University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Cranberry Station Extension meetings Cranberry Station Outreach and Public Service Activities 2005 Research Update Meeting 2005 - Fruit Rot Research in 2004 Frank Caruso UMass Cranberry Station, fcaruso@umext.umass.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cranberry_extension Recommended Citation Caruso, Frank, "Research Update Meeting 2005 - Fruit Rot Research in 2004" (2005). Cranberry Station Extension meetings. 5. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cranberry_extension/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Cranberry Station Outreach and Public Service Activities at ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cranberry Station Extension meetings by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact scholarworks@library.umass.edu.
Fruit rot research in 2004 Frank L. Caruso UMass Cranberry Station
Projects discussed Fungal inoculum sources Fungicide timing study Fungicide resistance survey Stevens quality Compost tea trial
Fungal inoculum sources 2002-2003 Focused on 1st, 2nd, 3rd year leaves, stems; found Colletotrichum, Phyllosticta, Physalospora but not Coleophoma 2004 Focused on pedicels from 2003, remaining berries from 2003, duff layer
Field Rot
Healthy Ripe Rot
5 NEIPM 2004 - % Recovery Coleophoma from Rotted Berr Bars represent average of 5-8 replicates 4 Duff Berries 3 1 overwintered Control TRT3 TRT5 TRT7 TRT9 Early Black overwintered berries collected off the vine from untreated plots; Ben Lear duff berries collected from control (no spray) and treated (2-sprays) plots
NEIPM 2004 - % Fusicoccum in Pedicels Year 0 tissues Year 1 tissues Each graph represents the average % recovery (5 replicates) of Fusicoccum in pedicels collected from control (T1) and treated (T3 - T9) Ben Lear plots. 10 8 6 4 6/4 COLL 10 8 6/29 COLL 10 8 6/29 COLL 6 6 4 4 10 8 7/28 COLL 10 8 7/28 COLL 6 6 4 4 10 8 8/25 COLL 10 8 8/25 COLL 6 6 4 4 T1 T3 T5 T7 T9 T1 T3 T5 T7 T9
NEIPM 2004 Epicoccum in Pedicels Year 0 tissues Year 1 tissues Each graph represents the average % recovery (5 replicates) of Epicoccum in pedicels collected from control (T1) and treated (T3 - T9) Ben Lear plots. None recovered in 6/4 collection 10 None recovered in Yr.0 tissue, 6/29 collection 8 6 4 6/29 COLL 10 8 7/28 COLL 10 8 7/28 COLL 6 6 4 4 10 10 8 8/25 COLL 8 8/25 COLL 6 6 4 4 T1 T3 T5 T7 T9 T1 T3 T5 T7 T9
NEIPM 2004 Pestalotia in Pedicels Year 0 tissues Year 1 tissues Each graph represents the average % recovery (5 replicates) of Pestalotia in pedicels collected from control (T1) and treated (T3 - T9) Ben Lear plots. 10 8 6 4 6/4 COLL None recovered in Yr 0 tissue, 6/29 collection 10 8 6 4 6/29 COLL 10 8 7/28 COLL 10 8 7/28 COLL 6 6 4 4 10 8 8/25 COLL 10 8 8/25 COLL 6 6 4 4 T1 T3 T5 T7 T9 T1 T3 T5 T7 T9
NEIPM 2004 Gloeosporium in Pedicels Year 0 tissues Year 1 tissues Each graph represents the average % recovery (5 replicates) of Gloeosporium in pedicels collected from control (T1) and treated (T3 - T9) Ben Lear plots. 10 8 6 4 6/4 COLL 10 8 6/29 COLL 10 8 6/29 COLL 6 6 4 4 10 8 7/28 COLL 10 8 7/28 COLL 6 6 4 4 10 8 8/25 COLL 10 8 8/25 COLL 6 6 4 4 T1 T3 T5 T7 T9 T1 T3 T5 T7 T9
5 45% 4 35% 3 25% 15% 1 5% NEIPM 2004 - Ben Lear Field & Storage Rot Bars represent %total rot (avg. 8 replicates) and the relative proportions for field and storage rot Storage Rot Field Rot CON T10 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 Con- no spray; T10-3 sprays; T3 to T9-2 sprays Bravo
5 45% 4 35% 3 25% 15% 1 5% NEIPM 2004 - Early Black Field & Storage Rot Bars represent %total rot (avg. 8 replicates) and the relative proportions for field and storage rot Storage Rot Field Rot CON T10 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9
Fungicide combinations Early Black 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Field Storage Total 10 0 Bravo- 3X Abnd- 3X Unreg- 3X A-B-U-1A-B-U-2 Check
Fungicide combinations - Crowley 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Field Storage Total 10 0 Bravo- 3X Abnd- 3X Unreg- 3X A-B-U-1A-B-U-2 Check
Fungal genera to be screened for sensitivity to fungicides in vitro Allantophomopsis cytisporea Allantophomopsis lycopodina Coleophoma empetri Fusicoccum putrefaciens Phomopsis vaccinii Physalospora vaccinii
Stevens quality 10 beds selected which have had fruit rot or scald during the past 2-3 years Healthy/rotted berries sampled four times between 7/21 and 9/24 Berries halved, surface-sterilized, plated on acidified cornmeal agar Fungi identified at three weeks
Sample #1 healthy berries 25 20 15 10 Allant Coleo Fusic 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sample #1 healthy berries 70 60 50 40 30 20 Phom Physal Sterile 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sample #4 healthy berries 25 20 15 10 Allant Coleo Fusic 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sample #4 healthy berries 70 60 50 40 30 20 Phom Physal Sterile 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fungicide use and % good fruit 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 # apps % good
Compost tea trial Compost made from cranberry trash from harvest and receiving station trash plus additions windrows, turned regularly 1 part compost to 4 parts water steeped for 7 days with daily stirring Tea filtered several times Applied five times to blossoms, berries with backpack sprayer
Compost tea trial 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 Field rot Storage rot Total rot 20 10 0 Tea-1 Tea-2 Tea-3 Con-1 Con-2 Con-3
Sudden Oak Death Causal agent: Phytophthora ramorum At this point in time, cranberry is NOT susceptible to the fungus!
Thanks for the help! Jane Mika Nora Catlin Liz Wade Katie Finley Kathy Wilson