- Author: Mark Bolda
- Author: Steven Koike
Growers, field managers, PCAs, and other personnel overseeing strawberry on California's Central Coast occasionally encounter strange and bizarre deformities of strawberry fruit and flowers. Such a condition is called “phyllody” and occurs when leaves or leaf-like structures replace the flower and flower parts of strawberry. This condition can also result in the flower parts turning green. Phyllody can occur in two different ways.
1. Non-infectious phyllody: The type of phyllody currently developing in spring 2015 is apparently the non-infectious type. Non-infectious phyllody seems to be associated with an excess of supplemental chilling of the transplants while in storage. Our experience in the field is that these symptoms, alarming as they are, will go away after showing up in a spring flush of fruit. Therefore the condition is not persistent. Figure 1 shows a spectacular example of this disorder.
2. Infectious phyllody: This category of phyllody occurs due to infection by a phytoplasma. Phytoplasmas are bacteria-like organisms that are pathogenic to plants and are vectored by leafhoppers. Leafhoppers carry the phytoplasmas in their bodies and inject them while feeding on plants. Two diseases that cause phyllody are aster yellows and green petal. Strawberry plants infected with phytoplasmas often continue to bear deformed fruit as seen in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5.
- Author: Mark Bolda
Really nice photo essay from Agnet West.com plus interview of colleague Surendra Dara from his hugely successful field day yesterday.
As Surendra so aptly says in the interview below, "It's important for growers to attend these meetings... and get the updated information from multiple disciplines in one place". Further he goes on, "UC does this best, identify the problems that growers are facing and try to find a practical solution".
Well said my man, and just more reasons why people should be coming to our meetings!
- Author: Mark Bolda
Announcing the Annual Strawberry Field at Spence Ranch on May 28, 2015. Emphasis of this event will be on pest management, with UCCE and UC scientists and regulatory officials presenting.
- Author: Mark Bolda
UCCE's Scott Stoddard and I are putting on a "plant nutrient lunch" on June 2 here at the office at 1430 Freedom Blvd Suite E (same building as before, different number) in the interests of having more discussion with growers, PCA's and other agricultural people about the plant nutrients phosphorous, potassium and nitrogen. Come by for the whole thing or just half an hour if that's all you have time for. Bring your plant nutrition questions (especially P and K, since Scott is covering those and he's from Merced) and enjoy a great lunch!
- Author: Mark Bolda
I have an ongoing study with an alternative fumigant (not chloropicrin) compared to an unfumigated control up against the methyl bromide/chloropicrin standard. There's some other stuff in here too, that will be discussed at a later date.
The collaborating grower observed a few weeks ago that plants in the unfumigated control and alternative fumigant were going yellow, in particular the older leaves. That this was not occurring to any sizable degree in the methyl bromide standard was notable.
As many of you my readers know, I really frown upon the identification of leaf yellowing as being caused by this or that deficiency in the absence of any sort of laboratory analysis, so I took two leaf samples from each of the three treatments and submitted them to Perry Labs here in town.
Table 1: Average of two leaf blade samples from unfumigated check, alternative fumigant and methyl bromide standard
| Unfumigated check | Alternative Fumigant | Methyl bromide standard | |
| %N | 2.9 | 2.7 | 3.0 |
| %P | 0.35 | 0.33 | 0.52 |
| %K | 1.2 | 1.15 | 1.34 |
| %Ca | 1.84 | 2.03 | 1.70 |
| %Mg | 0.53 | 0.60 | 0.52 |
| %Na | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| ppm Fe | 134 | 72 | 95 |
| ppm B | 49 | 52 | 54 |
| ppm Zn | 11 | 11 | 11 |
| ppm Cu | 4.4 | 4.1 | 3.6 |
| ppm Mn | 282 | 296 | 304 |
Remembering that two samples per treatment aren't going to give us a what can be called a truly scientific conclusion, these results do at least give us a look at what is going on. First of all, the yellowing probably isn't from nitrogen, which is showing up very much at sufficiency in all treatments. Ditto Ca, Mg and the micros (note that original sample Fe numbers are all over the place); Na is low.
Circling back, we do see that P is lower in both unfumigated and the alternative than the methyl bromide standard, plus the symptoms show up in the older leaves, which checks out for a very mobile element like P. K is just under that recommended from the revised nutrient guidelines from the work I did with Tim Hartz at UC Davis. Additionally, P and K, which come into contact with roots via diffusion in the soil solution (meaning the roots need to grow to the minerals since they are both pretty immobile in the soil) as opposed to mass flow as is the case with nitrate (meaning the nutrient moves to the root since it is mobile), could have their uptake rates reduced by a lessened abundance of roots and root hairs.
The question is then if what we are seeing here is that the lower root growth stemming from less than accustomed fumigation efficacy is also a cause of an apparent deficiency in phosphorous and maybe potassium.
