prune replant issues - ucanr
TRANSCRIPT
Prune Replant Issues: Insights from Almond & Peach Experience
Greg Browne Prune Day
Red Bluff, CA
20 February 2015
Almond Board of California
USDA Pacific Area-Wide Prog. for MB Altern.
California Dept. of Pesticide Reg.
UC Cooperative Extension
Photo: California Agriculture
• Plant-parasitic nematodes (ring, lesion, root knot), approx. 35% of almond and fresh stone fruit acreage, 60% of cling peach acreage infested (McKenry)
• Replant disease (RD) Microbe-induced growth suppression; commonly occurs in Prunus after Prunus; severity varies greatly
• Aggressive pathogens, pests (e.g., Phytophthora, Armillaria, Verticillium, Ten-Lined June Beetle)
• Abiotic factors (physical, chemical conditions related to previous production)
Lesion nematode Ring nematode
Healthy tree RD-affected tree
Replant disease
Replant problems of Prunus species
6 Plant parasitic nematodes
• Economic impact, direct and indirect, can be great over life of orchard
• We can sample for them: – Best timing: pre-push and post-push / pre-plant
– Best depth range 0.3 to 3-ft depth
– Best to represent variation in soil texture and block histories
• Preplant fumigation with 1,3-D (in Telone II or Telone C35) is prudent when facing known plant-parasitic nematodes
• Rootstock resistance important to weigh in management decisions
Root lesion nematode
Ring nematode
Thoughts on plant-parasitic nematodes,
“the replant problem we know”…
6
Dagger nematode
Photo:
UC Davis
Soil Numbers of pathogenic nematodes as influenced by
almond rootstock
Escalon, CA. January, 2005
DATA OF ROGER DUNCAN, UCCE
Replant disease,
“the other replant problem”...
Not fumigated
Pic-fumigated
Chico, 2001
Nord loam soil
Replant Disease,
“the other replant problem”…
Durham, 2002.
Repeated sampling indicated no role
of plant-parasitic nematodes in RD at
sites chosen for trials near Chico,
Durham, and Parlier, CA
Farwell loam soil
0
10
20
30
40
50
Non-Fumigated MB:Pic (75:25, 1
lb/tree site)
Pic (1 lb/tree site)
Inc
rea
se
in
tru
nk
dia
me
ter
(mm
)
Lovell Nemaguard Marianna 2624
Effect of fumigant x rootstock, Durham Trees planted Feb 2003, measured 9 Dec 2003, Orchard 1
Impact of RD as
determined by
pre-plant
fumigation…
Durham, 2004
8
Healthy tree, CP-fumigated plot RD-affected tree, Non-treated plot
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Root diameter (mm)
Control
Pre-plant chloropcirin
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Root diameter (mm)
Control
Pre-plant chloropcirin
Marianna 2624 rootstock Lovell peach rootstock
To
tal ro
ot
len
gth
pe
r s
am
ple
(c
m)
> >
Impact of RD on first-year root development, almond…
Durham, 2004; root length densities determined by soil and root excavation,
digital imaging, and WinRHIZO software.
10
Replant disease, Firebaugh, 2007
Replant disease, Madera, 2008
Replant disease, Parlier, 2008
Replant Disease: Sorting through the haystack of potential causes…
Ordination analysis
13
Contributors to RD: Cylindrocarpon and Pythium species
Exp. 3
Contr
ol
C.m
acro
did
ymum
4270
_WA-b
le-b
C.m
acro
did
ymum
5372
_WA-b
le-c
C.m
acro
did
ymum
6629
_PD
A-b
le-N
C.m
acro
did
ymum
6702
_PD
A-b
le-r
t-a
P.in
term
ediu
m72
69_P
AR
P_r
in_j
P.ir
regula
re72
55_P
AR
P_r
in_h
P.ir
regula
re72
56_P
AR
P_r
in_g
P.ir
regula
re72
76_P
AR
P_r
in_a
P.ir
regula
re72
79_P
AR
P_r
in_b
P.ir
regula
re81
82_P
AR
P
P.p
areo
candru
m72
48_P
AR
P_r
in_l
P.p
areo
candru
m72
49_P
AR
P_b
l_v-1
P.p
areo
candru
m72
50_P
AR
P_r
in_i
P.p
areo
candru
m72
68_P
AR
P_r
in_h
P.p
areo
candru
m72
70_P
AR
P_r
in_a
P.p
areo
candru
m72
71_P
AR
P_r
in_b
P.p
areo
candru
m72
71_P
AR
P_r
in_f
P.s
pin
osu
m72
50_P
AR
P_r
in_a
P.s
pin
osu
m72
57_P
AR
P_r
in_j
P.s
pin
osu
m72
76_P
AR
P_r
in_c
P.s
pin
osu
m72
78_P
AR
P_r
in_f
P.s
pin
osu
m72
79_P
AR
P_r
in_g
P.u
ltim
um
7255
_PAR
P_r
in_c
-1
P.u
ltim
um
7257
_PAR
P_r
in_c
P.u
ltim
um
7268
_PAR
P_r
in_l
2
P.u
ltim
um
7270
_PAR
P_r
in_l
P.u
ltim
um
7271
_PAR
P_r
in_e
P.u
ltim
um
7271
_WA_a
mp_r
in_m
2
P.u
ltim
um
7276
_WA_a
mp_b
l_t2
P.u
ltim
um
7277
_PAR
P_r
in_f
P.u
ltim
um
7278
_PAR
P_r
in_j
P.v
exan
s818
8_PAR
P_a
P.v
exan
s818
9_PAR
P
P.v
exan
s819
3_PAR
P
P.v
exan
s821
6_PAR
P_a
P.s
p17
248_
PAR
P_r
in_h
1
P.s
p17
269_
PAR
P_b
l_l
P.s
p17
271_
PAR
P_r
in_c
P.s
p17
276_
PAR
P_b
l_e
P.s
pH
Q64
3805
.181
92_P
AR
P
P.s
pH
Q64
3805
.182
01_P
AR
P
P.s
pH
Q64
3805
.182
06_P
AR
P
P.s
pH
Q64
3805
.182
15_P
AR
P
P.s
pH
Q64
3805
.182
16_P
AR
P_b
P.s
pH
Q64
3805
.182
26_P
AR
P
To
p f
res
h w
t. (
g)
0
10
20
30
40
50
Ctl.
Cyl.mac.
P. intermedium
P. pareocandrum
P. ultimum
P. vexans P. sp.1 P. sp.2
P. irregul.P. spinosum
14
Ck Pythium ultimum Ck Cyl. macrodidymum
State of fumigant and non-fumigant approaches to
RD management, an overview…
Broadcast 100% coverage
Strip 50% coverage
GPS-Grid <20% coverage
Soil fumigation considerations
17
Summaries of Prunus replant studies available
online: http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.edu
Please email me at [email protected]
for help with or discussion of PAW-MBA results
18
Replant disease, Madera Co., 2007
lb / trt.
ac.
lb / or.
ac.
Control None 0 0 0
Methyl br. Row strip (45%) 400 180 1962
Telone II Row strip (38%) 340 129 393
Midas Row strip (38%) 0 152 na
Chloropicrin Row strip (38%) 400 152 871
Chloropicrin Row strip (38%) 300 114 677
Chloropicrin Row strip (38%) 200 76 482
Telone C35 Row strip (38%) 550 209 882
Pic-Chlor 60 Row strip (38%) 550 209 829
Pic-Chlor 60 Row strip (38%) 400 152 667
Chloropicrin Tree spot (17%) 400 68 441
Telone C35 Tree spot (17%) 550 94 447
Telone C35 Full coverage (100%) 550 550 2169
Fumigant Treated area
Fumigant rate Cost of
trt.
($/ac.)0 2000 4000 6000
Cum. yield by yr (lb/ac)
Yld Yr 1 Yld Yr 2 Yld Yr 3
Almond replant trial, Firebaugh, CA; treatments, costs, yields
Almond replant trial; Firebaugh, CA
lb / trt.
ac.
lb / or.
ac.
Yield
Yr. 2
Yield
Yr. 3
Control None 0 0 0 0 0
Methyl br. Row strip (45%) 400 180 1962 (1,120) (1,279)
Telone II Row strip (38%) 340 129 393 929 1,552
Midas Row strip (38%) 0 152 na na na
Chloropicrin Row strip (38%) 400 152 871 1,593 2,433
Chloropicrin Row strip (38%) 300 114 677 1,870 2,727
Chloropicrin Row strip (38%) 200 76 482 2,422 3,328
Telone C35 Row strip (38%) 550 209 882 1,926 3,296
Pic-Chlor 60 Row strip (38%) 550 209 829 2,462 4,202
Pic-Chlor 60 Row strip (38%) 400 152 667 1,885 2,814
Chloropicrin Tree spot (17%) 400 68 441 1,725 2,857
Telone C35 Tree spot (17%) 550 94 447 1,530 2,473
Telone C35 Full coverage (100%) 550 550 2169 688 2,511
Fumigant Treated area
Fumigant rate Cost of
trt.
($/ac.)
Cum. net reven.
gain ($/ac.)a
45,850
93,097
106,378
79,349
68,727
85,080
Cumulative yield 2009-12
(lb marketable fruit / ac)
Fumigant Treated area lb / trt ac
lb / orch
ac
Control None 0 0 0
Methyl bromideRow strip
(42%)400 200 2,272
Telone C35Row strip
(50%)550 231 1,062
Telone C35Tree spot
(13%)550 69 460
InlineTree spot
(5%)550 28 207
ChloropicrinTree spot
(13%)400 50 457
Treatmenta
Fumigant rate
Cost of
treatment
($ / acre)
Parlier peach replant trial
Fumigant Treated area
lb / trt
ac
lb / orch
ac
$ 0.24
/ lb
$ 0.12
/ lb
$ 0.06 /
lb
$
0.03 /
lb
Control None 0 0 0 45,850 0 0 0 0
Methyl bromideRow strip
(42%)400 200 2,272 93,097 9,067 3,398 563 (854)
Telone C35Row strip
(50%)550 231 1,062 106,378 13,465 6,201 2,570 754
Telone C35Tree spot
(13%)550 69 460 79,349 7,580 3,560 1,550 545
InlineTree spot
(5%)550 28 207 68,727 5,283 2,538 1,166 480
ChloropicrinTree spot
(13%)400 50 457 85,080 8,958 4,251 1,897 720
Net fruit prices and net
revenue gain ($/acre)b
Treatmenta
Fumigant rate
Cost of
treatment
($ / acre)
Cummulative
yield (lb / ac)
Parlier peach replant trial
Non-fumigants:
Validation of sudan rotation value, peach replant trial, Parlier, CA
Treatmenta
$ 0.24 /
lb
$ 0.12 /
lb
$ 0.06 /
lb
$ 0.03 /
lb
No sudan rotation (control) 0 72,320 0 0 0 0
Piper sudan grass rotation 217 84,174 1,911 849 317 51
Cost of treatment
($ / acre)
Cummulative
yield (lb / ac)
Non-
fumigants:
rootstocks
and mgt. of
replant
disease
2011-12 trial
Love
ll
Nem
agua
rd
HBOK 1
HBOK 1
0
HBOK 2
8
HBOK 3
2
HBOK 5
0
Em
pyre
an 1
Brig
hts Hyb
rid 5
Brig
hts Hyb
rid 1
06
Gar
nem
15
Han
sen
536
Con
trolle
r 5
Kry
msk
1
Kry
msk
2
Kry
msk
9
Kry
msk
86
Myr
obolan
Mar
iann
a 26
24
Ste
m d
ia.
incre
ase
(m
m)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Non-fumigated soil
Fumigated soil
Love
ll
Nem
agua
rd
HBOK 1
HBOK 1
0
HBOK 2
8
HBOK 3
2
HBOK 5
0
Em
pyre
an 1
Brig
hts Hyb
.5
Brig
hts Hyb
.106
Gar
nem
15
Han
sen
536
Con
trolle
r 5
Kry
msk
1
Kry
msk
2
Kry
msk
9
Kry
msk
86
Myr
obolan
Mar
iann
a 26
24
Ste
m d
ia.
incre
ase in N
F s
oil
as
pro
port
ion o
f th
at
in F
soil
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Peach Peach x almond hybrid
Plum or plum hybrid
Nemaguard, C35-fumigated soil Nemaguard, NF soil
Hansen 536, NF soil Hansen 536, C35-fumigated soil
Key point: Rootstocks vary significantly in
resistance to RD
Recent, Cal-DPR funded work to optimize
fumigant use
1. Use a greenhouse-based peach seedling bioassay to increase
knowledge available on the need for preplant fumigation
2. Augment bioassay testing results with orchard validations
3. Demonstrate and optimize GPS-controlled spot fumigation in
commercial almond orchards
= ??
27
2 3
Soil sampling for bioassays
Bioassay procedure
28
1.Dur
ham
MdS
2.Dur
ham
MdT
3.Dur
ham
MaT
4.Arb
uckleN
iT
5.Cro
wsL
dgGoT
6.Sne
llingD
oT
7.Fre
snoG
uT
8.Fire
baug
hPaT
9.Ker
man
AvT
10.S
ange
rGe
11.S
ange
rBr
12.P
arlie
rKAC
13.P
arlie
rARS
14.D
inub
aKla
15.H
anfo
rdJW
Plu
16.H
anfo
rdJW
PeD
17.H
anfo
rdJW
PeH
18.W
asco
Pa
19.S
hafte
rPaE
99
20.S
hafte
rPaW
99
To
tal
pla
nt
fresh
wt.
(g
)
0
10
20
30
40Control Fumigated Pasteurized
Bioassay results
29
1.Dur
ham
MdS
2.Dur
ham
MdT
3.Dur
ham
MaT
4.Arb
uckleN
iT
5.Cro
wsL
dgGoT
6.Sne
llingD
oT
7.Fre
snoG
uT
8.Fire
baug
hPaT
9.Ker
man
AvT
10.S
ange
rGe
11.S
ange
rBr
12.P
arlie
rKAC
13.P
arlie
rARS
14.D
inub
aKla
15.H
anfo
rdJW
Plu
16.H
anfo
rdJW
PeD
17.H
anfo
rdJW
PeH
18.W
asco
Pa
19.S
hafte
rPaE
99
20.S
hafte
rPaW
99
To
tal
pla
nt
fresh
wt.
(g
)
0
10
20
30
40Control Fumigated Pasteurized
Recent: managing replant disease without
fumigants, Kearney Ag Center Trial, 2013-14
30
Preplant treatments
included:
• Control
• Early removal / fallow
or Sudan rotation
• Deep soil ripping
• Anaerobic soil
disinfestation (ASD)
• Early and late season
fumigation
31
Preplant NF treatments, KAC trial
32
• ASD developed in Japan
and Netherlands, being
tested widely for CA
strawberries
• Initiated by adding readily
available carbon substrate
to soil, covering with clear
tarp, keeping soil
moisture near field
capacity for several
weeks; heat facilitates
• Mechanism incompletely
understood, but ASD is
lethal and/or suppressive
to many pathogens
Anaerobic soil disinfestation (ASD)
33
• ASD developed in Japan
and Netherlands, being
tested widely for CA
strawberries
• Initiated by adding readily
available carbon substrate
to soil, covering with clear
tarp, keeping soil
moisture near field
capacity for several
weeks; heat facilitates
• Mechanism incompletely
understood, but ASD is
lethal and/or suppressive
to many pathogens
Anaerobic soil disinfestation (ASD)
34
Exp. 1: Rice bran 9 t/ac, mollases 4.5 t/ac
Julian Day
260 270 280 290 300 310
Eh
(m
v)
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
So
il t
em
pera
ture
(C
)
15
20
25
30
35Eh, control
Eh, ASD
Temp., ASD
18"6"
Temp., control
6"
6"
6"
18"
18"
18"
Julian day
260 270 280 290 300 310
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
Eh
(m
v)
Exp. 2:Rice bran 9 tons/ac
6"
6"
Eh, ASD
Eh, control
18"
18"6"
ASD treatment
35
No sudan
control ASD
+ sudan
October 28, 2014
36
No sudan
control
Oct. fumigation
w/ Telone C35,
+ sudan
October 28, 2014
37
Effects of preplant soil treatments on 1st-year
growth of almond (after peach on Nemaguard)
No-s
udan c
ontrol
Sudan
contr
ol
Sudan
+ A
SD
No s
udan +
Oct
. fum
.
Sudan
+ O
ct. f
um.
No s
udan +
Dec
. fum
.Tru
nk
cir
c. in
cre
ase
(cm
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
No-s
udan c
ontrol
No s
udan +
ASD
No s
udan +
Oct
. fum
.0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18Experiment 1 Experiment 2*
*No sig. effect of
ripping depth (2 vs. 4 ft)
38
A key drawback of ASD is cost; it needs
optimization to be economical
Estimated cost of ASD: $2439 / acre (50% strips; all materials and application)
Estimated cost of Telone C35: $1143 / acre (50% strips; all materials and application, no tarp)
• (In addition to re-testing our 2013-14 ASD treatments, we are
testing lower-cost ASD treatments in 2014-15)
• Low-cost yet effective ASD substrates needed
39
Summary
• Both plant parasitic nematodes and replant disease (RD) important
considerations for prune
• Careful sampling advised for assessment of nematodes, they are not
“everywhere”
• Pre-plant fumigation with 1,3-D-containing fumigants advisable for
nematode infestations
• Sampling protocol not available for RD
• Pre-plant fumigation with CP-containing fumigants advisable for
expectation of RD
• Rootstocks should be considered carefully when replanting, data becoming
available to help
• Non-fumigant approaches for management of replant problems hold
promise