- Author: Sonia Rios
- Author: Ben Faber
The Citrus Research Board in conjunction with the University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) held their annual grower seminar on Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at the University of California, Riverside (UCR) Palm Desert Center. Seminars also took place in Santa Paula, CA on June 25th and in Exeter, CA on July 1st. Speakers from all over the state from different agencies shared their knowledge and expertise with the group.
Mark Hoddle, a Biological Control Specialist at UCR gave an update of the biological control of Asian citrus psyllid (ACP). The ACP's natural enemy, Tamarixia radiata has been successful since its release in Southern California in 2011. The Tamarixia kills the ACP nymphs either by parasitizing them (i.e., females eggs laid underneath ACP nymphs and the parasitoid larvae burrow into the nymph to feed which kills the pest) or by host feeding (i.e., female parasitoids stab the nymph with their ovipositor, a tube that they use to lay eggs, and they feed on the body juices that leak from these wounds. This kills the nymph too). Hoddle reminded us, in order for this biocontrol program to continue to be successful, ant populations must be controlled. ACP nymphs produce a white, sugary waste product called honeydew, a good carbohydrate source for the ants, therefore, the ants will protect the nymphs from Tamarixia. His current research showed that when an ant population is reduced, parasitism control increases significantly. Hoddle and his lab will be testing different organic and conventional pesticides for their efficacy against Argentine ants in citrus orchards.
For example, he is in the works of helping produce a more effective ant-bait by working on a biodegradable hydrogel. These hydgrogels are made from algae and crab shells. The material is engineered to encapsulate a 25% sucrose solution with a tiny amount of pesticide and ant pheromone. The liquid bait "leaks" onto the surface of the hydrogel, ants drink it, take it to the nest and slowly intoxicate the queen and nest mates. The baits, about the size of a jellybean, will be engineered to have a certain life time before they "dissolve". He anticipates these jellybean like baits being able to be broadcasted under trees (like you would slug/snail pellets) and the pheromone will attract the ants to them. Once they start to feed, the ants will lay down their own trails to the baits. Mark Hoddle is also the director of the Center for Invasive Species Research, for more information regarding his work on biocontrol, please visit: http://cisr.ucr.edu/.
Victoria Hornbaker, from the California Citrus Pest & Disease Prevention Program Manager and grower Curtis Pate, also the grower liaison from Imperial gave updates on the current ACP management areas (Fig. 1). Curtis, reminded the growers, ACP is attracted to bright colors, such as yellow. Yellow is a common color for most safety vests and jackets, this creates an issue because most people that own one of these pieces of clothing are unaware that they can very well be unknowingly transporting this pest to different locations (Fig. 2). Basic measures such as rolling up vehicle windows, shaking off clothing
Lori Berger, with the UC Statewide Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program gave an update on the Chlorpyrifos Critical Use Project (Fig. 3). The project is a multi-year effort to identify the pest management needs and practices for use of Chlorpyrifos in important crops in California. To accomplish this goal, Department of Pesticide regulation (DPR) contracted with UC IPM program to convene industry leaders to work together to create commodity specific guidelines for specific cropping systems. Chlorpyrifos is used on critical citrus pests such as ants, ACP, scales, bud mite, leafminers and many other arthropods. Growers are required to now obtain a restricted materials permit from their local County Agricultural Commission since DPR has designated the insecticide for restricted use in California as of July 1, 2015. The permit conditions may include buffer zones near sensitive sites, good management practices to reduce drift or offsite movement into the air and measures to reduce runoff into surface waters. For Southern California growers, a more in depth meeting will be held at the San Diego Farm Bureau in Escondido on September 15, 2015, more information on this meeting will available in the near future. DPR hours for laws and regulations will be available. More information on the Chlorpyrifos Critical Use Project can be found at: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/IPMPROJECT/CDPR_Chlorpyrifos_critical_use_report.pdf.
Ben Faber, a UCCE Farm advisor from Ventura/Santa Barbra County gave a great presentation on how to interpret soils/water/leaf analyses and managing water in a drought. Soil and water reports are best used for identifying problems in: 1) pH (power of hydrogen); 2) salinity (how much salt is in the soil); 4) chloride (Cl-); 5) sodium (Na+); 6) boron (B); and 7) sodium adsorption ration. Most of the issues listed can be managed by leaching. Unfortunately, there are no definite measurements for fertility management of perennial crops, however, understanding the fundamentals of interpreting analyses is key for a healthy producing grove. For example, when one is handed a report, many may get overwhelmed by the sight of all these things that are reported. Many of those numbers are only on there because they are required to be there by law and may not have an importance to you as grower when it comes to management decisions. You may ask yourself, what is really important in all this? Faber, gave the growers a quick review, for example, in a water analyses we would want to look for look for some basic ranges in: Boron, this element should be no higher than 1 parts per million (ppm), sodium and chloride no higher than 100 ppm, and the TDS (total dissolved solids), this may also be known to some as EC (electrical conductivity), should be no higher than 1,000 ppm. Simple, right?
When dealing with pH, it is always best to balance that out before one plants trees. Trying to balance the pH after a crop has been established can be challenging and you may run the risk of injuring or killing your trees in the process. Those that would like to learn more on soils/water/leaf analyses and managing water in a drought, you can visit Ben Faber's UCCE County website: http://ceventura.ucanr.edu/Com_Ag/Subtropical/.
Neil McRoberts. Professor of Plant Pathology from UC Davis had interactive question and answer session with the audience, gathering grower's views on approaches of control for ACP/ Huanglongbing, also known as citrus greening disease. The answers to this survey will be helpful in creating a management plan to better help growers with their ACP treatment and preventative planning. Michelle Richey, assistant Director of Food Safety from Ott and Davison Consulting also gave a quick update on Food Safety and Good Agricultural Practices certification. She stressed on how important it is to keep records of everything that happens in a business and to have them accessible.
We had a great turn out and hope to see more growers at next year's Southern California meeting.
- Author: Ben Faber
- Author: Craig Kallsen
- Author: Akif Eskalen
Dry Root Rot is a pretty fantastic disease symptom that is usually seen in lemon, but can be seen in orange, as well.
Craig Kallsen, UCCE Citrus Advisor in Kern Co. comments on a disease sample:
I have seen a lot of dry root rot over the years. It usually is something that damages or weakens the root system which allows a Fusarium species to colonize the rootstock. It is very common in older lemon groves that froze at some point in their past. Also common in groves that suffered a lot of gopher damage or where the wraps got too hot in the sun burning the bark and cambium. I have also seen it in cases of fertilizer or other soil-applied chemical burn. I have no doubt that graft incompatibility could do it too.
Akif Eskalen, UCCE Plant Pathology Specialist chimes in on a disease sample submitted:
As you can see from the attached picture there is a weird callus formation and symptoms of incompatibility at the graft union which I think is the primary cause of decline. We didn't observe any discoloration in the scion, however rootstock was completely discolored where we isolated Fusarium solani the causal fungus of Dry Root Rot. Dry root rot caused by either Fusarium solani and/or Fusarium spp. When there is a disconnection at the graft union, the phloem can not transfer enough carbohydrate to the rootstock to feed feeder roots. Fusarium fungal species are present in the soil and they can attack and easily colonize on starch depleted roots and cause DRR.
We still don't know what is causing the graft incompatibility on these plants. That needs to be investigated.
It's still not clear how and why citrus becomes affected.
- Author: Ben Faber
UC Riverside and the Citrus Research Board partner to provide:
UC Riverside Citrus Day for Professional Industry members
Thursday, February 20, 2014
8 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
UCR Agricultural Operations, Riverside, California
For information: (951) 827-5906
Please join us for the 3rd Annual Citrus field day designed for citrus growers and citrus industry representatives. Pending approval, we will be offering 2.5 hours of California Continuing Education
Credit for Pest Control Advisers (PCA).
Presentations, field tours and topics of interest:
Pesticide safety – Vince Samons
Update on ACP and HLB in California – Joseph Morse
Phytophthora diseases of citrus – Jim Adaskaveg
Lemon Varieties for the Desert –Glenn Wright
Understanding factors that influence the eating experience in citrus – David Obenland and Mary Lu Arpaia
Citrus Variety Collection tours of new cultivars and “unforbidden” fruits – Tracy Kahn, David Karp, Tom Shea, and Robert Krueger
Update on Citrus Rootstock Field Demonstration – Mikeal Roose
Barbeque Lunch included.
Registration: $18. Deadline: February 14, 2014. There will be no walk-in registrations. We will email directions and updates to all who have registered.
Space is limited so please register early.
Please register online at
http://form.jotformpro.com/form/40196914861965
To make a tax-deductible contribution to the
Citrus Variety Collection Endowment fund or the Citrus Research Center & Agricultural Experiment Station support fund go to the following link and select College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences then select the specific fund:
https://advancementservices.ucr.edu/GivingForm.aspx
- Author: Ben Faber
Travel can be enlightening. In Turkey I learned that sour orange rootstock is routinely used with lemon and mandarin scions without any fear of tristeza virus, a formidable disease of oranges. When I heard this I asked Georgios Vidalakis in charge of the UC Clonal Protection Program and a virologist. And he said that it was true and the neat thing is that the rootstock can handle heavy, calcareous soils better than other citrus rootstocks. So we are doing a trial on rootstocks and sour orange is included.
Something else I “learned” was that if you girdle citrus at flowering, the fruit has few or no seeds. Well, I talked to many growers and scientists and they all said the same thing. I went through the citrus literature and I could find no mention of this. I emailed Carol Lovatt, the plant physiologist at UCR and she said that when you alter hormone flows by girdling, who knows what might happen. So we set up a little trial in lemon that flowers pretty much all year long on the coast. Every month we girdle branches with either a hand saw or a girdling knife which make different sized cuts, flagging the branches with different colored tape to identify the girdling date. Over an 18 month period we harvested fruit and cut it to count seeds. And………………………………………there was only a slight difference in seed numbers, a few less in the girdled trees.
The goal of this trial was to see if girdling worked and if so, what was being changed in the tree and if could identify that, then maybe we could develop a nutritional program that would do the same thing. That way we wouldn’t need to girdle. But not everything you hear turns out to be true.
- Author: Craig Kallsen
A sure way to generate controversy among citrus growers is to initiate a discussion on navel orange tree pruning. Some growers maintain that yield and fruit size is best maintained by minimal pruning, while others believe that the number of large fruit is increased when trees are severely pruned. A ‘standard’ manual pruning for navel oranges does not exist, but the closest thing to it is a procedure that involves pruning from the tree; 1.) shaded, dead branches 2.) branches which cross from one side of the tree to the other and 3.) green, triangular, juvenile shoots from the tree. This type of pruning commonly goes under the name of ‘deadbrushing’. Deadbrushing is a relatively light form of pruning, and a trained crew usually spends less than 15 minutes per tree performing it. In addition to any manual pruning, most navel orange orchards in California are mechanically ‘hedged’ and ‘topped’ to provide continued access to trees and their fruit by equipment and people involved in orchard cultural and harvest activities. Although growers have been growing navel oranges in California for over one hundred years, surprisingly few experiments have been conducted to determine the effect of pruning on navel orange yield and quality.
To assist in providing some guidance related to pruning and its possible effects on fruit yield and quality, an experiment was established in 2000 in northern KernCounty in an orange orchard that was typically harvested in late December or in January. In 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, yield, fruit quality parameters and manual pruning costs were compared among mature “Frost Nucellar” navel trees (90 trees/acre) having one of three topping-height treatments (14 ft, 16 ft, and untopped trees). In addition to a topping treatment, the experimental trees were given one of three levels of manual pruning 1.) removal of several large scaffold branches in March of 2000 followed by deadbrushing in 2001, 2002 and no manual pruning in 2003; 2. dead brushing only in 2000, 2001, 2002 and no manual pruning in 2003; or 3. no topping or deadbrushing). Data were collected from experimental trees surrounded by similarly topped and manually pruned border trees. Fruit weight, numbers, size, grade and color were determined the day after harvest at the University of California Research and ExtensionCenter experimental packline near Lindcove, California. The year, in this report, refers to the year that the crop bloomed and not to the year of harvest.
For the 2003 crop year, even after 4 years, trees that were severely pruned in the spring of 2000 produced less total yield and less fruit in the most valuable-size range (i.e. 88 to 48 fruit/carton) than trees that were deadbrushed or left unpruned. In 2003, differences in yield among manual pruning treatments were greater than in 2002, probably because of the higher yield potential that appeared to exist across the industry in 2003. The canopy of the severely pruned trees in 2003 had not yet retained the size of the deadbrushed or unpruned trees after four years, which limited their potential fruit production. In contrast, in 2001 only one year after the manual treatments were imposed and a year with high spring temperatures and very poor fruit set, no differences in yield were found among manual pruning treatments.
When the data of average individual tree performance are summed over the four years that this experiment was conducted, the treatment that included removal of some major scaffold branches in March of 2000 with deadbrushing in 2001 and 2002, was inferior in terms of yield, fruit number, and number of valuable-sized fruit in the range of 88 to 48 per carton than to trees that were only deadbrushed or those that had no manual pruning. Most of the detrimental effects of severe pruning on yield (and on fruit quality) occurred at the December harvest following the severe pruning in March 2000. Over the four years of the experiment, the trees that were not manually pruned produced equal or better cumulative yields of fruit, equal or more valuable sized fruit, and fruit with equal grade compared to deadbrushed or severely pruned trees. The percentage of the fruit on the tree larger than size 88 was greater in the severe pruning treatment, but because total fruit number per tree was less and more of this fruit was overly large (i.e. greater than size 48) the number of the most valuable-sized fruit/tree (sized 88 to 48) was less. Obviously, the trees that were not manually pruned had no associated manual pruning costs when compared to the other two pruning treatments. Manual pruning costs, from 2000 through 2003, not including stacking and shredding of pruned brush, were $8.50/tree for the deadbrushing treatment and $13.00/tree for the severe manual pruning treatment.
Fruit yield or quality was not different among topping heights in any of the four years of the experiment. Topping height did not affect yield, probably because of the wide spacing and tall trees in this orchard. The canopies of untopped trees had little fruit within 4 feet of the ground as a result of shading of the lower canopy by neighboring trees. Removing the top 4 feet from an 18-foot tall tree moved the fruit-bearing volume downward in response to greater light penetration into the lower canopy but did not decrease the volume of the tree that received sufficient light to produce fruit. This effect was in contrast to severe manual pruning, which reduced the volume of the unshaded canopy overall, limiting the volume available for fruit production. A highly significant positive-linear correlation was found in the data across the four years and treatments between the total numbers of fruit produced per acre versus the total number of fruit sized 88 to 48 per carton produced per acre. This functional relationship existed whether reductions in fruit numbers produced per acre were the result of severe pruning in March or from weather-related phenomena such as occurred in 2001, suggesting that anything that reduced fruit numbers below approximately 130,000 fruit per acre resulted in a decrease in the number of fruit sized 88 to 48 per carton in this orchard.
Of course, there are other reasons to manually prune orange trees, other than to improve fruit size. If certain insects, like California red scale or cottony cushion scale have been a problem, pesticide spray coverage may be improved by making the canopy less dense through pruning and fruit quality may be improved by making this investment. In general, what this pruning research has reinforced is the concept that growers should know why they are pruning orange trees and that manual pruning is unlikely to increase the number of fruit in the most valuable size ranges.
|
1Fruit sizes refer to number of fruit that fit into a standard California 37.5 lb. carton. 2 The severe treatment refers to the treatment that included removal of two or more major scaffold branches in spring 2000.
|
|
|