2012 - Washington Red Raspberry Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

only])[split-plot]; and (Organically derived nutrient source vs. synthetic fertilizers [site 1]; spring soil sample driven vs. standard [site 2])[split-split plot]. Spring planted (SP) ground covers will be planted by late April and post-harvest (PH) ground covers will be planted after harvest operations. Ground cover biomass will be taken prior to harvest (Spring-planted only) and in October. Fresh and dry weights will be taken and then samples sent off for nutritional analysis to calculate nutrient contribution. Soil samples will be taken from each split-split plot in late March and nutrient content analyzed, and biological assay (nematode populations, P. rubi, V. dahliae). Soil temperature sensors (10 cm) will be placed in each sub-plot and soil moisture meters (10 cm) will be placed in each main-plot before irrigation begins along with flow meters. Dormant primocane assessment (diameter) will occur in late winter (Zebarth, Freyman and Kowalenko, 1993) and again in late fall. Chlorophyll content (SPAD 502Plus, Konica Minolta Sensing, Inc.) of leaves will used to assess leaf nitrogen content monthly beginning in April (Privѐ et al., 1997). In-season assessment of effectiveness of ground cover to suppress weeds will be visually rated (0-100% scale). Fall soil samples will be taken from each split-split plot to measure remaining nutrient content. 2. Evaluate new ground covers to be used in red raspberry production Continuing work from 2012, additional ground covers (several species and varieties) will be planted in the spring and postharvest of 2013. Ground covers will be evaluated for biomass accumulation, nutrient contribution (through lab analysis), weed suppression, and ability to integrate into commercial systems (evaluating grower preference, costs). Results from this screen will feed into work done on Objective 1 in current and proceeding years. Anticipated Benefits and Information Transfer: Resulting from this work is a better understanding of management practices that will lead to improved soil health. Results will be shared with producers at the annual Washington Small Fruit Conference in December. Results will also be published on the WSU Whatcom County website and in the Whatcom Ag Monthly Newsletter along with photos and videos of the process for growers to get a better idea of what is involved throughout the year. References: Forge, T.A. and E. Kenney. 2011. Soil health, organic amendments and alternative practices for renovation of raspberry fields. SAGES Workshop, Abbotsford, CA. Forge, T.A., R. E. Ingham, D. Kaufman, and J.N. Pinkerton. 2000. Population Growth of Pratylenchus penetrans on Winter Cover Crops Grown in the Pacific Northwest. J. of Nematology. 32: 42-51. MacGuidwin, A. E., and T. L. Layne. 1995. Response of nematode communities to sudangrass and sorghum-sudangrass hybrids grown as green manure crops. Supplement to the Journal of Nematology 27:609–616. Magdoff, F and H. van Es. 2000. Building soils for better crops: 2 nd Ed.. Sustainable Agriculture Network. 230 pgs. Neilsen, D. S. Kuchta, T. Forge, B. Zebarth, C. Nichol, and M. Sweeney. 2011. Irrigation and Nitrogen Management. SAGES Workshop, Abbotsford, CA. Pinkerton, J. N., Walters, T. W., Windom, G. E., & Bristow, P. R. 2009. Soil Solarization as a Component of an Integrated Program for Control of Raspberry Root Rot [electronic resource]. Plant disease: an international journal of applied plant pathology, 93(5), 452- 458. 007
Privѐ, J., J.A. Sullivan, and J.T.A. Proctor. 1997. Seasonal changes in net carbon dioxide exchange rates of Autum Bliss, a primocane-fruiting red raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.). Can. J. of Plant Sci. 77: 427-431. Zebarth, B.J., S. Freyman, and C.G. Kowalenko. 1993. Effect of ground covers and tillage between raspberry rows on selected soil physical and chemical parameters and crop response. Can. J. Soil Sci. 73: 481-488. Budget: Indirect or overhead costs are not allowed unless specifically authorized by the Board 2013 2014 2015 Salaries 1/ $2351 $ $ Time-Slip $ $ $ Operations (goods & $128 $ $ services) Travel 2/ $1020 $ $ Meetings $0 $ $ Other 3/ $3580 $ $ Equipment 4/ $2625 $ $ Benefits 5/ $1032 $ $ Total $10736 $ $ Budget Justification 1/ One WSU Whatcom County Extension Personnel at 0.05% FTE ($2,351) 2/ Travel to and from research sites, 2000 miles at $0.51/mile ($1020) 3/ Soil Nutrient Analysis ($15/sample-$540); Vert Soil/Plant Sample ($40/sample-$1440); Nematode Bioassay ($20/sample-$720); P. rubi Bioassay ($20/sample-$720); Sample Shipping ($160) 4/ Includes irrigation fittings for tensiometer-driven irrigation lines ($1025); Soil moisture sensors ($1600). We have asked other researchers at WSU whether this equipment currently exists and could be borrowed. Not listed here are several pieces that will be used that are currently owned by WSU. Information generated from these sensors will give detailed information that can contribute to the overall project, but also directly to the producers. 5/ Employee benefits for Extension personnel (43.9%) ($1,032). 008
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: ut the effect was short lived (Pink
Page 11 and 12: Corbin, A Benedict, C Cogger, C Bar
Page 15 and 16: Budget: Indirect or overhead costs
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?