Prune Replant Issues: Insights from Almond & Peach Experience

Greg Browne Prune Day

Red Bluff, CA

20 February 2015

Almond Board of California

USDA Pacific Area-Wide Prog. for MB Altern.

California Dept. of Pesticide Reg.

UC Cooperative Extension

Photo: California Agriculture

• Plant-parasitic nematodes (ring, lesion, root knot), approx. 35% of almond and fresh stone fruit acreage, 60% of cling peach acreage infested (McKenry)

• Replant disease (RD) Microbe-induced growth suppression; commonly occurs in Prunus after Prunus; severity varies greatly

• Aggressive pathogens, pests (e.g., Phytophthora, Armillaria, Verticillium, Ten-Lined June Beetle)

• Abiotic factors (physical, chemical conditions related to previous production)

Lesion nematode Ring nematode

Healthy tree RD-affected tree

Replant disease

Replant problems of Prunus species

6 Plant parasitic nematodes

• Economic impact, direct and indirect, can be great over life of orchard

• We can sample for them: – Best timing: pre-push and post-push / pre-plant

– Best depth range 0.3 to 3-ft depth

– Best to represent variation in soil texture and block histories

• Preplant fumigation with 1,3-D (in Telone II or Telone C35) is prudent when facing known plant-parasitic nematodes

• Rootstock resistance important to weigh in management decisions

Root lesion nematode

Ring nematode

Thoughts on plant-parasitic nematodes,

“the replant problem we know”…

6

Dagger nematode

Photo:

UC Davis

Soil Numbers of pathogenic nematodes as influenced by

almond rootstock

Escalon, CA. January, 2005

DATA OF ROGER DUNCAN, UCCE

Replant disease,

“the other replant problem”...

Not fumigated

Pic-fumigated

Chico, 2001

Nord loam soil

Replant Disease,

“the other replant problem”…

Durham, 2002.

Repeated sampling indicated no role

of plant-parasitic nematodes in RD at

sites chosen for trials near Chico,

Durham, and Parlier, CA

Farwell loam soil

0

10

20

30

40

50

Non-Fumigated MB:Pic (75:25, 1

lb/tree site)

Pic (1 lb/tree site)

Inc

rea

se

in

tru

nk

dia

me

ter

(mm

)

Lovell Nemaguard Marianna 2624

Effect of fumigant x rootstock, Durham Trees planted Feb 2003, measured 9 Dec 2003, Orchard 1

Impact of RD as

determined by

pre-plant

fumigation…

Durham, 2004

8

Healthy tree, CP-fumigated plot RD-affected tree, Non-treated plot

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Root diameter (mm)

Control

Pre-plant chloropcirin

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Root diameter (mm)

Control

Pre-plant chloropcirin

Marianna 2624 rootstock Lovell peach rootstock

To

tal ro

ot

len

gth

pe

r s

am

ple

(c

m)

> >

Impact of RD on first-year root development, almond…

Durham, 2004; root length densities determined by soil and root excavation,

digital imaging, and WinRHIZO software.

10

Replant disease, Firebaugh, 2007

Replant disease, Madera, 2008

Replant disease, Parlier, 2008

Replant Disease: Sorting through the haystack of potential causes…

Ordination analysis

13

Contributors to RD: Cylindrocarpon and Pythium species

Exp. 3

Contr

ol

C.m

acro

did

ymum

4270

_WA-b

le-b

C.m

acro

did

ymum

5372

_WA-b

le-c

C.m

acro

did

ymum

6629

_PD

A-b

le-N

C.m

acro

did

ymum

6702

_PD

A-b

le-r

t-a

P.in

term

ediu

m72

69_P

AR

P_r

in_j

P.ir

regula

re72

55_P

AR

P_r

in_h

P.ir

regula

re72

56_P

AR

P_r

in_g

P.ir

regula

re72

76_P

AR

P_r

in_a

P.ir

regula

re72

79_P

AR

P_r

in_b

P.ir

regula

re81

82_P

AR

P

P.p

areo

candru

m72

48_P

AR

P_r

in_l

P.p

areo

candru

m72

49_P

AR

P_b

l_v-1

P.p

areo

candru

m72

50_P

AR

P_r

in_i

P.p

areo

candru

m72

68_P

AR

P_r

in_h

P.p

areo

candru

m72

70_P

AR

P_r

in_a

P.p

areo

candru

m72

71_P

AR

P_r

in_b

P.p

areo

candru

m72

71_P

AR

P_r

in_f

P.s

pin

osu

m72

50_P

AR

P_r

in_a

P.s

pin

osu

m72

57_P

AR

P_r

in_j

P.s

pin

osu

m72

76_P

AR

P_r

in_c

P.s

pin

osu

m72

78_P

AR

P_r

in_f

P.s

pin

osu

m72

79_P

AR

P_r

in_g

P.u

ltim

um

7255

_PAR

P_r

in_c

-1

P.u

ltim

um

7257

_PAR

P_r

in_c

P.u

ltim

um

7268

_PAR

P_r

in_l

2

P.u

ltim

um

7270

_PAR

P_r

in_l

P.u

ltim

um

7271

_PAR

P_r

in_e

P.u

ltim

um

7271

_WA_a

mp_r

in_m

2

P.u

ltim

um

7276

_WA_a

mp_b

l_t2

P.u

ltim

um

7277

_PAR

P_r

in_f

P.u

ltim

um

7278

_PAR

P_r

in_j

P.v

exan

s818

8_PAR

P_a

P.v

exan

s818

9_PAR

P

P.v

exan

s819

3_PAR

P

P.v

exan

s821

6_PAR

P_a

P.s

p17

248_

PAR

P_r

in_h

1

P.s

p17

269_

PAR

P_b

l_l

P.s

p17

271_

PAR

P_r

in_c

P.s

p17

276_

PAR

P_b

l_e

P.s

pH

Q64

3805

.181

92_P

AR

P

P.s

pH

Q64

3805

.182

01_P

AR

P

P.s

pH

Q64

3805

.182

06_P

AR

P

P.s

pH

Q64

3805

.182

15_P

AR

P

P.s

pH

Q64

3805

.182

16_P

AR

P_b

P.s

pH

Q64

3805

.182

26_P

AR

P

To

p f

res

h w

t. (

g)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Ctl.

Cyl.mac.

P. intermedium

P. pareocandrum

P. ultimum

P. vexans P. sp.1 P. sp.2

P. irregul.P. spinosum

14

Ck Pythium ultimum Ck Cyl. macrodidymum

State of fumigant and non-fumigant approaches to

RD management, an overview…

Broadcast 100% coverage

Strip 50% coverage

GPS-Grid <20% coverage

Soil fumigation considerations

17

Summaries of Prunus replant studies available

online: http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.edu

Please email me at gtbrowne@ucdavis.edu

for help with or discussion of PAW-MBA results

18

Replant disease, Madera Co., 2007

lb / trt.

ac.

lb / or.

ac.

Control None 0 0 0

Methyl br. Row strip (45%) 400 180 1962

Telone II Row strip (38%) 340 129 393

Midas Row strip (38%) 0 152 na

Chloropicrin Row strip (38%) 400 152 871

Chloropicrin Row strip (38%) 300 114 677

Chloropicrin Row strip (38%) 200 76 482

Telone C35 Row strip (38%) 550 209 882

Pic-Chlor 60 Row strip (38%) 550 209 829

Pic-Chlor 60 Row strip (38%) 400 152 667

Chloropicrin Tree spot (17%) 400 68 441

Telone C35 Tree spot (17%) 550 94 447

Telone C35 Full coverage (100%) 550 550 2169

Fumigant Treated area

Fumigant rate Cost of

trt.

($/ac.)0 2000 4000 6000

Cum. yield by yr (lb/ac)

Yld Yr 1 Yld Yr 2 Yld Yr 3

Almond replant trial, Firebaugh, CA; treatments, costs, yields

Almond replant trial; Firebaugh, CA

lb / trt.

ac.

lb / or.

ac.

Yield

Yr. 2

Yield

Yr. 3

Control None 0 0 0 0 0

Methyl br. Row strip (45%) 400 180 1962 (1,120) (1,279)

Telone II Row strip (38%) 340 129 393 929 1,552

Midas Row strip (38%) 0 152 na na na

Chloropicrin Row strip (38%) 400 152 871 1,593 2,433

Chloropicrin Row strip (38%) 300 114 677 1,870 2,727

Chloropicrin Row strip (38%) 200 76 482 2,422 3,328

Telone C35 Row strip (38%) 550 209 882 1,926 3,296

Pic-Chlor 60 Row strip (38%) 550 209 829 2,462 4,202

Pic-Chlor 60 Row strip (38%) 400 152 667 1,885 2,814

Chloropicrin Tree spot (17%) 400 68 441 1,725 2,857

Telone C35 Tree spot (17%) 550 94 447 1,530 2,473

Telone C35 Full coverage (100%) 550 550 2169 688 2,511

Fumigant Treated area

Fumigant rate Cost of

trt.

($/ac.)

Cum. net reven.

gain ($/ac.)a

45,850

93,097

106,378

79,349

68,727

85,080

Cumulative yield 2009-12

(lb marketable fruit / ac)

Fumigant Treated area lb / trt ac

lb / orch

ac

Control None 0 0 0

Methyl bromideRow strip

(42%)400 200 2,272

Telone C35Row strip

(50%)550 231 1,062

Telone C35Tree spot

(13%)550 69 460

InlineTree spot

(5%)550 28 207

ChloropicrinTree spot

(13%)400 50 457

Treatmenta

Fumigant rate

Cost of

treatment

($ / acre)

Parlier peach replant trial

Fumigant Treated area

lb / trt

ac

lb / orch

ac

$ 0.24

/ lb

$ 0.12

/ lb

$ 0.06 /

lb

$

0.03 /

lb

Control None 0 0 0 45,850 0 0 0 0

Methyl bromideRow strip

(42%)400 200 2,272 93,097 9,067 3,398 563 (854)

Telone C35Row strip

(50%)550 231 1,062 106,378 13,465 6,201 2,570 754

Telone C35Tree spot

(13%)550 69 460 79,349 7,580 3,560 1,550 545

InlineTree spot

(5%)550 28 207 68,727 5,283 2,538 1,166 480

ChloropicrinTree spot

(13%)400 50 457 85,080 8,958 4,251 1,897 720

Net fruit prices and net

revenue gain ($/acre)b

Treatmenta

Fumigant rate

Cost of

treatment

($ / acre)

Cummulative

yield (lb / ac)

Parlier peach replant trial

Non-fumigants:

Validation of sudan rotation value, peach replant trial, Parlier, CA

Treatmenta

$ 0.24 /

lb

$ 0.12 /

lb

$ 0.06 /

lb

$ 0.03 /

lb

No sudan rotation (control) 0 72,320 0 0 0 0

Piper sudan grass rotation 217 84,174 1,911 849 317 51

Cost of treatment

($ / acre)

Cummulative

yield (lb / ac)

Non-

fumigants:

rootstocks

and mgt. of

replant

disease

2011-12 trial

Love

ll

Nem

agua

rd

HBOK 1

HBOK 1

0

HBOK 2

8

HBOK 3

2

HBOK 5

0

Em

pyre

an 1

Brig

hts Hyb

rid 5

Brig

hts Hyb

rid 1

06

Gar

nem

15

Han

sen

536

Con

trolle

r 5

Kry

msk

1

Kry

msk

2

Kry

msk

9

Kry

msk

86

Myr

obolan

Mar

iann

a 26

24

Ste

m d

ia.

incre

ase

(m

m)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Non-fumigated soil

Fumigated soil

Love

ll

Nem

agua

rd

HBOK 1

HBOK 1

0

HBOK 2

8

HBOK 3

2

HBOK 5

0

Em

pyre

an 1

Brig

hts Hyb

.5

Brig

hts Hyb

.106

Gar

nem

15

Han

sen

536

Con

trolle

r 5

Kry

msk

1

Kry

msk

2

Kry

msk

9

Kry

msk

86

Myr

obolan

Mar

iann

a 26

24

Ste

m d

ia.

incre

ase in N

F s

oil

as

pro

port

ion o

f th

at

in F

soil

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Peach Peach x almond hybrid

Plum or plum hybrid

Nemaguard, C35-fumigated soil Nemaguard, NF soil

Hansen 536, NF soil Hansen 536, C35-fumigated soil

Key point: Rootstocks vary significantly in

resistance to RD

Recent, Cal-DPR funded work to optimize

fumigant use

1. Use a greenhouse-based peach seedling bioassay to increase

knowledge available on the need for preplant fumigation

2. Augment bioassay testing results with orchard validations

3. Demonstrate and optimize GPS-controlled spot fumigation in

commercial almond orchards

= ??

27

2 3

Soil sampling for bioassays

Bioassay procedure

28

1.Dur

ham

MdS

2.Dur

ham

MdT

3.Dur

ham

MaT

4.Arb

uckleN

iT

5.Cro

wsL

dgGoT

6.Sne

llingD

oT

7.Fre

snoG

uT

8.Fire

baug

hPaT

9.Ker

man

AvT

10.S

ange

rGe

11.S

ange

rBr

12.P

arlie

rKAC

13.P

arlie

rARS

14.D

inub

aKla

15.H

anfo

rdJW

Plu

16.H

anfo

rdJW

PeD

17.H

anfo

rdJW

PeH

18.W

asco

Pa

19.S

hafte

rPaE

99

20.S

hafte

rPaW

99

To

tal

pla

nt

fresh

wt.

(g

)

0

10

20

30

40Control Fumigated Pasteurized

Bioassay results

29

1.Dur

ham

MdS

2.Dur

ham

MdT

3.Dur

ham

MaT

4.Arb

uckleN

iT

5.Cro

wsL

dgGoT

6.Sne

llingD

oT

7.Fre

snoG

uT

8.Fire

baug

hPaT

9.Ker

man

AvT

10.S

ange

rGe

11.S

ange

rBr

12.P

arlie

rKAC

13.P

arlie

rARS

14.D

inub

aKla

15.H

anfo

rdJW

Plu

16.H

anfo

rdJW

PeD

17.H

anfo

rdJW

PeH

18.W

asco

Pa

19.S

hafte

rPaE

99

20.S

hafte

rPaW

99

To

tal

pla

nt

fresh

wt.

(g

)

0

10

20

30

40Control Fumigated Pasteurized

Recent: managing replant disease without

fumigants, Kearney Ag Center Trial, 2013-14

30

Preplant treatments

included:

• Control

• Early removal / fallow

or Sudan rotation

• Deep soil ripping

• Anaerobic soil

disinfestation (ASD)

• Early and late season

fumigation

31

Preplant NF treatments, KAC trial

32

• ASD developed in Japan

and Netherlands, being

tested widely for CA

strawberries

• Initiated by adding readily

available carbon substrate

to soil, covering with clear

tarp, keeping soil

moisture near field

capacity for several

weeks; heat facilitates

• Mechanism incompletely

understood, but ASD is

lethal and/or suppressive

to many pathogens

Anaerobic soil disinfestation (ASD)

33

• ASD developed in Japan

and Netherlands, being

tested widely for CA

strawberries

• Initiated by adding readily

available carbon substrate

to soil, covering with clear

tarp, keeping soil

moisture near field

capacity for several

weeks; heat facilitates

• Mechanism incompletely

understood, but ASD is

lethal and/or suppressive

to many pathogens

Anaerobic soil disinfestation (ASD)

34

Exp. 1: Rice bran 9 t/ac, mollases 4.5 t/ac

Julian Day

260 270 280 290 300 310

Eh

(m

v)

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

So

il t

em

pera

ture

(C

)

15

20

25

30

35Eh, control

Eh, ASD

Temp., ASD

18"6"

Temp., control

6"

6"

6"

18"

18"

18"

Julian day

260 270 280 290 300 310

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

Eh

(m

v)

Exp. 2:Rice bran 9 tons/ac

6"

6"

Eh, ASD

Eh, control

18"

18"6"

ASD treatment

35

No sudan

control ASD

+ sudan

October 28, 2014

36

No sudan

control

Oct. fumigation

w/ Telone C35,

+ sudan

October 28, 2014

37

Effects of preplant soil treatments on 1st-year

growth of almond (after peach on Nemaguard)

No-s

udan c

ontrol

Sudan

contr

ol

Sudan

+ A

SD

No s

udan +

Oct

. fum

.

Sudan

+ O

ct. f

um.

No s

udan +

Dec

. fum

.Tru

nk

cir

c. in

cre

ase

(cm

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

No-s

udan c

ontrol

No s

udan +

ASD

No s

udan +

Oct

. fum

.0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18Experiment 1 Experiment 2*

*No sig. effect of

ripping depth (2 vs. 4 ft)

38

A key drawback of ASD is cost; it needs

optimization to be economical

Estimated cost of ASD: $2439 / acre (50% strips; all materials and application)

Estimated cost of Telone C35: $1143 / acre (50% strips; all materials and application, no tarp)

• (In addition to re-testing our 2013-14 ASD treatments, we are

testing lower-cost ASD treatments in 2014-15)

• Low-cost yet effective ASD substrates needed

39

Summary

• Both plant parasitic nematodes and replant disease (RD) important

considerations for prune

• Careful sampling advised for assessment of nematodes, they are not

“everywhere”

• Pre-plant fumigation with 1,3-D-containing fumigants advisable for

nematode infestations

• Sampling protocol not available for RD

• Pre-plant fumigation with CP-containing fumigants advisable for

expectation of RD

• Rootstocks should be considered carefully when replanting, data becoming

available to help

• Non-fumigant approaches for management of replant problems hold

promise

Thank you!

Questions?

gtbrowne@ucdavis.edu Photo: California Agriculture