2012 - Washington Red Raspberry Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Various trap styles and baits for traps have been evaluated by researchers in other regions, with much of the work being done in Oregon. Initial testing in Northwest Washington shows differences in efficacy between traps and baits. Testing of traps and baits were not tested until July in 2012 in Washington so we were not able to detect preference differences throughout the season. By continuing to test these traps in Northwest Washington throughout the fruit bearing season, and by comparing our data with research done in other regions, we will be able to develop better scouting guidelines improving management decisions. Relationship to WRRC Research Priority(s): Life cycle evaluation of SWD is a #1 priority of the Washington Red Raspberry Commission. Objectives: Test novel traps and baits for SWD throughout the season. Procedures: Test novel traps and baits for SWD throughout the season. Several traps for SWD are available commercially and new home-made traps are being developed each year. The two most commonly used baits are apple cider vinegar and yeastsugar that have been tested in Northwest Washington. In collaboration with Amy Dreves from Oregon State University, this project will evaluate several promising traps and bait combinations from May through August (or the end of raspberry harvest) on at least ten farms, including an organic farm and fields suspected of higher SWD populations. Up to 12 bait/trap combinations will be tested on 1-2 farms as a demonstration and 6-8 bait/trap combinations will be tested on all other farms. Four replications of each bait/trap combination will be placed in each field, arranged using a complete randomized block design. Traps will be checked weekly for male and female SWD in each trap. This work will continue the preliminary work performed in 2012, with a more in-depth study done on different monitoring systems. Anticipated Benefits and Information Transfer: This study will give growers improved options to monitor for SWD early in the season and into the raspberry harvest season. If growers are confident with monitoring techniques, they may be able to schedule the first pesticide treatment more closely to SWD biology. Data will be presented on the WSU Whatcom County Extension web page and at least one field day will be held prior to the start of harvest for growers to observe different traps and give feedback on the pros and cons of each. 013
Budget: Indirect or overhead costs are not allowed unless specifically authorized by the Board 2013 2014 2015 Salaries 1/ $1,881 $ $ Time-Slip $1,200 $ $ Operations (goods & $300 $ $ services) Travel 2/ $612 $ $ Meetings $ $ $ Other $ $ $ Equipment 3/ $ $ $ Benefits 4/ $941 $ $ Total $4,934 $ $ Budget Justification 1/ One Extension Professional at 8% FTE for six months ($1,881) 2/ Travel for visits to research fields and field days, 1500 miles at $0.51 per mile ($612) 3/ No equipment requests 4/ Employee benefits for extension professional at 43.9% ($826) and for time slip employees at 9.6% ($115) 014
Page 1 and 2: 2013 Research Proposals and 2012 Re
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents Primary Investiga
Page 5 and 6: 2012 WASHINGTON RED RASPBERRY COMMI
Page 7 and 8: ut the effect was short lived (Pink
Page 9 and 10: Privѐ, J., J.A. Sullivan, and J.T.
Page 11 and 12: Corbin, A Benedict, C Cogger, C Bar
Page 13: 2013 WASHINGTON RED RASPBERRY COMMI
Page 17 and 18: Justification and Background: In 20
Page 19 and 20: Budget: Indirect or overhead costs
Page 21 and 22: 2012 PROGRESS REPORT Title: Red Ras
Page 23 and 24: than most other varieties but are s
Page 25 and 26: Table 1. Yield and fruit weight of
Page 27 and 28: Table 3. Harvest data for hand-harv
Page 29 and 30: Table 5. Susceptibility (S) and res
Page 31 and 32: identifying new, unbroken sources o
Page 35 and 36: tested rigorously over a period of
Page 37 and 38: Other funding sources: All amounts
Page 41 and 42: We will collect large quantities of
Page 43 and 44: Current & Pending Support NAME (Lis
Page 45 and 46: Appendices Table RY1. Red raspberry
Page 47 and 48: Table RY3. Mean yield and berry siz
Page 49 and 50: Table RY5. Mean yield and berry siz
Page 51 and 52: 8 Table RY8. Ripening season for pr
Page 53 and 54: - Cultivars for the Pacific Northwe
Page 55 and 56: Current & Pending Support Chad Finn
Page 57 and 58: Washington Red Raspberry Commission
Page 59 and 60: Title of project: Support of SCRI P
Page 61 and 62: We will develop markers that will b
Page 63 and 64: the operations amenable to and desi
Page 65 and 66:
Budget: Indirect or overhead costs
Page 67 and 68:
Current & Pending Support-Tarara In
Page 69 and 70:
Table 1. Primocane injury and weed
Page 71 and 72:
Importantly, floricane injury and b
Page 73 and 74:
2013 WASHINGTON RED RASPBERRY COMMI
Page 75 and 76:
density. The roots and shoots are s
Page 77 and 78:
Name (List PI #1 first) Moore, P.P.
Page 79 and 80:
Publications/Presentations: July 18
Page 81 and 82:
Table 2. 2011 and 2012 harvest of 2
Page 83 and 84:
PROJECT: 13C-3755-5641 TITLE: Red R
Page 85 and 86:
PROPOSED BUDGET: Funds from the Nor
Page 87 and 88:
Washington Red Raspberry Commission
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
• Maximum number of plants per se
Page 93 and 94:
Project Title: Fungicide Resistance
Page 95 and 96:
society’s/the environment’s bes
Page 97 and 98:
aged, contact/ingestion residues fo
Page 99 and 100:
Table 3. Clay color weevil topical
Page 101 and 102:
Project No.: New Title: Management
Page 103 and 104:
growers in the Lynden area that hav
Page 105 and 106:
Application Date: November 13, 2012
Page 107 and 108:
particular inoculum levels are asso
Page 109 and 110:
References: Berkeley, G. H. and Jac
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
technical bulletin states “For pe
Page 115:
Budget: 2013 2014 Salaries $0 $0 Ad
show all

2012 - Washington Red Raspberry Commission

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?