- Author: Ben A Faber
Tree Samples Needed for Avocado Sunblotch Viroid Disease Study
Avocado sunblotch viroid is an established disease in California that causes symptoms on all plant parts including leaves, stem, seeds, roots and flowers. Asymptomatic infection also occurs. Those trees, which are referred to as symptomless carrier trees, contain higher concentrations of ASBVd compared to symptomatic. Existence of asymptomatic trees and the uneven distribution of viroid in the tree make the identification of ASBVd symptoms in young trees challenging and problematic. Therefore, accurate symptom identification and the distribution of ASBVd in symptomatic and asymptomatic plants and disease detection are of great importance.
Dr. Fatemeh Khodadadi, Assistant Professor of Extension and Assistant Plant Pathologist at the University of California-Riverside, is conducting a research project on optimizing a fast and reliable detection method for ASBVd. As part of the study, her team is seeking to sample symptomatic and asymptomatic trees from avocado orchards in California. California avocado growers who are dealing with this disease in their orchard or are aware of orchards, ranches or groves harboring this disease, are invited to contact Dr. Khodadadi at 845.901.3046 or fatemehk@ucr.edu.
Elsa Esparza joined the Nutrition Policy Institute at the University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources on March 18, 2024 as a part-time project policy analyst. Elsa is a registered dietitian and received her master's degree in public health from the UC Berkeley School of Public Health. She previously worked with NPI in 2019 as a UC Global Food Initiative graduate student fellow. In addition to her current role at NPI, Elsa serves as the program director for the new Dietetic Internship at the UC Berkeley School of Public Health. Elsa is eager to contribute to research that will inform policies aimed at eliminating health disparities, especially among early childhood populations. She is also passionate about mentoring students who aspire to pursue careers in public health nutrition. Elsa has worked in many settings where public health nutrition is at the forefront, ranging from a federally qualified health center, an anti-hunger advocacy non-profit, a research institution, a family foundation, and now at the University of California. In her role at NPI, Elsa will serve as a co-project manager for the California School Meals for All evaluation.
- Author: Elizabeth J Fichtner
UCCE Tulare County recently joined an international group of scientists focused on leveraging pecan genetics to develop trees adapted for the diverse geographic regions in which the trees are cultivated and for tree resilience in the advent of climate extremes. Tulare County boasts over 1,000 acres of pecan and is home to one of the state's pecan handlers. Walnuts, a historic nut crop of Tulare County, are in the same plant family as pecan (Juglandaceae); consequently, the relatedness of the two crops has facilitated an overlap of specialization in the grower community, with many long-time walnut growers also managing the state's pecan acreage.
In 2022 the team of 26 scientists was awarded an $8 million USDA NIFA Specialty Crop Research Initiative grant entitled ‘Trees for the future: Coordinated development of genetic resources and tools to accelerate breeding of geographic and climate adapted pecan trees.' Led by Dr. Jennifer Randall at New Mexico State University, the grant provides 4 years of research funding to USDA and major land grand institution scientists, as well as researchers at University of Tokyo and the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology. From California, Karlene Hanf of Mid-Valley Pecan sits on the advisory board, and Elizabeth Fichtner, UCCE Tulare County nut, olive, and prune advisor, serves as a principal investigator.
In some permanent cropping systems, climate conditions such as low winter chill may affect the overlap of the female and male bloom, affecting crop productivity. To mitigate this risk, pistachio growers sometimes plant multiple pollinizer varieties in orchards. In Tulare County pecan growers rely on two varieties, ‘Western' and ‘Wichita,' to satisfy the reproductive needs of the crop. One goal of the USDA NIFA-funded project is to assess the timing and overlap of the male and female bloom of co-planted varieties over years characterized by different climate conditions. Researchers across the United States are utilizing standardized techniques to assess bud break, shoot development, and bloom on many cultivars to provide phenotypic data that can be utilized by geneticists striving to breed climate resilience in pecan. Additionally, researchers are quantifying damage cause by pecan leaf scorch, a disease caused by a bacterial plant pathogen. The disease has been detected in California; however, it does not appear to be as severe in California orchards as in other regions of the United States.
The USDA NIFA-funded program fosters development of UC ANR competency in pecan production, a smaller acreage nut crop in California. California is the nation's largest producer of almond, pistachio, and walnut, but produces approximately 2% of the USA's total pecan crop. As a north American native plant, pecan is well adapted to cultivation in diverse regions of the United States. Its native range includes the forested lands surrounding the Mississippi River, as well as rivers in southeastern Texas and Mexico. Outside of its native range, pecan remains an economic crop in New Mexico, Arizona, the southeastern United States, and California, particularly in Tulare County.
- Author: Ryan Hill
- Author: Marcelo Moretti
Introduction:
Pollinator insects are essential to produce many economically and nutritionally important crops grown in the western USA. These crops include blueberries, almonds, sunflowers, cucurbits, and many others. Almond pollination in California plays a vital role in the apiary industry, driving beekeepers to haul huge numbers of bee colonies to California for the few weeks in late winter when almonds bloom. Bees are selective of the pollen and nectar they forage, and diverse floral resources can allow bees to forage according to their nutritional needs (Leponiemi et al. 2023). Planting pollinator habitat in natural areas, gardens, and agricultural land is one method of supporting bee health. Irrigated agricultural land in the western USA can be an excellent resource for bees during the dry summer when flowers are rarer. However, the resident weeds in these settings are often not of high nutritional quality for hungry pollinators. To make matters worse, pollinator habitat in agricultural fields can be choked out by competition from weeds. Our control plots from these studies (Figure 1) demonstrate that point effectively.
Figure 1: Control plots at all three experimental sites were extremely weedy. This sometimes meant that none of the planted species could grow, as seen in the pictures above.
Objective:
The studies described here attempt to use herbicides to improve the chances for success in pollinator habitat establishment.
Methods:
Three locations in Oregon's Willamette Valley were selected for studies. Two were hazelnut orchards watered with drip irrigation, and one was a field plot set up for sprinkler irrigation. Each location received different soil preparation. The first orchard location (Corvallis) was not tilled, and soil compaction issues were present. The second orchard location (Amity) was power-harrowed, so the top two inches of soil were loosened. The third location (Lewis-Brown Research Farm) was plowed and disked.
All three locations were seeded in the fall with a set of flowering species with potential for pollinator habitat (Table 1).
Table 1: Species and seeding rates used for pollinator habitat establishment in Oregon's Willamette Valley. |
||
Common Name |
Scientific name |
Lb/Acre |
Hairy vetch |
Vicia villosa |
60 |
Lacy Phacelia |
Phacelia tanacetifolia |
12 |
California poppy |
Eschscholzia californica |
8 |
Farewell to spring |
Clarkia amoena |
2 |
Globe Gilia |
Gilia capitata |
2 |
Sweet alyssum |
Lubularia maritima |
2 |
These species were planted in rows, and herbicide treatments were applied over the top perpendicular to planting rows (Table 2). Four herbicides were applied post-emergence, and the rest were applied one day after planting (pre-emergence). Glyphosate treatments were only included in the orchard trials. Experimental plots were set up as a randomized complete block design with four replicates, and each species was treated as a separate experiment. A crop oil concentrate at 1% v/v was included for Motiff (mesotrione) and Basagran (bentazon), while a nonionic surfactant at 0.25% was included for Matrix (rimsulfuron) and Quinstar 4L (quinclorac). All post-emergent treatments (and glyphosate) included ammonium sulfate (AMsol 1% v/v).
Table 2: Trade name, active ingredient, and rate of herbicides applied to pollinator habitat species. Pre-emergent herbicides were applied at planting, and post-emergent herbicides were applied 30 days after crop emergence. |
||
Trade name |
Active Ingredient |
Rate (product/A) |
Pre-emergent treatments |
|
|
Cornerstone Plus |
Glyphosate |
3 qt |
Alion |
Indaziflam |
4 fl oz |
Trellis SC |
Isoxaben |
21 fl oz |
Devrinol 2XT |
Napropamide |
8 qt |
Chateau SW |
Flumioxazin |
6 oz |
Prowl H2O |
Pendimethalin |
6.3 pt |
Princep |
Simazine |
4 qt |
Motiff |
Mesotrione |
6 fl oz |
Post-emergent treatments |
||
Motiff |
Mesotrione |
6 fl oz |
Matrix |
Rimsulfuron |
4 oz |
Quinstar |
Quinclorac |
12.6 fl oz |
Basagran |
Bentazon |
2 pt |
In Amity, competition from perennial grasses resulted in poor stand establishment. A grass-selective herbicide (clethodim) was used, and the site was reseeded six months after the initial planting when soil conditions were appropriate.
Results and discussion:
Site differences.
Drastic differences were seen between sites. Table 3 shows how crop coverage differed between the three sites for each species.
Coverage at the Corvallis site was deficient for all species except hairy vetch.
Several species did very well at the Amity location. Phacelia in the glyphosate plots was exceptionally well established due to glyphosate's good control of perennial grasses that were not killed by the power harrow.
Lewis-Brown (LB) plots had the best crop establishment initially. However, this location had intense pressure from perennial weeds, so the initial crop establishment did not translate to superior pollinator habitat. The plots at LB where Alion was applied produced a good stand of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) by the end of the trial, which the bees loved.
Table 3: Crop Coverage for each species at each location is shown here. The values reported are from the treated plots with the highest coverage. |
|||||||
% Crop coverage (Best treatment) |
Site |
Vetch |
Phacelia |
Poppy |
Gilia |
Clarkia |
Lobularia |
Plowed and Disked |
Lewis-Brown Research Farm (LB) |
100 |
100 |
75 |
84 |
97 |
98 |
Power harrow |
Amity |
55 |
81 |
47 |
47 |
34 |
47 |
No tillage |
Corvallis |
89 |
11 |
28 |
0 |
15 |
0 |
Pre-emergent treatments
Pre-emergent herbicides often had inconsistent pollinator species safety; however, several combinations seemed safe. Napropamide was safe for Phacelia, Gilia, Clarkia, and Lobularia, while flumioxazin and pendimethalin were safe for poppy (Table 5). All five species only had adequate crop establishment at two of the three locations. Hairy vetch establishment was improved by simazine applications at all three locations, but crop coverage was not significantly different from the untreated control for this species (Table 5). Figure 2 shows the treatment by species combinations that were sometimes safe versus the combinations that were consistently safe for the planted species.
At the two orchard sites, glyphosate treatments were the best for Gilia, Phacelia, and poppy establishment (Table 5).
All three trials were conducted on fine soils with organic matter content ranging from 2-7% (USDA-NCSS soil survey). The safety of pre-emergent herbicides for pollinator species establishment may vary depending on soil characteristics.
Post-emergent treatments
Post-emergent (POST) applications were challenging to evaluate for safety. Weed control efficacy was inadequate, and so often, crop establishment was not good enough to confidently assess crop injury.
One exception was hairy vetch. This species exhibited good tolerance to a post-emergent application of Basagran, a result seen at all three locations. The results from two trials suggest that Clarkia tolerated POST applications of Quinstar. Not enough data were collected to conclude the other four species. See Table 4 for crop coverage data.
Conclusions
Site preparation was an essential consideration in our study. Soil compaction and perennial weed pressure must be addressed to have a successful pollinator habitat planting. It was also clear that pre-emergent herbicides can improve habitat establishment, but safety must be adequately established. This is especially true of different soil types and environments. In California's Central Valley, pendimethalin has been seen to occasionally cause injury in poppy plantings, which is in contrast with this study.
Table 4: Spring crop coverage (%) from plots treated with post-emergent herbicides one month after planting, which happened the prior October. Missing data from Phacelia and Lobularia at LB is due to crop loss from frost injury. |
|||||||
Crop coverage (%) |
|||||||
|
Corvallis |
Amity |
LB |
|
Corvallis |
Amity |
LB |
Hairy Vetch |
|
|
|
Gilia |
|
|
|
Untreated |
29 |
28 |
98 b |
Untreated |
0 |
8 |
54 b |
Mesotrione |
21 |
3 a |
0 a |
Mesotrione |
0 |
0 |
0 a |
Rimsulfuron |
18 |
1 a |
0 a |
Rimsulfuron |
0 |
4 |
78 b |
Quinclorac |
34 |
0 a |
28 a |
Quinclorac |
0 |
0 |
6 a |
Bentazon |
50 |
26 b |
94 b |
Bentazon |
0 |
7 |
47 b |
Phacelia |
|
|
|
Clarkia |
|
|
|
Untreated |
0 |
53 ab |
|
Untreated |
3 a |
0 |
83 b |
Mesotrione |
0 |
42 ab |
|
Mesotrione |
0 a |
0 |
34 b |
Rimsulfuron |
5 |
17 a |
|
Rimsulfuron |
4 ab |
0 |
55 b |
Quinclorac |
5 |
64 b |
|
Quinclorac |
15 b |
0 |
77 b |
Bentazon |
2 |
48 ab |
|
Bentazon |
6 ab |
0 |
0 a |
Poppy |
|
|
|
Lobularia |
|
|
|
Untreated |
2 |
11 |
2 |
Untreated |
0 |
0 |
|
Mesotrione |
3 |
11 |
0 |
Mesotrione |
0 |
0 |
|
Rimsulfuron |
6 |
0 |
0 |
Rimsulfuron |
0 |
0 |
|
Quinclorac |
2 |
5 |
3 |
Quinclorac |
0 |
0 |
|
Bentazon |
2 |
9 |
0 |
Bentazon |
0 |
0 |
|
Table 5: Spring crop coverage for pre-emergent herbicide treatments applied just after planting, which happened the prior October. Phacelia and Lobularia experienced winter kill at the LB location, so reported data is coverage from December for that location. |
||||||||
Crop coverage (%) |
||||||||
|
Corvallis |
Amity |
LB |
|
Corvallis |
Amity | LB | |
Hairy Vetch |
|
|
|
Gilia |
|
|
|
|
Nontreated |
29 |
28 ad |
98 b |
Nontreated |
0 |
8 a |
54 c |
|
Glyphosate |
23 |
46 bd |
|
Glyphosate |
0 |
47 b |
|
|
Indaziflam |
6 |
3 d |
79 b |
Indaziflam |
0 |
3 a |
36 bc |
|
Isoxaben |
11 |
17 ab |
83 b |
Isoxaben |
0 |
5 a |
31 ac |
|
Napropamide |
8 |
19 ab |
91 b |
Napropamide |
0 |
38 b |
56 c |
|
Flumioxazin |
5 |
36 bd |
90 b |
Flumioxazin |
0 |
18 a |
2 c |
|
Pendimethalin |
6 |
38 bd |
98 b |
Pendimethalin |
0 |
0 a |
13 ab |
|
Simazine |
34 |
55 d |
98 b |
Simazine |
0 |
44 b |
6 ab |
|
Mesotrione |
6 |
25 abc |
0 a |
Mesotrione |
0 |
3 a |
8 ab |
|
Phacelia |
|
|
|
Clarkia |
|
|
|
|
Nontreated |
0 a |
53 bc |
96 b |
Nontreated |
3 |
0 a |
83 b |
|
Glyphosate |
11 b |
92 c |
|
Glyphosate |
5 |
34 b |
|
|
Indaziflam |
0 a |
13 ab |
90 b |
Indaziflam |
0 |
0 a |
74 b |
|
Isoxaben |
0 a |
0 a |
82 b |
Isoxaben |
0 |
8 a |
88 b |
|
Napropamide |
2 a |
81 c |
98 b |
Napropamide |
0 |
25 b |
86 b |
|
Flumioxazin |
0 a |
30 ab |
57 ab |
Flumioxazin |
0 |
5 a |
20 a |
|
Pendimethalin |
0 a |
0 a |
15 a |
Pendimethalin |
0 |
2 a |
67 b |
|
Simazine |
0 a |
75 c |
56 ab |
Simazine |
0 |
30 b |
0 a |
|
Mesotrione |
2 a |
54 bc |
99 b |
Mesotrione |
0 | 0 a | 25 a | |
Poppy |
|
|
|
Lobularia |
|
|
|
|
Nontreated |
2 a |
11 |
2 a |
Nontreated |
0 |
0 a |
70 c |
|
Glyphosate |
30 b |
42 |
|
Glyphosate |
0 |
21 ab |
|
|
Indaziflam |
2 a |
8 |
8 a |
Indaziflam |
0 |
0 a |
16 ab |
|
Isoxaben |
2 a |
3 |
69 b |
Isoxaben |
0 |
0 a |
0 a |
|
Napropamide |
6 a |
14 |
0 a |
Napropamide |
0 |
47 c |
98 d |
|
Flumioxazin |
2 a |
31 |
63 bc |
Flumioxazin |
0 |
15 a |
34 b |
|
Pendimethalin |
2 a |
40 |
64 b |
Pendimethalin |
0 |
0 a |
0 a |
|
Simazine |
0 a |
46 |
28 ac |
Simazine |
0 |
44 bc |
5 a |
|
Mesotrione |
0 a |
7 |
8 a |
Mesotrione |
0 | 3 a | 3 a |
Figure 2: Crop coverage pictures from two months after planting the Lewis-Brown research farm show that the planted species (rows) tolerated several pre-emergent herbicides (columns). A black outline surrounds successful combinations seen in at least one of the other two trials. Combinations that were never seen to be successful again are surrounded by a red outline.
References:
Leponiemi, M., Freitak, D., Moreno-Torres, M. et al. (2023). Honeybees' foraging choices for nectar and pollen revealed by DNA metabarcoding. Sci Rep 13, 14753. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-42102-4
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available online at the following link: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
- Author: Ryan Daugherty
I recently helped one of our local student gardens install a drip irrigation system in some raised beds. During the installation, I had to explain why we were using ½” tubing for most of our system instead of ¼”. Some believed that using the smaller tubing would give us better pressure, like putting your thumb over the mouth of a garden hose. I explained why this would actually result in less pressure and worse water distribution throughout our system. This misconception is common, so I thought I'd discuss it here.
If you think there's no way I'm about to talk physics in a garden blog, prepare to be amazed!
First, a review. Friction is the force that opposes the sliding or rolling of one solid object over another. There are a few different types of friction, but the one most relevant to our irrigation lines is kinetic friction.
Kinetic friction is the force that opposes the movement of two objects in contact while in motion. Think of it like using the brakes on a bicycle: when you pull on the brake lever, the brake pads contact the wheel, and the kinetic friction between the pads and the wheel opposes the wheel's forward motion, eventually stopping the bike. As water moves through our irrigation lines, it is in contact with the inside of the tubing. The kinetic friction between the water and the tubing surface opposes the water's forward motion, resulting in a loss of pressure. In irrigation lingo, we call this "pressure loss from friction" or just "friction loss."
If you could see a cross-section of your tubing while water was running through it, you wouldn't see a solid cylinder of water. Instead, it's more turbulent, with empty space, bubbles, and vortices. If the amount of water moving through the line remains constant and we decrease our tubing diameter, that empty space shrinks, and more water comes into contact with the sides of the tubing. More surface area of the water in contact with more surface area of the tubing generates more friction, resulting in more pressure loss.
Like tapping the brakes on a bicycle, there isn't much friction generated when it's just your thumb at the end of a garden hose. The real pressure loss comes from consistent friction over distance, like holding the brakes down until the bike stops. Multiply even a small amount of friction over any real distance, and you're looking at significant pressure loss.
In response to this, drip irrigation experts developed “rules” or guidelines for drip irrigation. For ¼” tubing, we call it the 30/30 rule: no more than 30 feet in any given run of ¼” line, drawing no more than 30 gallons per hour (GPH). More than 30 feet generates too much friction loss, and hydraulically only so much water can move through any given volume of tubing, hence 30 GPH. For ½” tubing, it's the 200/200 rule, for ¾” it's 480/480, and so on. As our system grows in length and demand, our tubing diameter has to increase accordingly.
If we don't match our system to the length and demand, we risk poor distribution uniformity. We might have to overwater or underwater one part of our garden to properly water another, leading to water waste and poor plant health. For most home landscapes, 1/2" tubing works well since we seldom run more than 200 feet on a single line.
These principles are simple but powerful, and by understanding them, you can make more thoughtful decisions in the design of your drip systems to get the most out of them.