- (Public Value) UCANR: Promoting economic prosperity in California
UC ANR Cooperative Extension Specialists in Ag and Research Extension (ARE) have ongoing discussions on major topics related to CA ag. All are invited to listen in.
The upcoming ARE Discussions webinar will focus on the economic impact and challenges of the California citrus industry.
Disease pressure and regulatory challenges are persistent issues that growers must address in California's $3.4 billion citrus industry. Join us on Tuesday, May 11th from 10:00-11:30 am (PST), where Dr. Bruce Babcock (Professor of Public Policy, UC Riverside) will provide an overview of the California citrus industry and challenges facing growers, and Dr. Ariel Singerman (Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, University of Florida) will provide insights from the Florida citrus industry and discuss their experiences attempting to control the spread of citrus greening (Huanglongbing) disease.
Register for the webinar here: California Citrus Industry: Economic Impact and Challenges
Laurel Wilt-Ambrosia Beetle Grower's Seminar to update and discuss testing out-of-the-box control approaches research project. This project was supported by the Florida Avocado Administrative Committee.
Purpose: The Florida Avocado Committee funded a project to investigate the potential for inducing an immune response in avocado trees to infection by the laurel wilt pathogen. The purpose of this seminar is for Dr. Romina Gazis to update the avocado industry on the results of this research. This meeting is open to anyone to attend.
Date: May 27, 2021 (Thursday)
Time: 10AM-11AM (US Eastern Standard Time)
Location: Zoom – see below agenda for link
- Dr. Crane, Welcome and introduction
- Dr. Gazis, “Vaccinating” avocado trees: inoculating avocado trees with selected non-pathogenic fungi and denatured Raffaelea lauricola and their response to the virulent laurel wilt pathogen
- Questions and discussion
Jonathan Crane is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
Topic: LW-AB Vaccinating avocado trees
Time: May 27, 2021 10:00 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada) thAt's 7 AM CALIFORNIA TIME
Join Zoom Meeting
Meeting ID: 963 0066 5742
One tap mobile
+13017158592,,96300665742# US (Washington DC)
+13126266799,,96300665742# US (Chicago)
Dial by your location
+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
Meeting ID: 963 0066 5742
Find your local number: https://ufl.zoom.us/u/abptT6RHLD
Join by SIP
Join by H.323
18.104.22.168 (US West)
22.214.171.124 (US East)
126.96.36.199 (India Mumbai)
188.8.131.52 (India Hyderabad)
184.108.40.206 (Amsterdam Netherlands)
220.127.116.11 (Australia Sydney)
18.104.22.168 (Australia Melbourne)
22.214.171.124 (Canada Toronto)
126.96.36.199 (Canada Vancouver)
188.8.131.52 (Japan Tokyo)
184.108.40.206 (Japan Osaka)
Meeting ID: 963 0066 5742
Join by Skype for Business
Introduction to Groundwater, Watersheds, and Groundwater Sustainability Plans - An Online Shortcourse
Thursday, May 6, 13, 20, 27, and June 3 (15 hours)
9:00am – 12:00pm PDT (GMT -07:00) and Q&A 12:00pm - 1:00pm PDT
Understanding groundwater and watersheds and how we monitor, assess, and sustainably manage these resources is critical and integral to California Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) and other water management programs. Private citizens, professionals, decision makers, executives, agency employees, and stakeholders with diverse backgrounds and in a wide variety of private, non-profit, and government responsibilities are increasingly engaged in the sustainable management and assessment of groundwater and surface water. This online short course will review the fundamental principles of groundwater and watershed hydrology, water budgets, water quality, and water law and regulation in an intuitive, highly accessible fashion. Through real world examples, participants learn about the most common tools for measuring, monitoring, and assessing groundwater and surface water resources. We then review the key steps and elements of planning for groundwater sustainability.
Fees: $100/$60 (includes textbook)
Reduced fees ($60) are available to members of California Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (board, staff, advisory committees), to California state employees, and to participants of the WEF Water 101 Workshop, April 22-23, 2021 of the GRA Groundwater Sustainability Planning Summit, June 9-10, 2021.
For reduced fee coupons and questions please contact: GroundwaterUCD@gmail.com
- Author: Brad Hanson and O. Adewale Osipitan
Glyphosate is one of the most commonly used herbicides in orchard crops in California both in terms of treated acres and amount of active ingredient applied. Weed managers are generally familiar with the attributes of glyphosate as a postemergence herbicide. Duke and Powles (2008) published an article in Pest Management Science entitled “Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century-herbicide”. Suffice to say, it's a pretty useful herbicide, if that's your thing. It has also been the subject of several controversies in the past couple of decades.
One of those controversies was a source of frequent extension questions from California farmers and Pest Control Advisors about 10 years ago. In the late 2000's there were several researcher articles from work done in glyphosate-tolerant soybeans that suggested there might be some nontarget impacts of glyphosate on crop nutrient status, plant disease interaction, and microbial community effects. In California tree crops concern generally focused around whether glyphosate in the soil could chelate micronutrients and lead to nutrient deficiencies and/or if repeated use could cause enough glyphosate to accumulate in soil and have direct impacts on the trees.
In a 2012 review article on the impacts of glyphosate in the soil environment, Duke et al. suggested that “significant effects of glyphosate on soil mineral content is unlikely” and there is no clear negative trend in orchard productivity data in California even after decades of glyphosate use. However, because this was a concern for the California orchard crop industries, we conducted a long-term research project from 2013 to 2020 to help address the issue in representative orchard crops.
If you're REALLY interested, the full report was published in summer 2020 as an open-access article in the journal Weed Technology which can be accessed HERE.
If you're only a LITTLE interested, here is the essence of the project conduct at the UC Davis Plant Sciences Field Facility in Davis, CA:
- Crops (three crops were considered separate experiments):
- Almond (Nonpareil on Lovell)
- Prune (Improved French on Lovell)
- Cherry (Coral on Emla-Colt)
- Planting site:
- At planting, all tree sites were excavated with a 36-inch diameter augur to a 2-ft depth
- Half were refilled with the native silty clay loam soil
- Half were refilled with Delhi sandy loam
- Glyphosate treatments:
- From 2014 to 2019, treatments were applied 3 times per season (~between Apr-Nov)
- Rates were 0, 1, 2, or 4 lb ae/A equivalents (Roundup PowerMAX plus ammonium sulfate). Applied to an area of about 6x6 ft around each tree
- In 2014, trunks were protected with cartons, but no trunk protection in 2015-19
- In the first two years of treatment (2014 and 2015) there was a split-plot factor in which half of the trees had a small berm built up around the base of the tree and were “drenched” with water to simulate a 1-inch irrigation immediately after each application (intended to increase leaching into the relatively small tree root zone and crown area).
- In the first year of treatment (2014) leaf samples were collected 14 days after each glyphosate application and assayed for shikimate accumulation (which would indicate direct herbicidal effects of glyphosate).
- In the first two years of treatment, relative chlorophyll content was measured in leaves from each tree 30 days after each glyphosate application (which could indicate either direct glyphosate effects or indirect effects of micronutrient limitations).
- Trunk diameter measurements were made before the first application in 2014 and during the winter after each subsequent season to evaluate relative tree growth.
- After the 6th year of treatment, leaf samples were collected in the fall from each tree but combined over soil type and drench subplots. The nutrient status of these leaf samples was determined by the UC Davis Analytical Lab using appropriate techniques.
- So, to recap, the worst case scenario had:
- Very coarse soil in the planting site of bare root almond, cherry, and prune nursery trees.
- In the first two years, some plots had a simulated acre-inch of irrigation immediately following each glyphosate application.
- The highest rate treatment of 4 lb ae/A glyphosate applied 18 times over a six year period. That's 114 fl oz/A of Roundup PowerMAX at each application. Over the course of the experiment that's 72 lb ae/A glyphosate or 16 gallons of Roundup PowerMAX. It's a lot!
- Shikimate levels were similar among treated and non-treated trees with no clear dose-response or soil-related parameters. This suggests little or no direct effect of glyphosate on these tree crops via root uptake even at fairly extreme rates over multiple years.
- Chlorophyll content mostly indicated no differences among treatments. Where there were statistically significant main effects or interactions, there was no consistent pattern with regard to glyphosate rate, coarse soils, and post-treatment drench, which suggests they may be due to random variation or experimental artifacts.
- Leaf nutrient analysis after 6 years of treatment did not provide evidence of negative impacts on crop nutrient status.
- Trunk diameter increase over six growing seasons was not negatively impacted by glyphosate treatments (Figure).
- Observationally, over the six year period, there was no evidence of treatment-related trunk cankers, trunk or limb malformations or unusual die-back.
Scientists will always remind you that you “can't prove a negative”, and that remains true. However, we think these data suggest that it is probably not easy or common for almond, cherry, or prunes to be negatively impacted by glyphosate residues in the soil either due to direct herbicide effects or to micronutrient deficiencies.
This work was initially supported by the Almond Board of California, the California Dried Plum Board and with nursery stock provided by Sierra Gold Nurseries. Over time, the experiments were maintained with general program support from the crop protection industry, orchard commodity groups, and agricultural input suppliers. We gratefully thank our colleagues who contributed to this long-term project along the way.
Duke SO, Powles SB (2008) Mini-review. Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide. Pest Manag Sci 64:319–325
Duke SO, Lydon J, Koskinen WC, Moorman TB, Chaney RL, Hammerschmidt R (2012) Glyphosate effects on plant mineral nutrition, crop rhizosphere microbiota, and plant disease in glyphosate-resistant crops. J Agric Food Chem 60:10375–10397
Osipitan OA, Yildiz-Kutman B, Watkins S, Brown PH, Hanson BD (2020). Impacts of repeated glyphosate use on growth of orchard crops. Weed Technol. doi: 10.1017/wet.2020.85 (available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/weed-technology/article/impacts-of-repeated-glyphosate-use-on-growth-of-orchard-crops/26697F334626A587765C75C2B0F76A3D)
This blog originally appeard in the UC Weed Science Blog
California Avocado Growers Seminars Series 2021
Scheduled Dates and Topics
Virtual Avocado Field Day at Cal Poly
A big thank you to our Speakers