Progressive Crop Consultant May/June 2021

More documents

Recommendations

Info

VINEYARD REVIEW pathogen that was inoculated (Figure 3e). After incubation for 5 to 14 days at room temperature, recovery of fungal pathogens was recorded by their morphological characteristics. The efficacy of the treatments controlling the GTDs was calculated as the Mean Percent of Infection (MPI) using the following formula: Number of GTD-infected samples (canes from which the pathogen could be re-isolated)/total number of canes inoculated x 100. Figure 3. a) Spur pruning of vines in February 2020: b) application of protectants; c) inoculation of pruned canes with GTDs; d) treated canes split longitudinally; and e) isolated segments cultured on growth media. Continued from Page 49 inoculation, treated canes were collected and brought to the lab for further evaluation. Each cane was split with a knife longitudinally (Figure 3d) and segments were excised and plated on a growth medium to confirm the Results Our results from both field studies show that Biotam, a Trichoderma-based biological product, was the superior protectant overall, providing a consistently high level of pruning wound protection compared to the water-treated, inoculated positive control. In the Sacramento County trial, Biotam application resulted in an MPI of 5% and 0% for E. lata and N. parvum, respectively, compared to the water-treated, inoculated positive control with an MPI of 40% and 70% for E. lata and N. parvum, respectively (Figure. 4a and 4b). In Kern County, Biotam application resulted in an MPI of 0% and 10% for E. lata and N. parvum, respectively, compared to Mean Percent Infection of E. Lata (MPI)% Mean Percent Infection of N. parvum (MPI)% 50 40 30 20 10 0 80 60 40 20 0 Biotam Botector Topsin M + Rally Water treated - Non inoculated negative control Biotam Vintec BioTam + Crab Life-Powder GCM Sacramento County UCD 8745 Vintec UCD 8189 Topsin M + Rally Water treated - Non inoculated negative control UCD 8189 Luna Sensation Serenade UCD 8717 Botector Serenade GCM Terramera (Exp B) BioTam + Crab Life-Powder Crab Powder UCD 8717 Water treated - Inoculated positive control UCD 8745 UCD 8189 Crab Life Powder Luna Sensation Terramera (Exp B) Water treated - Inoculated positive control Mean Percent Infection of E. Lata (MPI)% Mean Percent Infection of N. parvum (MPI)% 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Biotam Topsin M + Rally 50 40 30 20 10 0 Serenade Vintec Biotam Topsin M + Rally Water treated - Non inoculated negative control Kern County Vintec UCD 8717 GCM Luna Sensation BioTam + Crab Life-Powder Serenade UCD 8189 UCD 8745 Luna Sensation Bacillus veleze fermented product Botector Water treated - Non inoculated negative control Terramera (Exp B) Crab Life Powder Botector Water treated - Inoculated positive control Terramera (Exp B) UCD 8745 BioTam + Crab Life-Powder UCD 8717 Crab Life Powder UCD 8189 Water treated - Inoculated positive control Figure 4. Evaluation of treatments for pruning wound protection of E. lata (a) and N. parvum (b) in Sacramento County. Figure 5. Evaluation of treatments for pruning wound protection of E. lata (a) and N. parvum (b) in Kern County. 50 Progressive Crop Consultant May / June 2021
VINEYARD REVIEW the water-treated, inoculated positive control with an MPI of 25% and 45% for E. lata and N. parvum, respectively (Figure 5a and 5b, see page 50). This shows that Biotam is capable of providing simultaneous pruning wound protection against multiple fungal pathogens of GTDs, which is often challenging for protectants to achieve. Another Trichoderma-based biological product, Vintec, was also effective at protecting wounds. Application of Vintec (2.8 oz/A) resulted in an MPI of 15% and 5% for E. lata and N. parvum, respectively, in Sacramento County (Figure 4a and 4b, see page 50) and an MPI of 5% and 10% for E. lata and N. parvum, respectively, in Kern County (Figure 5a and 5b, see page 50). Our results also showed that the chemical protectants Topsin M + Rally and Luna Sensation were effective at providing simultaneous pruning wound protection of E. lata and N. parvum in both Sacramento and Kern County trials. Application of Topsin M + Rally resulted in an MPI of 10% for both E. lata and N. parvum in Sacramento County (Fig. 4a and 4b, see page 50) and an MPI of 5% and 10% for E. lata and N. parvum, respectively, in Kern County (Figure 5a and 5b, see page 50). Several naturally occurring biocontrol agents, including Trichoderma hamatum (UCD 8717), Aureobasidium pullulans (UCD 8189) and Bacillus sp. (UCD 8745), that were identified in California vineyards were also performing very well compared with other commercially available products (Figure 4 and 5, see page 50). Baumgartner, K. 2021. Pruning-wound protectants for trunk-disease management in California table grapes. Crop Protection, 141. Halleen, F., Fourie, P.H., and Lombard, P.J. 2010. Protection of grapevine pruning wounds against Eutypa lata by biological and chemical methods. A. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 31: 125–132. Kotze, C., Van Niekerk, J., Mostert, L., Halleen, F., and Fourie, P. 2011. Evaluation of biocontrol agents for ® grapevine pruning wound protection against trunk pathogen infection. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 50: 247–263. John, S., Wicks, T.J., Hunt, J.S., and Scott, E.S. 2008. Colonisation of grapevine wood by Trichoderma harzianum and Eutypa lata. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 14:18-24. Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com The Grower’s Advantage Since 1982 Effective Plant Nutrients and Biopesticides to Improve Crop Quality & Yield © In conclusion, our 2020 field trials have shown that several biological and chemical treatments can provide efficient protection of pruning wounds of grapevine against one or more fungal pathogens responsible for the major grapevine trunk diseases (Esca, Botryosphaeria dieback and Eutypa dieback). Moreover, improving accurate diagnosis of GTDs will be essential in determining an effective product. ORGANIC Contains Auxiliary Soil & Plant Substances Botector ® Biofungicide ® ORGANIC Plant Nutrients & Adjuvants ® GARGOIL INSECT, MITE & DISEASE CONTROL Blossom Protect Biopesticide ® Herbicide EC ® References Brown, A.A., Travadon, R., Lawrence D.P., Torres, G., Zhuang., and For more information, call (800) 876-2767 or visit www.westbridge.com May / June 2021 www.progressivecrop.com 51
Page 1 and 2: May / June 2021 The Potential of Ul
Page 3 and 4: 4 IN THIS ISSUE Transitioning from
Page 5 and 6: Figure 4. Sliced examples of mechan
Page 7 and 8: Because protection requires great p
Page 9 and 10: two and four weeks and evaluated fo
Page 11 and 12: Worms, Thrips, Leafminers IN ONE PA
Page 13 and 14: Excess nitrogen (>1.7%) adversely a
Page 15 and 16: They may be unseen, but they should
Page 17 and 18: THE BEST WAY TO MANAGE PATHOGENS BE
Page 19 and 20: treatments increased yields. In add
Page 22 and 23: Managing Soil Structure and Quality
Page 24: Continued from Page 23 Your soil is
Page 27 and 28: A female PSHB boring (photo by A. E
Page 29 and 30: ® We Are Here to Help Call: 209.72
Page 31 and 32: of photosynthetic capacity in damag
Page 33 and 34: NAVEL ORANGEWORM MANAGEMENT disease
Page 35 and 36: include physical, chemical and biol
Page 37 and 38: May/June 2021 VINEYARD REVIEW FEATU
Page 39 and 40: VINEYARD REVIEW Figure 2. Researche
Page 41 and 42: Figure 4. Thorvald, an autonomous r
Page 43 and 44: VINEYARD REVIEW 40 NAVEL ORANGEWORM
Page 45 and 46: REINFORCED THAT’S HOW GRAPES FEEL
Page 47 and 48: VINEYARD REVIEW We're back in 2021
Page 49: A C B D VINEYARD REVIEW Methodology

Progressive Crop Consultant May/June 2021

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?