NSJV Almond Field Day - Fumigant Handouts

7/31/2019 NSJV Almond Field Day - Fumigant Handouts

1/4

SUMMARY OF FIRST-YEAR TREE GROWTH, ANDREW LITTLEJOHN ALMOND REPLANT TRIAL, MERCED COUNTY

David Doll, Brad Hanson, and Greg Browne

Background. This replant trial was conducted to evaluate promising fumigant-based and non-fumigant-based

treatments for control of almond replant problems, including the ring nematode and almond replant disease. The

previous almond orchard was removed in early fall 2010, and preplant treatments were applied in mid to late fall

2010. The orchard was replanted in January 2011, and the treatments have/are being assessed according to grow

of the new trees, resident nematode populations, and microbial community shifts on the roots. Tree growth

responses in 2011 are shown below (Figs. 1-3):

Acknowledgements: We thank the USDA-ARS Pacific Area-Wide Program for Integrated Methyl Bromide

Alternatives, the Almond Board of California, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and the US

Environmental Protection Agency for their support of this research.

Increase in trunk diameter (mm)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Treatment response:

Fumigant Treated area

Pounds/

treatedacre

Pounds /

orchardacre

Non-fumigated

None 0 0

MB:CP(57:43)

Row strip (50%) 400 200

Telone II Row strip (50%) 340 170

Telone II Broadcast (100%) 340 340

Telone C35 Row strip (50%) 540 270

Steam Spot trt. (%) 300 114


0 5 10 15 20 25 3

Backhoe + phostoxin

Backhoe

Auger + Soilguard

Auger + BSM

Auger control

Telone C35, row strip

No treatment


0 5 10 15 20 25 3

Backhoe

Auger 36" + steam

Auger 24" + steam

Auger 36"

Auger 24"

No treatment

Fig. 1. Growth responses to pre-plant fumigation treatments (Experiment 1).

Fig. 2. Growth responses to pre-plant fumigation

and non-fumigant treatments (Experiment 2).

Fig. 3. Growth responses to soil mixing and

steam treatments (Experiment 3).


2/4

YIELD RESPONSES TO ALTERNATIVE PRE-PLANT SOIL FUMIGATION TREATMENTS FOR CONTROL OF

ALMOND REPLANT DISEASE

Greg Browne, David Doll, Bruce Lampinen and Brent Holtz

Fig. 1. Effect of pre-plant soil fumigation treatments on early yields of a

replanted almond orchard. Almond was planted after almond in 2007.

Fig. 2. Effect of pre-plant treatments on early yields of a replanted peac

orchard. Peach was planted after plum in 2008.

Acknowledgements. We thank the USDA-ARS Pacific Area-Wide Program fo

Integrated Methyl Bromide Alternatives and the Almond Board of California for

support of this work.

Kernal pounds per acre

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

2009 2010Fumigant Treated area

lb/treat.acre

lb/orch.acre

Control None 0 0

MB Br. (100%) 400 400

Telone II R. strip (38%) 340 129

Midas R. strip (38%) 400 400

CP R. strip (38%) 400 152

CP R. strip (38%) 300 114

CP R. strip (38%) 200 76

Telone C35 R. strip (38%) 544 209

Pic-Clor 60 Row strip (38%) 560 209

Pic-Clor 60 Row strip (38%) 400 152

Chloropicrin Tree square (11%) 400 68

Telone C35 Tree square (11%) 544 93

Telone C35 Broadcast (100%) 544 550

Pounds of fruit per acre

0 20000 40000 60000 80000

2009 2010 2011Treatmenta Treated areab

Pounds

fumigant /treated acrec

Pounds

fumigant /orch. acred

Control None 0 0

MB R. strip (42%) 400 168

Telone C35 R. strip (42%) 540 227

Telone C35 Tree site (13%) 540 70

Inline Tree site (5%) 540 28

CP Tree site (13%) 400 52

Yeastextract

Drench 0 0

Cover crop treatment

2-month pre-plant sudangrass rotation

No rotation

Background. The USDA-ARS Pacific Area-

Wide Program for Methyl Bromide

Alternatives has sponsored more than 10

replant trials to optimize and demonstrate

use of methyl bromide alternatives for

control of almond and stone fruit replant

problems. The focus was initially on

optimization of fumigant alternatives but

gradually shifted towards integration with

non-fumigant approaches (i.e., short-term

crop rotation, soil amendment, steam

treatments, rootstock selection, etc.) Each

trial involved replanting almond or peach

orchards after selected pre-plant soil

treatments, and treatment efficacy was

evaluated according to resulting tree growth

and yield. The trials highlighted at the right

were chosen to illustrate responses todiverse pre-plant soil fumigation treatments

at sites affected by replant disease in sandy

loam soil; the sites were not known to be

affected significantly by plant-parasitic

nematodes.

Results. All pre-plant soil fumigation

treatments significantly increased tree

growth and yield (Figs. 1, 2, right). Pre-plant

soil fumigation with chloropicrin-containing

fumigants was particularly effective (Figs. 1,

2). GPS-controlled spot shank fumigationtreatments, which used very little fumigant

per acre, were particularly effective per

pound of fumigant applied (Figs. 1, 2). A 2-

month pre-plant crop rotation with sudan

grass significantly improved peach yield

though not as much as pre-plant soil

fumigation (Fig. 2).

Discussion. Our results indicate that low

orchard rates of chloropicrin-containing

fumigants, delivered in strips or spots, can

effectively manage replant disease. GPS-

controlled spot fumigation treatments may

enable growers to reduce buffer zones

based on total fumigant usage and are

becoming commercially available. Pre-plant

rotations with Piper Sudan grass can

improve young orchard performance.

Many field observations have indicated the

importance of good land preparation

(especially ripping), optimal mineral nutrition,

careful soil water management in optimizing

erformance of re lanted orchards.


3/4

EVALUATING ALMOND AND STONE FRUIT ROOTSTOCKS FOR RESISTANCE TO REPLANT DISEASE

Greg Browne, Leigh Schmidt, and Ravi Bhat

Rootstock Type Genetic background

HBOK1 Pe HB x OK peach

HBOK 10 (Controller 8) Pe HB x OK peach

HBOK 28 Pe HB x OK peach

HBOK 32 (Controller 7) Pe HB x OK peachHBOK 50 (Contoller 9.5 ) Pe HB x OK peach

Lovell Pe P. persica

Nemaguard Pe P. persica x P. davidiana

Empyrean#1 (Barrier 1) Pe P. persica x P. davidiana

Bright Hybrid-5 Pe x Al P. persica x P. dulcis

Bright Hybrid 106 Pe x Al P. persica x P. dulcis

GxN 15 (Garnem) Pe x Al P. dulcis x P. persica (Nemared)

Hansen 536 Pe x Al [Okin.x (P. davidiana x Pe PI 6582)] x alm.

Controller 5 (=K146-43) Pl hybrid P. salicina x P . persica

Krymsk #1 (VVA 1) Pl hybrid P. tomentosa x P. cerasifera

Krymsk 2 Pl hybrid P. incana x P. tomentosa

Krymsk 9 Pl hybrid P. armeniaca x P . ceracifera (?)

Krymsk#86 (Kuban 86) Pl hybrid P. persica x P. cerasifera

Tempropac (Pe x Al) x Pe (P. dulcis x P. persica) x P. persica

PAC 9908-02 (Pe x Al) x Pe (P. dulcis x P. persica) x P. persica

Replantpac Pl hybrid P. ceracifera x P. dulcis

Myrobalan Pl hybrid P. ceracifera?

Marianna 2624 Pl hybrid P.munsoniana x P. cerasifera

Lovell

Nemag

uard

HBOK

1

HBOK

10

HBOK

28

HBOK

32

HBOK

50

Empy

rean

1

Bright

sHy

b.5

Bright

sHyb

.106

Garnem

15

Hans

en536

Controlle

r5

Krym

sk1

Krym

sk2

Krym

sk9

Krym

sk86

Myrobo

lan

Maria

nna2624

Increaseinstem

dia.(mm)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fumigated soil

Non-fumigated soil

Lov

ell

Nemag

uard

HBOK

1

HBOK

10

HBOK

28

HBOK32

HBOK50

Empyre

an1

BrightsH

yb.5

Bright

sHyb

.106

Garne

m15

Hansen

536

Contro

ller5

Krym

sk1

Krym

sk2

Krym

sk9

Kryms

k86

Myrob

olan

Maria

nna2624

Increaseinstem

dia.

inNFplotsas%

offumigated

0

20

40

60

80

100

B

Krym

sk#86

Temprop

ac

PAC99

08-02

Replantp

ac

Stem

diam.increase(mm)

0

5

10

15

20

25Fumigated soil

Non-fumigated soil

Krym

sk#86

Temprop

ac

PAC99

08-02

Replantp

ac

Stem

diam.increase

(w/ofumig.as%

ofw/fumig.)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Peach

Peach x almond

Plum, inter-specific plum hybrids

Background. Twenty-two rootstocks,

clonally propagated and including Lovell,

Nemaguard, and Marianna 2624 as

standards, were planted in replicate

fumigated (Telone C35) and non-fumigated

plots of Hanford Sandy Loam soil nearParlier, CA. The site was known to induce

severe replant disease (i.e., growth stunting

associated with a soil microbial complex).

Resistance to the disease was assessed

according to the degree to which rootstock

growth in non-fumigated soil matched that in

the fumigated soil. Two experiments were

completed (expt. 1 and expt. 2) to

accommodate rootstocks from two nurseries.

Results. Replant disease suppressed

growth of nearly all rootstocks to some

degree, but several of the hybrids (i.e., peach

x almond and plum hybrids) and Empyrean 1

peach were less affected than standard

Nemaguard peach (Figs. 1-4). For expt. 1,

Fig. 1 shows rootstock stem diameter growth

as a function of soil treatment in expt. 1,

whereas Fig. 2 shows rootstock stem growth

in non-fumigated plots expressed as a

percentage of growth in fumigated plots. For

expt. 2, Figs. 3 and 4 show the same

response variables (i.e., those described forFigs. 1 and 2, respectively).

Discussion. Our results indicate that careful

rootstock selection by growers and continued

rootstock development and selection by

breeders and horticulturists may help greatly

to manage replant disease without soil

fumigants in the future. Nevertheless,

rootstock selection by growers should be

based on general horticultural adaptation to

specific site challenges, and it is important to

realize that resistance to replant disease isnot an indication of resistance to plant

parasitic nematodes.

Acknowledgements. We thank the Almond

Board of California, the Pacific Area-Wide

Program for Integrated Methyl Bromide

Alternatives, and the California Department

of Food and Agriculture for supporting this

work.

Table 1. Rootstock selections tested for resistance to replant


4/4

SUMMARY OF SECOND YEAR TREE GROWTH, ZENON FRAGO ALMOND REPLANT TRIAL, MERCED COUNTY

David Doll, Greg Browne, Bruce Lampinen, and Brad Hanson

Livingston Trial, established in 2010. Soil is sandy, with confirmed presence of ring nematode. Sub-plot experiment included

the application of brassica seed meal (BSM) at 8000 lbs/treated acre, soil steaming to a temperature of 155F for a minimum

5 minutes, combination of BSM and steam, 8 row-strip applied C35, control (no treatment), and auger alone. Treatments w

applied in December of 2009, trees were planted in January 2010.

Figure 1: Change in tree caliper over two years of various buffer zone treatments in comparison to row-stripped applied C3

fumigant in a sandy location with confirmed presence of ring nematode.

Acknowledgements: We thank the USDA-ARS Pacific Area-Wide Program for Integrated Methyl Bromide Alternatives, the

Almond Board of California, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, and the US Environmental Protection Agenc

for their support of this research.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Control Auger BSM Steam Steam+BSM C35

CHangeintreediameter(mm)

NSJV Almond Field Day - Fumigant Handouts

Documents

Transcript of NSJV Almond Field Day - Fumigant Handouts