Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Scientific Reports
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. scientific reports
  3. articles
  4. article
Marginal causal effect of fungicide seed treatments on soybean yield and uncertain profitability in the US Midwest
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 06 April 2026

Marginal causal effect of fungicide seed treatments on soybean yield and uncertain profitability in the US Midwest

  • Paul D. Esker1,
  • Denis A. Shah2,
  • Spyridon Mourtzinis3,
  • Patricio Grassini4,
  • Tatiane Severo Silva3 &
  • …
  • Shawn P. Conley3 

Scientific Reports , Article number:  (2026) Cite this article

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Subjects

  • Ecology
  • Environmental sciences
  • Plant sciences

Abstract

Fungicide seed treatments (FSTs) are widely used in Midwest soybean production due to perceived disease risk. While some studies report significant yield increases, overall economic and environmental benefits remain unclear. This study utilized randomized controlled trial (RCT) and observational data to estimate the causal FST effect on soybean yield. Analysis of the RCT data revealed a modest average yield increase of 22.2 kg/ha attributable to FST. Observational data also indicated a small average yield gain of approximately 36 kg/ha. Monte Carlo simulations showed that yield gains often do not offset the seed treatment costs, with financial benefit likely only under low FST costs and high soybean prices. Given the limited economic return and concerns about the potential negative impacts of widespread FST use on soil microbes and non-target organisms, our research suggests that FSTs may not be necessary in Midwest soybean production, and growers should carefully evaluate their use based on individual farm gate economics as well as ecological considerations.

Similar content being viewed by others

A machine learning interpretation of the contribution of foliar fungicides to soybean yield in the north‐central United States

Article Open access 21 September 2021

Yield gap decomposition: quantifying factors limiting soybean yield in Southern Africa

Article Open access 31 December 2024

High-resolution soybean trial data supporting the expansion of agriculture in Africa

Article Open access 04 December 2025

Data availability

The code necessary to reproduce the analyses and figures shown in this study is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15546368. To respect the privacy of growers, field locations in the associated data files have been de-identified (i.e., reported by state only and not by latitude and longitude).

References

  1. Deines, J. M., Wang, S. & Lobell, D. B. Satellites reveal a small positive yield effect from conservation tillage across the US Corn Belt. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab503b (2019).

  2. NASS & Quick Stats, A. P. I. USDA Natl. Agric. Stat. Serv. (2025). https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov

  3. Matcham, E. G. et al. Management strategies for early- and late-planted soybean in the north-central United States. Agron. J. 112, 2928–2943 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mourtzinis, S., Specht, J. E. & Conley, S. P. Defining optimal soybean sowing dates across the US. Sci. Rep. 9 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-38971-3 (2019).

  5. Nleya, T., Schutte, M., Clay, D., Reicks, G. & Mueller, N. Planting date, cultivar, seed treatment, and seeding rate effects on soybean growth and yield. Agrosystems Geosci. Environ. 3, e20045. https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20045 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rattalino Edreira, J. I. et al. Assessing causes of yield gaps in agricultural areas with diversity in climate and soils. Agric. Meteorol. 247, 170–180 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Robinson, A. P., Conley, S. P., Volenec, J. J. & Santini, J. B. Analysis of high yielding, early-planted soybean in Indiana. Agron. J. 101, 131–139 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Vossenkemper, J. P. et al. Early planting, full-season cultivars, and seed treatments maximize soybean yield potential. Crop Forage Turfgrass Manag. 1, 1–9 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Severo Silva, T. et al. Soybean yield response to management practices (4–40 years) and soil health parameters. Field Crops Res. 329, 109959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2025.109959 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rowntree, S. C. et al. Genetic gain × management interactions in soybean: I. Planting date. Crop Sci. 53, 1128–1138 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lamichhane, J. R., You, M. P., Laudinot, V., Barbetti, M. J. & Aubertot J.-N. Revisiting sustainability of fungicide seed treatments for field crops. Plant. Dis. 104, 610–623 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Matthiesen, R. L. & Robertson, A. E. Effect of infection timing by four Pythium spp. on soybean damping-off symptoms with and without cold stress. Plant. Dis. 107, 3975–3983 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Scott, K., Eyre, M., McDuffee, D. & Dorrance, A. E. The efficacy of ethaboxam as a soybean seed treatment toward Phytophthora, Phytopythium, and Pythium in Ohio. Plant. Dis. 104, 1421–1432 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bandara, A. Y., Weerasooriya, D. K., Bradley, C. A., Allen, T. W. & Esker, P. D. Dissecting the economic impact of soybean diseases in the United States over two decades. PLOS ONE. 15, e0231141. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231141 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Munkvold, G. P. Seed pathology progress in academia and industry. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 47, 285–311 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cox, W. J. & Cherney, J. H. Location, variety, and seeding rate interactions with soybean seed-applied insecticide/fungicides. Agron. J. 103, 1366–1371 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gaspar, A. P. et al. Response of broad-spectrum and target-specific seed treatments and seeding rate on soybean seed yield, profitability, and economic risk. Crop Sci. 57, 2251–2262 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Navi, S. S., Huynh, T., Mayers, C. G. & Yang, X. B. Diversity of Pythium spp. associated with soybean damping-off, and management implications by using foliar fungicides as seed treatments. Phytopathol. Res. 1, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42483-019-0015-9 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lamichhane, J. R., Corrales, D. C. & Soltani, E. Biological seed treatments promote crop establishment and yield: a global meta-analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 42 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00761-z (2022).

  20. Dorrance, A. E. et al. Integrated management strategies for Phytophthora sojae combining host resistance and seed treatments. Plant. Dis. 93, 875–882 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bradley, C. A. Effect of fungicide seed treatments on stand establishment, seedling disease, and yield of soybean in North Dakota. Plant. Dis. 92, 120–125 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bradley, C. A., Wax, L. M., Ebelhar, S. A., Bollero, G. A. & Pedersen, W. L. The effect of fungicide seed protectants, seeding rates, and reduced rates of herbicides on no-till soybean. Crop Prot. 20, 615–622 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cox, W. J., Shields, E. & Cherney, J. H. Planting date and seed treatment effects on soybean in the Northeastern United States. Agron. J. 100, 1662–1665 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lueschen, W. E. et al. Soybean production as affected by tillage in a corn and soybean management system: II. Seed treatment response. J. Prod. Agric. 4, 580–585 (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Schulz, T. J. & Thelen, K. D. Soybean seed inoculant and fungicidal seed treatment effects on soybean. Crop Sci. 48, 1975–1983 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Esker, P. D. & Conley, S. P. Probability of yield response and breaking even for soybean seed treatments. Crop Sci. 52, 351–359 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gaspar, A. P., Marburger, D. A., Mourtzinis, S. & Conley, S. P. Soybean seed yield response to multiple seed treatment components across diverse environments. Agron. J. 106, 1955–1962 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Gaspar, A. P., Mitchell, P. D. & Conley, S. P. Economic risk and profitability of soybean fungicide and insecticide seed treatments at reduced seeding rates. Crop Sci. 55, 924–933 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Orlowski, J. M. et al. High-input management systems effect on soybean seed yield, yield components, and economic break-even probabilities. Crop Sci. 56, 1988–2004 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kandel, Y. R. et al. Integration of host resistance, seed treatment, and seeding rate for management of sudden death syndrome, a disease of soybean caused by Fusarium virguliforme. Plant. Health Prog. 24, 445–452 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Byrnes, J. E. K. & Dee, L. E. Causal inference with observational data and unobserved confounding variables. Ecol. Lett. 28, e70023. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.70023 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kimmel, K., Dee, L. E., Avolio, M. L. & Ferraro, P. J. Causal assumptions and causal inference in ecological experiments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36, 1141–1152 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Yang, Y. et al. Publication bias impacts on effect size, statistical power, and magnitude (Type M) and sign (Type S) errors in ecology and evolutionary biology. BMC Biol. 21, 71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-022-01485-y (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  34. van Zwet, E., Schwab, S. & Greenland, S. Addressing exaggeration of effects from single RCTs. Significance 18, 16–21 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Andrade, J. F. et al. Assessing the influence of row spacing on soybean yield using experimental and producer survey data. Field Crops Res. 230, 98–106 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mourtzinis, S. et al. Assessing benefits of artificial drainage on soybean yield in the North Central US region. Agric. Water Manag. 243, 106425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106425 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Shah, D. A. et al. A machine learning interpretation of the contribution of foliar fungicides to soybean yield in the north-central United States. Sci. Rep. 11, 18769. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98230-2 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Siegel, K. & Dee, L. E. Foundations and future directions for causal inference in ecological research. Ecol. Lett. 28, e70053. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.70053 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mourtzinis, S. et al. Neonicotinoid seed treatments of soybean provide negligible benefits to US farmers. Sci. Rep. 9 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47442-8 (2019).

  40. Smith, M. J. et al. Introduction to computational causal inference using reproducible Stata, R, and Python code: A tutorial. Stat. Med. 41, 407–432 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hirt, J., Nordhausen, T., Fuerst, T., Ewald, H. & Appenzeller-Herzog, C. Guidance on terminology, application, and reporting of citation searching: The TARCiS statement. BMJ 385, e078384. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-078384 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hitaj, C. et al. Sowing uncertainty: What we do and don’t know about the planting of pesticide-treated seed. BioScience 70, 390–403 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Igelström, E. et al. Causal inference and effect estimation using observational data. J. Epidemiol. Community Health. 76, 960–966 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  44. VanderWeele, T. J. & Hernan, M. A. Causal inference under multiple versions of treatment. J. Causal Inference. 1, 1–20 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  45. VanderWeele, T. J. Concerning the consistency assumption in causal inference. Epidemiology 20, 880–883 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Larsen, A. E., Meng, K. & Kendall, B. E. Causal analysis in control–impact ecological studies with observational data. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 924–934 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Imbens, G. W. & Rubin, D. B. Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction (Cambridge University Press, 2015).

  48. Moccia, C. et al. Machine learning in causal inference for epidemiology. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 39, 1097–1108 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  49. van der Laan, M. J. & Rose, S. Targeted Learning: Causal Inference for Observational and Experimental Data (Springer, 2011).

  50. Athey, S. & Wager, S. Estimating treatment effects with causal forests: An application. Obs Stud. 5, 37–51 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hahn, P. R., Murray, J. S. & Carvalho, C. M. Bayesian regression tree models for causal inference: Regularization, confounding, and heterogeneous effects (with discussion). Bayesian Anal. 15, 965–1056 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hill, J. L. Bayesian nonparametric modeling for causal inference. J. Comput. Graph Stat. 20, 217–240 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  53. van der Laan, M. J., Polley, E. C. & Hubbard, A. E. Super learner. Stat. Appl. Genet. Mol. Biol. 6 https://doi.org/10.2202/1544-6115.1309 (2007).

  54. Rohrer, J. M. Thinking clearly about correlations and causation: Graphical causal models for observational data. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 27–42 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  55. DÁgostino McGowan, L. tipr: An R package for sensitivity analyses for unmeasured confounders. J. Open. Source Softw. 7, 4495. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.04495 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Dorie, V., Harada, M., Carnegie, N. B. & Hill, J. A flexible, interpretable framework for assessing sensitivity to unmeasured confounding. Stat. Med. 35, 3453–3470 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Athey, S., Tibshirani, J. & Wager, S. Generalized random forests. Ann. Stat. 47, 1148–1178 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Rehill, P. How do applied researchers use the causal forest? A methodological review. Int. Stat. Rev. 93, 288–316 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  59. van Zwet, E. W., Tian, L. & Tibshirani, R. Evaluating a shrinkage estimator for the treatment effect in clinical trials. Stat. Med. 43, 855–868 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Ioannidis, J. P. A. Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology 19, 640–648 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Stuart, E. A. Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Stat. Sci. 25, 1–21 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Baetsen-Young, A. M., Swinton, S. M. & Chilvers, M. I. Economic impact of fluopyram-amended seed treatments to reduce soybean yield loss associated with sudden death syndrome. Plant. Dis. 105, 78–86 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Mourtzinis, S. et al. Field-level yield benefits and risk effects of intensive soybean management across the US. Field Crops Res. 301, 109012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2023.109012 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Dangal, N. K., Wiggs, S., Mueller, B., Smith, D. L. & Mueller, D. S. Addition of nanofertilizers and nitrogen fertilizer in combination with fluopyram helps in SDS management and protecting yield in soybean. PhytoFrontiers 5, 464–471 (2025).

  65. Dangal, N. K. et al. Soybean seed treatment evaluation under various levels of sudden death syndrome and populations of soybean cyst nematode. Plant Dis. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-05-25-1114-RE.

  66. Dorrance, A. E. et al. Picarbutrazox effectiveness added to a seed treatment mixture for management of oomycetes that impact soybean in Ohio. Plant. Dis. 108, 2330–2340 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Truscott, J. E. & Gilligan, C. A. The effect of cultivation on the size, shape, and persistence of disease patches in fields. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98, 7128–7133 (2001).

  68. Ayesha, M. S., Suryanarayanan, T. S., Nataraja, K. N., Prasad, S. R. & Shaanker, R. U. Seed treatment with systemic fungicides: Time for review. Front. Plant. Sci. 12, 654512. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.654512 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Leadbeater, A., McGrath, M. T., Wyenandt, C. A. & Stevenson, K. L. An overview of fungicide resistance and resistance management: History and future trends in Fungicide Resistance in North America 2nd edn 3–19 (APS Press, 2019).

  70. Berg, G. & Raaijmakers, J. M. Saving seed microbiomes. ISME J. 12, 1167–1170 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Cordovez, V., Dini-Andreote, F., Carrión, V. J. & Raaijmakers, J. M. Ecology and evolution of plant microbiomes. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 73, 69–88 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Bandara, A. Y., Weerasooriya, D. K., Conley, S. P., Allen, T. W. & Esker, P. D. Modeling the relationship between estimated fungicide use and disease-associated yield losses of soybean in the United States II: Seed-applied fungicides vs seedling diseases. PLOS ONE. 15, e0244424. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244424 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Wisconsin Soybean Marketing Board, the North Central Soybean Research Program (Project 204331), the United Soybean Board (Project 24-210-S-A-1-A / 2411-210-0101), and by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch Appropriations to PDE (Project PEN04836 and Accession 7005075). Any findings, opinions or recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plant Pathology and Environmental Microbiology, Pennsylvania State University, 211 Buckhout Lab, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Paul D. Esker

  2. Department of Plant Pathology, Kansas State University, 4024 Throckmorton Plant Sciences Center, 1712 Claflin Road, Manhattan, KS, 66506, USA

    Denis A. Shah

  3. Department of Plant and Agroecosystem Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Moore Hall, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, 53705, USA

    Spyridon Mourtzinis, Tatiane Severo Silva & Shawn P. Conley

  4. Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1825 N 38th St., 202 Keim Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0915, USA

    Patricio Grassini

Authors
  1. Paul D. Esker
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denis A. Shah
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Spyridon Mourtzinis
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patricio Grassini
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tatiane Severo Silva
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shawn P. Conley
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study conceptualization (PE, SC), Formal analysis (DS), Funding acquisition (PE, PG, SC), Initial investigation (PG, SC), Methodology (PE, DS), Project administration (PE), Supervision (PE), Visualization (DS), Writing—original draft (PE, DS), Writing—review & editing (all authors). All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul D. Esker.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1 (download PDF )

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Esker, P.D., Shah, D.A., Mourtzinis, S. et al. Marginal causal effect of fungicide seed treatments on soybean yield and uncertain profitability in the US Midwest. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-47390-0

Download citation

  • Received: 02 July 2025

  • Accepted: 31 March 2026

  • Published: 06 April 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-47390-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Causal effects
  • Fungicide seed treatment
  • Profitability
  • Soybean
  • US Midwest
Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • News & Comment
  • Collections
  • Subjects
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on X
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • About Scientific Reports
  • Contact
  • Journal policies
  • Guide to referees
  • Calls for Papers
  • Editor's Choice
  • Journal highlights
  • Open Access Fees and Funding

Publish with us

  • For authors
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Scientific Reports (Sci Rep)

ISSN 2045-2322 (online)

nature.com footer links

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene