Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Benefits of Chemical Seed Treatments on Crop Yield and Quality

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Global Perspectives on the Health of Seeds and Plant Propagation Material

Part of the book series: Plant Pathology in the 21st Century ((ICPP,volume 6))

Abstract

Agriculturists have been treating seeds to protect them from pathogens and pests for centuries, even before the nature of plant diseases was understood. Today, the use of seed treatments is a highly sophisticated strategy that has evolved into a very valuable, effective, and environmentally friendly component of agricultural production practices. Chemical seed treatments can be used to achieve a variety of benefits, including: improved emergence, through protection from seedborne pathogens and soilborne pathogens and insects; prevention of seed transmission of seedborne pathogens; protection of above-ground plant parts from infection by airborne pathogens or feeding by insect pests and disease vectors; improved vigor and uniformity of crop growth; deterrence of deterioration or insect feeding in storage; fulfillment of phytosanitary requirements and prevention of pathogen spread. These benefits all contribute to maximizing crop yield and quality while minimizing negative impacts through efficient use of crop protection chemicals. Seed treatment allows for highly targeted application of low, uniform doses of product, which is effective while reducing the risk of selection pressure for pathogen or pest resistance. Seed treatments are commercially available with contact, locally systemic, or fully systemic activity. Common active ingredients can be used for protection against Oomycetes, fungi, insects, and nematodes. There are numerous examples of improvements in stand establishment and yield as a result of seed treatment use in a wide range of crops. Combinations of active ingredients are becoming more common as products improve for efficacy against specific pathogen groups. In maize, seed treatment is nearly universal and standard practices may include a combination of four fungicides, an insecticide, and a nematicide. This provides a high level of protection across a wide pathogen spectrum as well as prevention of feeding damage to the seed and seedling. Seed treatments are playing an increasing role in the productivity of agriculture, as well as its sustainability and efficiency. Seed application of crop protection compounds provides unique benefits that make it a preferable approach compared to other tactics. It is a reliable technology that guarantees a uniform crop establishment in a variety of environments, soils and cultural practices; benefits provided by seed treatments cannot be duplicated because most of the target diseases and pests cannot be controlled after planting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andersch W, Schwarz M (2003) Clothianidin seed treatment (Poncho®) – the new technology for control of corn rootworms and secondary pests in US-corn production. Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer 56:147–172

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Aramaki PH, da Silva AJ, Castro PRC (2013) Crop enhancement: releasing plant potential. Syngenta Crop Protection, Santo Amaro-SP, p 192 p

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett DW, Clough JM, Godwin JR, Hall AA, Hamer M, Parr-Dobrzanski B (2002) The strobilurin fungicides. Pest Manag Sci 58:649–662

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beck C, Oerke EC, Dehne HW (2002) Impact of strobilurins on physiology and yield formation of wheat. Meded Rijksuniv Gent Fak Landbouwkd Toegep Biol Wet 67:181–187

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bertelsen JR, de Neergaard E, Smedegaard-Petersen V (2001) Fungicidal effects of azoxystrobin and epoxiconazole on phyllosphere fungi, senescence and yield of winter wheat. Plant Pathol 50:190–205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Block CC, McGee DC, Hill JH (1999) Relationship between late season Stewart’s bacterial wilt and seed infection in maize. Plant Dis 83:527–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen XM (2005) Epidemiology and control of stripe rust (Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici) on wheat. Can J Plant Pathol 27:314–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Da Silva MP (2011) Interactions between root-lesion nematodes and corn pathogens. MS thesis. Iowa State University, Ames, 109 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels JL, Munkvold GP, McGee DC (2001) Comparison of infected soybean seed and bean leaf beetles as inoculum sources for Bean pod mottle virus (Abstract). Phytopathology 91:S20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewar AM, Haylock LA, Garner BH, Baker P, Sands RJN, Foster SP, Cox D, Mason N, Denholm I (2003) The effect of clothianidin on aphids and yellows virus in sugarbeet. Pflanzenschutz Nachrichten Bayer 56:127–146

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Esker PD, Conley SP (2012) Probability of yield response and breaking even for soybean seed treatments. Crop Sci 52:351–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer SJ, Orzolek MD, DeMackiewic D, Otjen L (1998) Imidacloprid effects on Acalymma vittata (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and bacterial wilt in cantaloupe. J Econ Entomol 91:940–944

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Glaa J, Kaiser WM (1999) Increased nitrate reductase activity in leaf tissue after application of the fungicide Kresoxim-methyl. Planta 207:442–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goulart ACP, Furlan SH, Fujino MT (2011) Integrated control of soybean rust (Phakopsora pachyrhizi) using the fungicide fluquinconazole applied as seed dressing associated with other fungicides spraying on soybean above ground parts. Summa Phytopathol 37:113–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gourmet C, Kolb FL, Smyth CA, Pedersen WL (1996) Use of imidacloprid as a seed-treatment insecticide to control barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV) in oat and wheat. Plant Dis 80:136–141

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grossmann K, Kwiatkowski J, Caspar G (1999) Regulation of phytohormone levels, leaf senescence and transpiration by the strobilurin kresoxim-methyl in wheat (Triticum aestivum). J Plant Physiol 154:805–808

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Grossmann K, Retzlaff G (1997) Bioregulatory effects of the fungicidal strobilurin Kresoxim-methyl in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Pesticide Sci 50:11–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harveson RM, Windels CE, Smith JA, Brantner JR, Cattanach AW, Giles JF, Hubbell L, Cattanach NR (2007) Fungicide registration and a small niche market: a case history of hymexazol seed treatment and the U.S. sugar beet industry. Plant Dis 91:780–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey T, Seifers DL, Kofoid KD (1996) Effect of sorghum hybrid and imidacloprid seed treatment on infestations by corn leaf aphid and greenbug (Homoptera: Aphididae) and the spread of sugarcane mosaic virus strain MDMV-B. J Agric Entomol 13:9–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey TL, Seifers DL, Martin TJ (1998) Effect of imidacloprid seed treatment on infestations of wheat curl mite (Acari: Eriophyidae) and the incidence of wheat streak mosaic virus. J Agric Entomol 15:75–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Herms S, Seehaus K, Koehle H, Conrath U (2002) A strobilurin fungicide enhances the resistance of tobacco against Tobacco mosaic virus and Pseudomonas syringae pv. tabaci. Plant Physiol 130:120–127

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhar TP, Stivers Young LJ, Hoffman MP, Taylor AG (2002) Control of corn flea beetle and Stewart’s wilt in sweet corn with imidacloprid and thiamethoxam seed treatments. Crop Prot 21:25–31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maienfisch P, Gsell L, Rindlisbacher A (1999) Synthesis and insecticidal activity of CGA 293’343, a novel broad-spectrum insecticide. Pest Sci 55:343–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCornack BP, Ragsdale DW (2006) Efficacy of thiamethoxam to suppress soybean aphid populations in Minnesota soybean. Online Crop Manag. doi:10.1094/CM-2006-0915-01-RS

    Google Scholar 

  • Milus EA, Chalkley DB (1997) Effect of previous crop, seedborne inoculum, and fungicides on development of Stagonospora blotch. Plant Dis 81:1279–1283

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Munkvold GP, McGee DC, Iles A (1996) Effects of imidacloprid seed treatment of corn on foliar feeding and Erwinia stewartii transmission by the corn flea beetle. Plant Dis 80:747–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutton MA, Mutton MJR, Euzebio-Filho O, Nakamura G, Aramaki P (2007) Thiamethoxam stimulates sugarcane stalk productivity. XXVI congress, international society sugar cane technology, ICC, Durban, 29 July–2 Aug 2007, pp 476–480

    Google Scholar 

  • Nason MA, Farrar J, Bartlett D (2007) Strobilurin fungicides induce changes in photosynthetic gas exchange that do not improve water use efficiency of plants grown under conditions of water stress. Pest Manag Sci 63:1191–1200

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Noleppa S, Hahn T (2013) The value of neonicotinoid insecticides in the European Union. Humboldt Forum for Food and Agriculture Working Paper 01/2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Palumbo JC, Sanchez CA (1995) Imidacloprid does not enhance growth and yield of muskmelon in the absence of whitefly. Hortscience 30:997–999

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pataky JK, Hawk JA, Weldekidan T, Fallah MP (1995) Incidence and severity of Stewart’s bacterial wilt on sequential plantings of resistant and susceptible sweet corn hybrids. Plant Dis 79:1202–1207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pataky JK, Michener PM, Freeman ND, Weinzierl RA, Teyker RH (2000) Control of Stewart’s wilt in sweet corn with seed treatment insecticides. Plant Dis 84:1104–1108

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pataky JK, Michener PM, Freeman ND, Whalen JM, Hawk JA, Weldekidan T, Teyker RH (2005) Rates of seed treatment insecticides and control of Stewart’s wilt in sweet corn. Plant Dis 89:262–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prasanna AR, Bheemanna M, Patil BV (2004) Phytotonic and phytotoxic effects of thiamethoxam 70 WS on cotton. Karnataka J Agric Sci 17:238–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice ME, Bradshaw J, Hill JH (2007) Revisiting an integrated approach to bean leaf beetle and bean pod mottle virus management. Integr Crop Manag 498:87–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Brljevich C, Kanobe C, Shanahan JF, Robertson AE (2009) Seed treatments enhance photosynthesis in maize seedlings by reducing infection with Fusarium spp. and consequent disease development in maize. Eur J Plant Pathol 126:343–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell PE (2005) A century of fungicide evolution

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundin DR, Bokus WW, Eversmyer MG (1999) Triazole seed treatments suppress spore production by Puccinia recondita, Septoria tritici, and Stagonospora nodorum from wheat leaves. Plant Dis 83:328–332

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Suparyono, Pataky JK (1989) Influence of host resistance and growth stage at the time of inoculation on Stewart’s wilt and Goss’s wilt development and sweet corn hybrid yield. Plant Dis 73:339–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toquin V, Sirven C, Assmann L, Sawada H (2012) Host defense inducers 2012. In: Kramer W, Schrimer U, Witschel M (eds) Modern crop protection compounds. Wiley, Weinheim, pp 715–737

    Google Scholar 

  • Tripathi RK, Vohra K, Schlosser E (1980) Effect of fungicides on the physiology of plants. III. Mechanism of cytokinin-like antisenescent action of carbendazim on wheat leaves. Zeitschrift Pflanzenkrankheiten Pflanzenschutz 87:631–639

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wu YX, Von Tiedemann A (2001) Physiological effects of azoxystrobin and epoxiconazole on senescence and the oxidative status of wheat. Pestic Biochem Physiol 71:1–10

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA

    Gary P. Munkvold

  2. Syngenta Crop Protection, Stanton, MN, USA

    Clifford Watrin

  3. Syngenta Crop Protection, Basel, Switzerland

    Monika Scheller

  4. Syngenta Crop Protection, Stein, Switzerland

    Ronald Zeun

  5. Syngenta Crop Protection, Vero Beach, FL, USA

    Gilberto Olaya

Authors
  1. Gary P. Munkvold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clifford Watrin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Monika Scheller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ronald Zeun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gilberto Olaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary P. Munkvold .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. AGROINNOVA, Università degli Studi di Torino, Grugliasco, Torino, Italy

    Maria Lodovica Gullino

  2. Plant Pathology and Microbiology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA

    Gary Munkvold

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Munkvold, G.P., Watrin, C., Scheller, M., Zeun, R., Olaya, G. (2014). Benefits of Chemical Seed Treatments on Crop Yield and Quality. In: Gullino, M., Munkvold, G. (eds) Global Perspectives on the Health of Seeds and Plant Propagation Material. Plant Pathology in the 21st Century, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9389-6_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation