fascicolo / issue 1 - CRA-PAV

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Petria - “Dosi ridotte di rame e prodotti alternativi per la difesa antiperonosporica”This study was carried out in compliance with OEPP/EPPO principles onGood Experimental Practice (Guidelines on Efficacy Evaluation of Plant ProtectionProduct n. 135, 152, 181 and specific guideline n. 31). The trial was carried out overthree years in a vineyard located at the IIS Ulpiani’s farm in the Region of Marche,Ascoli Piceno (AP), with a hilly landscape and a sandy soil. The vine variety was“Montepulciano”, which was planted in the year 1978 with a layout of 3 m x 2 m.The vineyard had no irrigation and it received mainly organic fertilisation (organic +Nitrophoska blu 200 kg/ha). The other pesticide used during the trial was only sulphur,as a dustable powder formulation. The experimental design was a complete randomisedblock design with 4 replications. The plot size was around 9000 m 2 with 1666 plantsper plot. The test products were the “Airone” copper oxychloride /copper hydroxide(active ingredient levels: 10%/10%), copper hydroxide commercial standard (activeingredient 35%), copper oxychloride commercial standard (active ingredient 37.5%),and the untreated control. For each treatment, the amounts of active ingredients were54.4, 52.5 and 93.75 g/hl, respectively. A “Turbofly Fan System” Atomizer with a 12atm sprayer pressure was used. The spraying volume per unit area was 1000 l/ha, thenozzles type inside diameter was 1.5 mm. Depending on the plant growth stage, thenumber of nozzles was 3+3 or 4+4. For each treatment, a water dispersible granulesulphur 80% fungicide was added at the rate of 700 g/hl. Nine treatments were made,on the BBCH scale n. 15, 16, 19, 55, 61, 71, 77, 81, 83. The meteorological dataover these three years were different, with the second year being dryer. As far as theassessments are concerned, they were based on the EPPO guidelines for the efficacyevaluation of fungicides PP 1/31(2). One hundred leaves were picked randomly fromplants of each plot and the percent area occupied by mildew spots determined usingthe key in the EPPO Guideline PP 1/31(2). To perform the assessments on bunches,100 clusters were examined per treatment.In terms of the control, there were similar results from both products testedon the leaves, while on the clusters, better control was provided by the Aironeformulation. In the first year, this formulation scored an infection control of 89.11%on the bunches, while the standard reached 79.36%. In the third year, the resultswere 76.32% against 73.84%. No evaluation was made in the second year becauseof the low infection arising form the extremely dry season. The crop was examinedto determine the presence of phytotoxic effects, and any positive effects were notedtoo. The type and extent of these effects on the crop were recorded. According tothe assessments carried out on grapevine, significant phytotoxic symptoms wereseen on the whole plants treated with the test products. A scale of phytotoxicityfrom 1 (no effects) to 9 (strong effects) was used. A score of 1 was recorded forthe plants treated with “Airone”, while the standard hydroxide treatment showed alevel of 4 (low/medium toxicity). This difference was due to a lower blooming aspecton the vegetation treated with standards. For the assessments on residual effectsand grapevine quality parameters, the samples were collected at harvest time andsubjected to different analyses, i.e. sugar content, total acidity and copper content.In particular, at least 4 grapevine clusters per treatment were collected in different27
Petria 20 (1), 1-72 (2010) – Atti Convegno - Ancona, 26 Febbraio/February 2010parts of the plots. No significant differences were found in terms of sugar content. Toavoid any possible bias, the residual parameters were evaluated with two differentmethodologies: potentiometric stripping analysis, performed by Prof. Roberto DeSolisis of the Chemistry laboratory of the IIS “C. Ulpiani”, and atomic absorptioncarried out by the Environmental Agency for the Marche Region (ARPAM). Bothof these analyses showed good results for the tested product, with a copper residualslightly lower then the copper oxychloride commercial standard, and correspondingto the copper hydroxide.Key words: Copper hydroxide, Copper oxychloride, Phytotoxicity, Residual effects.RingraziamentiL’autore ringrazia per la collaborazione il personale dell’IIS C. Ulpiani di Ascoli Piceno, in particolareAdamo Castelli e Cristiano Cocci, e la Ditta Isagro-Italia.Lavori citati/ReferencesBortolotti P.P., R. Nannini, M. Scannavini, L. Antoniacci, R. Bugiani, 2006.Valutazione di diversi composti rameici a basso dosaggio nella difesaantiperonosporica della vite in provincia di Modena. Atti GiornateFitopatologiche, 2, 173-178.Dagmar H., O. Baus-Reichel, U. Hofmann, B. Berkelmann-Loehnertz, 2006.Copper reduction, a successful approach to control downy mildew in organicviticulture. In: 5 th International Workshop on Grapevine Downy and PowderyMildew. San Michele all’Adige (TN), 18-23 giugno, 193-194.Egger E., M.E.M. D’Arcangelo, 2006. Valutazione dell’efficacia di antiperonosporicia basso apporto di rame nella difesa della vite in Toscana. Atti GiornateFitopatologiche, 2, 179-186.Hofmann U., 2002. Copper reduction and copper replacement - results and experiencesof 12 years of on farm research. In: 10th International Conference onCultivation Technique and Phytopathological Problems in Organic Fruit-Growing and Viticulture, Weinsberg/Germany, 4-7 Febraury, 181-184.Pontiroli R., R. Rizzotti, F. Zerbetto, 2001. Prove di difesa antiperonosporica inviticoltura biologica. Informatore Fitopatologico, 10, 62-66.Sancassani G.P., M. Buccini, P. Fremiot, G. Rho, S.L. Toffolatti, A. Vercesi, 2006.Prove di efficacia antiperonosporica di prodotti a basso dosaggio di rame suvite. Atti Giornate Fitopatologiche, 2, 167-172.28
Page 2 and 3: Petria - “Dosi ridotte di rame e
Page 72: Petria - “Dosi ridotte di rame e

fascicolo / issue 1 - CRA-PAV

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?