- Author: Ben Faber
Evolutionary ecology of climacteric
and non-climacteric fruits
Published:15 September 2021https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2021.0352
Fleshy fruits can be divided between climacteric (CL, showing a typical rise in respiration and ethylene production with ripening after harvest) and non-climacteric (NC, showing no rise). However, despite the importance of the CL/NC traits in horticulture and the fruit industry, the evolutionary significance of the distinction remains untested. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that NC fruits, which ripen only on the plant, are adapted to tree dispersers (feeding in the tree), and CL fruits, which ripen after falling from the plant, are adapted to ground dispersers. A literature review of 276 reports of 80 edible fruits found a strong correlation between CL/NC traits and the type of seed disperser: fruits dispersed by tree dispersers are more likely to be NC, and those dispersed by ground dispersers are more likely to be CL. NC fruits are more likely to have red–black skin and smaller seeds (preferred by birds), and CL fruits to have green–brownish skin and larger seeds (preferred by large mammals). These results suggest that the CL/NC traits have an important but overlooked seed dispersal function, and CL fruits may have an adaptive advantage in reducing ineffective frugivory by tree dispersers by falling before ripening.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2021.0352
- Author: Ben Faber
There is culture in agriculture. Mary Lu Arpaia says she spent hours looking at the avocado pictures, along with those of other fruit crops.
The USDA Pomological Watercolor Collection is one of the most unique collections in the Rare and Special Collections of the National Agricultural Library (NAL). As a historic botanical resource, it documents new fruit and nut varieties, and specimens introduced by USDA plant explorers from the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The collection spans the years 1886 to 1942. The majority of the paintings were created between 1894 and 1916. The plant specimens represented by these artworks originated in 29 countries and 51 states and territories in the U.S. There are 7,497 watercolor paintings, 87 line drawings, and 79 wax models created by approximately 21 artists.
Lithographs of the watercolor paintings were created to illustrate USDA bulletins, yearbooks, and other publications distributed to growers and gardeners across America.
Today, the collection is preserved in NAL's Rare and Special Collections, where it serves as an important research tool for a variety of users, including horticulturists, historians, artists, and publishers. In 2010 and 2011, the entire printed collection was digitized to improve public access to this valuable resource, and to better preserve the paintings by reducing the need for researchers to handle them. Today, the whole collections is searchable.
In 1886, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) established the Division of Pomology to oversee the collection and distribution of new varieties of fruits, and to disseminate information to fruit growers and breeders. USDA commissioned artists to create technically accurate illustrations of newly introduced cultivars for the division's publications. In 1887, William H. Prestele was appointed as the first artist for the Division of Pomology. Henry E. Van Deman, division chief, explained the importance of Prestele's appointment in his 1887 Report of the Pomologist:
Over the years, other artists were also assigned to the division and their watercolors were used for lithographic reproductions in USDA publications and as scientific documentation of research results. Although some of the watercolor paintings are not signed, we know of 21 artists (nine of whom were women) who contributed to this important resource.
Lamb's Lemon. Whatever happened to it?
- Author: Ben Faber
Several Florida blueberry growers have recently reported flower bud damage and corresponding fruit loss, in some cases up to 50% on certain affected cultivars. These reports have focused primarily on Emerald, Farthing and Meadowlark, although other cultivars may have also been affected to some degree. There could be multiple reasons for flower bud damage and the resulting fruit loss, including hydrogen cyanamide and freeze damage. However, in several cases this year it is believed that this type of damage has been caused by blueberry gall midge.
High populations of blueberry gall midge in blueberry can result in significant flower bud injury and reduce fruit set and yield. Females lay eggs in floral and vegetative buds just after bud swell. Gall midge larvae then feed on developing leaf and floral buds. Affected floral buds develop a dry, shriveled appearance and will often disintegrate (Figure 1). Damaged leaf buds are characterized by misshapen leaves and blackened and distorted shoot tips (Figure 2). When the terminal bud on a shoot is injured or killed, shoot elongation growth may be inhibited with excessive later branching occurring just below the damage terminal bud. Weather may impact the density of gall midge populations, with warmer temperatures > 60o F resulting in early emergence. Furthermore, re-infestation of previously infested areas is common if management action is not taken when gall midge injury is observed.
Growers should be aware of the possibility of gall midge damage in their fields this season, resulting in floral bud death and lower fruit set. Dr. Oscar Liburd, University of Florida blueberry entomologist, is preparing a bulletin to be released very soon with current gall midge management recommendations to be implemented after this season's harvest is complete. Until this extension bulletin is ready to be published, growers can view pesticide recommendations for gall midge in The Blueberry News magazine.
High populations of blueberry gall midge can result in significant flower bud injury and reduce fruit set and yield, Phillips points out. The following are his scouting tips for this pest.
Blueberry gall midge bud damage
Photo by Craig Roubos
- Females lay eggs in floral and vegetative buds just after bud swell. Gall midge larvae then feed on developing leaf and floral buds. Affected floral buds develop a dry, shriveled appearance and will often disintegrate.
Symptoms of blueberry gall midge leaf damage
Photo by Craig Roubos
- Damaged leaf buds are characterized by misshapen leaves and blackened and distorted shoot tips. When the terminal bud on a shoot is injured or killed, shoot elongation growth may be inhibited with excessive later branching occurring just below the damage terminal bud. Weather may impact the density of gall midge populations, with warmer temperatures (greater than 60°F) resulting in early emergence. Furthermore, re-infestation of previously infested areas is common if management action is not taken when gall midge injury is observed.
Is this something that California growers should be concerned about? To my knowledge these midges have not been reported in California. We also don't use hydrogen cyanamide which may be contributing to the problem. With plant material and people moving around, though, it might show up and be a problem. I never thought blueberry rust would show up in California, but as the crop has become more widespread, it has showed up. Ever alert.
Alert from UF/IFAS Blueberry Extension Coordinator Doug Phillips:
http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/fruit/blueberry_gall_midge.htm
https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/download/10784/PDF
Photo: Blueberry Gall Midge, Dasineura oxycoccana
- Author: Pam Kan-Rice
Roof rats are running rampant in California orchards this year, according to UC Agriculture and Natural Resources scientists.
“In pistachio and other nut orchards, roof rats are burrowing and nesting in the ground where they're chewing on irrigation lines, causing extensive damage,” said Rachael Long, UC Cooperative Extension advisor. “They are also nesting in citrus trees, feeding on the fruit and terrifying field workers when they jump out as people are picking fruit. The chewing pests are also girdling citrus limbs, causing branch dieback.”
The wet winter of 2017 led to lots of weed seeds for rats to eat. “Last season, rats were also nibbling on pomegranates, avocados, and other fruit and nut crops, rendering them unmarketable,” Long said.
Holes in the ground around the base of pistachio trees throughout a Yolo County orchard puzzled the grower.
“We looked for ground squirrels, but never saw any,” Long said. “We set up game cameras, but only got birds and rabbits. We put rodent bait in the holes, but the digging didn't stop.”
Long, the pest detective, cracked the case by consulting Niamh Quinn, UC Cooperative Extension human-wildlife interactions advisor based in Irvine. “She informed us that the damage we were seeing was from roof rats.”
Burrowing roof rats sounds like an oxymoron. While roof rats generally don't burrow in urban environments, their country cousins have been known to burrow.
“It's not true that they don't burrow,” Quinn said. “When I worked as staff research associate for Roger Baldwin, UC Cooperative Extension wildlife specialist, that is mostly what we studied, burrowing roof rats in orchards.”
Control measures
Baldwin said, “It seems to be a good year for rats in a number of different areas and crops throughout the state. I've received more questions and comments about rats this year than perhaps the last 10 years combined. As for bait application, putting bait down burrow systems for rats doesn't usually work too well, so I'm not surprised that approach didn't work. Growers will likely have better luck with bait stations in the trees.”
Because the rats climb, Baldwin suggests attaching bait stations to tree branches.
“In addition, elevating the bait stations will eliminate access to bait for many protected mammal species, such as kangaroo rats,” Long said. “The bait diphacinone grain can be purchased from some ag commissioners' offices. This is what Roger Baldwin said they tested and it worked.”
As for the bait stations, they should be designed so that there isn't any spillage for nontarget animals to eat, Long said.
When roof rat outbreaks occur, rodenticides are often needed to prevent crop damage. However, timing is critical as diphacinone use is highly restrictive and not allowed during the growing season, which is beginning as the weather warms.
“Check the product label for application instructions,” Long reminds growers. “It's the law.”
Identifying the pest
One way for growers to identify whether they have roof rats is by the size of the burrows. The nocturnal pests are active above ground in trees and below ground.
“Roof rats can forage away from their nest, so you won't likely find signs of their activity, such as rat droppings outside their burrow, to help identify them,” Long said.
Ground squirrels are active during the day, so they are more likely to be seen, dig holes about 4 inches in diameter and forage above ground near their burrows. Vole and mouse holes are 1- to 2-inches in diameter. Roof rat holes are typically 3 to 4 inches in diameter and might have nut shells in front of them, for example pistachio or almond shells. Rabbits will feed on seedling crops, but do not dig burrows.
Roof rats are prolific breeders that reproduce year-round, according to Baldwin. Females typically have three to five litters per year with five to eight young, enabling their populations to rapidly increase. The omnivores feed on a wide variety of plant and animal materials, allowing them to adapt to any environment, including urban and agricultural lands.
“Rats are sneaky and hard to spot,” Long said. “If you see damage, including digging in the soil but no wildlife, suspect rats.”
For more information on controlling roof rats, download Quinn and Baldwin's free UC ANR publication 8513, Managing Roof Rats and Deer Mice in Nut and Fruit Orchards at http://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/Details.aspx?itemNo=8513.
For more information about ground squirrels, download the free UC IPM Best Management Guidelines http://www.groundsquirrelbmp.com or UC IPM Pest Note http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7438.html.
And there's more on rats in the orchard:
https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=26570
https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=24581
https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=19525
- Author: Ben Faber
Mandarins, also known as “zipper skins” and “easy peelers” can have very fragile peels/skins/rinds/exocarp that make them easily subject to more damage than most oranges and lemons. Some are a bit tougher skinned than others, but some are so fragile that any rough handling often prevents them from going through conventional packing operations.
These skins were recently put to the test in the recent fires in Ojai. There was a mix of different varieties - ‘Pixie', ‘Gold Nugget', ‘W. Murcott', ‘Yosemite Gold', ‘Tahoe Gold' and others. Some of them were more sensitive than others, some were closer to the fire, all were affected by smoke to some degree. In Matilija Canyon where smoke was present for many more days than in the east of the Ojai Valley and possibly more ash, the trees have started flowering sooner. That might be temperature difference, either cooler or warmer, so it is hard to say how much effect the smoke has had versus, the ash and/or heat. Smoke has many different gasses in it, one of which is ethylene which is a naturally occurring ripening agent. Smoke not only has gasses, but it occludes the sun so less or more or altered light might have an effect on these fruit. It's not a controlled experiment, so some little scientist is going to have to come along and wriggle out these different effects. Whatever. Fire and smoke have an effect on mandarins as we have seen in other crops, such as cherimoya, avocados and other citrus.
Heat damage. Fruit facing the fire.
Ash effects on fruit coloring. Fruit was covered with ash for several days until rain washed it off. Might be a pH effect (ash is alkaline), temperature effect, uneven light radiation, or other…….
Same sort of uneven coloring, that actually looks like an ashy color, but the ash has washed off the cluster by rain
And here's something interesting where fruit facing the fire is much lighter colored than fruit facing away from the fire. Here are two pieces of fruit, one from the side directly facing the fire, and the other from the other side of the tree. The side of that fruit facing the fire was also lighter colored. So, it had an effect through the canopy (small tree). The canopy was otherwise intact, unaffected heat or flames.
Oh yeah, and there is the characteristic fruit drop from either the heat, smoke gases, water stress or ….
And then there's the fruit that looks like it had actual embers on the skin.
If the tree survives and keeps its green leaves, sometimes the fruit is affected in ways that don't appear for a while. The peel may be affected, but in many cases the fruit is just as sweet as it could be. It just looks terrible. That might even be a selling point. "Here have a wonderous piece of history that braved the horror of the Ojai fires."
