Posts Tagged: mandarin
The proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Huanglongbing (IRCHLB V) is now published, available and citable online through the Journal of Citrus Pathology: http://escholarship.org/uc/iocv_journalcitruspathology
Joseph (Josy) M. Bové - Selected Photos
Joseph (Josy) M. Bové Dedication
Tribute to Prof. Dr. Joseph Bové
If you download the Bové Dedication pdf file, there is a link near the top of page 3 that will redirect you to the video interview of Prof. Bové. This is the video that we could not show during the meeting due to audiovisual technical difficulties. You must download the pdf for the link to be active. The link is not active when simply viewing the publication online.
The keynote speakers are working on their contributions. These will be available shortly and we will send another email announcement when they become available as well.
sIn the bottom left corner is the Search box for finding authors and topics of the abstracts.
providing some advantage to the farmer. Frequently, these are new fertilizer mixes presented as proprietary cocktails promoted and dispensed with promises of a multitude of profitable (yet improbable) benefits to the buyer. With the large number of new products available, and the number of salespeople promoting them, it is often difficult for growers to distinguish between products likely to provide real benefit, and those that may actually reduce the profitability of the farm.
In all situations when a company approaches the University or a commodity research board with a new product or technology for sale to California growers, these institutions act as grower advocates. They are charged with sorting through the available information; asking the right questions; getting the necessary research done if the available information warrants this pursuit; disseminating accurate information on these new technologies and products, and doing all that can help maximize grower profits now and in the future. When approached with a new product or technology it is obligatory to challenge claims with the following questions:
Is there some basic established and accepted scientific foundation on which the product claims are made?
Language that invokes some proprietary ingredients or mysterious formulations, particularly in fertilizers mixes registered in the State of California, raises red flags. A wide range of completely unrelated product benefit claims (such as water savings, pesticide savings, increased earlier yield) raises more red flags. Product claims that fall well outside of any accepted scientific convention generally mean the product is truly a miracle, or these claims are borderline false to entirely fraudulent.
Has the product undergone thorough scientific testing in orchards?
Frequently, products are promoted based on testimonials of other growers. While testimonials may be given in good faith, they are most often not backed up by any real scientific testing where a good control was used to compare orchard returns with and without the product.
A “test” where a whole block was treated with a product and which has no reliable untreated control does not meet accepted standards for conducting agricultural experiments. Also, a treated orchard cannot reliably be compared to a neighboring untreated orchard; and a treated orchard cannot be compared to the same orchard that was untreated the previous crop year. Even a test with half a block of treated trees and half untreated is not considered dependable by any known scientific standard of testing.
Only a well designed, statistically replicated, multi-year trial allows for direct comparison of untreated versus treated trees with statistical confidence. Verifiable data from tests that meet acceptable standards of scientific design, along with access to raw baseline (before treatment) yield data from the same trees (preferably for the two years prior) should be used to determine the validity of test results provided.
Are the test results from a reliable source?
If the testing were not done by a neutral party, such as university scientists, agency, or a reputable contract research company using standard scientific protocols, this raises red flags. If the persons overseeing the tests have a financial interest in seeing positive results from the product, it raises red flags.
Does the product have beneficial effects on several unrelated farm practices?
A product that increases production of trees, makes fruit bigger, reduces pests, reduces water use, and reduces fertilizer costs, is more than a little suspicious. In reality, if such a product really existed, it would not need any testing at all because its benefits would be so obviously realized by the grower community that it would spread rapidly by word of mouth and embraced by the entire grower community.
Are other standard and proven farm products put down in the new product sales delivery?
If a new product vendor claims that their product is taken up 15 times faster than the one growers are currently using, or is 30 times more efficient, it probably costs 15 to 30 times more per unit of active ingredient than the standard market price. Growers should always examine the chemical product label to see what active ingredient they are buying. There has to be a very good reason to pay more for an ingredient where previously there had been no problem supplying the same ingredient at a cheaper price to trees in the past.
There are impartial sources of such information available to farmers to help corroborate information provided by product vendors. Perhaps the most reliable and accessible impartial research and education resources for growers are their local Cooperative Extension Farm Advisors and commodity research boards.
When promising products emerge, local university Farm Advisors can advise growers on how to evaluate these products and may help design a small trial to test a particular product on a few trees under local orchard conditions. If in these pursuits a truly promising new product or technology emerges, research board funding may follow but only on the recommendation of that board's Research Committee.
A recent grower survey in Santa Barbara County asked a whole bunch of questions. One of which was had they had an evaluation of irrigation distribution uniformity. This is a free service that can significantly improve on-farm water use and most importantly improve plant health. Avocados that don't get the right amount of water at the right time are extremely susceptible to root rot. Proper irrigation is the first line of defense against root rot, good farming that results in good economic returns to the grower.
So, with a free DU available to growers, how many do you think took advantage of the service? Barely 50%!!!!!!!! This just does not make sense. In a land of little water and frequent examples of what can happen with no water ………………..and high priced water, what is going on?
The local Resource Conservation District has done many system evaluations, and most results find that improvements can be made in distribution uniformity. This is true in relatively new irrigation installations. It does not take long for problems to occur in even well designed and installed systems.
During the summer of 2007, the Casitas Municipal Water District (CMWD) contracted with the Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC) of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, to conduct field evaluations of drip/micro systems. A team of two students conducted 35 field evaluations.
Distribution Uniformity (DU) – DU is a measure of the uniformity of water application to trees throughout an orchard, with DU = 1.0 being perfect. The measured orchard DUs in the Santa Barbara/Ventura area had an average DU of 0.66, while the California state average for drip/micro is 0.85.
In general, there were substantial opportunities to improve the distribution uniformity (DU) of the water to trees throughout an orchard. An improved DU will minimize over-irrigation in some areas, and reduce under-irrigation in others. Key recommendations that were provided included:
Install a pressure regulator at the head of every hose
With a regular microsprinkler, doubling the pressure causes about 40 percent more water to come out of the nozzle. Pressure regulators are added to have similar pressures throughout the orchard and thus reduce the risk of over-irrigating portions of the field. On many farms, the difference between the highest pressures was double or even triple the lowest pressures (40-70% more water). By adding the correct high-quality, pre-set pressure regulators with the correct flow rate rating, the farmer can get similar pressures to every nozzle and prevent over-irrigation.
For a pressure regulator (PR) to work, more pressure must enter the PR than what the PR is rated for. For example, to use a 25 psi PR, you need at least 27 psi into the PR. All a PR does is reduce pressure; it cannot add pressure.
Another problem on hillsides is that some pipes have as much as 100 psi before the PR. A PR can effectively reduce the pressure down to 50%. What is recommended in these fields is to reduce the pressure in the pipe by adding an in-line valve halfway down the hill and throttling it down to a reasonable pressure.
Completely replace all microsprinkers with pressure compensating microsprinklers
Pressure compensating microsprinklers have an internal flexible diaphragm that reduces a pathway as the pressure increases. These allow similar amounts of water to get the trees even if the hoses do not have the same pressures. Whenever the pressure is doubled, 10 percent more water will come out of these emitters, compared to 40 percent more water with a regular microsprinkler. Having pressure compensating emitters can drastically improve the DU in virtually every avocado orchard because most irrigation systems were not properly designed for microsprinkler systems, or because the farmer has altered the original design by adding different-sized nozzles.
Reduce plugging problems
Major plugging problems are found in all orchards that did not have good filtration, even those that get district water. There were also some “within-system” causes of plugging. Almost all plugging is from simple dirt or rust, as opposed to bacteria or algae. Recommendations are as follows:
- Always have a filter at the head of the system. The required mesh size depends on the microsprinkler flow rate, but 120 mesh is a starting point.
- Remove hose screen washers that are found at the head of hoses, and replace them with regular washers (after installing a filter at the head of the system). The hose screen washers often plug up and cause the hoses to have unequal inlet pressures.
- Be sure to thoroughly flush hoses after any hose breaks.
- Double check the type of fertilizer that is being injected, especially any “organic fertilizers”. Some of these can plug emitters. In any case, inject the fertilizers upstream of the filters. If the filter plugs up, it is better to have discovered the problem early.
- Clean the filters frequently. Install pressure gauges upstream and downstream. When the pressure differential (as compared to a clean screen) increases by 3-5 psi, it's time to clean the screen.
In some orchards, there is a big plugging problem caused by insects crawling into emitters after the water is shut off. Many of the new microsprinkler designs utilize a self-closing mechanism to prevent insects from coming into the nozzle.
We have gotten a reprieve with the rains and refilled reservoirs, but it is ever more important to make sure our irrigation systems are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Call your local Resource Conservation District and get information about a system evaluation. Contact numbers can be found at: http://www.carcd.org/rcd_directory0.aspx
There are 4,000 species of earthworms grouped into five families and distributed all over the world. Some grow uo to 3 feet long, while others are only a few tenths of inches. We call them nightcrawlers, field worms, manure worms, red worms and some people call them little diggers.
In California, we have some native species of earthworms, but in many cases non-native introduced species have come to dominate. The predominant native species belong to the Argilophilus and Diplocardia while many of the non-native are of European in origin in the Lumbricidae family. Many of these non-natives were probably introduced by settlers bringing plants from home, which had soil containing the worms. A survey of California earthworms by the US Forest Service can be found at:
This is a wonderful description of earthworm biology and their occurrence in the landscape.
When digging in citrus orchards, it is common to find earthworms in the wetted mulch under tree canopies. Many of our citrus orchards were initially established by “balled and burlap” nursery trees that brought worms along with the soil. In the case of many avocado orchards, on the other hand, it can be rare to find earthworms in orchards. Most avocado orchards have been established since the 1970s when potting mixes and plastic liners were the standard practice and worms were not part of the planting media. Even though there is a thick leaf mulch in avocado orchards, the worms have not been introduced, and it is rare to find them.
Numerous investigators have pointed out the beneficial effects of earthworms on soil properties. One of the first of these observers was Charles Darwin who published Earthworms and Vegetable Mould in 1881. He remarked on the great quantity of soil the worms can move in a year. He estimated that the earthworms in some of his pastures could form a new layer of soil 7 inches thick in thirty years, or that they brought up about 20 tons of soil per acre, enough to form a layer 0.2-inch-deep each year.
Earthworms, where they flourish, are important agents in mixing the dead surface litter with the main body of the soil. They drag the leaves and other litter down into their burrows where soil microorganisms also begin digesting the material. Some earthworms can burrow as deeply as 5 to 6 feet, but most concentrate in the top 6 to 8 inches of soil.
The worm subsists on organic matter such as leaves and dead roots near the soil surface. The earthworm ingests soil particles along with the organic matter and grinds up the organic matter in a gizzard just as a chicken does. This is excreted in what we call worm casts. The castings differ chemically from the rest of the soil, as they are richer in nitrogen, potassium and other mineral constituents.
Castings are a natural by-product of worms. When added to normal soils in gardens or lawns, they provide the same kinds of benefits as other bulky organic fertilizers. Castings today are not commonly used as fertilizer by commercial plant growers because of their cost relative to other fertilizers. However, castings are used by some organic growers and are sold commercially as a soil amendment or planting medium for ornamental plants grown in pots.
The physical soil churning process also has several important effects:
-Organic residues are more rapidly degraded with the release of elements such as nitrogen, sulfur and other nutrients.
-Some of the inorganic soil minerals tend to be solubilized by the digestive process.
-Extensive burrowing improves soil aeration.
-Burrowing can improve water penetration into soils
-The earthworm carries surface nutrients from the soil surface and imports them into the root zone of the plant.
Although earthworms are considered beneficial to soil productivity, few valid studies have been made to determine whether their presence will significantly improve plant growth. This may seem odd since many of us have learned from childhood that worms are good. It is something like the chicken and the egg analogy. The conditions that are conducive to earthworms are also ideal for plants. Both plants and worms need temperatures between 60 and 100 degrees F for good growth; both need water, but not too much or little; they both require oxygen for respiration; and they do not like soils that are too acid or basic or too salty. By correcting soil conditions that are unfavorable for one will also improve the outlook for the other. The earthworm is a natural component of the soil population. If the soil is properly managed this natural population will thrive. In this sense, the presence or absence or earthworms can be an indicator of the "fertility" of one's soil.
This is a reminder of the complexity of huanglongbing and the bacterial infection it causes. This abstract is from the HLB Conference in Florida last fall.
4.a.5 Symptom variations and molecular markers that illustrate the HLB complexity
Yongping Duan, Marco Pitino, and Cheryl Armstrong
USHRL-ARS-USDA, Fort Pierce, FL 34945, USA
Huanglongbing (HLB) is a devastating bacterial disease of citrus worldwide due to its intracellular and systemic infection. Various HLB symptoms are observed on different species/varieties of citrus plants: from yellow shoots to blotchy mottle on the leaves, from vein yellowing/vein corky to mosaic/green islands similar to zinc deficiency on the leaves, from whitish discoloration to stunted green leaves, etc. These variations of symptoms, which result from a combination of biotic and abiotic stresses, are not only present on individual plants from a variety but also exist on individual branches of an infected plant. Our results indicated that the adaptation of the bacterial populations, such as the dynamics of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus' (Las), plays an important role in the induction of various symptoms and that Las mutations as well as the number and recombination events of Las prophages/phages affect this phenomenon. In addition, the selection of the host plants (resistance/tolerance) for the bacterial populations is also critical for symptom expression during disease progression. Based on severity, we divided HLB symptoms into four grades. It is worth noting that the grades of HLB symptom severity show a positive correlation with our newly identified biomarkers from host plants, and that gene expression profiling of different grades of infected leaves rationalized the differentiation based on the dynamics of these biomarkers. Because of these findings, we propose new approaches that allow for rapid selection of variant citrus plants, including bud sports with greater HLB resistance/tolerance.
Non-Technical Summary: Various symptoms of citrus huanglongbing display in different species/varieties of infected citrus plants. These variations of symptoms are not only present on individual plants from a variety, but also exist on individual branches of an infected plant. We have identified some molecular markers from the citrus plants and Las pathogen that illustrate the HLB complexity. Therefore, we propose new approaches that allow for rapid selection of variant citrus plants, including bud sports with greater HLB resistance/tolerance.