ● The greater kernel weight for P9535 family products is
response, in which individual plants are more reflected in the lower number of kernels per bushel.
responsive to population. Any hybrid will potentially
flex down in response to stress by decreasing kernel
rows around, kernel row length, or depth of kernels. It
appears P9535 family responded to above optimal
population by reducing kernel row length but
maintaining the number of kernel rows.
● Plant population effects on kernel weight were relatively
similar for the two hybrid families (Figure 8).
● P9535 family products generally had a higher average
kernel weight than P9301 family products.

Special thanks to our plot co-operators

and project supporters:
Emerald Acres, J&H Nixon Farms, Golden Dell Farms, Doug Featherstone,
Marlboro Farms, Hog Haven Inc., Golden Rail Farms, Vernon Valley Farms,
Mike Glaus, Vanden Bosch Farms, Fife Agronomics, Jim Parks,
Starhill Farms, Velthuis Farms Ltd., Ferme Kathyvac,
Smiley Farms, Sullivan Agro, and Liam Bracken.

44
 return to table of contents

Soil Temperature
and Corn Emergence
Ross Ennen, Senior Research Associate - Seed Science,
and Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Summary
● Corn is a warm season crop. Germination and emergence are optimal when soil
temperatures are approximately 85 to 90°F. Cold conditions following planting
impose significant stress on corn emergence and seedling health.
● Corn seed is particularly susceptible to cold stress during imbibition. Planting just
before a stress event such as a cold rain or snow can result in a reduced stand.
● In lighter textured soils, spring nighttime temperatures can drop significantly
below 50°F, even after warm days, inflicting extra stress on corn emergence.
● High amounts of residue can slow soil warming and the accumulation of soil
GDUs needed for corn emergence.
● Pioneer® brand corn products are rated for stress emergence to help farmers
manage early-season risk. Choosing hybrids with higher stress emergence
scores can help reduce genetic vulnerability to stand loss due to cold soil
temperatures.
● Pioneer brand corn products include an industry-leading seed
applied technology portfolio designed to help farmers establish
healthy, uniform crops and maximize productivity.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Erin Anderson
and Beth Merrill for their contributions to
the research summarized in this article.

Successful
corn emergence is a
combination of three key
factors – environment,
genetics, and seed
quality.

45
 return to table of contents

Introduction
Successful corn emergence is a combination of three key
factors – environment, genetics, and seed quality (Figure 1).
Hybrid genetics provide the basis for tolerance to cold stress.
High seed quality helps ensure that the seed will perform up to
its genetic ability. Pioneer® brand corn products are selected
to provide the best genetics for consistent performance
across a wide range of environments, and seed production
practices are optimized for maximum quality. However, even
with the best genetics and highest seed quality, environmental
factors can still influence stand establishment. A combination
of field- and lab-based research on the effects of stressful
conditions on corn germination and emergence provides
valuable insights, which can help farmers make informed
decisions and better manage their field operations to areas (Figure 2). It is generally recommended that farmers
maximize stands. plant when soil temperatures are at or above 50°F. Farmers
can expect much slower emergence and growth at the cool
This article will discuss how the level and timing of cold
soil temperatures that are typical during corn planting in
stress affects seed germination as well as emergence and
much of the U.S. and Canada.
how farmers can mitigate these stresses when planting in
challenging environments.
3
Root
Growth Rate (mm/hour) Shoot
Environment 2
Temperature
Residue
Compaction 1

Water

0
Seed Quality 59 77 86 95
Genetics Temperature (°F)
Harvest Moisture
Vigor Figure 2. Average early root and shoot growth rates for 3 hybrids
Drying and under 4 soil temperatures ranging from 59 to 95°F.
Stress Tolerance
Conditioning
Spring soil temperatures can vary greatly year to year. Soil
temperatures at planting in combination with near- to
moderate-term weather trends have profound effects on
Figure 1. Some critical environmental, genetic, and seed-quality the probability of establishing optimal stands and achieving
factors that affect stand establishment.
maximum yields. Researchers recorded average soil temper-
Optimal Temperature For Early Corn Growth atures at planting depth at several stress emergence research
locations in 2018 (Figure 3).
Corn is a warm-season crop and grows best under warm
conditions. In North America, early season planting typically 75
puts substantial stress on corn seedlings, especially if planting 70
is followed by cold, wet weather. As planting has shifted 65
earlier, the potential for cold soil at planting and cold, wet
Soil Temperature (°F)

60
weather after planting has increased. In fact, it is not unusual
55
for early planted corn to remain in cold, saturated soil for two
50
to three weeks or longer before emerging.
45
To illustrate the effects of temperature on corn growth, three Eau Claire, WI
40
hybrids of early, mid, and late maturities were germinated Johnston, IA
35 Janesville, WI
in temperatures ranging from 59 to 95°F (15 to 35°C). Growth Ithaca, MI
30
rates of both roots and shoots were measured. Both shoots Olivia, MN
and roots exhibited the fastest growth rate at 86°F (30°C) and 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
continued to grow rapidly at 95°F (35°C), suggesting optimal Days After Planting
seedling germination and emergence occurs at much higher Figure 3. Average late-April soil temperatures recorded at 2-inch
soil temperatures than are common in most corn-producing depth at several stress emergence testing locations.

46
 return to table of contents

At 3 research locations, soil temperature dropped well-below ing site is characterized by large amounts of residue, cold soil
50°F for a week or more after planting. Figure 4 illustrates the (below 50°F) at planting followed by cold rain or snow and
general relationship between soil temperature and stand emergence usually requiring two to three weeks.
establishment observed at these locations in 2018. Pioneer brand corn products are also tested in lab assays
100 that simulate stressful field conditions. These tests, which have
been validated by multi-year field trials, provide consistent
90 and reproducible test conditions coupled with the flexibility
of year-round testing. These lab assays are used to support
Early Stand (%)

80 hybrid advancement decisions and also to support breeding

efforts to improve early season stress tolerance through
70 maker-assisted selection.
In 2018, a wide range of stress emergence conditions and soil
60 temperatures were observed in stress emergence field plots.
To demonstrate how stress emergence ratings relate to stand
50 establishment in the field, hybrids were grouped by “low stress
50 - 56 35 - 49 emergence” – those with a stress emergence rating of 4 and
7-Day Average Soil Temperature at 2-inch Depth (°F) “high stress emergence” – those with a stress emergence
Figure 4. Relationship of soil temperature at planting depth (7-day rating of 6.
average after planting) to final stand at stress emergence research The trials included 199 low stress emergence hybrids and
locations, 2018.
159 high stress emergence hybrids. Early stand counts for all
hybrids within each group were averaged at each location.
As stress level increased, both the low stress emergence and
high stress emergence hybrids experienced stand reduction.
However, the hybrids with a stress emergence score of 6 were
able to maintain higher stands as compared to those with a
low stress emergence score (Figure 5).
100
Stress Emergence 6 (High)
95
Stress Emergence 4 (Low)
90
Early Stand (%)

85
80

Low soil temperatures after planting greatly reduced stands at a 75

stress emergence site near Eau Claire, WI, in 2011. 70

Genetic Differentiation for Emergence in Cold Soils 65

Pioneer brand corn products are rated for stress emergence

® 60
Central North Northern Central Southern Central
to help farmers manage early season risk. Choosing hybrids Minnesota Dakota Wisconsin Iowa Wisconsin Michigan
with higher stress emergence scores can help reduce genetic (56°F) (49°F) (57°F) (41°F) (38°F) (37°F)

vulnerability to stand loss due to cold soil temperatures. To Location (7-Day Soil Temperature)
generate stress emergence ratings, hybrids are tested over Figure 5. Average stand establishment for high and low stress
multiple years and environments, beginning several years emergence score hybrids in six stress emergence locations in 2018.
before commercialization. The goal is to generate data from Locations are sorted from least stressful (left) to most stressful (right)
based on average early stand.
many different types of early season stress before assigning
ratings. Timing of Cold Stress Impacts Germination
Hybrids are tested in several early planted field sites, includ- Early planting often exposes seeds to hydration with cold
ing no-till and continuous-corn locations. Testing sites are water, which can cause direct physical damage. When the
located in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, South Dakota, North dry seed imbibes cold water as a result of a cold rain or
Dakota, and Michigan and are chosen to reflect the various melting snow, imbibitional chilling injury may result. The cell
seedbed as well as environmental conditions likely to be ex- membranes of the seed lack fluidity at low temperatures,
perienced by farmers. For example, some eastern sites are and under these conditions, the hydration process can
characterized by extended cold, wet conditions that often result in rupture of the membranes. Cell contents then leak
persist into late spring and early summer, while northern and through this rupture and provide a food source for invading
Midwestern sites are more likely to provide extreme day/night pathogens. Cold water can similarly affect seedling structures
temperature fluctuations. These testing sites with their diverse as they begin to emerge. The degree of damage ranges from
and unique conditions provide a more thorough understand- seed death to abnormalities, such as corkscrews or fused
ing of hybrid responses to early season stress. A typical test- coleoptiles (Figure 6).

47
 return to table of contents

One reason why temperature during imbibition is critical to

corn emergence is the fact that seed imbibes most of the
water needed for germination very rapidly. To illustrate the
rapid timing of water uptake, seed was submerged in 50°F
water for three hours and weighed at intervals of 30, 60, 120,
and 180 minutes to determine water uptake (Figure 8).
The data show that seed imbibes the most water within the
first 30 minutes after exposure to saturated conditions. If this
early imbibition occurs at cold temperatures, it could kill the
Figure 6. Abnormal mesocotyl and coleoptile development due to seed or result in abnormal seedlings. Growers should not only
cold stress in an early planted Illinois field. consider soil temperature at planting but also the expected
To help understand the importance of the timing of cold temperature when seed begins rapidly soaking up water.
stress, two hybrids with stress emergence scores of 4 (below Seed planted in warmer, dry soils can still be injured if the dry
average) and 7 (above average) were allowed to germinate period is followed by a cold, wet event.
in rolled towels for 0, 24, or 48 hours at 77°F (25°C). The hybrids 2.0
were then subjected to a stress of melting ice for three days
and allowed to recover for 4 days at 77°F (25°C). Hybrids were

Water Uptake (grams)

1.5
evaluated for the number of normal seedlings reported as
percent germination (Figure 7).
1.0
Both hybrids showed significant stand loss when the cold
stress was imposed immediately (0 hours). However, the hy-
brid with a higher stress emergence score had a higher per- 0.5
cent germination than the hybrid with a low stress emer-
gence score. Germination rates for both hybrids were greatly 0.0
improved if allowed to uptake 0-30 30-60 60-120 120-180
water and germinate at warmer Time After Submersion (minutes)
temperatures for at least 24 hours Figure 8. Amount of water uptake by corn seed during the first three
before the ice was added. hours after submersion in 50°F water.
Planting just before a stress event, Soil Temperature Fluctuations and Emergence
such as a cold rain or snow can
Farmers are often able to plant fields with sandier soils
cause significant stand loss. The
earlier in the spring because they dry out faster than heavier
chances of establishing a good
soils. However, reduced stands
stand are greatly improved if seed
after early planting have often
are able to germinate at least one
Snowfall soon after been noted in sandier soils.
day in warmer, moist conditions
planting imposes a very Sandy soils are more porous
before a cold-stress event. Also,
high level of stress on corn and have lower water-holding
choosing a hybrid with a higher emergence due to seed
capacity than heavier soils. As
stress emergence score can help imbibing chilled water or
prolonged exposure to such, they tend to experience
moderate stand losses due to
cold, saturated soils. wider temperature fluctuations,
cold stress.
especially on clear nights with Seedling injury caused by
100 cold air temperatures. temperature fluctuations.

In 2015, soil temperatures were recorded at a 2-inch depth

85 at a research location with sandy soils near Eau Claire, WI.
Germination (%)

Daytime soil temperatures reached acceptable levels for

corn development (over 50°F) for the first week after planting.
70
However, the early morning soil temperatures dipped
as low as 38°F, and on some days, the soil temperature
55 difference between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. was over 20°F (Figure
Stress Emergence 7 (high) 8). An average 16 percent stand loss was observed at this
Stress Emergence 4 (low)
location, suggesting that day-night temperature fluctuation
40
0 24 48 after planting can cause added stress to germinating corn.
Timing of Ice Application (Hours After Planting) Farmers should be aware of expected night temperatures
Figure 7. Germination of two hybrids with stress emergence scores when choosing a planting date.
of 7 (above average) and 4 (below average) following imbibitional
chilling induced by melting ice. Ice was applied immediately after
planting (0 hours), after 24 hours, or 48 hours of pre-germination in
warm conditions.

48
 return to table of contents

75 Seedling Disease and Stress Emergence

70 Stress emergence is an agronomic trait intended to reflect
65 genetic variability for tolerance to abiotic stress in the early
Soil Temperature (°F)

60 season. It is not a rating for disease resistance. Early season

stress can promote seedling disease if certain conditions are
55
met, including inoculum presence and prolonged cool, wet
50 conditions. Injury to emerging seedlings will also promote
45 seedling disease. Injury can be caused by chilling, such
40 as imbibitional damage, or by feeding of insects, such as
35 seedcorn maggots, white grubs, and wireworms.
30 In environments with heavy inoculum pressure, disease
6 a.m.

6 p.m.

6 a.m.

6 p.m.

6 a.m.

6 p.m.

6 a.m.

6 p.m.

6 a.m.

6 p.m.

6 a.m.

6 p.m.

6 a.m.

6 p.m.
progression is often in a race with seedling growth. Conditions
April 10 April 11 April 12 April 13 April 14 April 15 April 16
that promote rapid soil warming will generally favor seedling
growth and reduce disease incidence. On the other hand,
Figure 9. Soils temperatures at 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. for seven days after
planting in a stress emergence field location near Eau Claire, WI, in
extended cool, wet conditions will generally favor disease
2015. progression.

Impact of Crop Residue on Soil Temperature Many soil pathogens, including some Pythium species, are
most active at temperatures in the 40s and 50s (°F). Low
Another factor to consider when choosing planting date is
temperatures, such as these, can injure emerging seedlings
the amount of residue in the field. High amounts of residue
and facilitate infection. Low temperatures also impede stand
can present management challenges. Residue tends to hold
establishment and increase the window of vulnerability to
excess water and significantly lower soil temperature in the
infection. Fungicide seed treatments generally provide good
spring, depriving seed of critical heat units needed for rapid
efficacy against target organisms for 10 to 14 days after
emergence. These conditions can also promote seedling
planting. However, protection will be diminished if emergence
disease, particularly in fields that are not well drained or have
and stand establishment are delayed beyond this period.
a history of seedling blights.
In 2011, soil temperature data loggers were placed in a field
Tips to Help Mitigate Early Season Stress Effects
near Perry, IA, to assess early soil temperatures in a strip-
on Emergence
till field. One data logger was placed in the tilled planting Delayed emergence due to cold, wet conditions lengthens
strip (low residue), and one was placed in between the rows the duration during which seed and seedlings are most
under high residue. Soil GDUs were calculated from the data vulnerable to early season insects and diseases. Seed
logger temperatures to approximate how long emergence treatments can help protect stands from both disease and
would take under low and high residue conditions. In general, insect pests. For more information on seed treatment options
approximately 125 soil growing degree units (GDUs) are for Pioneer® brand corn products, contact your local Pioneer
needed after planting for corn emergence. From April 1 to sales professional or visit www.pioneer.com.
April 30, soils under low residue were able to accumulate Planting date is one of the most important factors in stand
99 soil GDUs. During the same timeframe, neighboring soils establishment. The likelihood of reduced stands is greatest
under heavy residue accumulated only 28 soil GDUs. when planting into cold, wet soils or directly before cold,
In mid-April 2019, a 15-degree midday temperature difference wet weather is expected. To help mitigate risk, consider the
was noted in the same field between soil under low residue following tips:
and soil about 20 yards away under soybean residue (Figure ● If a cold spell is expected around planting time, it is
10). Using a row cleaner to clear residue off the row in high- advisable to stop planting one or two days in advance.
residue fields allows for warmer daytime soil temperatures Allow seed to begin hydration in warmer soils in order to
and faster GDU accumulation. minimize damage due to cold imbibition.
● In sandy fields, be aware that low nighttime temperatures
can dip soil temperatures below advisable planting levels.
Large temperature swings in lighter soils can also hurt
emergence.
● If planting in fields with high amounts of residue, consider
strip-tillage or use a row cleaner to allow soils to warm up
faster.
● In the Northern Corn Belt, selecting hybrids with higher
60°F 45°F
stress emergence scores and the right seed treatment
can help reduce the risks associated with planting in cold-
Figure 10. A 15-degree temperature difference was observed stress conditions.
midday on April 15, 2019, in a central Iowa field between soil under
no residue and soil under heavy residue.

49
 return to table of contents

Delayed Corn Planting

in the Southern U.S.
Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Key Points
● Corn yield potential in the Southern U.S. generally declines when plant-
ing is delayed beyond April; however, good yields are still achievable
through mid-May in many areas.
● Late-planted corn generally develops at a faster rate due to greater
heat unit accumulation, which can affect the timing window for herbi-
cide and nitrogen applications.
● Additional management of late-planted corn may be required to
minimize yield-limiting factors such as heat stress, insect pressure, and
disease pressure.

Planting Date Impact on Corn Yield ● Irrigated corn is generally able to sustain yield potential
with delayed planting longer than dryland corn. Irrigation
● Recommended planting dates for corn in the Southern
can also help mitigate the added risk of yield loss from
U.S. can range from late February to April depending on
heat stress during pollination and grain fill that comes with
location.
later planting.
● Corn yield potential generally declines when weather
conditions cause planting to be delayed beyond April;
Table 2. Delayed corn planting effects on irrigated corn yield in a
however, relatively good yields are still achievable through
3-year study conducted at Starkville and Stoneville, Mississippi
the first half of May in many areas. (Larson, 2016).
» In an eight-year University of Arkansas study, corn yield Planting Relative Planting Relative
was maximized with April planting, but yield potential Date Yield (%) Date Yield (%)
remained above 90% through the first half of May
March 31 100 May 10 87
(Table 1).
April 5 100 May 15 84
» In a three-year Mississippi State University study, 90%
April 10 99 May 20 80
yield potential was achievable with irrigated corn plant-
ed through May 5, and 84% through May 15 (Table 2). April 15 98 May 25 76

» Yield potential in both studies declined below 80% April 20 97 May 30 72

when planting was delayed until late May. April 25 95 June 5 66
April 30 93 June 10 60
Table 1. Delayed corn planting effects on corn yield in an eight-year
May 5 90 June 15 55
study at Marianna, Arkansas (Kelley, 2021).

Planting Date Relative Yield (%) Growth and Development of Late Planted Corn
● Late-planted corn generally develops at a faster rate due
Prior to April 30 100
to greater heat unit accumulation.
May 1-7 97
● Timing of corn development stages in a University of
May 8-14 91 Arkansas planting date study is shown in Table 3.
● More rapid development of late-planted corn means
May 15-21 85
that applications of sidedress nitrogen and herbicides
May 22-30 80 will generally need to be made sooner after planting
compared to earlier-planted corn.
June 1-7 75
● Late-planted corn often grows taller due to longer day
June 8-14 67 lengths during vegetative growth, which can make it more
susceptible to lodging.

50
 return to table of contents

Table 3. Planting date effect on timing of corn development stages

in a 2011 University of Arkansas planting date study using a 114-day
hybrid (Kelley, 2021).

Corn Planting Date

Growth Stage
March 24 April 18 May 10 June 3
days to growth stage
Emergence 12 9 6 5
V5 38 32 27 19
V8 57 44 36 28
V15 71 58 52 42
R1 77 65 57 49
R5.5 117 101 98 89 Aproach® Prima fungicide Non-treated

Harvest 152 135 126 118

Figure 1. Corn treated with 6.8 fl oz/acre of Aproach Prima fungicide
● In addition to accumulating GDUs more rapidly, late- on July 16, 2015, in a Pioneer Agronomy study near Winchester,
planted corn can also adjust its development, requiring AR. Southern rust pressure was low at the time of application but
fewer GDUs to reach maturity. increased in severity and ultimately caused premature death in
the non-treated check before the end of the season (Malone and
» A three-year study conducted by researchers at Poston, 2015).
Purdue and Ohio State Universities found an average
of 244 less GDUs were required when planting was Corn Earworm
delayed from late-April or early May to early or mid- ● Late-planted corn can be at greater risk for damage from
June (approximately 40 days) (Table 4). corn earworm.
» This is an average reduction in hybrid GDU requirement ● Light traps or pheromone traps can indicate when adults
of about six GDUs per day of planting delay. are flying. Scouting can be done in the field by looking for
eggs on the green silks and turning back the silks at the
Table 4. Reduction in GDUs required to reach 50% black layer with
tip of the ear to look for larvae.
delayed planting in a three-year study (Nielsen, 2003).
● Pioneer® brand corn with Optimum® Leptra® insect
Change in GDUs to Black Layer protection provides strong above-ground insect control
Location
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 with a superior level of efficacy against ear-feeding pests
for cleaner ears and improved grain quality.
West Lafayette, IN -256 -292 -335
Heat Stress and Irrigation Timing
Springfield, OH -233 -258 -91
Average -245 -275 -213
● If available, irrigate in a timely fashion especially during
pollination. This will help ensure that the corn plant cools
adequately during periods of intense heat that later-
Management of Late-Planted Corn planted corn has to endure.
● Higher temperatures during pollination and grain fill
● Planting corn later than normal does pose some
increase the vapor pressure deficit, which increases
challenges and additional management may be required
the amount of water needed by the crop to sustain
to prevent or minimize yield-limiting factors such as heat
photosynthesis.
stress, insect pressure, and disease pressure.
Corn planted after April may require 1 or 2 more furrow
Foliar Diseases
●

irrigations or 2 or 3 more pivot irrigations compared to

● Late-planted corn is generally at greater risk for yield loss corn planted in March or April (Kelley, 2021).
from foliar diseases because the corn is not as far along
in its development when foliar diseases begin to infect the
crop.
● Southern rust is of particular concern because of its
ability to rapidly infest a field under favorable conditions.
Reinfection can occur in as little as seven days, so fields
may be damaged very quickly (Figure 1).
● Choose hybrids with solid disease resistance. Scout
and apply foliar fungicides as needed. Economic yield
responses to foliar fungicides are generally more likely with
late-planted corn.

51
 return to table of contents

Timing of Pollen Shed

in Corn
Stephen Strachan, Ph.D., Former Research Scientist

Key Findings
● Peak pollen shed resulting in peak kernel set occurs
mid-morning after the dew dries and decreases as the
day progresses.
● Pollen grains mature throughout the day and night and
are released as anthers dehisce to open pores.
● If anthers are dry, anther pores open shortly after pol-
len grains mature.
● If anthers are moist, mature pollen grains are stored in
anthers until anthers dry and dehisce.

Pollen Shed in Corn

● Pollen shed in corn occurs over a period of multiple days
but varies over the course of a day.
Figure 1. Corn tassel showing open anther pores.
● Observations over the years indicate that pollen shed
typically starts after the dew evaporates, peaks during ● The dew evaporated at approximately 10 a.m. on July 16,
mid-morning, and tapers as the day progresses. (Nielsen, 9:30 a.m. on July 17, and at 8:30 a.m. on July 18 and 19.
2018).
● Pollen shed appeared to be heavy and silks were growing
● A field study was conducted in 2021 to observe how the rapidly during the first two days of this study.
intensity of pollen shed changes throughout the day by
● Pollen shed appeared to be less intense on the third day.
observing kernel set.
● On the fourth day, pollen shed appeared to be less than
Study Description that of the previous day and the rate of silk growth also
● Ears in a field of Pioneer® P1082AM™ (AM, LL, RR2) brand corn decreased.
were covered prior to the beginning of silk emergence. Results
● Silks of selected ears were exposed to pollen for a short
● Kernel set per ear varied dramatically based on timing of
time and then re-covered after this brief period of
silk exposure to pollen (Figure 2).
exposure.
● Peak times for pollen shed and subsequent kernel set
● Intervals of exposure were from 7 to 10 a.m., 10 a.m. to 1
occurred shortly after the dew dried in the morning.
p.m., 1 to 4 p.m., 4 to 7 p.m., or from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. the
following morning. ● On July 16 and 17, the dew dried at or near the end of
the 7 to 10 a.m. exposure window. Maximum kernel set on
● This study was conducted for four consecutive days –
these two days occurred with silk exposure between 10
July 16, 17, 18, and 19, which were the second, third, fourth,
a.m. and 1 p.m.
and fifth days after the field was at 50% silk, and the first,
second, third, and fourth days after the field was at 50% ● On July 18 and 19, the dew dried well within the 7 to 10 a.m.
anthesis. exposure window. On these two days, maximum kernel set
occurred with silk exposure between 7 and 10 a.m.
● Selected ears were harvested at maturity and kernel
counts per ear were collected. There were six replications ● For all four days, peak kernel set occurred shortly after the
of each treatment timing for each day. dew dried and decreased throughout the day (Figure 3).
Total kernel set by day was consistent with perceived
Field Conditions and Observations
●

pollen densities in the field. Pollen densities appeared to

● The study field was under very little stress during be heavy during July 16 and 17, started to decline on July
pollination. The field received two inches of rain two days 18, and were substantially lower on July 19.
before pollen shed started.
● Total kernel set with silk exposure on July 16, 17, and 18 was
● During the first week of pollination, skies were sunny and good, while kernel set with silk exposure on July 19 was
daily highs were in the mid- to high-80s (°F). reduced.

52
 return to table of contents

700 ● If anthers are dry, anthers open very

July 16 July 17 July 18 July 19
600
shortly after pollen grains mature.
Results of this study suggest that
500
pollen grains mature inside anthers
Kernels per Ear

400 throughout the day and night.

300
● Successful kernel set throughout the
Approximate times when day suggests anthers release pollen
morningdew evaporated
200
July 16: 10:00 a.m.
throughout the day because pores
100
July 17: 9-9:30 a.m. open shortly after pollen grains
July 18: 8:30 a.m.
July 19: 8:30 a.m. mature.
0
7 a.m. - 10 a.m. 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. 1 p.m. - 4 p.m. 4 p.m. - 7 p.m. 7 p.m. - 7 a.m. ● Although pollen grains continue to
Exposure Time Interval mature during the night, few pollen
Figure 2. Kernels set per ear with silk exposure to pollination at grains are released during the night because nighttime
different times of day. dew keeps anthers too moist to open.
● According to Nielsen (2018), maximum pollen shed occurs on ● Moist anthers retain pollen until the morning dew
the second day of tassel shed and progressively decreases evaporates and then release newly matured pollen as well
daily as the tassel completes its pollination life cycle. as stored mature pollen.
● These field results for kernel set are consistent with the ● Release of these stored pollen grains creates the
pollen shed information published by Nielsen (2018). opportunity for maximum pollen shed during the morning
● For all four days, little kernel set occurred when silks were after the dew has dried.
exposed during the 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. time interval. It could ● This sequence also explains why anthers do not shed
be that pollination occurred during the evening hours pollen on rainy days or on days with high humidity but will
before the nighttime dew settled. No observations were shed a relative abundance of pollen on the next dry day
recorded for when the nighttime dew appeared. or when anthers have the opportunity to dry.
Conclusions
Acknowledgement
● Pollen release from anthers requires two events. First,
We would like to thank Phil Prybill for supplying the corn hybrid
pollen grains mature inside anthers. Secondly, pores of and the land to conduct this study.
anthers open to release pollen.

7 a.m. - 10 a.m. 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. 1 p.m. - 4 p.m. 4 p.m. - 7 p.m. 7 p.m. - 7 a.m.
July 16
July 17
July 18
July 19

Figure 3. Representative ears showing the results of silk exposure to pollen at specific time intervals.

53
 return to table of contents

Functions of Water
in Corn Growth
and Development
Stephen Strachan, Ph.D., Former Research Scientist

Summary
● In Midwest environments, corn requires about 25 acre-inches (680,000
gal/acre) of water during its growing season.
● Approximately 400,000 gallons of water per acre transpire through
corn plants while the remainder evaporates from the soil surface.
● Water serves four major functions in corn production:
» Evaporative cooling to maintain proper plant temperatures for
growth
» Carrier for nutrient and sugar transport
» Hydraulic force for cell growth, development, and expansion
» Source of hydrogen for sugars, starches, and plant cell components
● Managing water to supply the correct amount of water at the proper
time is essential to produce maximum grain yields.

Managing Water for Corn Production

Water, whether provided via rainfall or irrigation, is essential for corn pro-
duction. In the Midwestern Corn Belt, a successful corn crop consumes ap-
proximately 25 acre-inches of water (680,000 gallons of water per acre)
during its life cycle (Strachan and Jeschke, 2017). According to research at
Iowa State University (Licht and Archontoulis, 2017), approximately 55-60%
of this water (about 400,000 gallons per acre) transpires through the corn
plant while the remainder evaporates from soil.
If the field yields 300 bushels per acre, corn plants transpire a little over
1,300 gallons of water for each bushel of grain. On a per plant basis, if the
field population is 32,000 plants per acre, each corn plant transpires about
12.5 gallons of water between germination and maturity. If we also include
the amount of water lost through evaporation from soil, each bushel of
corn requires about 2,300 gallons (about 19,000 pounds) of water or a little
over 21 gallons of water per corn plant. If we assume a 300 bushel per acre
yield and a nitrogen conversion factor of 1.1 pounds of N per bushel of corn,
the water to nitrogen use ratio is about 58:1 (19,000 pounds of water/330
pounds of nitrogen) (Table 1).
Although water is often viewed as a “resource”, corn producers may need to
think of water more as a “nutrient” that should be managed. Climatologists
are predicting more occurrences of extended periods of excessive rainfall
and periods of dry and droughty conditions. Corn producers may need
to adapt their water management programs to continue to produce
corn under these more varied and stressful environments. A better
understanding of what water does in the corn plant contributes toward
making the correct decisions.

54
 return to table of contents

Functions of Water in Corn Production liquid water molecules within stomatal enclosures convert to
molecules of water vapor and escape into the atmosphere
Water serves four main functions in the corn plant. These are:
through stomatal openings (Figure 1).
1. Evaporative cooling to maintain plant temperature
2. Carrier for nutrient and sugar transport
3. Hydraulic force for cell growth, development, and
expansion
4. Source of hydrogen for sugars, starches, and plant cell
components
1. Evaporative Cooling
Temperature is a measure of the average speed of molecules
in a system. The more heat that is applied to a system, the
faster the molecules move, and the higher the temperature.
As the faster-moving molecules escape from the system
these molecules do two things – they extract heat from the
system as they escape, and their leaving the system reduces
the average speed of the molecules left behind in the system
thus reducing the temperature.
Table 1. Resources (water and nutrients) required to produce a 300
bu/acre crop of corn grain.

Content Removal
Resource
(15.5% moisture) (300 bu/acre)
lbs/bu lbs
Water from soil a
18,800 5.6 million
(evap. + transp.)
Water transpired
11,100 3.3 million
through the plantb
Figure 1. (A) Stomatal pores and stomatal chambers. Stomatal pores
Oxygen (O)c 21.4 6,430 allow for the exchange of water and CO2 between the atmosphere
Carbon (C)c 21.0 6,290 and leaf internal structures. (B) Stomatal chambers serve as locations
where liquid water converts to water vapor for subsequent escape
Hydrogen (H) c
2.85 857
into the atmosphere through stomatal pores.
Nitrogen (N)d 0.615 185
Corn has a high capacity to exchange water and carbon
Phosphorus (P2O5) d
0.428 128
dioxide with the atmosphere. There are approximately 36,000
Potassium (K2O)d 0.273 81.9 stomates per square inch on the upper leaf surface and
Magnesium (Mg)d 0.0733 22.0 approximately 50,000 stomates per square inch on the lower
Sulfur (S) d
0.0506 15.2 leaf surface of a corn leaf (Dodd, 2020). As these molecules
Calcium (Ca)d 0.0132 3.96 of water vapor exit through plant stomata, they remove
heat from the system, reduce the average speed of water
Iron (Fe)d
0.00168 0.504
molecules remaining in the corn plant, and reduce the plant
Zinc (Zn) d
0.00126 0.378 temperature (Figure 2).
Boron (B)d 0.00028 0.084
Manganese (Mn) d
0.00023 0.069
Copper (Cu)d 0.00015 0.045
Molybdenum (Mo) e
Trace Trace
Chlorine (Cl) e
Trace Trace
Strachan and Jeschke, 2017; bLight and Archonoulis, 2017; cLatshaw and
a

Miller, 1924; dHeckman et al., 2003; eSalisbury and Ross, 1978.

Water has a tremendous ability to absorb heat. One gram

of water removes 540 calories of heat energy as the water
converts from liquid water to water vapor. Sunlight generates
heat. Corn plants grow most rapidly at about 86°F (30°C).
Their rate of growth slows dramatically as plant temperatures
Figure 2. Infrared imagery of a corn leaf showing the capacity of
exceed 86°F (30°C). During those hot summer days, corn plants
evaporative cooling to maintain plant temperature. Leaf temperature
must transpire a lot of water to maintain optimal operating (81.2°F, 27.3°C) is nearly ten degrees (F) lower than the ambient air
temperatures. As this water evaporates, the faster-moving temperature (91°F, 32.8°C).

55
 return to table of contents

2. Carrier for Nutrient and Sugar Transport pushes against the cylinder piston to extend the piston
rod. Plant cells continue to expand until the call wall forms.
Water carries and moves nutrients, sugars, and other plant
The rigid cell wall defines the size and shape of a plant cell
products throughout the corn plant. How fast does water
during the remainder of the plant life cycle. In dry or drought-
move in the corn xylem? There appears to be no literature
stressed environments, less water is available to support cell
reference to answer this question for corn. However, in trees,
growth and expansion. The consequence of this is small or
peak xylem velocity is about 10 to 30 inches per minute for
severely stunted corn.
trees with large xylem vessels and about 0.5 to 4 inches per
minute for trees with small xylem vessels (Taiz et al., 2014). It is 4. Source of Hydrogen
therefore reasonable to assume that maximum water velocity Hydrogen is an essential nutrient that comprises approxi-
in corn xylem is likely in the range of 0.5 to 4 inches per minute. mately six percent of the final corn weight. All of the hydrogen
Nutrients that readily move with water could easily move from in a corn plant is derived from water. During photosynthe-
the corn root to the tassel or ear within a day. Nitrogen is a sis, the water molecule (H2O) is split to form hydrogen (H) and
highly water-soluble nutrient. This explains why corn appears oxygen (O). The hydrogen atoms are first incorporated into
to “green up” relatively quickly after nitrogen fertilizer is simple sugars, and these sugars are subsequently modified
applied as a sidedress treatment to emerged corn. and incorporated to form all of the organic molecules and
The driving force for water movement through the xylem is cellular components in the plant. The corn plant uses some of
water evaporation through stomata. A corn’s vascular system the oxygen to support respiration, but most of the oxygen is
permeates the entire corn plant, and many vascular bundles released into the atmosphere as molecular O2.
pass very closely to plant stomata (Figure 1). The vascular
system consisting of xylem and phloem rapidly moves water photosynthesis
6 CO2 + 6 H20 C6H12O6 + 6 O2
and nutrients long distances in the corn plant. However, water
(Sugar)
movement from cell to cell is much slower because cellular
membranes inhibit water movement.
Managing Water to Maximize Corn Grain Yield
Water is essential for corn growth. Water: (1) helps to cool
the corn plant to maintain temperatures supportive of rapid
growth, (2) carries nutrients, sugars, and other essential
molecules throughout the plant to support growth, (3)
supplies the turgor pressure or hydraulic force for cell growth,
development, and expansion, and (4) supplies hydrogen
for incorporation into chemical compounds and cellular
components.
A restriction in activity of any of these four processes
reduces corn growth and grain yield. Water must therefore
be managed. If excess water is present, this water must be
rapidly removed because corn does not grow in flooded soil.
Tiling fields and reducing tillage improves water permeation
through soil. Reducing tillage allows soils to develop more
structure and better retain naturally forming drain channels
3. Hydraulic Force for Cell Growth resulting from animal activity (for example: earthworms)
Water in a plant cell behaves just like oil in a hydraulic cylinder. and decaying plant roots. When water is limited, irrigation is
As the cell grows, the cell pulls in ionic nutrients, produces often the first choice to supply water. For all corn producers,
and consumes sugars, and generates many complex organic reducing water loss via evaporation from the soil surface
molecules and organelles during the growth process. All of also increases the amount of plant-available water. A
these cellular components pull water into the cell through management program that retains mulch or plant residue on
a myriad complex of ionic charge and hydrogen bonding the soil surface slows water loss via evaporation from the soil.
interactions with water molecules. As water is pulled into the Another management tool to retain water is to increase soil
cell, this additional water creates hydraulic pressure that organic matter. Soil organic matter acts like a sponge in soil
pushes outward against the cellular membrane and expands and can retain substantially more plant-available water than
the membrane just like additional oil in a hydraulic cylinder the soil mineral fraction.

56
 return to table of contents

Corn Leaf Removal Impact

on Yield and Stalk Quality
Nate LeVan and Troy Deutmeyer, Pioneer Field Agronomists, and Dan Berning, Agronomy Manager

Key Findings
● The impact of leaf removal on yield and late season stalk integrity is highly
dependent on which leaves on the plant are removed.
● Yield components of kernel number and ear weight were both affected by
loss of leaf area at the R4 and R5 stage of crop development.
● This study demonstrated the importance of protecting the crop from leaf
area loss as late as the R5 stage of crop development.

Figure 1. All leaves below the ear removed

Objectives Leaf Removal at R2-R3 at R3 stage of crop development.

● Loss of healthy leaf area in corn due ● Leaves were removed at R2-R3
to factors such as foliar diseases, stage of crop development at 3
pest infestations, or hail damage locations across north-central
reduces the supply of photosynthate Iowa in 2 different hybrids at each
for filling the ear, which can reduce location to reduce photosynthetic
yield. area. Four separate leaf removal
● Lost leaf area can also lead treatments were compared:
to reduced stalk quality and » All leaves below the ear (Figure 1)
standability as the plant remobilizes » Ear leaf only
carbohydrates from the stalk to
» All leaves above the ear (Figure 2)
compensate for the reduction in
photosynthesis. » No leaves removed (check)

● Field demonstrations were ● Each treatment block consisted of 4

conducted in Iowa in 2022 in which rows by 17.5 feet.
leaves were removed from corn ● Harvest yield was determined by
plants during grain fill to show the weighing the ears in each treatment,
effects of reduced leaf area on yield measuring the grain moisture, and
and stalk quality. correcting the yield to 15.5% grain
● In one demonstration, leaves were moisture. Figure 2. All leaves above the ear removed
removed at the R2-R3 development at R3 stage of crop development.
stage and in the other at the R4
stage and R5 stage.

57
 return to table of contents

Leaf Removal at R2-R3 – Results Leaf Removal at R4 and R5

● Removing ear leaf only: ● Leaves were removed at R4 and R5 stage of crop
» No change in grain moisture (Figure 3). development at 1 location in northeast Iowa on one hybrid
to induce loss of photosynthetic area. Four separate
» 1% reduction in ear weight and grain yield (Figure 4).
treatments were compared:
» No effect on stalk quality.
1. All leaves below the ear
● Removing the leaves below the ear:
2. Ear leaf only
» No change in grain moisture.
3. All leaves above the ear
» 4% reduction in ear weight and grain yield.
4. No leaves removed (check)
» No effect on stalk quality.
● The field was sprayed at brown silk with fungicide and
● Removing the leaves above the ear: again 21 days later to prevent foliar disease development.
» 0.53% dryer than the check. ● Harvest yield was determined by weighing 20 ears in each
» 22% reduction in ear weight and grain yield. treatment, measuring the grain moisture, and correcting
» Significant amount of stalk cannibalization. the yield to 15.5% grain moisture.

27
● Five random ears from each treatment were used to
determine average kernel row number and length of each
26 26.5 26.5 26.5 treatment.
Grain Moisture (%)

25.9
25
Leaf Removal at R4 and R5 – Results
24
● Removing leaves above and below the ear leaf at the R4
23
stage of development tended to have a greater impact
22 on yield loss than defoliation at R5.
21 ● Removing the ear leaf only:
20 » 1.5% reduction in ear weight at R4 removal (Figure 4).
Check Below Ear Leaf Ear Leaf Above Ear Leaf
» 3.0% reduction in ear weight at R5 removal.
Figure 3. Grain moisture (bu/acre) of defoliation treatments averaged
across 3 north-central Iowa locations. » No effect on stalk quality (Figure 5).

270 ● Removing the leaves below the ear:

» 12.0% reduction in ear weight at R4 removal.
Grain Yield (bu/acre)

260 258
240 249 » 6.8% reduction in ear weight at R5 removal.
» Little to no effect on stalk quality.
210
● Removing the leaves above the ear:
203
» 27.7% reduction in ear weight at R4 removal.
180
» 19.8% reduction in ear weight at R5 removal.
150 » Significant amount of stalk cannibalization with both
Check Below Ear Leaf Ear Leaf Above Ear Leaf timings (Figure 6).
Figure 4. Grain yield (bu/acre) of defoliation treatments averaged
across 3 north-central Iowa locations.

Defoliated at R4 Defoliated at R5
30

25 27.7
Yield Loss (%)

20
19.8
15

10 12.0
5 6.8
1.5
3.0
0
Below Ear Leaf Ear Leaf Above Ear Leaf

Figure 6. Percent yield loss with defoliation at R4 and R5 at the

Below Ear leaf Above
Check northeast Iowa demonstration location.
ear only ear

Figure 5. Plant health comparison at harvest.

58
 return to table of contents

Defoliated at R4 Defoliated at R5
800
788
770
771

Kernels per Ear

740
739
710
715 710 705 704
680

650
Check Below Ear Leaf Ear Leaf Above Ear Leaf
Figure 9. Average kernel count per ear with defoliation at R4 and R5
at the northeast Iowa demonstration location.
Below Ear leaf Above
Check
ear only ear
Conclusions
Figure 7. Stalk integrity comparison at harvest.
● Both demonstrations illustrate the ENTIRE canopy is
Defoliated at R4 Defoliated at R5 important to final yield, even as late as the R5 stage of
320 crop development.
313 309 304
280 ● Growers should proactively protect healthy leaf area with
292
Ear Weight (g)

276 fungicide applications when there is a risk a foliar disease

240 252 infestation reaching an economic level.
227 » Some diseases, such as tar spot, have a two-week
200
incubation period and can develop very rapidly. It is
160 important to recognize and consider this in a scouting
and treatment plan.
120
» If enough leaf area is lost prior to grain physiological
Check Below Ear Leaf Ear Leaf Above Ear Leaf
maturity, it can lead to solubilization and remobilization
Figure 8. Ear weight with defoliation at R4 and R5 at the northeast of the carbohydrates in the stalk. This can result in poor
Iowa demonstration location.
late season stalk integrity, stalk lodging and harvest
issues.

59
 return to table of contents

Kernel Black Layer

Formation in Corn:
Anatomy, Physiology, and Causes
Paul Carter, Ph.D., Former Agronomy Manager

● The corn kernel “black layer” is widely used as an indicator of physiological

maturity. Knowledge of the anatomical and physiological processes
surrounding black layer development is useful to understand conditions that
cause its formation.
● The black layer forms when a layer of cells compress and turn dark where the
kernel attaches to the cob. Specialized nutrient transfer cells at the base of
the kernel also collapse, and this barrier stops movement of sugars into the
kernel.
● Several field and lab experiments confirmed that black layer forms whenever
sucrose supply to the developing kernel is decreased to a threshold level.
● Factors that stop this flow include plant maturity – but also leaf loss due to
hail, frost, and disease, plus periods of very cool temperatures (without frost)
during grain fill.
● Under these conditions, black layer may form when kernels still have visible
fluid in the endosperm. Therefore, both kernel milk line progression and
black layer should be considered when monitoring late-season
corn development

The black layer usually

forms first in the tip kernels with
progression a few days later to the
large kernels at the base.

60
 return to table of contents

Introduction
Agronomists widely use the corn kernel “black layer” as an Glossary of Terms
indicator of physiological maturity. It is also generally known Endosperm - Tissue which surrounds the developing
that visible factors, such as green leaf loss or defoliation seed embryo and provides food for seed growth
due to hail, frost, or disease can cause the black layer to
Pedicel - Structure that attaches the kernel to the cob
form earlier than with the normal maturation process. It is
less recognized that periods of very cool weather (without Pericarp - Outer wall of the kernel (seed)
frost) during grain fill can also cause the black layer to form Physiological Maturity - When the crop has reached
early. Little background information is readily available on maximum possible grain yield and kernel growth is
the anatomical and physiological processes surrounding complete
black layer formation. In this article, these aspects of corn Placenta - Part of the ear where the developing kernels
development will be highlighted from a historical perspective (or ovules) are attached to the cob
on how the science behind this knowledge evolved. Suberized - Deposition of suberin on the walls of plant
Early Anatomical Observations cells; suberin is a waxy, waterproof substance
One of the first reviews of the black layer concept was in a Testa - Seed coat
paper on corn susceptibility to kernel rots in the 1930s in which Translocation - Conduction or movement of soluble
the formation of a black “closing” layer was described in the food from one part of the plant to another
placental region of maturing corn kernels (Johann, 1935). Vascular Area - Plant tissues specialized for moving
The structure of the black layer was detailed in the 1950s by water, dissolved nutrients, and food from one part of a
Nebraska scientists Kiesselbach and Walker (1952). plant to another
Pericarp
Endosperm In early seed development, a black layer forms in a region of
cells several layers thick between the endosperm base of the
kernel and the vascular area of the pedicel (see Figures 1-4).
Near physiological maturity, these cells compress or collapse
into a dense layer, which appears visibly black. Concurrently,
the cells at the base of the endosperm also become crushed.
Embryo
These are specialized vascular cells, which absorb and
transfer to the kernel plant nutrients plus sucrose and other
sugars produced by the plant in photosynthesis. This stops
their capability for movement of sugars and nutrients from
within the plant into the kernel. A suberized barrier forms
Black Layer around the seed tip when the black layer connects with the
Pedicel kernel pericarp (outer wall) and testa (seed coat).

Figure 1. Anatomy of a corn kernel showing key structures involved

in black layer formation near physiological maturity. The black layer
forms in a region of cells several layers thick between the endosperm
base of the kernel and the vascular area of the pedicel.

Figure 3. Progression of black abscission layer formation.

Cells compress
into thin,
black layer

Figure 2. Close view of progression in color changes in the placental

region of the corn kernel as cells compress or collapse into a dense Figure 4. Kernels from a R6 plant showing embryo (germ),
layer, which eventually appears visibly black. endosperm (starch), and black layer.

61
 return to table of contents

Within the ear, the black layer usually forms first in the tip 80 Day RM 105 Day RM
kernels with progression a few days later to the large kernels at 36

at Black Layer Formation

Percent Kernel Moisture
the base. Canadian researchers (Daynard and Duncan, 1969) 34
proposed that as a survival mechanism when food supply 32
(sugars produced in photosynthesis and other nutrients) to 30
the ear is limited from the rest of the plant, these resources 28
are apportioned within the ear so that some kernels can 26
develop fully while others abort early or are “shut off” from the 24
translocation pathway by formation of the black layer. These 22
limits would likely be greatest for the tip kernels, which are last 20
to be pollinated and farthest from the food sources within Soft Dough Dented Half-Milk Control
the plant. This led to the hypothesis that black layer forms 305

at Black Layer Formation

whenever movement of sugars and other plant nutrients to

Kernel Weight (mg)

285
the kernel is decreased to a threshold level, either due to
265
plant stresses, which reduce supply of sugars produced by
photosynthesis for the plant, or due to plant maturity when 245
the plant stops photosynthesis and soil nutrient uptake under 225
favorable growing conditions. 205
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, researchers reported that 185
black layer formation occurred after an extended period Soft Dough Dented Half-Milk Control
of cool weather – before either leaf disease or frost had Stages of Defoliation
reduced green leaf area or before plant maturity. Raymond
Baker, the first Pioneer corn breeder and author of an early Figure 5. Adapted from Afuakwa et al., 1984. Percent kernel moisture
popular press article on black layer development, stated “An at corn black layer formation following defoliation at three growth
stages (top). Effect of defoliation at three growth stages on corn
extended period of cool weather in the fall when the daily kernel weight at black layer (bottom).
average temperatures stay below 55°F for a week will usually
Values are averages of two years and two hybrids for each Relative
stop growth without an actual freeze” (Baker, 1970). In Ontario Maturity (RM).
in 1969 and 1970, premature black layer formation developed
one to four days after a week with daily maximum average
temperatures of 55°F or less (Daynard, 1972). 80 Day RM 105 Day RM
Advanced Black Layer Formation

180
Minnesota Physiology Studies Explore
GDD by Which Defoliation

Black Layer Causes 150

These observations led Minnesota researchers to evaluate 120

the cause of corn black layer formation by conducting both 90
field defoliation and lab experiments. In the lab experiment,
60
both temperature and sucrose movement into developing
kernels could be varied (Afuakwa et al., 1984). Defoliation 30
limits sucrose supply by reducing the plant’s photosynthetic
0
capacity. Previous research had shown that cold weather Soft Dough Dented Half-Milk
greatly slows or stops translocation, or movement, of
Advanced Black Layer Formation

sucrose within the plant, which would reduce availability to 50

Days by Which Defoliation

the kernels. Sucrose supply could be directly evaluated by

40
culturing kernels in a lab with or without sucrose.
30
Field defoliation experiments showed that black layer
development occurred at a range of grain moistures, kernel 20
sizes, and calendar days or heat units (Figures 5 and 6). Early
10
loss of leaves caused black layer to form at higher grain
moistures, lower kernel weight, and with reduced days or heat 0
Soft Dough Dented Half-Milk
units than normal.
Stages of Defoliation
Kernel moisture when black layer formed ranged from 32% for
plants grown in the field to 76% for kernels developing under Figure 6. Adapted from Afuakwa et al., 1984. Number of Growing
controlled lab conditions at 86°F without sucrose (Figure 7). Degree Days (GDD) (top) and number of calendar days (bottom) by
Calendar days from pollination to black layer appearance which defoliation advanced corn black layer formation.
ranged from 29 days at 86°F in the lab without sucrose to Values are averages of two years and two hybrids for each Relative
65 days under cool temperatures (50°F and 59°F). Black layer Maturity (RM).
formed when kernel weight averaged 45 mg when cultured at
86°F without sucrose to 270 mg for field-grown plants.

62
 return to table of contents

Kernels from plants grown in the field or in the lab with both Monitor Both Milk line and Black Layer
higher temperatures and high sucrose supply had dented,
While disappearance of milky kernel contents can be an
and kernels were without visible endosperm liquid when
indicator of physiological maturity (Afwaukwa and Crookston,
the black layer developed. However, when the black layer
1984; Figure 8) in northern regions with cool weather periods
appeared for lab-cultured kernels without sucrose, there was
during grain-fill or when other factors, such as major leaf
no denting or clear milk line. Contents were becoming firm
loss or stalk breakage, cause reduced photosynthesis or
but still were moist throughout the endosperm.
plant death, black layer may appear in kernels that still have
visible fluid in the endosperm. In these instances, the milk line
Field Grown
86 °F (+ sucrose) may disappear, and the entire kernel tends to become soft
100 86 °F ( - sucrose) or doughy. Grain drying will occur without the usual milk line
59 °F progression (Figure 9).
Percent Kernel Moisture

50 °F
80

60

40

20

Figure 8. Progression of milk line in corn kernels from R5, or early dent,
13 23 33 43 53 63 73 (left) to R6, or physiological maturity, (right). Photo courtesy of Steve
Days After Pollination Butzen, Pioneer.

Figure 7. Adapted from Afuakwa et al., 1984. Effect of temperatures

and sucrose availability on percent corn kernel moisture of in vitro
(lab) grown corn kernels.
Percent kernel moisture of field-grown kernels is included for
comparison (maroon line with triangles). Measurements stopped
once kernel black layer had formed in more than half of the kernels
sampled. Vertical bars are shown only for the last sampling period
and show one standard error of the mean.

Sucrose Supply is Key Factor

These results confirmed that black layer formation is more
related to continuous sucrose supply to the developing kernel
than any specific environmental sequence or physical aspect
of the kernel. The researchers concluded that conditions that
reduce this supply could also impact flow to kernels of other
metabolism products or hormones, but sucrose supply to the
developing kernel appears to be a key factor. Figure 9. Plant death due to stalk breakage causes corn milk line to
disappear and black layer to form without the usual progression of
milk line to the base of the kernel. Similar responses can occur with
major leaf loss or extended periods of cool temperatures. Photo
courtesy of Dr. R.L. Nielsen, Purdue University.

63
 return to table of contents

Kernel Weight Differences

by Hybrid in Iowa
Ryan Van Roekel, Ph.D., Dennis Holland, Alex Woodall, Bill Long, Matt Vandehaar, and Nate LeVan, Pioneer Field Agronomists,
and Jason Kienast, Sales Representative
Yield Estimation Considerations
Key Findings
● Corn grain yield can be estimated in-field based on
● Kernel weight is a key component of grain yield that estimates of yield components: ears per acre, kernels per
can vary by hybrid and be affected by environmental ear, and kernel weight.
conditions and management practices.
● The first two components are relatively straightforward to
● A six-year field study found that kernel weight can estimate – conducting several stand counts of 1/1000th
vary widely due to differences in growing conditions of an acre can provide an estimate of ears per acre and
(from 52,000 to 137,000 kernels/bu) but that certain kernel counts can be used to estimate kernels per ear.
hybrid families consistently have higher or lower kernel
● Furthermore, new technology has greatly improved the
weights than average.
speed and accuracy of estimating the first two of the
● These estimates for kernel weight by hybrid family can components:
be useful for yield estimation, management decisions,
and diagnosing yield results that differ from expecta- » UAV imagery powered by Drone Deploy can provide
tions. field-wide stand counts.
» The Yield Estimator tool in the Granular Insights app will
Background quickly count kernels per ear.
● Corn grain yield is related to the number of kernels per » The Vegetation Index from satellite imagery in Granular
acre and the weight of those kernels. Insights can be used to guide sampling according to
● Kernel number is generally regarded as the most field variability to get a better estimate of whole-field
important component in determining yield and the most yield.
responsive component to environment and management. ● However, estimating the third yield component, kernel
● However, large variations in observed kernel weights weight, remains challenging.
suggest that this yield component can also have a large ● A common practice is to assume 90,000 kernels/bushel,
effect on yield. but this practice often underestimates yield and does not
● Kernel weight is considered a heritable trait and is known consider differences among hybrids or environments.
to vary between hybrid families.
● While work is underway to develop a more reliable way
● Kernel weight at harvest can be affected by the crop’s to estimate kernel weights, research was undertaken to
ability to set a high potential kernel weight in the weeks characterize common hybrid families in local plots to
immediately following silking, and its capacity to reach provide an estimate as to how genetics influence kernels
that potential during the grain fill period.
weights under normal management to provide more
● Corn has a limited ability to increase kernel weights accurate yield estimates.
once the potential has been set (unlike soybean) so it is
● Additionally, knowing a hybrid’s expected kernel weight
important to maximize potential kernel weight.
can help with understanding the yield impact of late-
● To achieve big kernels at harvest, favorable management
season management or environmental issues that may
and conditions are required within the first 20 days after
prevent a hybrid from reaching its normal kernel weight.
silking in order to set a large potential kernel weight,
followed by favorable conditions during grain fill that will
P1197 P1082
allow the corn to reach that full potential.
● When late season stresses occur, corn is very sensitive
to grain fill stress due to its relatively limited ability to
remobilize resources to fill kernels compared to other crops
like soybean and wheat.
● As such, it is common for a late season drought or
nutrient deficiency to reduce kernel weights at harvest,
even for hybrids that normally have large kernels or when Figure 1. Representative kernels from the middle of an ear from hybrid
conditions were favorable to set a high kernel weight families with above-average (P1197) and below-average (P1082)
potential soon after pollination. kernel weight. Photo courtesy of Bill Long in 2019.

64
 return to table of contents

Study Description Table 1. Kernel weight as a percentage and standardized kernels/bu

by hybrid family.
● Kernel weight data was collected from a selection of plots
across Iowa from 2016 to 2021.
Hybrid Kernel Weight Standardized #
● Kernel weights for each hybrid at a location were mea- Family (% of Loc. Mean)* Kernels per Bushel** Loc.
sured in one of two ways:
P9492 91.0 88,000 4
» A subsample of 100 random kernels, or more, were
P9823 102.0 78,500 6
weighed and corrected to 15% moisture.
P0075 101.8 78,500 33
» Multiple stand, ear, and kernel counts were performed
prior to harvest to provide a reasonably accurate P0220 101.3 79,000 36
estimate of ears per acre and kernels per ear. This data P0306 106.0 75,500 39
was divided by the hybrid’s yield at 15% to determine
P0339 104.8 76,500 39
kernels per bushel.
P0404 102.2 78,500 10
● Both methods have limitations, but hybrid trends were
consistent, and the datasets were combined to increase P0421 104.4 76,500 35
the number of locations. P0589 103.4 77,500 43
● A location average kernel weight was calculated from the P0595 101.5 79,000 31
average of all hybrids at each plot location.
P0622 102.7 78,000 42
● To account for environmental differences between lo-
P0688 94.7 84,500 46
cations, a relative kernel weight for each hybrid within a
location was calculated as a percentage of the location P0720 104.2 77,000 9
average. Those percentages were then averaged by hy- P0924 105.2 76,000 12
brid family over all plot locations, as shown in Table 1. P0953 101.3 79,000 17
● The standardized kernels per bushel in Table 1 were calcu- P0977 102.8 78,000 30
lated as 80,000 kernels/bu divided by the relative kernel
P0995 99.6 80,500 5
weight percentage to provide a reasonable estimate for
kernels/bu by hybrid family. This value is not the actual P1082 97.7 82,000 47
mean of the observed kernels/bu because the dataset P1093 90.1 89,000 53
is unbalanced for locations between hybrids. As such cau-
P1108 101.8 78,500 31
tion should be used with these results.
P1185 96.5 83,000 50
Results
P1197 105.7 75,500 61
● Kernel weight (kernels/bu) was found to vary widely by
P1213 104.2 77,000 20
hybrid, location and yield level.
P1222 104.2 77,000 8
● The grand mean of all kernel weight observations was
82,124 kernels/bu but ranged from 52,192 to 136,518 ker- P1244 95.1 84,000 24
nels/bu. Grain yield averaged 217.3 bu/ac with a range P1353 97.1 82,500 31
from 116.2 to 297.3 bu/acre.
P1359 102.7 78,000 10
● Individual hybrids also had a wide range in kernel weights
P1366 96.1 83,500 78
between locations. For example, the P1197 family ranged
from a high of 54,656 kernels/bu down to 115,749 kernels/ P1380 100.4 79,500 17
bu. However, across all locations, its kernel weight aver- P1563 97.4 82,000 17
aged 105.7% of the location average. P1587 106.5 75,000 12
● On average, there was a trend for higher yields to be as- *Calculated as hybrid kernels per bushel compared to the location average
sociated with higher kernel weights (Figure 2). kernels per bushel, then averaged over all locations.
** Calculated as the kernel weight percentage applied to a “normal” value of
80,000 kernels per bushel, rounded to the nearest 500.

65
 return to table of contents

Location Average Kernel Weight

110,000

y = -197x + 127872
100,000 R² = 0.24

(kernels/bushel) 90,000

80,000

70,000

60,000
100 150 200 250 300 350
Location Average Grain Yield (bu/acre)
Figure 2. Kernel weight as compared to grain yield on average by location.

Discussion It is important to note that high kernel weights are not always
With the wide variation in observed kernel weights between required for high yields, especially for some hybrids.
hybrids and locations, it is important to exercise caution when ● P1366 is an example of a hybrid family with below average
using the standardized kernels/bu shown in Table 1. kernel weight that is capable of very high yields (up to 297
● Environmental and management factors can and will bu/acre in this study).
greatly influence a hybrid’s ability to maintain its grain fill ● P1366 tends to achieve high yields through kernel number
and express its full kernel weight potential. (more rows around and/or ear length) vs hybrid families
» For example, the location average kernel weight like P1197, which tends to have kernel numbers closer to
in 2020 was 85,962 kernels/bu due to late-season average but high kernel weights.
drought conditions compared to 2019 at 76,950 Also note that kernel weight is not correlated with test weight.
kernels/bu with more favorable weather. Test weight is the weight of a volumetric bushel, while kernel
● Often issues like drought, disease pressure, or nitrogen weight is a measure of how many kernels are in a 56 lb bushel.
deficiencies can hinder late season plant health and limit ● An example of this distinction is the P1093 hybrid family,
a hybrid’s grain fill period and resulting kernel weight. which has very high test weight with excellent grain qual-
● When ignoring hybrid interactions and comparing loca- ity but its high-density kernels tend to be smaller in size
tion average kernels/bu to average yield, a correlation and thus weigh less per kernel.
was observed where higher yield plots had higher kernel When estimating yields, it is best to stick with an average
weights (Figure 2). kernel weight estimate of 80,000 kernels/bu for most hybrids.
● The variation in kernel weight compared to yield could be ● Consider using a lower kernels/bu (i.e., 75,000) for hybrid
due to the size of the potential kernel weight determined families like P0306, P1197 & P1587 and higher kernels/bu
soon after pollination, or the fulfillment of that potential (i.e., 90,000) for hybrid families like P9492 & P1093.
later in grain fill. ● If late-season growing conditions are excellent, using a
» For example, there is a wide range in average kernel factor of 70,000 kernels/bu may be more appropriate.
weights for plots that had an average yield near 200 ● Conversely, if late-season conditions are poor, a factor of
bu/acre. 100,000 kernels/bu might be more accurate.
» The 200 bu/acre plots with 70,000 kernels/bu were
● Be sure to get multiple, accurate estimates of kernels/ear
likely near their maximum potential kernel weight, while
and ears/acre to avoid overestimating yield.
plots with 105,000 kernels/bu likely had late season
stress that prevented them from living up to their Conclusions
potential. ● Kernel weight is a key component of corn grain yield that
» Within each of these plots, some hybrids had differing varies greatly by hybrid and environment.
trends for maintaining kernel weight with stress ● Having an idea of a hybrid’s normal kernel weight can be
or increasing kernel weight with more favorable useful for more accurate yield estimates.
conditions, likely by setting a higher potential kernel
● This knowledge also helps provide an understanding
weight.
of how a hybrid makes its yield (kernel number vs kernel
● Future work will attempt to document potential kernel weight), which can be useful when making management
weights and then observe their fulfillment by hybrid in decisions or when diagnosing yield results that differ from
differing locations. expectations.

66
 return to table of contents

Phantom Yield Loss in Corn

– A Five-Year Nebraska Field Study
John Mick, Pioneer Field Agronomist

Key Findings
● It is not uncommon to observe lower yield in a portion
of a corn field harvested later than the rest, a phenom-
enon commonly referred to as phantom yield loss.
● Yield declined by an average of 9.1 bu/acre with later
harvest in a five-year study in south-central Nebraska.
● Neither the change in grain moisture nor the duration
of time between earlier and later harvest had any rela-
tionship with the difference in yield. Study Description
● A study comparing corn yield between earlier and later
harvest timings was conducted over five years in south-
Lower Yields Observed with Later Harvest central Nebraska.
● When harvest is delayed due to weather or other factors, ● At each study location, yield was compared between a
it is not uncommon to observe lower yields in the portion portion of the field harvested relatively early and proximal
of the field harvested later than the portion harvested portion of the field planted to the same hybrid harvested
earlier, a phenomenon commonly referred to as mystery later in the fall.
yield loss or phantom yield loss.
● A total of 34 comparisons were made over the five years
● There are a number of possible reasons why yield may of the study, including 11 in 2018, 8 in 2019, 8 in 2020, 6 in
decline or appear to decline with later harvest, including 2021, and 2 in 2022.
ear drop, stalk lodging, insect feeding, ear rots, harvest
● Comparisons included 18 different hybrids ranging from
loss, and inaccurate yield monitor calibration.
105 to 118 CRM. Ten of the comparisons were in dryland
● Dry matter loss resulting from kernel respiration during production and 24 were irrigated.
grain dry down has also been hypothesized as an
● Grain moisture at the earlier harvest timing averaged
explanation for lower yields with later harvest dates.
20.7% across locations with a range of 15.3% to 25.3%.
» However, research on kernel respiration rates does not ● Grain moisture at the later harvest timing averaged 16.9%
appear to support this hypothesis as a plausible mech- across locations with a range of 12.9% to 20.6%.
anism for the differences in yield being observed in some
cases (Knittle and Burris, 1976; Saul and Steele, 1966). Results
» Several Pioneer and university studies have shown ● Yield declined by an average of 9.1 bu/acre with later
no evidence of kernel dry matter loss following harvest in this study (Table 1); a result very similar to the
physiological maturity (Cerwick and Cavalieri, 1984; 8.9 bu/acre average decline observed in the 2018 Pioneer
Elmore and Roeth, 1996; Licht et al, 2017; Reese and Agronomy study.
Jones, 1995; Thomison, et al, 2011). ● Yield differences between harvest timings ranged from a
● A Pioneer Agronomy study conducted in 2018 examined the decrease of 29.9 bu/acre with later harvest to an increase
role of harvest loss in differences in yield between earlier of 2.2 bu/acre (Table 1).
and later harvest timings (Leusink and Jeschke, 2019). ● There were no factors that seemed to correlate with or
» Yield declined by an average of 8.9 bu/acre with later predict yield difference between earlier and later harvest.
harvest in this study. » Neither the change in grain moisture nor the duration
» Trial locations varied widely in the difference in grain of time between earlier and later harvest had any
moisture and the number of days between the two relationship with the difference in yield (Figure 1).
harvest timings, neither of which correlated with » Grain moisture at the later harvest timing had no
observed differences in yield. apparent relationship with the difference in yield either,
» Greater harvest losses were observed with grain even though greater harvest losses would be expected
moisture levels below 19%; however, measured harvest as moisture dropped below 19%.
losses (ears and kernels on the ground) did not fully » Calendar date of the earlier and later harvest timings
account for the differences in yield. also seemed to have no impact on yield loss.

67
 return to table of contents

Table 1. Harvest date, grain moisture and yield of early and late harvest timings for 34 comparisons over five years.

Harvest Date Grain Moisture (%) Yield (bu/acre) Difference

Year Early Late Early Late Early Late Days Moisture Yield
2018 Sept 17 Sept 23 23.1 19.1 231.1 220.5 6 4.0 10.6
Sept 20 Sept 28 19.7 17.5 213.1 210.4 8 2.2 2.7
Sept 20 Sept 28 19.9 18.0 232.1 221.4 8 1.9 10.7
Sept 20 Sept 28 20.1 18.0 243.7 238.4 8 2.1 5.3
Sept 20 Oct 25 19.6 14.0 260.4 261.2 35 5.6 +0.8
Sept 23 Sept 26 19.1 17.9 220.5 210.2 3 1.2 10.3
Sept 24 Oct 16 15.9 15.3 162.1 155.8 22 0.6 6.3
Sept 25 Oct 17 20.4 19.2 271.2 264.7 22 1.2 6.5
Sept 25 Oct 15 21.1 15.1 269.5 248.4 20 6.0 21.1
Oct 2 Oct 24 21.6 16.4 290.5 280.3 22 5.2 10.2
Oct 16 Oct 27 15.3 15.0 155.8 154.3 11 0.3 1.5
2019 Sept 18 Oct 15 23.4 16.5 255.8 229.1 27 6.9 26.7
Sept 19 Oct 15 25.3 15.0 203.8 197.9 26 10.3 5.9
Sept 25 Oct 12 20.0 16.9 230.5 221.4 17 3.1 9.1
Sept 27 Oct 13 20.9 19.3 236.5 229.7 16 1.6 6.8
Sept 27 Oct 12 23.5 20.2 250.3 241.4 15 3.3 8.9
Sept 30 Oct 23 24.0 16.6 264.7 249.9 23 7.4 14.8
Oct 7 Oct 15 20.2 17.0 193.1 184.0 8 3.2 9.1
Oct 7 Oct 15 21.5 16.5 192.5 183.6 8 5.0 8.9
2020 Sept 23 Oct 2 22.4 17.0 225.9 196.0 9 5.4 29.9
Sept 24 Oct 1 23.9 17.8 270.6 266.3 7 6.1 4.3
Sept 25 Sept 30 20.5 18.9 234.5 226.2 5 1.6 8.3
Sept 28 Oct 13 21.5 17.0 244.6 229.9 15 4.5 14.7
Sept 28 Oct 6 24.4 20.6 255.3 246.6 8 3.8 8.7
Oct 1 Oct 9 19.7 15.9 284.9 280.6 8 3.8 4.3
Oct 3 Oct 17 17.8 13.4 266.3 253.1 14 4.4 13.2
2021 Sept 20 Oct 10 19.8 18.6 217.9 211.3 20 1.2 6.6
Sept 27 Oct 10 19 15 220.8 210.8 13 4.0 10.0
Sept 29 Oct 22 19.8 14.7 265.3 267.5 23 5.1 +2.2
Sept 29 Oct 22 18.4 12.9 253.5 251 23 5.5 2.5
Oct 2 Oct 12 20 17.2 269.6 261.2 10 2.8 8.4
Oct 2 Oct 12 22 18.7 259.4 254.7 10 3.3 4.7
2022 Sept 27 Oct 10 23.1 17 214.3 206.8 13 6.1 7.5
Oct 6 Oct 10 17 15.2 220.8 207.9 4 1.8 12.9

Discussion 35
30
Decrease in Yield (bu/acre)

● Results of this study corresponded with those of previous

25
studies and grower observations that corn yield often
20
declines with later harvest.
15
● However, neither the change in grain moisture nor the 10
length of additional time in the field seemed to have any 5
effect on the observed decrease in yield. 0

● The 2018 Pioneer Agronomy study showed an increase -5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 10 20 30 40
in harvest loss as grain moisture at harvest declined and Decrease in Grain Moisture (pts) Days Between Harvest Timings
suggested the possibility that additional unmeasured Figure 1. Yield loss with later harvest as a function of grain moisture
harvest loss may have contributed to observed declines in loss (left) and additional days of field drying (right) showing no
yield. correlation to either factor.

68
 return to table of contents

● The 2018 study measured ear ● A higher rate of ear molds and stress ● Harvest loss was no quantified in
drop and whole kernels on the cracks as corn dries down in the field this study; however, observations at
ground after harvest; any kernels could lead to higher rates of kernel multiple locations were suggestive
lost through breakage before or breakage during harvest. of greater harvest losses with later
during harvest would not have been harvest (Figures 2-7).
quantified.

Figure 5. Stress cracks that can lead to more fines.

Figure 2. Compromised kernel integrity due to ear or kernel mold.

Figure 3. “Fines” – broken kernel particles blown out the back of the Figure 6. Kernels on the ground from shelling at the head.
combine. Plot was harvested November 4th at 16% moisture.

Figure 7. Accumulated grain dust from pulverized kernels in a field

Figure 4. ‘Cob shrink’ causing kernels to fall out. infested with Fusarium ear rot.

69
 return to table of contents

Corn Maturity
and Dry Down
Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Moisture Loss During Grain Fill

● Kernels lose moisture through the grain-filling period
due to a combination of evaporative water loss and
accumulation of kernel dry matter.
● Corn plants channel photosynthate into the kernels during
the grain-fill period, increasing kernel dry weight.

Table 1. Days following silking to reach corn reproductive growth Black Layer Formation
stages and approximate grain moisture (Abendroth et al., 2011).
● In early seed development, a black layer forms in a
Growth Stage Days After Silking Approx. Moisture region of cells several layers thick between the endo-
Blister Stage (R2) 10-12 85% sperm base of the kernel and the vascular area of the
pedicel.
Milk Stage (R3) 18-20 80%
● Near physiological maturity, these cells compress into a
Dough Stage (R4) 24-26 70% dense layer, which appears visibly black.
Dent Stage (R5) 31-33 60% ● Concurrently, the cells
Maturity (R6) 64-66 35% at the base of the en- Pericarp
dosperm also become
Endosperm
Physiological Maturity and Black Layer crushed. These are
specialized vascular
● Physiological maturity is the point at which the hard starch
cells, which absorb
layer reaches the base of the kernel and kernel dry matter
and transfer nutrients
accumulation is complete.
to the kernel, plus su- Embryo
● Kernel moisture at physiological maturity is typically crose and other sugars
around 35%, but can vary due to differences in hybrid produced by the plant
characteristics and environmental conditions. in photosynthesis.
● Following physiological maturity, an abscission layer, ● This stops their capa-
known as the black layer, will form at the base of the bility for movement of Black Layer
kernel. sugars and nutrients Pedicel
● Within the ear, the black layer usually forms first in the from within the plant
tip kernels with progression a few days later to the large into the kernel.
kernels at the base.

Stage R5 Stage R5.25 Stage R5.5 Stage R5.75 Stage R6

Beginning Dent 1/4 Milk Line 1/2 Milk Line 3/4 Milk Line Physiological Maturity
Grain Moist.~50-55% Grain Moist.~45-50% Grain Moist.~40-45% Grain Moist.~35-40% Grain Moist.~30-35%
~400 GDUs remaining ~300 GDUs remaining ~200 GDUs remaining ~100 GDUs remaining 0 GDUs remaining
to maturity to maturity to maturity to maturity to maturity
Yield loss from killing frost Yield loss from killing frost Yield loss from killing frost Yield loss from killing frost Yield loss from killing frost
at this stage: 35-40% at this stage: 25-30% at this stage: 12-15% at this stage: 5-6% at this stage: 0%

70
 return to table of contents

● Black layer is often used as a visual indicator of Table 3. Average daily corn dry down rate for different stages of the
physiological maturity, and the two are often considered harvest season (Hicks, 2004).
synonymous. However, this is not actually the case. Harvest Season Stage Points of Moisture per Day
» Black layer formation is triggered when sucrose
Sept. 15 – Sept. 25 ¾ to 1
translocation to the developing kernel stops.
» This cessation of sucrose flow can be due to the Sept. 26 – Oct. 5 ½ to ¾
physiological maturity of the kernel but can also be the Oct. 6 – Oct. 15 ¼ to ½
result of other factors, causing a sharp drop in plant
photosynthesis, such as foliar disease, hail, frost, or Oct. 16 – Oct. 31 0 to 1⁄3
prolonged cold temperatures. Nov. 1 and later ~0
» Black layer formation triggered by environmental stress
can occur before physiological maturity, effectively Timing of Physiological Maturity
shutting down grain fill prematurely.
● Corn that matures earlier will dry down faster due to more
favorable drying conditions early in the harvest season.
● Later-maturing corn has fewer warm days to aid in drying
Figure 1. Cross and will dry down at a slower rate.
section of
kernels following Weather Conditions Following Maturity
physiological
maturity. The black
● Daily GDU accumu-
abscission layer lation and dry down
is visible at the tip can vary widely
of the kernels. during the harvest
season.
● Corn may dry one
Dry Down Following Maturity point of moisture per
day or more under
● Kernel drying that occurs following black layer is entirely
favorable conditions.
due to evaporative moisture loss.
● Conversely, corn may
● Corn dry down rate is tightly linked to daily growing
not dry at all on a
degree unit (GDU) accumulation.
cool, rainy day.
» In general, drying corn from 30% down to 25% moisture
requires about 30 GDUs per point.
Hybrid Characteristics Affecting Dry Down
» Drying from 25% to 20% requires about 45 GDUs per ● Husk Leaf Coverage: The more insulated the ear is, the
point (Lauer, 2016). longer it will take to dry down. Leaf number, thickness, and
tightness all affect dry down rate.
● GDU accumulation and dry down rates are greatest
during the earlier, warmer part of the harvest season and ● Husk Leaf Senescence: The sooner these leaves die, the
decline as the weather gets colder (Tables 2 and 3). faster the grain will dry down.

● By November, GDU accumulation rates are low enough ● Ear Angle: Upright ears are more prone to capture
that little further drying will typically occur. moisture in the husks, which slows dry down.
● Kernel Pericarp Characteristics: Thinner or more
Table 2. Average daily GDU accumulation during early-, mid-, and
permeable pericarp layers are associated with a faster
late-September and October for several Midwestern locations (1981-
2010 average, Midwest Regional Climate Center). dry down rate.

September October

1-10 11-20 21-30 1-10 11-20 21-31

Lincoln, NE 20 17 14 11 8 7

Indianapolis, IN 20 16 13 11 8 6

Bloomington, IL 20 17 13 12 8 6

Ames, IA 18 14 12 10 7 5

Mankato, MN 17 13 10 8 6 4

Madison, WI 16 14 11 9 6 4

Brookings, SD 15 12 9 7 5 3

71
 return to table of contents

Extended Diapause in
Northern Corn Rootworm
Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Crop Rotation as a Management Strategy

Key Points ● Crop rotation is the most effective and widely used
● Northern corn rootworm has adapted to crop rotation management strategy for corn rootworm today.
in some areas by altering its overwintering dormancy ● Crop rotation works by depriving newly-hatched larvae of
period via a mechanism called extended diapause. a food source.
● Populations exhibiting extended diapause have eggs » Corn rootworm larvae need corn roots within close
that remain viable in the soil for two or more years be- proximity to feed on in order to survive.
fore hatching, allowing the insect population to survive
» A field that has been rotated to a different crop lacks
until corn returns to the rotation.
this food source, causing the larvae to starve and die.
● Rotation-resistant northern corn rootworm can now be
● However, both western and northern corn rootworm
found throughout much of the northern Corn Belt and
have developed adaptations that have reduced the
continues to expand its range to the south and east.
effectiveness of crop rotation in many areas.
● Even with the extended diapause adaptation, crop
» Western corn rootworm began laying eggs in soybean
rotation remains a highly effective management tactic.
fields, allowing larvae to survive in the subsequent
season when the field was rotated back into corn.
Corn Rootworm » Northern corn rootworm adapted its life cycle, altering
● Corn rootworm has long been one of the most damaging its overwintering dormancy period via a mechanism
insect pests of corn in North America. called extended diapause.
● The western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera)
Figure 1. Newly-
and northern corn rootworm (D. barberi) can both be hatched corn
found throughout much of the Corn Belt, often coexisting rootworm larvae
in the same fields. cannot move very
far in the soil, only
● Both species have a history of adapting to and around 18 inches, so
overcoming control practices, which has increased the corn roots must be
complexity and difficulty of successfully managing these in close proximity for
pests. them to feed and
survive.

What is Diapause?
● Diapause is a delay in development in response to regular
and recurring periods of adverse environmental conditions
● Diapause is a common adaptation of insect species in
temperate regions to allow populations to survive over the
winter.
● Winter dormancy for corn rootworm eggs overwintering
in the soil consists of two phases: obligate diapause and
facultative quiescence (Krysan, 1978).
● Obligate diapause begins in the fall when embryonic
development ceases in eggs that have been deposited in
Western Corn Rootworm Northern Corn Rootworm the soil.
● Has three stripes, or one ● Solid green color. Newly ● The duration of diapause is genetically determined, hence
broad stripe, on the wing emerged adults may the term obligate diapause.
covers. be tan or light yellow in
● Duration of diapause can vary widely across populations
The legs are partially coloration.
●
and among individuals within a population (Branson, 1976;
black but not banded. ● No stripes or spots on the Krysan, 1982).
wing covers.

72
 return to table of contents

Effect of Environmental Conditions

● Diapause in northern corn rootworm is genetically con-
trolled, but the duration of dormancy is also influenced by
environmental conditions.
● Exposure to low temperatures has been shown to
accelerate dormancy termination in some insect species,
including northern corn rootworm.
● Research has shown that northern corn rootworm eggs
● The end of diapause often occurs sometime during the may need to be exposed to a minimum number of low
winter. At this point, dormancy enters the facultative temperature units before dormancy ends (Fisher et al.,
quiescence phase, during which environmental conditions 1994).
become the controlling factor in maintaining dormancy. ● The range for these low temperature units appears to be
● Embryonic development remains suspended until soil between 37 and 59°F (3-15°C). Temperatures above or
temperature increases above a threshold at which below this range do not affect the duration of dormancy.
development can resume. ● Consequently, an overwintering period with a below
● This two-phase dormancy allows insects to survive average number of days falling within this temperature
harsh winter conditions while being ready to resume range may extend dormancy and result in a greater
development as soon as conditions turn favorable. proportion of the rootworm population hatching the
following year.
Extended Diapause in Northern Corn Rootworm
Occurrence and Spread of Extended Diapause
● Northern corn rootworm populations exhibiting extended
diapause have eggs that remain viable in the soil for ● Instances of northern corn rootworm damage to corn
two or more years before hatching, allowing the insect grown in rotation with other crops was noted as far back
population to survive until corn returns to the rotation. as the 1930s.

● Selection pressure imposed on corn rootworm populations ● Rotation-resistant northern corn rootworm can now be
selects for individuals with a diapause duration that gives found throughout much of the northern Corn Belt and
them the best chance for survival by timing hatch to continues to expand its range to the south and east.
correspond with food availability.
● Diapause length in northern corn rootworm is naturally
variable, and populations have been able to use this
variability to adapt to different crop rotation schemes.
● Repeated use of crop rotation as a means of control
selected for individuals with a longer diapause period that
allowed eggs to hatch when the field was rotated back to
corn.

Before Crop Rotation

Northern Corn
Rootworm
Northern CRW
Extended Diapause
After Crop Rotation
Figure 3. Approximate distribution of northern corn rootworm and
extended diapause populations.

Management Considerations
Diapause Length 1 Year 2 Years
● Corn growers within or near the geographic area where
Figure 2. Distribution of diapause length in northern corn rootworm
populations under continuous corn and after an extended period of extended diapause has been observed should be on the
corn-soybean rotation. lookout for rootworm damage in first-year corn fields.
● Extended diapause can last up to four years and has ● Employ best management practices for corn rootworm
shown adaptability to rotation patterns over time; i.e., that focus on controlling population levels using an
fields with corn every other year have a relatively high integrated management strategy.
percentage of eggs that hatch in the second year, and ● Crop rotation can still have value in extended diapause
fields with corn every third year tend to have more eggs areas for reducing rootworm population levels, particularly
that hatch the third year, etc. (Levine et al., 1992). if western corn rootworm is present as well.

73
 return to table of contents

Corn Rootworm Levels in the

Central Corn Belt - 2022
Mary Gumz, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Results
Key Findings
● Weekly trap counts ranged from zero to 269 average
● 438 corn and soybean fields were monitored for corn beetles per trap.
rootworm (CRW) beetles across, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
● 86% of fields sampled showed some level of CRW pressure.
Minnesota and Wisconsin in 2022.
● Highest average weekly trap counts were found in
● Populations in South Dakota, Iowa and Wisconsin
Wisconsin and Northern Illinois.
differed from those in Illinois and Indiana with higher
maximum weekly counts, higher prevalence of northern
corn rootworm (NCR) and peak counts occurring 4 to 5
weeks after initial trap placement.
● All corn growers should monitor for CRW populations
and use appropriate control practices and best man-
agement practices.

Objectives
● Assess CRW populations across Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Minnesota, South Dakota and Wisconsin.
Study Description
● Locations:
» 438 corn and soybean field locations across Illinois,
Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and South Dakota.
● Sampling Methods:
» Six sticky traps placed per field starting at blister stage
(R2). (Figure 1) Figure 3. Peak weekly CRW beetle counts by location.
» Northern and western CRW beetles were counted
every seven days, with traps replaced every week. ● Corn rootworm populations were characterized at four
(Figure 2) different levels for each sampling location (Table 1).
» Trapping continued for six consecutive weeks by » Zero = no beetles collected
Pioneer sales professionals and agronomists. » Low = <21 beetles/week
» Moderate = traps averaged 21-50 beetles/week
» High = traps averaged >50 beetles/week

Table 1. CRW severity across the entire study area and by state.

Zero Low Mod. High

CRW Level Locs
% of sample locations
Figure 1. Placement of a new Pherocon® AM/NB sticky trap on a corn
Overall 438 14 45 23 18
plant (left). Arrangement of six traps in the field (right).
Illinois 57 30 42 21 7

Indiana 29 45 52 3 0

Iowa 14 0 86 14 0

Minnesota 24 4 71 8 0

South Dakota 4 0 100 0 0

Figure 2. Western corn rootworm beetle (left); northern corn rootworm Wisconsin 279 6 40 27 24
beetle (right).

74
 return to table of contents

● Western CRW was found in nearly all sampling locations What does this mean in the field?
across all states in the sampling area.
● Farmers throughout the Central Corn Belt need to be
● Northern CRW was prevalent across most of the sampling aware of CRW pressure on their farms, especially in
area except for Eastern Illinois and Indiana. continuous corn.
● Northern CRW, and the potential for its extended
diapause variant, is a greater concern in Wisconsin,
Minnesota, Iowa and South Dakota than in Illinois or
Indiana.
● Farmers who are monitoring CRW beetles using sticky
traps may be able to make a good population estimate
after 1 to 2 weeks of trapping in central Illinois and Indiana.
Farmers in the northern and western portions of this study
area should trap at least 4 to 5 weeks for more accurate
counts.

CRW Best Management Practices

When using CRW beetle trapping to monitor populations:
● If traps average <21 beetles per week:
» Low rootworm populations are anticipated next year
– Rotate acres to another crop.
– Plant a corn rootworm Bt corn product.
Figure 4. CRW species found at trapping locations in 2022. – Plant a non-Bt rootworm product with Lumisure®
1250 insecticide treatment OR a soil insecticide for
● Sticky traps were put in the field at R2 and the first week’s larvae.
counts were taken seven days later and continued on a
● If traps average 21-50 beetles per week:
weekly basis. Since the traps were placed based on crop
development rather than a calendar date, traps in the » Moderate rootworm populations are anticipated next
southern part of the study were placed in the field earlier year
than traps in the northern part of the study. – Rotate acres to another crop.
● Timing of peak beetle trapping (based on weeks following – Plant a corn rootworm Bt corn product.
R2) varied depending on geography. Locations in Indiana, – Apply a soil insecticide at planting for larvae.
Illinois, and Iowa tended to have peak beetle counts
during Week 1 or 2 of trapping. ● If traps average >50 beetles per week:

● Locations in Wisconsin and Minnesota tended to have » High rootworm populations are anticipated next year
peak beetle counts occur later in trapping. – Rotate acres to another crop.
– Apply foliar insecticide in the current year to
control adult beetles prior to egg-laying and use
a corn rootworm Bt corn product or soil-applied
insecticide the following year.
● Pioneer and university research suggests that continuous,
uninterrupted use of the same corn rootworm Bt
technology can lead to reduced product efficacy against
these insects.
● To maintain efficacy of Bt corn rootworm products, it is
essential to develop a rootworm management plan that:
» Breaks the cycle
» Manages populations
» Protects the Bt trait
● Please contact your Pioneer sales professional for more
information.
Figure 5. Week of highest CRW beetle count at 2022 trapping
locations.

75
 return to table of contents

Estimating Corn Rootworm Populations

with Sticky Traps in Ontario
Greg Stopps, Sales Agronomist

Key Findings 6 2
11
● In 2021, 12% of sampled locations had moderate to very
high corn rootworm (CRW) pressure, 40% had low or
CRW Pressure
very low pressure, and 48% had no CRW beetles found. Zero
159 Trap Sites Very Low (<1 Beetle)
● Predominance of western corn rootworm (WCRW) or 37 54 Continuous Corn 77 Low (1-10 Beetles)
northern corn rootworm (NCRW) differed between 64 First Year Corn in Rotation
Moderate (10-20 Beetles)
Southern Ontario and Eastern Ontario. WCRW were 41 Soybean After Corn
High (20-50 Beetles)
predominant at 85% of locations in Southern Ontario
Very High (50+ Beetles)
where NCRW were predominant at 55% of locations in
Eastern Ontario.
26
● Crop rotation affected CRW pressure levels; all loca-
tions with high to very high CRW pressure were planted
Figure 1. Level of CRW pressure observed at each location as defined
to corn following corn. by peak weekly trap counts in 2021.

Results
Objectives
CRW Pressure
● Quantify western and northern corn rootworm populations
● Corn rootworm populations at each sample location
and categorize them into defined levels of pest pressure
were categorized into six levels of pest pressure (Figure
across the primary corn growing regions of Ontario using
1) previously defined by Stopps and MacDonald (2021),
non-baited yellow sticky traps.
based on the peak populations captured over the course
● Understand how crop rotation is influencing CRW levels of weekly trapping:
and species dynamics across Ontario.
» Zero Pressure = no beetles collected
● Identify best management practices for growers to make
» Very Low = traps averaged <1 beetles/week
informed decisions for the following growing seasons.
» Low = traps averaged 1-10 beetles/week
Study Description
» Moderate = traps averaged 10-20 beetles/week
Year: 2021
» High = traps averaged 20-50 beetles/week
Locations: 159 field locations across Ontario including:
» Very High = traps averaged >50 beetles/week
● 54 continuous corn ● 12% of sampled locations were characterized as
● 64 first year corn in rotation moderate to very high CRW pressure, 40% had low or
● 41 soybean following corn fields very low pressure, and 48% had no CRW beetles found.
The distribution of peak beetle population levels across
Corn Rootworm Sampling Methods:
Ontario is shown in Figure 2.
● Three sticky traps per field were placed starting at blister
stage (R2).
● Northern and western CRW beetles were counted every
seven days and average counts per trap were recorded.
Traps were replaced with new traps upon counting.
● Trapping continued for five consecutive weeks by Pioneer
field staff and representatives. CRW Peak Population
← >50 beetles →
Other Observations:
● Basic soil texture was recorded at each location. ← 10-20 beetles →

● The number of years in continuous corn was recorded for

continuous corn locations. ← 0-10 beetles →

Figure 2. Peak populations observed at corn rootworm beetle

trapping locations in 2021.

76
 return to table of contents

CRW Species Composition ● CRW pressure in all soybean locations was characterized
as low, very low, or zero.
45
Northern CRW » CRW beetles were trapped at eight of the 41 locations
40
Western CRW where traps were placed in a soybean crop following
Average Trap Count

35
corn the previous year.
30
25 » WCRW were found at six of these eight soybean
20
locations but were only predominant at two locations.
NCRW were predominate at six of the eight locations
15
(Figure 4).
10
5 2.5
0 Northern CRW

Average Trap Count

2
Figure 3. CRW species compositions for very high, high, moderate, Western CRW
and low population locations across Ontario in 2021. 1.5
● Western corn rootworm (WCRW) was the predominant
1
species across Ontario, being either the only or the
predominant species trapped at 71% of locations (Figure 0.5
3). Northern corn rootworm (NCRW) was the only or
predominant species trapped at 23% of locations in 0

nt

rth

wa
Ontario. Equal pressure between WCRW and NCRW was

or

SD

SD

SD

SD
Ke

Pe

tta
xf
observed at 5% of locations.

O
ha
at
● Southern Ontario (Durham Region and West) and Eastern Location County

Ch
Ontario (Ottawa Valley) differed in regard to species Figure 4. CRW species compositions at soybean locations where
composition at trapping locations (Table 1). CRW were trapped in 2021.
Table 1. CRW species predominance in Southern and Eastern Ontario. Soil Texture Effects
Southern ON Eastern ON ● Soil texture was classified for all locations. Locations that
NCRW Present 50% 85% showed moderate to high CRW pressure ranged in texture
NCRW Predominant 15% 55% from sandy clay to clay loam (including sandy clay loam,
silt loam, and loam).
Equal NCRW/WCRW 0% 10%
WCRW Present 92% 75% ● Six continuous corn locations had been in corn for 10+
years. Three of these locations showed moderate to
WCRW Predominant 85% 35%
high pressure, all on silty loam or clay loam soils. The
Crop Rotation Effects other three long-term continuous corn locations were on
sand or sandy loam soils, and showed zero, very low, or
● 100% of the locations that showed high to very high
low pressure. One location on sandy loam is particularly
pressure were continuous corn locations.
noteworthy, as it has been in continuous corn for 27+ years
● Of the 11 locations showing moderate pressure, seven were and showed very low pressure.
corn on corn locations while four were first year corn in
Discussion
rotation.
● Of the four first-year corn locations showing moderate Sampling of CRW populations across Ontario in 2021 revealed
pressure, two occurred in Southern Ontario and two in the variable geographic nature of CRW pressure and effects
Eastern Ontario. The two Southern Ontario locations of crop rotation. All locations characterized as high to very
predominantly trapped WCRW but also trapped NCRW high pressure were continuous corn locations, lending support
at low pressure levels. The two locations in Eastern Ontario for the use of rotation out of corn as a critical tool to manage
both showed predominance of NCRW. CRW populations.

Table 2. Distribution of pressure levels based on crop rotation.

Continuous corn practices have been shown by university and
Pioneer research to increase CRW pressure and can result in
# of Locations by Crop Rotation the development of resistance to Bt traits. Crop rotation is the
CRW Continuous First Year Corn Soybeans best way to reduce CRW populations and selection pressure
Pressure Corn in Rotation Following Corn to keep these valuable Bt traits effective. In this study, the
Very High 2 0 0 two locations characterized as very high pressure were
High 6 0 0 both located in central Perth County in a geography where
Moderate 7 4 0 investigations of CRW resistance to Bt traits is now underway.
Bt resistance has been confirmed by the Canadian Corn Pest
Low 19 13 5
Coalition in nearby Huron county, highlighting that CRW Bt
Very Low 8 15 3
resistance can and has happened in Ontario when enough
Zero 12 32 33 selection pressure is applied under continuous corn practices.

77
 return to table of contents

Results from this study indicate that WCRW is the predominant Management Recommendations
species in Southern Ontario, but that NCRW is narrowly
If CRW is of concern to for your operation, a yearly scouting
predominant in Eastern Ontario. Species predominance may
program trapping adult beetles to assess population levels
become important in managing CRW pressure within local
can be an effective tool to inform future rotation decisions.
geographies as both WCRW and NCRW species have been
found capable of expressing different adaptive responses to If traps average <20 beetles per week:
crop rotation (Jeschke, 2021). ● Low/Moderate CRW populations are anticipated next
A variant of the WCRW known as the “rotation adapted year.
variant” or the “soybean variant” first discovered by researchers ● Select a control option for each field:
in 1987, can lay its eggs in soybean fields rather than corn, » Rotate acres to another crop.
enabling it to maintain its population levels in two-year corn-
» Plant a corn rootworm Bt corn product. (If a Bt-
soybean crop rotation systems (Dunbar and Glassmann 2013).
rootworm product has already been planted three
While not yet observed or confirmed in Ontario, this rotation
years in a row or you are in a geography where CRW
adapted variant of WCRW has been found previously in
Bt resistance is already confirmed/suspected, rotate
nearby states of Michigan and Ohio (Prasifka et al., 2006).
out of corn.)
The observed appearance of WCRW, even at low levels, in six
soybean locations across the province could be coincidence » Plant a non-Bt rootworm product with Poncho® 1250/
with transient adults being trapped as they move from one VOTiVO® insecticide treatment.
corn field to another, or it could be indicative of adaptive » (PLEASE NOTE Health Canada’s Pest Management
variants starting to appear. Their mere observation warrants Regulatory Agency has removed registered use
further investigation in coming years to verify the presence of Poncho® 1250 for the 2023 growing season and
or absence of any such variants of WCRW that would be of beyond. Other “high rate” seed treatments are being
concern. evaluated to assess their utility for use on non-Bt
NCRW has been documented to adopt a different adaptive rootworm corn in a first-year corn on corn scenario.)
strategy with some populations capable of showing If traps average >20 beetles per week:
‘extended diapause’ where eggs can remain viable in a ● High rootworm populations are anticipated next year
dormant state for two or more years before hatching when
● Select a control option for high populations:
a corn crop is back in rotation (Krysan et al., 1984). Similar to
the WCRW variant, the NCRW variant exhibiting extended » Rotate acres to another crop.
diapause has not been shown to date in Ontario, but likely » If corn must be grown, apply foliar insecticide in the
warrants further examination with predominance of NCRW current year to control beetles prior to egg-laying. If
populations particularly in Eastern Ontario. The observation CRW Bt resistance is suspected in your geography,
of four first-year corn locations that showed moderate CRW consider using a non CRW Bt product with application
pressure – an unexpectedly high level for first year corn fields of in furrow insecticide.
– all four of which trapped NCRW and two in the Ottawa area To maintain efficacy of Bt corn rootworm products, it is
that showed predominance of NCRW, lends further weight to essential to develop a rootworm management plan that:
the need for closer examination of NCRW and the possibility
● Breaks the cycle
that the extended diapause variant is present in Ontario.
● Manages populations
Classification of soil types did not reveal clear correlation
with the occurrence of CRW pressure, however observation ● Protects the Bt trait
of three long-term (10+ year) continuous corn locations Please contact your Pioneer Sales Professional or local
that showed zero to low pressure on sandy soils lends some Extension professionals to assist you in developing field-
anecdotal evidence to the thought that coarse soil textures specific best management practices for your operation.
may have some impact on CRW larval survival and overall
population pressure (Jeschke, 2021).

78
 return to table of contents

Most affected
areas experienced low to
moderate tar spot severity in
2022. Dry summer conditions
across much of the Corn Belt
may have helped keep tar
spot in check.

Tar Spot
of Corn in the
U.S. and Canada
Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Key Points
● Tar spot (Phyllachora maydis) is a relatively new disease of corn in the U.S.,
first appearing in Illinois and Indiana in 2015 and subsequently spreading to
neighboring states.
● In 2018, tar spot established itself as an economic concern for corn production
in the Midwest, with severe outbreaks affecting corn yield reported in several
states.
● Tar spot gets its name from the fungal fruiting bodies it produces on corn leaves
that look like spots of tar.
● Tar spot is favored by cool temperatures (60-70°F, 16-20°C), high relative
humidity (>75%), frequent cloudy days, and 7+ hours of dew at night.
● Tar spot can rapidly spread through the corn canopy under favorable
conditions, causing premature leaf senescence.
● Commercial corn hybrids vary widely in their susceptibility to tar spot. Hybrid
selection should be a primary consideration in managing for tar spot.
● Fungicide treatments have shown some effectiveness in reducing tar spot
symptoms; however, application timing can be critical for achieving adequate
control and two applications may be needed in some cases.

79
 return to table of contents

Tar Spot: An Emerging Disease Of Corn

Tar spot is a foliar disease of corn that has recently emerged
as an economic concern for corn production in the Midwestern
U.S. It is not a new disease, having been first identified in
1904 in high valleys in Mexico. Historically, tar spot’s range
was limited to high elevations in cool, humid areas in Latin
America, but it has now spread to South American tropics
and parts of the U.S. and Canada. It first appeared in the U.S.
in 2015. During the first few years of its presence in the U.S.,
tar spot appeared to be a minor cosmetic disease that was
not likely to affect corn yield. However, widespread outbreaks
of severe tar spot in multiple states in 2018 and again in
2021 proved that it has the potential to cause a significant
economic impact. With its very limited history in the U.S. and
Canada, much remains to be learned about the long-term
economic importance of this disease and best management
practices.
Tar Spot Origins
Tar spot in corn is caused by the fungus Phyllachora maydis,
which was first observed more than a century ago in high
valleys in Mexico. P. maydis was subsequently detected in
several countries in the Caribbean and Central and South
America (Table 1). Despite its decades-long presence in many
of these countries, it was not detected in the Continental U.S.
until 2015.
Corn leaves infected with tar spot in a field in Illinois in 2018.
Historically, P. maydis was not typically associated with yield
loss unless a second pathogen, Monographella maydis, as tar spot complex. In Mexico, the complex of P. maydis
was also present, the combination of which is referred to and M. maydis has been associated with yield losses of up
to 30% (Hock et al., 1995). In some cases, a third pathogen,
Table 1. Country and year of first detection of P. maydis (Valle-Torres
Coniothyrium Phyllachorae, has been associated with the
et al., 2020).
complex. Only P. maydis is known to be present in the United
Region Country Year States but it has proven capable of causing significant yield
losses, even without the presence of an additional pathogen.
Dominican Republic 1944
U.S. Virgin Islands 1951 Tar Spot Spread To The U.S. and Canada
Trinidad and Tobago 1951 The first confirmations of tar spot in North America outside
Caribbean of Mexico were in Illinois and Indiana in 2015 (Bissonnette,
Cuba 1968
2015; Ruhl et al., 2016). It has subsequently spread to Michigan
Puerto Rico 1973
(2016), Wisconsin (2016), Iowa (2016), Ohio (2018), Minnesota
Haiti 1994 (2019), Missouri (2019), Pennsylvania (2020), Ontario (2020),
Guatemala 1944 Kentucky (2021), New York (2021), Nebraska (2021), Kansas
Honduras 1967 (2022), and Maryland (2022). Its presence was also confirmed
Nicaragua 1967 in Florida in 2016 (Miller, 2016) and in Georgia in 2021.
Central America
Panama 1967 2018 Outbreak
El Salvador 1994 During the first few years of its presence in the U.S., it ap-
Costa Rica 1994 peared that tar spot might remain a relatively minor cosmetic
disease of little economic impact. In 2018, however, tar spot
Mexico 1904
established itself as an economic concern for corn produc-
North America United States 2015
tion in the Midwest, with severe outbreaks reported in Illinois,
Canada 2020 Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Michigan. Significant corn
Peru 1931 yield losses associated with tar spot were reported in some
Bolivia 1949 areas. University corn hybrid trials conducted in 2018 sug-
South America Colombia 1969 gested potential yield losses of up to 39 bu/acre under the
most severe infestations (Telenko et al., 2019). Growers in areas
Venezuela 1972
severely impacted by tar spot anecdotally reported yield re-
Ecuador 1994
ductions of 30-50% compared to 2016 and 2017 yield levels.

80
 return to table of contents

Yield losses specifically attributable to tar spot 2020 brought another year of generally lower
were often difficult to determine however, be- tar spot severity in the Corn Belt, with severe
cause of the presence of other corn diseas- Tar spot made infestations mostly limited to irrigated
es due to conditions generally favorable another substantial corn and areas that received greater
for disease development. Instances of expansion westward than average rainfall or developing
greatest tar spot severity in 2018 were in 2022, with its presence late enough in the season that they
largely concentrated in northern Illinois had minimal impact on yield. Tar
confirmed for the first time in
and southern Wisconsin, where other spot continued to spread, however,
foliar diseases and stalk rots were also numerous eastern Nebraska with the first confirmation of tar spot
prevalent. counties as well as a few in Pennsylvania. Tar spot was also
2019 and 2020 Observations counties in northeastern confirmed to be present in corn in
Kansas. Ontario, marking the first time the disease
In 2019, tar spot severity was generally lower
had been detected in Canada.
across much of the Corn Belt and appeared
later and more slowly compared to 2018, although 2021 Outbreak
severe infestations were still observed in some areas. The 2021 growing season proved that the 2018
There is no clear explanation for why tar spot severity was outbreak was not a fluke, with a severe outbreak of tar spot
lower in 2019 in areas where it was severe 2018. Less favorable once again impacting corn over a large portion of the Corn
conditions for disease development during the latter part of Belt. Wet conditions early in the summer appeared to be a
the growing season in 2019 may have played a role. Reduced key factor in allowing tar spot to get a foothold in the crop.
winter survival may have been a factor as well. Winter Whereas in 2018, when tar spot appeared to be mainly driven
temperatures in some tar spot-affected areas oscillated by wet conditions in August and September, in 2021 many
between warm periods and extreme cold, which may have impacted areas were relatively dry during the latter portion
affected fungal dormancy and survival (Kleczewski, 2019). of the summer. Wet conditions early in the summer were
apparently enough to allow the disease to get established
in the crop and enabled it to take off quickly when a window
Tar Spot Detected

August 28

Sept. 23 Sept. 23

Figure 1. Counties with confirmed incidence of tar spot, as of

October 2022. (Corn ipmPIPE, 2022).

Despite the generally lower disease severity, tar spot continued

to expand its geographic range in 2019. In Iowa, tar spot pre-
sence was limited to around a dozen eastern counties in 2018
but expanded to cover most of the state in 2019 (Figure 1).
Tar spot was confirmed in Minnesota for the first time in
September of 2019 (Malvick, 2019). Tar spot spread to the south
Figure 2. A corn field with almost no visible foliar disease on August
and east as well, with new confirmations in parts of Missouri, 28, 2021 and the same field with extensive tar spot infection on
Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. September 23.

81
 return to table of contents

of favorable conditions opened up later in the summer. The Species 2 (In U.S. Corn)
2021 season also provided numerous demonstrations of the ● Found only in corn
speed with which tar spot can proliferate, enabled by its
● Found in herbarium samples from Colombia and Puerto
rapid reinfection cycle (Figure 2).
Rico and field samples from Puerto Rico, Mexico, Florida,
The availability of several fungicides labeled for tar spot Illinois, and Michigan
allowed growers to get a better look at fungicide efficacy.
Species 3 (In U.S. Corn)
Fungicide application timing proved to be critical for
controlling tar spot in 2021. In some cases, two applications ● Widest geographic and host range
were necessary to provide adequate control. ● Found in several U.S. states and a dozen other countries
2022: The Tar Spot Story Gets More Complex around the world

2022 was another season with generally low to moderate tar ● Found in corn as well as 10 other host species, including
spot severity in most affected areas, similar to the 2019 and monocots and dicots
2020 growing seasons. Dry summer conditions experienced in ● Includes first isolate collected from U.S. corn in 2015 and
many areas of the Corn Belt may have helped keep tar spot the original specimen collected in Mexico in 1904
in check. Greater familiarity with the disease following several ● Herbarium samples indicate that Species 3 has been
years of infestation and two major outbreaks may also be present in the Southwestern U.S. since at least the 1940s in
driving a more proactive approach to management with native grass species, but not in corn
foliar fungicides when symptoms begin to develop.
Species 4
Tar spot made another substantial ex-
● Found in herbarium samples of corn from Guatemala and
pansion westward in 2022, with
Venezuela
A its presence confirmed for the
● Found in field samples of other grass species in the U.S.
new study first time in numerous east-
ern Nebraska counties, as but NOT in corn.
revealed that P. well as a few counties Species 5
maydis infecting corn in northeastern Kan- ● Not found in corn.
in the U.S. is not one sas. Eastward spread
● Found in some of the same grass species as Species 4.
species but is actually was more limited, with
only a handful of new Identification and Symptoms
multiple, related but
confirmations in coun- Tar spot is the physical manifestation of fungal fruiting bodies,
genetically distinct, ties in Pennsylvania, New the ascomata, developing on the leaf. The ascomata look like
species. York, and Maryland. Infes- spots of tar, developing black oval or circular lesions on the
tation continued to spread in corn leaf (Figure 3). The texture of the leaf becomes bumpy
the southern U.S. with several new and uneven when the fruiting bodies are present. These black
confirmations in Georgia. structures can densely cover the leaf and may resemble the
A study published in 2022 (Broders et al., 2022) shed new light pustules of rust fungi (Figure 3 and 4). Tar spot spreads from
on the pathogen that causes tar spot, Phyllachora maydis. the lowest leaves to the upper leaves, leaf sheathes, and
Previously, it was thought that P. maydis was not in the U.S. eventually the husks of the developing ears (Bajet et al., 1994).
prior to 2015 and that it was not capable of infecting any
species other than corn – results from the new study indicate
that both of these hypotheses were wrong. Even more
notably, the study revealed that P. maydis infecting corn in
the U.S. is not one species but is actually multiple, related but
genetically distinct, species. In light of these new findings,
the authors proposed the term P. maydis species complex
to refer to the causal pathogen for tar spot in corn pending
further research.
The study assessed sequence diversity of numerous tar spot
specimens from field samples as well as herbarium samples
of corn and several other grass species. Results revealed five
genetically distinct Phyllachora species, three of which are
currently found in corn in the U.S.:
Species 1 (In U.S. Corn)
● Found only in corn Figure 3. A corn leaf with Figure 4. Corn leaf under magnifica-
tar spot symptoms. tion showing dense coverage with tar
● Found only in field samples from Indiana and Ohio spot ascomata.

82
 return to table of contents

Under a microscope, P. maydis spores can be distinguished Tar Spot Arrival and Spread In The U.S.
by the presence of eight ascospores inside an elongated
The mechanism by which tar spot arrived in the Midwestern
ascus, resembling a pod containing eight seeds (Figure 5).
and Southeastern U.S. and the reason for its recent
establishment and proliferation, despite being present in
Mexico and several Central American countries for many
decades prior, both remain unclear.
Following its initial detection in the U.S. in 2015, numerous re-
ports speculated that P. maydis spores may have been car-
ried to the U.S. via air currents associated with a hurricane,
the same mechanism believed to have brought Asian soy-
bean rust (Phakopsora pachyrhizi) to the U.S. several years
earlier. However, Mottaleb et al. (2018) suggested that this
scenario was unlikely and that it is more plausible that spores
were brought into the U.S. by movement of people and/or
plant material. Ascospores of P. maydis are not especially
aerodynamic and are not evolved to facilitate spread over
Figure 5. Microscopic view of fungal spores of P. maydis. extremely long distances by air. Tar spot was observed in
corn in Mexico for over a century prior to its arrival in the U.S.,
Tar Spot Look-Alikes during which time numerous
Common rust (Puccinia sorghi) and southern rust (Puccinia hurricanes occurred that
polysora) can both be mistaken for tar spot, particularly could have carried
late in the growing season when pustules on the leaves spores into the U.S. Shorter and
produce black teliospores (Figure 6a). Rust pustules can be Chalkley (2010)
distinguished from tar spot ascomata by their jagged edges
warmer winters may
notes that P.
caused by the spores breaking through the epidermis of maydis occurs be allowing P. maydis to
the leaf (Figure 6b). Rust spores can be scraped off the leaf in cooler areas overwinter further north than
surface with a fingernail, while tar spot cannot. Saprophytic at higher ele- previously possible and greater
fungi growing on senesced leaf tissue can also be mistaken vations in Mex- temperature and precipitation
for tar spot. ico, which cou-
could contribute to
pled with its lack
of alternate hosts, epidemics during the
would limit its abil- growing season.
ity to spread across
climatic zones dissimilar
to its native range. Chalkley
also notes the possibility of trans-
porting spores via fresh or dry plant material and that the
disease is not known to be seedborne.
As for the reason for tar spot’s establishment and spread as
a disease capable of severely reducing corn yield, Broders
Figure 6a. Southern rust in the teliospore stage late in the season, et al. note two possible contributing factors. The first is that
which can resemble tar spot (left). Figure 6b. Corn leaf with common changes in climate have favored the disease. Shorter and
rust spores showing jagged edges around the pustules (right). warmer winters may be allowing P. maydis to overwinter further
north than previously possible and greater temperature
and precipitation could contribute to epidemics during the
growing season. Second, is the overall lack of resistance to
P. maydis in North American corn genetics, which has made
corn in the U.S. and Canada a particularly vulnerable host
population. Corn hybrids have been shown to vary in their
susceptibility to tar spot. Corn breeding programs in Central
and South American – countries where tar spot has long been
present – would have selected for more resistant genetics,
whereas breeding programs in the U.S. and Canada, until
very recently, would not.
Figure 7. Corn leaf with tar spot symptoms.

83
 return to table of contents

Tar Spot Epidemiology

Much is still being learned about the epidemiology of tar
spot, even in its native regions, and especially in the U.S. and
Canada. P. maydis is part of a large genus of fungal species
that cause disease in numerous other species. P. maydis is
the only Phyllachora species known to infect corn, and, until
very recently, was believed to only infect corn (Chalkley, 2010).
The recent confirmation of the existence of multiple, related
P. maydis species infecting corn, some of which can infect
others hosts as well, has added another layer of complexity
to the situation.
P. maydis is an obligate pathogen, which means it needs
a living host to grow and reproduce. It is capable of Figure 8. Pioneer on-farm trial in Knox County, Illinois, with high tar
spot pressure showing differences in canopy staygreen among
overwintering in the Midwestern U.S. in infected crop residue on hybrids (September 2022).
the soil surface. Tar spot is favored by cool temperatures (60-
70°F, 16-20°C), high relative humidity (>75%), frequent cloudy Stalk Quality
days, and 7+ hours of dew at night. Tar spot is polycyclic Severe tar spot infestations have also been associated with
and can continue to produce spores and spread to new reduced stalk quality (Figure 9). Stress factors that reduce
plants as long as environmental conditions are favorable. P. the amount of photosynthetically functioning leaf area
maydis produces windborne spores that have been shown to during grain fill can increase the plant’s reliance on resources
disperse up to 800 ft. Spores are released during periods of remobilized from the stalk and roots to complete kernel fill.
high humidity. Remobilizing carbohydrates from the stalk reduces its ability
Management Considerations to defend against soil-borne pathogens, which can lead to
stalk rots and lodging.
Yield Impact
Tar spot seems to be particularly adept at causing stalk
2018 was the first time that corn yield reductions associated quality issues due to the speed with which it can infest the
with tar spot were documented in the U.S. University corn corn canopy, causing the crop to senesce prematurely. If foliar
hybrid trials conducted in 2018 suggested potential yield symptoms are present, stalk quality should be monitored
losses of up to 39 bu/acre under heavy infestations (Telenko carefully to determine harvest timing.
et al., 2019). Pioneer on-farm research trials, along with
grower reports, showed yield losses of up to 50% under the
most extreme infestations during the 2018 season and again
in the 2021 growing season.
Differences in Hybrid Response
Observations in hybrid trials have shown that hybrids differ
in susceptibility to tar spot (Kleczewski and Smith, 2018). Tar
spot affects yield by reducing the photosynthetic capacity of
leaves and causing rapid premature leaf senescence. Lon-
ger maturity hybrids for a given location have been shown
to have a great-
er risk of yield loss
from tar spot than
shorter maturity
Evaluating Corn Hybrids hybrids (Telenko et
for Tar Spot Tolerance al., 2019). Pioneer
- Ryan Bates,
agronomists and
Pioneer Field Agronomist
sales professionals
continue to collect
data on disease symptoms and hybrid performance in loca-
tions where tar spot is present to assist growers with hybrid
management. Pioneer hybrid trials have shown differences in
canopy staygreen among Pioneer® brand corn products1 and
competitor products under tar spot disease pressure (Figure
8). Genetic resistance to tar spot should be the number one
consideration when seeking to manage this disease, as it ap-
Figure 9. Field with severe tar spot infection and extensive stalk
pears to have a greater impact on symptoms and yield loss lodging in Wisconsin in 2018.
than either cultural or chemical management practices.

84
 return to table of contents

Fungicide Treatments 220 a

Corn Yield ab
Research has shown that fungicide treatments can be effective bc b 213.9
200 207.8
against tar spot (Bajet et al., 1994). Specific management 200.7
c 199.3

Yield (bu/acre)
recommendations for the use of fungicides in managing tar
spot in the Midwestern U.S. are still in development as more 180 186.7
research is done.
160
University trials conducted in 2018 in locations where tar
spot was present provided evidence that fungicides can
140
reduce tar spot symptoms and potentially help protect yield.
However, initial work also suggested that tar spot may be
120
challenging to control with a single fungicide application due
Nontrt Aproach VT Aproach Aproach VT Aproach
to its rapid reinfection cycle, particularly in irrigated corn. Prima VT fb Aproach Prima VT fb
Prima R2 Aproach R2
A 2019 Purdue University study compared single-pass and
two-pass treatments for tar spot control using Aproach® Figure 11. Fungicide treatment effects on corn yield in a 2019 Purdue
(picoxystrobin) and Aproach® Prima (picoxystrobin + University study.
cyproconazole) fungicides under moderate to high tar spot Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different based on
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference test (LSD; α=0.05)
severity (Da Silva et al., 2019). Fungicide treatments were
applied at the VT (August 8) and R2 stage (August 22), and On-farm fungicide trials conducted in 2021 appeared to
disease symptoms were assessed on September 30. Results confirm concerns that the rapid reinfection rate of tar spot
showed that all treatments significantly reduced tar spot would make it difficult to control with a single pass fungicide
symptoms relative to the nontreated check, with Aproach treatment. Precise application timing was often critical, and
Prima fungicide applied at VT and two-pass treatments at VT two applications were necessary in some cases to provide
and R2 providing the greatest reduction in tar spot stroma and adequate tar spot control. Disease forecasting models such
associated chlorosis and necrosis on the ear leaf (Figure 10). as Tarspotter, developed at the University of Wisconsin, may
be helpful in optimizing timing of fungicide applications.
50 Tarspotter uses several variables, including weather, to
Tar Spot Stroma - Ear Leaf
40 a forecast the risk of tar spot fungus being present in a corn
field.
Stroma (%)

30 37.0 b
c c https://ipcm.wisc.edu/apps/tarspotter/
20 25.8 c
19.5 17.3 Several foliar fungicide products are available for
10 14.8
management of tar spot in corn. (Table 2). Aproach® and
0 Aproach® Prima fungicides have both received FIFRA 2(ee)
a Tar Spot Chlorosis/Necrosis - Ear Leaf recommendations for control/suppression of tar spot of corn.
80
76.8
Agronomic Practices
Chlor/Necr (%)

60 b
The pathogen that causes tar spot overwinters in corn res-
40 53.3 c idue but to what extent the amount of residue on the soil
c
c
20 28.8
surface in a field affects disease severity the following year
27.0
19.6 is unknown. Spores are known to disperse up to 800 ft, so
0
Nontrt Aproach VT Aproach Aproach VT Aproach
any benefit from rotation or tillage practices that reduce corn
Prima VT fb Aproach Prima VT fb residue, in a field may be negated by spores moving in from
Prima R2 Aproach R2 neighboring fields. Evidence so far suggests that rotation and
Figure 10. Fungicide treatment effects on tar spot symptoms in a tillage probably have little effect on tar spot severity. Agrono-
2019 Purdue University study. Visually assessed tar spot stroma and mists have noted that infestation may occur earlier in corn fol-
chlorosis/necrosis (0-100%) on the ear leaf. lowing corn fields, where infection proceeds in a “bottom-up”
Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different based on manner from inoc-
Fisher’s Least Significant Difference test (LSD; α=0.05)
ulum present in the
Aproach® Prima fungicide applied at VT and the two-pass soil, in contrast to
treatments all significantly increased yield relative to the rotated fields that
nontreated check. Aproach Prima fungicide applied at more commonly Tips for Scouting and
VT followed by Aproach® fungicide at R2 had the greatest exhibit “top-down” Managing Tar Spot
yield, although it was not significantly greater than Aproach pattern of infection - Kevin Fry,
Pioneer Field Agronomist
followed by Aproach Prima (Figure 11). from spores blow-
ing in from other
fields.

85
 return to table of contents

Duration of leaf surface wetness appears to be a key factor Table 2. Efficacy of fungicides labeled for tar spot in corn (Wise, 2021).
in the development and spread of tar spot. Farmers with
Tar Spot Harvest
irrigated corn in areas affected by tar spot have experimented Product Name
Efficacy Restriction
with irrigating at night to reduce the duration of leaf wetness,
although the potential effectiveness of this practice to reduce Aproach® 2.08 SC G* 7 days
tar spot has not yet been determined.
Aproach Prima 2.34 SC
®
G-VG* 30 days
Yield potential of a field appears to be positively correlated
with tar spot risk, with high productivity, high nitrogen fertility Affiance® 1.5 SC G* 7 days
fields seeming to experience the greatest disease severity Delaro Complete 3.83 SC
®
G-VG 35 days
in affected areas. Research on P. maydis in Latin America
has also suggested a correlation between high nitrogen Delaro® 325 SC G-VG 14 days
application rates and tar spot severity (Kleczewski et al., 2019). Domark 230 ME
®
G-VG* R3
Mycotoxins
Fortix® 3.22 SC
G-VG* R4
There is no evidence at this point that tar spot causes ear rot Preemptor™ 3.22 SC
or produces harmful mycotoxins (Kleczewski, 2018).
Headline® AMP 1.68 SC G-VG 20 days
How Far Will Tar Spot Spread?
Lucento® G* R4
Mottaleb et al. (2018) used climate modeling based on long-
term temperature and rainfall data to predict areas at risk Miravis® Neo 2.5 SE G-VG 30 days
of tar spot infection based on the similarity of climate to the Priaxor® 4.17 SC G-VG* 21 days
current area of infestation. Model forecasts indicated the
areas beyond the then-current range of infestation at highest Quilt® Xcel 2.2 SE G-VG* 30 days
risk for spread of tar spot were central Iowa and northwest Revytek® G-VG 21 days
Ohio. Observations in recent growing seasons have been
consistent with model predictions, with further spread of tar TopGuard® EQ G-VG* 7 days
spot to the east in Ohio, Ontario, and Pennsylvania and a Trivapro® 2.21 SE G-VG 30 days
dramatic expansion of tar spot across Iowa and into parts
of Minnesota and Missouri. Results indicated the potential Veltyma® G-VG 21 days
for further expansion to the north and south but primarily to G = good, VG = very good
the east and west, including corn production areas of New * A 2ee label is available for several fungicides for control of tar spot, however
York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, efficacy data are limited. Check 2ee labels carefully, as not all products have
2ee labels in all states. Always read and follow product label guidelines.
eastern Kansas, and southern Minnesota.

86
 return to table of contents

Corn Yield Response to

Fungicides in Eastern Ontario
Paul Hermans, Pioneer Area Agronomist, and Liam Bracken, Sales Associate - Eastern Canada

Key Findings
● Corn yield response to foliar fungicide treatment in
Eastern Ontario was low in 2021, averaging only 2.7
bu/acre.
● Precipitation during grain fill was below average across
all trial locations, resulting in minimal foliar disease
pressure.

Study Description
● On-farm trials were conducted at nine locations in Eastern ● The average fungicide yield response of P9535AM™ was
Ontario in 2021 comparing corn yields with and without slightly greater than that of P9301AM™; however, both were
foliar fungicide treatment. below the level likely to cover the cost of treatment in
● Each location included between two and seven Pioneer® most scenarios (Figure 2).
brand corn products ranging in maturity from 91 to 95
Fungicide Yield Advantage (bu/acre)

CRM. Pioneer brand P9301AM™ (AM,LL,RR2) and P9535AM™ 4

(AM,LL,RR2) were included at the majority of locations (7 and 3.8
6 locations, respectively). 3
Results
2
● Leaf disease pressure was minimal during grain fill due to 2.1
dry conditions. Total rainfall in August averaged 50 mm
(1.97 inches) across trial locations. 1
● The average yield response to foliar fungicide treatment
across all hybrids and locations was 2.7 bu/acre (Figure 1). 0
P9301AMTM P9535AMTM
» Similar results have been observed in other Pioneer
Figure 2. Average yield response to fungicide of the two Pioneer
studies that had dry weather during grain fill.
brand corn products included at most trial locations.

20 17.0
Fungicide Yield Advantage (bu/acre)

15.7
14.0
15 12.3 12.4
9.5 10.4
10 7.5
5.5 5.9 6.3
5 2.2 2.5
0.6 1.1 1.3 1.9 1.9
0.0 0.4
0
-1.1 -0.4
-2.3 -2.0
-5 -5.1 -5.0 -4.3
-6.1
-10
-15 2021 Corn Yield Response to Fungicide Application in Eastern Ontario
-20 Average Yield Advantage = 2.7 bu/acre | 66% wins
-22.6
-25
Figure 1. Corn yield response to foliar fungicide in Eastern Ontario in 2021. All paired comparisons across nine on-farm trial locations are shown.

87
 return to table of contents

Seed and Seedling

Diseases of Corn
Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Key Points
● Corn planted into cold, wet soil can be susceptible to injury from
soilborne pathogens.
● Soilborne pathogens may attack seeds and seedlings both before and
after plant emergence, as well as the roots and mesocotyl of emerging
or established plants.
● Corn seedling disease is caused by a complex of fungal pathogens
that often occur together.
● Injury may be subtle or severe enough to require replanting. Surviving
stands may have reduced yields due to low plant population, uneven
plant growth and reduced plant fitness.
● Managing corn seedling diseases begins with utilizing an effective
fungicide seed treatment package and avoiding planting when soil
temperatures are likely to remain low for an extended period of
time.
● Corn planted following a rye cover crop can be at greater risk
of seedling disease, as rye can serve as an alternate host for
soilborne pathogens that attack corn.

Corn planted into

a well-prepared
seedbed with warm
conditions can generally
outgrow the effects of
pathogen attack.

88
 return to table of contents

Seed and Seedling Diseases Common Pathogens

Corn fields can contain numerous pathogens in the soil that are Soil-inhabiting disease organisms that attack corn seeds and
capable of infecting corn seeds and seedlings. Corn planted seedlings include Pythium, Fusarium, Rhizoctonia, Penicillium,
into a well-prepared seedbed with warm conditions that allow Colletotrichum, Diplodia, and others (Table 1). Each of these
it to emerge quickly, can generally outgrow the effects of fungal genera includes multiple species capable of
pathogen attack. However, corn planted into cold, infecting corn that can differ in pathogenicity and
wet soils that emerges more slowly can be sus- environmental influences.
ceptible to injury from soilborne pathogens. Pythium, a water mold that survives in soil and
Soilborne pathogens may attack seeds plant debris, is an otherwise weak pathogen
and seedlings both before and after plant When a corn plant
that tends to predominate under very wet
emergence, as well as the roots and me- succumbs to seedling soil conditions. This is because high soil
socotyl of emerging or established plants. disease, multiple moisture levels promote germination of
The effect of soilborne diseases on stand pathogens are usually the overwintering oospores. Soil water
establishment and plant development de- involved. also provides a medium for the swimming
pends largely on the duration of adverse of zoospores, the germinated motile spores
weather and the prevalence of other factors that infect the corn root system. Pythium is
that affect overall plant health, emergence, and one of the first groups of fungi to attack corn
early growth. Soil compaction, heavy crop residues, in the spring, due to the low temperature optimum
crusting, herbicide or fertilizer injury, and excessive plant- of some species. Cool soil temperatures of 50-60°F
ing depth can all weaken the plant, delay emergence, and in- (10-16°C) favor several Pythium species that are common in
crease the susceptibility of corn seedlings to diseases. northern areas, particularly in early-planted fields, but the
Conditions That Favor Disease various species of Pythium are active over a wide range of
temperatures.
The ideal environment for most soilborne diseases that at-
Table 1. Symptoms and favorable environmental conditions for the
tack corn seeds and seedlings is wet and cool (50-60°F,
most common pathogens affecting corn seedlings.
10-16°C). Under these conditions, corn develops very slow-
ly. For example, when the soil temperature averages only Favorable
Pathogen Symptoms
Environment
55°F (13°C), corn seedlings require over 20 days to emerge.
Fungicide seed treatments applied at label rates to protect Seminal roots and meso-
Favored by very wet
the seed during germination and emergence can provide cotyl tissue are soft, water
soil conditions. Several
protection for six weeks after planting. However, extended Pythium soaked and dark colored.
species favored by
Rotted surface can be
delays in emergence can stretch the limits of fungicide seed peeled off roots.
cold temperatures.
treatments and make seeds vulnerable to attack. Soil tem-
perature during emergence is determined by geography, soil Small, discolored roots Wet soil, cold tempera-
type, soil moisture, residue cover, tillage, planting date and and/or rotted root tips. tures, compacted soil,
Fusarium
weather patterns. Mesocotyl firm or shriv- nutrient deficiency, and
eled; may be tan/pink. herbicide injury.
Weather conditions are the
most important determinant Sunken brown to reddish- Rainfall followed by
of growing environment in brown lesions on roots cool then warm, humid
any year. Cold, wet condi- Rhizoctonia and mesocotyl with white conditions. Infection is
tions that favor seed and tissue that may remain enhanced in well-
mostly firm. aerated soil.
seedling disease develop-
ment will occur periodically
in all fields and frequently in Other seedling pathogens like Fusarium and Rhizoctonia do
some fields. The amount of not require extremely wet conditions in order to cause dis-
A corn plant infected with seed- inoculum in the soil also af- ease. Fusarium is a ubiquitous soilborne group of fungi that
ling disease. This field experi- fects disease development. can be found to some degree on the majority of corn plants
enced cold conditions and sat- Soilborne pathogens that suffering from seedling diseases. Rhizoctonia is another very
urated soils after planting. prevalent fungal group with a wide range of plant hosts.
attack corn seedlings survive
in both corn residue and in the soil. They are both saprophyt- When a corn plant succumbs to seedling disease, multiple
ic and parasitic, able to attack dead and living plant tissue. pathogens are usually involved. Dying seed or seedling tis-
Pathogens have alternative hosts, sometimes including pre- sues below ground are rapidly colonized by a variety of fun-
vious crops and weeds – both corn residue and that of other gi, all of which contribute to the decay, making it difficult to
crops and weeds can be important to inoculum load. If a field determine the primary pathogen. Consequently, it is useful
has a history of seedling disease problems, inoculum load is to think of corn seedling disease as a complex of fungi that
likely to be high. Knowing the history of each field with re- must be controlled as a group. Management strategies to
spect to problem areas and related causes is important to reduce the risk of injury from soilborne pathogens are largely
successful management of seedling diseases. the same, regardless of the pathogen involved.

89
 return to table of contents

Diagnosing Seedling Diseases severe cases, damping off of seedlings may occur. Damping
off generally refers to rapid wilting and death of seedlings as
Field Level Symptoms
soft rot collapses the stem, often at the soil line. Pythium and
At the field level, seedling disease may be slight to severe. Fusarium are the most common fungi associated with seed rot
Early symptoms of slow growth, chlorosis, stunting, and and damping off of corn.
missing plants may be followed by near complete recovery
Roots and mesocotyl: Discolored, sunken lesions may be
if favorable conditions allow corn to outgrow the injury. But
evident on the mesocotyl, which eventually becomes soft and
if cold, wet conditions continue, symptoms often worsen and
water soaked. The root system is usually poorly developed
stands decline. Missing plants may be in patches or scattered
and discolored, and water-soaked roots may slough off. If
among other plants. Often, a chlorotic, stunted plant will
the primary root system and mesocotyl are severely affected
appear next to a healthy one (Figure 1). Symptoms may be
before the nodal or permanent root system has developed,
more noticeable in low-lying areas of the field. These are not
the plants have little chance of survival.
typical symptoms associated with other seedling problems
such as fertilizer or herbicide injury, nutrient deficiency, or For further diagnosis of plants with aboveground symptoms,
restricted growth due to compaction or crusting. carefully dig up living plants, wash the soil from the roots, and
look for rotted tissue and discolored lesions on the plant stem,
crown, and roots. Discoloration may range from whitish pink to
gray, to dark brown or black, or even greenish blue, depending
on the array of pathogens involved.

Figure 1. Corn plant that succumbed to seedling disease neighbored

by two healthy plants.

In extreme cases, replanting the entire field or affected field

areas may be necessary. Even when replanting is not required,
diseased fields may have reduced yields due to low plant Several corn plants in a row dead from seedling disease in a field
population, uneven plant growth, and reduced plant health that experienced cold and wet conditions after planting.
and fitness. Stunted plants surrounded by healthy plants may
be uncompetitive and fail to produce an ear. Rotted roots Distinguishing Seedling Diseases
seldom recover entirely, resulting in plants that are less able Subtle differences exist between the various soil fungi that
to withstand later stresses such as drought, storms, insect attack corn seeds and seedlings. For example, Pythium thrives
feeding, and stalk rot development. in cool, wet soils and is among the first plant pathogens
Seed and Plant Symptoms active in the spring. In spite of subtle differences, it is difficult
or impossible to distinguish these pathogens based on
Soilborne pathogens may attack seeds and seedlings both
symptoms alone. Many symptoms are similar, and more than
before and after plant emergence, as well as the roots and
one fungus invariably attacks the plant. Distinguishing among
mesocotyl of emerging or established plants.
pathogens has little value anyway, as management practices
Seeds: In some cases, seeds may rot prior to germination. are similar across soil diseases. The important distinction is
Affected seeds are often soft, discolored, and overgrown between diseases and other seedling problems, including
with fungi. Rotted seeds decompose very rapidly and may insect feeding, fertilizer or herbicide injury, or restricted growth
be difficult to find. Soil adhering tightly to the decomposing due to compaction or crusting.
seed may help to obscure it.
Reducing the Risk of Seedling Disease
Pre-emerged seedlings: Oftentimes, the seed germinates
Managing corn seedling diseases begins with an effective
but the seedling is killed before it emerges from the soil. The
fungicide seed treatment package. Additionally, growers can
coleoptile and primary roots may be discolored and have a
help to minimize the effects of seedling diseases by avoiding
wet, rotted appearance.
planting when soil temperatures are likely to remain low for an
Post-emerged seedlings: Seedlings may emerge through the extended period of time. Management practices that minimize
soil surface before developing symptoms. Plants affected at soil compaction, crusting, dense crop residue over the row,
this stage may grow more slowly than surrounding, healthy herbicide injury, or fertilizer injury will help maintain seedling
plants and appear chlorotic (yellow), stunted or wilted. In health and reduce susceptibility to soilborne pathogens.

90
 return to table of contents

Seed Treatments Soil Temperature at Planting

The LumiGEN® fungicide seed treatment package on Pioneer® Most soilborne pathogens are ineffective against a treated
brand corn products includes five different active ingredients, corn seed and a healthy, growing corn seedling. But at
providing multiple modes of action against each of the three soil temperatures below 55°F (13°C), corn germination and
primary seedling disease pathogens, Pythium, Fusarium, and emergence require three weeks or more (Figure 2). During this
Rhizoctonia (Table 2). time in the soil, the corn seed and seedling are vulnerable to
a myriad of stresses that can weaken the plant and increase
Table 2. Activity of the fungicide components of the LumiGEN® seed
its susceptibility to seedling diseases that often thrive in cool,
treatment package on corn products against primary corn seedling
diseases. wet conditions. Primary stresses include excessive herbicide
uptake, fertilizer burn, and insect feeding.
Growers should begin their corn planting in fields with lighter

Rhizoctonia
soils, good drainage, and minimum residue over the row. In

Fusarium
Trade Name Active Ingredient

Pythium
heavy-textured, low-lying, or high-residue fields, especially
those with a history of seedling diseases, early planting in
cold soils is not recommended. Generally, growers should wait
Metalaxyl ● until soil temperatures rise above 50°F (10°C) and are likely to
Lumiscend™ Pro remain there before planting corn in those fields.
Ethaboxam ●
seed treatment

Inpyrfluxam ● ●

Lumiflex™ seed
Ipconazole ● ●
treatment fungicide

L-2012 R Bacillus amyloliquefaciens

● ●
biofungicide strain MBI 600

Like all pesticides, seed-applied fungicides break down in

the soil. Applied at label rates, these products can provide
protection against seedling diseases for six weeks after
planting. The benefits of this early protection can extend
all season though, as the establishment of a strong and
healthy root system can make the plant better able to fend
of pathogens later in the season.
Corn growing in killed rye stubble. Rye can serve as a green bridge
Insecticide seed treatments have no direct activity
for soilborne pathogens that attack corn seedlings.
against diseases but may contribute to disease control in
a secondary way. By reducing insect feeding on roots and Residue Management
plants, insecticide seed treatments reduce the points of entry A seedbed that is well-drained with little or no crop residue
into the seedling by pathogenic fungi. over the row will reduce the risk of corn seedling diseases.
Compaction, crusting and dense residue in the row are
40
barriers to seedling emergence and are often a primary
35 contributor to seedling disease development.
Days to Emergence

30
Cover Crop Systems
25
Corn planted following a rye cover crop can be at greater
20 risk of seedling disease, as rye can serve as an alternate
15 host for soilborne pathogens that attack corn. Soilborne
pathogen populations that would normally decline during
10
the fallow period over the winter when no host crop is present
5 are instead sustained by the rye cover crop. When the rye is
0 terminated, the dying roots release pathogens back into the
°F 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 soil. Corn planted before or immediately following termination
°C 11.7 12.2 12.8 13.3 13.9 14.4 15.0 15.6 16.1 16.7 17.2 can consequently be subject to a higher inoculum load. Iowa
Average Soil Temperature State University pathologists recommend waiting at least 10-
Figure 2. Estimated days to corn emergence by average soil 14 days to plant corn following termination of a rye cover crop
temperature, based on 110 GDUs to emergence. to reduce the risk of corn seedling diseases.

91
 return to table of contents

Field Performance of Lumiscend™ Pro

Fungicide Seed Treatment
Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager, Ron Sabatka, Farm Manager Coordinator,
Paul Gaspar, Ph.D., Field Scientist, and Brad Van Kooten, Seed Applied Technologies Marketing Leader

Key Findings
● Lumiscend™ Pro fungicide seed treatment increased
corn yield compared to the former standard fungicide
seed treatment package in field research studies.
● Lumiscend Pro fungicide seed treatment increased
corn stand establishment compared to a competitor
seed treatment in inoculated field plots, particularly in
plots inoculated with Rhizoctonia and metalaxyl-
resistant Pythium ultimum.

Lumiscend™ Pro Fungicide Seed Treatment Lumiscend Pro No Fungicide Seed Trt.
● Lumiscend™ Pro is a fungicide seed treatment formulated Replicated seed treatment trial near Valdosta, Georgia, in 2022
to protect against damping off and seedling blight, inoculated with Fusarium graminearum. Seeding rate in the trial was
as well as seed and root rot caused by Pythium spp., 29,000 seeds/acre. Photo shows stand establishment 28 days after
Fusarium spp., and Rhizoctonia solani. planting.

● Lumiscend Pro includes three active ingredients: Results

ethaboxam, metalaxyl, and inpyrfluxam.
2020-2021 Field Experiments
● Ethaboxam and metalaxyl provide two robust modes of
● At 16 field research locations that experienced high early
action against Pythium spp., including metalaxyl- and
season stress and disease pressure, corn seed treated
mefenoxam-resistant strains.
with Lumiscend Pro fungicide seed treatment averaged 3
● Inpyrfluxam is a new active ingredient (FRAC Group 7) bu/acre more than that of seed treated with the previous
that protects against Fusarium spp., as well as providing standard fungicide seed treatment (Figure 1).
industry-leading protection from Rhizoctonia seed and
● Across all 2020 and 2021 field research locations, yield
soil-borne diseases.
of corn seed treated with Lumiscend Pro fungicide seed
Field Research treatment was similar to that of seed treated with the
● Field experiments were conducted in 2020, 2021, and 2022 previous standard fungicide seed treatment, averaging 1
to evaluate the performance of Lumiscend Pro fungicide bu/acre higher (Figure 2).
seed treatment for stand establishment and yield in corn.
● Replicated experiments conducted at 50 locations in High Stress Environments 2020-2021 (n=16)
2020 and 2021 compared yield of corn treated with 206
Lumiscend Pro to corn treated with the previous standard 204
Corn Yield (bu/acre)

202
fungicide seed treatment package for Pioneer® brand
200
corn products (2022 FST).
198
● A replicated field experiment conducted near Valdosta, 196 +3 bu/acre compared to 2022 FST package
GA, in 2022 compared stand establishment of corn seed 194
treated with Lumiscend Pro fungicide seed treatment to 192
seed treated with a competitor FST and seed with no FST 190
in plots inoculated with common corn seedling pathogens. 188
» Plots were inoculated with Rhizoctonia, Fusarium 186
2022 FST Lumiscend Pro
graminearum, Fusarium oxysporum, Pythium ultimum,
or metalaxyl-resistant P. ultimum. Figure 1. Average yield of corn seed treated with Lumiscend Pro
fungicide seed treatment and seed treated with the previous
» Plots were all planted at a seeding rate of 29,000 standard fungicide seed treatment across 16 replicated field
seeds/acre and plant stand was evaluated at 14, 21, experiments with high early season stress and disease pressure in
and 28 days after planting (DAP). 2020 and 2021.

92
 return to table of contents

All Environments 2020-2021 (n=50)

LumiscendTM Pro Competitor FST No FST
200
198 a Rhizoctonia
Corn Yield (bu/acre)

196 25,000

Stand (plants/acre)
194
20,000
192
190 +1 bu/acre compared to 2022 FST package 15,000
188 10,000
186
5,000
184
182 0
180 14 DAP 21 DAP 28 DAP
2022 FST Lumiscend Pro
b Fusarium graminearum
Figure 2. Average yield of corn seed treated with Lumiscend™ Pro 25,000

Stand (plants/acre)
fungicide seed treatment and seed treated with the previous
standard fungicide seed treatment across 50 replicated field 20,000
experiments in 2020 and 2021. 15,000

2022 Stand Establishment Experiment 10,000

● High levels of disease pressure were successfully induced 5,000

in all inoculated plots, as demonstrated by the extremely 0
poor stand establishment of corn seed with no fungicide 14 DAP 21 DAP 28 DAP
seed treatment (Figure 3).
c Fusarium oxysproum
● Lumiscend Pro fungicide seed treatment provided a 25,000
clear advantage in stand establishment compared to Stand (plants/acre)
20,000
the competitor FST in plots inoculated with Rhizoctonia,
averaging nearly 5,000 plants/acre more at 28 days after 15,000
planting. 10,000
● In plots inoculated with Fusarium or Pythium spp., stand 5,000
establishment was often comparable between Lumiscend
0
Pro fungicide seed treatment and the competitor FST at 14 DAP 21 DAP 28 DAP
14 days after planting.
● Beyond 14 days after planting, the competitor FST d Pythium ultimum
25,000
experienced continued attrition in plant stand as
Stand (plants/acre)

measured at 21 and 28 DAP; however, corn treated with 20,000

Lumiscend Pro fungicide seed treatment did not. 15,000

10,000

5,000

0
14 DAP 21 DAP 28 DAP

e Pythium ultimum (metalaxyl resistant)

25,000
Stand (plants/acre)

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

Lumiscend Pro Competitor FST 0

14 DAP 21 DAP 28 DAP
Replicated seed treatment trial near Valdosta, Georgia, in 2022
inoculated with Rhizoctonia. Seeding rate in the trial was 29,000 Figure 3(a-e). Plant stand 14, 21, and 28 days after planting in 2022
seeds/acre. Photo shows stand establishment 28 days after planting. field plots inoculated with common corn seedling pathogens.

93
 return to table of contents

Seedcorn Maggot
Cori Lee, Agronomy Sciences Intern

Key Points
● Seedcorn maggot (Delia platura) larvae damage corn
and soybeans by feeding on germinating seeds or
seedlings.
● Pest pressure is common in fields with a history of
infestation, or that have been recently tilled or have
high organic matter, including manure, cover crops, or
weeds.
● Insecticide seed treatments can provide effective
protection against seedcorn maggot in both corn and
soybeans.

Pest Facts Figure 3. Poor stand establishment in a soybean field due to

● Seedcorn maggot (Delia platura) was introduced from seedcorn maggot damage.
Europe and was first found in the United States in the mid-
Life Cycle
1800s. It is now present across the U.S. and in Canada.
● Overwintering in the soil as pupae, seedcorn maggot is
● It feeds on germinating seeds or seedlings of corn and
difficult to detect in the fall before it causes damage.
soybeans and decaying organic matter.
● Adults emerge in the spring after the ground thaws and
● Unlike many other insect pests, seedcorn maggot tends to
enough heat units have been accumulated. Females will
affect whole fields rather than just localized patches.
then mate and lay eggs in freshly plowed fields at the soil
surface.
● The eggs will hatch within a few days and develop into
their larval stage.
● In the upper Midwestern United States, seedcorn maggot
will complete three to four generations in the growing
season, with each life cycle taking three to four weeks.
However, they are only a pest during planting season and
later generations are not a concern.

Figure 1. Seedcorn maggot Figure 2. Mature seedcorn

feeding on soybean cotyledons. maggot larvae found in the soil.

Impact on Corn and Soybean

● This pest is damaging in the larval stage when it feeds on
germinating seeds or emerging seedlings.
● Seeds and seedlings attacked by seedcorn maggot can
have a range of symptoms and severity. Damage may
include destroyed seed or cotyledons from feeding. Fields
severely impacted by seedcorn maggot may need to be
replanted.
● Injury from seedcorn maggot may also serve as an entry
point for pathogens. In combination with other conditions
that delay germination, damage can slow plant growth in
the early vegetative stages or cause additional stand loss. Figure 4. Pupae of seedcorn maggot found in a soybean field.

94
 return to table of contents

Key Characteristics
Egg
● Eggs are elongated and white; however, they are
generally not visible on the soil surface.
● Eggs will hatch a few days after being laid.
Larvae
● Seedcorn maggot larvae have a pale, yellowish color and
are ¼ inch long when fully grown.
● They have a long, narrow, cylindrical, tapered body with
no head or legs. Maggots have a small black mouth with
hook-shaped mouth parts.
Pupae
● The pupa stage has a wheat seed-like appearance,
with a caramel brown color and a hard, football shaped
casing.
Adult Figure 6. Seedcorn maggot larvae feeding on a kernel of corn.

● Like the larva, the adult is ¼ inch in length and is similar to

a house fly in shape with a grey-brown color and red eyes. Management Considerations
● There are no effective rescue treatments available for
control of seedcorn maggot, making prevention and
minimizing risk critical.
● Insecticide seed treatments can provide effective
protection against seedcorn maggot in both corn and
soybeans.
» LumiGEN® premium seed treatment packages
available for Pioneer® brand corn provide above
average protection against seedcorn maggot.
» LumiGEN® premium seed treatments for Pioneer® brand
soybeans include two available insecticide modes of
action against seedcorn maggot.
● In-furrow insecticides may also be considered in fields
with a high risk of infestation.
Figure 5. Adult seedcorn maggot. ● Replanting is the only management option after damage
has occurred.
Scouting ● Replant decisions should consider the remaining stand,
● Scouting should be done in freshly planted fields from date, and potential yield.
emergence to early seedling stages. ● Cultural practices that may be helpful in reducing the
● Scouting should be prioritized on fields that are at higher severity of seedcorn maggot damage include:
risk of have a history of infestation. » Delay planting until the soil is warmer to promote rapid
● Seedcorn maggots are most prevalent in fields with high germination and emergence.
organic matter and decaying vegetation. Populations are » Higher seeding rates.
also generally higher following soybeans than following
» Earlier termination of cover crops.
corn.
» Wait two weeks following tillage or manure application
● Because infestation is likely to occur across the whole field,
to plant.
it is important to check multiple places when scouting.
» Avoid planting during peak fly emergence.
● If seedlings are damaged, check for the presence of
maggots by digging around plants and looking for larvae » Avoid planting before cool and wet periods.
or damage to the seed.

95
 return to table of contents

Fall vs. Spring Strip-Till

in Indiana
Lauren Schwarck, M.S., and Tony J. Vyn, Ph.D., Agronomy Department, Purdue University
● Soil samples were taken shortly after planting each year
Key Findings to measure levels of plant-available potassium.
● A five site-year field-scale experiment compared corn ● Whole-plant tissue samples were taken at V6 and ear
growth and yield between fall and spring strip-tillage. leaf samples at R1 to evaluate differences in potassium
● Whole-plant biomass at the V6 development stage concentration among treatments.
was greater with fall strip-till in four out of five site ● Research at the ACRE farm alternated between two
years. fields from 2016 to 2019; the study repeated following the
● Strip-till timing had little impact on corn yield, with fall soybean year with the treatment positions fixed for data
strip-till slightly outyielding spring strip-till in only one collection during corn years.
of the five site years. ● Research at the PPAC farm was conducted in one field in
2019.
Fall vs. Spring Strip-Till Results
● Whether to strip-till in the fall or the spring is an important ● Whole plant tissue samples taken at the V6 stage showed
consideration for farmers using strip-till systems, and the that the concentration of K was similar for all site years
best approach for a given farm can depend on a number between the two timings (data not shown) but fall strip-
of factors, including the type of strip-till machine being tillage frequently had more biomass compared to spring
used, the texture and erodibility of the soil, nutrients being strip-till (Figure 1).
applied and labor availability. ● Ear leaf K concentrations at R1 showed no consistent
● Fall strip-till can help avoid wet soil conditions more difference between fall and spring strip-till timings, with
common in the spring and allow the tilled soil to mellow fall strip-till higher in one site year, spring strip-till higher
over the winter, but it can increase the risk of erosion in the in one site year, and no significant difference in three site
strips during the winter and spring. years (Figure 2).
● Spring strip-till can provide a freshly aerated seedbed at ● Ear leaf K concentrations increased with Aspire™
planting and reduces soil erosion risk but can create clods potassium and boron fertilizer application (data not
and poor seed to soil contact if soils are wetter than ideal. shown).
Purdue University Research ● Corn yield showed little difference between fall and spring
strip-till (Figure 3), with a small but significant difference
● A five site-year field-scale experiment was conducted
detected in only one of the five site years. Fall strip-till
at the Agronomy Center for Research and Education
averaged 7 bu/acre more than spring strip-till in this site
(ACRE Farm) near West Lafayette, IN, and Pinney Purdue
year.
Agriculture Center (PPAC Farm) near Wanatah, IN, to
evaluate effects of strip-till timing on corn growth and 800
V6 Vegetative Biomass, lbs acre-1

Fall Strip Till

development. Spring Strip Till
● This research was led by Dr. Tony Vyn and Lauren 600 a
Schwarck of Purdue University and partially supported by
b
the Pioneer Crop Management Research Awards (CMRA)
400 a
Program. a b
b
Study Description
200 a
● Strip-tillage was done in either the spring or fall using an
b
Environmental Tillage Systems 6-row SoilWarrior coulter-
type strip-till unit. 0
ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE PPAC
● Potassium and boron fertilizer (Aspire®, 0-0-58-0.5B) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019
was banded in the strips at rates of 0, 58, or 116 lbs K2O/ Farm Year
acre, representing non-treated, half-rate, and full rate
Figure 1. Aboveground plant biomass at the V6 development stage
treatments, respectively.
for fall and spring strip-till, averaged across all K application rates.
Letters indicate a significant difference between fall and spring strip-
till (p<0.05).

96
 return to table of contents

3.0 300
Fall Strip Till Fall Strip Till
Spring Strip Till Spring Strip Till
2.5 250

Grain Yield, bu acre-1

R1 K Concentration, %

a b
2.0 200
a
a b 150
1.5
b
1.0 100

0.5 50

0
0.0 ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE PPAC
ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE PPAC
2016 2017 2018 2019 2019
2016 2017 2018 2019 2019
Farm Year
Farm Year
Figure 3. Corn grain yield for fall and spring strip-till, averaged
Figure 2. Ear leaf K concentration at the R1 development stage for
across all K application rates. Letters indicate a significant difference
fall and spring strip-till, averaged across all K application rates. The
between fall and spring strip-till (p<0.05).
orange line represents the critical K concentration recommended at
R1 by the Tri-State Fertilizer Recommendation Guide (1.9%) (Vitosh et
al., 1995). Letters indicate a significant difference between fall and
spring strip-till (p<0.05).

Discussion
● With little difference among strip-till timings both in-season and at harvest,
there was no apparent advantage to one timing over another when planting
dates were the same. However, it is well known that a potential benefit with fall
strip-tillage is that it enables earlier planting in spring on finer-textured soils.
● An important consideration from this Purdue research (and other strip-till timing
studies) is that tillage was performed in optimal conditions. Because optimal
conditions were achieved in both the fall and spring, there were no plant
population differences and only small growth differences due to strip-till timing.
● Whenever performing strip-till, it is essential to consider the soil condition
(moisture, residue, topography, etc.). The soil surface may seem as though the
soil is at the ideal moisture for tillage but digging down several inches may
reveal that the soil is too wet (Figure 4). If conditions are not conducive for
effective strip-till, farmers could potentially be causing damage that could limit
future corn growth and development.
● Wet soil conditions during strip-till will lead to clods, causing poor seed to soil
contact and smearing of sidewalls limiting root growth (Demander et al., 2013).
● Wet soil conditions are commonly prevalent in the spring, leading North Dakota
specialists to generally recommend fall strip-tillage, with spring strip-tillage only Figure 4. Excessive moisture conditions not
advised on coarse-textured soils with low organic matter (Nowatzki et al., 2017). ideal for tillage.

97
 return to table of contents

Effects of Potassium Fertilizer

Placement on Availability and Uptake
Lauren Schwarck, M.S., and Tony J. Vyn, Ph.D., Agronomy Department, Purdue University

● Four K placement and tillage systems were compared:

Key Findings 1. (NT) No-till with broadcast K
● A five site-year field-scale experiment evaluated 2. (FST) Fall strip-till with banded K
effects of potassium (K) fertilizer placement and tillage
3. (SST) Spring strip-till with banded K
on K availability and uptake, and corn yield.
4. (FC) Fall chisel + spring field cultivation with broadcast K
● Patterns of K stratification within the top 8 inches of the
● Tillage systems were compared with and without
soil profile differed among tillage systems.
application of potassium and boron fertilizer (Aspire®, 0-0-
● Plant K concentration tended to be higher at V6 when 58-0.5B) at a rate of 116 lbs K2O/acre.
fertilizer was incorporated with tillage, but no signif-
● Strip-tillage was done in either the spring or fall using an
icant differences were detected at the R1 stage or in
Environmental Tillage Systems 6-row SoilWarrior coulter-
grain.
type strip-till unit.
● Soil samples were taken shortly after planting each year
Advantage to Banded K in Strip-Till? to measure levels of plant-available potassium.
● Research has suggested a potential advantage to place- ● Whole-plant tissue samples were taken at V6 and ear
ment of potassium (K) fertilizer at depth in the soil rather leaf samples at R1 to evaluate differences in potassium
than applying to the surface in conventional broadcasting concentration among treatments.
(Bordoli and Mallarino, 1998; Mallarino et al., 1999).
Results
● This conceptual benefit is in response to the significant
stratification of plant-available K in the soil commonly ● Stratification of soil test K was evident in this experiment;
observed in conservation tillage systems. an example from one site year of the study is shown in
Figure 1.
● However, it is important to acknowledge the variability
in response to K placement due to subsequent soil ● The strategic incorporation of fertilizer into the crop row
conditions (precipitation, reduced tillage, etc.) following within the strip-till systems led to what appears to be
application as well as inherent soil test K levels (Randall more stratification compared to FC and NT because the
and Hoeft, 1988). latter had fertilizer spread across the surface (between-
row and in-row).
● Even when not banding, some researchers suggest that
incorporation of K fertilizers into a greater amount of soil ● The FC system had less evident stratification compared to
volume may benefit corn (Bell et al., 2017; Ebelhar and Varsa, NT due to mixing from tillage (Figure 1).
2000; Kovar and Barber, 1987; Randall and Hoeft, 1988).
Depth (inch)
Purdue University Research NT 0
b b a
0-2
Tillage and K2O Rate, lbs K2O acre-1

● A five site-year field-scale experiment was conducted b b a 2-4

NT 116 4-8
at the Agronomy Center for Research and Education
FST 0
(ACRE Farm) near West Lafayette, IN, and Pinney Purdue
b b a
Agriculture Center (PPAC Farm) near Wanatah, IN, to FST 116
evaluate effects of K fertilizer placement and tillage b ab a
SST 0
practices on K availability, uptake, and corn yield.
b ab a
● This research was led by Dr. Tony Vyn and Lauren SST 116
b ab a
Schwarck of Purdue University and partially supported by FC 0
the Pioneer Crop Management Research Awards (CMRA)
FC 116
Program.
Study Description 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

Plant Available K (ppm)

● Research at the ACRE farm alternated between two
fields from 2016 to 2019; the study repeated following the Figure 1. Example of K stratification in the soil profile. Concentration
of K decreased with soil depth, but degree of stratification differed
soybean year with treatment positions fixed for data
among tillage and K treatment systems. Letters indicate significant
collection during corn years. Research at the PPAC farm differences among the sampling depths at p<0.05.
was done in one field in 2019.

98
 return to table of contents

No-Till Fall Strip-Till Spring Strip-Till Fall Chisel

2 inches
4 inches

8 inches
Figure 2. Visual representation of differences in K stratification among tillage systems with 116 lbs K2O/acre applied based on data shown
in Figure 1. The fall chisel system had a more even distribution of K in the top 8 inches of soil than the no-till and strip-till systems. Banded
application in the strip-till systems greatly increased K concentration in the top 2 inches of soil in the row relative to broadcast application.

● Because of fertilizer placement in the crop row zones, FST Conclusions

and SST had the highest concentrations of K in the crop
● Stratification of K in the soil could limit K availability to
row. However, most of the increase in K concentration
corn during the growing season if near-surface moisture is
from fertilizer application was in the 0 to 2-inch depth,
scarce during periods of high plant K demand.
suggesting that coulter-based strip-till implements with
above-surface delivery tubes may have difficulty placing ● Ensuring adequate K availability to corn plant can benefit
fertilizer deeper than 2 inches. A visual representation of the plant by helping with water regulation, improved
the differences in K stratification and application zones tolerance to low temperatures (at the beginning of the
among tillage systems is shown in Figure 2. growing season), disease/pest tolerance (corn can
better avoid infection and tolerate higher levels of foliar
● Early season samples collected at the V6 stage showed
damage), and improved N use efficiency (corn plants can
differences among tillage systems in K content (Figure 3).
better utilize N with better K fertility).
● Corn in the NT treatment commonly had the lowest K
● More remains to be learned about how K nutrition can
content, with concentrations significantly lower than one
influence plant health in modern corn production systems
or more of the tillage treatments observed in four out of
and how farmers can maximize efficiency of K fertilizer
five site years.
applications.
● Although V6 K content tended to be higher when fertilizer
● The efficient use of K fertilizer is difficult to measure
was incorporated with tillage, no significant differences
because of the influence a K fertilizer application can
among tillage systems in K concentration were detected
have over multiple years and the inability to detect all the
with ear leaves at the R1 stage or in grain at maturity.
K present in the soil.

40
No-Till
V6 K2O Content, lbs K2O acre -1

35 Fall Strip-Till
Spring Strip-Till
30
Fall Chisel
25

20
a
ab a a
ab a ab
15
b a
b
10 a ab
b
ab
5 b b

0
ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE PPAC
2016 2017 2018 2019 2019
Farm Year
Figure 3. Average K20 content at V6 for the 116 lbs K2O/acre treatment within each tillage system. Letters represent significant differences among
tillage systems at p<0.05 within a farm year.

99
 return to table of contents

Can Potassium Fertilizer Rates

Be Reduced in Strip-Till?
Lauren Schwarck, M.S., and Tony J. Vyn, Ph.D., Agronomy Department, Purdue University

● Potassium and boron fertilizer (Aspire®, 0-0-58-0.5B)

Key Findings was banded in the strips at rates of 0, 58, or 116 lbs K2O/
● A field-scale experiment was conducted to evaluate acre, representing non-treated, half-rate, and full-rate
potassium (K) uptake and corn yield with banded treatments, respectively.
application in a strip-till system. ● Research alternated between two fields planted in a
● Tissue samples taken at the V6 stage showed differ- corn-soybean rotation, with one field in corn in 2016 and
ences in K concentration between full- and half-rates 2018 and the other in 2017 and 2019.
of K, but not until the second year of corn in the rota- ● Treatments were only imposed before corn in the corn-
tion. soybean rotation and applied in the same location
● Results suggest the possibility of longer-term negative in the fields during the corn years of the rotation. This
consequences if a reduced rate is maintained over methodology allowed responses to K rates to be observed
several years. for both first- and second-year corn.
● Whole-plant tissue samples were taken at V6 and ear
leaf samples at R1 to evaluate differences in potassium
Objectives concentration among treatments.
● The ability to band fertilizer into the tilled strip where most ● The distribution of plant-available K for each site-
corn roots are located has led some adopters of strip- year and the critical level based on the average
till to question if potassium (K) fertilizer rates could be cation exchange capacity (CEC) for the area currently
reduced. recommended in the Tri-State Fertilizer Recommendations
● Previous research has suggested rate can interact with (Vitosh et al., 1995) is shown in Figure 1. All study locations
placement; i.e., lower rates in a band generally have were close to meeting the recommended critical level
greater nutrient uptake efficiency than a higher rate based on the CEC; however, a majority of locations had
broadcast (Randall and Hoeft, 1988), but some research portions of the field area that were considered insufficient.
has not found rate differences in maize response to K
placement (Bordoli and Mallarino, 1998). 250
● There are concerns that reduced rates used over an
extended period of time may negatively impact grain
Plant Available K, ppm

200
yield and plant health.
Purdue University Research 150

● A four site-year, field-scale experiment was conducted at

100
the Agronomy Center for Research and Education (ACRE
Farm) near West Lafayette, IN, to evaluate K uptake and
corn yield with full and reduced rates of K fertilizer with 50

banded application in a strip-till system.

0
● This research was led by Dr. Tony Vyn and Lauren ACRE ACRE ACRE ACRE PPAC
Schwarck of Purdue University and partially supported by 2016 2017 2018 2019 2019
the Pioneer Crop Management Research Awards (CMRA) Farm Year
Program.
Figure 1. Distribution of plant available K (parts per million, or ppm) to
Study Description a depth of eight inches for each site year (minimum, maximum, and
average). Orange bars indicate critical values calculated using the
● Strip-tillage was done in either the spring or fall using an Tri-State Fertilizer Recommendation Guide based on the average
Environmental Tillage Systems 6-row SoilWarrior® coulter- CEC for the control plots.
type strip-till unit.

100
 return to table of contents

● Grain yield also did not show a significant difference 275

between the 58 and 116 lbs K2O/acre rates for either 250
field-year, but in the second year, 58 lbs K2O/acre did 225 a a
b a

Grain Yield (bu/acre)

not significantly differ from either the 0 or 116 lbs K2O/acre ab
200 b
(Figure 3). 175
● Results from this experiment suggest that, initially, there 150
may be few negative consequences (possibly lower initial 125
K concentration at the beginning of the growing season)
100
to cutting K fertilizer rates when utilizing strip-till in soils
75
that are already near the soil test K critical level.
50
● However, results also suggest the possibility of longer-term
25 lbs K2O/acre: 0 58 116
negative consequences if a reduced rate is maintained for
0
several years. 1 2
● Reducing fertilizer rates with strip-till incorporation (and Field Year
particularly at rates below actual crop removal) should Figure 3. Corn grain yield for the first and second year of corn in the
only be considered when soils are well above the critical rotation with zero, half, and full rates of K fertilizer. Letters indicate
levels and when soil and tissue K concentrations are significant differences in rate for strip-till (average of fall and spring)
treatments within a specific field year at p<0.05.
monitored closely to prevent considerable mining of
exchangeable soil K supplies.
Conclusions
5.0 ● Strip-till is growing in adoption across the Midwest, and
4.5 research to identify optimal management using strip-till is
ongoing.
V6 K Concentration (%)

4.0
3.5 ● As with any tillage operation, strip-till needs to be
a completed under the correct soil conditions to prevent
3.0 a short- and possibly long-term damage to soil structure.
2.5 b
ab ● Reduction of K fertilizer rates when utilizing strip-till
2.0 b c showed signs of reducing early-season uptake but did not
1.5 negatively affect grain yield in the short term.
1.0 ● However, repeated use of that practice, especially at
0.5 lbs K2O/acre: 0 58 116 rates well below crop removal (for a rotation cycle) on
moderate K testing soils, may still be negative.
0.0
1 2
Field Year ● More research is needed to better understand the long-
term impacts of fertilizer rate reduction with placement in
Figure 2. Average concentration of K in whole-plant tissue samples the intended crop row.
taken at V6 in the first and second year of corn in the rotation with
zero, half and full rates of K fertilizer. Letters indicate significant
differences in rate for strip-till (average of fall and spring) treatments
within a specific field year at p<0.05.

101
 return to table of contents

Factors Affecting
Soybean Nodulation
Dan Berning, Agronomy Manager

Key Points
● The process of nodulation requires that the bacteria,
Bradyrhizobium japonicum, and the soybean form a ● Oxygen-limiting environments, like fully saturated soils, can
mutually beneficial or “symbiotic” partnership. reduce rhizobia activity. The bacteria are living organisms
● Rhizobia growth, health, and activity depend on the and require ample oxygen to be active.
initial population of bacteria and soil conditions that ● Soil pH can also affect the nitrogen production and health
can favor or hinder their development of the bacteria, as it does the soybeans. Soil pH < 5.6 or
● Reduced nodulation can lead to nitrogen deficiency >8.0 creates a difficult environment for the bacteria to
symptoms in soybeans if residual nitrogen is not avail- function efficiently.
able. ● Survival in soils with low organic matter can be reduced
due to insufficient food sources for the bacteria to live on
until they adhere to the developing root hairs.
● Activity and health of bacteria can deteriorate in storage
as well. Be sure the rhizobia inoculant and treated seed is
stored in a cool, dry area, preferably below 77°F (25°C), to
avoid heat or water damage.
Figure 1. Healthy
● Nitrogen fixation is sensitive to soil drying. Dry conditions
nodules on
soybean root. can lead to excess sodium in the root zone, restricting
water availability to the bacteria. Use caution when
applying talc seed amendments that can dry seed as well
as the bacteria in the inoculant.
● Soil temperatures in the range of 40-80°F (4-27°C) are
optimum for survival of rhizobia bacteria.
Biology of Soybean Nodulation ● Some fertilizers applied with the seed or in-furrow can be
toxic to the rhizobia bacteria.
● Soybean nodulation is initiated in the early vegetative
stages, within 2-4 weeks of germination, and usually ● Nitrogen availability in the soil will also reduce the
begins Nitrogen fixation around V2. soybean-to-bacteria relationship. The plant may not
initially need the bacteria due to excess residual nitrogen
● The process of nodulation requires that the bacteria,
in the soil. In such cases the soybean plant will not
Bradyrhizobium japonicum, and the soybean form a
recognize the bacteria chemical reaction, and thus will
mutually beneficial or “symbiotic” partnership.
not initiate nodular tissue formation.
● The bacteria adhere to the roots and create a chemical
bond, forming root tissue (nodules) around the bacteria.
● The bacteria reside in these root nodules, where they use
a nitrogenase enzyme to convert atmospheric nitrogen
(N2) to ammonium (NH4+), a form of nitrogen available to
the plant. The plant provides photosynthates or sugars to
feed the bacteria in return.
● For this relationship to develop, rhizobia bacteria must be
present in the root initiation area.
Factors That Affect Rhizobia Health
Rhizobia growth, health, and activity depend on the initial
population of bacteria and soil conditions that can favor or
hinder their development. Several factors can reduce activity Figure 2. Soybean field not previously planted to soybeans. Dark
of these bacteria: green strips were inoculated with rhizobia.

102
 return to table of contents

Symptoms of Reduced Nodulation ● Herbicide applications can yellow leaves and, in some
Reduced nodulation can lead to nitrogen deficiency symp- cases, stunt plants.
toms in soybeans if residual nitrogen is not available. ● General environmental factors such as drought,
compaction, soil pH conditions, and excessive rainfall may
● Yellow and stunted soybeans will be evident in those
lead to yellowing.
situations.
● The areas of yellowing may vary based on the soil Management Information
conditions and issues noted on the previous page. ● Check first year soybean fields for nodulation around V2 to
● Soybean fields with excessive moisture early in the season V3. Adequate nodulation is 7 to 14 nodules per plant.
may have more extensive yellowing. ● If less than five nodules are present, wait about a week
● Soil compaction limits rooting and root hair development. and take another assessment.
Chemical signals from the roots that invite the bacteria to ● The number of nodules formed on the roots along with the
colonize can be reduced with limited rooting. amount of nitrogen fixed continues to increase until the R5
stage of crop development.
● Nodules that are fixing nitrogen are pink or red inside.
Green, brown, or white indicates that little or no fixation is
occurring.
● If the number and quality of the nodules is not sufficient,
supplemental N can be applied.
● Applications of a nitrogen source at less than 44 pounds
of actual N per acre can be made.
● Avoid 28% solution as a broadcast application.
● Follow best management practices if using urea-type
products; apply at early flowering, when foliage is dry.
● Leaf burn or “shot-holes” from the applications may occur.
● Higher rates of N can be applied but are usually not
profitable.

Figure 3. Field not previously planted to soybeans shows symptoms

of nitrogen deficiency.

Other Field-Specific Issues May Lead to Yellowing

Yellowing is not always due to reduced nodulation. Other
possible causes of soybean yellowing include:
● Soybean cyst nematode activity will lead to yellow,
stunted soybeans.
● Other nutrient deficiencies may appear similar to nitrogen
deficiency. Iron chlorosis due to high soil pH may be able
to be corrected using an EDDHA iron chelate in-furrow or
foliar treatment. Figure 4. Field areas show N deficiency due to poor nodulation.

103
 return to table of contents

Early Season Soybean

Pests and Diseases
Laura Sharpe, Agronomy Information Consultant

Key Points
● Pests like seed corn maggot, wireworms and white grub,
as well as diseases like Pythium and Phytophthora, can
reduce soybean stands early in the season.
● Cover crops or heavy crop residue keep soils cooler
and can delay emergence, which can increase the
vulnerability of seeds and seedlings to pests.
● LumiGEN® seed treatments provide advanced protec-
tion against pests, disease and uncertain soil condi-
tions during the critical early growth period.

Early Season Insect Pests in Soybeans

White Grub Figure 1. Soybean field showing stand reduction due to Fusarium root
● Often found in lighter rot.
textured soils, or near lawns,
Early Season Diseases in Soybeans
golf courses, and pasture/
hay fields. ● Damping off – the rotting and death of seeds and
seedlings – can affect soybean plants prior to or just after
● White grubs are white in
emergence.
color with brownish red
heads and will curl up in a ● Pathogens that can cause damping off, such as Pythium,
C shape. They feed on root Fusarium, Phytophthora, and Rhizoctonia, are generally
hairs causing stunted, low- favored by wet soils following planting.
vigor plants. Fusarium
Seed corn maggot ● Infection is caused by a complex of different species that
● Potentially problematic prefer different conditions; some prefer warm and dry soils,
in early-planted fields or while others prefer cool and wet soils.
in cool wet periods when ● Some species attack corn, wheat and other host plants.
germination is delayed. More ● Causes light- to dark-brown lesions on soybean roots that
prevalent in manured fields. may spread over much of the root system.
● Maggots are cream or tan in ● May attack the taproot and promote adventitious root
color, headless and legless growth near the soil surface, and may also degrade
and feed on germinating lateral roots, but usually does not cause seed rot.
soybean seeds or seedlings.
Pythium
Wireworm
● Prefers cold soil temperatures of <59°F (15°C); may be the
● Often found in well-manured first soybean disease found in a growing season.
fields or fields with sod in the
● High-residue fields and heavy or compacted soils are at
rotation.
higher risk because of cooler, wetter conditions.
● Pale yellow to reddish brown
● Pathogen may attack seeds before or after germination;
in color, shiny, slender and
seeds killed before germination are soft and rotted with
about an inch long. They
soil adhering to them.
bore into the germinating
seed or into the base of ● Plants may be killed by “damping off” before or after
the seedling plant, killing or emergence. On infected plants, the hypocotyl becomes
weakening it. narrow and is commonly “pinched off” by the disease.

104
 return to table of contents

Influence of Cover Crops and Tillage

● Cover crops can potentially host insect pest species that
may damage the subsequent crop. Insect pests that
can be associated with cover crops include Japanese
beetle, bean leaf beetle, stink bugs, true armyworm, black
cutworm, seed corn maggot, and wireworms.
● Reduced tillage and or excess residue on the soil surface
can cause soils to be cooler and wetter which slows crop
emergence leaving it vulnerable to early season pests.
● Seed treatments are especially important in this kind
of seedbed environment to protect seedlings and help
ensure that stands are sufficient for highest yields.
Figure 2. Soybean seedlings with Figure 3. Symptoms of
damping off symptoms due to Rhizoctonia root rot. Note the Protecting Your Soybean Stand
Pythium seedling blight. red discoloration.
Variety Selection
Rhizoctonia Root and Stem Rot ● Choose varieties with genetic resistance to Phytophthora
● More common in wet soils or moderately wet soils where root and stem rot and strong field tolerance ratings. This
germination is slow, or emergence is delayed. information is available in your seed guide and from your
local Sales Representative.
● Infection is characterized by a shrunken, reddish-brown
lesion on the hypocotyl at or near the soil line. Seed Treatments
● Normally appears as the weather becomes warm, around ● LumiGEN® seed treatments provide advanced protection
81°F (27°C); more often seen in late-planted soybean fields. against pests, disease and uncertain soil conditions during
the critical early growth period.
● Causes loss of seedlings (damping-off) in small patches or
within rows; is usually restricted to the seedling stage. ● Lumisena® fungicide seed treatment provides best-in-
class protection against Phytophthora, the number one
Phytophthora Root and Stem Rot
soybean disease.
● Associated with wet soil conditions, commonly occurs on
● Lumiderm® insecticide seed treatment contains a novel
heavy, poorly drained or compacted soils.
Group 28 insecticide mode of action that protects
● The seedling blight phase occurs at emergence or soon soybean seedlings against several insect pests.
after and is characterized by rapid decay, wilting, and
plant death. Directed Scouting from Granular
● The root and stem rot phase can occur later in develop- ● Scouting soybean fields for early season pests and
ment. Symptoms begin in the roots and may spread to the disease is easier using Granular Insights Directed
stem. Scouting.
● Dark-brown to red-brown lesions that may progress up the ● The figure to the
stem are a key diagnostic feature of the stem rot phase. right shows a field
vegetation index
● Diseased tissues quickly become soft and water-soaked,
map in the Granular
and wilting and plant death may soon follow, especially
Insights app. The
during stress periods.
blue/green are areas
of the field that are
good, whereas the
yellow indicates
that some scouting
is necessary to
determine what
is hampering the
growth in those
areas.
● Soybean growers
can use this app to
walk to these areas
of the field, then
take photos or notes
Figure 4. Soybean plants wilting due to Phytophthora root and stem about the area.
rot.

105
 return to table of contents

Soybean Cyst Nematode

Populations Across the Midwest
Mary Gumz, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Key Findings
● Potentially damaging levels of soybean cyst nematode
were found in soybean fields in several Midwestern
states.
● 27% of fields sampled had SCN population levels capa-
ble of causing heavy to severe crop damage.
● Farmers can reduce the risk of soybean cyst nema-
tode damage by planting resistant varieties, rotating
between PI 88788 and Peking resistance sources and
using a nematode protectant seed treatment such as
ILEVO®.

Study Description
Strips of SCN-resistant and non-resistant soybean varieties in a
● 439 soybean fields in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Indiana, SCN-infested field showing damage to the non-resistant varieties.
Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Ohio were
sampled to determine soybean cyst nematode (SCN) ● Potential for SCN damage describes the likely damage
pressure in 2021. to a SCN-susceptible soybean variety with no SCN
● Sampling was concentrated in a total of 55 sampling management taken and is based primarily on the number
areas (shown in Figure 1), with samples collected from of eggs per 100 cc of soil. Some samples with very high
multiple soybean fields within each sampling area. adult or larva counts may be rated as a higher potential
damage class than they would have been if based on
● Soybean fields were sampled during the growing season
egg counts alone.
at a depth of approximately 6 inches. Subsamples from
across the field were blended into a composite soil sample
and submitted to a nematode testing laboratory. Results
● Samples were analyzed using a sugar-flotation method ● SCN infestations were found throughout the study area,
and sieved through a 120-mesh sieve for adult cysts and a with over 80% of fields sampled having some level of SCN
500-mesh sieve for cyst larva not yet in the root system. infestation (Figure 2).

19% 19%

8% 8%

17%
28%

None Minimal Slight Moderate Heavy Severe

Figure 1. Sampling areas for SCN populations in 2021. Multiple fields Figure 2. Soybean cyst nematode pressure levels across all 439
were sampled in the vicinity of each point shown on the map. soybean fields sampled in 2021.

106
 return to table of contents

Table 1. Number of sampling areas and total fields sampled for each state, and sampling results showing the percent of SCN samples in each
of six potential crop damage categories.

% of Samples Categorized in Each Potential Damage Category

Sampling Fields
State
Areas Sampled None Minimal Slight Moderate Heavy Severe

IA 15 121 22 7 31 23 1 15

MN 13 96 17 8 31 16 11 17

MO 2 93 19 6 23 17 5 29

IN 8 87 11 8 28 15 15 23

IL 13 22 19 14 24 10 19 14

MI 1 6 17 0 17 0 50 17

WI 1 6 50 33 17 0 0 0

KS 1 5 60 0 40 0 0 0

OH 1 3 100 0 0 0 0 0

● 27% of fields sampled had SCN population levels capable SCN Management Recommendations
of causing heavy to severe crop damage (Figure 2).
● Test soybean fields for SCN.
● All areas sampled in this study were within the known
● If no infestation is found, use good management practices
geographic range of SCN in the U.S. (Tylka and Marett,
and rotate a combination of resistant or susceptible
2021).
varieties in the field.
» Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Indiana, and Illinois were
● If SCN is found:
the most extensively sampled states in the study. The
percentage of fields with heavy to severe SCN pressure » Plant SCN resistant soybeans. Rotate between
in these states ranged from 16% to 38% (Table 1). varieties with PI 88788 resistance and Peking source
resistance.
» Wisconsin, Kansas, and Ohio had no fields with more
than a slight potential for SCN damage but had a very » Consider using a nematode protectant seed treatment
small number of fields sampled. Conversely, Michigan such as ILEVO® seed treatment. The LumiGEN® seed
had a high percent of fields with heavy to severe treatment offering includes ILEVO® seed treatment,
SCN pressure, but also had a very limited number of which has activity against SCN. A Pioneer study
samples (Table 1). including 193 on-farm trial locations found an average
yield response of 4.9 bu/acre in high SCN fields when
ILEVO fungicide/nematicide seed treatment was
added to the standard fungicide and insecticide seed
treatment package (O’Bryan and Burnison, 2016)8.
» Rotate to non-host crops such as corn.
» Control alternate weed hosts such as henbit, purple
deadnettle, field pennycress, shepherd’s purse, small-
flowered bittercress and common chickweed.

SCN on soybean roots.

107
 return to table of contents

Red Crown Rot in Soybeans

Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Key Points
● Red crown rot is a fungal disease of soybeans that has
been common in the southern U.S. for years but is now
spreading in the Midwest.
● Red crown rot causes deterioration of the stem and
roots and premature senescence and can result in
significant reductions in yield.
● Later planting in infested fields, improved soil drainage,
and management of root-feeding insects and nema-
todes can help reduce the impact of red crown rot.

New To The Midwest, But Not New

● Red crown rot is a fungal disease of soybeans caused by
the soilborne pathogen Calonectria ilicicola (anamorph:
Cylindrocladium parasiticum) and characterized by fungal
structures on the stem and root that give it a reddish
appearance (Figure 1).
● Red crown rot is a new disease of soybeans in the
Midwestern U.S., having first been detected in Pike County,
Illinois, in 2017 (Kleczewski, 2020).
● In the years since its initial detection, red crown rot has
spread through central Illinois and into Kentucky (Bradley,
2021).
● C. ilicicola was first identified in 1950 and has been a
pathogen of soybeans in the southern U.S. since the 1970s Figure 2. Foliar symptoms of red crown rot – interveinal chlorosis
and in Japan since the 1960s. and necrosis – are indistinguishable from those caused by SDS, so
inspection of the stem and crown is necessary to determine the
● C. ilicicola has a broad host range and is a disease causal pathogen.
in several other crops, including peanut, ginger, and
blueberry. Red crown rot is common in areas of the south Infection and Spread in Soybeans
and southeast where soybeans are grown in rotation with
● C. ilicicola is soilborne and causes deterioration of the root
peanuts.
and stem in soybeans.
● Infection is favored by wet conditions following planting
and will often show up in low-lying and poorly drained
areas of a field.
● Disease progression is favored by warm, wet conditions
during the growing season.
● Warm soil temperatures between approximately 77°F and
86°F favor disease development, with infection decreasing
when soil temperatures exceed 86°F.
● Secondary spread during the growing season can be
caused by the ejection of mature ascospores from the
perithecia on the stem, which are distributed by splashing
and runoff from rainfall.
● Later in the season, the fungus can produce a toxin that
accumulates in the leaves, causing interveinal chlorosis
followed by necrosis (Figure 2).
Figure 1. The key identifying characteristic of red crown rot in
soybean is the presence of tiny red balls on the crown and stem
near the soil line.

108
 return to table of contents

● Under wet conditions, the perithecia can extend above

the soil line on the lower stem.
● Other factors can cause a reddish coloration of the lower
stem, so it is important to look closely to confirm the
presence of fungal tissues.
● White fungal hyphae can also appear on infected tissue.
● The pith in the crown of an infected plant may have a
gray discoloration.
● Plants with severely rotted roots can be easily pulled
from the soil. Diseased plants may have more than one
pathogen present.
Management Considerations
● Yield losses of 25% to 30% have been documented for
red crown rot infections in soybeans in Louisiana and
Mississippi, where the disease has been present for years.
● Severely infected areas can be significantly impacted;
however, red crown rot usually only affects patches within
a field.
● Management options for red crown rot are limited and
no rescue treatments are available to mitigate plant
damage and yield impact once infection has been
detected.
● Delaying soybean planting in fields known to be infested
Figure 3. Soybean plant with senesced leaves caused by red crown with C. ilicicola can help reduce the severity of infection.
rot infection. ● Management of pathogenic nematodes can help reduce
the severity of red crown rot. Nematode damage to the
● Severely affected plants will senesce prematurely, with the roots can create access points for infection by soilborne
leaves staying attached to the plant (Figure 3). pathogens.
● C. ilicicola overwinters in soils as microsclerotia, which can ● Crop rotation into a non-host crop can help reduce
survive for several years without the presence of a host inoculum load in the soil.
crop.
● Microsclerotia are spread by the movement of plant
debris and infested soil particles, which can be carried
by wind or transported between fields by equipment or
livestock.
Symptoms and Identification
● Red crown rot infection is often detected after the R3
stage with the appearance of yellowing on the leaves,
although root and stem rot can occur without producing
foliar symptoms.
● Foliar symptoms can be very similar to those of other
common soybean disease such as sudden death
syndrome, brown stem rot, and southern stem canker,
so inspection of the stems and roots is necessary to
determine the causal pathogen.
● Foliar symptoms typically do not appear uniformly across
a field, often showing up as single plants or small patches
of infected plants randomly throughout the field.
● The key distinguishing characteristic of red crown rot is the
presence of perithecia on the crown and roots just below
the soil line, which look like tiny red balls and will give the Figure 4. Perithecia on a soybean plant with red crown rot.
crown a reddish coloration.

109
 return to table of contents

Two-Spotted
Spider Mites in Soybeans
Jim Boersma, Product Agronomist, and Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Nymphs are young eight-legged mites that resemble full-size

Key Points adults but do not yet have reproduction capability. Adults
● Two-spotted spider mites are a pest of soybeans that are very small at only 1/60 (female) to 1/80 (male) inch in size
show up during extended periods of drought. when fully developed, with females laying an average of 50
to 100 eggs during their lifetime.
● Spider mites damage soybeans by piercing plant
leaves and feeding on the plant juices. The entire life cycle of this pest can be completed within 5
to 14 days, depending on environmental conditions. Fastest
● There are no established economic thresholds for
reproduction occurs when temperatures are over 85°F (29°C)
two-spotted spider mites.
and weather conditions are dry. During heavy outbreak
● Effective chemical control of spider mites is challenging years, all stages of mites may be present in the field at one
due to the limited efficacy of treatments, short residual time. Two-spotted spider mites have the potential for up to 10
period, and detrimental effect on natural predators. generations per year during the growing season.

Spider Mites – A Problem in Drought Years

Two-spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae) is a pest
of soybeans that proliferates during extended periods of
drought. Drought conditions accelerate spider mite movement
and reproduction and inhibit fungal pathogens that normally
help keep spider mite populations in check. Economically
damaging outbreaks of spider mites are relatively rare, but
populations can grow rapidly when conditions are favorable.

Figure 2. Soybean leaves showing spider mite feeding symptoms.

Spider Mite Damage to Soybeans

Two-spotted spider mites damage crops by piercing plant
leaves and feeding on the plant juices with their mouth parts.
Mites suck on the bottom sides of soybean leaves and remove
moisture and nutrient contents from plant cells, resulting in a
Figure 1. Two-spotted spider mite adult. yellow or whitish spotting on the top side of the leaf surface.
In heavy infestations, a common visual symptom of spider
Two-Spotted Spider Mite Life Cycle
mite feeding is leaf burning and stippling.
Two-spotted spider mites have four stages of development:
Hot spots will typically be noticed first on field margins, as
egg, larva, nymph and adult. Spider mites overwinter as
infested plants take on a wilted appearance. Drought-prone
adults in field edges and roadsides bordering fields, feeding
fields or field areas that contain lighter soils or sands are often
on weeds until spring. After early spring mating, female spider
affected first by spider mites. As populations increase, spider
mites lay eggs on weeds that usually hatch to the larval
mites will move out across the entire field if left unchecked.
stage in three to five days. Unlike most damaging insects
Fields heavily infested by mites can cause premature leaf
in soybeans, spider mites do little feeding during the larval
drop and significant reductions in yield.
stage of development.

110
 return to table of contents

Populations of spider mites increase significantly during 20% to 50% of the leaves are discolored before pod set. After
extended hot, dry conditions. This is due to a reduction in pod set has begun, the suggested treatment threshold is 10%
predators and naturally occurring pathogenic fungi that to 15% of the leaves discolored.
keep populations at non-economic levels in normal years. Consideration for treatment of two-spotted spider mite
should take several factors into account:
● Are there other insect pests present that cause economic
injury (such as soybean aphids, bean leaf beetles, and
grasshoppers)?
● What are the weather trends? If heavy rains and
moderating temperatures occur, mite populations may be
reduced or contained in the short term.
● Are there thrips, pirate bugs, mite destroyer beetles, and/
or naturally occurring fungi in the field? Under proper
conditions these beneficials can significantly reduce or
limit populations of two-spotted spider mites.
● Is the outbreak confined to field edges or borders? If
mite outbreaks are caught on outside field edges before
they have a chance to move across the entire field, spot
treatments or treating field margins might head off the
Figure 3. Spider mite eggs on underside of soybean leaf. Spider need for whole field treatments. If scouting reveals that
mite infestations are more common under hot, dry, drought stressed
mites have spread across the field, then whole field
conditions.
protection will be necessary.
Spider Mite Scouting and Economic Thresholds If hot and dry weather persists, spider mites will continue to
Look on the undersides of affected soybean plants and build, and it will be important to control them. Field scouting
leaves for mites, eggs and webbing in the lower canopy. Mites is necessary for detection of early outbreaks and for effective
are almost impossible to see with the naked eye, so doing a early treatments and control.
simple “paper test” is a quick and easy way to confirm their
Treatment and Control
presence. Shaking the plant onto a white piece of paper
should allow you to see the tiny orange- to yellow-colored Chemical control of spider mites is challenging. While some
mites slowly moving on the paper. pyrethroid products may suppress activity of spider mite,
nearly all the synthetic pyrethroid products have a detrimental
There is currently limited information regarding potential
effect on spider mite predators. The lack of full control by
economic threshold for two-spotted spider mite infestations
pyrethroids allows mite numbers to increase unchecked or
in soybeans, which makes treatment decisions challenging.
“flare up” when conditions are favorable.
Some extension sources suggest treating for spider mites if
Spider mites, like other soybean insects, are found on the
undersides of soybean leaves. For optimal control of spider
mite populations, use high pressure and a high volume of
carrier to achieve thorough coverage and penetration of
the crop canopy. Using higher pressures, (40 to 60 psi) and
increased carrier volume (15 to 25 gpa) will improve overall
performance.
Unfortunately, residual control of most treatments is short-
lived, and applications will only control adults and nymphs.
Treated fields need to be re-scouted five to ten days following
application. It is possible that a second application might be
necessary to pick up any newly hatched spider mites, so be
sure to scout treated fields about a week after application.
Conditions can change quickly depending on environmental
conditions. Heavy rainfall, or changes in temperature,
humidity or crop conditions may warrant a re-evaluation of
Figure 4. Soybean leaves showing spider mite feeding symptoms. mite populations before treatments are made.

111
 return to table of contents

Effects of Cold Temperatures

Following Soybean Planting
Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager, Adam Gaspar, Ph.D., Global Biology Leader - Seed Applied Technologies,
and Ryan Van Roekel, Ph.D., Pioneer Field Agronomist

Key Points
● Imbibitional chilling injury can occur when cold water is
imbibed by the seed within 24 hours of planting.
● Emerged soybeans are more susceptible to damage
from freezing temperatures than corn because their
growing points are above the soil surface.
● The use of a fungicide seed treatment is important
in early-planted soybean when development can be
delayed by poor conditions.

Benefits and Risks of Early Planting

● Trends toward larger farms and planting equipment size Soil Temperature
along with the availability of effective seed treatments ● Like corn, soybeans are typically planted into soils well
and proven yield benefits have prompted a shift toward below their optimum temperature for germination, making
earlier planting of soybeans. early growth conditions inherently stressful. The optimum
● Several Pioneer agronomy research studies have shown temperature for soybean germination is around 70°F (21°C).
the benefits of early planting with a full-season soybean ● A minimum soil temperature of 50°F (10°C) during
variety for maximizing soybean yield. the 24 hours following planting is recommended. At
● Early planted soybeans generally reach canopy closure soil temperatures below 50°F (10°C), the risk of slow
sooner, intercept more sunlight, and spend a longer germination, infection of seedling diseases, and reduced
duration in reproductive growth. stand establishment increases.
● However, it is possible to plant too early every year, and ● Soybeans typically require between 90 and 130 GDUs to
several management factors as well as risks associated emerge, depending upon soil type.
with early planting must be considered. ● The GDU requirement of soybean is similar to corn with
● Cold and wet conditions at and after planting can injure a base temperature of 50°F (10°C). Thus, planting ahead
developing seedlings; delay germination and emergence; of a cold spell often does not result in accumulation of
and reduce stand establishment. additional GDUs or gain any early growth.
Imbibitional Chilling Injury
● The initial uptake of water into the seed following planting
is referred to as the imbibitional phase. A soybean seed
imbibes approximately 50% of its weight in water during
germination.
● The imbibitional phase occurs very rapidly after planting,
typically not lasting more than 24 hours.
● Imbibitional chilling injury and stand loss can occur when
very cold soil water (<40°F, 4°C) is imbibed by the seed
during this time. A damaged seed coat can increase the
likelihood of imbibitional chilling injury. Care should be
taken when handling/treating seed.
● Once the imbibitional phase is completed, the risk of
chilling injury associated with cold soil temperature or rain
Figure 1. Pioneer® brand soybean varieties are rated for field
emergence, which is based on speed and strength of emergence in declines.
suboptimal temperatures.

112
 return to table of contents

Risk of Freezing Injury ● Pythium is favored by cold and wet soils. In fields where
the disease is present, infection is likely when soils are cold
● Emerged soybeans are more susceptible to damage from
and heavy rains occur soon after planting.
freezing temperatures than corn because their growing
points are above the soil surface as soon as the plants ● Cold, wet conditions early in the growing season can also
emerge. result in higher incidence of sudden death syndrome (SDS).
● Temperatures below 32°F (0°C) can cause frost damage ● SDS is caused by a virulent strain of the common soil-
to emerged soybean plants, while temperatures below inhabiting fungus Fusarium virguliforme, which infects
28°F (-2°C) for an extended period of time (>4 hrs) can be soybean plants very early in the growing season, often as
lethal, especially on lighter-textured soils. early as germination to just after crop emergence.
● Heavier-textured soil can better store and release ● The use of resistant soybean varieties and ILeVO®
previously accumulated heat near the soil surface fungicide seed treatment (active ingredient: fluopyram)
when air temperatures drop, helping to protect recently provides protection of seedlings against Fusarium
emerged soybean plants. virguliforme infection and can reduce the incidence of SDS
● High levels of residue on the soil surface can increase the in early planted soybean.
risk of freezing injury by reducing the transfer of heat from
the soil to the plants.
● A soybean plant at the cotyledon stage has three
growing points – the main shoot and two axillary buds at
the base of the cotyledons. Recovery from freezing injury
is possible as long as at least one of these buds survives.
● Soybean seedlings that have just cracked the soil surface
will be more tolerant to freezing temperatures than plants
at the cotyledon or unifoliate stages.
● The cotyledons are full of solutes, which makes them
good buffers to protect the three potential growing points
between them, and causes them to be more resistant to
injury.
● Freezing damage that extends below the cotyledons will Figure 3. Soybean seedlings with damping-off symptoms due
result in the death of the plant. to Pythium seedling blight, a soil-borne fungal pathogen that is
favored by wet soil conditions and cool temperatures just after
planting. Damping-off occurs when germinating seedlings are
infected prior to or just after emergence. Diseased seedlings
collapse when the infection girdles the hypocotyl.

Management Considerations
● Early soybean planting is a consistently proven manage-
ment practice for high-yield soybean production.
● Imbibitional chilling injury can occur when very cold soil
water is imbibed by the seed within 24 hrs after planting.
However, if the soil is fit, soil temperatures are near 50°F
(10°C), and the weather forecast for the next 24 to 48
hours is favorable, soybean planting should begin.
● Predicting a frost event 10 or more days after planting
when soybeans are beginning to emerge is a difficult task.
Figure 2. Just-emerged soybean plants damaged by frost. The Many factors affect the potential for freezing injury to
cotyledons are still green and look healthy, but the region of the emerged soybean plants – growth stage; air temperature
hypocotyl just below the cotyledonary node is turning brown and is and duration; soil temperature; soil texture; residue; and
becoming soft and shrunken.
field topography.
If temperatures drop below freezing after soybeans have
Disease Risk ●

emerged, allow approximately five days before assessing

● Cold, wet soils following planting increase the risk of seed any potential stand loss and replant considerations.
rots and seedling blights in soybeans.
● Planting soybean seed treated with a fungicide seed
● The use of a fungicide seed treatment is important in early treatment can help protect against elevated disease
planted soybean when development can be delayed by risks associated with early planting, particularly when
poor conditions. development is delayed by poor conditions.

113
 return to table of contents

Sudden Death Syndrome

of Soybeans
Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Disease Facts
Fusarium virguliforme Disease Cycle
● Fungal disease caused by Fusarium virguliforme.
● Fungus survives in crop debris and as mycelia in the
● Has spread to most soybean-growing states and Ontario,
soil.
Canada.
» Survives best in wet areas such as poorly drained or
● Continues to spread to new fields and larger areas of
compacted field areas.
infected fields.
● Fungus enters roots early in the growing season.
● Ranked second only to soybean cyst nematode (SCN) in
damage to soybean crop. » Infection may be facilitated by wounds from SCN,
insects or mechanical injury.
● Fungus colonizes only crown and roots of the plant.
● Fungus colonizes the root system.
● Above-ground symptoms are caused by a toxin produced
by the fungus and translocated throughout the plant. ● Fungus overwinters in diseased soybean residue.

● Severity varies from area to area and field to field.

Impact on Crop
● Soybean seed yield is reduced as:
» Plants lose leaf area and leaves drop prematurely.
» Roots deteriorate, reducing water/nutrient uptake.
» Flowers and pods abort, resulting in fewer pods and
seeds.
» Seeds may be smaller, and late-forming pods may not
fill or mature.
Root Symptoms
● A blue coloration may be found on the outer surface of
taproots due to the large number of spores produced.
● These fungal colonies may not appear if the soil is too dry
or too wet.

Figure 1. Soybean leaf showing classic symptoms of sudden death

syndrome infection, with yellow and brown areas contrasted against
a green midvein and green lateral veins.

Conditions Favoring Disease Development

● Cool, moist conditions early in the growing season often
result in higher disease incidence.
Blue Blue
● Favorable disease conditions may result from early mold mold
planting, high rainfall and/or low-lying, poorly drained or
compacted field areas.
● If SCN is also a problem in the field, disease may be more
severe.
● Infection occurs early in the season, but symptoms usually
do not appear until mid-summer.
● Appearance of symptoms often associated with weather
patterns of cooler temperatures and high rainfall during Figure 2. Root and stem of soybean plants with blue Fusarium
flowering or pod-fill. virguliforme fungal colonies present at soil surface line.

114
 return to table of contents

● Splitting the root reveals cortical cells have turned a milky

gray-brown color while the inner core, or pith, remains
white.
● General discoloration of the outer cortex can extend
several nodes into the stem, but its pith also remains white.

Stem of plant with SDS

Figure 5. Soybean leaf showing symptoms of sudden death

syndrome infection. Drying of necrotic areas can cause curling of
affected leaves.

Management
Stem of uninfected plant
Use a combination of practices:

Figure 3. Split soybean stem on top shows stem symptoms of

● Select SDS-resistant varieties.
sudden death syndrome infection. Split stem on bottom is healthy. » Pioneer has developed elite soybean varieties with
improved SDS resistance.
Leaf and Plant Symptoms » Soybean breeders have selected for genetic resistance
● Leaf symptoms first appear as yellow spots (usually on the in multiple environments with high levels of natural SDS
upper leaves) in a mosaic pattern. infection.
● Yellow spots coalesce to form chlorotic blotches between » Pioneer rates its varieties and makes ratings available
the leaf veins. to customers.
● As chlorotic areas die, leaves show yellow and brown » Ratings range from 4 to 8 (9 = resistant), indicating very
areas contrasted against green veins. good resistance is available in elite soybean varieties.
● Affected leaves twist and curl and fall from plants » Your Pioneer representative can help you select
prematurely. suitable varieties.
● Flowers and pods abort, and seeds are smaller. ● Manage soybean cyst nematode (SCN).
● Later-developing pods may not fill, and seeds may not » Plant varieties resistant to both SDS and SCN.
mature.
● Improve field drainage and reduce compaction.
● Evaluate tillage systems. Where possible, some tillage may
be needed to bury infected residue.
● Reduce other stresses on the crop.
● Plant the most problematic fields last in your planting
sequence.
● Foliar fungicide cannot protect plants from SDS.

Figure 6. Soybean
leaf showing
early symptoms
of sudden death
syndrome infection

Figure 4. Soybean plants infected with sudden death syndrome.

Necrotic areas of leaves dry rapidly. Leaves drop from the plant
prematurely, but leaf petioles remain firmly attached to the stem.

115
 return to table of contents

Sclerotinia Stem Rot

of Canola
Kristin Hacault, Agronomy Information Consultant

Disease Facts Infected petals/dying plant

● Sclerotinia stem rot is a soil borne material fall onto canola leaves
and the infection process
pathogen, also known as white begins. Lesions are formed. 4
mould. It is a disease that affects
western Canadian crops on a yearly
Infection occurs and the
basis including canola, sunflowers, disease progresses within
5
plant. Symptoms (lesions)
peas, soybeans, dry beans, lentils,
start to become visible
and chickpeas.
● A challenging aspect of managing
Apothecia produce wind borne
Sclerotinia stem rot is diagnosing 3 ascospores that land on canola
petals/dying plant material.
the threat before it appears, as
most fungicide control options are
protective and not curative. Sclerotia bodies germinate
2 to form apothecia (fruiting
● Incidence and severity of infection structure).
can be sporadic, but in high rainfall/ 6

humidity regions the disease can Sclerotia bodies grow inside

the infected canola stem.
cause significant yield loss. 1
● Yield loss can vary from year to year Sclerotia bodies from previous Sclerotia bodies are added to the soil during
infections can survive in the soil 7 harvest operations. This adds to the source of
and field to field but generally the the disease (inoculum) for future infestations.
for many years. This is the source
yield loss is estimated to be half the of the disease.
level of infection (i.e., 50% infection = Figure 1. Sclerotinia life cycle.
estimated 25% yield loss).

Disease Life Cycle Disease Identification & Symptomology

● Infection occurs during the flowering period of canola from ● Infection begins as a soft, watery rot on infected leaves or
airborne spores and is highly dependent upon moisture stems.
conditions prior to and during canola flowering. ● Lesions can completely girdle the main stem, resulting in
» Temperatures between 20-25°C (68-77°F) and prolonged plant wilting, lodging, and eventual death.
soil moisture/high humidity favor disease development. ● The infected area dries up and becomes bleached.
● Spores can persist for years in soil via structures of ● During harvest, the diseased
hardened mycelial masses, called sclerotia, which function tissues shred and sclerotia bodies
like seeds. are released from the infected
● Apothecia germinate from the sclerotia and produce stems, contributing inoculum to
millions of spores that are wind blown and land on canola the soil for successive years.
petals. These spores begin to colonize dead plant tissue,
particularly senescing canola flower petals.
● Infection is favored in dense canopies with minimal airflow
and high moisture.
● Petal drop generally starts between 6-9 days after
flowering begins.
● This coincides with a plant that is approximately at the
30% bloom stage.
● When infected petals fall off the floret and land on the
leaf or stem axels of a plant and stick, the sclerotinia can Figure 2. Symptoms of sclerotinia stem Figure 3. Canola stems
then flourish and infect the stem and branches. rot within canola crop canopy. infected with sclerotinia
stem rot.
● Infection results in premature ripening and yield loss.

116
 return to table of contents

Disease Risk and Forecasting

● Determining if fungicide control is
warranted can be difficult due to the
sporadic nature of the disease. Growers
often ask, “How do I manage risk of a
disease I cannot see?”
● Practical risk factors growers should
consider prior to applying fungicides
include:
1. Level of disease infection in their own
and neighboring canola fields over the
past several years.
2. Amount of precipitation and humidity
10-14 days prior to first flower and
during flowering (soil at field capacity).
3. Plant density.
4. Crop rotation.
5. Long-range precipitation forecast. Figure 4. Canola bloom stage assessment. Courtesy of the Canola Council of Canada.
6. Proper fungicide timing.
● Various predictive tools exist to aid in measuring the 2. Genetic Resistance
presence of the disease in fields such as petal tests, spore ● Pioneer® brand canola offers
traps and scouting for the presence of apothecia. hybrids with built in resistance to
● The Canola Council of Canada publishes a Sclerotinia sclerotinia. This genetic resistance
Stem Rot Checklist (www.canolacouncil.org) confers the ability of the plant of
● The checklist assigns numeric risk factors to variables overcome the pathogen’s ability
affecting the presence of sclerotinia (i.e., weather forecast, to infect.
crop rotation, etc.) ● These resistant hybrids have
● Once a score of >40 points is achieved, a fungicide may been shown to reduce sclerotinia
be warranted. incidence by over 60%, as well as
Pioneer®
reducing overall disease severity.
● It is important to note that fungicide costs and commodity Protector
prices are not factored into the checklist and must be ● Utilizing genetic resistance pro- Sclerotinia
taken into account. vides season long protection from Tolerance Trait
sclerotinia and convenience, as the Mode of Action
Disease Management protection is planted with the seed.
1. Fungicides ● Resistant genetics also aid in managing disease risk over
● Fungicides are the most effective management tool in large geographies and acres.
combating sclerotinia when disease risk is high. ● Resistant hybrids offer growers peace of mind in providing
● However, due to disease variability within a field and on protection under low to moderate disease infection levels
plants (incidence and severity), prophylactic applications and increased flexibility when timing fungicide applica-
are often uneconomical. tions to proactively managing sclerotia.
● Forecasting models are available. Although not perfect, ● Both resistant canola hybrids and/or fungicides work to
they do provide directional guidance on whether a reduce the amount of sclerotinia inoculum returned to the
fungicide application is warranted (See Canola Council of soil.
Canada Sclerotinia Checklist) 3. Cultural Controls
● Most fungicides are protective – aim to protect the flower
● This would include manage-
petals which are the food source for the disease.
ment strategies such as crop
● Generally, most fungicides are applied between 20-50% rotation, management of host
bloom with optimal being 30% bloom (when most petals weed species, etc.
are open).
● Refer to individual product labels for complete details on Figure 5. Sclerotia bodies in infected
canola stem. Photo courtesy of the
application, timing, and staging. Canola Council of Canada.

117
 return to table of contents

Critical Period of Weed

Control in Canola
Kristin Hacault, Agronomy Information Consultant

Why Control Weeds Early? Pre-Seed Application

● Early season weed control helps protect crop yield ● Applying recommended, labeled herbicides prior to
potential, especially during the canola seedling stage seeding reduces overall risk of yield loss due to weed
when the crop is a poor competitor. competition, especially if an in-crop herbicide application
● Weeds and canola compete for the same resources is delayed.
(water, sunlight and nutrients). ● A pre-seed herbicide application is highly recommended,
● Small weeds are easier to control and can absorb and especially for fields with an abundance of winter annual
translocate herbicide better. and perennial weeds.
● Herbicides can be less effective during times of heat and ● If a pre-seed application is not an option, consider
drought stress, which often occurs with later applications. applying control measures immediately after seeding prior
Additionally, there is greater risk of crop injury with later/ to crop emergence. Keep in mind that this can be a very
out of stage applications. narrow application window.
● Generally, a combination of both pre-seed and in-crop Postemergence Applications
herbicide applications have the greatest potential to ● The best time to apply in-crop herbicide applications to
protect canola crop yield. canola is from the 1- to 4-leaf stage.
● New glyphosate herbicide tolerant canola traits allow ● After the 4-leaf stage, canola plants are much more
for a wider in-crop application window; however, it is competitive and emerging weeds have less effect on yield.
important to keep in mind the critical weed free period
● As the crop canopy closes, late emerging weeds have
(CWFP) for canola and to maximize yield potential by
a reduced effect on yield. Second in-crop applications
controlling weeds early.
may produce a smaller ROI but can help manage weed
Critical Weed Free Period (CWFP) escapes from the first herbicide pass or crops with low
● Defined as the stages in a crop’s life cycle during which plant populations.
weeds must be controlled to prevent yield loss from weed ● In some cases, a pre-harvest or post-harvest herbicide
competition in the crop. application is more effective at controlling weed escapes
● Studies from Western Canada have found that the CWFP than a second in-crop herbicide application – especially
in canola is from emergence to the 4-leaf stage of the in the case of perennial weeds.
plant. (Martin et al., 2001; Harker et al., 2008). ● Tank mix options are available for both pre-seed and in-
● In one study in Western Canada examining the timing of crop applications to enhance weed control. Always read
weed removal in canola, it was found that delaying weed and follow label directions.
control until the 6- to 7-leaf stage of canola resulted in a ● However, all situations are unique and need to be
20% yield loss (Harker et al. 2008; Figure 1). evaluated on a field-by-field basis. Your local Pioneer
● Another benefit of early season weed removal is the sales representative or agronomist can provide a specific
prevention of weed seed production. field recommendation.

Time of Weed Removal Influences Canola Yield

2250
2073
Yield (kg/ha)

2000 37 bu/acre
1872
34 bu/acre
1750
1650
30 bu/acre
1500
1 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 7
Canola leaf stage
Figure 2. Grassy weed pressure in Figure 3. Kochia competition
Figure 1. Influence of time of weed control on canola yield (Harker et herbicide tolerant canola near the in canola. July 2019.
al. 2008). end of the CWFP. Saltcoats, SK.

118
 return to table of contents

Herbicide Tolerant Canola Systems from Corteva Agriscience

Table 1. List of herbicide tolerant canola system options available from Corteva Agriscience.

Max
Water
HT System Active(s) Product* Group Application Rate Crop Stage Passes/
Volume
Year
Roundup 2 apps. up to 0.5 REL/ac** each or a Cotyledon to 5-10
Glyphosate VP480 9 2
Ready® single app. Ip to 0.75 REL/ac 6-leaf US gal/ac

1st app: 1.62L/ac; 2nd app: 1.37L/ac; Cotyledon to 10

LibertyLink® Glufosinate Interline® 10 2
do not exceed 2.97L/ac per season early bolting US gal/ac

Imazamox/ 5-10
Clearfield® Ares™ SN*** 2 244ml/ac 2- to 7-leaf 1
Imazapyr US gal/ac

Cotyledon to
2 apps. up to 1.0 REL/ac each 2
first flower 5-10
Optimum® GLYt Glyphosate VP480 9
Cotyledon to US gal/ac
Single app. up to 2.0 REL/ac. 1
6-leaf
* Refer to individual product labels for complete instructions on rates, tank mix partners, staging, application timing, rainfastness, etc. **REL = Roundup Equivalent Litre.
***Requires Surjet Surfactant. t Availability subject to regulatory approval.

Optimum GLYt (cotyledon-early flower)

Critical Period of Weed

Control (cotyledon-4 leaf)

LibertyLink (cotyledon-early bolting)

Roundup Ready (cotyledon-6L) Figure 4. Herbicide timing of herbicide tolerant

systems available from Corteva Agriscience.
Clearfield (2L-6L) t
Pending regulatory approval in relevant export countries.

Weeds of Concern
● Weed surveys are conducted in the Prairie provinces on a
recurring basis. The latest prairie weed survey (2014-2017)
listed the following as the top 10 weeds in canola (Canola
Digest, 2019)
1. Wild buckwheat (annual)
2. Wild oats (annual)
3. Green foxtail (annual)
4. Volunteer wheat (annual) Future Research
5. Cleavers (annual) ● The majority of research regarding the critical period of
6. Chickweed (annual) weed control in canola was conducted over 15 years ago.
7. Volunteer canola (annual) ● There is ongoing research in Western Canada, specifically
at the University of Manitoba, investigating the CWFP in
8. Spiny annual sow thistle (annual)
canola given the myriad new herbicide technologies (pre-
9. Lamb’s quarters (annual) emerge and in-crop), improved hybrid competitiveness,
10. Canada thistle (perennial) and changes to recommended seeding rates in canola.

119
 return to table of contents

Nitrogen Fertilizers
and Stabilizers for
Corn Production
Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Key Points
● A central challenge in managing nitrogen fertility in corn production is
the susceptibility of nitrogen to loss through volatilization, leaching, or
denitrification.
● The most commonly used nitrogen fertilizers for corn production in North
America are anhydrous ammonia, urea, and urea-ammonium nitrate solutions.
● Urea is hydrolyzed by soil bacteria releasing two ammonia molecules (NH3)
which can be lost to the atmosphere if this reaction takes place on the soil
surface.
● Ammonium ions (NH4+) in the soil are converted to the nitrate form (NO3-) by the
action of soil bacteria in a process known as nitrification.
● Nitrate is at risk of loss through leaching or denitrification, a series of reactions
that convert nitrate into N2 gas.
● When nitrate is not completely converted to N2, the resulting byproduct is
nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas.
● Nitrogen stabilizers are additives that can be used with nitrogen fertilizers to
reduce the risk of nitrogen loss by slowing the rate of chemical reactions that
occur in soil.
● Nitrogen stabilizers have proven effective at increasing soil nitrogen retention
and reducing nitrous oxide emissions.

...nitrogen can be lost by leaching

– the downward movement of
nitrates below the root zone,
or denitrification – loss to the
atmosphere caused by reactions
in the soil under anaerobic
conditions.

120
 return to table of contents

Nitrogen – A Critical Input for Corn Urea is a solid fertilizer with high nitrogen content (46%) that
can be easily applied to many types of crops and turf. Its
Nitrogen (N) fertilizer is a critical input in corn production. One
ease of handling, storage and transport; convenience of
of the most challenging aspects of successfully managing
application by many types of equipment; and ability to blend
nitrogen is the fact that nitrogen from fertilizer can be lost
with other solid fertilizers has made it the most widely used
from the soil before the corn crop is able to take it up. Under
source of N fertilizer in the world.
prolonged wet field conditions and warm temperatures,
nitrogen can be lost either by leaching – the downward Urea is manufactured by reacting CO2 with NH3 in two
movement of nitrates below the root zone, or denitrification – equilibrium reactions:
loss to the atmosphere caused by reactions in the soil under 2NH3 + CO2 → [NH4]NH2CO2 (ammonium carbamate)
anaerobic conditions. Surface-applied nitrogen can also be
[NH4]NH2CO2 → CO(NH2)2 + H2O (urea + water)
lost through ammonia volatilization if not incorporated into
the soil by tillage or rainfall. Nitrogen loss is not only a waste of The urea molecule has two amide (NH2) groups joined by a
resources, it also can have negative environmental impacts. carbonyl (C=O) functional group.
Nitrogen stabilizers are additives used with nitrogen fertilizers
H H
that can help reduce nitrogen losses from the soil.
N N Urea
H H
C CO(NH2)2
O
Urea-ammonium nitrate (UAN) solutions are liquid fertilizers
made by dissolving urea and ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) in
water. The composition of common N solutions is shown in
Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2. Total N content and quantities of urea, ammonium nitrate,
and water in 100 lbs of common UAN solutions.
UAN-28 UAN-30 UAN-32
Total N 28% 30% 32%
— approx. lbs in 100 lbs of solution —
Nitrogen Fertilizers Urea 30 32 35

The most commonly used forms of nitrogen fertilizer in corn NH4NO3 40 43 45

production in North America are anhydrous ammonia, urea, Water 30 25 20
and urea-ammonium nitrate (UAN) solutions.
As Table 3 indicates, ½ of the total N in UAN solutions is amide
Table 1. Nitrogen fertilizers most commonly used for corn production
in North America.
N (NH2-) derived from urea; ¼ is ammonium N (NH4+) derived
from ammonium nitrate, and ¼ is nitrate N (NO3-) derived from
Fertilizer Form %N ammonium nitrate.
Gas, applied as liquid Table 3. Percent of nitrogen by type in UAN solutions.
Anhydrous Ammonia 82
from pressurized tank
UAN-28 UAN-30 UAN-32
Urea Solid 46
Total N Content 28% 30% 32%
UAN solutions Liquid 28 - 32
%
Anhydrous ammonia (NH3) is the most basic form of N Amide (NH2-) 14 15 16
fertilizer. Ammonia, a gas at atmospheric pressure, must Ammonium (NH4 ) +
7 7.5 8
be compressed into a liquid for transport,
H Nitrate (NO3-) 7 7.5 8
storage, and application. Consequently,
it is applied from a pressurized tank and Although there are several other forms of nitrogen fertilizers
N H
must be injected into the soil to prevent its such as ammonium sulfate, calcium nitrate, and diammonium
escape into the air. When applied, ammonia H
phosphate, over 80% of the N needs of corn in North America
reacts with soil water and changes to the NH3 are met by anhydrous ammonia, urea, and UAN solutions.
ammonium form, NH4+.
Nitrogen Fertilizers and Soil Reactions
Most other common N fertilizers are derivatives of ammonia
transformed by additional processing, which increases their Anhydrous Ammonia
cost. Due to its lower production costs, high N content (82%) Anhydrous ammonia is applied by injection 6 to 8 inches
that minimizes transportation costs, and relative stability in below the soil surface to minimize escape of gaseous NH3 into
soils, anhydrous ammonia is the most widely used source of N the air. NH3 is a very hygroscopic compound and, once in the
fertilizer for corn production in North America. soil, reacts quickly with water and changes to the ammonium

121
 return to table of contents

Ammonia Hydroxylamine Nitrite

monooxygenase oxidoreductase oxidoreductase
O
H
H
O N O N N
N H N H O
H
H
O O
H O
NH3 NH2OH HNO NO2 NO3

Nitrosomonas/Nitrosospira spp Nitrobacter spp

Ammonia Oxidizing Bacteria Nitrite Oxidizing Bacteria

Figure 1. Nitrification process, showing key bacterial species and enzymes.

(NH4+) form. As a positively charged ion, ammonium binds Urea

with negatively charged soil constituents including clay and Urea readily dissolves in water, including soil water;
organic matter. Nitrogen in the ammonium form is held on the consequently, it can be incorporated into the soil by sufficient
soil exchange complex and is not subject to movement with rainfall or irrigation (½ inch is typically suggested). Otherwise,
water. it should be incorporated by tillage to reduce losses.
Soil reactions – Ammonium ions are converted to the nitrate Soil Reactions – Urea is hydrolyzed into one carbon dioxide
(NO3-) form by the action of soil bacteria in a process known and two ammonia molecules (Figure 2).
as nitrification (Figure 1). Nitrification is a two-step process: 1)
oxidation of ammonia (NH3) into nitrite (NO2-), and 2) oxidation Urea Hydrolysis
H
of nitrite into nitrate (NO3-). Both steps are carried out by
chemoautotrophic bacteria in the soil that use oxidation of H H
O
N H

chemical compounds as a source of energy for themselves. N N H

O
H

These bacteria are ubiquitous in most agricultural, pastoral,

H
C
H + C + H

H
natural grassland, and forested geographies worldwide N H
O O
H
(Rajendran 2011). There are numerous species of ammonia-
oxidizing bacteria; the most documented of which in (NH2)2CO + H2O CO2 + 2(NH3)
agricultural systems are those belonging to the genera
Nitrosomonas and Nitrosospira. Oxidation of nitrite to nitrate Figure 2. Urea is hydrolyzed by soil bacteria producing one molecule
is carried out by bacteria in the genus Nitrobacter. of CO2 and two NH3 (ammonia) molecules.

As with nearly all biological reactions, the rate of nitrification Urea hydrolysis is catalyzed by urease, an enzyme that is
is greatly influenced by soil temperature. In soils above 75°F, produced by many types of bacteria and some plants and
(24°C) nitrification is not limited by temperature. Cold soil is ubiquitous in soils. The biological degradation of urea by
temperatures slow nitrification, with the process essentially urease that releases the N for plant use also makes it subject
ceasing at soil temperatures below 40°F (4°C). to volatilization (as NH3) depending on whether the reaction
occurs in the soil or on the soil surface. If it occurs within the
Soil pH, water content, and oxygen availability are also major
soil, the ammonia quickly reacts with soil water to form NH4+,
factors influencing the rate of nitrification. The optimal pH
which is then bound to the soil. If it occurs at the soil surface,
range for nitrification is between 6.5 and 8.8. Nitrification rates
the gaseous ammonia can easily be lost into the air. If plant
are reduced in more acidic soils. High pH soils are limiting for
residue is abundant on the soil surface, it increases bacterial
the second step of the process (oxidation of nitrite to nitrate),
populations, concentration of urease, and volatilization
which can lead to a buildup of nitrite in the soil. Since both
losses of urea.
water and oxygen are required for nitrification, adequate but
not excessive soil moisture is ideal. Nitrification is limited when UAN Solutions
saturation of soil pore space with water exceeds 60%. Urea-ammonium nitrate (UAN) solutions are mixtures of urea,
Only after the nitrification process has converted ammonium ammonium nitrate, and water in various proportions. All
to negatively charged nitrate ions (that are repelled by clay common UAN solutions (28%, 30% and 32%) are formulated
and organic matter in the soil complex) can nitrogen be to contain 50% of actual N as amide, (from urea), 25% as
lost from most soils by leaching or denitrification. Plants can ammonium (from ammonium nitrate), and 25% as nitrate (from
take up nitrogen in both the ammonium and nitrate forms. If ammonium nitrate).
nitrogen can be held in the ammonium form until it is taken up Soil Reactions – The urea portion of UAN solutions reacts just
by plants, it is at little risk of loss. (Sandy soils with a very low as dry urea does (see previous section on urea). If applied
cation exchange capacity (CEC) are an exception, as they on the surface, the amide-N in the solution may incur losses
lack enough exchange sites to bind much ammonium.) due to volatilization when urease hydrolysis releases NH3. But
if UAN is incorporated by tillage or sufficient water, the NH3,

122
 return to table of contents

O Nitrate Nitrite Nitric oxide Nitrous oxide

reductase reductase reductase reductase
N N
O N O O N N O N N
O O
O H
NO3 NO2 NO N2O N2
Figure 3. Denitrification process, showing steps and key enzymes.

quickly reacts with soil water to form NH4+. This ammonium, as

well as the ammonium N derived from ammonium nitrate in
the solution, adheres to soil components at the application
site and is not subject to loss in the short term. Like N applied
as anhydrous ammonia, this N will eventually be taken up by
plants in the ammonium form, or if not, eventually converted
to nitrate by soil bacteria.
The remaining 25% of nitrogen in UAN solutions is in the
nitrate (NO3-) form. Because it is negatively charged, it will not
adhere to clay and organic matter particles (which are also
negatively charged) but rather, will exist as an anion in the
soil solution. Because it moves with water, it is easily taken up
by plant roots, but is also subject to losses by leaching and
Denitrification occurs when water saturation limits the availability of
denitrification. oxygen to bacteria in the soil.
Nitrogen Losses
Nitrogen Stabilizers
Nitrogen loss constitutes a ma-
Globally, Nitrification Inhibitors
jor challenge to agricultural
efficiency and sustainabil- less than half of Nitrification inhibitors are compounds that slow the conversion
ity. Globally, less than half nitrogen applied of ammonium to nitrate, prolonging the period of time that
of nitrogen applied to crop to crop land is nitrogen is in the ammonium form and reducing nitrogen loss
from the soil. Several compounds have proven effective for
land is taken up by the crop taken up by the
(Zhang et al., 2015). Not only is this purpose, including nitrapyrin, dicyandiamide (DCD), and
crop. ammonium thiosulfate.
this economically wasteful, the
loss of reactive nitrogen from ag- Nitrapyrin, or 2-chloro-6-(trichloromethyl) pyridine, works
ricultural soils is associated with sev- by inhibiting and depressing the activity of Nitrosomonas
eral adverse environmental consequences, bacteria; specifically, it inhibits the activity of ammonia
including contamination of ground and surface water, algal monooxygenase (AMO), the enzyme that oxidizes NH4
blooms in lakes and rivers, hypoxic dead zones in coastal wa- into NH2OH in the first step of nitrification (Figure 4). When
ters, and nitrous oxide emissions into the atmosphere. used in agricultural soils at labeled rates, nitrapyrin exhibits
Nitrous oxide from soil is the largest contributor to agricultural bacteriostatic activity on the Nitrosomonas population in the
greenhouse gas emissions (U.S. EPA, 2021). The majority zone of application (Rodgers and Ashworth 1982). Inhibition of
of nitrous oxide emissions from soils are produced during the AMO enzyme by nitrapyrin delays nitrification activity for
denitrification. Denitrification is a microbially facilitated several weeks to months following application.
process where nitrate (NO3−) is reduced and converted to N2
Ammonia Hydroxylamine
gas through a series of intermediate steps (Figure 3). When H monooxygenase oxidoreductase
nitrate is not completely converted to N2 gas, the resulting H
O N O
byproduct is nitrous oxide (N2O). N H N H
H
Denitrification occurs when nitrogen in the nitrate form is H H

present in the soil and oxygen availability is limited in the soil NH3 NH2OH HNO
due to water saturation. When oxygen in the soil is limited,
a variety of bacteria will use the oxygen atoms from nitrate Nitrapyrin
molecules for respiration. Denitrification is triggered by rain-
Nitrosomonas/Nitrosospira spp
fall events of sufficient volume to saturate at least 60% of soil Ammonia Oxidizing Bacteria
pore space. The greatest nitrogen losses through denitrifi-
cation generally occur in the spring when rainfall events are Figure 4. Nitrapyrin delays nitrification by inhibiting ammonia
most frequent and crop uptake of nitrogen from the soil is monooxygenase in Nitrosomonas bacteria, the enzyme that
catalyzes the first step of the nitrification process.
relatively low.

123
 return to table of contents

As the nitrapyrin degrades over time, AMO is no Value of Nitrification Inhibitors

longer inhibited and Nitrosomonas populations
Nitrification inhibitors have proven very effec-
resume the nitrification process converting
tive in increasing soil nitrogen retention and
available ammonia to nitrate. In warm soils,
Nitrification reducing losses through leaching and de-
nitrapyrin can degrade in 30 to 40 days.
nitrification. A 2004 meta-analysis of hun-
However, it is very persistent in cool soils, inhibitors can be
dreds of comparisons across a diversity
which contributes to its effectiveness for a valuable tactic for of environments found that the use of
fall and winter applications. Measurable reducing agricultural nitrification inhibitors increased soil nitro-
activity against Nitrosomonas often oc-
greenhouse gas gen retention by an average of 28% and
curs for about six to eight weeks in warm
emissions. reduced leaching by 16% (Wolt, 2004). Ni-
soils conducive to crop growth, and 30
trous oxide emissions were reduced by over
weeks or more in cool soils typical of late fall
50% on average in this study, indicating that
and winter in the midwestern U.S. (Trenkel, 2010).
nitrification inhibitors can be a valuable tactic
Nitrapyrin products for delaying nitrification of for reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.
ammoniacal and urea fertilizers include N-Serve® and
Corteva Agriscience field trials conducted over several years
Instinct NXTGEN®. N-Serve nitrogen stabilizer is an oil-soluble
found that the use of nitrification inhibitors increased corn
formulation of nitrapyrin for use with anhydrous ammonia.
yield by an average of around 6 bu/acre. The highest value
Instinct NXTGEN nitrogen stabilizer is a water-based micro-
of nitrification inhibitors should be realized in scenarios with
encapsulated formulation of nitrapyrin that may be used with
a high risk of nitrate losses from leaching or denitrification,
urea, UAN solutions, ammonium sulfate, liquid manure, aqua
including the following conditions (Ruark, 2012):
ammonia, liquid fertilizers containing N, and ammonium-
● Tile-drained soils when leaching potential is high
containing dry fertilizers (MAP or DAP).
● Wet or poorly drained soils

● Fields with nitrogen applied in the fall or spring prior to

planting
Urease Inhibitors
Urease inhibitors are compounds that reduce volatilization
losses of urea applied to the soil surface by slowing down urea
hydrolysis. For the nitrogen in urea to be available to plants, it
must undergo hydrolysis, a chemical reaction that transforms
the amide groups of the urea molecule to ammonia (NH3). The
urease enzyme, ubiquitous in soils, catalyzes this hydrolysis
reaction. If this process occurs at the soil surface, ammonia
can be lost to the air. However, if this reaction is delayed
until surface-applied urea is incorporated into the soil by
tillage, rainfall, or irrigation, the risk of ammonia loss is greatly
reduced.

DCD (dicyandiamide) - Following extensive use in western

Europe and Japan, DCD became more commonly used in the
US in the late 1990s. Products containing only DCD are gener-
ally used with nitrogen solutions and liquid manure. The rate
of DCD used is relative to the amount of fertilizer N applied,
rather than the area of application. This may limit its efficacy
at low fertilizer application rates (e.g., split applications, side-
dress applications, or crops that require low nitrogen rates).
DCD inhibits nitrification in the same way as nitrapyrin,
by inhibiting the activity of ammonia monooxygenase in
Nitrosomonas bacteria. However, DCD is a significantly
less potent inhibitor, requiring higher field use rates to be
effective and inhibiting nitrification for a shorter period of
time. Depending on the amount of mineral N applied and
the moisture and temperature of the soil, DCD may stabilize
ammonium-N for 4 to 10 weeks.
Urea granules on the soil surface next to corn plants at V4 growth
stage. Urea that is not incorporated can be lost to volatilization
without the use of a urease inhibitor.

124
 return to table of contents

Urease activity increases as temperature increases. Hydrolysis Performance of Nitrogen Stabilizers

is normally completed within 10 days at a temperature of 40°F
Nitrogen stabilizers/additives have been widely tested over
(4°C) and within two days at a temperature of 85°F (29°C).
many years and have proven effective at increasing soil
Hydrolysis is also highly correlated with the organic matter,
nitrogen retention. However, corn yield increases can vary
total N and cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil;
from 0-20%. This is not surprising; when conditions favor
increasing as any of these factors increase.
nitrogen losses for a period, and a stabilizer is applied and
Certain compounds are known to inhibit the hydrolytic effective during that period, a large benefit is predictable. On
action of the urease enzyme, delaying urea hydrolysis. The the other hand, under conditions not conducive to nitrogen
most widely used urease inhibitor in agriculture is N-butyl- losses, little advantage would be expected.
thiophosphoric triamide, (NBPT). NBPT is a structural analog
Because the risk of nitrogen loss is always present, growers
of urea and, as such, inhibits urease by blocking the active
should take appropriate precautions to reduce loss of this
site of the enzyme. NBPT is the active ingredient in PinnitMax®
important crop nutrient. This can be accomplished by picking
TG nitrogen stabilizer.
an appropriate nitrogen source and applying it as closely as
PinnitMax TG is an additive for use with urea and urea- possible to the time of crop uptake or by using a nitrogen
ammonium nitrate solutions. Research shows that N loss stabilizer when application timing is farther removed from
from surface-applied urea can be significant. The amount the period of crop need. Nitrogen management decisions
of loss depends on weather conditions; loss is greatest with should take into account all factors that influence the risk of
warm, windy weather and a moist soil surface. NBPT protects loss for a particular field, including local climatic conditions,
urea and UAN applications from volatilization for up to 14 topography, soil type, residue level, form of nitrogen fertilizer
days, helping ensure nitrogen gets to the plant root zone. applied, and timing of application relative to crop growth.
Eventually, NBPT degrades in the soil, allowing urea hydrolysis Nitrogen stabilizers can provide insurance against the risk of
to resume. This is necessary so that plants can take up and nitrogen losses in many susceptible fields.
use the nitrogen from urea. However, once in the NH4+ form,
this nitrogen is subject to nitrification to NO3- a form that may
be lost from the soil.

Managing for
Improved Nitrogen
Utilization in Corn
- Dr. Daniel J. Quinn,
Purdue University and
Dr. Jason DeBruin, Corteva

Join Dr. Daniel Quinn, and Dr. Jason

DeBruin as they discuss hybrid interactions
with nitrogen uptake, application methods,
sources, environmental factors, and
other insights on nitrogen management
strategies to optimize return on investment.

125
 return to table of contents

Micronutrients for
Crop Production
Steve Butzen, M.S., Former Agronomy Information Consultant,
and Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Key Points
● Micronutrients are seven elements essential for crop growth in very low
quantities – boron, chlorine, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, and zinc.
● In the major crops and production areas of North America, the micronutrients
most often supplied by fertilization include zinc, manganese, boron, and iron.
● Micronutrient deficiencies can be detected by visual symptoms on crops and by
testing soils and plant tissues.
● The most reliable micronutrient soil tests are for zinc, boron, copper, and
manganese. Though useful, these tests are not as precise as those for soil pH,
potassium and phosphorus.
● Plant tissue analysis is more reliable than soil testing for identifying many
micronutrient problems and can also supplement soil test information.
● Most often, micronutrients are soil-applied in a band at planting, or foliar-
applied, as these methods allow lower use rates of sometimes expensive
materials.

Critical plant functions can be

limited if micronutrients are deficient, resulting
in plant abnormalities, reduced growth, and
lower yield.

126
 return to table of contents

Micronutrients are Essential Figure 1. Sources of the sixteen nutrients essential for crop production.
Micronutrients are essential elements that are used by plants
Atmosphere Carbon Oxygen
in small quantities. For most micronutrients, crop uptake is less
than one pound per acre. Despite this low requirement, critical Water Hydrogen
plant functions can be limited if micronutrients are deficient, Primary Secondary
resulting in plant abnormalities, reduced growth and lower Macronutrients Macronutrients
yield. In such cases, expensive, high-requirement crop inputs Nitrogen Sulfur
such as nitrogen and water may be wasted if yield potential Phosphorus Calcium
is being limited by a micronutrient deficiency. This article Potassium Magnesium
will discuss general micronutrient requirements, deficiency Soil
Micronutrients
symptoms, soil and plant sampling, and fertilization practices.
Boron Manganese
Chlorine Molybdenum
Copper Zinc
Iron

The seven micronutrients are sufficient in most soils to meet

crop needs. However, some sandy soils and other low-organic
matter soils are naturally low in micronutrients, and high
pH soils may make some micronutrients less available and
therefore deficient. In the major crops and production areas
of North America, the micronutrients most often supplied by
fertilization include zinc, manganese, boron, and iron. Basic
chemical properties of micronutrients help determine their
availability in soils (Table 1).
Table 1. Chemical properties of micronutrients.

Cations
Corn leaves showing zinc deficiency. Interveinal striping in center of
leaf is surrounded by green borders/margins. Positively charged - bind to soil particles
Copper
Plant Requirements and Soil Availability Iron Solubility is greatest under acid conditions

Manganese Most likely deficient on calcareous soils or soils

There are 16 elements essential to growth of crop plants
extremely high in organic matter where strong
(Figure 1). Two of these nutrients, carbon and oxygen, are Zinc chelation decreases availability
extracted from the air. Hydrogen is extracted from soil
water. The remaining thirteen nutrients are all extracted Anions
from soil and are classified as primary macronutrients,
secondary macronutrients, or micronutrients based on the Boron Negatively charged – subject to leaching
quantities taken up and utilized for plant growth. The seven In short supply in areas where they are readily
Chlorine
micronutrients – boron, chlorine, copper, iron, manganese, leached and not being replenished by organic
molybdenum, and zinc – are used in very low quantities for Molybdenum matter decomposition
crop production (Figure 2).

Nitrogen 184.5
Primary
Phosphorus 128.4
Macronutrients
Potassium 81.9
Magnesium 21.99
Secondary
Sulfur 15.18
Macronutrients
Calcium 3.96
Iron 0.504
Iron 0.50
Zinc 0.378 Zinc 0.38
Boron 0.084 Boron 0.08
Manganese 0.07 Micronutrients
Manganese 0.069
Copper 0.05
Copper 0.045 Molybdenum Trace
Molybdenum Trace Chlorine Unknown
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Chlorine Unknown
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Nutrient Removal (lbs/acre)
Figure 2. Nutrients removed by a 300 bu/acre crop (Heckman et al., 2003).

127
 return to table of contents

Because of complex chemical reactions within the soil, mi-

cronutrient availability is ultimately controlled by the equi-
librium between the soil solution, soil organic matter, cation
exchange sites, and insoluble compounds of micro-nutrients.
Soil acidity or alkalinity has a large effect on the tie-up of
micronutrients or their availability to plants. Micronutrients
are generally more
available in acid
soils and less avail-
able at high pH,
with the excep-
tion of molybde-
Micronutrients
- Mark Jeschke,
num, which is more Agronomy Manager
available at higher
pH (Figure 3).
Organic Matter
Symptoms of boron deficiency in alfalfa. Alfalfa is one of the few crops
Organic matter is a reservoir for essential plant nutrients, that can benefit from boron applications if levels become deficient.
continuously supplying these nutrients to the crop as it
decomposes over time. This reservoir is especially important Detecting Micronutrient Deficiencies
for anions such as boron, which do not bind to soil particles Micronutrient deficiencies can be detected by visual
and are therefore subject to losses. Soils that receive regular symptoms on crops and by testing soils and plant tissues. To
additions of organic residues such as manures rarely show understand visual symptoms, it is useful to know the role each
micronutrient deficiencies. An exception is deficiencies micronutrient plays in plant growth and development.
caused by nutrient imbalances, such as a deficiency of Functions of Micronutrients
manganese caused by an excess of phosphorus in overly
manured soils. Another exception is soils with extremely high Micronutrients differ in the form they are absorbed by the
organic matter such as muck or peat soils. In these soils, plant, their functions and mobility in the plant, and their
strong, natural chelation (the combination of a micronutrient characteristic deficiency or toxicity symptoms (Table 2 and 3).
with an organic molecule) can make some micronutrients Table 2. Plant available forms and functions of micronutrients in
unavailable, particularly copper, manganese, and zinc. plants10.

Element and
Iron Function in Plant
Plant-Available Form

Manganese H3BO3 Important in sugar transport, cell division,

Boron
H2BO3- and amino acid production
Boron
Used in turgor regulation, resisting
Chlorine Cl-
Copper and Zinc diseases and photosynthesis reactions

Molybdenum Component of enzymes, involved

Copper Cu2+
with photosynthesis
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Fe2+ Component of enzymes, essential for
pH Iron
Fe3+ chlorophyll synthesis, photosynthesis
Figure 3. Relative availability of micronutrients by soil pH9.
Involved in nitrogen metabolism, essential
Molybdenum MoO42-
Micronutrient Removal by Crops in nitrogen fixation by legumes

Crop yields are continually increasing due to genetic Chloroplast production, cofactor in many
Manganese Mn2+
improvements in stress tolerance and disease resistance, plant reactions, activates enzymes
incorporation of insect resistance traits, and use of seed Component of many enzymes,
treatments and other crop protection products. This means Zinc Zn2+ essential for plant hormone balance
that more micronutrients are removed from the soil as yields and auxin activity
increase. Estimates of nutrient removal for a 300 bu/acre corn
crop are shown in Figure 2. Micronutrient Deficiency Symptoms
Although micronutrient removal rates are increasing, they Except for Mo, the micronutrients are considered weakly
are still very small relative to the primary and secondary mobile or immobile in plants. This means that deficiency
macronutrients. Removal rates for a 300 bu/acre corn crop symptoms appear first or most severely on newest plant
range from over 80 lbs/acre for the primary macronutrients tissues. For molybdenum, deficiency symptoms appear first
and 4-22 lbs/acre for secondary macronutrients, compared on oldest plant tissues. Symptoms vary according to crop, but
to 0.5 lb/acre or less for micronutrients. generalized symptoms are shown in Table 3.

128
 return to table of contents

Table 3. General micronutrient deficiency symptoms2. Common Micronutrient Deficiencies

Micronutrient deficiencies tend to appear with much greater
Element General Deficiency Symptoms frequency on specific soil types and in certain crops (Table 4).

Table 4. Soil conditions which may lead to micronutrient deficiencies

for various crops11.
Light general chlorosis, death of growing point,
Boron
deformed leaves with areas of discoloration

Element Soil Characteristics Crop

Chlorosis and wilting of young leaves. Deficiency
Chlorine
rarely seen on crop plants in field
Sandy soils or highly weathered Alfalfa,
Boron
soils low in organic matter clover
Light overall chlorosis, leaf tips die back and tips
Copper
are twisted, loss of turgor in young leaves
Sandy soils with high rainfall,
Chlorine highly weathered soils low in Wheat
Chlorosis or yellowing between the veins of new organic matter
Iron
leaves
Acid peats or mucks with Wheat,
Copper
pH < 5.3 and black sands corn
Similar to those of ordinary nitrogen deficiency
Molybdenum – general chlorosis (yellowing) of young plants,
chlorosis of oldest leaves
Soils with high soil pH, soluble salts Corn,
Iron
and/or calcium carbonate levels soybean
Chlorosis or yellowing between the veins of new
Manganese
leaves (much like Fe deficiency) Peats and mucks with pH > 5.8, Soybean,
Molybdenum black sands and lakebed/ wheat, sugar
low-lying soils with pH > 6.2 beets, corn
Stunted growth, reduced internode length, young
Zinc
leaves are smaller than normal
Manganese Acid prairie soils Soybean

Peats, mucks and mineral Corn,

Zinc
soils with pH > 6.5 soybean

Soil Tests to Detect Micronutrient Deficiencies

Many plant symptoms associated with micronutrient
deficiencies, including stunting and chlorosis, may have
a variety of causes, including disease, insect or herbicide
damage, or environmental conditions. Soil and plant analysis
are both useful in determining if the cause is truly nutritional.
Though adequate for this purpose, micronutrient soil tests are
not as precise as soil pH, phosphorus, and potassium tests.
The most reliable micronutrient soil tests are for zinc, boron,
copper, and manganese. Because interpretations are soil
Iron deficiency chlorosis (IDC) of soybeans caused by high pH soils specific, it is best to use locally calibrated recommendations.
in the Black Belt region of central Alabama. IDC is a complex plant Soil tests for iron and molybdenum are considered to be of
disorder associated with high pH soils and soils containing soluble
little value in predicting the supply of these nutrients in soils.
salts where chemical conditions reduce the availability of iron.
When sampling for micronutrients, sample the root zone
Micronutrient deficiencies usually have a patchy distribution in down to 8 inches deep.
fields due to variation in soil properties that affect availability Plant Analysis to Detect Micronutrient Deficiencies
(e.g., pH, drainage, and salinity) and management history
Plant tissue analysis is more reliable than soil testing for
such as manure applications. Learning to visually identify
identifying many micronutrient problems and can also
deficiencies is important in recognizing problem areas and
supplement soil test information. Tissue testing is especially
planning remediation for future crops. However, it is often too
valuable in cases where reliable soil tests are unavailable.
late for corrective action in the current crop by the time visual
However, molybdenum and chlorine levels cannot be
symptoms appear.
determined by this method.

129
 return to table of contents

Plant analysis can be used in two ways; one is to correcting Zn deficiency than other forms of applied
monitor the crop’s micronutrient status, and the Zn. Synthetic chelates are more effective and less
other is to diagnose a problem situation. By variable than natural organic complexes such as
quantifying the nutrient content of tissues, plant lignosulfates, phenols, and polyflavonoids.
analysis can point out an existing or potential Method of Application
problem before visual symptoms develop.
The best method of micronutrient application de-
If in-season micronutrient deficiencies are sus- pends on the element and when the deficiency is
pected, plant samples should be taken as early being addressed.
as practical; treatments, when needed, should be
made in a timely manner. Research has shown Soil application. For deficiencies known at the start
that once a micronutrient deficiency is de- of the season, soil application is preferred to
tected, the plant has already suffered irre- foliar application for most nutrients. Micro-
versible yield loss. nutrients banded with starter fertilizers at
planting time are usually more effective
Because plant nutrient composition Many plant symptoms over a longer period than foliar-ap-
varies depending on the crop, age of
the plant, part of the plant sampled
associated with plied micronutrients. This method also
gets the nutrient to the plant at the
and other factors, it is important to micronutrient deficiencies,
earliest opportunity.
follow the standard sampling proce- including stunting and
Soil-applied micronutrients may also
dures provided by your plant diag- chlorosis, may have a
nostic laboratory. In order to obtain be broadcast, but a concentrated
variety of causes. band near the plant allows lower use
a representative sample, take multiple
plants from areas randomly distributed rates of sometimes expensive materials.
throughout the affected field area. Avoid Manganese should only be banded, be-
border plants and those contaminated with cause of the ability of most soils to strongly
dust, soil or foliar sprays. Taking samples of “fix” this element. However, boron should not be
non-symptomatic plants to compare with appar- banded, as high concentrations near the seed can
ent nutrient-deficient plants can increase the use- be toxic.
fulness of plant analysis. Be aware that interpreting Foliar application is especially useful for some ele-
results is complex and may require expert advice. ments that are not efficiently used when applied
to the soil, such as iron. This method is also useful
Managing Micronutrient Deficiencies
for quick uptake in emergency situations when
Selecting Micronutrient Sources deficiencies are noted or in cases where other
There are three main classes of micronutrient materials are being sprayed. Like banding, foliar
fertilizers: inorganic, synthetic chelates, and natural applications generally have lower use rates, but
organic complexes. more than one application may be needed. How-
ever, because the crop partially develops prior to
Inorganic sources consist of oxides, carbonates, and
foliar application, irreversible damage may have
metallic salts such as sulfates, chlorides, and ni-
already occurred before the needed nutrient is
trates. Sulfates are the most common metallic
supplied.
salts used in the fertilizer industry because of
their high water-solubility and plant avail- Broad-spectrum micronutrient applications
ability. Less soluble oxides must be finely are not recommended to treat a single mi-
ground or partially acidulated with sulfu- cronutrient deficiency, as this approach is
ric acid to form oxysulfates in order to in- expensive and potentially harmful to the
crease their effectiveness. Metal-ammonia crop. The harm can occur because of po-
complexes such as ammoniated Zn sulfate tential toxicities, or because the presence
decompose readily in soils and provide good of additional nutrients may interfere with the
agronomic effectiveness. uptake of the needed nutrient.

Chelates are fertilizers in which the micronutrient is Achieving a uniform spread pattern is important
combined with an organic molecule to increase its to correct deficiencies, regardless of whether the
stability and effectiveness in the soil. Chelates such material is liquid or solid, banded or broadcast, or
as Zn-EDTA are more stable and more effective in preplant or foliar applied.

130
 return to table of contents

Crop Management
in a Changing
Climate
Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Summary
● Understanding and incorporating long-term climate trends into crop
management decisions can help minimize risk and increase the likelihood of
success in crop production.
● Climate scientists have identified several shifts in climate associated with rising
global temperatures that will affect agricultural production, many of which are
already becoming apparent.
● One of the most significant climate trends for the Midwestern U.S. in recent years
has been increased rainfall in the April to June timeframe and more intense
rainfall events.
● Average maximum temperatures during the summer have not increased in the
Midwest, but night temperatures have gotten warmer.
● The average frost-free season in the Midwest and Great Plains has expanded
by 9 to 10 days and is projected to continue to increase in the future.
● The potential effects of rising global temperatures on droughts in the Midwest
are unclear. Projections suggest a more frequent pattern of excess moisture in
the spring followed by dry spells in the summer.
● Weed and insect pressure varies yearly but is expected to worsen overall with
more diligent management necessary.
● As current climate trends continue to intensify, the need for active adaptation
measures will increase, especially in regard to protecting soils and crops against
a more volatile climate with a higher frequency of extreme events.

131
 return to table of contents

Introduction Temperature and Climate

It would be difficult to name an industry more thoroughly Global average surface temperature has risen by about
dependent upon weather than agriculture. Weather 1.6°F or 0.9°C since the late 19th century (Figure 1). A large
conditions during a growing season can have an enormous body of evidence supports the conclusion that this rise in
impact on the yield potential of a crop; the growth and temperature is a result of human activity and primarily due
spread of weeds, diseases, and insect species; and the ability to the production of greenhouse gases (Santer et al., 2019).
to plant and harvest a crop in a timely manner. Looking back
1
at years when there were severe drops in crop yields (e.g.,
1983, 1988, 1993, and 2012), anyone involved in crop production

Temperature Anomaly (degrees C)

0.75
during those years will immediately recall the abnormal
weather conditions that caused them. 0.5

0.25

-0.25

-0.5
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

Figure 1. Annual global land and ocean temperature anomaly

(deviation from 20th century average), 1880-2018 (NOAA NCEI, 2019).

Average global temperatures are increasing, but this does

not mean that warmer temperatures manifest uniformly
over the entire earth all of the time. Earth’s climate system
is complex and dynamic. The effects of altering one param-
The unpredictability of weather – not knowing at eter of the system can produce different effects in dif-
the start of a growing season what it will bring ferent regions due to other interacting factors.
– is a constant challenge to optimizing crop Some of these associated climatological ef-
management practices. Understanding and A general trend fects may have a greater direct impact on
incorporating long-term climate trends into human populations and activities than the
toward increased underlying rise in temperatures. For exam-
crop management decisions is important
climate volatility will ple, changes in water distribution (e.g.,
for minimizing risk and increasing the
likelihood of successful outcomes in any require greater resilience atmospheric humidity, sea levels, and
given growing season. One of the most of crop production precipitation patterns) may be a much
important factors influencing climatic systems against more immediate concern for populations
trends around the world right now is rising near bodies of water or industries depen-
extreme weather dent upon water, such as agriculture.
global temperatures. Climate scientists
events.
have identified several shifts in climate The following section provides an over-
trends associated with rising temperatures view of some of the observed and projected
that will affect agricultural production, many of climate trends relevant to agriculture summarized
which are already becoming apparent. Whether some in the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), fo-
of these changes can be judged as positive or negative cusing specifically on the Midwestern U.S. (Angel et al., 2018).
may depend on individual circumstances and perspective. NCA4 provides a comprehensive overview of current climate
The important point for agriculture is that they will tend to science and potential implications for many industries and
produce weather patterns that are different from what we segments of society, including agriculture. The complete
have come to expect with increasing frequency and may report, including summaries for other regions of the U.S., is
require adaptation in crop management in order to maintain available at www.globalchange.gov/nca4.
productivity. A general trend toward increased climate
volatility will require greater resilience of crop production
Observed and Projected Climate Trends
systems against extreme weather events. Temperature
This article will review some of the changes in climate One might expect the most reliable outcome of global
associated with rising global temperatures and discuss warming to be hotter maximum temperatures during the
implications for agricultural production, focused primarily summer, but this has not been the case in the Midwest.
on the Midwestern U.S., including observed and projected Annual average temperatures have increased, but this has
changes in weather patterns and potential impacts on crop been primarily due to higher maximum temperatures in the
growth as well as management. winter. Maximum summer temperatures have not increased in

132
 return to table of contents

the Midwest as they have in most other regions of the country In general, warmer air is able to hold more moisture, increasing
(Table 1) (Angel et al., 2018). Daily minimum temperatures have the amount of water available to fall as precipitation. In Des
increased across all seasons, however. The 2018 growing Moines, IA, for example, total rainfall between April and June
season was the hottest on record for the continental U.S., has increased nearly 50% from an average of around 10
primarily because of high nighttime temperatures. inches in 1950 to 15 inches in 2018 (Figure 3).
Table 1. Observed regional changes in annual average temperature
25
from 1901-1960 to 1986-2016. Estimates are derived from the nClimDiv
dataset (Vose et al., 2017).
20
Change in Annual Temperatures
Region

Rainfall (inches)
Maximum Minimum
15
Northeast +1.16°F +1.70°F
Southeast +0.16°F +0.76°F 10
Midwest +0.77°F +1.75°F
Great Plains North +1.66°F +1.72°F 5
Great Plains South +0.56°F +0.96°F
Southwest +1.61°F +1.61°F 0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Northwest +1.52°F +1.56°F
Figure 3. Annual cumulative rainfall in April, May, and June at the Des
Moines International Airport, Des Moines, IA (NOAA NCEI, 2019).
Research indicates that one of the reasons maximum tem-
peratures during the summer have not increased in the Mid- Rainfall overall has also
west is because of greater precipitation in the spring and tended to be concen-
early summer as well as subsequent high levels of evapo- trated into more in-
transpiration of water from agricultural crops (Alter et al., tense rainfall events
2017). As agricultural productivity in the region has increased,
A shift toward a
with the frequency
so has the amount of water transpired from growing crops of heavy rainfall
greater percentage of
into the atmosphere. This causes humidity to rise, which tends events doubling total precipitation falling
to reduce daytime maximum temperatures, increase night- in the Midwest in very heavy rainfall
time temperatures, and increase precipitation. This same over the past events has occurred
phenomenon has been observed in other areas of the world century (Hayhoe
where intensive agricultural production has been associat-
in many parts of the
et al., 2009). A shift
ed with a suppression of extreme temperatures in the region toward a greater
continental U.S.
(Mueller et al., 2017). percentage of total
Although the Midwest has thus far not experienced higher precipitation falling in
maximum temperatures during the summer months, high- very heavy rainfall events
er night temperatures have the potential to be detrimental. has occurred in many parts of the
Research has shown that above-average night tempera- Continental U.S. with the greatest change occurring in the
tures during reproductive growth can reduce corn yield both Northeast. These trends are larger than natural variations for
through reduced kernel number and kernel weight due to the Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, and Great Plains (Walsh
accelerated phenological development as well as increased et al., 2014) (Figure 4).
rates of cellular respiration (Lutt et al., 2016).
Precipitation
One of the most significant climate trends that has been
12%
observed for the Midwestern U.S. over the past few decades
has been increased rainfall, particularly in the April to June
16%
71%
timeframe (Figure 2) (Angel et al., 2018; Feng et al., 2016). 37%
Precipitation (%) 5%
< - 15
-15 to -10
27%
-10 to -5
-5 to 0
0 to 5
5 to 10
10 to 15
> 15 Figure 4. Percent increase in the amount of precipitation falling in
very heavy events (defined as the heaviest 1% of all daily events) from
Figure 2. Change in spring precipitation from 1986-2015 compared to 1958-2012 for each region of the Continental U.S. (Walsh et al., 2014,
1901-1960 (Easterling et al., 2017). updated from Karl et al., 2009).

133
 return to table of contents

One of the reasons for the shift toward more intense rainfall Drought
events in the Midwest is the effect that warmer temperatures The frequency of wide-
have on storm systems called mesoscale convective systems spread droughts in the Projections
(MCSs). Mesoscale convective systems are complexes of
thunderstorms that can spread over an entire state and last
Midwest has decreased suggest a more
in the latter half of the
more than 12 hours. They are typically most active at night and frequent pattern of
20th century (Mishra
extend into the morning hours. These types of systems have and Cherkauer, 2010). excess moisture in the
historically accounted for 30 to 70% of the total warm-season Climate scientists are spring followed by a
precipitation in the Central U.S. (Fritsch et al., 1986). Research
shows that warmer spring temperatures are causing these
uncertain how the se- lack of moisture in
verity, frequency, and
storms to be more frequent, more intense, and longer-lasting the summer.
duration of droughts will
in the Central U.S. (Feng et al., 2016). change in the future. Sea-
Nearly all of the Midwestern U.S. has experienced a significant son-long droughts, such as
increase in rainfall from mesoscale convective systems over those experienced in 1988 and 2012,
the past 40 years (Feng et al., 2016). In the Midwest, these are not necessarily expected to increase in frequency. Rather,
systems are produced by a low-level jet stream, called projections suggest a more frequent pattern of excess mois-
the Great Plains low-level jet, that transports heat and ture in the spring given the changes in precipitation trends,
moisture from over the Gulf of Mexico north and east. followed by a lack of moisture in the summer due to higher
Higher temperatures over the Southern Great Plains tend to temperatures and evapotranspiration (Angel et al., 2018).
strengthen this jet stream and increase the amount of moisture
Frost-Free Season
evaporated from the Gulf of Mexico that is transported inland,
which leads to stronger and more frequent storms (Figure 5). The length of the frost-free season (the length of time
between the last spring frost and the first fall frost) has
gradually increased throughout the entire continental U.S.
since the 1980s. Compared to the 1901 to 1960 time period,
the frost free season was 9 to 10 days longer on average
in the Midwest and Great Plains during 1991 to 2012 (Walsh
et al., 2014) (Figure 6). The length of the frost-free season is
projected to continue to increase in the Midwest by up to 20
days by mid-century and possibly a month by late-century
(Angel et al., 2018).
Greater Less
Stro

Surface Surface A longer frost-free season means a longer period for plant
ng

Warming Warming growth and productivity each year, which, by itself, can
e r L o w- L e

generally be considered positive for agricultural production,

particularly in northern areas where productivity is greatly
vel

constrained by the length of the growing season. Adaptation

J

Warmer sea
et

surface temp. =
to this trend is already apparent with the expansion of
more evaporation corn production in the Northern Great Plains and western
Figure 5. Warmer sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico Canada. It is important to remember, though, that it is not
increase water evaporation into the atmosphere. Surface warming just crops experiencing a longer growing season but weeds,
over the Southern Great Plains increases the pressure gradient insects, and diseases. The Southern areas of the Midwest will
across the Central U.S., which strengthens the Great Plains low-level experience fewer frosts as the freeze zone moves north, which
jet, increasing the amount of moisture carried up to the Midwest that
has implications for pests and pathogens.
falls as precipitation.

Rainfall during the April to June timeframe provides the

benefit of charging the soil profile early in the season, which
can help mitigate the effect of dry spells later in the summer +16
on growing crops. However, excessive rainfall during this +10
time can also cause delays in field work due to saturated or +9 +10
flooded soils. Intense rainfall events can also erode soils that
+19
may have little or no protection at this time of the season.
Projected changes in precipitation over the next century +6
vary greatly across different regions of the U.S. Significant
increases in winter and spring precipitation are projected for
the Midwest and Northern Great Plains. Changes in summer
and fall precipitation are not expected to exceed the range
of natural variability. Studies project that the trend toward
Figure 6. The frost-free season length, defined as the period between
more frequent and intense heavy precipitation events will
the last occurrence of 32°F in the spring and the first occurrence of
continue in the future (Easterling et al., 2017). 32°F in the fall, has increased in each U.S. region during 1991-2012
relative to 1901-1960 (NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC, 2019).

134
 return to table of contents

Polar Vortex Disruption

Winter temperatures in the Midwest and Great Plains have
generally increased and are projected to continue to do so.
However, one of the more counterintuitive manifestations
of increasing global temperatures may be the potential to Climate Change and Crop Management
Dr. Mark Jeschke, and Dan Berning,
produce extreme cold snaps, such as the one experienced Agronomy Managers
in the Midwest and Northern Great Plains in late January of
Pioneer Agronomy managers discuss climate
2019. The cold air over the Arctic is generally separated from change implications for agriculture, including
the warmer mid-latitude air by the jet stream – a river of wind observed and projected changes in weather
that flows from west to east over North America. Over the past patterns, potential impants on crop growth,
century, the Arctic has warmed at a much faster rate than and management ideas to consider.
the rest of the earth, which has decreased the temperature
differential between the Arctic and North America. As the
difference in temperature decreases, so does the difference
in atmospheric pressure, which causes the jet stream winds
to weaken. As the jet stream weakens, extremely cold high-
altitude Arctic air has the potential to plunge south into the
U.S. (Figure 7). The potential for cold snaps like this to increase
in frequency in the future is undetermined and currently an
active area of research.

Unrelenting rainfall caused widespread delays in spring tillage and

planting in 2019. The continuing trend toward more spring rainfall will
be a major challenge for crop production in the Midwestern U.S.

To some extent, adaptation by crop producers to changing

climatic conditions has been and will continue to be automatic
– by continually optimizing crop selection, hybrid/variety
selection, and agronomic management for maximum yields,
adaptation happens without anyone necessarily thinking
about it. As current climate trends continue to intensify in the
future, however, adaptation may become more important to
specifically plan towards. It will be very important to protect
soils and crops against a more volatile climate with a higher
Figure 7. Average near-surface temperature anomaly for January frequency of extreme events. In the near-term, the greatest
28-30, 2019, showing an area of extreme cold over North America
need for active adaptation will likely not be associated with
(Climate Reanalyzer, Climate Change Institute, University of Maine.
Data from NOAA Global Forecast System model). rising temperatures and longer growing seasons so much as
with more abundant and intense rainfall. Specific adaptive
Crop Management Implications practices will vary by geography, crop, and operation.
Crop Yield Field Work Suitability
When considering the possible implications One of the greatest risks to crop yield
of climate change for agricultural In the near-term, associated with climate change will likely be
productivity in the U.S., one must first the greatest need the inability to conduct field operations,
consider two indisputable facts: 1) for active adaptation particularly planting, in a timely manner.
significant shifts in climate are already The continuing trend toward more
occurring, and 2) U.S. average corn
will likely not be associated precipitation in the spring with a greater
and soybean yields have continued with rising temperatures and proportion concentrated into intense
to go up. This would suggest one of longer growing seasons, rainfall events will result in fewer days
three possibilities: 1) climate change so much as with more suitable for field work. Adequate field
experienced thus far has required little, if drainage will be increasingly important
any, adaptation to maintain yield trends;
abundant and intense to help move water out of fields as well as
2) adaptation is being implemented and rainfall. shorten the time between heavy rains and
has been successful; or 3) yields have been suitability of soils for fieldwork. Machinery and
reduced by climate change, but these losses labor resources may also need to be increased
have been more than offset by gains from better to allow more fieldwork to be done within smaller
genetics and management. windows of time in which conditions are favorable.

135
 return to table of contents

Soil Conservation and Health

The trend toward greater precipitation and more intense
rainfall events will place a greater importance on good soil
conservation practices to protect against erosion. Protecting
the soil will be especially important during the fallow periods
of late winter and spring when precipitation is forecast to
increase the most. Shorter and warmer winters mean a
greater proportion of total precipitation will fall as rain rather
than snow, which will increase the risk of erosion and flooding
from heavy rains in late winter and early spring.

2017; Kistner and Hatfield, 2018). Pests, such as corn earworm

(Heliothis zea), that do not currently overwinter in the Midwest
are expected to increase in prevalence as the southern
boundary of the seasonal freeze zone moves north.
Weed management will likely become more challenging with
rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2. Research has
shown that weed species tend to respond more to elevat-
ed CO2 than crop species, making them more competitive
with growing crops (Ziska, 2004). Higher temperatures give a
competitive advantage to weed species with the C4 pho-
tosynthetic pathway, such as waterhemp (Amaranthus tu-
berculatus), Palmer amaranth, and Johnsongrass (Sorghum
halepense). Weed management programs that include mul-
Increased soil conservation measures will be necessary to protect tiple modes of action and sequential treatments will be criti-
against more frequent and intense precipitation in the late winter
cal for effective weed control.
and spring.
Climate change effects on corn disease severity is project-
Managing soil compaction will be important as farmers ed to be mixed with differing effects on individual pathogens
may be increasingly compelled to conduct field operations (Juroszek and von Tiedemann, 2013). Plant pathogens are
when soil conditions are wetter than optimal in part or all of highly responsive to humidity, precipitation, and tempera-
the field. The dramatic increase in the weight of many farm ture. Pathogens will generally be favored by increased hu-
machines over the past few decades coupled with wetter midity and frequency of rainfall, but a greater frequency of
soils means the risk of deep and persistent soil compaction dry conditions during pollination and grain fill could limit the
will be greater than ever before (Jeschke, 2018). Management spread of foliar disease in the crop canopy during the most
practices that help build soil organic matter and structure critical period for yield. Wetter conditions during the fall, such
will help make the soil more resilient to compaction, increase as those experienced in 2018, may increase the severity of
water-holding capacity, and allow excess water to drain diseases that affect grain quality and harvestability.
more quickly, all of which will be increasingly important with Insect pests of crops are likely to increase in the Midwest. Re-
the greater frequency of growing seasons that are too wet search has shown that temperature is the single most import-
early and too dry late. ant factor driving insect ecology, epidemiology, generations
Disease, Insect, and Weed Management per growing season, and distribution (Coakley et al., 1999), so
warmer temperatures and longer frost-free periods will gen-
Some of the most noticeable impacts of climate change
erally be favorable to insects. Greater insect pressure could
on crop production may not be to the crop itself but to
put increased stress on the effectiveness of insect protection
associated weeds, diseases, and insects. The geographic
technologies and treatments, making the use of integrated
distribution of pest species is heavily influenced by climate,
management strategies with multiple tactics and modes of
so as climate changes, pest distribution and activity will
action more important.
also change. In general, the Midwestern states are likely to
face more challenges from pests traditionally associated Fertility Management
with southern states due to rising temperatures and shorter Increased frequency and intensity of rainfall early in the grow-
winters. Two examples that fit this expected pattern for which ing season may impact nitrogen management in corn by in-
changes have already been observed are southern rust of creasing the risk of nitrogen loss. In such situations, nitrate
corn (Puccinia polysora) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus may be lost from the soil either by leaching or denitrification,
palmeri (S.) Wats.), both of which have become a greater depending primarily on soil characteristics. Coarse-textured
problem in the Midwest in the past decade (Jeschke et al., soils allow water and nitrates to move readily downward

136
 return to table of contents

through the soil profile. When this leaching places nitrate below the
root zone, it is of no use to the plant and essentially lost. Fine-textured
Conclusions
soils, on the other hand, have capillary pores that hold water tightly,
restricting its downward movement. In this situation, saturated soils Midwest farmers will need to adapt and pro-
and anaerobic conditions may result in nitrate being lost to the atmo- tect their farms from increased precipitation
sphere through denitrification. in the winter and spring and more intense
storms, which will lead to a greater frequency
The use of nitrification inhibitors can help reduce the risk of nitrogen
of saturated soils and flooding. This will have
loss from the soil by slowing the conversion of ammonium to nitrate,
implications for field operations, soil conser-
thus prolonging the period of time that nitrogen is in the immobile am-
vation practices, and fertility management.
monium form. Applying nitrogen in-season can help protect against
Warmer temperatures and longer frost-free
nitrogen loss by timing application more closely to plant uptake. How-
seasons may alter the crop rotations used or
ever, uptake of late-season nitrogen can be limited if conditions turn
hybrid/variety maturities selected. Weed and
dry during the summer.
insect pressure varies yearly and is expected
In addition to nitrogen, the availability of other nutrients that are to worsen overall, making more diligent man-
mobile in soil water can be affected by frequent early season rains. agement necessary.
Sulfur and boron are both highly mobile in their plant-available
Corteva Agriscience offers a range of tools
forms and subject to loss through leaching. Sulfur deficiencies are
and tactics to help growers adapt their crop
most common on sandy or other low organic soils because of their
production systems to changing conditions
reduced ability to supply sulfur and losses due to leaching. In recent
and new challenges:
years, however, deficiencies have become more prevalent across a
variety of soil types, likely due to increased crop removal and reduced ● Crop breeding efforts in key geographies
atmospheric deposition. Boron can also become deficient in areas coupled with extensive local testing en-
where the nutrient is readily leached and is not replenished through sures that new hybrids and varieties have
organic matter decomposition. the characteristics necessary to thrive in
the environments in which they are grown.
● Extensive research on pest management
tools, seed treatments, and crop manage-
ment helps farmers protect yield potential
in the face of environmental stresses and
shifting pest spectrums.
● Crop management research and insights
provided by Pioneer agronomists helps
farmers optimize management practices
and stay ahead of emerging issues.
● Granular tools and analytics allow farmers
to monitor crop conditions, proactively
identify issues, and efficiently allocate
inputs.
● And finally, Corteva Agriscience support
for numerous university research studies
helps develop solutions tailored to address
unique challenges in specific geographies.

137
 return to table of contents

Factors Contributing
to Rising Global
Temperatures
Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Key Points
● Multiple independent datasets show that global average surface
temperature has risen by about 1.8°F or 1.0°C since the late 19th Century.
● Many different factors can influence global temperature; however, the
overwhelming scientific consensus is that recent warming is predominantly
due to human activity.
● Adaptation of crop production systems will be necessary to ensure resiliency
and sustained productivity under changing climatic conditions driven by
higher temperatures.

Introduction
One of the most important factors influencing climatic trends around the world
right now is rising global temperatures. Climate scientists have identified
several shifts in climate trends associated with rising temperatures that
will affect agricultural production, many of which are already having an
impact.
This article will discuss how global temperature is measured, how
scientists know that the rise in global temperature is being
driven by human activity, and what that means for crop
production going forward.

Climate scientists
have identified several
shifts in climate trends
associated with rising
temperatures that will affect
agricultural production,
many of which are already
having an impact.

138
 return to table of contents

How do Scientists Measure Global Temperature?

Global average temperature is easy to conceptualize,
but much more difficult to measure due to the variation of
temperature over space and time. To get a comprehensive
picture of global temperature, scientists combine thousands
of individual measurements taken over land and ocean all
around the world. Each individual measurement is compared
to the long-term average temperature for its place and
time to determine the temperature anomaly, or deviation
from normal (Pidcock, 2015). The entire planet’s surface is
then divided out into a grid and the average temperature
anomaly for each grid square is determined (Figure 1). All
daily temperature anomalies across all grid squares over
the course of a year are then used to determine the annual
global temperature anomaly.
Further complicating the process is the fact that temperature
instrumentation and observation practices are continually
changing. Historical temperature records must account for
changes in measurement practices, changes in measurement Figure 1. Global surface temperature anomalies on a 5 x 5 grid for
locations, and changes in land use around weather stations. July 2020 (NOAA NCEI 2021).
Temperature records must also account for spatial gaps in
temperature measurements.
There are four major global surface temperature datasets
Global Surface Temperature Datasets
scientists use. These datasets differ in the data they use,
the timescales they cover and the statistical methods they ● MLOST: Produced by the U.S. National Oceanic and
employ; consequently, they do not match each other exactly. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
However, all four datasets show a very similar trend, which is ● GISTEMP: Produced by the U.S. NASA Goddard
an increase in global average surface temperature of about Institute for Space Sciences (GISS)
1.8°F or 1.0°C since the late 19th Century (Figure 2). ● HadCRUT: Produced jointly by the UK Met Office
The question of whether the planet is warming is not the sub- Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s
ject of any serious scientific dispute. Multiple independent Climatic Research Unit
datasets from scientific agencies around the world all show a ● JMA: Produced by the Japan Meteorological
similar trend of rising global temperatures since the late 19th Agency
Century. The next step is to understand why it is warming.

What is Causing the Rise in

Global Temperature?
0.50
The overwhelming scientific consensus
is that warming over the past century
0.25 is predominantly due to human activity
Temperature Anomaly (°C)

(Santer et al., 2019); however, there are

0 a number of factors – both natural and
human-caused – that can and do in-
fluence Earth’s temperature.
-0.25
Natural Factors
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
-0.50 Met Office Hadley Center/Climatic Research Unit Among the natural factors are long-
NOAA National Climatic Data Center term cycles in Earth’s orbital patterns,
Japanese Meteorological Agency
known as Milankovitch cycles. These are
-0.75 slight variations in Earth’s orbit and tilt
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
that cause the planet to cycle between
Figure 2. Global average temperature anomaly from 1880 to 2012, compared to the 1951-1980 ice ages and interglacial periods (Buis,
long term average. Source: NASA Earth Observatory.
2020).

139
 return to table of contents

These cycles have a large effect on Earth’s climate, And finally, we know that changes in atmospheric
but only over long periods of time. The most composition influence temperature. Ice core
recent glacial period reached its maximum samples and other paleoclimatology records
around 20,000 years ago with a global The overwhelming show that the concentration of greenhouse
average temperature that was about 11°F gases – carbon dioxide, specifically – has
scientific consensus
(6°C) cooler than today (Tierney et al., varied greatly over the history of the
2020). The subsequent warming period is that warming over planet, which has been associated with
peaked 6000-8000 years ago (Renssen the past century is large variations in global temperature.
et al., 2012). Since then, the effect of predominantly due to Human Activity
Earth’s orbital patterns has been a very human activity. Human activity can also influence tem-
slow, steady rate of cooling.
perature in ways that are analogous to
Variations in solar activity can also affect some natural factors.
temperature. Solar output doesn’t stay com-
Industrial pollution that releases sulfur dioxide
pletely constant over time, with total solar irradiance
into the atmosphere contributes to stratospheric sulfate
varying over roughly 11-year cycles (Figure 3). However, solar
aerosols much like a volcanic eruption, reflecting solar ra-
output only varies by 0.15% or less over the course of these
diation and creating a cooling effect. Global sulfur dioxide
cycles so the impact on Earth temperature is minimal, only
emissions have declined since the 1970s, largely due to sharp
around +/-0.1°C.
reductions in North America and Europe resulting from clean
1366 1 air regulations.
0.8 Greenhouse gases produced through human activities in-
1365 Solar Irradiance
0.6 clude carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated
Total Solar Irradiance (W/m2)

Temperature Anomaly ( °C)

Temperature
1364 0.4 gases. Carbon dioxide is by far the most important of these
0.2 gases due to the massive quantities of it injected into the at-
1363 mosphere through the burning of coal, gas, and oil. Unlike sul-
0
-0.2 fur dioxide emissions, output of carbon dioxide has continued
1362
-0.4
to increase. Consequently, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
1361 have increased from around 280 ppm prior to the industrial
-0.6
era, to over 400 ppm today.
-0.8
1360
-1 Modeling the Effects on Global Temperature
1359 -1.2 Computer models of Earth’s climate system allow scientists
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 to explore the impact of each of these factors and compare
Figure 3. Annual global land and ocean temperature anomaly their predicted effects to observed changes in temperature.
(GISTEMP 3.1) and total solar irradiance (SATIRE-T2 + PMOD), 1880-
2017 (NASA, 2019). Figure 4a shows the predicted effects of natural factors,
including solar output, orbital cycles, and volcanic activity.
Ocean temperature cycles can cause short-term variations The combined predicted effect of all natural factors on
in climate due to changes in the balance of heat energy temperature is relatively flat over this time period, with
between the oceans and the atmosphere. The El Niño intermittent downward spikes associated with major volcanic
Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is an example familiar to most events. The combined trend line does not match observed
farmers in North America due to its potential to affect growing temperatures well, particularly from 1960 to present, indicating
conditions. that rising temperatures are not due to natural factors.
Volcanic eruptions can cause a short-term cooling effect. Figure 4b shows the predicted effects of human factors,
When a volcano erupts, it can eject large quantities of sulfur including greenhouse gases, aerosol particles, changes in
dioxide, which combines with water in the stratosphere to land use, and changes in ozone levels. Predicted effects of
form sulfate aerosols. These particles reflect incoming solar changes in land use and ozone levels on temperature are
radiation back out into space, reducing solar transmission relatively small. A cooling effect is associated with aerosols
through the atmosphere. If the eruption is large enough, produced by human activity and a strong warming effect is
this can have a temporary global cooling effect. A relatively associated with greenhouse gas emissions. The combined
recent example of an eruption causing such an effect was trend line for human factors matches observed temperatures
the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the early 1990s. Volcanic much more closely than natural factors.
activity can also release carbon dioxide and methane, which
are both greenhouse gases, potentially leading to a warming
effect.

140
 return to table of contents

Figure 4c shows the combined effects of all natural and (a)

All Natural Influences Observed
2.0
human factors. The combined trend line matches observed
temperatures very well, suggesting that the climate model is 1.5
doing a good job of accounting for the effects of the different
1.0 All Natural
factors. Drivers
0.5
Out of all of the factors modeled in Figure 4, greenhouse
Volcanic
gas emissions is the only factor predicted to cause a strong 0.0 Solar
Orbital
warming effect and is the predominant factor to which the
-0.5
increase in global average temperature over the past century
can be attributed. -1.0

Temperature Difference from Average (°F)

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020
What Does This Mean for Crop Production?
(b) Observed
Understanding the reason for rising global temperatures 2.0
All Human Influences
Greenhouse Gases
is a critical prerequisite for considering its implications for
crop production. Shifts in weather patterns that we have 1.5

experienced in recent years cannot be dismissed as the 1.0

result of a random oscillation of the planet’s climate system All Human
0.5 Drivers
that will inevitably revert back to normal. We know that these
Ozone
changes are not random or unpredictable, but rather they 0.0
are being driven by a persistent imbalance that has been Land Cover
-0.5
introduced into Earth’s climate system through human activity.
Furthermore, we know that – absent an immediate global Aerosols
-1.0
effort to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020
– this imbalance will continue to grow, and its associated
(c) All Human and Natural Influences Observed
climatological effects will continue to intensify. 2.0

Year-to-year variation in weather will continue to exist, and 1.5

some years will be hotter or wetter than others. However, we
All Drivers
know that certain changes in climate associated with rising 1.0

global temperatures that impact agriculture, such as higher 0.5

night temperatures during the growing season and more
intense rainfall events, will occur with greater frequency in the 0.0

coming years. Because we know these changes are coming, -0.5

we have the ability to start planning and implementing
-1.0
adaptation measures to build more resilient crop production
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020
systems.
Figure 4. Human and natural influences on global temperature, 1880-
2018 (Hayhoe, et al., 2018).

Shifts in weather
patterns that we have
experienced in recent years
cannot be dismissed as the
result of a random oscillation
of the planet’s climate
system that will inevitably
revert back to normal.

141
 return to table of contents

The Greenhouse Effect

and Greenhouse Gases
Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Key Points
● Human activities have increased the concentration of
several greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which
has amplified Earth’s greenhouse effect and elevated
global mean temperature by around 1.8°F.
● Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic
greenhouse gas – it comprises the largest proportion
of emissions from human activity and is the largest
contributor to global warming.
● Methane and nitrous oxide are more powerful green-
house gases but are emitted in smaller quantities than
carbon dioxide.
● Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide all cycle
in and out of the atmosphere through natural process-
es but human emissions have altered the balance of
these cycles, leading to buildup in the atmosphere.
● Transportation and electricity generation are the larg- The Greenhouse Effect
est sources of greenhouse gases, accounting for over
This heat-trapping phenomenon is known as the green-
half of total emissions, with agriculture accounting for
house effect and it is essential for life on Earth. Without any
around 10%.
greenhouse effect at all, Earth would be uninhabit-
able – global mean surface temperature would
What are Greenhouse Gases? be around 5°F (-15°C) rather than the current
A greenhouse gas is a gas with a molecular Industrial average of 59°F (15°C). The strength of the
structure that causes it to absorb and activities carried greenhouse effect is determined by the
emit infrared radiation. When incoming concentration of greenhouse gases in
out on a global scale
radiant energy from the sun is absorbed the atmosphere. Consequently, any pro-
have increased the cess that significantly changes the con-
by the Earth’s surface and re-emitted
as infrared energy, greenhouse gases concentration of several centration of these gases – be it natural
in the atmosphere prevent some of this greenhouse gases in or human-caused – will alter the energy
heat from escaping into space, instead the atmosphere. balance between incoming solar radiation
reflecting the energy back to further warm and the heat released back into space, re-
the surface creating an insulating effect from sulting in a change to Earth’s temperature.
the cold of space (Figure 1). Paleoclimatology records show that, over the vast
timescales of Earth’s history, greenhouse gas concentra-
tions have varied considerably and, along with several other
important factors, have caused dramatic changes in Earth’s
temperature and climate. However, the beginning of the in-
dustrial era marked the first time in human history in which
population growth and technological innovation made it
possible for humans to significantly alter the composition of
the atmosphere. Industrial activities carried out on a global
scale have increased, and continue to increase, the concen-
tration of several greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; the
result of which has been an amplification of the greenhouse
effect that has raised global mean temperature by around
1.8°F since the late 19th Century.
Figure 1. Illustration of Earth’s greenhouse effect. Source: U.S. Energy
Information Administration.

142
 return to table of contents

Greenhouse Gases Differ in Strength

Greenhouse gases produced through human
activities include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide
and fluorinated gases. Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide all have natural sources as well, while fluorinated gases
come exclusively from human activity. The overall contribution
of each of these gases to climate forcing depends on their
inherent heat-trapping efficiency (referred to as global
warming potential), abundance, and residence time in the
atmosphere (Table 1).
Table 1. Greenhouse gas emissions from human activity: global
warming potential and percent of total (U.S. EPA, 2019).
Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Human CO2 emissions are pri-
Global Warming Percent of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas
Potential* GHG Emissions
marily a product of the
burning of fossil fuels for Global
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1 81% electricity generation,
carbon dioxide
Methane (CH4) 25 10% transportation, and
industry but are also
emissions currently
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 298 6%
produced by defor- exceed 35 billion metric
Fluorinated gases 7,390-22,800 3% estation and land tons per year and are
*A measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 ton of a gas will absorb over use change. Carbon primarily the result of fossil
100 years, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). dioxide is naturally
fuel burning, cement
Global warming potential of greenhouse gases is expressed present in the atmo-
sphere as a part of the
production, and gas
as an index relative to CO2. For example, the global warm-
ing potential of methane is 25, meaning it has 25 times the Earth’s carbon cycle and flaring.
heat trapping efficiency as CO2. Nitrous oxide is an even is essential for plant life. In
more power greenhouse gas with a global warming potential fact, carbon flux from human
of 298 and fluorinated gases are extremely powerful. When activity is relatively small compared
discussing emissions of greenhouse gases other than CO2, to the carbon flux associated with natural processes such as
quantities are often expressed in terms of their equivalency photosynthesis and respiration (Figure 3). However, carbon
to CO2 (CO2e). dioxide emissions constitute a persistent shift in the balance
of the Earth’s carbon cycle, pulling billions of tons of carbon
Much of the concern around greenhouse gas emissions
stored in the Earth’s crust and putting it into the atmosphere
has focused on CO2. It has a relatively low global warming
on an ongoing basis and causing atmospheric CO2 concen-
potential relative to other greenhouse gases but comprises
trations to rise.
by far the largest proportion of emissions from human activity
and is the largest contributor to overall climate forcing (Figure Atmosphere
1). In contrast, the fluorinated gases are far more powerful 750
Soil Respiration Photos
Photosynthesis
greenhouse gases but comprise a relatively small proportion 60 1
120
of emissions and consequently have a smaller contributing Volcanos
0.1
effect to climate forcing (Figure 2). Burning Deforestation
Plant Ocean
Fossil Respiration and Land Loss
3.5 Fuels Use Change
60 Ocean 90
Carbon dioxide 6 0.9 Uptake
3.0 Methane 92
Nitrous oxide
Warming Influence (W/m2)

CFC-12
2.5 CFC-11
Other gases
2.0 Plants
560 Litterfall
60 Rivers
1.5 Fossil Fuels 0.8
4,000
1.0 Soils
Earth’s Crust 1,500 Oceans
100,000,000 38,000
0.5 Burial to Sediments
0.1
0.0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3. Global carbon cycle diagram showing carbon pools
Figure 2. Radiative forcing caused by major long-lived greenhouse (blue text) and annual carbon fluxes (orange text) measured in
gases produced by human activity, 1979-2015 (NOAA, 2021). petagrams. Source: Univ. of New Hampshire GLOBE Carbon Cycle,
globecarboncycle.unh.edu

143
 return to table of contents

Global carbon dioxide emissions currently exceed 35 billion 425

metric tons per year and are primarily the result of fossil fuel 400
burning (coal, oil, and natural gas), cement production, and
375

Atmospheric CO2 (ppm)

gas flaring (Figure 4).
40 350
Human CO2 Emissions (billions of metric tons)

Gas Flaring
35 325
Cement Production
30 Natural Gas Burning 300
Oil Burning
25
275
Coal Burning
250
20
225
15 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Year
10 Figure 5. Atmospheric CO2 concentration over the past 2000 years
based on ice core data (before 1958), and direct measurements taken
5 at Mauna Loa and the South Pole (1958-present) (Keeling et al., 2001;
MacFarling Meure et al., 2006).
0

2000
2004
2008
1888
1884
1880

1892
1896
1900

2012
1904
1908

1984
1980

1988
1992
1964

1996
1920

1936

1956
1960
1924
1928

1968
1944
1940

1948

1972
1912
1916

1932

1952

1976

A combination of direct measurements and ice core data

Figure 4. Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning, cement allow us to track the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
production and gas flaring, 1880-2014. (Source: Carbon Dioxide over a long period of time. For most of the past 2000
Information Analysis Center). years, CO2 levels were relatively stable, fluctuating in a
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere range between 275 and 285 ppm until the mid-1800s when
naturally cycles over extremely long time scales as the Earth emissions from human activity began driving atmospheric
cycles between ice ages and interglacial periods; however, CO2 upward. Atmospheric CO2 reached 300 ppm in 1912, 350
emissions from fossil fuel burning over the past 150 years or ppm in 1988, and 400 ppm in 2015. In fact, over the course
so have dramatically increased the amount of CO2 in the of the past 800,000 years for which we have a reliable ice
atmosphere in an extremely short period of time relative to core record, atmospheric CO2 never exceeded 300 ppm until
changes driven by natural factors (Figure 5). the 20th Century, making our current state unprecedented in
human history (Lüthi et al., 2008).

Figure 6. Diagram of the global methane budget showing anthropogenic and natural fluxes of methane into and out of the atmosphere.
Source: Global Carbon Project.

144
 return to table of contents

Methane Emissions The largest anthropogenic source of methane emissions is

Methane (CH4) is a con- livestock production, with methane emitted via enteric fer-
siderably more pow- mentation (primarily from cattle) and manure comprising two
The largest erful greenhouse of the top four sources overall (Figure 7). Other major sources
anthropogenic source gas than CO2, include natural gas systems, landfills, coal mining, and petro-
leum systems.
of methane emissions is with a 25x great-
livestock production, with er heat-trapping Enteric Fermentation 179
capacity. Like
methane emitted via enteric CO2, methane is Natural Gas Systems 156
fermentation and manure a naturally oc-
comprising two of the top Landfills 115
curring gas and
four sources overall. cycles in to and out Manure Management 62
of the atmosphere
via a number of differ- Coal Mining 47
ent natural processes. The
Petroleum Systems 40
largest natural source of meth-
ane is wetlands, where certain types of microorganisms pro- Wastewater Treatment 18
duce methane as a byproduct of metabolic reactions carried
out in anaerobic environments. Rice Cultivation 15

As with CO2, human activity has altered the balance of the Stationary Combustion 9
global methane cycle, with total inputs of methane into the
Abandoned Oil
atmosphere exceeding removal by approximately 18.2 Tg per 7
and Gas Wells
year (Figure 6). This has resulted in an increase in atmospheric
0 50 100 150 200
methane levels. The concentration of methane in the atmo-
MMT CO2e
sphere has more than doubled from a pre-industrial level of
722 ppb to 1,892 ppb in 2020 (Dlugokencky, 2021). Figure 7. Major sources of methane emissions in the U.S., 2019. (Source:
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2019,
Figure ES-9).

Figure 8. Diagram of the global nitrous oxide budget showing anthropogenic and natural fluxes of methane into and out of the atmosphere.
Source: Global Carbon Project.

145
 return to table of contents

What About Water Vapor?

The gas that contributes the most to Earth’s greenhouse effect is water vapor, accounting for about 60% of the total warming effect
– so why is it never mentioned when discussing global warming? It’s because water vapor in the atmosphere is not a driver of higher
temperatures. Rather it reacts to higher temperatures.
The temperature of the atmosphere dictates the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If air contains its
maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature decreases, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water and
precipitate out of the atmosphere.
As temperatures rise due to the increasing concentrations of other greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor can increase as well,
creating a positive feedback effect and further amplifying the greenhouse effect.

Nitrous Oxide Emissions Greenhouse Gases in Agriculture

Nitrous oxide is a much more powerful green- The economic sectors responsible for the ma-
house gas than either CO2 or methane, with The largest jority of greenhouse gases are transporta-
a heat-trapping capacity 298 times that of tion, electricity generation, and industry,
anthropogenic
CO2. Like the other two major greenhouse accounting for a combined total of 77% of
gases, nitrous oxide is naturally occurring
source of nitrous emissions in the U.S. (Figure 10). Agriculture
and cycles into and out of the atmo- oxide emissions is accounts for around 10% of greenhouse
sphere through natural process. Nitrous nitrogen losses from gas emissions, making it a significant con-
oxide is produced by biological processes agriculturally tributor, but not nearly as large as the top
that occur in soil and water (Figure 8). three sectors. The percent of greenhouse
managed soils.
By far, the largest anthropogenic source of ni- gas emissions attributable to agriculture is
trous oxide emissions is nitrogen losses from ag- somewhat lower in the U.S. than it is globally
riculturally managed soils, accounting for over 75% due to the greater efficiency of agriculture in the
of total nitrous oxide emissions and around 5% of green- U.S. compared to much of the world.
house gas emissions overall. Wastewater treatment, fossil fuel Greenhouse gas estimates for agriculture typically do not
combustion, livestock manure, and various industrial process- include emissions associated with production of agricultural
es are also major sources (Figure 9). Atmospheric nitrous oxide inputs or the transportation, processing, and packaging of
levels have increased by around 20% during the industrial era, agricultural products, so estimates of greenhouse gas emis-
from 270 ppb in 1850 to 335 ppb today (MacFarling Meure et sions attributable to the global food system as a whole often
al., 2006; Elkins et al., 2021). run much higher – as much as 34% (Crippa et al. 2021).

Agricultural Soil
Management
345
Residential
Wastewater Treatment 26
Commercial
Stationary Combustion 25
6% Transportation
7%
Manure Management 20 Agriculture
28%
10%
Mobile Combustion 19

Nitric Acid Production 10

Adipic Acid Production 5

22%
N2O from Product Uses 4 Industry
27%
Composting 2
Electric Power
Caprolactam Production 1
Figure 10. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by economic sector, 2018.
0 100 200 300 400 Source: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-
2019, Table ES-6.
MMT CO2e
Figure 9. Major sources of nitrous oxide emissions in the U.S., 2019.
Source: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-
2019, Figure ES-10.

146
 return to table of contents

Greenhouse Gas
Emissions in Agriculture
Mark Jeschke, Ph.D., Agronomy Manager

Summary
● Agriculture is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, contributing With the rapid
around 10% of total U.S. emissions and 17% of global emissions. expansion of carbon
● Agriculture is unique among economic sectors in that its greenhouse gas credit programs and other
emissions are mostly nitrous oxide and methane rather than carbon dioxide.
initiatives aimed at reducing
● The largest contributors to agricultural greenhouse gas emissions are nitrous agriculture’s climate impact,
oxide emitted from agricultural soils, methane from livestock production, and
methane from rice production.
it is important to understand
● Agricultural emissions largely come from natural biological processes carried
how agriculture contributes
out by microbes in animals and soil, but the scale of those processes has to greenhouse gas
been greatly amplified by the expansion of agricultural production. emissions.
● Several management practices and technologies available now or
currently in development offer the potential to reduce agricultural emissions.
● A major contributor to agriculture’s carbon footprint globally is the conver-
sion of new land to agricultural production, making it critical to continue to
drive greater productivity on existing agricultural land.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in On balance though, agriculture is a from Agriculture
Agriculture net emitter of greenhouse gases, with
the quantity emitted through various
Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emis-
processes far exceeding the quantity
sions have brought increased atten-
stored (Figure 1).
tion to the role of agriculture, both as
a source of greenhouse gas emissions Emissions Compared to Other N2O Agricultural Soil
Management 338.2
and for potential strategies within the Sectors 357.9
industry for sequestering emissions. Agriculture accounts for around 10% of MMT CO2e
With the rapid expansion of carbon U.S. greenhouse gas emissions accord- Manure
19.4
Management
credit programs and other initiatives ing to the U.S. Environmental Protection Crop Residue
aimed at reducing agriculture’s climate Agency (EPA), making it a significant Burning 0.2
impact, it is important to understand contributor, but not nearly as large as
how agriculture contributes to green- the top three sectors: transportation
house gas emissions, where the great- (28%), electricity generation (27%), and Enteric 178.0
est opportunities lie for reducing those Fermentation

emissions, and how agriculture fits into

industry (22%) (Table 1). CH4
the wider effort to drawdown green- Estimates of greenhouse gas emissions 255.7 Manure
Management 61.7
attributable to agriculture vary widely MMT CO2e
house gas emissions.
though, and figures produced by other Rice Cultivation 15.6
Agricultural production is both a source organizations are often higher than the
Crop Residue
0.4
Burning
and sink for greenhouse gases. Nu-
merous processes involved in crop and
EPA estimate of 10%. For example, the CO2 Fuel
Urea Fertilization
40.1
5.2
U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization 47.5 MMT Liming 2.2
livestock production release carbon (FAO) estimates that 17% of anthropo-
dioxide and other greenhouse gases genic greenhouse gas emissions are Agricultural Carbon Sequestration
into the atmosphere. Crop production
also captures carbon dioxide from the
attributable to agriculture (FAO, 2020). CO2 Crop land and
Grass land
-4.3
The World Resources Institute estimates -4.3 MMT
atmosphere through photosynthesis. that agriculture and land use change,
Management practices such as con- Figure 1. Greenhouse gas emissions from
which is primarily driven by agriculture,
servation tillage and cover crops can agriculture and sequestration in crop and
collectively account for nearly 24% of grass land in the U.S., 2018. Source: EPA
help increase the amount of that cap- greenhouse gas emissions (Arcipowska Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
tured carbon that is stored in the soil. et al., 2019). Discrepancies in these es- and Sinks 1990-2019.

147
 return to table of contents

Table 1. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by economic sector, 2018. 1. Higher yields: Increasing agricultural output is necessary
Source: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990- to feed a growing global population but it needs to be
2019, Table ES-6.
done without converting more land area to agricultural
Greenhouse Gas Emissions production. This means that closing yield gaps and
Economic Sector continuing to drive higher yield potential through better
MMT CO2e % of total
genetics and management are crucial.
Transportation 1,883.1 28.2
2. Better management practices: Greenhouse gas emissions
Electric Power 1,807.5 27.1
associated with crops and livestock can vary greatly de-
Industry 1,488.9 22.3 pending on where and how they are produced. Improved
Agriculture 661.6 9.9 management practices can help reduce emissions asso-
Commercial 448.5 6.7 ciated with agricultural production.
Residential 378.2 5.7 3. Reduce food waste: Around one quarter of the total food
calories the world produces are wasted. This includes food
timates can sometimes become contentious when evaluat- wasted by consumers as well as supply chain losses due
ing where attention, resources, and regulations for reducing to spoilage during transit and processing.
greenhouse gas emissions should be prioritized.
4. Optimize calorie intake: Many people currently consume
There are a few reasons why estimates of agriculture’s more calories than necessary to maintain a healthy weight.
contribution to greenhouse gas emissions vary so widely: A scenario in which calorie consumption was optimized
● The proportion of emissions attributable to to maintain body mass index in a healthy range,
agriculture differs dramatically by country. including increases for those currently under-
In highly industrialized countries with The urgent nourished, would reduce overall emissions
relatively efficient agricultural systems, need to reduce associated with food systems.
such as the U.S., agricultural emis- greenhouse gas 5. Plant-rich diet: Calories derived from
sions are a much smaller proportion
emissions while continuing meat are generally more greenhouse
of the total compared to less-
to increase production gas intensive to produce than those
industrialized nations, so estimates
from plants. A shift toward diets with
for the U.S. (EPA) are generally lower to feed a growing global
a higher proportion of plant-based
than global estimates (FAO, WRI). population is one of the most calories could reduce emissions.
● Agricultural emissions are inherently important challenges
Two of these five areas, higher yields
more difficult to measure than fossil facing agriculture and better management practices relate
fuel emissions because they involve
today. directly to how food is produced and are
complex biological systems.
key areas of focus for improving agricultural
● How emissions are categorized can make production systems.
a big difference. Greenhouse gas estimates for
agriculture typically do not include emissions associated Composition of Agricultural Emissions
with production of agricultural inputs or the transporta- The urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while
tion, processing, and packaging of agricultural products, continuing to increase production to feed a growing glob-
so estimates of greenhouse gas emissions attributable to al population is one of the most important challenges facing
the global food system as a whole often run much higher agriculture today. The first step in meeting that challenge is
than those attributed specifically to agricultural produc- understanding how and where greenhouse gases are being
tion (Crippa et al., 2021). emitted from agricultural systems.
● Land use change associated with agriculture is also a Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have most com-
major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions globally. monly focused on carbon dioxide. Across all economic sectors,
Native vegetation and soil contain large amounts of carbon dioxide is the predominant anthropogenic greenhouse
carbon that are released into the atmosphere when the gas, accounting for 79% of emissions, followed by methane (11%),
land is cleared and brought into agricultural production. nitrous oxide (7%), and fluorinated gases (3%). In the agriculture
The World Resources Institute estimates that agricultural sector, however; carbon dioxide comprises only 7% of emissions,
production accounts for around 14% of greenhouse gas with 54% coming from nitrous oxide and 39% from methane.
emissions globally – a figure that rises to 24% when land
Total greenhouse gases emissions are often expressed as
use change is factored in.
CO2 equivalent units (CO2e or CO2-eq) which allows different
Reducing Emissions from Food Systems greenhouse gases to be combined into a single metric while
Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with accounting for the differing global warming potential of the
the global food production system have prioritized a few key different gases. For example, the global warming potential
areas spanning across food production, supply chains, and of methane is 25, meaning it has 25 times the heat trapping
consumption that offer the greatest opportunity for emissions efficiency as CO2. Nitrous oxide is an even more powerful
reduction (Ritchie, 2021): greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 298.

148
 return to table of contents

Major Sources and Sinks soil organic carbon. Management practices that favor the
The largest sources of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions buildup of soil organic carbon over time can sequester carbon
in the U.S. are nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils in the soil and offset a portion of greenhouse gas emissions.
and methane emissions from livestock production (enteric However, the quantity of carbon dioxide sequestered in
fermentation and manure). Methane from rice production agricultural soils currently is relatively small. Net carbon
is also a major contributor to agricultural greenhouse gas dioxide sequestered in agricultural crop and grass land
emissions globally, but not as much in the U.S. since rice is offsets less than 1% of the total greenhouse gases emitted by
not a major U.S. crop. Contributions of agricultural emission agriculture (U.S. EPA, 2021).
sources compared to other major sources of methane and Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
nitrous oxide are shown in Figure 2. Overall greenhouse gas emis-
sions in the U.S. have declined
Enteric Fermentation 179 over the past 15 years. Total
greenhouse gas emissions Emissions from
Natural Gas Systems 156
in the U.S. peaked in 2007 the agriculture
Landfills 115 at 7,464 MMT CO2e and sector have
have fallen by about 13% increased steadily
Manure Management 62 since then. This downward
over the past 30
trend has largely been due
Coal Mining 47 years.
to emissions reductions in
Petroleum Systems 40 industry and electricity gen-
eration. Agricultural emissions,
Wastewater Treatment 18 on the other hand, have continued to
increase, rising by about 4% over the same period. Emissions
Rice Cultivation 15
from the agriculture sector have increased steadily over the
Stationary Combustion 9 past 30 years by around 1.9 MMT CO2e per year (Figure 3).
Methane (CH4)
Abandoned Oil 750
7
and Gas Wells +1.88 MMT CO2e/yr
GHG Emissions (MMT CO2e)

700
0 50 100 150 200
MMT CO2e 650

Agricultural Soil 600

Management
345
550
Wastewater Treatment 26
500
Stationary Combustion 25
450
Manure Management 20
400
Mobile Combustion 19 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Figure 3. Recent trend in greenhouse gas emissions from the
Nitric Acid Production 10 U.S. agriculture sector, 1990-2020. Source: EPA Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2019.
Adipic Acid Production 5
While greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture have con-
N2O from Product Uses 4 tinued to increase, agricultural productivity has increased at
an even faster rate, meaning that emissions per unit of pro-
Composting 2 duction have gone down for most major commodities in the
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
U.S. This is a noteworthy accomplishment – U.S. agriculture
Caprolactam Production 1
has been able to greatly increase output without concom-
0 100 200 300 400 itant increases in inputs or land use. However, meeting the
MMT CO2e emissions targets necessary to avoid the most severe climate
impacts means that emissions across all economic sectors,
Figure 2. Major sources of methane (top) and nitrous oxide (above)
including agriculture, need to be reduced.
emissions in the U.S. Source: EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks 1990-2019. Perspectives on Agricultural Emissions
Agricultural production is a source of greenhouse gas The majority of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
emissions, but it can also serve as a greenhouse gas sink by come from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) for
removing carbon dioxide from the air. Plants take in carbon energy. Consequently, this is where the most urgency for
dioxide and incorporate it into plant tissues via photo- reducing emissions has been focused and it tends to be
synthesis. A portion of this carbon can remain in the soil as dominant lens through which the issue is viewed. However,

149
 return to table of contents

emissions associated with agricultural processes differ in be gradually reversed rather than persisting for centuries
some important ways that are relevant in developing emission or millennia like that of carbon dioxide (Lynch et al., 2021).
reduction strategies. Atmospheric concentrations of both gases continue to rise
Natural vs. Artificial Processes due to anthropogenic emissions and reductions in both are
critical for meeting climate goals, but their long-term impact
The burning of fossil fuels involves extracting deposits of is not the same as that of carbon dioxide.
hydrocarbons locked deep in the Earth’s crust and, through
combustion, releasing the carbon back into active circulation Major Sources of Agricultural Emissions
in Earth’s carbon cycle. This process is entirely the product The two largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in
of human intervention – there are many natural processes U.S. agriculture are nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural
that continually cycle carbon in and out of the atmosphere; soils and methane emissions from livestock production.
however, fossil fuel burning is an artificial process that has Consequently, these two areas offer the greatest opportunity
been added to the system. Consequently, when setting for reducing total agricultural emissions.
targets for greenhouse gas reductions, the goal for fossil
Agricultural Soil Management
fuel emissions ultimately needs to be zero – the complete
elimination of oil, gas, and coal as sources of energy. Nitrous oxide emissions categorized under agricultural soil
management include emissions from land in crop production
Many of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with
as well as managed grass lands (Figure 4). Nitrous oxide is
agriculture, on the other hand, come from natural processes.
naturally produced in soils through the microbial processes of
Methane and nitrous oxide are naturally produced by
nitrification and denitrification. These processes are driven by
animals and soil bacteria, and production of these gases
the availability of mineral nitrogen (NH4+ and NO3-) in the soil.
would still be going on without any human intervention. What
Mineral nitrogen is made available via natural processes such
is “unnatural” is the scale at which these processes are now
as decomposition of soil organic matter and plant material,
occurring. The massive expansion of agricultural activity
and by asymbiotic nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
around the world that has accompanied population growth
over the past century has amplified these processes to a Agricultural Soil Management
degree that it has created persistent imbalances in the global
nitrogen and methane cycles, resulting in rising atmospheric N2O Emissions
concentrations of both (Duglokencky, 2022; Elkins et al.,
2022). Completely eliminating these emissions sources is not
possible or even desirable, so efforts need to be focused on Synthetic
70.1
Fertilizer
finding areas in agricultural systems where emissions can be
reduced to a degree that will help bring these natural cycles Organic
back into balance. 14.3
Amendments
Residence Time of Gases in the Atmosphere
Crop Crop Residue N 41.2
Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions are primarily in the
form of nitrous oxide and methane, which both have a much Land Mineralization
greater warming effect than carbon dioxide, but also do not and Asymbiotic 66.1
persist as long in the atmosphere. 237.3 Fixation
MMT CO2e
The urgency surrounding elimination of fossil fuel emissions
Wetland Drainage 3.4
is partly due to the vast quantities of carbon dioxide being
emitted, but also due to the persistence of carbon dioxide Volatilization
and Deposition 8.0
in the atmosphere. A significant fraction of the carbon
Leaching and
dioxide being emitted today will remain in the atmosphere 34.4
Run-Off
for a thousand years or more (Archer and Brovkin, 2008). This
means that, even if net zero carbon dioxide emissions could Pasture Manure 12.9
be achieved immediately, the warming impact of carbon Biosolids 0.6
dioxide that has already been emitted will continue to be felt Grass Residue N 31.6
for centuries. This is why the elimination of fossil fuel emissions
is such a critical goal. Land Mineralization
and Asymbiotic 43.3
Fixation
Nitrous oxide, and especially methane, have shorter 100.9 Wetland Drainage 2.5
residence times in the atmosphere; 121 years in the case of MMT CO2e
Volatilization
nitrous oxide and 12.4 years for methane (U.S. EPA, 2022).
and Deposition
3.5
Since they do not accumulate in the atmosphere in the
Leaching and
same way as carbon dioxide, there is greater potential for 6.4
Run-Off
achieving an equilibrium concentration where ongoing
Figure 4. Direct and indirect nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural
emissions can be offset by natural atmospheric removals. soils by land type. Source: EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
And if emissions can be eliminated, their climate impact will Emissions and Sinks 1990-2019.

150
 return to table of contents

The majority of nitrous oxide emissions from soils are Opportunities and strategies for improving nitrogen
produced during denitrification, in which nitrate use efficiency vary widely around the world due to
(NO3–) is converted to N2 gas. When nitrate is not differences in crops and agronomic management.
completely converted to N2 gas, the resulting The greatest need for improvement is in China and
byproduct is nitrous oxide (N2O). Denitrification India, both of which use large amounts of nitrogen
occurs when oxygen availability is limited in fertilizer and have very low nitrogen use efficiency,
the soil due to water saturation. Nitrous oxide at around 30%. This low efficiency is partly due to
emissions from denitrification are triggered by overapplication of fertilizer but also due to lower
rainfall events of sufficient volume to saturate at least nitrogen use efficiency of crops commonly grown there.
60% of soil pore space. Lesser amounts of nitrous Nitrogen use efficiency in the U.S. is relatively high,
oxide are produced during nitrification, which at around 70%, and has improved in recent
is the conversion of ammonium to nitrate. decades from around 60% in 1990 (Las-
Several agricultural activities increase saletta et al., 2014). Increased efficiency
nitrous oxide emissions beyond what Climate change driven in the U.S. is largely attributable to im-
would occur naturally by increasing by greenhouse gas provements in genetics and manage-
the amount mineral nitrogen in the soil. ment that have resulted in greater
The most significant of these activities
emissions is not a future yield stability and, consequently, a
is adding mineral nitrogen to the soil problem – its impacts are greater likelihood that applied nitro-
via synthetic fertilizers. Additionally, already being felt around gen will be taken up by the crop (Ci-
agricultural soil management the world and affecting ampitti and Vyn, 2014; DeBruin et al.,
activities such as irrigation, drainage, agricultural production. 2017). However, despite higher nitrogen
and tillage can increase the rate of use efficiency in the U.S., nitrous oxide
nitrogen mineralization and asymbiotic emissions from agricultural soils have con-
nitrogen fixation occurring in the soil, which tinued to go up, increasing by around 6%
can also increase nitrous oxide emissions. since 1990. The reductions in nitrogen loss from
Nitrous oxide emissions attributed to agricultural soil greater efficiency have been more than offset by an
management also include indirect emissions, which increase in total nitrogen applied.
occur when nitrogen that moves off of agricultur- Reducing nitrous oxide emissions will require further
al land is subsequently converted to nitrous ox- improvements in nitrogen use efficiency. Nitrous
ide. This includes volatilization and subsequent oxide emissions can effectively be reduced by
deposition of applied or mineralized nitrogen, as reducing or minimizing the concentration of inor-
well as surface runoff and leaching of nitrogen ganic nitrogen in soils, especially during periods
into groundwater and surface water. when denitrification or nitrification are most likely
Agricultural soil management emissions are to occur. The trend toward increased volume and
subdivided by crop land and grass land, the latter of intensity of rainfall events during the spring in the U.S.
which includes both pastures and native rangelands. Corn Belt will make it increasingly important to manage
Crop land accounts for around 2.3 times the nitrogen to avoid losses during this time.
total amount of nitrous oxide emissions as Several management practices and technolo-
grass land; however, the land area in the U.S. gies may help reduce nitrous oxide emissions
categorized as grass land is far larger. On from soils (Millar et al. 2014, adapted from
a per acre basis, emissions from crop land Cavagelli et al., 2012).
are closer to 5 times those of grass land. Nitrogen Application Rate: Optimizing
Reducing Nitrous Oxide Emissions application rates may reduce nitrous oxide
The most important step in reducing nitrous emissions substantially where nitrogen
oxide emissions from crop production is fertilizer is applied at rates greater than the
increasing nitrogen use efficiency, which is the economic optimum rate.
fraction of applied nitrogen that is harvested Nitrogen Fertilizer Source: Nitrogen sources
as product. Globally, less than half of nitrogen include urea, anhydrous ammonia, urea ammonium
applied to crop land is taken up by the crop (Zhang et nitrate, ammonium nitrate and manure. Slow-release
al., 2015) with most of the rest lost to the environment. Not fertilizers, such as polycoated urea, are not widely used
only is this economically wasteful, the loss of reactive nitrogen because of increased costs. Urea, urea ammonium nitrate,
from agricultural soils is associated with several adverse and polycoated ureas can decrease nitrous oxide emissions
environmental consequences, including contamination of by 50% or more compared with anhydrous ammonia in
ground and surface water, algal blooms in lakes and rivers, some locations, but research has shown no impact in other
hypoxic dead zones in coastal waters, and nitrous oxide locations.
emissions into the atmosphere.

151
 return to table of contents

Nitrogen Fertilizer Placement: Nitrogen fertilizer may be Methane can also be emitted by livestock manure. Methane
broadcast or applied in bands, applied on the surface or is produced when manure is stored or treated in systems
below the surface (such as manure). Incorporating bands of that create anaerobic conditions, such as lagoons or pits.
nitrogen in soil can improve nutrient use efficiency and can Bacteria convert organic wastes into volatile acids, which
reduce nitrous oxide emissions by about 50% compared with are then converted into methane by a type of archaea
broadcast application in some locations. known as methanogens. Since this process only occurs under
Nitrogen Application Timing: Nitrogen fertilizer should be anaerobic conditions, how manure is stored and handled can
applied as close as possible to when the crop needs it. greatly affect how much methane is produced. When manure
Applying nitrogen at planting or at times of peak crop is handled as a solid or deposited in a pasture by grazing
nitrogen demand can increase nutrient use efficiency and animals, it tends to decompose aerobically and produce little
would be expected to decrease nitrous oxide emissions; or no methane. The shift toward larger confinement livestock
however, results from field studies are mixed. operations in which manure is handled as a liquid and stored
for longer periods of time has resulted in increased methane
Nitrification and Urease Inhibitors: Nitrification and urease
emissions compared to traditional, smaller livestock farms
inhibitors can decrease nitrous oxide emissions by 50% in dry
where manure was often hauled and spread daily.
climates, but results have been mixed for humid climates.
The majority of methane emissions from livestock come from
Cover Crops: Winter cover crops can reduce nitrogen losses
beef and dairy cattle due to the high amount of methane
due to leaching and runoff but may not affect direct nitrous
produced through enteric fermentation (Figure 5). Methane
oxide emissions.
emissions via enteric fermentation from non-ruminant animals
Improved Irrigation Management: Reducing application rates are relatively low. Methane emissions from manure are largely
to minimize soil wetness can reduce nitrous oxide emissions. associated with dairy and swine production, due to the
Subsurface drip irrigation can reduce nitrous oxide emissions prevalence of liquid manure storage and handling systems
compared with overhead sprinkler irrigation because soil on these types of operations.
moisture is better regulated, but data are limited.
Reduced Tillage: A long-term no-till strategy has been shown
Livestock Enteric Fermentation
to reduce nitrous oxide emissions by up to 50% but data are and Manure Management
limited. Short-term no-till results are more mixed. CH4 Emissions
Methane Emissions from Livestock
Methane from livestock production comes primarily from
enteric fermentation (74%) and manure (26%) (Figure 5). Enteric
fermentation is the process by which microbes in an animal’s
digestive system ferment food consumed by the animal
during digestion. Methane is produced as a byproduct and Beef
Livestock Cattle 128.1
is either exhaled or belched out of the animal. The amount of
Enteric
methane produced and emitted depends primarily upon the
Fermentation
animal’s digestive system, and the amount and type of feed
it consumes.
Ruminant animals, such as cattle, goats, and sheep, emit
178
MMT CO2e Dairy
methane at a much higher rate because of their unique Cattle 43.6
digestive systems. Ruminants have a large fore-stomach
(rumen) in which microbial fermentation breaks down the Swine 2.9
feed they consume into products that can be absorbed
Sheep 1.2
Horses 1.1
and metabolized. The microbial fermentation that occurs in Other 1.1
the rumen enables them to digest complex carbohydrates
from plants, such as cellulose and hemicellulose, that non- Beef
Cattle 3.4
ruminant animals cannot digest. Non-ruminant animals also Livestock
Dairy
produce methane emissions through enteric fermentation; Manure Cattle 32.3
however, microbial fermentation in non-ruminants occurs
Swine 22.2
in the large intestine and at a much lower rate. Methane 61.7 Poultry 3.5
emissions are also affected by feed intake and quality. Larger MMT CO2e Sheep 0.1
animals such as cattle produce more methane because of Horses 0.2
their higher feed intake. Figure 5. Methane emissions from livestock enteric fermentation and
manure management by livestock type. Source: EPA Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2019.

152
 return to table of contents

Management to Reduce Methane Emissions Conclusions

Advances in manure handling systems that can reduce Climate change driven by greenhouse gas emissions is not
methane emissions are already being deployed and offer a future problem – its impacts are already being felt around
the opportunity for greater reductions in emissions as they the world and affecting agricultural production. Changes in
become more prevalent. climate have shifted weed, insect, and disease pressures,
Solid-Liquid Separation: Separating the solid and liquid increased extreme weather events, and amplified stress
components of manure is a relatively simple tactic that on crops in many regions. These effects will intensify as
reduces methane emissions. The solid portions of manure are atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue
drier after separation, eliminating the anaerobic conditions to rise; consequently, the urgency of reducing greenhouse
that favor methane production. The liquid fraction will also gas emissions as rapidly as possible across all economic
produce fewer emissions because methane-producing sectors cannot be overstated. The challenge facing
microorganisms have less organic matter to feed on. agriculture is to achieve significant reductions in emissions
while simultaneously ensuring the stability and resiliency of
Methane Digesters: Methane digesters are systems that
global food production, resiliency that will increasingly be
capture methane released from liquid manure and burn it
tested by a more volatile climate.
to produce heat or electricity. By replacing fossil fuels that
would otherwise be used to produce the same amount of There are two primary ways in which agriculture can meet this
heat or electricity, the digesters result in a net greenhouse challenge: 1) Continuing to drive higher yields and efficiency to
gas benefit. Digester systems can also help reduce odor and allow greater production using less land, and 2) Implementing
disease-causing pathogens. management practices that reduce emissions. Tremendous
improvements in yield have already been achieved through
Reducing methane emissions from enteric fermentation has
improvements in crop genetics and management. Future
proven more difficult. Approaches at reducing emissions have
efforts need to continue to raise the bar on yield potential,
included animal breeding, vaccines, drugs, and feed additives.
improve efficiency, and close yield gaps in agricultural systems
The majority of results have had limited success though, due
around the world. Several management practices and
to the ability of the digestive microorganism populations to
technologies available now or currently in development offer
adapt over time to tactics aimed at suppressing them.
the potential to reduce emissions from the few key processes
Recent research into feed additives has been much more responsible for the majority of agricultural greenhouse
promising, however. Research has shown that supplement- gases. Increased efforts to develop and implement these
ation with a type of red seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis) technologies at scale could make significant strides toward
can reduce enteric methane production in beef cattle by over improving the sustainability of agriculture going forward.
80%, while allowing the cattle to use a greater proportion of
the energy in their feed (Roque et al., 2021).

153
references
Abendroth, L.J., R.W. Elmore, M.J. Boyer, and S.K. Marlay. 2011. Corn
growth and development. PMR 1009. Iowa State Univ. Ext., Ames, corn. The Annals of Iowa. 47(2):167-179.
return to table of contents

Brown, W.L. 1983. H.A. Wallace and the development of hybrid

Iowa.
Buis, A. 2020. Why Milankovitch (orbital) cycles can’t explain
Afuakwa, J.J., and R. Kent Crookston. 1984. Using the kernel milk Earth’s current warming. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Ask
line to visually monitor grain maturity in maize. Crop Sci. 24: NASA Climate Blog. https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/
687-691. why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-
warming/
Afuakwa, J.J., R. Kent Crookston, R.J. Jones. 1984. Effect of
temperature and sucrose availability on kernel black layer Butzen, S. 2010. Micronutrients for crop production. Crop Insights,
development in maize. Crop Sci. 24: 285-288. Vol. 20. No. 9. Pioneer. Johnston, IA.
Al-Kaisi, M. 2020. Consideration for tillage decision this fall after Butzen, S. 2012. Best management practices for corn-after-corn
drought. Integrated Crop Management. Iowa State Univ. production. Crop Insights, Vol. 22. No. 6. Pioneer. Johnston, IA.
Ext. https://crops.extension.iastate.edu/cropnews/2020/10/
Butzen, S. 2014. Managing for delayed corn crop development.
consideration-tillage-decision-fall-after-drought
Crop Insights, Vol. 24. No. 10. Pioneer. Johnston, IA.
Al-Kaisi, M., M. Hanna, and M. Tidman. 2002. Field
Butzen, S., and G. Munkvold. 2004. Corn seedling diseases. Crop
observations are key when planning spring work.
Insights Vol 14, No. 14. Pioneer. Johnston, IA.
Integrated Crop Management. Iowa State Univ. Ext.
https://crops.extension.iastate.edu/encyclopedia/ Bynum, E.D., Jr., T.L. Archer, and F.W. Plapp, Jr. 1990. Action of
field-observations-are-key-when-planning-spring-work insecticides to spider mites (Acari: Tertranychidae) on corn
in the Texas high plains: toxicity, resistance, and synergistic
Alter, R.E., H.C. Douglas, J.M. Winter, and E.A.B. Eltahir. 2017.
combinations. J. Econ. Entomol. 83:1236-1242.
Twentieth century regional climate change during the summer in
the Central United States attributed to agricultural intensification. Bynum, E.D., Jr., T.L. Archer, and F.W. Plapp, Jr. 1990. Comparison
Geophysical Res. Lett. 45:1586-1594. of Banks grass mite and two-spotted spider mite (Acari:
Tetranychidae): responses to insecticides alone and in synergistic
Angel, J., C. Swanston, B.M. Boustead, K.C. Conlon, K.R. Hall, et
combinations. J. Econ. Entomol. 90:1125-1130.
al. 2018. Midwest. In: D.R. Coleman et al., editors, Impacts, risks,
and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate Calvin, D. 2000. Two-spotted spider mite on soybeans and field
assessment. Vol. 2. U.S. Global Change Research Program, corn. PennState Ext., University Park, PA. https://extension.psu.
Washington, DC. p. 872–940. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH21 edu/two-spotted-spider-mite-on-soybeans-and-field-corn
Archer, D., and V. Brovkin. 2008. The millennial atmospheric lifetime Canola Digest. Top 10 weeds in canola. March 5, 2019. https://
of anthropogenic CO2. Climatic Change 90:283-297. canoladigest.ca/march-2019/agronomy-insights-mar2019/.
Arcipowska, A., E. Mangan, Y. Lyu, and R. Waite. 2019. 5 questions Cavigelli, M.A., S.J. Del Grosso, M.A. Liebig, C.S. Snyder, P.E. Fixen,
about agricultural emissions, answered. World Resources R.T. Venterea. A.B. Leytem, J.E. McLain, and D.B. Watts. 2012. U.S.
Institute. https://www.wri.org/insights/5-questions-about- agricultural nitrous oxide emissions: context, status, and trends.
agricultural-emissions-answered Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10:537-546.
Ayyappath, R., J.F. Witkowski, and L.G. Higley. 1996. Population Cerwick, S.F.., and A.J. Cavalieri. 1984. Unpublished. Pioneer Hi-
changes of spider mites (Acari: Tertranychidae) following Bred International, Inc. Johnston, IA.
insecticide application in corn. Environ. Entomol. 25:933-937. Chalkley, D. 2010. Systematic Mycology and Microbiology
Bajet, N.B., B.L. Renfro, J.M. Valdez Carrasco. 1994. Control of Laboratory, ARS, USDA. Invasive Fungi. Tar spot of corn -
tar spot of maize and its effect on yield. Int. J. Pest Manag., Phyllachora maydis. https://nt.ars-grin.gov/taxadescriptions/
40:121-125. factsheets/pdfPrintFile.cfm?thisApp=Phyllachoramaydis
Baker, R. 1970. Black layer development. One way to tell when your Chandler, L.D., T.L. Archer, C.R. Ward, and W.M. Lyle. 1979.
corn is mature. Crops Soils 24 (1): 8-9. Influences of irrigation practices on spider mite densities on field
corn. Environ. Entomol. 8:196-201.
Bell, M.J., A.P. Mallarino, P. Moody, M. Thompson, and T.S. Murrell.
2017. Soil characteristics and cultural practices that influence Ciampitti, I.A., and T.J. Vyn. 2014. Understanding global and
potassium recovery efficiency and placement decisions. In: historical nutrient use efficiencies for closing maize yield gaps.
T. S. Murrell & R. L. Mikkelsen (Eds.), Proceedings of Frontiers of Agron. J. 106:2107-2117.
Potassium Science Conference (pp. O277-O288). International Coakley, S.M., H. Scherm, and S. Chakraborty. 1999. Climate
Plant Nutrition Institute. change and plant disease management. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.
Bissonnette, S. 2015. Corn disease alert: New fungal leaf disease 37:399–426.
“tar spot” Phyllachora maydis identified in 3 northern Illinois Crabtree, A.R. 1947. The hybrid-corn makers: Prophets of plenty.
counties. The Bulletin. Univ. of Illinois Ext. http://bulletin.ipm.illinois. Rutgers University Press. New Brunswick, New Jersey.
edu/?p=3423
Crippa, M., E. Solazzo, D. Guizzardi, F. Monforti-Ferrario, F.N.
Bordoli, J.M., and A.P. Mallarino. 1998. Deep and shallow banding Tubiello, and A. Leip. 2021. Food systems are responsible for
of phosphorus and potassium as alternatives to broadcast a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food.
fertilization for no-till corn. Agron. J., 90(1), 27-33. 2:198-209.
Bradley, C. 2021. Kentucky soybeans: Red crown rot observed Crop Protection Network. 2022. Red crown rot of soybean.
in state. AgFax. https://www.agfax.com/2021/09/25/ https://cropprotectionnetwork.org/encyclopedia/
kentucky-soybeans-red-crown-rot-observed-in-state/ red-crown-rot-of-soybean
Branson, T.F. 1976. The selection of a non-diapause strain of Culver, John C.; and John Hyde. 2000. American dreamer: The life
Diabrotica virgifera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Entomologia and times of Henry A. Wallace. WW. Norton & Company, New
Experimentalis et Applicata. 19:148-154. York.

154
 return to table of contents

Da Silva, C.R., D.E.P. Telenko, J.D. Ravellette, and S Shim. 2019. Gaspar, P. 2019. Corn hybrid herbicide management guide. Crop
Evaluation of a fungicide programs for tar spot in corn in Insights, Vol. 29. No. 9. Pioneer. Johnston, IA. https://www.pioneer.
northwestern Indiana, 2019 (COR19-23.PPAC) In: Applied com/us/agronomy/corn-herb-guide.html
Research in Field Crop Pathology for Indiana- 2019. BP-
Godfrey, L.D. 2011. Spider mites: Integrated pest management
205-W Purdue Univ. Ext. https://extension.purdue.edu/
for home gardeners and landscape professionals. Pest Notes
fieldcroppathology/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Applied-
7405. Univ. of California, Davis, CA. http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PDF/
Research-in-Field-Crop-Pathology-for-Indiana-2019-BP-
PESTNOTES/pnspidermites.pdf
205-W-1.pdf
Griliches, Zvi. 1957. Hybrid corn: An exploration in the economics
Daynard, T.B. 1972. Relationships among black layer formation,
of technological change. Econometrica 25(4) October 1957:
grain moisture percentage, and heat unit accumulation in corn.
501-522.
Agron. J. 64: 716-719.
Harker, K. N., O’Donovan, J. T., Clayton, G. W., & Mayko, J.
Daynard, T.B., and W.G. Duncan. 1969. The black layer and grain
(2008). Field-scale time of weed removal in canola. Weed
maturity in corn. Crop Sci. 9: 474-476.
Technology, 22(4), 747–749.
DeBruin, J.L., J.R. Schussler, H. Mo, and M. Cooper. 2017. Grain yield
Hatfield, J.L., K.J. Boote, B.A. Kimball, L.H. Ziska, R.C. Izaurralde, et
and nitrogen accumulation in maize hybrids released during 1934
al. 2011. Climate impacts on agriculture: Implications for crop
to 2013 in the US Midwest. Crop Sci. 57:1431-1446.
production. Agron. J. 103:351-370.
Demander, L., S. Bossard, T. Kilcer, K. Czymmek, and Q. Ketterings.
Hayhoe, K., D.J. Wuebbles, D.R. Easterling, D.W. Fahey, S. Doherty,
2013. Fact Sheet 79: Zone/Strip-Tillage. In: Cornell Univ.
J. Kossin, W. Sweet, R. Vose, and M. Wehner, 2018: Our changing
Cooperative Extension Agronomy Fact Sheet Series.
climate. In Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States:
Dlugokencky, E. 2021. Trends in atmospheric methane. NOAA/GML. Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R.,
www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/ C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock,
and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
Dodd, J. 2020. Corn stomata. Corn Journal. https://www.
Washington, DC, USA, pp. 72–144. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH2.
cornjournal.com/corn-journal/corn-stomata
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/
Dunbar, M.W. and A.J. Gassmann. 2013. Abundance and
Hayhoe, K., J. VanDorn, V. Naik, D. Wuebbles, and U. of C.
distribution of western and northern corn rootworm (Diabrotica
Scientists. 2009. Climate change in the Midwest. Union of
spp.) and prevalence of rotation resistance in eastern Iowa. J.
Concerned Scientists.
Econ. Entomol. 106:168-180.
Heckman, J. R., J. T. Sims, D. B. Beegle, F. J. Coale, S. J. Herbert, T.
Duvick, D.N. 2005. Genetic progress in yield of United States maize
W. Bruulsema, and W. J. Bamka. 2003. Nutrient removal rate by
(Zea mays L.). maydica. 50:193-202.
corn grain harvest. Agron. J. 95:587-591.
Easterling, D.R., K.E. Kunkel, J.R. Arnold, T. Knutson, A.N. LeGrande,
Hicks, D.R. 2004. The corn crop – frost and maturity.
et al. 2017. Precipitation change in the United States. In: D.J.
Univ. of Minnesota. http://www.extension.umn.edu/
Wuebbes et al., editors, Climate science special report: Fourth
cropenews/2004/04MNCN28.htm
national climate assessment, Vol. 1. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 207-230, doi: 10.7930/ Hock J., J. Kranz, B.L. Renfro. 1995. Studies on the epidemiology of
J0H993CC the tar spot disease complex of maize in Mexico. Plant Pathology,
44:490-502.
Ebelhar, S.A., and E.C. Varsa. 2000. Tillage and potassium
placement effects on potassium utilization by corn and soybean. IPNI. 2014. IPNI estimates of nutrient uptake and removal. http://
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 31(11-14), www.ipni.net/article/IPNI-3296
2367-2377.
Jeschke, M. 2018. Machinery options for reducing soil compaction in
Elkins, J., E. Dlugokencky, B. Hall, G. Dutton, D. Nanc, and D. crop production. Crop Insights, Vol. 28 No. 11. Pioneer, Johnston, IA.
Mondeel. 2022. Combined nitrous oxide data from the NOAA/
Jeschke, M. 2018. Row width in corn grain production. Crop
ESRL global monitoring division. https://www.n2olevels.org/
Insights, Vol. 28. No. 3. Pioneer. Johnston, IA.
Elmore, R.W., and W.F. Roeth. 1999. Corn kernel weight and grain
Jeschke, M. 2021. Corn rootworm biology and management. Crop
yield stability during post-maturity drydown. J. Prod. Agric.
Insights, Vol. 31 No. 10. Pioneer. Johnston, IA. https://www.pioneer.
12:300-305.
com/us/agronomy/corn-rootworm-mgmt.html
Endicott et al. 2015. Corn growth and development. Pioneer.
Jeschke, M. and A. Uppena. 2015. Corn leaf orientation response
Johnston, IA.
to plant density. Pioneer Research Update, Vol 5. No. 7. Pioneer,
FAO. 2020. Emissions due to agriculture. Global, regional and Johnston, IA.
country trends 2000–2018. FAOSTAT Analytical Brief Series No 18.
Jeschke, M., W. Dolezal, A. Sayers, and S. Butzen. 2017. Common
Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/cb3808en/cb3808en.pdf
and southern rust in corn. Crop Insights, Vol. 27. No. 10. Pioneer,
Feng, Z., L.R. Leung, S. Hagos, R.A. Houze, C.D. Burleyson, and K. Johnston, IA.
Balaguru. 2016. More frequent intense and long-lived storms
Johann, H. 1935. Histology of the caryopsis of yellow dent corn,
dominate the springtime trend in Central US rainfall. Nature
with reference to resistance and susceptibility to kernel rots. J. Ag.
Comm. 7, 13429.
Res. 51: 855-883.
Fisher, J.R., J.J. Jackson, and A.C. Lew. 1994. Temperature
Jones, V.P. 1990. Developing sampling plans for spider mites (Acari:
and diapause development in the egg of Diabrotica barberi
Tertranychidae): Those who don’t remember the past may have
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Environ. Entomol. 23:464-471.
to repeat it. J. Econ. Entomol. 83:1656-166.
Fritsch, J.M., R.J. Kane, and C.R. Chelius. 1986. The contribution
Joyce, A. and L. Thiessen. 2020. Red crown rot of soybean. North
of mesoscale convective weather systems to the warm-season
Carolina State Univ. Ext. Publications. https://content.ces.ncsu.
precipitation in the United States. J. Clim. Appl. Meteorol.
edu/red-crown-rot-of-soybean
25:1333–1345.
155
references
Juroszek, P. and A. von Tiedemann. 2013. Climatic changes and
the potential future importance of maize diseases: A short review. corn plant. J. of Ag. Research 27:845-860.
return to table of contents

Latshaw, W. L. and E. C. Miller. 1924. Elemental composition of the

J. of Plant Diseases and Protection 120:49–56.

Lauer, J. 2016. Corn harvesting. Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison Ext.
Karl, T.R., J.T. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson. 2009. Global climate
Leusink, S. and M. Jeschke. 2019. Harvest timing effect on corn
change impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press,
yield. Pioneer Agronomy Research Update. Vol. 9 No. 1. Corteva
New York, NY.
Agriscience Johnston, IA.
Keeling, C.D., S.C. Piper, R.B. Bacastow, M. Wahlen, T.P. Whorf,
Levine, E., H. Oloumi-Sadeghi, and J.R. Fisher. 1992. Discovery of
M. Heimann, and H.A. Meijer. 2001. Exchanges of atmospheric
multiyear diapauses in Illinois and South Dakota northern corn
CO2 and 13CO2 with the terrestrial biosphere and oceans from
rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) eggs and incidence
1978 to 2000. I. Global aspects, SIO Reference Series, No. 01-06,
of the prolonged diapauses trait in Illinois. J. Econ. Entomol.
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, San Diego, 88 pages.
85:262-267.
Kelley. J. 2021. Arkansas corn: What are the yield expectations of
Licht, M., C. Hurburgh, M. Kots, P. Blake and M. Hanna. 2017. Is there
may planted crops? https://agfax.com/2021/05/12/arkansas-
loss of corn dry matter in the field after maturity? In Proceedings
corn-what-are-the-yield-expectations-of-may-planted-crops/
of the 29th Annual Integrated Crop Management Conference,
Kelling, K. 2005. Micronutrient management in the north-central US Iowa State Univ., Ames, Iowa.
and Canada. Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison. Presented at the llth
Licht, M. and S. Archonoulis. 2017. Corn water use and evapo-
Annual Southwest Agricultural Conference, Ridgetown, ONT.
transpiration. Integrated Crop Management, June 26, 2017. Iowa
Kiesselbach, T. A., and E. R. Walker. 1952. Structure of certain State Univ. Ext., Ames, Iowa.
specialized tissues in the kernel of corn. J. Bot. 39: 561-569.
Lindsey, A.J., P.R. Thomison, and P.R. Carter. 2021. Has corn
Kistner, E.J., and J.L. Hatfield. 2018. Potential geographic response to root lodging changed over time? Pioneer Agronomy
distribution of Palmer amaranth under current and future Research Update. Vol. 11. No. 7. Pioneer. Johnston, IA.
climates. Agric. Environ. Lett. 3:170044. doi:10.2134/
Lüthi, D., M. Le Floch, B. Bereiter, T. Blunier, J. Barnola, U.
ael2017.12.0044.
Siegenthaler, D. Raynaud, J. Jouzel, H. Fischer, K. Kawamura, and
Kleczewski, N. 2019. What do low tar spot disease levels and T.F. Stocker. 2008. High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration
prevent plant acres mean for 2020 corn crop? Illinois Field Crop record 650,000–800,000 years before present. Nature
Disease Hub. Univ. of Illinois Ext. http://cropdisease.cropsciences. 453:379-382.
illinois.edu/?p=992
Lutt, N., M. Jeschke, and S.D. Strachan. 2016. High night
Kleczewski, N. 2020. Red crown rot: What to look for in your temperature effects on corn yield. Crop Insights, Vol. 26. No. 16.
soybean fields. Illinois Field Crop Disease Hub. Univ. of Illinois Ext. Pioneer, Johnston, IA.
http://cropdisease.cropsciences.illinois.edu/?p=1220
Lynch, J., M. Cain, D. Frame, and R. Pierrehumbert. 2021.
Kleczewski, N. and D. Smith. 2018. Corn hybrid response to tar Agriculture’s contribution to climate change and role in mitigation
spot. The Bulletin. Univ. of Illinois Ext.. http://bulletin.ipm.illinois. is distinct from predominantly fossil CO2-emitting sectors.
edu/?p=4341 Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4 (518039) https://doi.org/10.3389/
fsufs.2020.518039
Kleczewski, N., M. Chilvers, D. Mueller, D. Plewa, A. Robertson, D.
Smith, and D. Telenko. 2019. Tar spot. Corn Disease Management MacFarling Meure, C., D. Etheridge, C. Trudinger, P. Steele, R.
CPN-2012. Crop Protection Network. Langenfelds, T. van Ommen, A. Smith, and J. Elkins. 2006. The law
dome CO2, CH4 and N2O ice core records extended to 2000 years
Knittle, K.H. and J.S. Burris. 1976. Effect of kernel maturation on
BP. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, No. 14, L14810
subsequent seedling vigor in maize. Crop Sci. 16:851-855.
Mallarino, A.P., J.M. Bordoli, and R. Borges. 1999. Phosphorus
Kovar, J.L., and S.A. Barber. 1987. Placing phosphorus and
and potassium placement effects on early growth and nutrient
potassium for greatest recovery. J. of Fertilizer Issues, 4(1), 1-6.
uptake of no-till corn and relationships with grain yield. Agron. J.,
Krysan, J.L. 1978. Diapause, quiescence, and moisture in the 91(1), 37-45.
egg of the western corn rootworm, Diabrotica virgifera. J. Insect
Malone, D., and D. Poston. 2015. Corn yield response to DuPont™
Physiol. 24:535-540.
Aproach® Prima fungicide in the Southern U.S. Pioneer Agronomy
Krysan, J.L. 1982. Diapause in the nearctic species of the virgifera Research Update, Vol. 5 No. 17. Pioneer, Johnston, IA.
group of Diabrotica: Evidence for tropical origin and temperate
Malvick, D. 2019. Tar spot of corn found for the first time in
adaptations. Annals of the Entomol. Soc. of Am. 75:136-142.
Minnesota. Minnesota Crop News. October 1, 2019. Univ.
Krysan, J.L., J.J Jackson., and A.C. Lew. 1984. Field termination of Minnesota Ext. https://blog-crop-news.extension.umn.
of egg diapause in Diabrotica with new evidence of extended edu/2019/10/tar-spot-of-corn-found-for-first-time.html
diapause in D. barberi (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Environ.
Martin, S. J., Van Acker, R. C., & Friesen, L. F. (2001). Critical period of
Entomol. 13:1237-1240.
weed control in spring canola. Weed Science, 49 (3), 326-333.
Larson, E. 2016. When does corn yield potential begin to suffer
Millar, N., J.E. Doll, and G.P. Robertson. 2014. Management of
from late planting? Mississippi Univ. State Ext.
nitrogen fertilizer to reduce nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from
https://www.mississippi-crops.com/2016/04/01/when-does-
field crops. Michigan State Univ. Extension Bulletin E3152.
corn-yield-potential-begin-to-suffer-from-planting/
Miller, C. 2016. Tar spot of corn detected for the first time in Florida.
Lassaletta, L., G. Billen, B. Grizzetti, J. Anglade, and J. Garnier.
Univ. of Florida Ext. http://discover.pbcgov.org/coextension/
2014. 50 year trends in nitrogen use efficiency of world cropping
agriculture/pdf/Tar Spot of Corn.pdf.
systems: The relationship between yield and nitrogen input to
cropland. Environmental Research Letters 9 (105011). Mishra, V., and K.A. Cherkauer. 2010. Retrospective droughts in the
crop growing season: Implications to corn and soybean yield in
the Midwestern United States. Agric. for. Meteorol. 150:1030–1045.

156
 return to table of contents

Mottaleb, K.A., A. Loladze, K. Sonder, G. Kruseman, and F. San Ritchie, H. 2021. Emissions from food alone could use up all of our
Vicente. 2018. Threats of tar spot complex disease of maize budget for 1.5°C or 2°C – but we have a range of opportunities
in the United States of America and its global consequences. to avoid this. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. food-emissions-carbon-budget
Online May 3, 2018: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/
Rodgers, G. and J. Ashworth. 1982. Bacteriostatic action of
s11027-018-9812-1
nitrification inhibitors. Canadian J. of Microbiology 28:10
Mueller, N.D., A. Rhines, E.E. Butler, D.K. Ray, S. Siebert et al. 2017. 1093-1100.
Global relationships between cropland intensification and
Roque B.M., M. Venegas, R.D. Kinley, R. de Nys, T.L. Duarte, X.
summer temperature extremes over the last 50 years. J. of
Yang, et al. 2021. Red seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis)
Climate 30:7505-7528.
supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80 percent in
NASA. 2019. What is the sun’s role in climate change? Ask beef steers. PLoS ONE 16(3): e0247820. https://doi.org/10.1371/
NASA Climate Blog. https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/ journal.pone.0247820
what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/
Ruark, M. 2012. Advantages and disadvantages of controlled-
Nielsen, R.L. 2003. Estimating yield and dollar returns from corn release fertilizers. Presentation to Wisconsin Fresh Fruit and
replanting. AY-264-W. Purdue Univ. Coop. Ext. Service. Vegetable Conference, 1/17/2012. Dept. of Soil Science, Univ. of
Wisconsin, Madison.
Nielsen, R.L. 2013. Effects of stress during grain filling in corn.
Ruhl G., M.K. Romberg, S. Bissonnette, D. Plewa, T. Creswell,
Nielsen, R.L. 2020. Tassel emergence and pollen shed. Corny News
and K.A. Wise 2016. First report of tar spot on corn caused by
Network. Purdue Univ. https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/
Phyllachora maydis in the United States. Plant Dis 100(7):1496.
news/timeless/Tassels.html
Salisbury, F. B. and C. W. Ross. 1978. Plant physiology 2nd ed. pp.
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. 2019.
79- 92. Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont, California 94002.
Climate at a glance: Global time series. NOAA. https://www.ncdc.
noaa.gov/cag/ (accessed Feb. 2019). Santer, B.D., C.J.W. Bonfils, Q. Fu, J.C. Fyfe, G.C. Hegerl et al.
2019. Celebrating the anniversary of three key events in climate
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. 2021.
change science. Nature Climate Change 9:180-182.
Climate at a glance: Global mapping. NOAA. https://www.ncdc.
noaa.gov/cag/ (accessed Jan. 2021) Santer, B.D., C.J.W. Bonfils, Q. Fu, J.C. Fyfe, G.C. Hegerl, C. Mears,
J.F. Painter, S. Po-Chedley, F.J. Wentz, M.D. Zelinka, and C. Zou.
Nowatzki, J., G. Endres, and J. Dejong-Hughes. 2017. Strip-till for
2019. Celebrating the anniversary of three key events in climate
field crop production. North Dakota State Univ. Ext. and Univ. of
change science. Nature Climate Change. 9:180-182.
Minnesota Ext. June, 1-8. https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/
crops/strip-till-for-field-crop-production/ae1370.pdf Saul, R.A., and J.L. Steele, 1966. Why damaged shelled corn costs
more to dry. Agric. Eng. 47:326-329.
O’Bryan, K., and M. Burnison. 2016. Performance of soybean seed
treatments against SDS and SCN in on-farm trials. Pioneer Smith, C. Wayne; Javier Betrán; and E. C. A. Runge, editors. 2004.
Agronomy Research Update, Vol. 6, No. 7. https://www.pioneer. Corn: Origin, history, technology, and production. Wiley, 2004.
com/us/agronomy/soybeans-ILeVO-sds-scn.html
Sprague, G. F.; and J. W. Dudley. 1988. Corn and corn
Paszkiewicz, S.R., D. Ellerman, and K. Schrader. 2005. Corn improvement, 3rd ed., American Society of Agron., 1988.
seed planting orientation and plant population influence on
Stevens, G., P. Motavalli, P. Scharf, M. Nathan, and D. Dunn. 2018.
physiological responses and grain yield. ASA-CSSA-SSSA
Crop nutrient deficiencies and toxicities. Univ. of Missouri-
International Annual Meetings 58:816a.
Columbia Extension pub. IPM 1016. https://extension.missouri.
Pidcock, R. 2015. Explainer: How do scientists measure global edu/media/wysiwyg/Extensiondata/Pub/pdf/agguides/pests/
temperature? Carbon Brief. https://www.carbonbrief.org/ ipm1016.pdf
explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature
Stopps, G., R. MacDonald. 2021. Estimating CRW populations with
Prasifka, P.L., J.J. Tollefson, and M.E. Rice, 2006. Rotation-resistant sticky traps in southwestern Ontario. Pioneer Agronomy Research
corn rootworms in Iowa. In: Integrated Crop Management Update.
Newsletter, IC-496(21)-July 24, 2006. Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA.
Strachan, S. D. and M. Jeschke. 2017. Water, soil nutrients, and corn
Rajendran, J. 2011. Nitrification activity in New Zealand soils and grain yield. Crop Insights, Vol. 27. No. 7. Pioneer, Johnston, Iowa.
the variable effectiveness of dicyandiamide: A thesis presented
Taiz, L., E. Zeiger, I. Møller, and A. Murphy. 2014. Plant Physiology
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor
6th ed. Topic 4.3, Calculating velocities of water movement in the
of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Soil Science at Massey Univ., Palmerston
xylem and living cells. Oxford Press.
North, New Zealand.
Telenko, D., M.I. Chilvers, N. Kleczewski, D.L. Smith, A.M. Byrne,
Randall, G.W., and R.G. Hoeft. 1988. Placement methods for
P. Devillez, T. Diallo, R. Higgins, D. Joos, K. Kohn, J. Lauer, B.
improved efficiency of P and K fertilizers: A review. J. of Prod. Agr.,
Mueller, M.P. Singh, W.D. Widdicombe, and L.A. Williams.
1(1), 70-79.
2019. How tar spot of corn impacted hybrid yields during the
Ranere, A.J., D.R. Piperno, I. Holst, and J. Iriarte. 2009. The cultural 2018 Midwest epidemic. Crop Protection Network. https://
and chronological context of early Holocene maize and squash cropprotectionnetwork.org/resources/features/how-tar-spot-
domestication in the Central Balsas River Valley, Mexico. PNAS. of-corn-impacted-hybrid-yields-during-the-2018-midwest-
106:5014-5018. epidemic
Reese, K.D., and G. Jones. 1996. Unpublished. Pioneer, Johnston, Thomison, P.R., R.W. Mullen, P.E. Lipps, T.A. Doerge, and A.B. Geyer.
Iowa. 2011. Corn response to harvest date as affected by plant
population and hybrid. Agron. J. 103:1765–1772.
Renssen, H., H. Seppa, X. Crosta, H. Goosse, and D.M. Roche. 2012.
Global characterization of the Holocene Thermal Maximum. Tierney, J.E., J. Zhu, J. King, S.B. Malevich, G.J. Hakim, and C.J.
Quaternary Science Reviews 48:7-19. Poulsen. 2020. Glacial cooling and climate sensitivity revisited.
Nature 584:569-573.
157
references
Trenkel, M. 2010. Slow-and controlled-release and stabilized
fertilizers: an option for enhancing nutrient use efficiency in
return to table of contents

Vitosh, M.L., J.W. Johnson, and D.B. Mengel. 1995. Tri-State Fertilizer
Recommendations for Corn, Soybeans, Wheat, and Alfalfa.
agriculture. International Fertilizer Industry Association, Paris, Extension Bulletin, 2567, 1-4. https://www.extension.purdue.edu/
France. extmedia/AY/AY-9-32.pdf
Troyer, A.F. 1996. Breeding Widely adapted, popular maize hybrids. Vittetoe, R. 2018. Cover crops, corn and seedling diseases.
Euphytica. 92:162-174. Prairie Farmer. https://www.farmprogress.com/crop-disease/
cover-crops-corn-and-seedling-diseases
Troyer, A.F. 1999. Background of U.S. hybrid corn. Crop Science.
39:601-626. Vose, R.S., D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, A.N. LeGrande, and M.F.
Wehner. 2017. Temperature changes in the United States. In: D.J.
Tylka, G.L., and C.C. Marett. 2021. Known distribution of
Wuebbles, et al., editors, Climate science special report: Fourth
the soybean cyst nematode, Heterodera glycines, in the
national climate assessment, Vol. 1. U.S. Global Change Research
United States and Canada in 2020. Plant Health Progress.
Program, Washington, DC. p. 185-206. doi: 10.7930/J0N29V45.
22:72-74. https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/full/10.1094/
PHP-10-20-0094-BR Wallace, H.A. and W.L. Brown. 1988. Corn and its early fathers.
Iowa State University Press. Ames, IA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2019. Overview of
greenhouse gases, retrieved on February 23, 2019 from https:// Walsh, J., D. Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, J. Kossin, K. Kunkel et al. 2014.
www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases Our changing climate. In: Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G.W.
Yohe, editors, Climate change impacts in the United States: The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2021. Inventory of U.S.
third national climate assessment. U.S. Global Change Research
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2019, retrieved on
Program, Washington, DC. p. 19-67. doi:10.7930/J0KW5CXT.
July 14, 2021 from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2021-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2021-main-text.pdf Wise, K. 2021. Fungicide efficacy for control of corn diseases.
Crop Protection Network. CPN-2011-W. https://cropprotection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2022. Climate Change
network.org/resources/publications/fungicide-efficacy-for-
Indicators: Greenhouse Gases, retrieved on June 15, 2022 from
control-of-corn-diseases
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/greenhouse-gases
Wolt, J. 2004. A meta-evaluation of nitrapyrin agronomic and
U.S. NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory. 2021. The NOAA Annual
environmental effectiveness with emphasis on corn production
Greenhouse Gas Index, retrieved on July 14, 2021 from https://
in the Midwestern USA. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems
gml.noaa.gov/aggi/aggi.html
69:23-41.
Valle-Torres J., Ross T.J., Plewa D., Avellaneda M.C., Check J.,
Zhang, X., E.A. Davidson, D.L. Mauzerall, T.D. Searchinger, P.
Chilvers M.I., Cruz A.P., Dalla Lana F., Groves C., Gongora-Canul
Dumas, and Y. Shen. 2015. Managing nitrogen for sustainable
C., Henriquez-Dole L., Jamann T., Kleczewski N., Lipps S., Malvick
development. Nature 528:51-59. doi:10.1038/nature15743
D., McCoy A.G., Mueller D.S., Paul P.A., Puerto C., Schloemer C.,
Raid R.N., Robertson A., Roggenkamp E.M., Smith D.L., Telenko Ziska, L.H. 2004. Rising carbon dioxide and weed ecology.
D.E.P., Cruz C.D. 2020. Tar sSpot: An understudied disease In: Inderjit, editor, Weed biology and management. Kluwer
threatening corn production in the Americas. Plant Dis. 104:2541- Academic Publ., Dordrecht, Netherlands. p. 159-176.
2550. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-02-20-0449-FE.

158
footnotes
1
All Pioneer products are hybrids unless designated with AM1, AM, AMRW, AML,
AMT, AMX, AMXT and Q, in which case they are brands.
7
return to table of contents

Adapted from Zukoff, S., R.J. Whitworth, J.P. Michaud, H.N. Davis, and B.
McCornack. 2019. Corn insect management. MF810. Kansas State Univ. Ext.,
Manhattan, KS. https://bookstore.ksre.ksu.edu/pubs/Mf810.pdf
2
Adapted from Purdue Univ. Ext. 2009. Two-spotted spider mite. Purdue Univ.
Ext. Field Crops IPM. https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/fieldcropsipm/in-
8
Average yield response based on 30 on-farm trial locations in 2015 with high
sects/corn-spidermite.php SCN pressure (>450 eggs/100 cc of soil). Multi-year and multi-location is a
better predictor of future performance. Do not use these or any other data from
3
Adapted from Perring, T.M., T.L. Archer, D.L. Krieg, and J.W. Johnson. 1983. a limited number of trials as a significant factor in product selection.
Relationships between the Banks grass mite (Acariformes: Tetranychidae) and
physiological changes of maturing grain sorghum. Environ. Entomol. 12:1094-
9
Adapted from E. Truog. 1946. Soil reaction influence on availability of plant
1098. nutrients. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 11, 305-308.
4
Adapted from Peairs, F.B. 2014. Spider mites in corn. Fact Sheet No. 5.555.
10
Adapted from W.F. Bennett (editor), 1993. Nutrient deficiencies and toxicities
Colorado State Univ. Ext., Fort Collins, CO. https://extension.colostate.edu/ in Crop Plants, APS Press, St. Paul, MN.
docs/pubs/insect/05555.pdf. and Holzer and Kalisch, Univ. of Nebraska. 11
Adapted from Tri-State Fertilizer Recommendations for Corn, Soybeans,
5
Images courtesy of Wright, R.J., R.C. Seymour, L.G. Higley, and J.B. Campbell. Wheat and Alfalfa, Ohio State University. Online at: https://agcrops.osu.edu/
1993. Spider mite management in corn and soybeans. NebGuide #G1167. FertilityResources/tri-state_info
Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE. https://entomology.unl.edu/NEBGuides/
G93-1167%20Spider%20Mite%20Management%20in%20Corn%20and%20
Photos on pages 50, and 124 provided courtesy of Deere and Co.
Soybeans.pdf
Photo on page 112 provided courtesy of CNH.
6
Table 3 from Archer, T.L., and E.D. Bynum, Jr. 1993. Yield loss to corn from feeding
by the Banks grass mite and two-spotted spider mite (Acari: Tertranychidae).
Exp. & Appl. Acarology. 17:895-903.

159
trademarks return to table of contents

AM - Optimum® AcreMax® Insect Protection system with YGCB, HX1, LL, RR2. The Optimum® GLY herbicide tolerance trait will not be offered for sale or
Contains a single-bag integrated refuge solution for above-ground insects. distribution until completion of field testing and applicable regulatory reviews.
In EPA-designated cotton growing counties, a 20% separate corn borer refuge
ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Roundup Ready®
must be planted with Optimum AcreMax products.
crops contain genes that confer tolerance to glyphosate, the active ingredient
AML - Optimum® AcreMax® Leptra® products with AVBL, YGCB, HX1, LL, RR2. in Roundup® brand agricultural herbicides. Roundup® brand agricultural
Contains a single-bag integrated refuge solution for above-ground insects. In herbicides will kill crops that are not tolerant to glyphosate.
EPA-designated cotton growing countries, a 20% separate corn borer refuge
Roundup Ready® is a registered trademarks used under license from Monsanto
must be planted with Optimum AcreMax Leptra products.
Company.
AMX - Optimum® AcreMax® Xtra Insect Protection system with YGCB, HXX, LL,
Liberty®, LibertyLink®, the Water Droplet Design, ILEVO®, Clearfield, the unique
RR2. Contains a single-bag integrated refuge solution for above- and below-
Clearfield symbol, Poncho® and VOTiVO® are registered trademarks of BASF.
ground insects. In EPA‑designated cotton growing counties, a 20% separate
corn borer refuge must be planted with Optimum AcreMax Xtra products. Agrisure® and Agrisure Viptera® are registered trademarks of, and used under
license from, a Syngenta Group Company. Agrisure® technology incorporated
AMXT (Optimum AcreMax XTreme) - Contains a single-bag integrated
® ®
into these seeds is commercialized under a license from Syngenta Crop
refuge solution for above- and below-ground insects. The major component
Protection AG.
contains the Agrisure® RW trait, a Bt trait, and the Herculex® XTRA genes. In
EPA-designated cotton growing counties, a 20% separate corn borer refuge Components of LumiGEN® seed treatments are applied at a Corteva
must be planted with Optimum AcreMax XTreme products. Agriscience production facility, or by an independent sales representative of
Corteva Agriscience or its affiliates. Not all sales representatives offer treatment
YGCB, HX1, LL, RR2 (Optimum® Intrasect®) - Contains a Bt trait and Herculex® I
services, and costs and other charges may vary. See your sales representative
gene for resistance to corn borer.
for details. Seed applied technologies exclusive to Corteva Agriscience and
AVBL,YGCB,HX1,LL,RR2 (Optimum® Leptra®) - Contains the Agrisure Viptera® its affiliates.
trait, the Bt trait, the Herculex® I gene, the LibertyLink® gene, and the Roundup
Pioneer® brand products are provided subject to the terms and conditions of
Ready® Corn 2 trait.
purchase which are part of the labeling and purchase documents.
Q (Qrome®) - Contains a single-bag integrated refuge solution for above-
The foregoing is provided for informational use only. Please contact your Pioneer
and below-ground insects. The major component contains the Agrisure® RW
sales professional for information and suggestions specific to your operation.
trait, the Bt trait, and the Herculex® XTRA genes. In EPA-designated cotton
Product performance is variable and depends on many factors such as
growing counties, a 20% separate corn borer refuge must be planted with
moisture and heat stress, soil type, management practices and environmental
Qrome products. Qrome® products are approved for cultivation in the U.S. and
stress as well as disease and pest pressures. Individual results may vary.
Canada. They have also received approval in a number of importing countries,
most recently China. For additional information about the status of regulatory
®, TM, SM
Trademarks and service marks of Corteva Agriscience and its affiliated
authorizations, visit http://www.biotradestatus.com/. companies. Pioneer® brand products are provided subject to the terms and
conditions of purchase which are part of the labeling and purchase documents.
RR2 - Contains the Roundup Ready® Corn 2 trait that provides crop safety © 2022 Corteva.
for over-the-top applications of labeled glyphosate herbicides when applied
according to label directions.

160