2015 research proposals & 2014 progress...

Northwest Agricultural Research

Foundation

& Affiliated Organizations

2015 Research Proposals

& 2014 Progress Reports

i

NORTHWEST AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION

PO BOX 194

MOUNT VERNON, WA 98273

PHONE: 360-424-7327 FAX: 360-424-9343

2015 BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Mr. John Roozen, NARF President

Washington Bulb Co., Inc.

16031 Beaver Marsh Rd

Mount Vernon, WA 98273

Phone: 360-424-5533 Cell: 360-708-1724

Fax: 360-424-3113

Email: [email protected]

Mr. Tom Thorton, NARF Vice President

Cloud Mountain Farm

6906 Goodwin Rd

Everson, WA 98247

Phone: 360-966-5859 Home: 360-966-3900


[email protected]

Mr. Brandon Roozen, NARF Secretary/Treasurer

Western Washington Agricultural Association

2017 Continental Pl, Suite 6


Phone: 360-424-7327 Cell: 360-391-2414

Fax: 360-424-9343


Ms. Anne Schwartz, NARF Recording Secretary

Blue Heron Farm & Nursery LLC Owner

12179 SR 530

Rockport, WA 98283

Phone/Fax: 360-853-8449


Mr. Scott Bedlington

Dick Bedlington Farms

8497 Guide Meridian

Lynden, WA 98264

Phone: 360-354-5264 Cell: 360-0815-1970

Fax: 360-354-7619


Mr. Ron Hawkins

Skagit Farmers Supply

12939 Avon Allen Rd

Burlington, WA 98233

Phone: 360-757-6041 Cell: 360-661-1806

Fax: 360-707-2089


Mr. Dave Hedlin

12275 Valley Rd


Phone: 360-466-3977 Cell: 360-770-6102

Fax: 360-466-5328


Mr. Larry Leander

Wilbur-Ellis

12275 Valley Rd


Phone: 360-336-5225 Cell: 360-202-7874


Mr. Alec McErlich

Earthbound Farms

3815 S Othello St, Suite 100-352

Seattle, WA 98118

Office: 206-725-7748 Cell: 831-970-4336

Fax: 877-871-3716


Mr. Alan Mesman

Mesman Farm

12609 Dodge Valley Rd


Phone: 360-466-3412 Cell: 360-770-3937


Mr. Stan Nelson

PO Box 636

Conway, WA 98238

Cell: 360-202-7310


Mr. Bryan Sakuma

Sakuma Bros. Farms

PO Box 427


Phone: 360-757-6611 Cell: 360-661-4159

Fax: 360-757-3936


Mr. Mike Youngquist

Mike & Jean’s Berry Farm

16402 Jungquist Rd


Phone: 360-424-5015 Cell: 360-770-4670

Fax: 360-424-7225


mailto:[email protected]










ii

NARF ACTIVITIES Annual Schedule

JANUARY

Bank Reconciliation and transactions each month of the year from statements received

One month before annual meeting - Arrangements made for annual meeting in February

One month before annual meeting - Prepare and mail annual meeting notices

January 15 - Close year-end books and prepare year-end reports for annual meeting and tax records – plan

to handoff books to Michele for financial statement due for February annual meeting

FEBRUARY

Follow up on annual meeting decisions

Prepare and mail Project Summary and Justification Forms, List of Research Projects Funding Proposal to

the Port

Meet with Michele to receive financial statements

1st Friday in February - Attend and take minutes of annual meeting

February after annual meeting - Prepare annual addendum letter to WSU from annual meeting decisions

February 14 - Notify researchers of project acceptance

MARCH

March – Prepare Annual meeting minutes

March 14– First-quarter Port billing

MAY

May 15 - NARF IRS Tax Return to be filed, signed by President JR

JUNE

Plan for mid-summer meeting (optional)

June 16 – Second-quarter Port billing

June 1 - Billing for small fruit, PSSGA, others

JULY

Field Day 2nd

Thursday of July, Crop Advisory Committees meet with WSU Researchers to recommend

research priorities (meeting rotates annually from Puyallup to Mount Vernon)

Mid-summer board meeting (optional)

AUGUST

Port presentations and proposals as needed (most important after an election year)

August 29 – Nonprofit corporation annual report to Secretary of State $10

SEPTEMBER

September 15 – Third-quarter Port billing

3rd

Friday in September – Call for research project proposals

OCTOBER

October 10 – Board and Committee database updated & reported to WSU Mount Vernon NWREC

October 10 - Send billing for processor matching funds

NOVEMBER

1st Monday of November – Proposals and final reports must be submitted to WSU-Mount Vernon

NWREC

Plan for Project Proposal and Funding Prioritization meeting in December and reserve meeting site

3rd

Friday of November – Research booklets to be distributed to mailing list

November 20 – Registration as Charitable Organization with Secretary of State $40

DECEMBER

1st Thursday in December - Project Proposal and Funding Prioritization Board meeting

December 10 – Receive fourth-quarter progress reports from researchers

December 15 – Fourth-quarter Port billing to be mailed with Scientists final reports

iii

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATIVE CONTACTS

WSU CAHNRS

Dr. Ron Mittlehammer, Interim Dean

College of Agriculture, Human & Natural Resource. Sciences PO Box 646242

Pullman, WA 99164-6242

Phone: 509-335-4561 Fax: 509-335-1065


Ms Lisa Janowski, Assistant to the Dean

College of Agriculture, Human & Natural Resource Sciences PO Box 646242


Phone: 509-335-3590 Email: [email protected]

Dr. James Moyer, Associate Dean & Director College of Agriculture, Human & Natural Resource Sciences

PO Box 646248

Pullman, WA 99164-6248 Phone: 509-335-2885

Fax: 509-335-6751


Dr. Kim Kidwell, Associate Dean

CAHNRS Academic Programs College of Agriculture, Human & Natural Resource. Sciences

PO Box 646243

Pullman, WA 99164-6243 Phone: 509-335-4562


Jackie Bolden, Finance/Budget Manager

Grants and Contracts

College of Agricuture, Human & Natural Resource. Sciences Hulbert Hall, Room 401 M.

PO Box 646241

Pullman, WA 99164-6241 Phone: 509-335-5047

Fax: 509-335-6751


WSU EXTENSION-PULLMAN

Dr. Rich Koenig, Dean and Director

WSU Extension

PO Box 646248 Pullman, WA 66164-6248

Phone: (509) 335-9223


Randy Baldree, Director

WSU Extension PO Box 646248

Ms. Kathy Stilwell, Assistant. to the Dean/Director

WSU Extension PO Box 646248


Phone: 509-335-2933 Fax: 509-335-2926


WSU NWREC Dr. Stephen Jones, Director

WSU Mount Vernon

16650 State Route 536 Mount Vernon, WA 98273

Phone: 360-416-5210

Fax: 360-848-6159 Email: [email protected]

Ms. Jeanne Burritt, Administrative Manager WSU Mount Vernon

16650 State Route 536

Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Phone: 360-848-6123


WSU PUYALLUP

Dr. John Stark, Director WSU Puyallup Research & Extension Center

7612 Pioneer Way E

Puyallup, WA 98371-4998

Phone: 253-445-4568


WSU WENATCHEE

Dr. Jay F. Brunner, Director WSU Tree Fruit Research & Extension Center

1100 N Western Ave

Wenatchee, WA 98801 Phone: 509-663-8181


WSU PROSSER

Dr. Gary Grove WSU Integrated Agriculture Research & Extension Center

24106 N. Bunn Rd

Prosser, WA 99350-8694 Phone: 360-786-2226

Fax: 509-786-9370



Phone: 509-335-8744 Fax: 509-335-2926












iv

NORTHWEST AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION

PROJECT REPORT & RESEARCH PROPOSAL MAILING LIST

Board of Directors (13)

Pea Industry Advisory Committee (PIAC) (12)

Cucumber Industry Advisory Committee (CIAC) (7)

Puget Sound Seed Growers Association (PSSGA) (8)

Small Fruit Advisory Committee (9)

Tree Fruit, Alternate Crops, and Wine Industries Advisory Committee (8)

Bulb Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) (5)

Organic Advisory Committee (11)

WSU Administrative Contacts (13)

Other Ag. Industry Contacts (34)

Steven Omdal, Commissioner

Port of Skagit County

15400 Airport Dr


Phone: 360-757-0011 Fax: 360-757-0014


Mr. David Bauermeister, Executive Director

Northwest Agriculture Business Center

PO Box 2924

Mount Vernon, WA 98273-2924

Phone: 360- 336-3727 Fax: 360- 336-3751


Mr. Drew Betz, Director

WSU Whatcom County Extension

1000 N Forest St, Suite 201

Bellingham, WA 98225

Phone: 360- 676-6736

Fax: 360-738-2458


Mr. David Christianson

D&D Seed Co., Inc.

18754 Pederson Rd


Phone: 360-424-9181 Cell: 360-661-5722

Fax: 360-424-9181


Dr. Craig Cogger, Associate Soil Scientist

2606 W Pioneer


Phone: 253-445-4512


Commissioner Kenneth A. Dahlstedt

County Administration Building



Phone: 360-336-9300 Fax: 360-336-9307


Commissioner Sharon Dillon




Phone: 360-336-9300 Fax: 360-336-9307


Dr. Chad Kruger, Director

Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources

1100 N Western Ave

Wenatchee, WA 98801

Phone: 509-663-8181 x242


Dr. Dean A. Glawe, Plant Pathologist

UW College of Forest Resources

PO Box 352100

Seattle, WA 98195

Phone: 206-616-9554


Mr. Blake Lulloff

Vikima USA, INC

11488 Higgins Airport Way


Phone: 360-757-2154


Dr. B.W. (Joe) Poovaiah, Interim Department Chair

WSU Department of Horticulture

Johnson 155W

PO Box 646414


Phone: 509-335-2487


Mr. William Shuler, Commissioner


15400 Airport Dr


Phone: 360-757-001 Fax: 360-757-0014












v

Mr. Timothy Lawrence, Ph.D, Director

WSU Island County Extension

PO Box 5000

Coupeville, WA 98239-5000

Phone: 360-679-7327 Fax: 360-240-5503


Mr. Milo Lyons

Sakata Seed Co.

11857 Bay Ridge Dr


Phone: 360-419-3021


Ms. Patsy Botsford-Martin, Executive Director


15400 Airport Dr


Phone: 360- 757-0011 Fax: 360-757-0014


Mr. Don McMoran, Director

WSU Skagit County Extension

Agriculture and Natural Resources Extension Educator

11768 Westar Ln, Suite A


Phone: 360-428-4270 x225 Fax: 360-428-4263


Dr. Patrick P. Moore, Scientist

Department of Horticulture & Landscape Architecture

WSU Puyallup Research & Extension Center

7612 Pioneer Way E

Puyallup, WA 98371

Phone: 253-445-4525


Curt Moulton, Director

WSU Snohomish County Extension

600 128th St SE

Everett, WA 98208

Phone: 425-357-6015


Dr. Scot Hulbert, Interim Chair

Department of Plant Pathology

Washington State University

Johnson 307


Phone: 509-335-3722


Dr. Rich Koenig, Associate Dean & Director

PO Box 646428


Phone: 509-335-3471


Dr. Kim Patten, Associate Professor

Department of Horticulture & Landscape Architecture

WSU Long Beach Research & Extension Unit

2907 Pioneer Rd

Long Beach, WA 98631

Phone: 360-642-2031


Mr. Don Wick, Executive Director

EDASC

PO Box 40


Phone: 360-336-6114

Fax: 360-336-6116


Dr. Walter S. Sheppard, Chair

Department of Entomology


P.O. Box 646382


Phone: 509-335-0481


Mr. Gary Picha

Syngenta Seeds

PO Box 486

La Conner, WA 98257

Phone: 360-757-4184 Cell: 360-202-3289

Fax: 360-757-7261


Mr. Allen Rozema, Executive Director

Skagitonians to Preserve Farmland

114A Snoqualmie St

PO Box 2405


Phone: 360-336-3937

Fax: 360-336-9269


Dr.Tom Schultz, Director

WSU San Juan County Extension

221 Weber Way, Suite LL

Friday Harbor, WA 98250

Phone: 360- 378-4414

Fax: 360- 378-2187


Dr. Gary Grove

Director, WSU Prosser Irrigated Ag. Research & Ext. Center

24106 N. Bunn Rd.

Prosser, WA 99350-8694

Phone: 509-786-2226

















vi

Dr. Claudio O. Stockle, Chair

Department of Biological Systems Engineering


PO Box 646120


Phone: 509-335-1578


Dr. Lynell K. Tanigoshi, Professor/Entomologist

WSU Mount Vernon



Phone: 360- 848-6152

Fax: 360-848-6159


Commissioner Ron Wesen




Phone: 360-336-9300

Fax: 360-336-9307


Dr. Kevin Ware, Commissioner


15400 Airport Dr


Phone: 360-757-0001

Fax: 360-757-9307

Dr. Qin Zhang, Director

Center for Precision Agriculture Systems

WSU Prosser Irrigated Ag Research & Ext Center

24106 N Bunn Rd

Prosser, WA 99350-8694

Phone: 509-786-9360






vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Washington State University Administrative Contacts iii

NARF Mailing List iv

Peas

Pea Industry Advisory Committee 02

Cucumbers

Cucumber Industry Advisory Committee 04

Vegetable Seeds Puget Sound Seed Growers Association 06

Management of Fusarium and Verticillium Wilts in Spinach ……………………………………….. Progress Report 08

Determining the prevalence and significance of seedborne Executive Summary 11

Pseudomonas syringae pv. aptata in table beet and Swiss chard seed Research Proposal 13

production in Washington State

Weed Control in Vegetable Seed Crops……………………………………………………………… Progress Report 17

Executive Summary 38

Research Proposal 39

Management of Subterranean Springtails in Western Washington Spinach Seed Crops: Progress Report 42

2014 Fir Island Field Trial

Managing leafminers and spider mites in western Washington table beet Executive Summary 47

and spinach seed crops Research Proposal 49

Small Fruit

Small Fruit Advisory Committee 53

Use of a mycoinsecticide targeting novel SWD preimaginal life stages and potential Progress Report 55

synergism with Entrust

Relating Honey Bee Activity to Yield in Washington Highbush Blueberry ………………………… Executive Summary 58


Impacts of Alleyway Cover Crops on Soil Quality and Plant………………………………………….Executive Summary 64


Alternative & Emerging Crops

Alternative & Emerging Crops Advisory Committee 71

Evaluating Anthracnose Control in a Cider Orchard ………………………………………………… Progress Report 73

Testing Anthracnose Control in a Cider Apple Orchard …………………………………………….. Executive Summary 75


Production of Dry Beans as an Alternate Rotation Crop ……………………………………………. Progress Report 79

Dry Beans for imporved health of farming systs and you in NW Washington Executive Summary 84


Bulbs Bulbs Industry Advisory Committee 89

Management of diseases on ornamental bulbs and cut flowers ……………………………………… Progress Report 91



Herbicide Combinations for Weed Control in Ornamental Bulbs …………………………………… Progress Report 104



Organic Crops

Organic Crops Advisory Committee 114

Evaluating Grafted Watermelon & Eggplant for Tolerance to Verticillium Wilt …………………… Progress Report 116



1

Peas

2

PEA INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PIAC)

NARF ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. Brandon Roozen, PIAC Chairman




Phone: 360-424-7327 Cell: 360-391-2546

Fax: 360-424-9343


Mr. Rudy Allen

AgTech Services, LLC

1219 Eaglemont Pl


Phone: 360-848-1595 Cell: 360-708-3590

Fax: 360-848-6265


Mr. Marty Coble

Wilbur Ellis

13586 Bayview Edison Rd


Phone: 360-466-3138 Cell: 360-661-5078

Fax: 360-466-5022


Dr. Lindsey J. DuToit, Vegetable Pathology Professor

WSU Mount Vernon



Phone: 360-848-6140 Cell: 360-391-2407

Fax: 360-848-6159


Mr. Ron Hawkins

Skagit Farmers Supply

12939 Avon Allen Rd


Phone: 360-757-6041 Cell: 360-661-1806

Fax: 360-707-2089


Mr. Tom Hulbert

Hulbert Farms/Skagit Seed Services

17297 Hulbert Rd


Phone: 360-466-3191 Cell: 360-661-6893

Fax: 360-466-3544


Dr. Debra Ann Inglis, Plant Pathology Professor

WSU Mount Vernon


Mt. Vernon, WA 98273

Phone: 360-848-6134

Fax: 360-848-6159


Mr. Mark Knutzen

Mark Knutzen Farms Inc.

11261 Pulver Rd


Phone: 360-757-0734 Cell: 360-428-7555


Mr. Larry Leander

1300 S 11th St


Phone: 360-336-5225 Cell: 360-202-7874

Dr. Timothy W. Miller, Weed Scientist

WSU Mount Vernon



Phone: 360-848-6138

Fax: 360-848-6159


Mr. John Roozen

Washington Bulb Co., Inc.

16031 Beaver Marsh Rd


Phone: 360-424-5533 Cell: 360-708-1724

Fax: 360-424-3113


Mr. Rick Williams

Williams Farms LLC

6510 Pioneer Way

Stanwood, WA 98292

Phone: 360-629-3580 Cell: 360-770-6993


Funding source: $0.005/lb grower and matching $0.005/lb. processor=approximately $2.00, voluntary assessments;

Calculated on pea seed used per contracted acre




3

Cucumbers

4

CUCUMBER INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CIAC)


Mr. David Hedlin , CIAC Chairman

Hedlin Farms

12275 Valley Rd


Phone: 360-466-3977 Cell: 360-770-6102

Fax: 360-466-5328


Mr. Brandon Roozen, CIAC Secretary

Western Washington Agricultural

Association2017 Continental Place, Suite 6


Phone: 360-424-7327 Cell: 360-391-2414

Fax: 360-424-9343


Mr. Kenneth Dahlstedt

17126 Brook Ct


Phone: 360-428-1711 Cell: 360-770-4246

Fax: 360-424-0388


Mr. Duke Feigner

16819 NE 39th

St

Vancouver, WA 98682

Phone: 360-892-2461 Cell: 503-789-2011


Mr. Curtis Johnson

15510 Snee oosh Rd

La Conner, WA 98257

Phone: 360-466-3462 Cell: 360-421-2034


Mr. Greg Lee

Lee Farms

18116 Skagit City Rd


Phone: 360-445-3806 Cell: 360-661-4241

Fax: 360-445-2083


Mr. Mike Youngquist


16402 Jungquist Rd


Phone: 360-424-5015 Cell: 360-770-4670

Fax: 360-424-7225

E-mail: mjberry@fidalgo net

Funding Source: $0.60/ton by grower and matching ($0.60/ton by processor), voluntary assessment;

Calculated on contracted tons per acre of cucumbers


5

Vegetable Seeds

6

PUGET SOUND SEED GROWERS ASSOCIATION (PSSGA)


Mr. Kirby Johnson, PSSGA President

16080 Snee oosh Rd

La Conner, WA 98257

Phone: 360-466-3181 Cell: 360-941-1224

Fax: 360-466-1702


Mr. Darrin Morrison, PSSGA Vice President

Morrison Farms

19208 Morrison Rd


Phone: 360-428-6964 Cell: 360-661-1566


Mr. Mike Breum


Stanwood, WA 98292

Phone: 360-629-3973 Cell: 360-202-9338

Dr. Lindsey J. du Toit, Professor

Vegetable Pathology Program

WSU Mount Vernon



Phone: 360-848-6140 Cell: 360-391-2407

Fax: 360-848-6159


Mr. Todd Johnson

32110 Pioneer Hwy

Stanwood, WA 98292

Cell: 360-391-3146

Mr. Stephen Johnson, PSSGA Secretary

16914 Best Rd


Phone: 360-466-1714 Cell: 360-202-6845


Mr. Greg Lee

18116 Skagit City Rd


Phone: 360-445-3806 Cell: 360-661-4241

Fax: 360-445-2083


Mr. Dave Lohman

Lohman Farms

15283 Sunset Rd

Bow, WA 98232

Phone: 360-766-7103 Cell: 360-708-3468


Mr. Joe Christianson, PSSGA Treasurer

22010 Marine Dr

Stanwood, WA 98292

Cell: 360-303-3916


Dr. Carol Miles, Associate Professor

Vegetable Horticulture Program

WSU Mount Vernon



Phone: 360-848-6150

Fax: 360-848-6159


Funding source: Voluntary contribution by growers;

Calculation based on ½% of the gross deducted by seed companies and sent in







7

PROJECT OUTLINE

VEGETABLE SEEDS PAGE

ONGOING PROJECTS

du Toit, Lindsey

Management of Fusarium and Verticillium wilts in spinach seed production Progress Report 08

Determining the prevalence and significance of seedborne Executive Summary 11

Pseudomonas syringae pv. aptata in table beet and Swiss chard seed Research Proposal 13

production in Washington State

Miller, Tim; Libbey Carl

Weed control in vegetable seed crops Progress Report 17



Tanigoshi, Lynell; Gerdeman, Beverly; Spitler, G. Hollis

Management of Subterranean Springtails in Western Washington Progress Report 42

Spinach Seed Crops: 2014 Fir Island Field Trial

Managing leafminers and spider mites in western Washington table beet Executive Summary 47

and spinach seed crops Research Proposal 49

SUMMARY

BUDGET REQUESTS

VEGETABLE SEEDS

Vegetable Seeds assessment $ available: $______________

Ongoing Projects

Scientist(s)

Project Number

Project Name Request Funded

1st Funding

Source

2nd Funding

Source Priority

du Toit Determining the prevalence

and significance of

seedborne Pseudomonas

syringae pv. aptata in table

beet and Swiss chard seed

production in Washington

State

$28,766

Miller

Libbey

13K-3419-7228

Weed Control in Vegetable

Seed Crops

$7,965

Tanigoshi

Gerdeman

Spitler

Managing leafminers and

spider mites in western

Washington table beet and

spinach seed crops

$11,059

Total $47,790

8

PROGRESS REPORT

Project Number: 13K-3461-6598

Title: Management of Fusarium and Verticillium wilts in spinach seed production

Personnel: Lindsey J. du Toit

Reporting Period: 2014 (last year of a 2-year project)

Accomplishments: A trial was set up in a grower-cooperator’s field on Dike Rd, Skagit Co., WA in April 2014,

courtesy of Stan Boon (landowner), Brad Smith (potato and seed grower with Smith & Morrison Farms), and Steve

Strand, Sakata America. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and economic returns of Topsin (thiophanate-

methyl) seed treatment alone, Topsin seed treatment + Proline (prothioconazole) banded applications over the

spinach rows, and Topsin seed treatment + Proline broadcast applications + compost soil amendment for

management of Fusarium and Verticillium wilts in spinach seed crops in northwestern Washington. Each of these

treatments has been demonstrated in previous research by du Toit’s program to contribute to management of

Fusarium wilt, so the objective of this trial was to determine the potential cumulative management of Fusarium and

Verticillium wilts a grower might achieve from implementing these tools in spinach seed production. The trial

consisted of a 3 x 4 factorial treatment combination arranged in a randomized complete block design with 5

replications/treatment combination (60 plots): Factor A: Female spinach parent lines: a) highly susceptible to

Fusarium wilt, b) moderately susceptible to Fusarium wilt, and c) moderately resistant to Fusarium wilt; Factor B:

Four treatments for suppression of wilt including a) control treatment, b) Topsin M 70WP seed treatment, c) Topsin

M 70WP seed treatment + 3 applications of Proline (banded over the row at planting, and again 3 and 6 weeks after

planting), and d) Topsin M 70WP seed treatment + 3 applications of Proline (banded over the row at planting and

again 3 and 6 weeks after planting) + Grade A biosolids compost from the City of La Conner incorporated at the

same time as a spring 2014 limestone amendment. As a result of difficulties accessing seed of the proprietary

susceptible and partially resistant female spinach lines that have been used in spinach wilt trials in du Toit’s

program since 2006, seed was provided by a seed company of two new inbred lines that are highly susceptible and

partially resistant to Fusarium wilt. The moderate female line in the trial was the same line used by du Toit’s

program since 2007, as there were no problems accessing seed of that line.

The field had been planted to a spinach seed crop in 2007 so the trial represented a 7-year rotation between spinach

seed crops (~½ the recommended duration to avoid severe losses to Fusarium wilt). The field had a potato crop in

2013, for which the grower applied agricultural limestone in spring 2013. Soil was sampled from the field in March

2014 to test pH and spinach Fusarium wilt pressure caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. spinaciae. For the latter,

the susceptible and partially resistant female spinach inbred lines to be planted in the field trial were planted in a

sample of the soil in pots in a greenhouse at 25-28oC. Almost all the susceptible inbred plants developed Fusarium

wilt within 6 weeks of planting, demonstrating a significant inoculum level of Fusarium wilt. Soil pH in March

2014 was 6.6. Grade A biosolids compost donated by the Town of La Conner was applied to appropriate plots at

~100 cubic yards/acre (~45 tons/acre) on 1 May using a manure spreader, and incorporated ~6” deep by rototilling.

The entire trial site was rototilled. The trial site was then amended with ~2 tons agricultural limestone/acre on 2

May, applied by Roger Dralle and incorporated by rototilling. Significant rains (>3”) delayed planting for 2 weeks.

On 15 May, the herbicide RoNeet was broadcast (3 pt/acre) by Wilbur-Ellis Corp., and mulched by Brad Smith.

Spinach seed of three female lines as well the male line planted in the nearest commercial spinach seed crop were

planted ~0.5” deep into the appropriate plots on 16 May by Dan Clark and Eric Schuh of Sakata America, using a

6-row Monosem planter with a 26” row spacing and 3.5” spacing within rows. Each plot (parent line x soil

treatment combination) included 30’ of six rows of the appropriate parent line. All seed was treated with Apron +

Thiram in addition to the appropriate seed/soil treatments listed above. The male seed was also treated with Topsin

M 70WP. Fertilizer was applied in-furrow at planting at ~375 lb/acre (250 lb of 11-52-0/acre + 50 lb K-Mag/acre +

50 lb urea/acre + 10 lb of 8% Mg/acre), and CIPC herbicide was banded over the rows (6 oz/acre) behind the press-

wheels in a 5” wide band/row (only the female lines were treated because of limited product available). The first

Proline 480 SC application of 5.7 fl oz/acre (+ 2 fl oz R-11 non-ionic surfactant/100 gal water) was done on 16

May to appropriate plots using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer with a 26”-wide, 2-nozzle boom (TeeJet 6503

9

flat fan nozzles, each fitted with a 50 mesh screen) at 30 psi in 96.5 gpa, in an 8”-wide band over each row. The

second Proline + R-11 surfactant application was on 5 June, as described for the first application. The third

application was on 26 June, but in a 12”-wide band/row at 64.4 gpa and 30 psi with a single-nozzle boom.

The field trial was maintained in cooperation with the grower-cooperator and field production manager using

typical production practices for spinach seed crops. Alleys between plots were rototilled as needed, plots were

cultivated on 18 June, Asulox herbicide was applied on 18 June (3 pt/acre + In-Place at 12 fl oz/acre + R-11

sufactant) by Wilbur-Ellis Corp., and plots were hand-weeded within rows as needed. The plots were side-dressed

by Brad Smith on 23 June with 27-0-0 (275 lb/acre) + K-Mag (50 lb/acre). A chelated Zn and Mn solution (48 fl

oz/acre of 9% chelated Zn + 38 fl oz/acre of 5% chelated manganese) was sprayed over the entire trial in a tank mix

with the fungicide Quadris (10 fl oz/acre) on 9 July by Wilbur Ellis Corp.

Soil moisture probes (Decagon Devices 10HS) were installed on 29 May at a 6” depth, one in plot 503 with the

moderate female line and Topsin + Proline treatments, and one in plot 512 with the moderate female and Topsin +

Proline + compost treatments. The cables were protected in 0.5” diameter PVC pipes on the soil surface. The

datalogger was placed in a Pelican weatherproof case on a cinder-block and covered with an inverted 5-gal bucket

with a cinder block placed on top of the bucket. The probes were used to determine if the compost treatment

affected soil moisture over the season (drainage and retention). Soil cores (8 cores/plot, sampled 6” deep with a 1”

diameter soil probe) were collected on 5 June from each of the 5 main plots treated with Topsin + Proline +

compost as well as each of the 5 main plots treated with Topsin + Proline, and the cores pooled/main plot. A

subsample of soil from each plot was sent to Soiltest Farm Consultants for nutrient analyses, along with a sample of

the compost. The rest of the soil was dried in a greenhouse, crushed, sieved, and stored at 4oC. A 1 g subsample of

the dried soil from each main plot was plated onto NP-10 agar medium on 24 June to quantify Verticillium dahliae

in each plot. Colonies of V. dahliae were counted after 28 days of incubating the plates at 26oC in the dark. In

addition, a 10 g subsample of soil/main plot was plated onto Komada’s selective agar medium on 26 June by

dilution plating soil suspended in sloppy agar (0.1% water agar) to quantify F. oxsyporum. Colonies of F.

oxysporum were counted after 7 and 14 days of incubation at 24oC next to a north-facing window for a natural

day/night cycle. Water infiltration was measured for 9 sites/main plot (3 sites/spinach female line) and soil bulk

density was measured for 4 cores/main plot on 10 June for the same 10 main plots from which soil was sampled on

5 June, to assess whether the compost affected these indicators of soil quality.

Spinach stand was counted from 10’ of each of the center two rows/plot on 6 June, 3 weeks after planting.

Isolations onto agar media were completed for ≤5 seedlings/parent line with symptoms of damping-off or wilting to

determine causal agent(s) of the seedlings symptoms. Spinach stands were very poor in some plots (e.g., almost no

plants in plot 104), which appeared to be a result of planting error. The area of each plot from which data were

collected was modified as best possible to account for this. The incidence and severity of plants with wilt symptoms

were rated in each of the 60 plots on 30 June, 6 weeks after planting, from 10’ of each of two rows/plot. Wilt

severity was rated on a 0-to-5 scale (0 = healthy plant, 5 = plant dead from wilting). The partially resistant ‘female’

line in this trial produced ~50% male plants. Since the nearest commercial spinach seed crop was outside the

minimum pollen isolation distance, seed companies did not require destruction of the male plants of this inbred.

Subsequent data were collected only from female plants of this inbred (affectionately referred to as the ‘she-male’).

Wilt incidence and severity were rated again on 18 July as described for the 30 June ratings. At both dates, wilt

ratings were done in the afternoon because morning cloud cover delayed the onset of wilting. On 28 July, 10 plants

were sampled/plot to measure dry biomass. The plants were dug carefully, soil shaken off the roots, and the root

system cut from the stem ~1” above the soil line. The tap root of each plant then was cut vertically to rate the

presence or absence of vascular discoloration. The roots and tops of sampled plants were dried at ~100oF for 2

weeks, dry biomass measured, and the dried tops sent to Soiltest Farm Consultants for plant nutrient analyses.

On 31 July, 140 spinach plants were cut manually at the soil line from each plot of the susceptible female inbred,

which matured the earliest of the three female lines. Seed was stripped by hand directly off the plants into brown

paper bags, and dried in a greenhouse. On 1 August, ≤140 female plants of the resistant ‘she-male’ line were

swathed onto Remay, dried in the field until 7 August, and the seed then hand-stripped off the plants into paper

bags. Since ~50% of the plants of this inbred were male, the number of female plants from which seed was

harvested ranged from 120 to 140/plot. Seed yield calculations for those plots was adjusted based on the number of

10

plants from which seed was harvested. Plants of the moderate female line were swathed onto Remay in the field on

18 August (133 to 140 plants/plot), and the seed hand-stripped off the plants into paper bags when the plants in

each plot had dried adequately. Seed harvested from each plot was dried further at ~85oF for 2 weeks. Seed from

each plot was then cleaned and sized in September-October. For each plot, the seed was first hand-sieved to break

clusters, run through a floor-model Clipper for initial sizing and removal of chaff, draped to remove soil particles

and small chaff, and then subjected to a final cleaning and sizing using a table-top Clipper. Marketable seed (size 7-

13) and non-marketable seed (size <7) were weighed to calculate seed yield/plot. In October-November 2014, 100

marketable seed/plot were subjected to the spinach blotter germination assay of the Association of Official Seed

Analysts at 15oC in the dark, with a 3-day pre-chill period to break dormancy, and germination assessed after 7, 14,

and 21 days. In November 2014-January 2015, 100 marketable seeds/plot will be subjected to a seed health assay

on NP-10 agar medium. The seeds will be incubated on the medium in clear acrylic boxes at 24oC with a 12 h/12 h

day/night cycle, and examined microscopically 5, 9, and 14 days after plating to measure the incidence of seed

infected with various necrotrophic fungi, particularly Fusarium and Verticillium.

On 18 August, after windrowing the last of the female lines, soil samples were collected within the rows of each of

the 60 plots to a 6”-depth using 1”-diameter soil probe. Soil was pooled from 8 cores/plot, mixed thoroughly, and a

50 g subsample dried in the greenhouse to assay in fall 2014 for F. oxysporum and V. dahliae, as described for the

soil samples collected 3 weeks after planting. The remaining soil from each plot was sent to Soiltest Farm

Consultants for nutrient analyses. Assays for F. oxysporum and V. dahliae from the post-harvest soil samples were

carried out in September-October.

Results: The final assays for this large field trial are in progress, with the seed germination assay initiated the week

of 27 October, and the seed health assay to be initiated in November. The latter usually takes 2-3 months to

complete because of the detailed microscopic examination needed that limits the number of plots that can be

assayed at a time (2 weeks to assay seed from each of the 5 replications of 12 plots). Results from this trial will be

presented at the Puget Sound Seed Growers’ Association Annual Meeting on 30 January 2015, and will be

published in Plant Disease Management Reports.

Publications and Presentations (from this and related spinach research preceding the 2014 trial):

Publications

du Toit, L.J., Derie, M.L., Holmes, B.J., and Youngquist, C.P. 2014. Effect of Proline and a biosolids compost on

Fusarium and Verticillium wilts in a spinach seed crop, 2013. Plant Disease Management Reports 8:V280.

Gatch, E.W., and du Toit, L.J. 2015. A soil bioassay for predicting the risk of spinach Fusarium wilt. Plant Disease 99:

submitted Aug. 2014. Accepted Oct. 2014. PDIS-08-14-0804-RE.R1.

Gatch, E.W., and du Toit, L.J. 201_. Limestone-mediated suppression of Fusarium wilt in spinach seed crops. Plant

Disease 99: manuscript in preparation.

Gatch, E.W., and du Toit, L.J. 201_. Micronutrient-mediated virulence of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. spinaciae. Plant

Disease 99: manuscript in preparation.

Presentations

du Toit, L.J. Management of Fusarium and Verticillium wilts in spinach seed production: Research update. Puget

Sound Seed Growers’ Association Annual Meeting, 20 Feb. 2014, Mount Vernon, WA. (~50 people)

WSU Mount Vernon NWREC Field Day. Presented updates on spinach and table beet seed crop disease research

trials to ~100 growers, consultants, extension educators, researchers, WSDA and seed industry personnel. 11 Jul.

2014, Mount Vernon, WA.

WSU Vegetable Seed Field Day. Presented updates on brassica, beet, and spinach seed crop disease research and

extension activities to ~40 vegetable seed growers, seed company production personnel, and research and

extension faculty. 3-hour tour of field trials, 20 Jun. 2014, Skagit Valley, WA.

11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHEET

Project Title: Determining the prevalence and significance of seedborne Pseudomonas syringae pv. aptata in

table beet and Swiss chard seed production in Washington State

Investigator: Lindsey J. du Toit

Project Number: NEW

Project Duration: 2 years (2015-2016)

Calendar Year: 2015

Proposed Budget: $28,766

Other Support: Approximately $25,000 in matching funding will be requested from the WSCPR + in-kind

support from seed companies and growers.

Identification of Problem or Need: Western Washington and the Willamette Valley of western Oregon are the

only regions of the USA suitable for production of table beet and Swiss chard seed crops. However, the Willamette

Valley is a primary region for sugar beet seed crops, which can cross-pollinate with table beet and Swiss chard. As

a result, >80% of the USA table beet and Swiss chard seed production occurs in ~6 counties in western

Washington. Pseudomonas syringae pv. aptata causes bacterial leaf spot of table beet, sugar beet, and Swiss chard.

The pathogen is readily seedborne and seed transmitted under favorable conditions (wet and moderate to warm).

Symptoms of bacterial leaf spot are seldom observed in these seed crops in western Washington, and yet each year

some beet and chard seed lots produced in this region test positive for P. syringae pv. aptata. This necessitates

treating infected lots to eradicate the pathogen, even though seed treatments potentially affect seed lot shelf-life and

quality (germination). The scarcity of symptoms in seed crops suggests the pathogen can colonize crops and the

developing seed asymptomatically, complicating efforts to manage the pathogen in seed crops. Surprisingly, P.

syringae pv. aptata has never been documented in a scientific journal to be present in Washington, making it

extremely difficult for public and private researchers in this state to obtain a Plant Protection Quarantine (PPQ)

permit from the USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to obtain diverse isolates of the pathogen

for research and breeding purposes. Also, there has been no research on thresholds for seedborne inoculum in table

beet and chard production.

Benefits: Documenting in a scientific journal the presence of P. syringae pv. aptata in Washington will facilitate

approval of APHIS PPQ permits for public and private researchers in Washington to receive diverse isolates of the

pathogen. This is needed to advance our understanding of the biology and epidemiology of the pathogen, and to

develop improved management practices for bacterial leaf spot, e.g., by screening cultivars for resistance to diverse

isolates, evaluating seed and foliar treatments, and testing cultural practices for managing the disease. Seedborne

threshold trials will clarify potential thresholds above which seedborne inoculum in baby leaf beet and chard crops

results in development of bacterial leaf spot and, therefore, losses to growers and potential losses in seed markets.

Economic Justification: Table beet and Swiss chard seed crops in western WA and OR produce ≤ 90% of the

USA and ≤50% of the world beet and chard seed on ~1,000-1,500 acres annually (du Toit, 2007). Seed sold to

commercial growers is worth >$5.5 million. Detection of P. syringae pv. aptata on beet and chard seed lots grown

in WA has affected seed trade and necessitated treating infected lots at a cost to seed companies and seed growers.

Evaluation and Accountability: Results will be presented at the 2016 PSSGA annual meeting, 2015 WSU Mount

Vernon NWREC Vegetable Seed Field Day, and related scientific meetings. Final results will be published in the

journal Plant Disease to document the presence of P. syringae pv. aptata in Washington, with an additional article

on the survey and seedborne threshold trials. Results could be used to develop more effective disease management

practices for bacterial leaf spot in table beet and Swiss chard seed crops as well as fresh market and processing

crops, by facilitating screening for resistance to geographically diverse isolates of the pathogen, and understanding

12

the relative significance of seedborne inoculum vs. other inoculum sources of P. syringae pv. aptata. The latter

would help the global seed industry establish appropriate thresholds for seedborne inoculum.

13

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Project Number: NEW

Title: Determining the prevalence and significance of seedborne Pseudomonas syringae pv. aptata in table beet

and Swiss chard seed production in Washington State

Year Initiated: 2015 Current Year: 2015 Terminating Year: 2016

Personnel: Lindsey J. du Toit

Justification: Western Washington and western Oregon are the only regions of the USA suitable for production of

table beet (Beta vulgaris) and Swiss chard (B. vulgaris subsp. cicla) seed crops. The biennial nature of these crops

necessitates exposure of vegetative plants to winter temperatures cold enough to vernalize the plants (trigger a shift

from vegetative to reproductive growth) but not so cold to affect survival of plants through the winter. This is also

the reason western Oregon has been the major region of the USA for sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) seed production for

>100 years. However, since sugar beet can cross pollinate table beet and Swiss chard, a majority (>90%) of US

table beet and Swiss chard seed production occurs in ~6 counties in western Washington, isolated from the sugar

beet seed production region of the Willamette Valley. Table beet and Swiss chard seed produced in the Pacific

Northwest (PNW) is exported to other states and many countries. Therefore, production of high quality, pathogen-

free seed is critical for PNW seed growers to remain competitive in the global vegetable seed industry.

Pseudomonas syringae pv. aptata causes bacterial leaf spot of table beet, sugar beet, and Swiss chard. The

pathogen is readily seedborne and can be seed transmitted and dispersed under favorable conditions such as

overhead irrigation or rain. Losses to this disease have been documented in sugar beet, table beet, and Swiss chard

crops in various states as well as other countries. Losses tend to be more severe in baby leaf beet and chard crops

because the high density plantings under overhead irrigation, with rapid turnover (25 to 40 days from planting to

harvest) and sequential plantings are highly conducive to P. syringae pv. aptata. The pathogen also can cause

diseases on cantaloupe and sunflower.

Although symptoms of bacterial leaf spot are very seldom observed in table beet and Swiss chard seed

crops in western Washington, each year some table beet and Swiss chard seed lots produced in western Washington

test positive for P. syringae pv. aptata when assayed by commercial seed testing labs. This has necessitated that

seed companies treat infected seed lots with hot water or disinfectants to eradicate the pathogen, even though such

treatments can affect shelf-life and germination of seed. The scarcity of bacterial leaf spot symptoms in seed crops

in the PNW suggests the pathogen may colonize seed crops and the developing seed asymptomatically, which

complicates efforts to manage the pathogen in seed crops.

Despite that fact that seed companies have detected P. syringae pv. aptata annually in some table beet and

Swiss chard seed lots grown in Washington, the pathogen has never been documented in a peer-reviewed, scientific

journal to be present in this state. As a result, it is extremely difficult for public and private researchers in

Washington State to be approved for a Plant Protection Quarantine (PPQ) permit from the USDA Animal Plant

Health Inspection Service (APHIS). A permit is needed to obtain diverse isolates of this pathogen for research and

plant breeding purposes. If the presence of this pathogen in Washington State can be demonstrated conclusively in

a peer-reviewed, scientific journal article, this will facilitate approval of APHIS PPQ permits for public and private

researchers to work with the pathogen in Washington. The latter is needed to advance understanding of the

epidemiology of the pathogen, and develop improved management practices for bacterial leaf spot, e.g., screening

parent lines or cultivars for resistance, or evaluating seed or foliar treatments and cultural practices for management

of the disease. There is evidence that strains of P. syringae pv. aptata may differ among geographic regions.

Therefore, for seed companies to develop beet and chard cultivars with resistance relevant to the markets/regions

where seed is sold, cultivars should be screened for resistance using different geographic strains of the pathogen.

Even though it is well established that P. syringae pv. aptata can be seedborne and seed transmitted in beet

and chard, there has been no attempt to quantify the potential significance of seedborne inoculum in outbreaks of

bacterial leaf spot in table beet and Swiss chard compared to alternative sources of inoculum, There is currently no

information on threshold(s) for seedborne inoculum below which the disease does not develop, and the potential

influence of factors such as cultivar on the threshold(s). Plant pathologists from seed companies have noted that

≥105 CFU of P. syringae pv. aptata/ml inoculum is needed before bacterial leaf spot symptoms develop on

14

inoculated beet and chard plants. This suggests that threshold(s) for seedborne inoculum may be relatively high for

bacterial leaf spot to develop. Furthermore, decortication of infected beet and chard seed lots reduces significantly

the amount of P. syringae pv. aptata recovered from seed lots, which indicates the inoculum occurs primarily on

the surface of beet and chard seed. The degree of internal infection of seeds by such pathogens affects potential

thresholds for seed transmission. Quantifying threshold(s) for seedborne inoculum of P. syringae pv. aptata in table

beet and Swiss chard could clarify the importance of seedborne inoculum in outbreaks of bacterial leaf spot, the

need for seed treatments, and the degree to which seedborne inoculum must be reduced or eradicated to prevent

seed transmission.

Objectives: 1. Complete Koch’s postulates with isolates of P. syringae pv. aptata from table beet and Swiss chard seed lots

produced in Washington State to document in the journal Plant Disease, the presence of this pathogen in

Washington, in order to facilitate approval of USDA APHIS PPQ permits to work with isolates of the

pathogen.

2. Survey table beet and Swiss chard seed crops in western Washington for symptoms of bacterial leaf spot, and

correlate results of the survey with assays of seed lots harvested from these crops for P. syringae pv. aptata to

determine if seed lots can become infected in crops infected asymptomatically, and conditions that favor seed

infection.

3. Examine potential threshold(s) for seedborne P. syringae pv. aptata in table beet and Swiss chard seed lots

planted under baby leaf conditions.

Procedures:

1. Isolates (n = 10 to 12) of P. syringae pv. aptata from table beet and Swiss chard seed lots grown in western

Washington over the last 5-10 years will be obtained from seed companies and subjected to physiological tests

(LOPAT and others) and DNA fingerprinting by BOX polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and repetitive

extragenic sequence PCR (rep-PCR) assays, as described by Koike et al. (2003, Plant Dis. 87:1397) and Bull et

al. (2011, Phytopathology 101:847-858). This will verify the species and pathovar identification of each isolate,

and determine variation in genotypes among Washington isolates compared with those of the pathotype strain

of P. syringae pv. aptata, CFBP1617, and strains from other regions of the USA and other countries. DNA

extracted from Washington isolates will be sent to Dr. Carolee Bull, USDA ARS Plant Pathologist in Salinas,

CA and an expert on characterization of Pseudomonas plant pathogens. Dr. Bull offered training for Dr. du Toit

and Scientific Assistant, Mike Derie, to complete the DNA fingerprinting in her lab in spring 2015. Based on

the number of genotypes detected among the Washington isolates, a selection of isolates representing the

various genotypes will be tested for pathogenicity on beet, Swiss chard, spinach, sunflower, and cantaloupe

plants in a greenhouse at the WSU Mount Vernon NWREC, using the protocol described by Koike et al.

(2003). In summary, for each bacterial isolate, 5 or 6 replicate 5-week-old plants of each species will be

inoculated with a suspension of ~106 CFU/ml (and control plants of each plant species treated similarly with

water), monitored for development of bacterial leaf spot, and isolations carried out from inoculated foliage and

leaves of the control plants to complete Koch’s postulates. Re-isolated bacteria will be subjected to the same

physiological tests and DNA fingerprinting to confirm whether they have the same genotype(s) as the original

isolates. Results will be submitted for publication as a Plant Disease Note to provide peer-reviewed

documentation of the presence of this pathogen in Washington State. The publication will be provided to

USDA APHIS PPQ. Depending on resources and time, the pathogenic isolates may be used for multi-locus

sequence typing (MLST) analyses with Dr. Bull following the protocol of Bull et al. (2011), for detailed

analysis of genetic variation among isolates from the PNW and other regions of the USA and the world.

2. Table beet and Swiss chard seed crops in Skagit, Snohomish, Island, and Whatcom Counties will be monitored

every 4-6 weeks through the 2015 season for symptoms of bacterial leaf spot, in collaboration with seed

growers and companies. Foliar samples with suspect symptoms will be collected for isolations onto bacterial

agar media. Isolates with morphological characteristics typical of P. syringae will be subjected to physiological

tests and DNA fingerprinting as described for Objective 1. Seed companies will provide results of seed assays

for P. syringae pv. aptata for lots harvested from the crops surveyed, to compare with the field results as well

as data on seed crop maturation to assess conditions that favor infection of developing seed, e.g., late maturing

seed crops are often swathed and combined after the onset of fall rains, which might favor dispersal of P.

syringae pv. aptata and infection of maturing seed, even in asymptomatic crops.

15

3. A beet seed lot and a Swiss chard seed lot, each infected with P. syringae pv. aptata at ≥105 CFU/g seed, based

on results from a commercial seed testing lab, will be provided by a cooperating seed company in Washington

State. Each seed lot will be mixed in different ratios with a non-infected seed lot of the same cultivar to create 6

levels of inoculum: 0, 101, 10

2, 10

3, 10

4, and 10

5 CFU/g seed. For each level of infection, seed will be planted in

a baby-leaf configuration (~3 million seed/acre) in plots, each 15 feet x 5 feet, in a randomized complete block

design with 5 replicate plots/treatment, for a total of 30 plots of beet and 30 plots of chard (separate trial for

each crop). Each plot will be irrigated with a sprinkler and surrounded by a 25 to 30’ alley to avoid interplot

interference from splash dispersal of P. syringae pv. aptata. The two trials will be planted at the WSU Mount

Vernon NWREC in spring 2015. Plants will be monitored weekly for development of bacterial leaf spot

symptoms, and leaves with suspect symptoms used for isolations onto agar media. Approximately 35-40 days

after planting, 100 leaves will be harvested from each plot, rated for incidence and severity of symptoms, and

assayed by dilution plating (4 subsamples of 25 leaves/plot) onto agar media to quantify the amount of P.

syringae pv. aptata present in each plot. A sample of suspect bacterial isolates will be subjected to DNA

fingerprinting to confirm species and pathovar identification. Data on the disease ratings and population of the

pathogen recovered will be subjected to regression analyses for each crop to determine if a threshold for

seedborne inoculum can be estimated, above which symptoms of the disease developed. If time and resources

permit, and based on the field trial results, the beet and chard trial will each be repeated in late summer or early

fall 2015 to assess repeatability of results and thresholds determined at different times of the season.

Anticipated Benefits and Information Transfer: This study is expected to clarify the presence and prevalence of

P. syringae pv. aptata in table beet and Swiss chard seed crops in Washington State, which should facilitate

approval of USDA APHIS PPQ permits for public and private researchers to receive and work with isolates of this

pathogen in Washington. This will, in turn, benefit table beet and Swiss chard breeding programs and seed growers

by providing access to a diversity of isolates to screen beet and chard germplasm for resistance, and for evaluating

disease management practices in seed crops as well as potential seed treatments. The survey will help clarify the

association of inoculum on harvested seed lots with symptomatic and asymptomatic infection in seed crops prior to

harvest, and conditions that favor infection of developing seed. The seedborne inoculum threshold trials will clarify

the amount of inoculum that must be present on beet and chard seed lots for bacterial leaf spot to develop in baby

leaf production conditions, which will provide a threshold(s) from which to evaluate the effects of other factors on

the significance of seedborne inoculum in outbreaks of bacterial leaf spot, e.g., cultivars, weather conditions,

bactericide applications, etc. The trials will also help determine if there should be a zero-tolerance for P. syringae

pv. aptata in table beet and Swiss chard seed lots, or if growers that purchase seed could tolerate some seedborne

inoculum without a risk of bacterial leaf spot in baby leaf table beet and Swiss chard crops. Results will be

presented at the Jan. 2016 PSSGA annual meeting, the 2015 WSU Mount Vernon NWREC Vegetable Seed Field

Day, and related stakeholder/scientific meetings; and will be published in scientific journals.

Budget:

Amount requested from NARF for FY 2014-2015

Salaries (2 months of 100% FTE for Scientific Assistant, M. Derie = $8,394 +

2 months of 100% FTE for ARTI, B. Holmes = $6,432) $14,826

Time-slip wages (equivalent of 20 weeks of 20 hours/week at $15/hour) $6,000

Goods & services (greenhouse, field and lab supplies) $1,500

Operations $0

Travel (to beet/chard seed crops for sampling foliage;

to Salinas, CA, for DNA fingerprinting $500

Equipment $0

Employee benefits (2 months for SA @ 33.91% = $2,846

+ 2 months for ARTI @ 38.96% =$2,506

20 weeks for time-slip assistant at 9.8% = $588) $5,940

Total request for 2014 $28,766

Other Support of Project: ~$25,000 in matching funds will be requested from the WA State Commission for

Pesticide Registration (proposals due Nov. 2014). $500-$1,000 in-kind support will be provided by seed

companies/growers, e.g., beet and chard seed, fertilizer, pesticides, time for assistance with field trials, etc.

16

Budget data provided in “Other support” is for informational purposes only. NARF understands the scope of the

project. These estimated costs are not presented as formal cost-sharing and, therefore, do not constitute cost-share

obligations on the part of Washington State University. Moreover, there is no requirement for WSU to document

this other support of project as part of any cost-share or matching obligation.

17

PROGRESS REPORT


Title: Weed control in vegetable seed crops.

Personnel: Tim Miller and Carl Libbey, WSU NWREC

Reporting Period: 2013-14

Accomplishments: Twelve weed control trials in vegetable seed were conducted in 2013-14: one trial in cabbage

seed, nine studies in table beet seed, and two studies in spinach seed.

Results:

Cabbage Seed Trial (2013-14). One cabbage seed trial was conducted this year. Seven cabbage seed lines were

transplanted at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC on September 20, 2013 (plant material from several seed companies

and Hedlin Farms). Herbicides were applied immediately prior to transplanting, also on September 20, 2013. Crop

injury and weed control was estimated October 9, 2013 and April 9, 2014. The trial was a split-block, randomized

complete block with three replicates.

The only product causing damage to cabbage transplants was Callisto (2 weeks after treatment, WAT) (Table 1).

Leaf injury was 12% bleaching, much less than was seen from the post-transplant application in 2012 (35% at 8

weeks after treatment, data from last year’s report). Grass weed control in April exceeded 80% with Goal,

GoalTender, Chateau, and Spartan. The grass was predominantly annual ryegrass (Lolium perenne ssp.

multiflorum), and the good control with these products was surprisingly good. Broadleaf weed control in April was

maximized by Chateau, Callisto, simazine, and Goal (78 to 100%). Biomass and plant density was not affected by

herbicide treatment.

Table Beet Seed Trials (2014). Five on-station trials and four off-station trials were conducted this year. Off-

station trials were sponsored by Skagit Seed Services and Sakata Seed, and plant material for on-station trials were

from Skagit Seed Services, Sakata Seed, and Vikima USA.

Overall observations of 2014 Beet Seed Trials:

1. Dual Magnum did not negatively affect survival, emergence, growth, or biomass/seed yield of beet stecklings or

seedlings, even when applied at the 3X rate of 2 pt/a (labelled use rate is 0.67 pt/a).

2. Of currently-registered preemergence (PRE) treatments, weed control was similar between Ro-Neet and Dual

Magnum, both of which were slightly better than Nortron at 1.5 lb/a.

3. Most of the PRE treatments in the red beet trials were applied prior to a substantial rainfall event, placing these

treatments in a worst-case scenario as regarding potential herbicide movement into the root zone of

seedlings/stecklings. Consequently, root inhibition (and resultant growth reduction) due to these products was

considered likely to be seen this year, but was not observed.

4. Nortron applied to bolted red beet plants generally caused unacceptable injury (flower stem injury or death) to

certain female lines. Male lines in these trials did not exhibit the same injury. Yellow beet was not visually injured

by Nortron applied at the same timing. Dual Magnum or Outlook applied to bolted red or yellow beet plants

without added Nortron did not cause visual injury to treated plants. Nortron applied in midsummer to vegetative

seedlings of the known-sensitive female seed line did not cause visual injury.

On-Station Beet Seed Trials:

Pretransplant Trial #1: Red beet seedlings and stecklings were transplanted May 1 and 2, respectively. PPI and

PRE herbicides were applied prior to transplanting. Products tested were Ro-Neet (PPI) and Linex, Karmex,

Sencor, and Dual Magnum (PRETR) alone and in combination. The trial was maintained until just prior to

18

flowering (June 26). Beet plants were then pulled from the soil and fresh weight determined. Data are presented in

Tables 2 and 3.

There was no difference in seedling survival at 2 WAT. At 4 WAT, however, seedling survival was reduced by

Ro-Neet fb Sencor from 10 plants to 7.25 plants. Sencor alone at 11 oz/a also reduced seedling survival to 5 plants

at 4 WAT. There was no difference in steckling emergence at 2 or 4 weeks after treatment (WAT). Combination

treatments were providing excellent weed control at 2 WAT, as were Linex at 16 fl.oz/a, Karmex at 1 lb/a, Dual

Magnum at 2 pt/a, and Sencor at 6 and 11 oz/a. At 4 WAT, weed control was maximized by Sencor at either rate,

by Ro-Neet fb Sencor, and by Dual Magnum alone or fb Linex, Karmex, or Sencor. These products were still

providing good to excellent weed control at 6 and 8 WAT. There was no difference in beet biomass among these

treatments.

Preemergence/Postemergence Trial: Red beet seedlings and stecklings were transplanted May 1 and 2,

respectively. PRE herbicides were applied immediately prior to transplanting. Products tested were Dual Magnum

and Nortron (PRE) and Dual Magnum, Nortron, Betamix, Asulox, Stinger, and Upbeet (POST). The trial was

maintained until just prior to flowering (June 26). Beet plants were then pulled from the soil and fresh weight

determined. Data are presented in Tables 4 and 5.

There was no difference in seedling survival or steckling emergence at 2 or 4 WAT. Initial weed control (2 WAT)

with Dual Magnum at 2 pt/a ranged from 74 to 79%, and from 49 to 51% with Nortron at 1.5 pt/a. By 4 WAT and

2 weeks after POST treatments, weed control was maximized with Dual Magnum (PRE once or PRE fb POST),

Nortron (PRE fb POST), Betamix + Nortron (POST), Asulox (POST), Asulox + Stinger (POST), and Asulox +

Stinger + UpBeet (POST). Dual Magnum applied twice and Nortron fb Betamix gave fair to good weed control at

6 and 8 WAT. Weed control from a single application of Asulox at 3 pt/a was similar to all those treatments at 6

and 8 WAT, and marginally better than Asulox + Stinger at 2 pt + 1 fl.oz. Control with Asulox at 1 pt mixed with

Stinger and UpBeet (1 fl.oz + 0.1 oz) was inadequate by 8 WAT. Beet seedlings were quite variable in size at mid-

season harvest. While no herbicides negatively affected beet seedling fresh weight, Nortron fb Betamix resulted in

larger plants than those in nontreated plots. There was no difference in beet steckling fresh weight.

Preemergence/Postemergence Seedling Trial: Beet seedlings remaining after planting the previous trials were

transplanted into another seedling trial on May 1. PRE herbicides were applied immediately after transplanting.

Products tested were Dual Magnum and Nortron (PRE) and Dual Magnum, Nortron, Betamix, Asulox, Stinger, and

Upbeet (POST). The trial was maintained until just prior to flowering (June 26). Beet plants were then pulled from

the soil and fresh weight determined. Data are presented in Tables 6 and 7.

There was no difference in seedling survival at 2 or 4 WAT. Initial weed control (2 WAT) with Dual Magnum at 2

pt/a was 85 to 89%, and from 48 to 59% with Nortron at 1.5 pt/a. By 4 WAT and 2 weeks after POST treatments,

weed control was maximized with Dual Magnum fb Dual Magnum + Betamix (Dual applied PRE once or PRE fb

POST), Nortron fb Nortron + Betamix (PRE fb POST), Asulox + Stinger (POST), and Asulox + Stinger + UpBeet

(POST). Dual Magnum once or twice with Betamix gave good to excellent weed control at 6 and 8 WAT, as did

Nortron twice with Betamix. Asulox alone or with Stinger also gave good weed control, although weed control

was poor when applied at 1 pt/a with Stinger at 1 fl.oz and UpBeet at 0.1 oz/a. Beet seedlings were quite variable

in size at mid-season harvest, so there was no difference in beet seedling fresh weight.

Pre-transplant Trial #2: Stecklings and seedlings were transplanted May 20. PRE herbicides were applied prior to

transplanting. Products tested were Goal, GoalTender, Chateau, and Spartan (PRETR). The trial was maintained

until just prior to flowering (July 7). Beet plants were then pulled from the soil and fresh weight determined. Data

are presented in Tables 8 and 9.

There was no difference in seedling survival or steckling emergence any time up 5 WAT. There was no difference

in weed control at 1 WAT. Control with GoalTender was beginning to fall off at 3 WAT, but other products

maintained good to excellent weed control through 5 WAT. There was no difference in beet seedling or steckling

fresh weight.

19

Postemergence Nortron Trial: Because of observed visual damage to a particular female red beet line from Nortron

applied POST in other 2014 trials, a mid-summer trial was conducted to evaluate injury from POST-applied

Nortron. Beet seed of this particular line was provided by the seed company and was seeded into transplant trays at

NWREC in early July. Resultant seedlings were transplanted into the field August 18. Nortron was applied August

26 alone, with added MSO, or alone followed by immediately rinsing with water; four rates of each type of

application was included in the trial. No weeds were emerged at the time of application. Beets were evaluated for

injury at 2 and 4 WAT, pulled from the plots, and dried. Data are presented in Table 10.

No visual injury was observed at any time up to 4 WAT (data not shown). There was no difference in weed control

up to 4 WAT (data not shown). There was no difference in beet seedling fresh weight at 4 WAT. There was a

trend toward lower beet biomass with increasing Nortron rates, however.

Off-Station Beet Seed Trials:

Skagit Seed Services Trial: Stecklings were transplanted April 12. Products tested were Ro-Neet (PPI) and Dual

Magnum (PRE). Dual Magnum was applied to the 12 full rows on the east side of the field (applied 2 days after

transplanting) at 0.67 pt/a, while the rest of the field received Ro-Neet PPI (2 or 3 days prior to transplanting). Data

are presented in Table 11.

Since we didn’t have a nontreated control in this trial and treatments weren’t fully randomized, it is not possible to

statistically differentiate weed control percentages between Dual Magnum and Ro-Neet. There was little difference

in initial weed control (3 WAT), but Dual Magnum was about 15% better than the Ro-Neet (although neither would

be rated as excellent weed control). After treatment with Betamix + Nortron (POST) weed control was about 90%

in the field, regardless of whether the residual treatment was Dual Magnum or Ro-Neet (6 WAT). Beet emergence

at 3 WAT was measured from 20 feet in each of the 12 rows treated with Dual Magnum and also in 12 rows treated

with Ro-Neet; measurments were also made from 10 feet of row at 6 WAT. Counts were made at the north end of

the field, in the middle portion, and at the south end. There was no significant difference between Dual Magnum or

Ro-Neet at either timing. Dual Magnum averaged 9.0 emerged beets/20 ft of row, while Ro-Neet averaged 8.8

emerged beets in the same distance at 3 WAT. At 6 WAT, Dual Magnum averaged 4.5 emerged beets/10 ft of row

while Ro-Neet averaged 4.3 emerged beets/10 ft of row. There was also no difference in emergence at the different

field locations (north, middle, or south).

The height of the tallest leaf and the width of the entire leaf canopy from one beet plant in each of the 12 rows

treated with Dual Magnum and in 12 rows treated with Ro-Neet was recorded at 6 WAT. There was no significant

difference in beet growth between the two herbicides. Average plant height was 5.8 inches with Ro-Neet, and 5.3

inches with Dual Magnum, while average canopy width was 9.4 inches with Ro-Neet and 8.3 inches with Dual

Magnum. Beets also looked very good for both treatments June 25 (data not shown).

On August 26, nine plants each from Dual Magnum and Ro-Neet treated rows were pulled from the soil. Plants

were dried, seed threshed and screened, and seed yield was recorded. There was no difference in seed yield

between Dual Magnum and Ro-Neet treated plots (232.9 g/plant with Ro-Neet and 238.9 g/plant with Dual

Magnum).

Red Beets, Sakata Seed Trials #1 and #2: Beet seedlings (Trial #1) and stecklings (Trial #2) were transplanted in

separate fields on Fir Island on May 2. Herbicides were applied postransplant the same day, including Dual

Magnum, Chateau, Spartan, Karmex, Linex, Sencor, and Eptam (PRE) and were followed by Betamix, Asulox,

Stinger, and UpBeet (POST) applied on May 30. Seedling beets outside the plots were treated with Dual Magnum

and Outlook alone or mixed with Nortron on June 19. After observing damage to Nortron-treated seedlings,

steckling beets were treated with the same products July 1. Beets were harvested August 27. Plants were dried,

seed threshed and screened, and seed yield was determined. Data are presented in Tables 12 through 15.

Apparent beet seedling survival was reduced by Chateau applied at 2 oz/a by 2 WAT; the 1 oz/a rate was not

significantly different than from nontreated beet seedlings. By 3 WAT, however, some of the seedlings had

recovered and started to produce leaves. At that time, seedling survival was no longer different between treatments

20

when compared to nontreated beets. Percent leaf burn was significantly greater for several herbicides than for

nontreated seedlings at 3 WAT, however. These treatments included Chateau at 2 oz/a (28% burn), Sencor at 6

oz/a or Spartan at 5 fl.oz/a (18% burn), and Chateau at 1 oz/a (14% burn). There was no significant difference in

beet steckling emergence at 2 or 3 WAT, although there was a trend toward slower emergence for beets treated

with Chateau, Spartan, or Eptam at 2 WAT. Percent leaf burn was significantly greater for Chateau at 1 or 2 oz/a

(28-29% burn) compared to nontreated stecklings at 3 WAT, however. Initial weed control (2 WAT) was greater

than 90% for all treatments. By 3 WAT, weed control was still greater than 94% for all treatments except Eptam

(65 to 69% control for the two sites).

Nortron applied POST to bolted red beet plants generally caused unacceptable injury (flower stem injury or death)

(data not shown). The female seed line was more sensitive than the male (male lines showed no visual injury) and

female seedlings were far more sensitive than female stecklings. Neither Dual Magnum nor Outlook applied

without added Nortron to bolted red beet plants caused any visual injury.

There was no difference in beet seedling or steckling seed yield, although yield per plant was generally greater with

stecklings than seedlings.

Yellow Beets, Sakata Seed Trial #3: Yellow beet seedlings and stecklings were transplanted on adjacent fields on

May 16. Herbicides were applied postransplant the same day, including Dual Magnum, Chateau, Spartan, Karmex,

Linex, Sencor, and Eptam (PRE) and were followed by Betamix, Asulox, Stinger, and UpBeet (POST) applied on

June 19. Beets outside the plots were treated with Dual Magnum and Outlook alone or with Nortron on July 1.

Beets were harvested September 10. Plants were dried, seed threshed and screened, and seed yield was determined.

Data are presented in Tables 16 through 19.

There was no significant difference in beet seedling survival any time up to 4 WAT. There was no significant

difference in steckling emergence at 2 WAT, but the data were extremely variable for this yellow beet seed line.

Emergence was reduced with Dual Magnum fb Betamix + Asulox at 4 WAT compared to Chateau at 2 oz, although

emergence with Dual Magnum fb Asulox + Stinger + UpBeet was not reduced. Consequently, these differences in

emergence of stecklings are considered to be statistical variation. No treatments were different from nontreated

stecklings at either 2 or 4 WAT. There were few differences in weed control at any timing in either seedlings or

stecklings. This is likely due to the relatively late transplanting date, the dry surface soil conditions for several

weeks following transplanting, coupled with timely cultivation by the cooperator.

Nortron applied to bolted yellow beet seedlings or stecklings did not cause visual injury (data not shown). Dual

Magnum or Outlook applied without added Nortron also did not visually injure those plants.

There was no difference in beet seedling or steckling seed yield, although yield per plant was generally greater with

stecklings than seedlings.

Spinach Seed Trials (2014).

Two on-station spinach seed trials were conducted this year. Plant material for on-station trials were from Vikima

USA. Both plantings were influenced by the dry summer this year; growth of plants in the replicates was

progressively less from north to south, and from west to east. Because of this and excessive injury from several of

the new herbicides, yield was not taken in the new herbicide trial. Yield was collected from in the herbicide trial,

but was quite variable due to water stress.

Spinach herbicide trial.

Spinach was seeded May 29 at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC. Herbicides were applied May 28 (PPI), May 30

(PRE), and June 21 (POST). Fusilade was applied to all plots June 23 to control Italian ryegrass. Crop injury and

weed control were estimated June 19 and 24 and July 31. Plants from one row were pulled August 21 and laid on

the soil surface for initial drying; plants were moved to drying cabinets September 3 for final drying. Seed was

threshed September 12, screened, and seed yield determined.

21

Spinach injury in mid-June was greatest when Command was applied at 10.7 fl.oz/a PPI, including when applied

with Ro-Neet PPI (21%), or followed by Nortron (PRE, 15%); injury with Ro-Neet fb Define was 13% at the same

timing (Table 20). By June 24, injury from Ro-Neet + Command still exceeded 20%, while injury from these

treatments and Command fb Dual Magnum (PPI fb PRE) still exceeded 10%. By July 31, spinach in many plots

was exhibiting water stress symptoms, resulting in “injury” ratings from 13 to 41%. Weed control was good to

excellent through July for most treatments, but control with Command fb Nortron was only rated at 60% at that

time (Table 21). Although not statistically significant, seed yield ranged from 1.1 g/row in weedy check plots to

10.2 g/row in Ro-Neet fb Asulox (Table 20).

Spinach new herbicide trial.

Spinach was seeded May 29 at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC. Herbicides were applied May 30 (PRE), and June

21 (POST). Fusilade was applied to all plots June 23 to control Italian ryegrass. Crop injury and weed control

were estimated June 19 and 24 and July 31.

Spinach injury was uniformly low from PRE applications June 19 (Table 22). By July 31, however, injury from

Matrix PRE at 0.5 and 1 oz/a was 39 and 63%, respectively (data not shown). While injury from quinclorac and

Matrix POST treatments was not obvious at the June 24 evaluation, injury exceeded 50% by July 31 (data not

shown). Reflex POST caused >50% injury June 24, and plants had only partially recovered by July 31. Based on

these data, quinclorac and Reflex prior to spinach emergence offer some potential for spinach seed production.

Weed control among these treatments was only poor to fair by July 31, however, indicating that combination

treatments will be necessary at these rates.

Data Tables.

Table 1. Crop injury and weed control from several herbicides applied prior to transplanting seven

cabbage seed lines (2013-14).

Treatmenta

Rate

Crop injury Grass control Broadleaf control Fresh

biomass

Plant

density Oct 9 Oct 9 Apr 9 Oct 9 Apr 9

product/a % % % % % lb/plant plants/plot

Simazine 0.9 lb 0 b 85 a 57 bc 99 b 87 ab 0.49 9.2

Goal XL 2 pt 0 b 100 a 93 a 100 a 78 ab 0.47 9.1

GoalTender 1 pt 0 b 100 a 93 a 100 a 70 bc 0.40 9.0

Callisto 3 fl.oz 12 a 23 b 33 c 100 a 95 a 0.47 8.4

Spartan 3.2 fl.oz 0 b 95 a 82 ab 99 b 53 c 0.31 8.5

Chateau 2 oz 0 b 98 a 83 ab 100 a 100 a 0.42 8.7

Nontreated --- 0 b 0 b 0 d 0 c 0 d 0.37 8.6

Means within a column followed by the same letter, or without letters, are not statistically different (P < 0.05). aCabbage was transplanted September 20, 2013; herbicides were applied prior to transplanting, September 20, 2013.

22

Table 2. Red beeta survival, emergence, and biomass after treatment with several pre-transplant herbicides (2014).

Treatmentb

Rate

Seedling survivalb Steckling emergenceb Beet biomassc

2 WAT 4 WAT 2 WAT 4 WAT Seedling Steckling

product/a plants/plot plants/plot plants/plot plants/plot g/plant g/plant

Linex 8 fl.oz 9.5 9.5 a 5.0 5.8 57.2 42.0

Linex 16 fl.oz 9.5 9.5 a 5.0 5.5 90.9 44.3

Karmex 8 oz 9.8 9.5 a 5.8 6.0 65.8 44.1

Karmex 1 lb 9.8 9.5 a 5.5 6.0 97.7 61.3

Sencor 6 oz 9.0 8.5 ab 5.0 6.0 65.0 37.4

Sencor 11 oz 8.3 5.0 c 4.5 5.8 95.3 53.9

Ro-Neet 4 pt 9.5 9.8 a 5.3 5.5 67.7 32.2

Ro-Neet fb Linex 4 pt fb 8 fl.oz 9.3 9.3 ab 5.0 5.0 80.6 33.4

Ro-Neet fb Karmex 4 pt fb 8 oz 8.8 8.8 ab 4.8 5.5 74.9 38.1

Ro-Neet fb Sencor 4 pt fb 6 oz 9.0 7.3 b 5.8 5.8 64.5 35.0

Dual Magnum 2 pt 9.0 9.0 ab 5.0 5.8 67.4 47.7

Dual Magnum fb Linex 2 pt fb 8 fl.oz 9.5 9.5 a 5.5 5.8 37.5 27.8

Dual Magnum fb Karmex 2 pt fb 8 oz 9.5 9.3 ab 5.3 5.8 54.9 36.4

Dual Magnum fb Sencor 2 pt fb 6 oz 9.5 9.3 ab 4.5 5.5 44.2 29.8

Nontreated --- 9.8 9.5 a 5.5 5.8 39.0 46.9

Means within a column followed by the same letter, or without letters, are not statistically different (P < 0.05). aRed beets were transplanted May 1 and 2, 2014. bHerbicides were applied May 1 (PRETR) and May 6 (POST), 2014; percent beet survival and emergence was estimated May 16 and 28,

2014. cBeet fresh weight was recorded June 26, 2014.

Table 3. Weed control in red beeta after treatment with several pre-transplant and

postemergence herbicides (2014).

Treatmentb

Rate Weed control

b

2 WAT 4 WAT 6 WAT 8 WAT

product/a % % % %

Linex 8 fl.oz 75 bc 54 ef 30 e 11 ef

Linex 16 fl.oz 83 abc 75 bc 60 d 38 de

Karmex 8 oz 66 c 44 f 28 e 13 ef

Karmex 1 lb 85 ab 78 bc 65 cd 54 bcd

Sencor 6 oz 96 a 86 ab 93 a 91 a

Sencor 11 oz 98 a 95 a 95 a 96 a

Ro-Neet 4 pt 83 abc 63 de 48 d 36 de

Ro-Neet fb Linex 4 pt fb 8 fl.oz 85 ab 70 cd 58 d 46 cd

Ro-Neet fb Karmex 4 pt fb 8 oz 88 ab 74 cd 68 bcd 55 bcd

Ro-Neet fb Sencor 4 pt fb 6 oz 99 a 94 a 95 a 95 a

Dual Magnum 2 pt 95 a 91 a 84 abc 73 abc

Dual Magnum fb Linex 2 pt fb 8 fl.oz 95 a 90 a 88 abc 84 ab

Dual Magnum fb Karmex 2 pt fb 8 oz 99 a 90 a 90 ab 83 ab

Dual Magnum fb Sencor 2 pt fb 6 oz 100 a 94 a 95 a 96 a

Nontreated --- 0 d 0 g 0 f 0 f

Means within a column followed by the same letter, or without letters, are not statistically different (P

< 0.05). aRed beets were transplanted May 1 and 2, 2014.

bHerbicides were applied May 1 (PRETR) and May 6 (POST), 2014; percent weed control was estimated May

16 and 28 and June 10 and 25, 2014.

23

Table 4. Red beeta survival, emergence, and biomass after treatment with several pre-transplant and postemergence

herbicides (2014).

Treatmentb

Timing

Rate Seedling survival

b Steckling emergence

b Beet biomass

c

2 WAT 4 WAT 2 WAT 4 WAT Seedling Steckling

product/a plants/plot plants/plot plants/plot plants/plot g/plant g/plant

Dual Magnum PRE 2 pt 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.3 49.5 ab 48.0

Dual Magnum fb

Dual Magnum

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb 2 pt 6.0 6.0 4.8 5.5 77.4 ab 56.3

Nortron PRE 1.5 pt 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.8 52.6 ab 42.7

Nortron fb Betamix PRE fb POST 1.5 pt fb 3 pt 6.0 6.0 5.3 5.5 103.1 a 68.6

Betamix POST 3 pt 6.0 6.0 5.5 5.8 82.5 ab 54.6

(Betamix + Nortron) POST 3 pt + 1.5 pt 5.8 5.8 4.5 4.8 98.6 ab 55.9

Asulox POST 3 pt 5.8 5.8 6.0 6.0 54.0 ab 58.4

(Asulox + Stinger) POST 2 pt + 1 fl.oz 6.0 6.0 4.8 5.0 73.1 ab 50.1

(Asulox + Stinger +

UpBeet)

POST 1 pt + 1 fl.oz

+ 0.1 oz

5.5 5.8 4.5 4.8 84.5 ab 57.0

Nontreated --- --- 6.0 6.0 5.3 6.0 28.3 b 38.5

Means within a column followed by the same letter, or without letters, are not statistically different (P < 0.05). aRed beets were transplanted May 1 and 2, 2014.

bHerbicides were applied May 1 (PRE) and May 15 (POST), 2014; percent beet survival and emergence was estimated May 16 and 28, 2014.

cBeet fresh weight was recorded June 26, 2014.

Table 5. Weed control in red beeta after treatment with several pre-transplant and postemergence herbicides (2014).

Treatmentb

Timing

Rate Weed controlb


product/a % % % %

Dual Magnum PRE 2 pt 74 ab 88 ab 80 ab 65 ab

Dual Magnum fb Dual Magnum PRE fb POST 2 pt fb 2 pt 79 a 91 a 91 a 84 a

Nortron PRE 1.5 pt 51 bc 55 d 30 c 11 cd

Nortron fb Betamix PRE fb POST 1.5 pt fb 3 pt 49 c 88 ab 89 a 75 a

Betamix POST 3 pt --- 66 cd 58 b 25 cd

(Betamix + Nortron) POST 3 pt + 1.5 pt --- 89 ab 88 a 76 a

Asulox POST 3 pt --- 78 abc 84 a 74 a

(Asulox + Stinger) POST 2 pt + 1 fl.oz --- 74 bc 76 ab 66 ab

(Asulox + Stinger + UpBeet) POST 1 pt + 1 fl.oz + 0.1 oz --- 85 ab 70 ab 39 bc

Nontreated --- --- 0 d 0 e 0 d 0 d

Means within a column followed by the same letter, or without letters, are not statistically different (P < 0.05). aRed beets were transplanted May 1 and 2, 2014.

bHerbicides were applied May 1 (PRE) and May 15 (POST), 2014; percent weed control was estimated May 16 and 28 and June 10 and 25,

2014.

24

Table 6. Red beeta seedling survival after treatment with several preemergence and

postemergence herbicides (2014).

Treatmentb

Timing

Rate

Seedling survivalb Beet

biomassc 2 WAT 4 WAT

product/a plants/plot plants/plot g/plant

Dual Magnum fb Betamix PRE fb POST 2 pt 9.3 9.8 37.9

Dual Magnum fb

(Dual Magnum + Betamix)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb 2 pt 10.3 10.3 30.4

Nortron fb Betamix PRE fb POST 1.5 pt 10.5 10.5 62.3

Nortron fb

(Nortron + Betamix)

PRE fb POST 1.5 pt fb 3 pt 10.5 10.3 35.4

Betamix POST 3 pt 10.5 10.5 53.2

(Betamix + Nortron) POST 3 pt + 1.5 pt 10.3 10.5 50.1

Asulox POST 3 pt 10.5 10.3 95.7

(Asulox + Stinger) POST 2 pt + 1 fl.oz 9.5 9.5 37.0

(Asulox + Stinger +

UpBeet)

POST 1 pt + 1 fl.oz

+ 0.1 oz

9.8 9.8 33.4

Nontreated --- --- 10.3 10.5 28.5

Means within a column followed by the same letter, or without letters, are not statistically different (P < 0.05). aRed beets were transplanted May 1, 2014.

bHerbicides were applied May 2 (PRE), and 16 (POST); percent beet survival estimated May 16 and 28, 2014.

cBeet fresh weight was recorded June 26, 2014.

Table 7. Weed control in red beeta after treatment with several preemergence and postemergence herbicides

(2014).

Treatmentb

Timing

Rate

Weed controlb


product/a % % % %

Dual Magnum fb Betamix PRE fb POST 2 pt 85 ab 95 a 95 a 88 ab

Dual Magnum fb

(Dual Magnum + Betamix)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb 2 pt 89 a 95 a 95 a 94 a

Nortron fb Betamix PRE fb POST 1.5 pt 48 c 76 bc 74 bcd 56 bc

Nortron fb

(Nortron + Betamix)

PRE fb POST 1.5 pt fb 3 pt 59 bc 83 abc 80 abc 73 abc

Betamix POST 3 pt --- 69 c 58 d 45 c

(Betamix + Nortron) POST 3 pt + 1.5 pt --- 70 bc 68 cd 45 c

Asulox POST 3 pt --- 78 bc 89 ab 75 abc

(Asulox + Stinger) POST 2 pt + 1 fl.oz --- 80 abc 89 ab 80 ab

(Asulox + Stinger +

UpBeet)

POST 1 pt + 1 fl.oz

+ 0.1 oz

--- 85 ab 80 abc 58 abc

Nontreated --- --- 0 d 0 d 0 e 0 e


bHerbicides were applied May 2 (PRE), and 16 (POST); percent weed control was estimated May 16 and 28 and June 10 and

25, 2014.

Table 8. Red beeta survival and emergence after treatment with several pre-transplant herbicides (2014).

Treatmentb

Rate

Seedling survivalb Steckling emergenceb

1 WAT 3 WAT 5 WAT 1 WAT 3 WAT 5 WAT

product/a plants/plot plants/plot plants/plot plants/plot plants/plot plants/plot

Goal 8 fl.oz 10 10 10 1.8 3.5 4.3

GoalTender 4 fl.oz 10 10 10 2.0 3.5 3.8

Chateau 1 oz 10 10 10 1.8 2.8 2.8

Chateau 2 oz 10 10 10 1.0 4.3 4.0

Spartan 3 fl.oz 10 10 10 1.0 4.3 4.8

Spartan 5 fl.oz 10 10 10 2.0 4.3 4.3

Nontreated --- 10 10 10 1.3 2.8 2.8


bHerbicides were applied May 19, 2014 (PRETR); percent beet survival and emergence estimated May 16 and June 10

and 25, 2014.

25

Table 9. Weed control and red beeta biomass after treatment with several pre-transplant herbicides

(2014).

Treatmentb

Rate Weed control

b Beet biomass

c

1 WAT 3 WAT 5 WAT Seedlings Stecklings

product/a % % % g/plant g/plant

Goal 8 fl.oz 100 93 ab 86 ab 105.4 77.8

GoalTender 4 fl.oz 100 86 b 79 b 81.3 109.4

Chateau 1 oz 100 94 ab 91 a 104.2 111.4

Chateau 2 oz 100 96 a 95 a 108.1 104.3

Spartan 3 fl.oz 100 95 a 88 ab 114.3 94.1

Spartan 5 fl.oz 100 95 a 91 a 101.4 78.7

Nontreated --- 100 0 c 0 c 77.3 94.1

Means within a column followed by the same letter, or without letters, are not statistically different (P

< 0.05). aRed beets were transplanted May 20, 2014.

bHerbicides were applied May 19, 2014 (PRETR); percent weed control estimated May 16 and June 10 and 25,

2014. cBeet fresh weight was recorded July 7, 2014.

Table 10. Red beeta seedling biomass after treatment with

postemergence Nortron (2014). Treatmentb Rate 4 WATc

product/a g/plant

Nortron alone 0.5 pt 11.2




Nortron + MSO 0.5 pt 12.1




Nortron alone + rinse 0.5 pt 12.2




Nontreated --- 8.9

Means within a column followed by the same letter, or without letters, are not

statistically different (P < 0.05).

aRed beets were transplanted August 18, 2014.

bHerbicide were applied August 26, 2014; percent weed control and crop

injury estimated September 15 and 19, 2014.

cBeet fresh weight was recorded September 19, 2014.

26

Table 11. Red beeta steckling emergence, growth, and seed yield after treatment with Ro-Neet and Dual

Magnum (Skagit Seed Services, 2014).

Treatmentb

Rate

Steckling emergenceb Beet plant

heightb

Beet plant

widthb

Beet seed

yieldc

3 WAT 6 WAT

product/a plants/20 ft plants/10 ft inches inches g/plant

Ro-Neet 8.8 4.5 5.8 9.4 232.9

Dual Magnum 0.67 pt 9.0 4.3 5.3 8.3 238.9

Means within a column followed by the same letter, or without letters, are not statistically different (P < 0.05).

aRed beets were transplanted April 12, 2014.

bHerbicides were applied April 11 (Ro-Neet PPI, estimated) and April 14 (Dual Magnum PRE), 2014; steckling emergence

estimated May 6 and 28 and June 25, 2014; steckling growth measured May 28, 2014.

cBeets harvested August 26, 2014.

27

Table 12. Red beet seedling survival, injury, and seed yield after treatment with several preemergence and

postemergence herbicides (Sakata Seed, 2014).

Treatmentb

Timing

Rate

Seedling survivalb

Seedling

injuryb

Seedling

seed yieldc

2 WAT 3 WAT 3 WAT

product/a plants/plot plants/plot % g/plant

Dual Magnum fb

(Betamix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

17.8 a 17.0 ab 3 bc 69.8

Chateau PRE 1 oz 15.3 ab 17.3 ab 14 abc 36.9

Chateau PRE 2 oz 9.8 b 16.8 ab 28 a 58.7

Spartan PRE 3 fl.oz 16.3 a 18.3 a 10 bc 56.8

Spartan PRE 5 fl.oz 16.0 ab 17.8 ab 18 ab 60.3

Karmex fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 8 oz fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

18.0 a 18.3 a 3 bc 57.9

Linex fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 8 fl.oz fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

18.8 a 20.3 a 3 bc 64.5

Sencor fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

15.8 ab 11.5 b 18 ab 42.9

Eptam fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 3.5 pt fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

19.5 a 19.0 a 3 bc 38.8

Dual Magnum fb

(Asulox + Stinger +

UpBeet)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb

(1.5 pt + 1.3 fl.oz +

0.1 oz)

19.5 a 18.5 a 0 c 61.5

Nontreated --- --- 16.5 a 17.0 ab 0 c 41.8


aRed beets were transplanted May 2, 2014.

bHerbicides were applied May 2 (PRE) and May 30 (POST), 2014; beet seedling survival and injury estimated May 15 and 21,

2014.


28

Table 13. Weed control in red beeta seedlings after treatment with several preemergence and


Treatmentb Timing Rate 2 WAT

b 3 WAT

b 8 WAT

b 13 WAT

b

product/a % % % %

Dual Magnum fb

(Betamix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

100 a 98 a 98 ab 93 a

Chateau PRE 1 oz 100 a 100 a 94 abc 90 ab

Chateau PRE 2 oz 100 a 100 a 98 ab 90 ab

Spartan PRE 3 fl.oz 98 ab 99 a 84 c 71 ab

Spartan PRE 5 fl.oz 100 a 99 a 84 c 68 b

Karmex fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 8 oz fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

100 a 99 a 100 a 86 ab

Linex fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

99 a 100 a 100 a 93 a

Sencor fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

99 a 100 a 100 a 85 ab

Eptam fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

94 bc 65 b 88 bc 79 ab

Dual Magnum fb

(Asulox + Stinger +

UpBeet)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb

(1.5 pt + 1.3 fl.oz +

0.1 oz)

100 a 99 a 99 a 90 ab

Nontreated --- --- 91 c 0 c 0 d 0 c



bHerbicides were applied May 2 (PRE) and May 30 (POST), 2014; weed control estimated May 15 and 21, June 25, and July 31,

2014.

29

Table 14. Red beet steckling emergence, injury, and seed yield after treatment with several preemergence and


Treatmentb

Timing

Rate

Steckling emergenceb

Steckling

injuryb

Steckling

seed yieldb

2 WAT 3 WAT 3 WAT

product/a plants/plot plants/plot % g/plant

Dual Magnum fb

(Betamix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

12.0 a 14.5 6 bc 68.6

Chateau PRE 1 oz 5.5 b 11.0 29 a 103.3

Chateau PRE 2 oz 5.8 b 12.0 28 ab 105.5

Spartan PRE 3 fl.oz 9.5 ab 12.8 6 bc 79.4

Spartan PRE 5 fl.oz 9.5 ab 12.3 9 abc 104.6

Karmex fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 8 oz fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

12.5 a 12.8 0 c 143.3

Linex fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

11.8 a 13.8 1 c 97.9

Sencor fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

12.8 a 14.8 0 c 105.7

Eptam fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

11.3 a 12.0 8 abc 73.4

Dual Magnum fb

(Asulox + Stinger +

UpBeet)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb

(1.5 pt + 1.3 fl.oz +

0.1 oz)

12.3 a 14.0 3 c 119.9

Nontreated --- --- 9.8 ab 11.3 0 c 97.8



bHerbicides were applied May 2 (PRE) and May 30 (POST), 2014; beet steckling emergence and injury estimated May 15 and 21,

2014.


30

Table 15. Weed control in red beeta stecklings after treatment of preemergence and postemergence

herbicides (Sakata Seed, 2014).

Treatment Timing Rate 2 WATb 3 WAT

b 8 WAT

b 13 WAT

b

product/a % % % %

Dual Magnum fb

(Betamix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

100 100 a 100 a 100 a

Chateau PRE 1 oz 100 100 a 100 a 91 a

Chateau PRE 2 oz 100 100 a 100 a 99 a

Spartan PRE 3 fl.oz 100 95 a 98 a 98 a

Spartan PRE 5 fl.oz 100 98 a 99 a 98 a

Karmex fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 8 oz fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

100 94 a 100 a 95 a

Linex fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

100 95 a 100 a 91 a

Sencor fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

100 99 a 100 a 96 a

Eptam fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

100 69 b 100 a 93 a

Dual Magnum fb

(Asulox + Stinger +

UpBeet)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb

(1.5 pt + 1.3 fl.oz

+ 0.1 oz)

100 99 a 100 a 99 a

Nontreated --- --- 100 0 c 0 b 0 b



bHerbicides were applied May 2 (PRE) and May 30 (POST), 2014; beet survival and injury estimated May 15 and 21, June

25, and July 31, 2014.


31

Table 16. Yellow beeta seedling emergence and seed yield after treatment with several preemergence and


Treatmentb

Timing

Rate

Seedling survivalb Seedling

seed weightc

2 WAT 4 WAT

product/a plants/plot plants/plot g/plant

Dual Magnum fb

(Betamix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

8.3 8.0 110.1

Chateau PRE 1 oz 9.0 7.5 45.3

Chateau PRE 2 oz 9.3 8.0 154.4

Spartan PRE 3 fl.oz 6.8 3.0 66.9

Spartan PRE 5 fl.oz 9.3 6.5 92.2

Karmex fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 8 oz fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

9.5 6.8 31.8

Linex fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

9.3 5.0 118.1

Sencor fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

8.0 5.5 41.3

Eptam fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

12.3 8.3 75.2

Dual Magnum fb

(Asulox + Stinger +

UpBeet)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb

(1.5 pt + 1.3 fl.oz +

0.1 oz)

9.8 9.5 154.0

Nontreated --- --- 6.3 4.8 75.1


aYellow beets were transplanted May 16, 2014.

bHerbicides were applied May 16 (PRE) and June 19 (POST), 2014; seedling survival estimated May 28 and June 10, 2014.

cBeets harvested September 10, 2014.

32

Table 17. Weed control in yellow beeta seedlings after treatment with several preemergence and


Treatmentb Timing Rate 2 WATb 4 WATb 6 WATb 11 WATb

product/a % % % %

Dual Magnum fb

(Betamix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

96 89 88 a 80

Chateau PRE 1 oz 98 90 88 a 78


Spartan PRE 3 fl.oz 99 90 90 a 80


Karmex fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 8 oz fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

98 78 80 a 68

Linex fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

95 80 88 a 83

Sencor fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

95 73 83 a 65

Eptam fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

94 75 87 a 82

Dual Magnum fb

(Asulox + Stinger +

UpBeet)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb

(1.5 pt + 1.3 fl.oz +

0.1 oz)

94 79 95 a 90

Nontreated --- --- 91 73 0 b 0



bHerbicides were applied May 16 (PRE) and June 19 (POST), 2014; weed control estimated May 28, June 10 and 25, and July 31,

2014.

33

Table 18. Yellow beeta steckling emergence and seed yield after treatment with several premergence

and postemergence herbicides (Sakata Seed, 2014).

Treatmentb

Timing

Rate

Steckling emergenceb Steckling

seed weightc

2 WAT 4 WAT

product/a plants/plo

t

plants/plo

t

g/plant

Dual Magnum fb

(Betamix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

4.0 7.3 b 129.4

Chateau PRE 1 oz 10.5 12.0 ab 125.7

Chateau PRE 2 oz 7.5 13.3 a 126.0

Spartan PRE 3 fl.oz 8.0 11.0 ab 141.6

Spartan PRE 5 fl.oz 6.8 9.0 ab 109.9

Karmex fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 8 oz fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

8.3 11.5 ab 71.3

Linex fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

7.3 9.8 ab 138.4

Sencor fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

8.0 10.3 ab 138.8

Eptam fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

7.8 11.0 ab 134.5

Dual Magnum fb

(Asulox + Stinger +

UpBeet)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb

(1.5 pt + 1.3 fl.oz +

0.1 oz)

6.5 9.8 ab 142.2

Nontreated --- --- 7.5 10.0 ab 70.1



bHerbicides were applied May 16 (PRE) and June 19 (POST), 2014; steckling emergence estimated May 28 and June

10, 2014.

cBeets harvested September 10, 2014.

34

Table 19. Weed control in yellow beeta seedlings after treatment with several preemergence and


Treatmentb Timing Rate 2 WATb 4 WATb 6 WATb 11 WATb

product/a % % % %

Dual Magnum fb

(Betamix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

91 70 80 a 81





Karmex fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)

PRE fb POST 8 oz fb

(3 pt + 3 pt)

93 78 80 a 76

Linex fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

94 74 84 a 75

Sencor fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

94 76 88 a 88

Eptam fb

(Beatmix + Asulox)


(3 pt + 3 pt)

93 76 85 a 79

Dual Magnum fb

(Asulox + Stinger +

UpBeet)

PRE fb POST 2 pt fb

(1.5 pt + 1.3 fl.oz +

0.1 oz)

94 69 78 a 79

Nontreated --- --- 91 63 0 b 0



bHerbicides were applied May 16 (PRE) and June 19 (POST), 2014; weed control estimated May 28, June 10 and 25, and July 31,

2014.

35

Table 20. Crop injury in spinach seed after treatment with several herbicides (2014).

Treatment

Rate

Timinga

Spinach injury Seed

Jun 19 Jun 24 weightb

product/a % % g/row

Ro-Neet + Command 1.3 pt + 10.7 fl.oz PPI + PPI 21 a 26 a 5.5

Ro-Neet fb Dual Magnum 1.3 pt + 8.4 fl.oz PPI + PRE 6 b-e 4 de 5.4

Ro-Neet fb Define 1.3 pt + 1 pt PPI + PRE 13 abc 10 bcd 6.6

Ro-Neet + Command 1.3 pt + 6.4 fl.oz PPI + PRE 6 b-e 5 de 4.5

Ro-Neet fb Asulox 1.3 pt fb 3 pt PPI fb POST 6 b-e 5 de 10.2

Ro-Neet fb Asulox fb Asulox 1.3 pt fb 3.6 pt fb 3.6 pt PPI fb POST fb POST2 9 b-e 5 de 7.6

Command fb Nortron 10.7 fl.oz + 4.6 fl.oz PPI + PRE 15 ab 16 b 6.3

Command + Nortron 4.6 fl.oz + 4.6 fl.oz PRE + PRE 4 cde 1 e 4.0

Nortron + Dual Magnum 4.6 fl.oz + 8.4 fl.oz PRE + PRE 4 cde 1 e 2.8

Nortron + Define 4.6 fl.oz + 1 pt PRE + PRE 9 b-e 6 cde 7.1

Nortron fb Asulox 4.6 fl.oz fb 3 pt PRE fb POST 5 cde 3 de 3.8

Nortron fb Asulox fb Asulox 4.6 fl.oz fb 3.6 pt fb 3.6 pt PRE fb POST fb POST2 3 de 3 de 3.2

Command fb Dual Magnum 10.7 fl.oz + 8.4 fl.oz PPI + PRE 11 bcd 14 bc 3.5

Command + Dual Magnum 6.4 fl.oz + 8.4 fl.oz PRE + PRE 6 b-e 3 de 6.4

Dual Magnum + Define 8.4 fl.oz + 1 pt PRE + PRE 8 b-e 8 cde 3.6

Dual Magnum fb Asulox 8.4 fl.oz fb 3 pt PRE fb POST 3 de 1 e 2.7

Dual Magnum fb Asulox fb Asulox 8.4 fl.oz fb 3.6 pt fb 3.6 pt PRE fb POST fb POST2 5 cde 4 de 5.9

Hand weeded --- --- 0 e 0 e 1.1

Means within a column followed by the same letter, or not followed by a letter, are not statistically different (P < 0.05).

aSpinach was seeded May 29, 2014; PPI = pre-plant incorporated treatments were applied May 28, 2014); PRE = preemergence (May 30,

2014); POST = postemergence (June 21, 2014).

bSpinach plants harvested August 21, 2014.

36

Table 21. Weed control in spinach seed after treatment with several herbicides (2014).

Treatment

Rate

Timinga

Weed control

Jun 19 Jun 24 Jul 31

product/a % % %

Ro-Neet + Command 1.3 pt + 10.7 fl.oz PPI + PPI 94 a 91 a 71 a

Ro-Neet fb Dual Magnum 1.3 pt + 8.4 fl.oz PPI + PRE 93 a 93 a 86 a

Ro-Neet fb Define 1.3 pt + 1 pt PPI + PRE 93 a 90 a 79 a

Ro-Neet + Command 1.3 pt + 6.4 fl.oz PPI + PRE 94 a 94 a 88 a

Ro-Neet fb Asulox 1.3 pt fb 3 pt PPI fb POST 91 a 88 a 79 a

Ro-Neet fb Asulox fb Asulox 1.3 pt fb 3.6 pt fb 3.6 pt PPI fb POST fb POST2 89 a 86 a 89 a

Command fb Nortron 10.7 fl.oz + 4.6 fl.oz PPI + PRE 93 a 90 a 74 a

Command + Nortron 4.6 fl.oz + 4.6 fl.oz PRE + PRE 84 a 80 a 60 a

Nortron + Dual Magnum 4.6 fl.oz + 8.4 fl.oz PRE + PRE 85 a 85 a 80 a

Nortron + Define 4.6 fl.oz + 1 pt PRE + PRE 90 a 89 a 76 a

Nortron fb Asulox 4.6 fl.oz fb 3 pt PRE fb POST 84 a 81 a 71 a

Nortron fb Asulox fb Asulox 4.6 fl.oz fb 3.6 pt fb 3.6 pt PRE fb POST fb POST2 85 a 81 a 89 a

Command fb Dual Magnum 10.7 fl.oz + 8.4 fl.oz PPI + PRE 94 a 94 a 79 a

Command + Dual Magnum 6.4 fl.oz + 8.4 fl.oz PRE + PRE 93 a 94 a 89 a

Dual Magnum + Define 8.4 fl.oz + 1 pt PRE + PRE 89 a 89 a 80 a

Dual Magnum fb Asulox 8.4 fl.oz fb 3 pt PRE fb POST 89 a 89 a 90 a

Dual Magnum fb Asulox fb Asulox 8.4 fl.oz fb 3.6 pt fb 3.6 pt PRE fb POST fb POST2 83 a 83 a 89 a

Hand weeded --- --- 0 b 0 b 0 b


aSpinach was seeded May 29, 2014; PPI = pre-plant incorporated treatments were applied May 28, 2014); PRE = preemergence (May 30,

2014); POST = postemergence (June 21, 2014).

bSpinach plants harvested August 21, 2014.

37

Table 22. Crop injury in spinach seed after treatment with several new herbicides (2014).

Treatment

Trade name

Rate

Timinga

Spinach injury Weed control

Jun 19 Jun 24 Jun 19 Jun 24 Jul 31

product/a % % %

Quinclorac Paramount 3.1 oz PRE 4 ab 0 b 74 a 70 c 18 abc

Quinclorac Paramount 4.1 oz PRE 3 ab 0 b 75 a 74 bc 33 abc

Quinclorac Paramount 5.2 oz PRE 4 ab 1 b 73 a 69 c 34 abc

Quinclorac Paramount 3.1 oz POST --- 0 b --- 74 bc 8 bc

Quinclorac Paramount 4.1 oz POST --- 0 b --- 81 abc 25 abc

Quinclorac Paramount 5.2 oz POST --- 0 b --- 80 abc 31 abc

Fomesafen Reflex 0.5 pt PRE 5 ab 0 b 79 a 70 c 34 abc

Fomesafen Reflex 1 pt PRE 9 a 4 b 90 a 86 abc 73 a

Fomesafen Reflex 0.5 pt POST --- 54 a --- 90 ab 45 abc

Fomesafen Reflex 1 pt POST --- 64 a --- 94 a 74 a

Rimsulfuron Matrix 0.5 oz PRE 6 ab 3 b 79 a 78 abc 40 abc

Rimsulfuron Matrix 1 oz PRE 4 ab 1 b 85 a 85 abc 63 ab

Rimsulfuron Matrix 0.5 oz POST --- 0 b --- 83 abc 61 ab

Rimsulfuron Matrix 1 oz POST --- 0 b --- 84 abc 61 ab

Hand weeded --- --- --- 0 e 0 b 0 b 0 d 0 c


aSpinach was seeded May 29, 2014; PRE = preemergence (May 30, 2014); POST = postemergence (June 21, 2014).

bSpinach plants harvested September 11-12, 2013.

38


PROJECT TITLE: Weed Control in Vegetable Seed Crops

INVESTIGATOR: Tim Miller, Extension Weed Scientist, WSU NWREC

PROJECT NUMBER: 13K-3419-7228

PROJECT DURATION: 2014-15

CALENDER YEAR: 2014-15

PROPOSED BUDGET: $7,965

OTHER SUPPORT: Herbicides are typically provided by herbicide manufacturers and plant material provided by

local seed companies. WSCPR funds are also being solicited for 2014-15.

IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEM OR NEED: An effective weed control strategy in vegetable seed

production is of the utmost importance to crop quantity and quality. Season-long control of weeds is critical if

vegetable seed production is to remain profitable for growers. Many of the herbicides used in other crops offer

selectivity and excellent weed control potential for vegetable seed cropping systems, but additional work is

necessary prior to their use here.

BENEFITS: These studies will improve weed control practices in spinach and table beet grown for seed by adding

to the knowledge of growers when they make decisions regarding herbicide selection and application. Data from

these experiments will be used to support new herbicide registrations in applicable vegetable seed crops and to fine

tune existing labels.

ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION: Vegetable seed crop yields are significantly reduced when weed control is

inadequate. High populations of weeds at harvest increases the risk both for mechanical damage to vegetable seed

and crop seed loss. Contamination by weed seeds and excess foreign material may result in rejection of the seedlot

for certification.

EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY: The investigator will conduct and evaluate this project and report

findings to the agricultural industry and scientific community. NARF will assess the appropriateness of this line of

study to the industry and make suggestions for future project direction. Growers and processors will adopt results

from this project as applicable to their operations.

39

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Project No: 13K-3419-7228

Title: Weed Control in Vegetable Seed Crops

Year Initiated: 2014-15 Current Year: 2014-15 Terminating Year: 2014-15

Personnel: Timothy W. Miller, Extension Weed Scientist, WSU NWREC

Carl R. Libbey, A/P Assistant Scientist, WSU NWREC

Justification: An effective weed control strategy in vegetable seed production is of the utmost importance to seed crop

quantity and quality. Vegetable seed crop yields are significantly reduced when weed control is inadequate. High

populations of weeds at harvest are particularly troublesome. The increased plant material through the combine

increases the risk both for mechanical damage to vegetable seed and crop seed loss. In addition, contamination by

weed seeds and excess foreign material may result in rejection of the seedlot for certification. Clearly, season-long

control of weeds is critical if vegetable seed production is to remain profitable for growers.

Table beet seed. Two important herbicides, Betamix (phenmedipham + desmedipham) and Pyramin

(pyrazon) have been discontinued, although stocks of Betamix (sold as Sugarbeet Herbicide) may remain available

for 2015. There remains concern by growers that Dual Magnum (s-metolachlor) may reduce beet seed crop growth

and seed. And clearly, additional preemergence (PRE) and postemergence (POST) herbicides need to be identified

and labeled for use in beet seed. During the last four years of testing, up to three POST treatments of Asulox

(asulam), alone or mixed with UpBeet (triflusulfuron), Stinger (clopyralid), and methylated seed oil (MSO) has

performed well. Use of Asulox in combination or sequence with other registered herbicides (Ro-Neet (cycloate),

Nortron (ethofumesate), Dual Magnum, or Sugarbeet Herbicide) needs to be further researched to maximize weed

control while minimizing crop injury. In 2013- and 2014, Lorox (linuron), Karmex (diuron), and Sencor

(metribuzin) also gave excellent weed control and reasonable crop safety at lower rates, so continued testing of

those products will be conducted in 2015. Finally, pretransplant (PRETR) applications of Chateau (flumioxazin)

and Spartan (sulfentrazone) have looked safe for beet seedlings and stecklings while providing excellent early weed

control. Goal and GoalTender (oxyfluorfen) PRETR at lower rates also provided crop safety for seedlings and

stecklings in 2013 and 2014, although these applications will need to be augmented with other herbicides to provide

an acceptable level of weed control.

Spinach seed. Asulox has continued to perform well during testing in spinach from 2009-14 when applied

in sequence with other registered residual herbicides (Ro-Neet (cycloate), Nortron (ethofumesate), and Dual

Magnum). These treatments need to be further researched to determine the optimal program to maximize weed

control while minimizing crop injury. Continuing to generate local data for Asulox in these applications is a high

priority. In addition, testing of new herbicides remains a priority in spinach. Three herbicides currently registered

for use in other crops (quinclorac (Paramount), fomesafen (Reflex), and rimsulfuron (Matrix)) were tested in

spinach during 2014. Based on results from that trial, quinclorac and Reflex applied PRE still offer potential for

spinach seed production. Weed control among these treatments was only poor to fair by July 31, however,

indicating that sequential or combinations treatments with Ro-Neet, Nortron, and Asulox should be tested during

2015.

Cabbage seed. Weed control in cabbage seed crops has centered on simazine applied in the fall. This

product remains an excellent choice for this crop, but an on-going program of testing new herbicides in cabbage

seed is vital if new registrations are to result. The 2013-14 test at WSU NWREC showed PRETR Goal,

GoalTender, and Spartan were very safe in several cabbage seed lines, but that Callisto (mesotrione) caused

moderate injury (Callisto after transplanting caused severe cabbage injury in a previous trial).

Objectives: Evaluate efficacy and crop safety of various herbicides in table beet, spinach, and cabbage grown for

seed.

40

Procedures:

(1) Table beet and Swiss chard seed. Several trials will be conducted at WSU NWREC and on grower fields in the

area. Combinations of Ro-Neet (PPI), Nortron, or Dual Magnum (PRE), and Dual Magnum, UpBeet, Asulox, or

Stinger (POST) will be applied to table beet stecklings. PRE and PRETR applications of Lorox, Karmex,

metribuzin, Chateau, Goal, GoalTender, and Spartan will also be tested. The spectrum and efficacy of weed control

and crop safety of these herbicide treatments will be evaluated as compared to hand weeded beets and weedy

checks. Swiss chard and beet biomass will be determined at maturity. As possible, considering isolation

requirements, beet seed will be collected and germinated during fall/winter of 2015 to determine if any of the

applications detrimentally affect germination rate.

(2) Spinach seed. This study will be conducted at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC. Combinations of Ro-Neet or

Command (PPI), Nortron, Dual Magnum, or Command (PRE), and Spin-Aid, Asulox, or Stinger (POST) will be

applied to spinach. Testing of new products Paramount, Reflex, and Matrix will also be included in the trial. The

spectrum and efficacy of weed control and crop safety of these herbicides will be evaluated as compared to hand

weeded spinach and weedy checks. Spinach biomass and/or seed yield will be determined at maturity. As possible,

considering isolation requirements, spinach seed will be germinated during fall/winter of 2015 to determine if any

of these applications detrimentally affect germination rate.

(3) Cabbage seed. This study will be conducted on an existing hybrid cabbage seed crop on a grower’s field.

Spring treatments will be applied as appropriate to control catchweed bedstraw (Galium aparine) weeds to generate

data for potential uses of these products. The spectrum and efficacy of weed control and crop safety of these

herbicides will be evaluated as compared to hand weeded cabbage and weedy checks. Cabbage seed yield will be

determined at maturity. Cabbage seed will be germinated during fall/winter of 2015 to determine if any of these

applications detrimentally affect germination rate.

Anticipated Benefits and Information Transfer: These studies will improve weed control practices in spinach and cabbage grown for seed by adding to the

knowledge of growers when they make decisions regarding herbicide selection and application. Data from these

experiments will be used to support new herbicide registrations in applicable vegetable seed crops and to fine tune

existing labels. The data resulting from these studies will be disseminated through extension bulletins and during

grower meetings sponsored by extension faculty and the agricultural industry.

41

Budget:

Amount allocated by NARF for vegetable seed research during FY 2013-14: $8,201

Requested 2014-15

Salaries1 $ 3,500

Time-slip wages 1,500

Goods & Services2 500

Operations 0

Travel3 250

Equipment 0

Employee Benefits

A/P Ass’t Scientist (36.19%) 1,267

Time-slip (63.2%) 948

Total Request $7,965

1Salary for A/P scientific assistant Carl Libbey is exclusively

funded through external grants. 2Goods and Services include flags, fertilizer, and related office and

field supplies. 3Travel is for plot establishment, maintenance, and harvest, and for

presentation of data at meetings.

Other Support of Project: Herbicides are typically provided by herbicide manufacturers. Plant materials are

typically provided by local seed companies. Funds will also be solicited from the Washington State Commission

for Pesticide Registration.

42

PROGRESS REPORT


Title:

Management of Subterranean Springtails in Western Washington Spinach Seed Crops: 2014 Fir Island Field Trial

Personnel: Lynell Tanigoshi, Beverly Gerdeman and Hollis Spitler

Reporting Period: 2014

Accomplishments: A spinach trial was performed in our grower cooperator, Brad Smith’s field on Fir Island,

Skagit Co., WA in May-September 2014. The field was planted back into spinach from the previous year to

maximize chances for a collembolan infestation, which had caused economic damage in 2013. The field trial was a

randomized split plot design (treated side by side with untreated), consisting of 6 replicate blocks of twelve

treatments, 5 registered and 6 unregistered* insecticides (Table 1). The split plot design minimized impact of the

spotty collembola infestation and field differences. The objective was to evaluate efficacy of 12 treatments for

control of subterranean collembola in a highly susceptible female spinach parent line. The spinach field was

planted 15 May 2014, courtesy of Steve Strand, Sakata Seed America, using a Monosem 6-row Precision planter.

Five different data sets were collected: # collembola, % leafminer damage, final stand count, biomass and plant

height.

43

Treatment Manufacturer Active ingredient IRAC Toxicity Rate

Athena FMC bifenthrin + avermectin 3A + 6 caution 17 fl oz/A

Belay 50 WSG DuPont clothianidin 4A caution 6.4 oz/A

Capture LFR FMC bifenthrin 3A caution

0.49 fl

oz/1000 ft

Counter* Amvac terbufos 1B danger 8 oz/1000 ft

Deadlock G* Wilbur-Ellis zeta cypermethrin 3A caution 10 lb/A

Diazinon Helena diazinon 1B caution 4 qt/A

Durivo Syngenta

thiamethoxam +

chlorantraniliprole 4A + 28 caution 13 fl oz/A

Endigo* ZC Syngenta

thiamethoxam +

lambda cyhalothrin 4A + 3A warning 4.5 fl oz/A

FarMore

FI400* Syngenta thiamethoxam 4A caution seed treatment

Force* Syngenta tefluthrin 3A caution 5 oz/1000 ft

Platinum Syngenta thiamethoxam 4A caution 3.67 oz/A

Vydate* DuPont oxamyl 1A danger 2 pts/A

* not registered on spinach.

Stand and emergence counts were made weekly beginning about 4 weeks after planting, 27 May-23 July, due to the

prolonged emergence. Slow emergence continued through August. Collembola counts were made by block,

beginning 12 June through 30 June. Samples consisting of a single spinach plant with enough soil to fill a 16 oz

plastic container (24 samples/block) were collected using a shovel, from each treated and untreated replicate.

Target collembola were extracted from samples using Berlese funnels (1sample/funnel). Subterranean collembola

were counted/sample. Plant heights were randomly sampled for each replicate and corresponding untreated, using a

meter stick. Biomass was determined by randomly cutting ten plants at the soil line from each treated and untreated

replicate, combining the 10 plants in a paper sack to dry, then weights were taken.

Table 1. 2014 Spinach/collembolan field trial treatment list.

44

Results: Results of the 5 data sets can be seen in Table 2. Treatment efficacy was estimated by extracting and

counting the collembola then subtracting the number of collembola in the treated samples from corresponding

untreated samples (Fig. 1). Although trends were observed, low numbers of collembola and field population

hotspots, hampered analysis. Results shown in Fig. 1 suggest differences in treatments occurred but there was little

statistical support.

Treatments # Collembola

% Leafminer

Stand count

Biomass Plant

Height

damage (grams) (cm)

FarMore FI400 7.3±1.8a 27.3±5.7b 122.8±18.6de 712.2±110.4c 21.8±1.1a

Counter 20G 6.2±2.7a 53.8±10.7ab 124.0±10.2de 907.8±158.9bc 22.4±1.5a

Force 3G 10.2±2.7a 59.7±15.0a 126.3±16.2de 580.3±84.0c 21.8±1.1a

Deadlock G 6.7±2.2a 70.7±7.7a 166.0±10.8bc 715.3±124.2c 23.0±1.3a

Platinum 75SG 6.3±3.6a 69.8±12.4a 92.7±17.0ef 912.4±91.7bc 21.1±1.5a

Capture LFR 10.5±3.7a 58.7±10.1a 127.0±16.5de 1247.7±221.1ab 24.3±1.4a

Athena 13.3±4.3a 61.3±10.9a 154.2±18.3bcd 801.2±146.8c 22.7±0.6a

Belay 50WDG 9.8±6.3a 71.8±7.1a 171.2±13.2bc 924.0±241.8bc 22.7±1.4a

Durivo 20.8±9.4a 73.8±9.7a 171.2±20.0bc 722.4±61.1c 22.3±1.1a

Endigo ZC 13.0±8.1a 59.7±10.8a 182.3±5.7ab 745.5±108.8c 24.1±1.0a

Vydate C-LV 8.7±1.5a 54.7±12.1ab 211.3±7.7a 640.2±54.4c 22.1±0.5a

Diazinon AG500 20.0±18.4a 66.5±5.4a 70.2±10.5f 1615.2±239.8a 23.6±1.6a

UTC 15.8±1.5a 71.9±2.0a 138.3±4.6cd 880.9±66.1bc 22.7±0.4a

P- value 0.9 0.124 0.0001 0.0003 0.89

Means within a column and followed by the same letter or with no letters, are not statistically different.

Table 2. 2014 Spinach/collembolan field trials, Fir Island, Skagit Co., WA.

45

Fig. 1. Efficacy of treatments against subterranean collembola infesting spinach.

Both systemic insecticide/nematicides, the organophosphate Counter and the carbamate Vydate, exhibited activity

against collembola but were not statistically different from the reduced risk insecticide, Platinum, a neonicotinoid.

Endigo, Force and Capture LFR followed with some indication of efficacy. These three insecticides contain a

pyrethoid component, which acts on contact, ingestion and can exhibit repellency. Capture may not have lived up

to its potential since a broadcast/incorporate application was not tested against the in-furrow. Platinum, Endigo and

FarMore all contain the neonicotinoid, thiamethoxam. A delay in germination was observed in products containing

thiamethoxam. This delay could extend vulnerability since collembola were observed to feed on the germinating

seed, thus reducing stand in 2013 WSU NWREC entomology laboratory studies. Slow germination rate also

delayed sampling for collembola, which began approximately 4 weeks after planting. Since seed treatment efficacy

generally peaks by 3 weeks, the delay in sampling may have missed the window for measuring potential efficacy

for the seed treatment, FarMore. Alignment of the pyrethroids and similar clustering of the neonicotinoids and

drench applications separate from the seed treatment, may indicate differences in performance in controlling

collembola based on insecticide classes or formulation.

Biomass was determined by weighing the dry plant matter from 10 randomly selected plants in the treated and in

the untreated, across the six different blocks. Biomass was not very informative and differences between the

treatments versus the untreated were for the most part small. Biomass inversely reflected the stand count for

Diazinon because fewer plants minimized competition, providing maximum room for growth, erroneously

suggesting Diazinon exhibited the highest biomass (Fig. 2).

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300C

oll

emb

ola

UTC

Treated

Efficacy

Fig. 2. Biomass for ten randomly selected plants. Spinach/collembola Fir Island 2014 field trial.

46

Stand count may also be interpreted as a component of efficacy or performance. Hypothetical stand counts (at 2-4

inch spacing) were estimated for 100% germination to be 420 plants. This figure was then compared with actual

final stand counts taken mid-August. Results indicate Diazinon had the least effect while Vydate exhibited the

most pronounced effect on stand. Deadlock exhibited a 1.8 fold increase in plant stand compared to Platinum.

Although leafminer is not an economic pest for spinach seed production, information on insecticide efficacy is

valuable for the baby leaf spinach industry. Percent leafminer damage was taken 23 June, 40 DAP (days after

planting). Spinach plants within a 12-foot linear section of row-centers were counted and % infested calculated

(Fig. 3).

Four of the five top performing insecticides evaluated against spinach leafminer were systemic. The neonicotinoid

thiamethoxam was the active ingredient for three of the top four as well as the worst performing insecticide,

Durivo. Counter was the only systemic organophosphate insecticide in the five best performers. The efficacy

exhibited by Capture was surprising since the active ingredient is not systemic, however spinach leafminers pupate

in the soil. Capture’s active ingredient, bifenthrin could be affecting the late instar larvae as they drop into the soil.

Growers indicated granular products would be the best formulation for application in-furrow with the direct seeded

spinach crop. Three granular products were tested: Counter, Force and Deadlock G. Counter exhibited efficacy

against collembola and performed next to FarMore in the leafminer evaluation but conclusive statistics are still

lacking. Deadlock and Force are both pyrethroids with caution labels, compared to Counter, an organophosphate

that requires a smartbox or lock-load system and carries a danger label. Deadlock G was not phytotoxic to spinach

seed and it exhibited comparable efficacy compared with the industry standard, Diazinon and is currently the most

economical granular product tested. Insecticides for controlling subterranean pests are difficult to evaluate.

Sometimes performance evaluation does not match field appearance. That appeared to be the case in some of the

treatments. Because of their spotty infestation, collembolans may be less abundant when using a

broadcast/incorporate application, which puts an effective blanket of protection on the field, compared with an in-

furrow approach. Based on these studies, spinach growers have options currently available for controlling

collembola that out performed Diazinon.

Fig. 3. Insecticide efficacy against spinach leafminer, Fir Island field trial. 2014.

47


Project Title: Managing leafminers and spider mites in western Washington table beet and spinach seed crops

Investigators:

Lynell K. Tanigoshi. WSU Entomology Professor. [email protected]

Beverly S. Gerdeman. WSU Entomology Research Associate. [email protected]

Hollis G. Spitler. WSU Research Technician. [email protected]

WSU-NWREC, 16650 State Route 536, Mount Vernon, WA 98273-4768. Tel: (360) 848-6140.

Project Number: New

Project Duration: 2014-2015

Calendar Year: 2014-2015


Other Support: Chemtura, Syngenta, Valent, Seeking support from the Washington State Commission on

Pesticide Registration

Identification of Problem or Need:

From 2010 – 2013, beet seed yields in Washington state were reduced by 1/3. The cause of this reduction is not

fully understood but growers indicated a renewed interest to control indirect pests that may secondarily influence

beet seed production, such as leafminers and spider mites. Spinach has adequate insecticides registered for

leafminers, but no efficacy data exists. Table beet seed growers have 6 fewer insecticide choices for leafminer.

High spider mite populations were observed in a spinach and a table beet seed field in western Washington and low

levels unbeknown to the grower, were detected elsewhere, suggesting that low-level populations have gone

unnoticed. These low level populations provide a reservoir that could flare up during our increasing long dry spells

experienced in the last three years. While 3 mode of action miticides are registered in spinach (bifenthrin

abamectin and spiromesifen) only 1 is registered for beet seed production (bifenthrin). Researchers and growers

alike are concerned about limited options for control of these pests and the lack of efficacy data for the registered

materials. We propose to test efficacy data for registered and unregistered insecticides/mitiicides for spinach and

beet seed production.

Benefits: This research will identify effective management methods for leafminers and spider mites in spinach and

beet seed crops and is anticipated to provide additional data towards 24(c) miticide labels for Comite®, Acramite

®

and Zeal®. The spinach baby leaf industry will also benefit from leafminer data generated from this research.

Economic Justification: Spinach seed crops are grown on 1,500-3,000 acres in western Washington annually, at a

farmgate value of $1,000-$1,200/acre. Western Washington produces up to 50% of the US and 20% of the world’s

supply of spinach seed annually, which supplies the west coast baby leaf industry producing 5.3 million cwt of

fresh spinach and 123,400 tons of processing spinach in 2012 for a combined value of $240.7 million (NASS

2013). Approximately 1300 acres of table beet seed, including white, yellow and striped cultivars, are grown in

western Washington annually, at a farmgate value of approximately $1,500/acre providing 95% of the US and 50%

of the world’s annual beet seed.




48

Evaluation and Accountability: Entomologists at WSU NWREC will evaluate field efficacy data and residual

activity in spinach and beet seed production for 11 different leafminer chemistries and 8 different miticides.

Results will be reported to the Puget Sound Seed Growers Association, which will determine the impact of these

results and make recommendations to their growers. Results will be presented at the 2016 Puget Sound Seed

Growers’ Association annual meeting and on the WSU NWREC Entomology website.

49

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Project Title: Managing leafminers and spider mites in western Washington table beet and spinach seed crops

Investigators:

Lynell K. Tanigoshi. WSU Entomology Professor. [email protected]

Beverly S. Gerdeman. WSU Entomology Research Associate. [email protected]

Hollis G. Spitler. WSU Research Technician. [email protected]

WSU-NWREC, 16650 State Route 536, Mount Vernon, WA 98273-4768. Tel: 360-848-6140.

Project Number: New



Other Support: Chemtura, Syngenta, Valent, Proposal to be presented to Washington State Commission on

Pesticide Registration

Problem Identification and Economic Justification:

Spinach seed crops are grown on 1,500-3,000 acres in western Washington annually, at a farmgate value of $1,000-

$1,200/acre. Western Washington produces up to 50% of the US and 20% of the world’s supply of spinach seed

annually. Spinach can be produced nearly year-round on the west coast and in 2012, 5.3 million cwt of fresh

spinach and 123,400 tons of processing spinach were produced for a combined value of $240.7 million (NASS

2013). Approximately 1300 acres of table beet seed, including white, yellow and striped cultivars, are grown in

western Washington annually, at a farmgate value of approximately $1,500/acre. Western Washington beet seed

represents 95% of the US and 50% of the world’s annual beet seed production. From 2010 – 2013, beet seed yields

were reduced by 1/3. The cause of this reduction is not fully understood but growers are uneasy and recently

indicated a need to investigate methods to control indirect pests that may secondarily influence beet seed

production, such as leafminers and spider mites. High levels of twospotted spider mites were observed in July in a

table beet seed field in western Washington. Low-level populations, unnoticed by a second grower were also

observed. Currently, the incidence of spider mite infested seed crops in western Washington is unknown but it is

likely that low populations have gone unnoticed. In the past, mites have not been a major concern for seed growers

in western Washington but the unseasonable long dry spells experienced during the last three summers have caused

water stress in plants which can promote mite populations. Researchers and growers alike are concerned about

limited options for control of mite outbreaks in high cash value western Washington seed crops. Options for

controlling spider mites on table beets are limited to a single active ingredient, bifenthrin, while spinach has three

registered active ingredients, bifenthrin, abamectin, and spiromesifen. A performance comparison between the

three active ingredients on spinach is lacking. Preliminary miticide data performed on beets July 2014 indicated

excellent activity at 24 HAT for 4 of the 5 products but the IGR, Zeal® will require additional time to observe

effects on immatures (Table 1).

Leafminers cause serpentine mines in both spinach and beet foliage and multiple mines were observed by 5 weeks

in the 2014 spinach trial. Furthermore any leafminer damage results in an unmarketable product for




50

the baby leaf spinach industry. Preliminary data taken at that time indicated the experimental seed treatment,

FarMore F400 with the systemic neonicotinoid thiamethoxam, exhibited some efficacy compared to the untreated.

However non-seed treatments are preferred by the spinach seed industry.

Table 1. Beet miticide bioassay 24 HAT. 9 Sep 2014. WSU NWREC

9-Sep

Treatment Active Pretreatment Dead % mortality

1 Comite propargite 50 50 100

2 Acramite bifenazate 58 58 100

3 Zeal etoxazole 50 6 12

4 Brigade bifenthrin 51 50 99

5 Agri-Mek abamectin 50 50 100

6 Athena abamectin + bifenthrin 50 50 100

7 UTC 50 1 2

Experimental Design:

Spider mites. Foliar applications of 7 miticides (Table 1 + spiromesifen, Oberon®) will be tested against spider

mites on table beet and spinach. Beet transplants will be planted using a mechanical transplanter in a RCBD

experimental design consisting of 4 blocks of each of the 8 treatments at the WSU NWREC station. Plants will be

infested with twospotted spider mites from the WSU NWREC colony. At peak infestation, beet leaves will be

collected and brought to the laboratory and brushed using a mite-brushing machine to establish pretreatment

populations. Following treatment, leaves will be brushed at 24 HAT, 3 DAT, 5 DAT and 7 DAT to determine

efficacy and field aged residual activity. Spinach will be planted at WSU NWREC station, in a RCBD

experimental design representing 4 blocks, each with 8 treatments. Plants will be inoculated with twospotted spider

mites from the WSU colony and at peak infestation, randomly sampled leaves from each treatment will be mite

brushed to determine the pretreatment and following treatment, brushed at 24 HAT, 3 DAT, 5 DAT and 7 DAT to

determine efficacy and field aged residual activity.

Leafminers. Spinach will be planted RCBD divided into four blocks, each with 12 replicates. Treatments will

include: Actara® (thiamethoxam, Syngenta), Assail

® 30 SG # (acetamiprid, United Phosphorus), Athena

® #

(abamectin + bifenthrin, FMC), Danitol® *# (fenpropathrin, Valent), Leverage

® 360 # (beta-cyfluthrin +

imidacloprid, Bayer), Malathion 8 Aquamul (malathion, Loveland), Mustang Maxx® (zeta-cypermethrin, FMC),

Venom® # (dinotefuran, Valent), Trigard

® # (cyromazine, Syngenta), Tundra

® EC (bifenthrin, Agrisolutions),

Voliam Flexi® # (thiamethoxam + chlorantraniliprole, Syngenta) and an untreated check. With the exception of

Danitol, all the products mentioned are registered in Spinach. Beet transplants will be planted at WSU NWREC

in 4 RCBD blocks consisting of the above treatments, however the 7 treatments indicated with a # are not registered

in beets. Plants will be inspected twice/week and at the first sign of leafminers, mines will be counted and tallied

across each block for each treatment to determine efficacy.

51

In addition, research will continue on efficacy of Deadlock® G for collembola control in spinach seed production

and further refining cabbage maggot research.

Benefits:

This research will identify effective management methods for leafminers and spider mites in spinach and beet seed

crops and is anticipated to provide additional data towards 24(c) miticide labels for Comite®, Acramite

® and Zeal

®.

The spinach baby leaf industry will also benefit from leafminer data generated from this research.

Evaluation and Accountability:

Investigators will evaluate field efficacy data by counting leaf mine numbers in spinach and beet to determine both

efficacy data and residual activity of the products following treatment. Miticides will be evaluated, by mite

brushing leaves at 0, 1, 3, 5 and 7 DAT. Results will be reported to the Puget Sound Seed Growers Association,

which will determine the impact of these results and make recommendations to their growers. Results will be

presented at the 2016 Puget Sound Seed Growers’ Association annual meeting and on the WSU NWREC

Entomology website.

Proposed Budget:

Salaries:

2 month salary at 100 FTE for Research Technician $ 6,126

Non-student temporary $ 2,000

Goods & Services $

Laboratory supplies $ 100

Operations $

Travel $

Equipment $

Employee benefits 2 months for Research Technician @ 40.04% $ 2,453

NWREC time-slip employee at 19% $ 380

Total $11,059

52

Small Fruit

53

SMALL FRUIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SFAC) NARF ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. Mike Youngquist, Chairman

Small Fruit Advisory Committee


16402 Jungquist Rd


Phone: 360-424-5015 Cell: 360-770-4670

Fax: 360-424-7617


Mr. Henry Bierlink, Executive Director

Washington Red Raspberry Commission

1796 Front St

Lynden, WA 98264

Phone: 360-354-8767

Fax: 360-354-0948


Ms. Kristie Clark, Treasurer

Washington Red Raspberry Commission

Clark’s Berry Farm

632 Birch Bay-Lynden Rd

Lynden, WA 98264

Phone: 360-354-1294

Fax: 360-354-1294


Mr. Frank DeVries

Berry Acres

752 Loomis Trail Rd

Lynden, WA 98264

Phone: 360-354-1134 Cell: 360-815-0237

Fax: 360-354-0593


Mr. Marvin Enfield

Birch Bay-Lynden Rd

Lynden, WA 98264

Phone: 360-354-3019 Cell: 360-815-3705

Fax: 360-354-0503


Mr. Todd Lenning

Lenning Farms Inc.

15447 Summers Dr


Phone: 360-466-3675 Cell: 360-205-6785

Fax: 360-466-1089


Mr. Marty Maberry

Maberry Packing, Inc.

816 Loomis Trail Rd

Lynden, WA 98264

Phone: 360-354-2094

Fax: 360-354-8182


Mr. Richard Sakuma

Sakuma Bros. Farms

PO Box 427


Phone: 360-757-6611

Fax: 360-757-3835


Mr. Tom Thorton, Chairman

Tree Fruit Industry Advisory Committee

Retail Nursery & Wine

Cloud Mountain Farm

6906 Goodwin Rd

Everson, WA 98247

Phone: 360-966-5859 Home: 360-966-3900


[email protected]

Funding source: Voluntary contributions from packers. Growers contribute to the commission







54

PROJECT OUTLINE

SMALL FRUIT PAGE

ONGOING PROJECTS

Tanigoshi, Lynell; Gerdeman, Beverly; Spitler, E. Hollis

Use of a mycoinsecticide targeting novel SWD preimaginal Progress Report 55

life stages and potential synergism with Entrust

DeVetter, Lisa

Relating Honey Bee Activity to Yield in Washington Highbush Executive Summary 58

Blueberry production in Washington State Research Proposal 60

Impacts of Alleyway Cover Crops on Soil Quality and Plant Executive Summary 64

Competition in Established Red Raspberry Research Proposal 65

SUMMARY

BUDGET REQUESTS

SMALL FRUIT

Small Fruit assessment $ available: $______________

Ongoing Projects

Scientist(s)

Project Number


1st Funding

Source

2nd Funding

Source Priority

DeVetter

Sagili Relating Honey Bee

Activity to Yield in

Washington Highbush

Blueberry production in

Washington State

$6,394

DeVetter

Rudolph

Mazzola

Benedict

Impacts of Alleyway

Cover Crops on Soil

Quality and Plant

Competition in

Established Red

Raspberry

$7,032

Total $13,426

55

PROGRESS REPORT


Title: Use of a mycoinsecticide targeting novel SWD preimaginal life stages and potential

synergism with Entrust

Personnel: Lynell Tanigoshi, Beverly Gerdeman and Hollis Spitler

Reporting Period: 2014

Accomplishments: Two field trials were performed during the 2014 harvest season on a WSU

NWREC red raspberry field. The first trial was applied 1-2 August on the red raspberry ‘Meeker’

plots, using an over-the-row boom sprayer (Fig. 1). The second application was applied 30

August by hand to soil within rim traps designed to concentrate and confine late instar larvae

dropping from berries as they search for pupation sites. The mycoinsecticide applications were

repeated 2 weeks later. The funnel traps described in the 2014 proposal were replaced by fabric

sleeves made from rowcover which facilitated larvae and berry dropping while allowing adequate

airflow (Figs. 2 and 3).

Objectives of the trials:

Investigate the efficacy of a soil-applied mycoinsecticide against SWD preimaginal

stages.

Investigate efficacy of a foliar tank mix against SWD

Investigate synergistic activity with tank-mixed spinosad + mycoinsecticide applied as a

foliar SWD adulticide.

Fig. 3. Mycoinsecticides

and conventional

insecticides were watered

into the rim trap area

using a watering can

.

Fig. 1. Over the row boom application

of mycoinsecticides to red raspberry

hills.

Fig. 2. Larvae and raspberries

fall freely into the rim traps

below for easy recovery.

Sleeves resemble ghostly

figures!

56

Treatment adjustments were necessary during the field trials as a result of the extended hot dry

period and low SWD populations in the ‘Meeker’ variety. Foliar applications were replaced by

drench applications of Danitol® and the granular Deadlock G

® and trials were restricted to the late

season varieties of red raspberry which were highly infested by 30 August. Applications

consisted of field rates of 6 treatments (Table 1).

Two weeks following the applications, approximately 1 inch of soil was scraped from within

each of the rim traps using a hand trowel. Soil was placed in plastic containers and returned to

the WSU NWREC entomology laboratory where each soil sample was sieved through three

screens: U.S. Series from coarse to fine, 8 (2.46 mm), 16 (1.18mm) and 25 (0.701mm). Puparia

were collected with an artist’s fine brush and surface sterilized in a 10% bleach solution for 1

minute. The pupae were then placed on paper towels to wick away excess moisture. Then into 1

oz plastic condiment cups lined with cotton moistened with de-ionized water and held in a

humidifying chamber to encourage sporulation.

After 1 week, recovered pupae were observed and placed into 5 categories (Table 2). 1. Pupae =

average number of pupae recovered from each of the 3 treatment replicates. 2. Suspect = average

number of pupae exhibiting signs of disease, 3. Flies emerged = average number of adults that

emerged from pupae while inside cup, 4. Viable pupae = appearing healthy and 5. Damaged/dead

= pupae that died of unknown causes.

Results: Observations in 2014 found that SWD pupae can be infected in the field with

Metarhizium anisopliae. 1,863 SWD pupae were recovered from the 21 total rim traps

representing approximately 15.12 ft2 of area in the red raspberry trial plots. Based on these

figures, a conservative estimate of SWD pupae during peak infestation in early September in two

180’ red raspberry rows (.08 acre) located in Mount Vernon, Washington, would be

approximately 132,846.

Table 1. Red raspberry mycoinsecticide/insecticide treatment list.

Insecticide/mycoinsecticide Active ingredient

Deadlock G zeta cypermethrin

Met52 + Entrust Metarhizium anisopliae + spinosad

Botanigard Beauveria bassiana

Danitol fenpropathrin

Met52 Metarhizium anisopliae

Botanigard + Entrust Beauveria bassiana + spinosad

UTC

57

Table 2. SWD red raspberry mycoinsecticide trial 2014

Treatment Pupae viable pupa damaged/dead flies emerged suspect infected

Deadlock 20.7 ± 3.7 a 9.0 ± 1.5 a 9.7 ± 1.8 b 3.3 ± 0.7 b 17.0 ± 3.5 ab

Met52 + Entrust 25.3 ± 6.2 a 13 ± 2.5 a 18.3 ± 7.3 ab 7.7 ± 2.2 b 16.3 ± 3.5 ab

Botanigard 42.7 ± 6.3 a 23.7 ± 6.7 a 25.3 ± 2.3 a 20.0 ± 5.9 a 21.3 ± 2.2 a

Danitol 18.7 ± 5.2 a 21.0 ± 12.9 a 21.0 ± 5.3 ab 7.9 ± 3.0 b 9.0 ± 2.1 b

Met52 30.0 ± 9.7 a 18.3 ± 5.9 a 25.7 ± 3.3 a 4.3 ± 2.6 b 14.7 ± 4.4 ab

Botanigard + Entrust 35.7 ± 21.1 a 26.3 ± 11.6 a 11.3 ± 3.9 b 11.0 ± 2.6 ab 15.3 ± 3.4 ab

UTC 21.7 ± 2.3 a 23.0 ± 3.5 a 14.3 ± 4.6 ab 8.7 ± 3.3 b 12.7 ± 5.2 ab

P-value 0.74 1 2.33 3.25 1.03

Means within a column and followed by the same letter or with no letters, are not statistically different.

The results indicate problem areas for interpretation. There should be no suspect infected pupae

in treatments, which were not mycoinsecticides, Deadlock, Danitol and the untreated. These

results are preliminary and specimens will undergo further testing with acid fuchsin. Pupae will

be squashed/teased apart and placed in a drop of water. A drop of dilute acid fuchsin in lactic

acid will be dropped onto the insect and any fungal blastospores, hyphae, etc. will be stained red

to verify a fungal infection.

Observations:

• Tank mixes of mycoinsecticides + spinosad had the lowest fly emergence.

• Deadlock G - lowest # of dead puparia

• Botanigard – highest # dead puparia

We have obtained 2015 USDA-NCSFR funding for a repeat mycoinsecticide trial. Modifications

for the coming season will include a mulch substrate, rather than applying treatments to bare soil.

Rates will be recalculated. Pupae will be recovered less than 1 week following soil applications.

58


PROJECT TITLE: Relating Honey Bee Activity to Yield in Washington Highbush Blueberry

INVESTIGATORS:

PI: Lisa W. DeVetter, Small Fruit Horticulturist, WSU Mount Vernon Research and Extension

Center, 16650 State Route 536, Mount Vernon, WA, 98273, email: [email protected]

Co-PI: Ramesh Sagili, Entomologist and Honey Bee Specialist, Oregon State University, 4017

Ag and Life Sciences Bldg., Corvallis, OR 97331, email: [email protected]

PROJECT NUMBER: New to NARF; funded in 2014 by the Washington Blueberry

Commission (WBC)

PROJECT DURATION: 1 year (2015)

CALENDAR YEAR: 2014-2015


OTHER SUPPORT: This project was supported in 2014 by the WBC. We are requesting

funding for a second year of data collection from both NARF and WBC, each providing 50% of

the funds for the project.

IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEM OR NEED: Domestic honey bees (Apis mellifera) are

valuable pollinators of horticultural crops, including highbush blueberry. Yet, honey bee activity

is allegedly limited within Washington (particularly western Washington), which can negatively

impact fruit set, berry size, and overall yields. Poor pollination may be due to many factors, such

as unfavorable weather, grower management practices (e.g., timing and applications of

pesticides), and poor colony health. Information on pollination and factors that limit honey bee

activity are limited, particularly in Washington. This project proposes to address these

knowledge deficiencies by surveying, measuring, and evaluating honey bee activity in blueberry

fields located in Washington. Additionally, this project will monitor management practices,

colony stocking rates, and landscape features in order to assess how these variables impact honey

bee activity and subsequent yields.

BENEFITS: This project is intended to benefit Washington blueberry growers, who currently

have little information on how to promote pollination within their fields. Increased knowledge of

factors limiting pollination may help growers manage their plantings in order to enhance

pollination, which may translate into cost-savings through optimized stocking densities of healthy

colonies and improved productivity. Furthermore, information on management practices that are

detrimental to pollinators may encourage growers to implement strategies that maintain the health

and activity of these important insects, both introduced and native.

ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION: Highbush blueberry production is a growing and

economically important industry for Washington. According to the USDA Noncitrus Fruits and

Nuts 2013 Summary, Washington is the fourth largest national producer of blueberry with a total

value of approximately $71 million. Washington is also the leading national producer of organic



59

blueberries. Information on practices that limit and promote pollination will strengthen this

economically important horticultural industry.

EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY: The investigators will conduct, evaluate, and

report results of the project to agricultural and scientific communities. NARF and the WBC will

also share responsibility in evaluating the progress of the project.

60

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Project Number: New

Title: Relating Honey Bee Activity to Yield in Washington Highbush Blueberry

Year Initiated: 2014 Current Year: 2014-2015 Terminating Year:

End of 2015

Personnel:

PI: Lisa W. DeVetter, Small Fruit Horticulturist, WSU Mount Vernon Research and Extension


Co-PI: Ramesh Sagili, Entomologist and Honey Bee Specialist, Oregon State University, 4017

Ag and Life Sciences Bldg., Corvallis, OR 97331, email: [email protected]

Justification:

Honey bees (Apis mellifera) are indispensable aids to food production that pollinate over 130

horticultural crops, including blueberry. Effective pollination is essential for optimal fruit set and

large berry size in most commercial cultivars of highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum).

Even though the benefits from cross-pollination are cultivar dependent, most commercial growers

rent colonies of honey bees in order to enhance pollination and subsequent yields (MacKenzie,

1997). These rented colonies are particularly valuable for large plantings given native bee

populations and their pollination contributions are relatively low (Isaacs and Kirk, 2010).

The effective pollination period within Washington is relatively short and may be restricted due

to unfavorable weather conditions that limit pollinator activity. This is particularly the case for

western Washington, which is often cool and wet during the bloom time of most blueberry

cultivars. Moreover, poor honey bee health and subsequent activity is suspected to further limit

pollination. Research on pollination in highbush blueberry is limited, particularly within the

conditions of the Pacific Northwest (PNW). Developing a comprehensive understanding of the

factors limiting pollination would be beneficial to the Washington blueberry industry as it seeks

to overcome these limitations and improve yields.

Current recommendations on promoting pollination within highbush blueberry are limited and

originate from studies performed in locations outside of Washington. For example, Pritts and

Hancock (1992) recommend stocking densities of 0.5 to 2.0 “healthy” colonies per acre in

northeastern United States. Recommendations from Oregon State University range from 0.5 to

3.0 “healthy” colonies per acre (Sagili and Burgett, 2011; Strik et al., 2006). Despite these

recommendations, some Washington growers report stocking densities of up to six colonies per

acre, whereas others limit densities to one colony per acre (personal communication). This wide

range reflects a lack of reliable and relevant information from which Washington growers can

base their decisions regarding pollinator management. Moreover, excessive colonies beyond the

need of a crop represents a loss of money to growers. The health and activity of domestic honey

bee colonies is another related issue that has not been evaluated in Washington. Colony health

and activity is in need of assessment so that growers are aware of the strength and reliability of

their pollinators and how it relates to yield. This project proposes to begin addressing these

knowledge gaps by conducting foundational investigations on honey bee activity and the potential

factors limiting pollination for blueberry plants grown in Washington.



61

Objectives:

The main objective of this project is to survey, measure, and evaluate honey bee activity in

blueberry fields located in Washington. Additionally, this project will monitor management

practices, colony stocking rates, and landscape features in order to assess how these variables

impact honey bee activity and yield.

Procedures:

Data collection for this project began in 2014 and we propose to continue data collection into

2015. Sixteen commercial sites (ten in western Washington and six in eastern Washington, four

of which were certified organic) were utilized during the first year of data collection. All data

were collected from fields with fully bearing 'Duke' plants (approximately six years old or older).

We would like to expand the number of sites to include more organic or “no-spray” fields in

western Washington due to an interesting trend in the 2014 data in which we observed

significantly greater activity of pollinators in organic sites. All sites were and will continue to be

located a minimum of 2 km (~1.25 mi) apart in order to avoid landscape-scale interferences and

to maintain independence (Eigenbrod et al., 2011). Information on planting arrangement,

landscape features (e.g., agricultural or woodland surroundings with refuges), source of colonies,

colony placement, spring pesticide applications, and stocking densities will be collected in order

to evaluate the influence of these variables on pollinator activity and yield.

Procedures for the collection of pollination and yield data will be the same as those implemented

in 2014, which are similar to those described by Courcelles et al. (2013). At each site, three 100-

m transects proceeding down a row were established. Within each transect, ten randomly

selected bushes were identified and tagged at 0-, 25-, 50-, and 100-m intervals (N = 30 bushes per

site; 10 bushes per transect). Transects began at the natural edge of a field and proceeded towards

the interior of the planting. Pollinator activity was assessed at each site from 10:00 AM to 4:00

PM and when weather conditions were conducive to pollinator activity (i.e, > 13 °C (55 °F) with

low wind, full-to-partial sun). Measures of activity were recorded when plants were in 30-100%

bloom and only considered “legitimate” pollinations (e.g., bee species foraging within the flower

and entering through the corolla, no “nectar robbing”). Abundance, or total number of bees on a

bush, were also noted. These data were collected by counting the number of flower visitations

per tagged bush within one-minute intervals. Counts were replicated three times within a day for

a minimum of three days per site.

Colony strength was evaluated the same day in which activity measurements occurred. These

measurements were recorded by observing colonies and counting the number of incoming bees

during a one-minute interval, replicated three times per site and day. Reports have indicated that

good pollinating colonies have uniform flight and approximately one hundred or more bees return

to their colonies per minute when temperatures are 18 °C (65 °F) or above (Sagili and Burgett,

2011). Temperature, radiation (light), and wind data were and will continue to be collected from

local weather stations through the WSU AgWeatherNet program

(http://weather.wsu.edu/awn.php). These data will be utilized to monitor climactic conditions

that influence pollinator activity across the sites.

Estimation of berry number and yield occurred immediately prior to the first harvest from all

tagged plants included in the pollinator activity measurements. Thirty randomly selected ripe

berries were also sampled from each field and will have seeds extracted. Number of fertile seeds

> 1.7 mm in length will be determined. Dogterom et al. (2000) have determined that this seed

size is indicative of fertilization and can serve as a proxy for effective pollination in highbush

blueberry. Pollinator activity and colony strength (i.e., number of incoming bees) will be

regressed on these outcome variables in order to assess the nature and strength of the relationship

among these variables.

http://weather.wsu.edu/awn.php

62

Anticipated Benefits and Information Transfer:

This project will provide needed information on honey bee activity and the relationship between

pollination and yield for blueberry grown within Washington. Data collected will provide a

foundation for future work on how to optimize pollination for Washington-grown blueberries.

Insight will also be gained on honey bee health and may provide opportunities for future research

on increasing pollinator health. Information from this project will be shared through field days,

conferences (progress report to be presented at the 2014 Washington Small Fruit Conference in

Lynden, WA), the WSU Small Fruit Horticulture website, as well as extension and peer-reviewed

publications.

Budget:

Amount allocated by NARF during FY 2013-2014: $ NA

FY 2014 - 2015

Salaries………………………$0

Time-slip wages1/……………$4,800

Goods & Services……………$0

Operations…………………...$0

Travel2/………………………$1,123

Equipment…………………...$0

Employee Benefits3/…………$471

Total: $6,394

1/ Pollination Counts: $10/hr * 8 hr/day = $80 person/day * 20 days = $800 * 4 people = $3200;

Fruit Set and Yield Counts: $10/hr * 8 hr/day = $80 person/day * 10 days = $800 * 2 people =

$1600. Total = $4800. Please note that sources of timeslip labor in eastern WA will be sought to

facilitate data collection.

2/ Travel from Mount Vernon to twenty field sites located in western and eastern Washington.

Approximate roundtrip distance between Mount Vernon and to-be-identified western and eastern

field sites is 80 and 500 miles, respectively. Estimate six trips west to Whatcom County and five

trips east to Benton County (and adjacent colonies) for pollination, fruit set, and yield data

collection. Estimate an additional 250 miles for driving to and from various sites within a region.

Total estimated mileage for field work is 1865miles in 2014, or $1,044 ($0.56/mile rate * 1865

miles = ~$1044). Estimated cost for travel to the Washington Small Fruits Conference for project

information dissemination is $45 ($0.56/mile rate * 80 miles roundtrip = ~$45). Allowance for

additional travel of 100 miles for research and extension activates related to the project

($0.56/mile rate * 61 miles = $34). Total: $1123.

3/Benefits for non-student temporary worker at 9.8%.

Other Support of Project: Year one of this project was funded by the Washington Blueberry

Commission (WBC), which permitted data collection across the state in 2014. We will be

seeking a 50% match for 2015, which will provide more support to study pollination in highbush

blueberry in western Washington.

63

References:

Courcelles, D.M.D., L. Button, and E. Elle. 2013. Bee visit rates vary with floral morphology

among highbush blueberry cultivars (Vaccinium corymbosum). J. Appl. Entomol. 137:693-

701.

Dogterom, M.H., M.L. Winston, A. Mukai. 2000. Effect of pollen load size and source (self,

outcross) on seed and fruit production in highbush blueberry cv. ‘Bluecrop’ (Vaccinium

corymbosum; Ericaceae). American Journal of Botany 87:1584-1591.

Eigenbrod, F., S.J. Hecnar, and L. Fahrig. 2011. Sub-optimal study design has major impacts on

landscape-scale inference. Biological Conservation 144: 298-305.

Isaacs, R., and A.K. Kirk. 2010. Pollination services provided to small and large highbush

blueberry fields by wild and managed bees. J. Appl. Ecol. 47:841-849.

MacKenzie, K.E. 1997. Pollination requirements of three highbush blueberry (Vaccinium

corymbosum L.) cultivars.J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 122:891-896.

Pritts, M.P. & Hancock, J.F. 1992. Highbush blueberry production guide. Northeast Region

Agricultural Engineering Service NRAES-55.

Sagili, R.R. and D.M. Burgett. 2011. Evaluating honey bee colonies for pollination: A guide for

commercial growers and beekeepers. Pacific Northwest Extension publication. PNW 623.

Strik, B., G. Fisher, J. Hart, R. Ingham, D. Kaufman, R. Penhallegon, J. Pscheidt, C. Brun, M.

Ahmedullah, A. Antonelli, L., P. Bristow, D. Havens, B. Scheer, C. Shanks, and D. Barney.

Pacific Blueberry Pollination. 2006. In Highbush Blueberry Production. Department of

Extension & Experiment Station Communications, Oregon State University. PNW 215.

USDA NASS. 2010. 2008 Organic Survey. The Census of Agriculture. USDA National

Agricultural Statistics Services. Accessed 25 Oct. 2014 at:

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_ Highlights/Organics/index.php.

USDA NASS. 2014. USDA Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2013 Summary. USDA National

Agricultural Statistics Services. Accessed 25 Oct. 2014 at:

http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/ncit0714.pdf.

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_%20Highlights/Organics/index.php

http://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/ncit0714.pdf

64


PROJECT TITLE: Impacts of Alleyway Cover Crops on Soil Quality and Plant Competition in

Established Red Raspberry

INVESTIGATORS:

PI: L.W. DeVetter, Small Fruit Horticulturist, WSU Mount Vernon Research and Extension


Co-PIs: R. Rudolph (graduate Student of L.W. DeVetter), M. Mazzola (USDA Research Plant

Pathologist), and C.Benedict (WSU Extension in Whatcom County)

PROJECT NUMBER: New


CALENDAR YEAR: 2014-2015


OTHER SUPPORT: Seeking matching support from the Washington Red Raspberry

Commission

IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEM OR NEED: Red raspberry alleyway management in

northwestern Washington generally consists of repeated cultivation and herbicide applications in

order to maintain bare soil between the rows. These management practices can have deleterious

effects on soil quality. Raspberry plants and fruit quality may also be negatively impacted by

these management practices. Some of the effects include increased soil compaction and erosion,

reduced soil microbial diversity, and reduced photosynthetic activity and increased spider mite

activity from excessive dust. An alternative management approach is planting alleyway cover

crops, such as annual cover crops or perennial groundcovers. Studies on alleyway cover crops in

raspberry production systems are limited, especially in Washington. Further research is needed to

assess their application.

BENEFITS: This study is anticipated to demonstrate the potential utility and benefits of

alleyway cover crops in red raspberry systems. Some of the potential benefits include: improved

soil quality through increases in soil organic matter, improved soil structure, reduced compaction,

and increased diversity of soil microorganisms. These benefits may enhance the resiliency of

raspberry production systems and increase their productivity. Additionally, reduced cultivation

may translate into cost savings to growers.

ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION: Northwestern Washington produces over 95% of the

processed red raspberries in the state and is the largest producer in the United States.

Productivity, however, is declining and increasing evidence suggests these declines are due to

reductions in biological, chemical, and physical attributes of soil quality. Declines in soil quality

can impact disease/pest management and crop productivity. An integrated approach to raspberry

field management that maintains or promotes soil quality and plant productivity is needed for the

continued success of this important industry.

EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY: The investigators will conduct, evaluate, and

report results of the project to agricultural and scientific communities. NARF and the

Washington Red Raspberry Commission will also share responsibility in evaluating the progress

of the project.


65

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Project Number: New

Title: Impacts of Alleyway Cover Crops on Soil Quality and Plant Competition in Established

Red Raspberry

Year Initiated: 2015 Current Year: 2014 Terminating Year: End of

2016

Personnel: L.W. DeVetter, R. Rudolph, M. Mazzola, and C. Benedict

Justification:

Management of alleyways in red raspberry (Rubus ideaus) fields grown in northwest Washington

typically entails repeated cultivation and use of herbicides. While effective at minimizing weeds

and alleyway cane growth, this strategy has several disadvantages, including:

1. Reductions in soil quality due to repeated cultivation, loss of vegetative ground cover,

and reductions in soil organic matter. Reduced soil quality can manifest into increased

soil erosion, compaction, loss of soil physical structure, and reductions in nutrient- and

water-holding capacity (Funt and Hall, 2013; PNW Extension, 2007).

2. Increased dust during the dry season, which can accumulate on leaves and potentially

reduce photosynthetic capacity and overall productivity of raspberry plants, as well as

promote spider mite activity (PNW Extension, 2007). Dust on fruit also reduces fresh

market quality.

3. Complicate operation of mechanical equipment because alleyways devoid of cover crops

tend to be more muddy and difficult to operate in (which can further increase damage to

soil quality caused by compaction from heavy equipment and machinery) (Funt and Hall,

2013; PNW Extension, 2007).

4. Increased expenditures due to associated mechanical, fuel, and labor costs of frequent

alleyway management (PNW Extension, 2007).

One potential approach to reduce the negative impacts of current alleyway management strategies

is through the use of cover crops. Many crops, including blueberries (Vaccinium corymbosum)

grown in Whatcom and Skagit counties, have permanent alleyway cover crops that are often a

mixture of cool season turfgrasses, native vegetation, and/or weeds. This observation leads one to

question why raspberries grown in adjacent areas lack cover crops. Two explanations are that

cover crops could complicate field management (e.g., subsoiling) and compete with the main crop

for water and nutrients. However, there is limited information to support these claims, especially

in Washington.

Zebarth et al. (1993) observed that nitrogen cycling improved and nitrate leaching was reduced

with cover crops in the alleyways of raspberries grown in Canada, which indicates overall

nitrogen management was improved through cover crops. Yet, a small reduction in berry yield

was also observed with cover crops. Bowen and Freyman (1995) observed no differences in

berry yield with white clover (Trifolium repens) established in the alleyways compared to clean

cultivation, but berry yield was significantly lower with perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) in

the alleyways compared to clean cultivation. However, white clover is susceptible to the root-

lesion nematode (Pratylenchus penetrans) and may amplify populations of this nematode which

is a parasite of raspberry (Vrain et al., 1996). In another four-year study with alleyway cover

66

crops in raspberry, plots that were annually seeded with oats (Avena spp.) produced the same

yields as clean cultivated plots (Sanderson and Cutcliffe, 1988).

Certain species of cover crops may have the potential to suppress diseases and pests, which may

be useful in raspberry fields starting to exhibit declines in productivity and plant health. Mustard

crops, both Sinapsis alba and Brassica juncea, are commonly used as green manures or

biofumigants in Washington to control nematodes and other soilborne diseases (Clark, 2012).

Specific wheat cultivars can induce soilborne disease suppression by enhancing antagonistic

microbial populations (Mazzola and Gu, 2002). Cover crops can also suppress weeds, which may

negatively impact crop production (Funt and Hall, 2013). Forge et al. (2000) reported oat cv.

Saia and rye cv. Wheeler to be the most competitive against winter weeds. Additionally, P.

penetrans can live on a wide range of common weeds, therefore a cover crop that can suppress

these weeds may also manage root-lesion nematode populations.

Previous research demonstrates that there are many potential benefits of cover crops in perennial

fruit systems, including increased soil quality and improved ability to suppress diseases. The role

of cover crops in promoting soil quality and suppressing diseases/pests through effects on soil

microbial ecology have been minimally studied in raspberry, particularly in northwest

Washington. Northwest Washington is a leader in processed red raspberry production, with

Whatcom and Skagit counties contributing approximately 95% of the state’s total production

(WRRC, 2013). Ensuring the continued productivity of this industry through improved soil and

plant management strategies, such as through the successful use of cover crops, will help ensure

the economic vitality of this industry.

Objectives:

The primary objectives of this experiment are to measure the effects of alleyway cover crops in

established red raspberry on: 1) Soil quality, using select chemical, physical, and biological

variables; 2) Soil microbial community structure, with specific focus on changes in pathogenic

and pathogen-suppressing populations; and 3) Plant competition between alleyway cover crops

and raspberry plants. An additional goal is to evaluate the suitability of select annual and

perennial grains and turfgrasses as alleyway cover crops in raspberry production in northwest

Washington.

Procedures:

Cover crops were seeded in an established commercial field of ‘Meeker’ located in Lynden, WA,

on October 1, 2014. The site was reportedly starting to decline due to soilborne pathogens and

the investigators identified the site as suitable for an observational cover crop study that could

become a more comprehensive study with project support. Cover crop treatments were

established as a completely randomized design with an experimental unit representing a 30 x 12

foot plot, replicated four times per treatment. Plots span the entire alleyway on both sides of the

row and a minimum of 60 feet were maintained between plots as buffer. Treatment cover crops

seeded in the alleyways include: 1) Hard, red winter wheat cv. Norwest 553 (Triticum aestivum);

2) Soft, white winter wheat cv. Rosalyn (T. aestivum); 3) Winter-hardy oats cv. TAM 606 (Avena

sativa); 4) Winter-hardy oats cv. Nora (A. sativa); 5) Ryegrass (Lolium spp.) mix that included

51.25% intermediate ryegrass cv. Tetralite and 48.24% tetraploid perennial ryegrass cv. Kentaur ;

6) Perennial ryegrass (L. perenne) mix that included 43.93% ‘Esquire’, 31.44% ‘TopHat 2’, and

67

22.49% ‘Tetragreen’; 7) Triticale cv. Trical 103BB (Triticosecale sp.); 8) Triticale cv. TriMark

099 (Triticosecale sp.); and 9) a generic cereal rye (Secale cereale). All cover crops were seeded

at recommended rates. Untreated bare soil controls were also maintained, which represents

conventional management of raspberry alleyways.

Activities:

Pre Cover Crop Seeding: Fall 2014 soil samples were collected within rows and will serve to

provide soil biological (microbial), physical, and chemical information. Alleyways were

tilled to clear weeds prior to seeding.

Post Cover Crop Seeding: Observe cover crop growth every 2-4 weeks through fall and

winter. In early spring of 2015, cover crops will be mowed down. When necessary,

perennial cover crops will be mowed to a height of 10-15 cm throughout the season. Bare

soil areas will be clean-cultivated and managed per industry standard. Soil and plant growth

variables will be collected according to Table 1.

Table 1. Variables and timeline of sample collection for alley cover crop in red raspberry experiment.

Variable Fall

2014

Sprin

g 2015

Summe

r 2015

Fall

2015

Spring

2016

Summe

r 2016

Fall

2016

Soilsz

Bulk density X X X X

Aggregate stability X X X X

Infiltration X X X X

Nutrients (macro, micro, &

organic matter) X X X X

X

Soil microbiologyy

X X X X X

Raspberry plants

Yield X X

Cane diameter & density X X

zSamples will be collected and analyzed separately in alleyways and rows; bulk density,

aggregate stability, and infiltration will only be monitored in alleyways; all other soil variables

will be analyzed both in row and alleyway samples.

ySoil microbial populations will be monitored using Terminal Restriction Fragment Length

Polymorphisms (T-RFLP).

68


Our primary hypotheses are that alley way cover crops will: 1) Improve soil quality by increasing

soil organic matter, improve soil physical structure, and change soil microbial populations; 2)

Alter soil microbial community structure so that it is more suppressive of pathogenic/pest

organisms; and 3) Not compete with raspberry plants and cause reductions in yield, particularly

among certain species of cover crops. If these hypotheses are supported, then these anticipated

benefits may increase the longevity of raspberry plantings by mitigating soil-borne diseases and

problems due to poor soil quality. Furthermore, realized benefits may translate into financial

savings on behalf of growers by reducing costs associated with replanting, conventional

management of alleyways (i.e., frequent cultivation and herbicide applications), and overall

improved soil quality and productivity. Results of this project will be part of a doctoral thesis that

will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and as a WSU Extension Publication. Furthermore,

final results will be presented at the Washington Small Fruit Conference in Lynden and shared

online at the WSU Small Fruits Website (http://smallfruits.cahnrs.wsu.edu/), as well as other

available online sources.

Budget:

FY 2014 - 2015

Salaries………………………………..$0

Time-slip wages1/……...…………$2,400

Goods & Services2/………………$4,150

Operations…………………………….$0

Travel3/……………………………..$247

Equipment…………………………….$0

Employee Benefits4/………………..$235

Total: $7,032

1/Time-slip for two months of graduate student summer work at $10/hr in 2015.

2/Funds for soil quality evaluations, including chemical and biological analyses, which will cover

cost of reagents, soil DNA isolation kits, primers, gels, sequencing, etc.; figures based on 360

total samples (including running T-RFLP samples in triplicate) from fall 2014, spring 2015, and

fall 2015 with an estimated $23 per sample for both chemical and biological analyses; amount

also includes cost of cover crop seeds.

3/Travel funds for commuting from Mount Vernon, WA, to field site in Lynden, WA

approximately ten times in 2015 (88 mi/roundtrip at 0.56 cents/mi).

4/Benefits for a part-time student is 9.80%

69

Other Support of Project: We will be seeking a 50% match for this proposal from the

Washington Red Raspberry Commission (WRRC). With the total cost for the first year

amounting to $14,058, this equates to $7,029 requested each from NARF and WRRC.

Literature Cited:

Bowen, P. and S. Freyman. 1995. Ground covers affect raspberry yield, photosynthesis, and

nitrogen nutrition of primocanes. HortScience 30(2):238-241.

Clark, A. 2012. Managing cover crops profitably. 3rd ed. SARE, College Park, MD.

Forge, T.A., R.E Ingham, D. Kaufman, and J.N. Pinkerton. 2000. Population growth of

Pratylenchus penetrans on winter cover crops grown in the Pacific Northwest. J. Nematol.

32(1):42-51.

Funt, R.C. and H.K. Hall. 2013. Raspberries. CAB International, Oxfordshire, UK.

Mazzola, M. and Y. Gu. 2002. Wheat genotype-specific induction of soil microbial communities

suppressive to disease incited by Rhizoctonia solani Anastomosis Group (AG)-5 and AG-8.

Phytopathology 92(12):1300-1307.

Pacific Northwest Extension. 2007. Commercial red raspberry production in the Pacific

Northwest. PNW 598.

Sanderson, K.R. and J.A. Cutcliffe. 1988. Effect of inter-row soil management on growth and

yield of red raspberry. Can. J. Plant Sci. 68:283-285.

Vrain, T., R. DeYoung, J. Hall, and S. Freyman. 1996. Cover crops resistant to root-lesion

nematodes in raspberry. HortScience 31(7):1195-1198.

Washington Red Raspberry Commission (WRRC). 2013. 2013 Production Statistics. Accessed on

8 Oct. 2014 at: http://www.red-raspberry.org/statistics.asp.

Zebarth, B.J., S. Freyman, and C.G. Kowalenko. 1993. Effect of ground covers and tillage

between raspberry rows on selected soil physical and chemical parameters and crop response.

Can. J. Soil Sci. 73:481-488.

http://www.red-raspberry.org/statistics.asp

70

Alternative

& Emerging

Crops

71

ALTERNATIVE & EMERGING CROPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE NARF ADVISORY SUBCOMMITTEE

Mr. Tom Thorton, Chairman

Tree Fruit Industry Advisory Committee

Retail Nursery & Wine

Cloud Mountain Farm

6906 Goodwin Rd

Everson, WA 98247

Phone: 360-966-5859 Home: 360-966-3900


[email protected]

Mr. Sam Benowitz, Representataive

Western Washington Fruit Research Foundation

Raintree Nursery

391 Butts Rd

Morton, WA 98356

Phone: 360-496-6406


Mr. Joe Biringer, Jr.

Wholesale Nursery Industry

Biringer Nursery LP

PO Box 2809


Phone: 360-848-5151 Cell: 425-508-0557

Fax: 360-848-5959


Dr. Stephen Jones, Director

WSU Mount Vernon



Phone: 360-416-5210 Cell: 360-770-2941

Fax: 360-848-6159


Mr. Bryan Sakuma

Sakuma Bros. Farms

PO Box 427


Phone: 360-757-6611 Cell: 360-661-4159

Fax: 360-757-3936


Mr. Drew Zimmerman, Representataive

Northwest Cider Society

Skagit Beverages

17515 16th Ave SW

Burien, WA 98166

Cell: 206-321-9424

Fax: 206-433-0837


Dr. Carol Miles, Professor


WSU Mount Vernon



Phone: 360-848-6150

Fax: 360-848-6159


Funding source: Voluntary assessment calculation based on $15.00 per planted acre of orchard/annum









72

PROJECT OUTLINE

ALTERNATIVE & EMERGING CROPS PAGE

ONGOING PROJECTS

Miles, Carol

Evaluating Anthracnose Control in a Cider Orchard Progress Report 73

Testing Anthracnose Control in a Cider Apple Orchard Executive Summary 75


Miles, Carol; Jones, Stephen S.

Production of Dry Beans as an Alternate Rotation Crop Progress Report 79

Miles, Carol

Dry beans for improved health of farming systems and youth Executive Summary 84

in NW Washington Research Proposal 85

SUMMARY

BUDGET REQUESTS

ALTERNATIVE & EMERGING CROPS

Alternative & Emerging Crops assessment $ available: $______________

Ongoing Projects

Scientist

Project Number


1st Funding

Source

2nd Funding

Source Priority

Miles 13K-3455-3374

Testing Anthracnose Control

in a Cider Apple Orchard

$4,955

Miles Dry beans for improved health

of farming systems and youth

in NW Washington-

$11,958

Total $16,913

73

PROGRESS REPORT


TITLE: Evaluating Anthracnose Control in a Cider Orchard

PERSONNEL: Carol Miles, Vegetable Horticulture Specialist, WSU Mount Vernon NWREC, 16650 State Route

536, Mount Vernon, WA 98273; (360) 848-6150, [email protected].

REPORTING PERIOD: 2014

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

This project was proposed to investigate weed control in a newly established cider orchard, however, the project

was not funded by WSCPR therefore we had insufficient funds to carry out the original plan of work. Due to the

high level of Apple Anthracnose (caused by the fungus Neofabraea malicorticis) which was severely damaging the

health of the trees in the orchard, this project shifted to test management methods of this disease. A new WSU

Extension fact sheet is being developed based on the results of this project. We learned that little information is

available about this disease, there currently are no controls for this pathogen, and management consists of cutting

out new lesions as they appear, which is weekly. We will continue to implement this management plan and evaluate

results in 2015, and complete this new fact sheet based on efficacy of treatments.

RESULTS

We developed an Apple Anthracnose scouting and treatment plan. The management plan includes: scouting the

orchard once per week, cutting out cankers, removing cuttings from the field, scrubbing the affected area with a

wire brush, then spraying the affected area with copper fungicide (NuCop 50 DF) in a hand spray bottle. Small

branches with anthracnose lesions were pruned about 1 in. beneath the lesion. Diseased tissue was discarded in the

dumpster (not composted). The orchard was scouted once a week from June through October.

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

A new WSU Extension fact sheet has been drafted – see Appendix.


74

APPENDIX

Draft Apple Anthracnose WSU Extension Fact Sheet

Managing Apple Anthracnose

Washington State University Extension Anthracnose canker caused by the fungus Neofabraea malicorticis is a serious disease affecting apples grown in western Washington, western British Columbia, and the Columbia Gorge. It seems likely that relatively mild temperatures combined with the frequent rains that occur during the fall, winter and spring promote infection and disease development, since anthracnose canker is rare or absent in the dry interior regions of these areas. Spores of the fungus infect healthy bark, then grow in the cambium beneath the bark for a period of time before killing the bark itself to form a visible canker. Left unmanaged in areas where the disease is prevalent, anthracnose canker can increase and severely damage or kill young trees in just a few years. Spores produced on the dead canker bark can cause additional cankers in infected trees and can cause new infections in previously healthy trees. Eventually of the trees in an orchard will likely become infected with anthracnose if is not diligently managed. The key to effectively dealing with anthracnose is to check trees often and treat infected trees within the appropriate timeframe. Apple Anthracnose Life Cycle How initial (primary) infection of a healthy tree first occurs is not known, but it seems likely that airborne spores cause initial infection from early March through early fall. There is no evidence that anthracnose canker is wound-associated or vectored by insects or other animals. Ascospore Phase, the likely source of Primary Infection. Although proof is lacking, it seems likely that ascospores cause primary infections, and also cause infections that develop into bullseye rot in fruit during storage. Ascospores are produced by apothecia in a second year canker that was allowed to overwinter in the tree; the fruiting bodies that produced conidia in the fall (see Conidial Phase below) will develop into apothecia. Ascospores are forcibly ejected into the air and can be carried over substantial distances by air currents. Ascospore production begins by the end of March or early April in a second year canker, and can continue throughout the summer and into the fall, whenever rain or high relative humidity occurs. An initial (primary) apple anthracnose infection usually goes unnoticed during its first year in the tree, and it is not until the following June or July when secondary infections become noticeable that the grower realizes there is a problem. If aggressive management is not undertaken, the disease will spread within the orchard, causing significant yield and tree loss within a few years. Conidial Phase and Secondary Infection. In April and May, cankers that result from infection the previous year become visible as slightly sunken areas on smooth bark. During the summer, the affected bark dies and a callus boundary that defines and isolates the canker forms in the adjacent living bark. Tiny bumps, barely visible to the naked eye, begin to form on the canker surface by mid-summer and develop into tiny pits or openings by late August or September. This process is caused by the developing fruiting bodies.

75


Title: Testing Anthracnose Control in a Cider Apple Orchard

Lead PI: Carol Miles, Vegetable Extension Specialist, WSU-Mount Vernon NWREC, 16650 State Route 536,

Mount Vernon, WA 98273; 360-848-6150; [email protected]


Project Duration: 1 year

Calendar Year: 2015

Amount requested: $4,955

Other Support: proposal will be submitted to WSCPR


Apple Anthracnose is the most significant disease impacting apple tree production in western Washington.

Production of cider apples is increasing in the region, and in order for this new crop to be successful, Apple

Anthracnose management recommendations are needed. Apple Anthracnose is unique to the maritime region of the

Pacific Northwest and impacts apple trees from Vancouver BC down to Portland OR and into the Columbia River

Gorge until Hood River OR. This disease does not impact apples grown east of the Cascade Mountains or anywhere

else in the world. As a result, there has been very little research done to understand or control this disease. Yet in

the maritime PNW, Apple Anthracnose can kill a new planting and can limit yield and productivity of an

established planting. In 2014 we partially developed a new WSU Extension fact sheet that highlights what is

currently known about Apple Anthracnose and common management strategies in the region. In 2015 we propose

to test and compare management strategies to determine if there are more effective methods of control. We will

complete this new fact sheet based on the results of these experiments.

Benefits:

This project will provide apple growers in the region with an effective method for controlling Apple Anthracnose.

There is no current publication which provides this information.

Economic Justification:

Cider apple orchard yield in western Washington is about 36,000 lbs/A, and net value is $14,400 per acre

($0.40/lb). Retail value of cider derived from 100 lbs of fruit is approximately $1000; thus retail value of cider

made from one acre of fruit is about $360,000. Cider apple production is increasing in the region and growers need

effective pest management recommendations.

Evaluation and Accountability: The scientists are responsible for evaluation and reporting of this project to the agricultural and the scientific

communities. NARF is responsible for evaluating project progress. Growers will evaluate and adopt practices

applicable to their operations.


76

RESEARCH PROPOSAL


Title: Testing Anthracnose Control in a Cider Apple Orchard

Year Initiated: 2014 Current Year: 2014-2015 Terminating Year: 2015

Personnel: Carol Miles, Vegetable Extension Specialist, WSU-Mount Vernon NWREC, 16650 State Route 536,


Justification:

Anthracnose canker caused by the fungus Neofabraea malicorticis is a serious disease affecting apples grown in

western Washington, western British Columbia, and the Columbia Gorge (Anonymous 2007, Zang et al. 2011).

Apple Anthracnose rarely infects hosts other than apple (Gariepy et al. 2003, Gariepy et al. 2005), it does not

impact apples grown east of the Cascade Mountains, and is not a serious problem anywhere else in the world. As a

result, there is essentially no research done to understand or control this disease. It seems likely that relatively mild

temperatures combined with the frequent rains that occur during the fall, winter and spring promote infection and

disease development in the maritime Pacific Northwest. Spores of the fungus infect healthy bark, then grow in the

cambium beneath the bark for a period of time before killing the bark itself to form a visible canker (Jones and

Aldwinkle 1990). Left unmanaged, anthracnose canker can increase and severely damage or kill young trees in just

a few years. Spores produced on the dead canker bark can cause additional cankers in infected trees and can cause

new infections in previously healthy trees. Eventually all of the trees in an orchard will likely become infected with

anthracnose if it is not diligently managed. The key to effectively managing anthracnose is to treat trees

immediately.

Apple Anthracnose is the most significant disease impacting apple tree production in western Washington.

Production of cider apples is increasing in the region, and yield from a cider apple orchard in western Washington

is about 36,000 lbs/A with net value of $14,400 per acre ($0.40/lb) (Galinato et al. 2014). Retail value of cider

derived from 100 lbs of fruit is approximately $1000; thus retail value of cider made from one acre of fruit is about

$360,000. In order for this new crop to be successful, Apple Anthracnose management recommendations are

needed. In 2014 we partially developed a new WSU Extension fact sheet that highlights what is currently known

about Apple Anthracnose and common management strategies in the region (PNW Plant Disease Management

Handbook 2013). In 2015 we propose to test and compare management strategies to determine if there are more

effective methods of control. We will complete this new fact sheet based on the results of these experiments.

Objectives:

1. Investigate and compare treatments for managing Apple Anthracnose in western Washington. Outcomes

include improved health of apple orchards and support for expanding cider apple production in the region.

2. Complete a new WSU Extension fact sheet on managing Apple Anthracnose in western Washington. Outcome

includes access to new pest management information for apple growers in western Washington.

Procedures:

1. Scout the cider apple research orchard at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC and identify and mark lesions in each

age category: 1) new, and 2) established. For 10 lesions in each age category, apply each control treatment: 1) cut

out canker, scrub affected area and spray with 10% bleach solution (control treatment), 2) cut out canker, scrub

affected area and spray with copper fungicide (NuCop 50 DF); 3) cut out canker, scrub affected area and burn area

with a propane torch; 4) cut out canker, scrub affected area, burn area with a propane torch, and spray with copper

fungicide (NuCop 50 DF; and 5) paint lesions with a copper fungicide paste.

2. Incorporate effective treatments into the new fact sheet on managing Apple Anthracnose in western

Washington. Submit to WSU Extension for publication. Add link to new fact sheet onto our WSU Cider web page

http://extension.wsu.edu/maritimefruit/Pages/Cider.aspx


http://extension.wsu.edu/maritimefruit/Pages/Cider.aspx

77

Project Activity Timeline

Identify lesions on trees for each treatment; implement treatments Jan-May 2015

Assess tree health and treatment efficacy June-Aug 2015

Identify lesions on trees for follow-up treatment; implement treatments Sept-Nov 2015

Compile and analyze data; finalize fact sheet Oct-Dec 2015

Anticipated Benefits and Information Transfer: Identification of effective treatment for Apple Anthracnose and publication of a new fact sheet to provide

management plan.

Preliminary results will be available to present at the NARF summer field day (July 2015). Final results from this

study will be available for presentation at the agricultural meetings in the region (i.e., Focus on Farming) and the

national cider conference.

Budget:

Amount allocated by NARF during FY 2013-2014: $2340

FY 2014 – 2015 Amount

Salaries

Time-slip wages (R. Timothy) 340 hr @ $12/hr $ 4,080

Goods & Services - Copper fungicide (NuCop 50 DF), spray $ 100

bottles, brushes, knives

Operations

Travel

Equipment

Employee Benefits Timeslip (R. Timothy) @ 0.19% $ 775

Total Request for 2012-2013 $ 4,955

Other Support of Project: We will submit a matching grant proposal to WSCPR

Reference citations

Anonymous. 2007. Anthracnose and Perennial Canker of Apple. BC Agriculture.

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/tfipm/anthracnose.htm

Galinato, S.P., K. Gallardo, and C.Miles. 2014. Cost estimates of establishing a cider orchard in western

Washington. Washington State University Extension publication FS141E, 6 p.

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/tfipm/anthracnose.htm

78

Gariepy, Tara D., C. Andre´ Levesque, Sharon N. de Jong, and James E. Rahe.2003. Species specific identification

of the Neofabraea pathogen complex associated with pome fruits using PCR and multiplex DNA amplification.

Mycol. Res. 107:528-536.

Gariepy, T.D., J.E. Rahe, C.A. Lévesque, R.A. Spotts, D.L. Sugar, and J.L. Henriquez. 2005. Neofabraea species

associated with bull’s eye rot and cankers of apple and pear in the Pacific Northwest. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 27:

118-124.

Jones, A.L. and H.S. Aldwinkle, 1990. Compendium of Apple and Pear Diseases. St. Paul, MN, APS Press.

Kienholz, J. R. 1939. Comparative study of the apple anthracnose and perennial canker fungi. Journal of

Agricultural Research, USDA, Vol. 59:635-665.

PNW Plant Disease Management Handbook. 2013. Apple (Malus sp.) - Anthracnose (Bull's-eye Rot). J.W.

Pscheidt, and C.M. Ocamb (Senior Eds.). Pacific Northwest Plant Disease Management Handbook. Oregon

State University. <pnwhandbooks.org/plantdisease/node/2643>

Zang, R., Huang, L. and Xiao, C. L. 2011. Species of Neofabraea responsible for anthracnose canker of apple trees

in western Washington State. Phytopathology 101:S251-S255.

79

PROGRESS REPORT


TITLE: Production of Dry Beans as an Alternate Rotation Crop

PERSONNEL:

Carol Miles, Vegetable Horticulture Specialist, WSU Mount Vernon NWREC, 16650 State Route 536, Mount

Vernon, WA 98273; (360) 848-6150, [email protected].

Stephen S. Jones, Director and Plant Breeder, WSU-Mount Vernon NWREC, 16650 State Route 536, Mount

Vernon, WA 98273; 360-416-5210; [email protected]


ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Conducted follow-up interviews with farmers in NW Washington who provided heirloom seed for 2013 and 2014

variety trial. Recorded information on the history of each variety including its origin, travel route in reaching this

area, and its production history in the region, as well as the agronomic, cooking and cultural qualities that

contributed to the continued cultivation of heirloom dry bean varieties. Willingness to share seed with regional seed

companies was determined.

We repeated our field variety trial at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC for a second year, and evaluated 17 local

heirloom varieties and comparable varieties in each market class (Jacob’s cattle, navy pea, cranberry, etc.); the

research design was a randomized complete block with 4 replications. Plots were 4 rows wide and 10 feet long and

were maintained with standard cultural practices. Days to emergence, first and full flowering, and harvest maturity

were recorded. Plants in the center 5 feet of the center 2 rows were harvested, and stand was recorded. Plants were

threshed using our small-scale equipment http://vegetables.wsu.edu/NicheMarket/SmallScaleHarvesting.html

which is ideal for small plots. Total yield, weight of 100 beans, and bean length and width will be measured.

Information will be added to our dry bean variety web page http://vegetables.wsu.edu/dryBeans.html.

Cooking time was evaluated for beans harvested from each plot in the 2013 field trial. Cooking time was measured

for each plot 8 months after harvest using a Mattson Bean Cooker (MBC), and bean firmness was measured for

beans cooked in the MBC and beans cooked in a pressure cooker. For each bean sample, 15 grams were soaked for

12 hours, placed on the MBC then into the boiling water bath (212oF), and cooked until 80% of the beans were

done. Time was recorded and bean firmness was measured. In the pressure cooker, each sample was cooked for 10

minutes and then bean firmness was measured. Protein content was measured for 250 grams of beans in each plot

by an outside laboratory.

RESULTS

Plant height, days to harvest, plant stand, marketable yield, percent damaged seed (% split, % moldy, and %

immature) and 100 bean weight are presented for 2013 in APPENDIX I. Measurements are not yet complete for

2014; results will be available by December 2014. Cooking time and protein analysis for beans harvested in 2013

are presented, and these evaluations will be completed by May 2014 for beans harvested in 2014.

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

Atterberry, K.A. and C. Miles. 2014. Dry bean production in northwest Washington. Whatcom Ag Monthly

newsletter. Volume 3, Issue 10.

Miles, C., K.A. Atterberry. 2014. Vegetables: Growing dry beans in home gardens. Washington State University

Extension publication FS135E. 7 p.



http://vegetables.wsu.edu/NicheMarket/SmallScaleHarvesting.html

http://vegetables.wsu.edu/dryBeans.html

80

Atterberry, K.A., L.A. Riddle, S. Kerr, J. Rueda, and C. Miles. 2014. Development of a STEM-based school garden

and nutrition program to increase knowledge and consumption of pulse crops by school aged children. The J of

the Federation of Amer. Soc. for Expt. Biol. 28:626.17.

Riddle, L.A., D.L. Betz, K.A. Atterberry, J. M. W. Rueda, and C. A. Miles. 2014. It takes a village: Community

collaboration to promote consumption of dry beans in school meals. Amer. Soc. of Nutr. (abstr.).

Brouwer, B., C. Miles, K. Atterberry, and S. Jones. 2014. Overcoming Dry Bean Production Constraints in Western

Washington. Bean Improvement Cooperative 2014 Annual Report. Volume 57. In Press.

Kelly Atterberry, Brook Brouwer, and Carol Miles. 2014. Production of northwest WA heirloom dry beans. 2014

Small Grains Field Day Handbook.WSU Mount Vernon NWREC.

81

APPENDIX I

Table 1. Varieties, market classes and yield data for dry beans variety trial harvested in 2013; data for

2014 will be completed in December 2014.

Variety Market Class

Standard/ Heirloom

Plant Heig

ht (cm)

Days to Maturit

y

Stand (Plant

s/ Acre)

Yield (Lbs/Acr

e) %

Split

% Mol

d

% Immatur

e

100 Bean

Weight (g)

Black Coco Black Heirloom 34 101 59769 1979 4.7 0.0 0.6 53

Black Coco Black Standard 33 109 45957 2091 10.8 0.0 2.2 55

Eclipse Black Standard 27 120 52710 3094 0.0 0.4 0.3 21

Skyriver Black

Black Heirloom 40 122 50967 2413 3.3 0.3 10.9 55

Swedish Brown

Brown Standard 31 115 25919 1874 3.4 30.6 0.2 47

Youngquist Brown

Brown Heirloom 45 119 39205 2612 2.3 3.3 0.0 47

Calypso Colored Patterned

Standard 36 110 44651 1715 11.0 0.5 0.0 51

Orca Colored Patterned

Standard 28 117 26573 1941 1.2 0.9 0.0 32

Rockwell Colored Patterned

Heirloom 39 107 57283 2399 1.0 0.1 0.3 42

Bale Cranberry

Cranberry

Heirloom 42 104 58155 2617 0.4 0.0 0.3 55

Decker Cranberry

Heirloom 36 101 46265 2430 2.5 0.0 6.5 69

Etna Cranberry

Standard 37 113 40730 2406 5.0 0.0 0.5 54

Francis Kring Cranberry

Cranberry

Heirloom 37 104 55977 2041 1.1 0.0 0.9 54

Silver Cloud Kidney Standard 32 119 36374 2001 2.3 1.5 1.8 66

Lariat Pinto Standard 42 114 56194 3008 0.3 7.5 0.3 40

Soldier Soldier Standard 34 117 35938 2007 5.7 1.1 2.2 66

Hutterite Yellow Heirloom 27 124 21870 1885 11.4 13.0 0.0 46

Hutterite Yellow Standard 36 123 23959 2394 5.3 11.8 0.0 40

Ireland Creek Annie

Yellow Heirloom 39 101 54542 2595 3.1 0.0 0.0 49

Ireland Creek Annie

Yellow Standard 40 104 57283 2747 1.7 0.0 0.6 45

Mean 36 112 44516 2312 3.8 3.6 1.4 49

Low 27 101 21870 1715 0.0 0.0 0.0 21

High 45 124 59769 3094 11.4 30.6 10.9 69

82

Figure 1. Cooking time (minutes) for dry beans using a Mattson Bean Cooker (MBC), and firmness of beans with

the MBC (80% beans cooked) and a pressure cooker (PC; cooked 10 minutes); beans were evaluated 8 months after

harvest:

Mean MBC cooking time = 19 mins

Mean MBC firmness = 8.62 force newtons

Mean PC firmness = 4.5

Key: • MBC Cooking time • MBC Firmness • PC Firmness

83

Figure 2. Protein content of dry beans (250 gram samples from each plot) harvested in 2013 measured 8 month

after harvest by an outside laboratory.

84


Title: Dry beans for improved health of farming systems and youth in NW Washington

Investigator: Carol Miles, Vegetable Extension Specialist, WSU-Mount Vernon NWREC, 16650 State Route 536,


Project Number:

Project Duration: 1 year

Calendar Year: 2015


Other Support: American Pulse Association providing partial graduate student support


Dry beans are a legume crop that can be grown in northwest Washington: they have few insect and disease pests in

the region; they are a biological source of nitrogen for the following crop; they can be direct combined; and the

harvested crop has a long shelf life that does not require processing. Our field studies show many dry bean varieties

can be grown in the region, and the first 5 acre commercial crop was grown in La Conner in 2014. Despite being a

healthy food crop, dry beans remain an underutilized food in typical American diets. This project aims to increase

awareness and consumption of dry beans among K-12 students. We have developed a STEM-focused curriculum

that combines exposure to dry beans in a school garden setting, in the classroom, and in the cafeteria. This

curriculum meets the new Next Generation Science Standards, Washington State Health Standards, and Common

Core Math Standards. The short-term goal of this project is to revise and disseminate this new curriculum to

schools in northwest Washington. The long-term goal of this project is to increase healthy eating habits among

youth that will likely be carried into adulthood to improve health and well-being among Americans, and increase

markets for local dry beans.

Benefits:

This project will promote awareness among youth in a school-garden and classroom setting for the healthy

attributes of eating dry beans.


Retail value for dry beans in the region is $1-3 per pound, return per acre is $2000-6000. Dry beans require

minimal fertilizer, pest management and irrigation inputs.

Evaluation and Accountability: The scientists are responsible for evaluation and reporting of this project to the agricultural and the scientific

communities. NARF is responsible for evaluating project progress. Growers will evaluate and adopt practices

applicable to their operations.


85

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Project Number:

Title: Dry beans for improved health of farming systems and youth in NW Washington


Personnel: Carol Miles, Vegetable Extension Specialist, WSU-Mount Vernon NWREC, 16650 State Route 536,


Justification: Dry beans are well suited to production in northwest Washington: mechanical cultivation is effective for weed

control, there are few insect and disease pests in the region, the crop can be direct combined, it is a biological

source of nitrogen for the following crop, and the harvested crop has a long shelf life that does not require

processing. Our field studies show many dry bean varieties can be grown in the region, and the first 5 acre

commercial crop grown in La Conner in 2014 yielded 2000 lbs per acre. The rate of return for dry beans is

approximately $2000-6000 per acre.

Dry beans are an excellent source of human nutrition and can help prevent heart disease and diabetes, the first and

seventh, respectively, leading causes of disability and death in the U.S. today (Hoyert and Xu, 2012). Healthy diets

such as the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (USDA, 2010), the Mediterranean diet, and DASH (Dietary

Approaches to Reducing Hypertension) specifically recommend up to 3 cups per week of dry beans and other pulse

crops. Yet dry beans remain an underutilized food in the U.S. Fewer than 10% of children (ages 4 to 13 years) in

the U.S. meet the new USDA MyPlate recommendations for consumption of fruits and vegetables, which includes

dry beans (Heim et al., 2009).

Garden-based nutrition education can be an effective tool for teaching youth healthy eating habits, and children

who observe and participate in growing and tasting demonstrations are more likely to regularly consume the

targeted food (Heim, et al., 2009). We have developed the only STEM-focused curriculum in the U.S. that

combines exposure to dry beans in a school garden setting, in the classroom, and in the cafeteria. Our curriculum

meets the new Next Generation Science Standards, Washington State Health Standards, and Common Core Math

Standards. We tested our curriculum in 2014 in a total of 11 classes and 4 schools in Skagit and Whatcom Counties

and collected feedback from observers and teachers. The short-term goal of this project is to revise the curriculum

as needed based on feedback received and disseminate the curriculum to schools in northwest Washington. The

long-term goal of this project is to increase healthy eating habits among youth that will likely be carried into

adulthood to improve health and well-being among Americans, and increase markets for local dry beans. This

project is very timely as school cafeterias strive to serve more pulse crops but students tend to discard these foods,

causing increased waste and costs (USDA-ERS, 2002).


86

Objectives:

1. Revise the school-garden based curriculum based on teacher and observer feedback. Outcomes include an

improved curriculum that meets school teaching/learning standards. Impacts include increased opportunities for

teachers to use school gardens for STEM-based teaching activities.

2. Disseminate the school garden-based curriculum to teachers and school garden coordinators throughout

northwest Washington. Outcomes include increased awareness of teachers and school garden coordinators

regarding the availability of this curriculum. Impacts include more students learning about dry beans as a

healthy food crop.

Procedures:

Revise the school-garden based curriculum based on teacher and observer feedback.

In Fall 2014, our school-garden based pulse curriculum is being taught in 8 classrooms in 5 schools in Northwest

Washington. Teachers and observers will provide feedback and suggestions for improving the lessons for changes.

The curriculum contains three lessons, and each lesson includes nutrition, biology, and math components. Each

lesson also includes classroom education, hands-on classroom activities, and school garden activities. Dry beans

were chosen as the model crop for this curriculum as it is the only pulse crop that can be grown in northwest

Washington as well as in most other regions of the U.S. with good success. The curriculum includes learning

targets, success criteria, and "big ideas" that summarize the learning standards reached for each lesson. The biology

component includes the growth cycle of dry beans (students plant seed in the school garden in the spring and

harvest for food and for seed in the fall), a germination experiment (germinating beans in the classroom using 4

different environments), identifying bean plant parts and understanding their function, and atmospheric nitrogen

fixation (students identify and dissect root nodules on bean plants in the school garden). The math component

includes counting and calculating germination rates, measuring, graphing, and comparing the average height of

each bean variety planted by the students in the school garden, measuring and calculating average pod length and

seeds per pod, as well as average seed size. The nutrition component includes how food affects human health, the

health benefits of eating a variety of vegetables (with a nutrition handout ‘Eat a Rainbow’ introducing the 5

vegetable subgroups), identifying dry beans as a food high in dietary fiber, protein, nutrients, and low in fat,

differentiating between foods that have fiber and foods that do not, a water and fiber demonstration (to illustrate the

importance of drinking plenty of water when eating fiber), fiber’s role in reducing risk of diet-related and genetic

diseases (heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and colon cancer), and the beneficial bacteria in the digestive tract that

benefit from dietary fiber consumption. A current draft of our curriculum is on-line at

http://vegetables.wsu.edu/schoolgarden/.

3. Disseminate the school garden-based curriculum to teachers and school garden coordinators throughout

northwest Washington. We will post the revised curriculum on our WSU website. We will introduce the curriculum

to teachers through one-on-one presentations. We will provide press releases to K-12 newsletters for teachers,

families, and school garden coordinators. We will monitor the number of web page downloads, and collect

feedback through an on-line survey that allows teachers to rate the effectiveness and ease of use of the curriculum

and provide feedback on all sections of the curriculum.

Project Activity Timeline

Revise curriculum Jan 2015

Disseminate curriculum Feb-Mar 2015

Collect feedback regarding curriculum Mar-May 2015

Compile curriculum feedback, revise curriculum further as needed and post to

the web; prepare final report

Jun-Dec 2015


Teachers will gain a new STEM-based curriculum which ties classroom learning into school garden activities, and

which meets state and national standards. Youth will gain awareness about the healthy attributes of eating dry

http://vegetables.wsu.edu/schoolgarden/

87

beans. The short term goal is to increase consumption of dry beans among youth thereby increasing sales of dry

beans to local schools. The long term goal is improve health and wellbeing among American youth and adults.

Reference citations

Heim, S., J. Stang, and M. Ireland. 2009. A garden pilot project enhances fruit and vegetable consumption among

children. J. of Amer. Diet. Assn. 15(3) 463-467.

Hoyert, D. and J. Xu. 2012. Deaths: Preliminary data for 2011. National Vital Statistics Reports. Vol. 61 No. 6,

National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD.

< http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf>.

USDA-ERS. 2002. Plate waste in school nutrition programs: Report to congress. Food Assistance and Nutr.

Research Program.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2010. Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/DietaryGuidelines2010.pdf.

Budget:

Amount allocated by NARF during FY 2013-2014: $0

FY 2014 – 2015 Amount

Salaries - Graduate Student (K. Atterberry) Spring 2015, 3 mos. $ 6,690

Time-slip wages

Goods & Services - office supplies, photocopying 500

Operations

Travel - to schools to meet with teachers and school garden coordinators 500

Equipment

Employee Benefits - graduate student (K. Atterberry) @ 0.957, 3 mos. 4,268

Total Request for 2012-2013 $11,958

Other Support of Project: American Pulse Association, provided support for 1.5 academic year (Spring 2013 –

Fall 2014) for MS student K. Atterberry

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/DietaryGuidelines2010.pdf

88

Bulbs

89

BULB INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BIAC)


Mr. John Roozen , BIAC Chairman Mr. Leo Roozen

Washington Bulb Co., Inc. Washington Bulb Co., Inc.

16031 Beaver Marsh Rd 16031 Beaver Marsh Rd

Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Mount Vernon, WA 98273

Phone: 360-424-5533 Cell: 360-708-1724 Phone: 360-424-5533 Cell: 360-708-4375

Fax: 360-424-3113 Fax: 360-424-3113

Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Mr. Brandon Roozen, Secretary/Treasurer

NWBGA/ WSBC




Phone: 360-424-7327 Cell: 360-391-2414

Fax: 360-424-9343


Dr. Gary Chastagner

Department of Plant Pathology

WSU Puyallup Research & Extension Center

7612 Pioneer Way E


Phone: 253-445-4528


Tom Hulbert

Hulbert Farms/Skagit Seed Services

17297 Hulbert Rd


Phone: 360-466-3191 Cell: 360-661-6893

Fax: 360-466-3544


Funding Source: Washington State Bulb Commission assessments






90

PROJECT OUTLINE

BULBS PAGE

ONGOING PROJECTS

Chastagner, Gary; DeBauw, Annie; Coats, Katie; Progress Report 91

Garfinkel, Andrea Executive Summary 100

Management of diseases on ornamental bulbs and cut flowers Research Proposal 101

Miller, Tim; Libbey, Carl Progress Report 104

Herbicide Combinations for Weed Control in Ornamental Bulbs Executive Summary 110


SUMMARY

BUDGET REQUESTS

BULBS

Bulbs assessment $ available: $______________

Ongoing Projects

Scientist

Project Number


1st Funding

Source

2nd Funding

Source Priority

Chastagner

DeBauw

Coats

Garfinkel

13K-3761-5385

Management of diseases on

ornamental bulbs and cut flowers

$12,907

Miller

Libbey 13K-3419-3298 & 17A-3419-9810

Herbicide Combinations for

Weed Control in Ornamental

Bulbs

$4,425

Total $17,332

91

PROGRESS REPORT


Project Title: Management of diseases on ornamental bulbs and cut flowers

Personnel: Gary A Chastagner ([email protected]), Plant Pathologist, Annie DeBauw, Agric. Res. Tech. II; Katie

Coats, Scientific Assistant; and Andrea Garfinkel, Ph.D. graduate student, WSU-Puyallup

Reporting Period: November 1, 2013 – October 31, 2014

Accomplishments: This project represents an ongoing effort to improve the management of soil borne and foliar

diseases on ornamental bulb and cut flower crops. Below is a summary of work completed during 2013-2014.

Results:

Rhizoctonia tuliparum - Initially, the Rtul qPCR assay developed and validated by this group was tested on soil that

had been artificially infested with R. tuliparum inoculum grown on rice grains, yielding a high correlation between

CT values and the levels of inoculum in the soil. However, when the Rtul qPCR assay was used to detect R.

tuliparum in soil samples collected from tulip and iris field trials, only 4% of the samples were positive and there

was a lack of correlation between the CT values and disease development. It was considered that the lack of

detection was either due to the DNA extraction and detection process, or the sampling method. In further trials, the

fidelity of the DNA extraction process was tested and proven to successfully detect artificially-grown sclerotia alone

and in small amounts (4g) of soil. In terms of sampling, it was considered and then determined impractical to

increase the amount of soil per DNA extraction to improve detection of the sporadic inoculum. Whether relatively

small or large in size, the number of soil samples that would be needed to get a good sense of the location of R.

tuliparum inoculum in a field is essentially infinite. Therefore the aim of this project has been adjusted away from

detecting R. tuliparum in fields and more toward the following two goals: 1) to complete the validation of Rtul as a

reliable R. tuliparum diagnostic qPCR assay and 2) to develop a framework/protocol for using Rtul to detect R.

tuliparum in bulbs.

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. tulipae - The eighth genomic region studied for F.o.t.-unique nucleotide sequence has

yielded a preliminarily successful qPCR assay. Real-Time qPCR primers and a TaqMan probe were designed to

bind to the 5’ untranslated region of the pg5 endopolygalacturonase gene on chromosome 9. The “Fotul” assay

produced an average CT value of 25.80 when tested on three known F. oxysporum f. sp. tulipae isolates and a

relatively high or no CT value in non-tulipae isolates. ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) analysis was

employed to determine a Youden’s statistic (J) cut-off value; in other words, a CT threshold value below which

samples are considered positive and above which samples are considered negative, of 33.

Botrytis on peonies - During the summer of 2014, extensive survey work was conducted throughout Washington,

Oregon, and Alaska. The majority of samples were obtained on a 10-day collection trip in Alaska where we visited

and acquired Botrytis samples from 26 peony farms. In addition to the Botrytis survey work conducted during this

time, we were able to identify additional diseases afflicting peonies, including a potential new disease. We also

visited and/or collected samples from 9 peony farms/plantings in Washington and two farms and Oregon. In both

states, some of the farms are major PNW peony rootstock producers who ship significant amount of material to

Alaska. Samples were also obtained from peony plantings in Michigan, Missouri, and North Carolina and will be

used to compare Botrytis species found in other parts of the country to those present in the PNW.

Preliminary identification of Botrytis species in Washington indicates that at least three species are present: B.

cinerea, B. paeoniae, and B. pseudocinerea. While the first two have been previously reported on peonies, the latter

species has been newly separated as its own species using molecular identification and has not yet been reported on

peonies in the PNW. These findings may have significant influence on fungicide management practices as the B.

pseudocinerea is naturally-resistant to a major class of fungicides.

Effectiveness of reduced-risk and new biocontrol products in controlling foliar diseases - Trials were established to

determine the effectiveness of 19 fungicides/biocontrol products in controlling foliar diseases on several bulb crops.

The following are summaries of the results from three trials.

92

T-114 Efficacy of Foliar Fungicides in Controlling Fire on ‘Dynasty’ Tulips

Host: Tulip (Tulipa spp.) ‘Dynasty’ 10/11 cm.

Pathogen: Botrytis tulipae

Planting density: 40 bulbs/3-ft cell

Planting date: October 3, 2013. The bulbs were treated with an in-furrow 18”-wide band of Terraclor 75WP at 3

lb/1000 ft of row prior to hilling to control soil-borne diseases.

Plot design: Randomized complete block with 4 blocks containing 3 feet of row.

Application Timing and Spray volume: Treatments were applied on 7 and 14 day intervals starting February 27,

2014 through April 22, 2014. Sepro (SP) products were applied on February 27, 2014 and then put on hold for 3

weeks. All products were applied in the equivalent of 100 gallons of water per acre.

Evaluations: Disease severity was rated on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 = none, 1 = 1-10%, 2 = 11-20%,….., and 10 =

91-100% of foliage was killed. Blighted flowers are based on the number of flowers per cell where the disease

spread into the stem.

Results: A total of 9 products were evaluated in two trials for their effectiveness in controlling Botrytis tulipae on

field-grown “Dynasty” tulips. Trial 1 included 7 products and trial 2, which will be referred to as the SePRO trial

included 2 SePRO products (Table 1). Non-sprayed plants served as checks in both trials. Disease pressure

progressed steadily in all test cells during these trials. By the end of the 120-day test, the average severity rating of

the non-sprayed checks was 8.0. The ratings of all the treatments in trial 1 ranged from 1.3 to 8.8. The average

severity rating for the SePRO treatments in trial 2 ranged from 5.3 to 9.3. No phytotoxicity was observed in these

trials.

The ANOVA analysis of data from trial 1 indicated that treatments had a highly significant (P<0.001) effect on

disease severity, the percent of blighted flowers, the height of flowers, and the weight of harvested bulbs. All

treatments except Proud 3 had severity ratings and percent blighted flowers that were significantly less than the

checks (Table 2). Pageant 38WG and BAS 703 01F were the most effective materials in reducing disease

development. Two bio-fungicides were included in this trial. Although Proud 3 was ineffective, applications of

F9110 did significantly reduce disease development of the foliage and flowers. BAS 703 01F and Pageant 38WG

treated plants also had significantly more flowers that were greater than 13” tall (Table 3) and yielded more bulbs

greater than 12cm than the non-treated checks (Table 4).


disease severity, the percent of blighted flowers, the height of flowers, and the weight of harvested bulbs. Both rates

of SP2773 had significantly lower severity ratings than the non-treated check (Table 4). The high rate of SP2773

had significantly less blighted flowers and more flowers greater than 13” tall than the non-treated check (Table 5 &

6). The high rate of SP2773 also yielded significantly more bulbs that were 10-12 cm than the non-treated check

(Table 7). Plants sprayed with SP2770 had very high disease ratings and produced significantly fewer 10-12 cm

bulbs than the non-treated check (Table 7).

The data from these trials indicate that several of the fungicides tested have the potential to provide effective control

of Botrytis on tulips. This includes the bio-fungicide F9110, which showed promise in reducing disease development

on the foliage and flowers even under relatively high disease pressure.

93

Table 1. Treatment List and Application Dates for Botrytis on “Dynasty” Tulips

Trt #** TRT/PRODUCT

PRnumbers Batch # Rate/100 gal/A

Application

Interval

Application

Dates1

1 Check - - -

2 BAS 703 01F 31946 270037 8 fl oz 14 day C

3 F9110 31947 D31-230713 24 fl oz 7 day A

4 Proud 3 31948 HG-810-09252012 4 qts 7 day A

5 S2200 4SC 31949 VTC-1324-39 7.5 fl oz 14 day C

6 SP2770 10WP 31950 None provided 2.66 lb 7day B*

7 SP2773 31951 None provided 1.66 lb 14 day D*

8 SP2773 31951 None provided 3.313 lb 14 day D*

9 Torque 3.6SC 31952 13203VL001 8 fl oz 14 day C

11 Pageant 38WG 32041 2236S02EJ 14 oz 14 day C

12 Chipco 26019 N/G 32042 None provided 16 oz 14 day C 1Dates: 1 = 2/27/14, 2= 3/7/14, 3 3/13/14, 4 = 3/21/14, 5 = 3/31/14, 6 = 4/8/14, 7 = 4/14/14, 8 = 4/22/14

A = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; B = 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; C = 1, 3, 5, 7; D = 1, 4, 5, 7.

*There was a 3-week interval between the first and second applications of these products.

**Treatment 10 was initially included in the protocol but was withdrawn from the trial.

Table 2. Effect of foliar fungicides applications on the percent of blighted flowers on April 30, 2014 (Day 62) and the severity

of Botrytis on “Dynasty” tulip foliage on May 12, 2014 (Day 74).

TRT TRT/PRODUCT PRnumbers Prod/100 gal/A

% Blighted

Flowers Severity

4 Proud 3 31948 4 qts 100.0 a 8.8 a

1 Check - - 100.0 a 8.0 a

3 F9110 31947 24 fl oz 30.2 cd 3.3 b

12 Chipco 26019 N/G 32042 16 oz 59.4 b 3.3 b

5 S2200 31949 7.5 fl oz 72.0 b 2.8 bc

9 Torque 3.6SC 31952 8 fl oz 56.6 bc 2.8 bc

11 Pageant 38WG 32041 14 oz 20.1 d 1.5 c

2 BAS 703 01F 31946 8 oz 19.2 d 1.3 c 1

Numbers in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P<0.05, Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD)

Test.

94

Table 3. Effect of foliar fungicides on flower height on April 10, 2014

1 (Day 42).

Flower Heights

TRT TRT/PRODUCT PRnumbers Prod/100 gal/A < 10” 10-13” >13” Total

2 BAS 703 01F 31946 8 oz 2.0 b 11.8 a 21.0 a 34.8 ab

11 Pageant 38WG 32041 14 oz 6.3 ab 9.3 a 17.8 ab 33.3 ab

5 S2200 31949 7.5 fl oz 5.3 ab 15.0 a 15.0 abc 35.3 ab

9 Torque 3.6SC 31952 8 fl oz 8.8 ab 13.8 a 14.0 abc 36.5 a

12 Chipco 26019 N/G 32042 16 oz 5.5 ab 15.8 a 13.3 abc 34.5 ab

3 F9110 31947 24 fl oz 10.8 ab 15.5 a 6.0 abc 32.3 ab

4 Proud 3 31948 4 qts 11.5 ab 16.5 a 2.0 bc 30.0 ab

1 Check - - 16.0 a 11.5 a 1.0 c 28.5 b 1 Numbers in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P<0.05, Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD)

Test.

Table 4. Effect of fungicide applications on the weight of harvested bulbs on June 27, 20141 (Day 120).

Wt (g) of Bulbs

TRT TRT/PRODUCT PRnumbers Prod/100 gal/A < 8 cm 8-10 cm 10-12 cm >12 cm Total

2 BAS 703 01F 31946 8 oz 225.6 a 95.2 ab 314.1 ab 416.0 a 1050.9 a

11 Pageant 38WG 32041 14 oz 206.6 a 91.7 b 166.7 ab 314.6 ab 779.6 ab

3 F9110 31947 24 fl oz 241.6 a 110.9 ab 271.1 ab 163.6 abc 787.2 ab

5 S2200 31949 7.5 fl oz 238.8 a 126.4 ab 343.1 a 156.4 abc 864.6 ab

9 Torque 3.6SC 31952 8 fl oz 223.9 a 204.5 a 238.6 ab 151.3 bc 818.3 ab

12 Chipco 26019 N/G 32042 16 oz 216.2 a 114.3 ab 289.8 ab 136.3 bc 756.6 ab

4 Proud 3 31948 4 qts 183.8 a 134.7 ab 110.2 b 0.0 c 428.7 b

1 Check - - 200.7 a 125.1 ab 124.5 ab 0.0 c 450.3 b 1 Numbers in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P<0.05, Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test.

Table 5. Effect of SePRO fungicide applications on the number of blighted flowers on April 30, 2014 (day 62) and the severity

of Botrytis on “Dynasty” tulip foliage on May 12, 20141 (Day 74).

TRT TRT/PRODUCT PRnumbers Prod/100 gal/A % Blighted Flowers Severity

6 SP2770 31950 2.66 lb 100.0 a 9.8 a

1 Check - - 100.0 a 8.0 a

7 SP2773 31951 1.66 lb 99.1 ab 6.0 bc

8 SP2773 31951 3.313 lb 93.4 b 5.3 c 1 Numbers in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P<0.05, Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD)

Test.

Table 6. Effect of SePRO foliar fungicides on flower Height on April 10, 2014

1 (Day 42).

Flower Heights

TRT TRT/PRODUCT PRnumbers Prod/100 gal/A < 10” 10-13” > 13” Total

8 SP2773 31951 3.313 lb 6.8 b 17.0 ab 9.0 a 32.8 a

7 SP2773 31951 1.66 lb 12.0 b 18.0 a 1.8 ab 31.8 a

11 Check - - 16.0 ab 11.5 ab 1.0 ab 28.5 a

6 SP2770 31950 2.66 lb 24.0 a 7.0 b 0.0 b 31.0 a 1 Numbers in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P<0.05, Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test.

95

Table 7. Effect of SePRO fungicide applications on the weight of harvested bulbs on June 27, 20141 (Day 120).

Wt (g) of Bulbs

TRT TRT/PRODUCT PRnumbers Prod/100 gal/A < 8 cm 8-10 cm 10-12 cm >12 cm Total

8 SP2773 31951 3.313 lb 219.8 a 198.3 a 220.6 a 20.2 a 658.9 a

7 SP2773 31951 1.66 lb 220.5 a 156.2 a 175.1 ab 7.3 a 559.0 ab

1 Check - - 200.7 a 125.1 a 124.5 b 0.0 a 450.3 bc

6 S22770 31950 2.66 lb 229.2 a 124.0 a 22.7 c 0.0 a 375.9 c 1 Numbers in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P<0.05, Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test.

I-114 Efficacy of Foliar Fungicides in Controlling Leaf Spot on ‘Blue Diamond’ Iris

Host: Bulbous iris (Iris x hollandica) ‘Blue Diamond’ 10/12 cm

Pathogen: Mycosphaerella macrospora

Planting density: 45 bulbs/3-ft cell

Planting date: October 3, 2013. The bulbs were treated with an in-furrow 18” wide band of Terraclor 75WP at 3

lb/1000ft of row prior to hilling to control soil-borne diseases.

Plot design: Randomized complete block with five blocks containing 3 feet of row.

Application Timing and Spray Volume: Treatments were applied on 7 and 14 day intervals beginning February

27, 2014 through May 27, 2014. Sepro (SP) products were applied on February 27, 2014 and then put on hold for 3

weeks. Treatments were applied in the equivalent of 100 gallons of water per acre. Bulbs were harvested on July 3,

2014 and stored in bulb shed until processing on July 11, 2014.

Evaluations: Disease severity was rated on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 = none, 1 = 1-10%, 2 = 11-20%,….., and 10 =

91-100% of foliage was killed.

Results: A total of 8 products were evaluated in two trials for their effectiveness in controlling Leafspot on field-

grown “Blue Diamond” Iris. Trial 1 included 6 products and trial 2, which will be referred to as the SePRO trial

included 2 SePRO products. Non-sprayed plants served as checks in both trials. Disease pressure progressed steadily

in all test cells during these trials. By the end of the 126-day test, the average severity rating of the non-sprayed

checks was 7.4. The ratings of all the treatments in trial 1 ranged from 0.2 to 6.8. The average severity rating for the

SePRO treatments in trial 2 ranged from 4.8 to 6.0. No phytotoxicity was observed in these trials.


disease severity and the weight of harvested bulbs. All treatments except Proud 3 had severity ratings that were

significantly less than the checks (Table 9). Pageant 38WG, BAS 703 01F, and S2200 were the most effective

materials in reducing disease development. Two bio-fungicides were included in this trial. Although Proud 3 was

ineffective, applications of F9110 did significantly reduce disease development of the foliage and flowers. BAS 703

01F treated plants yielded more bulbs greater than 10cm than the non-treated checks (Table 10).


disease severity. SP2773 had significantly lower severity ratings than the non-treated check (Table 11).

The data from these trials indicate that several of the fungicides tested have the potential to provide effective control

of leafspot on iris. This includes the bio-fungicide F9110, which showed promise in reducing disease development

on the foliage and flowers even under relatively high disease pressure.

96

Table 8. Treatment List and Application Dates for Leafspot on “Blue Diamond” Iris

Trt # TRT/PRODUCT Batch # Rate/100 gal/A

Application

Interval

Application

Dates1

1 Check - - -

2 BAS 703 01F 270037 8 fl oz 14 day C

3 F9110 D31-230713 24 fl oz 7 day A

4 Proud 3 HG-810-09252012 4 qts 7 day A

5 S2200 4SC VTC-1324-39 7.5 fl oz 14 day C

6 SP2770 10WP None provided 2.66 lb 7day B*

7 SP2773 None provided 3.313 lb 14 day D*

8 Torque 3.6SC 13203VL001 8 fl oz 14 day C

10 Pageant 38WG 2236S02EJ 6 oz 14 day C 1Dates: 1 = 2/27/14, 2= 3/7/14, 3 3/13/14, 4 = 3/21/14, 5 = 3/31/14, 6 = 4/8/14, 7 = 4/14/14, 8 = 4/22/14,9 =4/29/14,

10 = 5/7/14, 11 = 5/13/14, 12 = 5/20/13, 13 = 5/27/14

A = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; B = 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; C = 1, 3, 5, 7; 9, 11, 13;

D = 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13.

*There was a 3-week interval between the first and second applications of these products.

Table 9. Effect of foliar fungicides applications on the severity of leafspot on “Blue

Diamond” iris foliage on May 27, 2014 (Day 89).

TRT TRT/PRODUCT Prod/100 gal/A Severity

2 BAS 703 01F 8 oz 0.2 c

10 Pageant 38WG 6 oz 0.8 c

5 S2200 7.5 fl oz 1.0 c

8 Torque 3.6SC 8 fl oz 1.4 bc

3 F9110 24 fl oz 2.6 b

4 Proud 3 4 qts 6.8 a

1 Check - 7.4 a 1 Numbers in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P<0.05, Tukey’s

Studentized Range (HSD) Test.

Table 10. Effect of fungicide applications on the weight of harvested bulbs on July 3, 20141 (Day 126)

Wt (g) of Bulbs

TRT TRT/PRODUCT Prod/100 gal/A < 6 cm 6-8 cm 8-10 cm >10 cm Total

2 BAS 703 01F 8 oz 127.2 a 148 a 204.1 a 74.6 a 553.8 a

10 Pageant 38WG 6 oz 115.4 ab 147.3 a 201.6 a 26.9 b 491.2 a

5 S2200 7.5 fl oz 133.5 a 114.0 a 219.9 a 19.9 b 487.3 a

8 Torque 3.6SC 8 fl oz 136.1 a 155.7 a 165.2 a 13.1 b 470.1 a

3 F9110 24 fl oz 92.5 b 114.2 a 88.5 b 24.9 b 320.1 b

4 Proud 3 4 qts 95.8 b 138.0 a 34.5 bc 0.0 b 268.3 b

1 Check - 93.2 b 133.4 a 16.0 c 0.0 b 242.6 b 1 Numbers in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P<0.05, Tukey’s Studentized

Range (HSD) Test.

97

Table 11. Effect of SePRO fungicides applications on the severity of Leafspot on

“Blue Diamond” iris foliage on May 27, 2014 (Day 89).

TRT TRT/PRODUCT Prod/100 gal/A Severity

7 SP2773 3.313 lb 4.8 b

6 SP2770 2.66 lb 6.0 ab

1 Check - 7.4 a 1 Numbers in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different,

P<0.05, Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test.

Table 12. Effect of SePRO foliar fungicides on the weight of harvested bulbs on July 3, 20141(Day 126).

Wt (g) Bulbs

TRT TRT/PRODUCT Prod/100 gal/A < 6 cm 6-8 cm 8-10 cm >10 cm Total

6 SP2770 2.66 lb 97.4 a 137.2 a 35.5 a 6.3 a 276.3 a

7 SP2773 3.313 lb 98.0 a 131.4 a 40.2 a 0.0 a 269.4 a

1 Check - 93.2 a 133.4 a 16.0 a 0.0 a 242.6 a 1 Numbers in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P<0.05, Tukey’s Studentized

Range (HSD) Test.

BT-114 Efficacy of Foliar Fungicides in Controlling Leaf Spot on ‘Coral Sunset’ Peony

Host: Peony (Paeonia) ‘Coral Sunset’

Pathogen: There are several pathogens that cause leaf spots on herbaceous peonies. The most common ones are

Cladosporium paeoniae, Botrytis paeoniae or B. cinerea

Planting date: October 2013

Plot design: Randomized complete block with five blocks containing one 5 gal potted plant per replication. The pots

were arranged in rows that were spaced 4 feet apart and pots were spaced 3 feet apart within rows. The plants were

overhead irrigated as needed during the growing season.

Application Timing and Spray Volume: Treatments initially started on April 18, 2014 and were applied on 7, 14,

and 21 day intervals (Table 13). Treatments were delayed starting mid-June due to the onset of very warm and dry

weather that did not favor disease development. The treatments were resumed on August 28, 2014. All treatments

were applied in the equivalent of 100 gallons of water and plants were sprayed to wet. Each plant received

approximately 70.5 ml solution at each application.

Evaluations: Periodically during the growing season, disease development was assessed by rating disease severity

on a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 = no disease and 10 = 91 to 100% of the foliage diseased. Isolations were also done from

randomly selected symptomatic samples to determine the cause of the leaf spots. Overall plant quality was also rated

on a scale of 1-5 where 1 = dead plant, 2 = poor quality, 3 = fair, 4 = good, 5 = excellent quality at the end of the

trial to determine if any of the treatments affected the rate of plant senescence. Fungicide residue was rated on a

scale of 0 to 3 where 0 = no residue, 1 = slight, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe residue on foliage.

Results: Very little disease developed on the plants during this trial. By the end of the trial, disease severity ranged

from 0.8 to 5.0, and none of the treatments affected disease ratings (Table 14). Based on overall quality ratings, none

of the fungicides delayed senescence of the plants compared to the non-treated checks (Table 14). Badge X2,

Pageant, Mural, Medallion and both SP numbered products had significantly higher residue ratings than non-treated

checks (Table 14).

98

Table 14. Effect of foliar fungicides on the level of residues observed on foliage on May 16, disease severity on

September 25, and the overall plant quality on October 27, 20141.

Trt # Products Prod/ 100 gal Interval Residues Disease Severity Plant Quality

1 Non-inoculated - - 0.0 e 2.4 a 2.4 a

2 Inoculated - - 0.0 e 1.2 a 3.0 a

4 F9110 24 fl oz 7 day 0.0 e 2.8 a 2.4 a

5 Proud 3 4 qts 7 day 0.0 e 3.0 a 2.0 a

17 Prestop 4.2 lbs 21 day 0.0 e 3.6 a 2.0 a

14 Regalia 4 fl oz 7 day 0.2 de 2.8 a 1.8 a

10 Torque 8 fl oz 14 day 0.4 de 1.8 a 2.4 a

11 Alibi Flora 14 fl oz 14 day 0.4 de 0.8 a 2.8 a

15 ZeroTol 1 gal 7 day 0.4 de 2.4 a 2.0 a

3 WSU 2014-06 8 fl oz 14 day 0.6 de 1.8 a 2.5 a

6 S2200 7.5 fl oz 14 day 0.6 de 2.0 a 2.6 a

12 Mural 7 oz 14 day 1.0 cd 2.2 a 3.2 a

13 Pageant 14 oz 14 day 1.6 bc 3.6 a 2.4 a

8 SP2773 1.66 lb 14 day 1.8 bc 2.4 a 2.0 a

9 SP2773 3.31 lbs 14 day 1.8 bc 1.6 a 2.2 a

16 Medallion WDG 8 oz 14 day 1.8 bc 2.2 a 2.0 a

7 SP2770 10WP 2.66 lbs 7 day 2.0 b 3.6 a 2.6 a

18 Badge X2 2 lbs 7-14 day 3.0 a 5.0 a 2.0 a 1Numbers in columns that are followed by the same letter are not significantly different, P=0.05,

Tukey's Studentized Range Test.

Education and Outreach Activities - The following educational events and field tours were organized to provide to

growers: Bulb and Cut Flower Section of the 2014 Wilbur-Ellis University, January 21, 2014. Auburn, WA and the

WSU Bulb Growers’ Field Day, May 14, 2014, WSU Mt Vernon, Mt Vernon, WA. These events were WSDA

accredited and provided pesticide recertification credits to all that attended. The following presentations were made

to various grower groups and students:

Table 13. Treatment list and application dates.

Trt # Products Prod/ 100 gal Interval

Application

Dates1

1 Non-inoculated - -

2 Inoculated - -

3 WSU 2014-06 8 fl oz 14 day C

4 F9110 24 fl oz 7 day A

5 Proud 3 4 qts 7 day A

6 S2200 7.5 fl oz 14 day C

7 SP2770 10WP 2.66 lbs 7 day A

8 SP2773 1.66 lb 14 day C

9 SP2773 3.31 lbs 14 day C

10 Torque 8 fl oz 14 day C

11 Alibi Flora 14 fl oz 14 day C

12 Mural 7 oz 14 day C

13 Pageant 14 oz 14 day C

14 Regalia 4 fl oz 7 day A

15 ZeroTol 1 gal 7 day A

16 Medallion WDG 8 oz 14 day C

17 Prestop 4.2 lbs 21 day D

18 Badge X2 2 lbs 7-14 day B 1Dates: 1 = 4/18/14, 2= 4/25/14, 3= 5/2/14, 4 = 5/8/14, 5 = 5/16/14, 6 = 5/22/14, 7 =

5/30/14, 8 = 6/6/14, 9 = 6/16/14, 10 = 6/23/14, 11= 8/28/14, 12= 9/4/14, 13= 9/11/14,

14= 9/19/14, 15= 9/27/14, 16= 10/7/14, 17 = 10/10/14

A = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; B = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15,

17; C = 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17; D = 1, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17.

99

Peony cut flower production in Alaska. Wilbur-Ellis University, Auburn, WA. January 21, 2014.

Potential new tools to manage diseases on tulips, iris, daffodils, lilies and peonies. Wilbur-Ellis University,

Auburn, WA. January 21, 2014.

Overview of Botrytis research on peonies. 2014 Alaska Peony Grower Association Annual Conference,

Anchorage, AK. February.

Disease control trial updates. Bulb Growers Field Day, WSU REC, Mt. Vernon, WA. May 14, 2014.

Botrytis on Peony Research Report. Bulb Growers Field Day, WSU REC, Mt. Vernon, WA. May 14, 2014.

WSU Plant Pathology 525 Ornamental Plant Pathology Tour, WSU REC, Puyallup, WA. June 11, 2014.

ARCS (Achievement Rewards for College Students) Tour, WSU REC, Puyallup, WA, March 10, 2014.

Presentations at Scientific Meetings - Presentations relating to this project at the ISHS III International Symposium

on the Genus Lilium - China, and APS Pacific Division Meeting - Montana. Invited seminars on the WSU

Ornamental Bulb Research program were also given at Huazhong Agricultural University and Henan University of

Science and Technology in China.

Publications

Chastagner, Gary, and Annie DeBauw. 2014. The effectiveness of reduced-risk and new biocontrol products in

controlling fire on lilies. Acta Horticulturae 1027: 2231-239.

Copes, W. E., B. Barbeau, and G. A. Chastagner. 2014. Chlorine Dioxide for irrigation water treatment. P 251- 266.

In: Hong, C., G. W. Moorman, W. Wohanka, and C. Buttner (Eds.) 2014. Biology, detection, and management

of plant pathogens in irrigation water. 436 p., APS Press, St. Paul, MN.

Dugan, F. M., S.L. Lupien, C.M. Vahling-Armstrong, G.A. Chastagner, and B.K. Schroeder. 2014. Host ranges of

North American isolates of Penicillium causing blue mold of bulb crops. Crop Protection 64: 129-136.

Chastagner, G. A., K. P. Coats, A. DeBauw, and H. R. Pappu. 2013. Identification of viruses in small-farm lily and

dahlia cut flower crops in western Washington. Phytopathology 103:S3.12 (Abstract).

G.A. Chastagner, K. Coats and A. DeBauw. 2013. Relationship of inoculum level to the development of gray bulb

rots on tulips and iris. Acta Phytopathologica Sinica 43 (supplement): O12.008, p. 186. (Abstract).

Other Support

In addition to the funding from NARF, I have received funds from four additional sources in support for my overall

bulb disease research program in 2014-2015. These include: a $140,861 2.5-year grant obtained from the WSDA

Specialty Crop Block Grant program, $58,423 from the USDA Floriculture and Nursery Research Initiative, $26,

250 from the IR-4 ornamental program, and $25,000 from the Alaska Department of Agriculture Specialty Crop

Block Grant program. The funding requested from NARF will be used to help meet the match requirements for

some of these grants. In addition, I expect that various chemical companies will provide $5,000-10,000 in support of

the proposed research. In-kind contributions have been obtained from Washington Bulb Company, Knutson Farms,

Oregon Perennial Company, Our American Roots, Degoede Bulb Farms, and various chemical companies.

100

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Project Title: Management of diseases on ornamental bulbs and cut flowers

Investigator: Gary A Chastagner ([email protected]), Plant Pathologist, Annie DeBauw, Agric. Res. Tech. II;

Katie Coats, Scientific Assistant; and Andrea Garfinkel, Ph.D. graduate student, WSU-Puyallup





Other Support: In addition to the funding from NARF, support was obtained from four additional sources in

support of the WSU Puyallup bulb disease research program in 2014-2015. These include: a $140,861 2.5-year grant

obtained from the WSDA Specialty Crop Block Grant program, $58,423 from the USDA Floriculture and Nursery

Research Initiative, $26, 250 from the IR-4 ornamental program, and $25,000 from the Alaska Department of

Agriculture Specialty Crop Block Grant program. The funding requested from NARF will be used to help meet the

match requirements for some of these grants. In addition, I expect that various chemical companies will provide

$5,000-10,000 in support of the proposed research. In-kind contributions have been obtained from Washington Bulb

Company, Knutson Farms, Oregon Perennial Company, Our American Roots, Degoede Bulb Farms, and various

chemical companies.

Identification of Problem or Need: Diseases can cause significant losses during the production of ornamental bulb

and flower crops. They can also result in significant postharvest losses during storage and shipment. Management of

soil borne diseases, such as Rhizoctonia gray bulb rot, would potentially be enhanced by improved diagnostics to

determine the risk levels. Fungicide resistance is also a problem that reduces the effectiveness of some currently

registered fungicides, particularly in relation to the management of diseases caused by various Botrytis pathogens.

This project has shown that several newer, reduced- risk fungicides have the potential to control gray bulb rot at

rates much lower than those required when PCNB is used. Recently there have also been a number of reduced-risk

fungicides and potential biocontrol products that have been shown to be effective against Botrytis diseases on other

crops. Additional evaluations are needed to identify which of the new products are effective in controlling Botrytis

diseases on bulb crops grown in the PNW and determine how new biocontrol products can be integrated into grower

disease management programs.

Benefits: This research project will lead to new approaches of detecting Fusarium and Rhizoctonia, and the

registration of new reduced-risk fungicides and biocontrol products in managing common diseases that are caused

by Botrytis spp.

Economic Justification: The information from this research will allow growers to reduce disease losses associated

with basal rot, gray bulb rot, and Botrytis and assist growers in making management decisions relating to the use of

chemical, biopesticides, and/or other control measures.

Evaluation and Accountability: The investigator will evaluate research findings and provide written and oral

reports to growers and industry representatives at various regional meetings, workshops and field days.


101

RESEARCH PROPOSAL


Title: Management of diseases on ornamental bulbs and cut flowers


Personnel: Gary A Chastagner ([email protected]), Plant Pathologist; Annie DeBauw, Agric. Res. Tech. II; Katie

Coats, Scientific Assistant; and Andrea Garfinkel, Ph.D. graduate student, WSU-Puyallup

Justification: The production of ornamental bulbs (geophytes) and flowers represent an important high-value specialty

crop in the United States. Over 90% of the field-grown daffodils, tulips, bulbous iris and Asiatic/Oriental lilies produced

in the U.S. are grown along the coastal areas of Washington, Oregon, and northwestern California. Additionally, there is

an emerging peony cut flower industry in Alaska which uses planting stock produced by growers in the PNW. Flower

bulbs are also forced throughout the U.S. Major production areas include the west coast from southern California north to

the Canadian border, Florida, and throughout the Midwest. The U.S. flower bulb forcing industry is diverse and

encompasses both container plant and cut flower forcers. While growers of all sizes may force bulbs, large wholesale

producers who ship flowers or container plants throughout the U.S. grow the majority of product. Collectively, the major

domestically-grown bulb crops totaled over $235 million in wholesale value in 2005 (2006 NASS). Field production of

bulb crops can also add to the economic vitality of a region through agro-tourism. For example, many growers in the

Pacific Northwest have display gardens and there are a number of festivals associated with the bulb industry.

Maintaining the health of vegetatively-propagated bulbous flower crops is a major challenge for growers. There are

a number of fungal diseases, especially those caused by soil borne pathogens like Rhizoctonia and Fusarium, that

build up in planting stocks and soil, resulting in reduced productivity and the increased use of pesticides. The fungus

Rhizoctonia tuliparum causes the disease gray bulb rot on tulips and bulbous iris. This disease commonly occurs in

patches in the field and it can completely destroy the crop after several rotations if it is not controlled. During this

project, we have been working on the developed a R. tuliparum taxon-specific real time qPCR assay (Rtul) to detect

this pathogen in soil and on bulbs. In order for this assay to potentially be used to assess the risk of gray bulb rot,

additional work is needed to develop a framework/protocol for using Rtul to detect R. tuliparum in bulbs. Fusarium

oxysporum f. sp. tulipae causes basal rot on tulips. This is a very difficult disease to manage, and even low levels of

infection can result in the complete loss of the crop. We have also been working on the development of a qPCR

assay to detect and quantify the presence of this pathogen in soil and on bulbs. Real-Time qPCR primers and a

TaqMan probe were designed to bind to the 5’ untranslated region of the endopolygalacturonase gene on

chromosome 9 of this pathogen. Validation of this “Fot” qPCR assay will continue in 2015.

Foliar and postharvest diseases caused by various species of Botrytis are also major problems for growers. These

species tend to be quite aggressive and have the potential to spread very rapidly. Preliminary research indicates that

there is actually a complex of Botrytis species that are occurring on peonies. In addition to B. paeoniae and B.

cinerea, three additional species of Botrytis were found. This includes: B. psuedocinerea with is a newly-described

species with natural resistance to fenhexamid fungicide; an unnamed species that is closely related to B. calthae,

which has only been reported on marsh marigolds; and an unnamed species that appears to be closely related to B.

convoluta, which is a pathogen of rhizomatous iris. To provide growers with the necessary tools to manage gray

mold, studies are also needed to obtain a better understanding of the diversity of Botrytis species on peonies, their

pathogenicity and biology, source of inoculum, and sensitivity to fungicides in order to develop an effective Botrytis

disease management program on this crop.

There are currently a limited number of fungicides registered for the control of Botrytis on geophytes. Ongoing

research that is being supported by NARF and the USDA IR-4 program at Puyallup indicates that there are a number

of new active ingredient fungicides and a few biopesticide products that have the potential to control Botrytis on

geophytes. In general, growers have been reluctant to rely on biopesticide products because of their variable

performance under field conditions. The trials at Puyallup have indicated that the biopesticide products are much

more effective when disease pressure is low. Studies are needed to determine if the effectiveness of biopesticides

could be increased by integrating them with applications of traditional, organic-approved fungicides like copper in

an overall Botrytis disease management program on peonies, tulips and lilies. Improving disease control during the

growing season can reduce yield losses and also reduce the risk of significant postharvest losses during storage and

shipment.


102

Objectives: The overall objective of this project is to provide growers with increased disease management options.

Specific objectives include: 1) Development of taxon-specific DNA-based sampling procedures to quantify

Fusarium and Rhizoctonia inocula levels in soil and on bulbs, 2) Identify Botrytis species associated with gray mold

and postharvest decay of peony cut flowers, 3) Determine the progression of Botrytis infection on peonies

throughout the growing season, 4) Determine if Botrytis species can be introduced into peony plantings on infested

rootstocks, 5) Determine if there are differences in fungicide resistance among Botrytis populations from peony

fields, 6) Evaluate the effectiveness of integrating cultural practices and biopesticides into Botrytis disease

management programs on peonies, tulips and lilies, and 7) Develop Botrytis disease management guides for peonies,

tulips and lily cut flower growers.

Procedures: During 2015, the following work will be done.

1) Continue laboratory studies to complete the validation of Rtul as a reliable R. tuliparum diagnostic qPCR

assay and to develop a framework/protocol for using Rtul to detect R. tuliparum in bulbs. In addition we

will continue work to validate the recently developed qPCR Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. tulipae assay.

2) Collect samples from a minimum of 15 peony cut flower growers in AK, WA, and OR and 2 to 3 rootstock

producers in WA and OR to identify Botrytis species associated with crop.

3) Determine the progression of Botrytis infection on peonies throughout the growing season by collecting

samples from three peony cut flower (CF) producers in the PNW and three CF producers in AK at three

times during the year: emergence, harvest, and senescence.

4) To determine the potential that commercial peony rootstocks are infected/infested by Botrytis, diseased

plants from three commercial rootstock production fields in WA and OR will be tagged during the growing

seasons. The root systems will be dug during the fall and examined for Botrytis infection. Microsatellite

molecular markers for B. paeoniae will be developed so that we can characterize populations and determine

how this pathogen is moving in the production system.

5) Isolates of Botrytis that are collected throughout the course of this project will be tested for

resistance/sensitivity to a minimum of three fungicides that are commonly used in peony production

systems. The selection of fungicides will be based on a grower survey and the risk for resistance

development based on the FRAC resistance codes.

6) Replicated field trials at WSU Puyallup will compare the effectiveness of disease management programs

that integrate at least one biopesticide with a traditional fungicide to a non-integrated spray program in

controlling the development of Botrytis on tulips.

Anticipated Benefits and Information Transfer: We will organize and disseminate information from this research

to growers at both the annual PNW Bulb Grower Conference and Bulb Grower Field Day. These events will be

WSDA accredited and provide pesticide recertification credits to all that attend. Reports from these events will be

posted on a newly-developed WSU Puyallup “bulb crop” best management web site. Efficacy data generated during

this project will be provided to product registrants to support the registration of new fungicides on bulb crops,

leading to new disease management options for growers.

Budget:

Amount allocated by NARF during FY 2013-2014: $12,907

Amount

Salaries: (0.25 FTE ART II – 6 months): $5,189

Time-slip wages (100 hrs): 1,000

Goods & Services: 4,000

Operations: -

Travel: 500

Equipment: -

Employee Benefits (salary): 2.118

Employee Benefits (time slip): 100

Total Requested for 2013-2014: $12,907

Other Support for Project: In addition to the funding from NARF, I have received funds from four additional

sources in support for my overall bulb disease research program in 2014-2015. These include: a $140,861 2.5-year

grant obtained from the WSDA Specialty Crop Block Grant program, $58,423 from the USDA Floriculture and

Nursery Research Initiative, $26, 250 from the IR-4 ornamental program, and $25,000 from the Alaska Department

of Agriculture Specialty Crop Block Grant program. The funding requested from NARF will be used to help meet

the match requirements for some of these grants. In addition, I expect that various chemical companies will provide

$5,000-10,000 in support of the proposed research. In-kind contributions have been obtained from Washington Bulb

103

Company, Knutson Farms, Oregon Perennial Company, Our American Roots, Degoede Bulb Farms, and various

chemical companies.

104

PROGRESS REPORT

Project Number: 13K-3419-3298 & 17A-3419-9810

Title: Herbicide Combinations for Weed Control in Ornamental Bulbs

Personnel: Timothy W. Miller, WSU Mount Vernon NWREC

Carl R. Libbey, WSU Mount Vernon NWREC

Reporting Period: 2013-14

Accomplishments: The herbicide combination project was conducted at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC

from fall 2013 through summer 2014. The focus of the trial was to test the effects of several herbicides

alone and in combination in ornamental bulb crops.

Results:

Bulbs (‘Ile de France’ tulip, ‘Flower Carpet’ daffodil, and ‘Blue Diamond’ iris) were planted at WSU

Mount Vernon NWREC in September, 2013. Roundup at 2 pt/a was applied to all plots (including those

plots not otherwise treated) to control emerged weeds December 16, 2013. Herbicides were applied

December 19, 2013 (PRE), April 21, 2014 (POST1), and May 12, 2014 (POST2). Percent weed control

was evaluated April 9 and May 12, 2014. Flowers were counted and stem length of five random blooms

were measured (daffodil, March 24; tulip, April 11; and iris, May 8, 2014). Bulbs will be dug, cleaned,

sized, counted, and weighed later in the season. The trial was a split-plot randomized complete block

with four replicates.

The three major weed species found in the plots were Watson’s willowweed (Epilobium ciliatum),

shepherd’s-purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris), and prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare). Other

species included common chickweed (Stellaria media), annual bluegrass (Poa annua), ivyleaf speedwell

(Veronica hederifolia), and toad rush (Juncus bufonius). All treatments were still relatively weed-free by

early April, with control ranging from 94 to 100% (Table 1). By mid-May, however, Asulox alone was

giving only poor weed control (56 to 68%). Tenacity applied alone (PRE) gave 80 to 88% control,

depending on rate. Dimension alone or in tank mixture provided excellent weed control, as did most

combinations with Surflan and isoxaben.

Bulb foliage was not visually injured by any treatment, including POST Asulox treatments (data not

shown). Flower height and number for a given species did not differ by treatment (Table 2), except for

tulip stem length, which was reduced by Dimension at 3 pt/a. This difference might not be of practical

importance, however, as tulip stem lengths from longest to shortest ranged from 16.2 to 13.3 inches

across treatments.

Tulip bulb yield was detrimentally affected by several treatments (Table 3). Tenacity at 12 or 16 fl.oz/a

reduced total bulb number and weight, while Dimension + isoxaben generally reduced total bulb number

and Dimension at 3 pt/a and Tenacity + Devrinol reduced total bulb weight. Average tulip size was not

reduced by any treatment. In daffodil, total bulb number was reduced by Dimension at 2 or 3 pt/a,

Tenacity + Surflan, isoxaben fb Asulox, and Dimension + Surflan (Table 4). Isoxaben fb Asulox and

Dimension + Surflan both also decreased total bulb weight. Average bulb size was not reduced by any

treatment. No bulb yield parameters were significantly affected in iris (Table 5).

Based on these data, it appears that Tenacity at 12 or 16 fl.oz can be injurious to tulip. Tenacity at 8

fl.oz/a may also be too high a rate when applied with Devrinol at 2 lbs/a. Tenacity at 8 fl.oz/a applied

with Surflan at 1.5 pt/a may also be too high a dose in daffodil. Dimension at 2 pr 3 pt/a may injure

daffodil, as can 1 pt/a applications mixed with Surflan at 1.5 lb/a. Dimension at 1 pt/a with isoxaben at

10.6 oz/a was also too high for tulip. Finally, isoxaben fb Asulox (10.6 oz/a fb 3 pt/a) also was damaging

105

to daffodil. It also appears that weed control with Asulox is best when applied sequentially with a

residual herbicide.

Table 1. Weed control in ornamental bulbs (tulip, daffodil, and iris) after treatment with

various herbicides (2013-14).

Treatmenta

Rate

Timing

Weed control

April 19 May 12 June 4

product/a % % %

Tenacity 8 floz PRE 98 abc 80 f 53 g

Tenacity 12 floz PRE 96 bcd 84 ef 59 fg

Tenacity 16 fl.oz PRE 95 cd 88 de 65 efg

Dimension 1 pt PRE 99 ab 89 cde 70 c-f

Dimension 2 pt PRE 99 ab 93 a-d 81 a-e

Dimension 3 pt POST1 100 a 95 abc 91 ab

Asulox 3 pt POST1 --- 68 g 61 fg

Asulox fb Asulox 1.5 pt fb 1.5 pt POST1 fb

POST2

--- 56 h 34 h

Tenacity fb Asulox 8 fl.oz fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 96 bcd 90 b-d 85 a-d

Dimension fb Asulox 1 pt fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 99 ab 96 ab 94 ab

Tenacity + Isoxaben 8 fl.oz + 10.6

oz

PRE 99 ab 88 de 69 d-g

Tenacity + Surflan 8 fl.oz + 1.5 pt PRE 100 a 99 a 98 a

Tenacity + Devrinol 8 fl.oz + 2 lb PRE 100 a 96 ab 89 ab

Dimension +

Isoxaben

1 pt + 10.6 oz PRE 100 a 94 a-d 80 b-e

Dimension + Surflan 1 pt + 1.5 pt PRE 99 ab 95 abc 93 ab

Dimension +

Devrinol

1 pt + 2 lb PRE 100 a 95 abc 86

abc

Isoxaben fb Asulox 10.6 oz fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 98 abc 91 bcd 89 ab

Surflan fb Asulox 1.5 pt fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 98 abc 96 ab 96 ab

Devrinol fb Asulox 2 lb fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 94 d 91 bcd 91 ab

Roundup (check) 2 pt PRE 0 g 0 i 0 i

Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly

different (P < 0.05). aRoundup applied December 16, 2013 (Roundup); PRE applied December 19,

2013; POST1 applied immediately post-flowering for tulip, April 21, 2014;

POST2 applied May 12, 2014; “fb” = “followed by”.

106

Table 2. Flower number and flower stem length after treatment with various herbicides (2013-14).

Means in the same column with the same letter, or not followed by a letter, are not significantly different

(P < 0.05). aRoundup applied December 16, 2013 (Roundup); PRE applied December 19, 2013; POST1 applied

immediately post-flowering for tulip, April 21, 2014; POST2 applied May 12, 2014; “fb” = “followed

by”. bFlower number and stem height measured for daffodil (March 24, 2014), tulip (April 11, 2014), and iris

(May 8, 2014).

Treatmenta

Rate

Flower numberb Stem length

b

Daffod

il

Tulip Iris Daffod

il

Tulip Iris

product/a no./plot no./plot no./plot Inches inches inches

Tenacity 8 floz 28 36 26 13.8 15.3

abc

19.7

Tenacity 12 floz 31 36 29 14.4 15.3

abc

19.7

Tenacity 16 fl.oz 30 35 30 13.5 13.9 de 19.5

Dimension 1 pt 29 33 28 14.1 14.8

bcd

18.9

Dimension 2 pt 29 34 24 13.7 14.8

bcd

18.6

Dimension 3 pt 29 35 28 13.5 13.3 e 18.8

Asulox 3 pt 30 37 25 13.8 14.8

bcd

18.7

Asulox fb Asulox 1.5 pt fb 1.5 pt 30 34 29 13.8 14.3 b-d 20.0

Tenacity fb Asulox 8 fl.oz fb 3 pt 28 34 26 13.4 14.5 b-e 19.9

Dimension fb Asulox 1 pt fb 3 pt 30 36 28 13.6 14.8

bcd

19.3


oz

31 35 29 13.4 14.0 de 19.2

Tenacity + Surflan 8 fl.oz + 1.5 pt 29 36 27 13.7 14.0

cde

18.8

Tenacity + Devrinol 8 fl.oz + 2 lb 28 36 28 14.1 15.1 a-d 18.9

Dimension +

Isoxaben

1 pt + 10.6 oz 29 35 28 13.5 16.2 a 18.8

Dimension + Surflan 1 pt + 1.5 pt 27 38 28 13.7 15.5 ab 18.7

Dimension +

Devrinol

1 pt + 2 lb 30 35 29 13.8 15.0 a-d 19.4

Isoxaben fb Asulox 10.6 oz fb 3 pt 26 34 26 14.2 15.4 ab 18.5

Surflan fb Asulox 1.5 pt fb 3 pt 31 37 28 13.9 15.0 a-d 19.6

Devrinol fb Asulox 2 lb fb 3 pt 31 36 30 14.0 14.4 b-e 19.6

Roundup (check) 2 pt 30 37 31 14.0 15.2 a-d 19.5

107

Table 3. Tulip bulb number and weights after treatment with various herbicides (2013-14).

Treatment

Rate

Timing

Total bulb

numbera

Total bulb

weighta

Average bulb

weighta

product/a no./plot g/plot g/bulb

Tenacity 8 floz PRE 85 b-e 1252 a-d 14.7

Tenacity 12 floz PRE 68 ef 1005 e 15.0

Tenacity 16 fl.oz PRE 49 f 657 f 13.5

Dimension 1 pt PRE 98 ab 1250 a-d 12.8

Dimension 2 pt PRE 85 b-e 1282 a-d 15.5

Dimension 3 pt POST1 76 cde 1118 de 14.5

Asulox 3 pt POST1 95 bc 1458 a 15.7


POST2

97 b 1348 abc 14.4

Tenacity fb Asulox 8 fl.oz fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 76 cde 1207 b-e 16.2

Dimension fb

Asulox

1 pt fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 118 a 1314 a-d 11.3


oz

PRE 90 bcd 1277 a-d 14.5

Tenacity + Surflan 8 fl.oz + 1.5 pt PRE 95 bc 1255 a-d 13.7

Tenacity + Devrinol 8 fl.oz + 2 lb PRE 76 cde 1007 e 13.7

Dimension +

Isoxaben

1 pt + 10.6 oz PRE 71 de 1166 cde 16.6

Dimension + Surflan 1 pt + 1.5 pt PRE 87 b-e 1370 abc 15.8

Dimension +

Devrinol

1 pt + 2 lb PRE 88 b-e 1287 a-d 15.5

Isoxaben fb Asulox 10.6 oz fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 92 bc 1232 bcd 13.7

Surflan fb Asulox 1.5 pt fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 95 bc 1425 ab 15.1

Devrinol fb Asulox 2 lb fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 81 b-d 1343 abc 16.9

Roundup (check) 2 pt PRE 86 b-e 1353 abc 16.0

Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05). aRoundup applied December 16, 2013 (Roundup); PRE applied December 19, 2013;

POST1 applied immediately post-flowering for tulip, April 21, 2014; POST2 applied

May 12, 2014; “fb” = “followed by”.

108

Table 4. Daffodil bulb number and weights after treatment with various herbicides (2013-14).

Treatment

Rate

Timing

Total bulb

numbera

Total bulb

weighta

Average bulb

weighta


Tenacity 8 floz PRE 31 a-e 2988 a-e 98.1

Tenacity 12 floz PRE 31 a-d 3215 a 103.2

Tenacity 16 fl.oz PRE 31 a-d 2644 efg 86.0

Dimension 1 pt PRE 31 a-d 3121 ab 100.7

Dimension 2 pt PRE 29 c-f 2814 b-g 98.1

Dimension 3 pt POST1 29 def 2768 c-g 97.2

Asulox 3 pt POST1 32 abc 3021 a-d 94.5


POST2

32 a-d 3060 abc 97.3

Tenacity fb Asulox 8 fl.oz fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 30 b-f 2712 d-g 91.7

Dimension fb

Asulox

1 pt fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 30 a-e 3041 a-d 102.0

Tenacity + Isoxaben 8 fl.oz + 10.6 oz PRE 33 a 2970 a-e 90.7

Tenacity + Surflan 8 fl.oz + 1.5 pt PRE 29 c-f 2940 a-f 101.4

Tenacity + Devrinol 8 fl.oz + 2 lb PRE 31 a-d 2951 a-e 95.5

Dimension +

Isoxaben

1 pt + 10.6 oz PRE 31 a-d 3036 a-d 97.1

Dimension + Surflan 1 pt + 1.5 pt PRE 27 f 2598 fg 98.5

Dimension +

Devrinol

1 pt + 2 lb PRE 30 a-e 3008 a-d 100.2

Isoxaben fb Asulox 10.6 oz fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 28 ef 2586 g 92.7

Surflan fb Asulox 1.5 pt fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 31 a-d 2992 a-d 97.0

Devrinol fb Asulox 2 lb fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 32 a-d 3038 a-d 96.3

Roundup (check) 2 pt PRE 33 ab 2953 a-e 91.2




109

Table 5. Iris bulb number and weights after treatment with various herbicides (2013-14).

Treatment

Rate

Timing Total

bulb

numbera

Total bulb

weighta

Average bulb

weighta


Tenacity 8 floz PRE 132 965 7.3

Tenacity 12 floz PRE 155 1090 7.1

Tenacity 16 fl.oz PRE 149 995 6.7

Dimension 1 pt PRE 147 1055 7.2

Dimension 2 pt PRE 142 990 7.0

Dimension 3 pt POST1 141 1025 7.3

Asulox 3 pt POST1 138 988 7.2

Asulox fb Asulox 1.5 pt fb 1.5 pt POST1 fb POST2 155 1091 7.0

Tenacity fb Asulox 8 fl.oz fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 134 1036 7.8

Dimension fb

Asulox

1 pt fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 146 843 5.8

Tenacity + Isoxaben 8 fl.oz + 10.6 oz PRE 150 1075 7.2

Tenacity + Surflan 8 fl.oz + 1.5 pt PRE 141 985 7.0

Tenacity + Devrinol 8 fl.oz + 2 lb PRE 146 1129 7.8

Dimension +

Isoxaben

1 pt + 10.6 oz PRE 144 1037 7.1

Dimension + Surflan 1 pt + 1.5 pt PRE 145 1039 7.2

Dimension +

Devrinol

1 pt + 2 lb PRE 149 1135 7.6

Isoxaben fb Asulox 10.6 oz fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 141 937 6.6

Surflan fb Asulox 1.5 pt fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 154 1194 7.8

Devrinol fb Asulox 2 lb fb 3 pt PRE fb POST1 149 1054 7.1

Roundup (check) 2 pt PRE 158 1080 6.9




110


PROJECT TITLE: Herbicide Combinations for Weed Control in Ornamental Bulbs

INVESTIGATOR: Tim Miller, Extension Weed Scientist, WSU Mount Vernon NWREC

PROJECT NUMBER: 13K-3419-3298 & 17A-3419-9810


CALENDER YEAR: 2014-15


OTHER SUPPORT: Herbicides are typically provided by herbicide manufacturers and plant materials

have been kindly donated by Washington Bulb Company in previous years. Funds will also be solicited

from the Washington State Commission for Pesticide Registration.

IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEM OR NEED: Ornamental bulb crops are poor competitors with

weeds because of generally slow early-season growth and shallow root systems. While several tank

mixtures of herbicides with good potential for registration have been tested over the years, a systematic

testing of mixtures of registered and non-registered herbicides used in tank mixture was begun in 2012

and should be continued through 2015. Further, additional new herbicides (Tenacity, Dimension, and

Asulox) need to be more fully tested if new registrations are to result. Such testing is needed to improve

weed control while maintaining crop safety.

BENEFITS: Depending on the results of this trial, weed control practices in ornamental bulbs may be

improved. Data from this experiment will be used to support new herbicide registrations in ornamental

bulbs and to fine-tune existing labels. Data resulting from these studies will be disseminated through

extension bulletins and during grower meetings sponsored by extension faculty and the agricultural

industry.

ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION: Previous research at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC has shown that

weed competition may decrease bulb yield by as much as 41% and reduce bulb size by up to 32%.

Significantly, these weedy fields also abundantly produce weed seed, perpetuating the likelihood of weed

problems in all subsequent crops.

EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY: The investigator will conduct and evaluate this project

and report findings to the agricultural industry and scientific community. The Washington Bulb

Commission will assess the appropriateness of this line of study to the industry and make suggestions for

future project direction. Growers and processors will adopt results from this project as applicable to their

operations.

111

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Project No: 13K-3419-3298 & 17A-3419-9810

Title: Herbicide Combinations for Weed Control in Ornamental Bulbs

Year Initiated: 2014-15 Current Year: 2014-15 Terminating Year: 2014-15

Personnel: Timothy W. Miller, Extension Weed Scientist, WSU NWREC Mount Vernon; Carl R.

Libbey, A/P Research Technician, WSU NWREC, Mount Vernon

Justification:

Tulip, daffodil, and bulbous iris are grown on about 1,600 acres annually in western Washington with a

gross value of over $12 million. These bulb crops are, however, poor competitors with weeds because of

generally slow early-season growth and shallow root systems. Previous research at WSU Mount Vernon

NWREC has shown that weed competition may decrease bulb yield by as much as 41% and reduce bulb

size by up to 32%. Significantly, these weedy fields also abundantly produce weed seed, perpetuating the

likelihood of weed problems in all subsequent crops.

Broadleaf weed products registered for use in tulip, daffodil, and bulbous iris are all preemergence (PRE)

herbicides, including Surflan (oryzalin), Devrinol (napropamide), Quali-Pro Isoxaben, Pendulum

Aquacap (pendimethalin), and Pennant Magnum (s-metolachlor); Karmex and others (diuron) may be

used in iris and daffodil, but not tulip. In addition, Roundup and others (glyphosate) and Gramoxone

(paraquat) may be used postemergence (POST) to the weeds but PRE to bulb foliage. Since most of these

herbicides used alone fail to adequately control weeds in bulb crops, a trial of various tank mixtures were

tested in bulbs during 2008-10. Additional testing of registered products was conducted in 2010-14, in

addition to three non-registered products that have shown good promise in recent tests: Tenacity

(mesotrione), Dimension (dithiopyr), and Asulox (asulam). These products need to be more fully tested

to determine efficacy and crop safety when used alone and in combination.

Objective:

Evaluate several tank mixtures of herbicides labeled for use in bulbs for crop safety and improved

efficacy.

Procedures:

The following products applied alone and in two-way tank mixtures will be tested on tulip, daffodil, and

iris: Surflan, Devrinol, Pennant Magnum, Tenacity, Dimension, Asulox, and Pendulum Aquacap, and

will be applied to tulip to test efficacy and crop safety at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC. Bulbs will be

planted in October, and herbicides will be applied PRE in fall, 2014. Depending on presence of emerged

weeds at the time of application, Roundup will be mixed with all tested mixtures. The spectrum and

efficacy of weed control and injury to bulb foliage will be noted. Flower number and stem lengths will be

measured in spring, 2015, and bulb samples will be taken in summer, 2015 for yield analysis.

112


Depending on the results of this trial, weed control practices in ornamental bulbs may be improved. Data

from this experiment will be used to support new herbicide registrations in ornamental bubs and to fine-

tune existing labels. Data resulting from these studies will be disseminated during grower meetings

sponsored by extension faculty and the agricultural industry.

Budget:

Amount allocated by the WA Bulb Commission during FY 2013-14: $4,557

Requested 2014-15

Salaries1 $ 1,500

Time-slip 1,000

Goods and Services2 500

Operations 0

Travel3 250

Equipment 0

Employee Benefits

A/P Ass’t Scientist (36.19%) 543

Time-slip (63.2%) 632

Total Request $ 4,425 1Salary for A/P scientific assistant Carl Libbey is

exclusively funded through external grants. 2Goods and Services include flags, fertilizer, and related

office and field supplies. 3Travel is for plot establishment, maintenance, and

harvest, and for presentation of data at meetings.

Other Support of Project: Herbicides are typically provided by herbicide manufacturers and plant

materials have been kindly donated by bulb producers in previous years (in particular, Washington Bulb

Company). Additional tulip bulb research is ongoing, funded by a Specialty Crop grant from WSDA

(2013-2015), in which PhD student Yushan Duan is researching cover crop and plowdown crop effects on

tulip bulb production. In addition, a large-plot field trial is currently underway in cooperation with

Washington Bulb Company and Syngenta to further test Tenacity under actual production conditions in

effort to gain confidence in the product prior to moving forward with registration. IR-4 testing of

Dimension and Tower (dimethenamid-p) is also being conducted in 2014-15. Finally, additional funds

will be solicited from the Washington State Commission for Pesticide Registration. $1000 was also

allocated to the NWREC Weed Science program from the Wally Staatz Endowment.

113

Organic Crops

114

ORGANIC COMMITTEE NARF ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Alec McErlich, Organic Chairman

Earthbound Farm Director of Supply

3815 S Othello St., Suite 100-352

Seattle, WA 98118

Office: 206-725-7748

Cell: 831-970-4336


Chris Benedict, County Extension Educator

Extension Education/Agriculture Facility

1000 N Forest St, Suite 101

Bellingham, WA 98225-5594

Phone: 360-676-6736 x50280


Fred Berman

Northwest Agriculture Business Center

419 S 1st St, Suite 200

PO Box 2924


Phone: 360-336-3727

Cell: 360-483-8033


Andrew Corbin, County Extension Educator

WSU Extension Anr

600 128th St SE

Everett, WA 98208-6353

Phone: 425-357-6012


Mike Hackett

Moonlight Homestead Consulting

1410 Bell Springs Rd

Bellingham, WA 98227

Phone: 360-708-6931


Craig Maberry

Heritage Lane Farms

9333 Guide Meridian

Lynden, WA 98264


Alan Mesman

Mesman Farms

12609 Dodge Valley Rd


Phone: 360-770-3937


Carol Miles, Associate Professor


WSU Mount Vernon



Phone: 360-848-6150

Fax: 360-848-6159


Anne Schwartz

Blue Heron Farm


Rockport, WA 98283

Phone: 360-853-8449

Cell: 360-708-7987


Tom Thorton

Cloud Mountain Farm Center

6906 Goodwin Rd

Everson, WA 98247

Phone: 360-966-5859

Cell: 360-815-4150


Kevin Wright, Director

King County Extension

1000 Oakesdale Ave SW

Renton, WA 98057-5212

Phone: 206-205-3100


Funding Source: Voluntary contributions by growers, and/or processors











115

PROJECT OUTLINE

ORGANIC CROPS PAGE

ONGOING PROJECTS

Miles, Carol Progress Report 116

Evaluating Grafted Watermelon & Eggplant for Tolerance Executive Summary 118

to Verticillium Wilt Research Proposal 119

SUMMARY

BUDGET REQUESTS

ORGANIC CROPS

Organics assessment $ available: $______________

Ongoing Projects

Scientist

Project Number


1st Funding

Source

2nd Funding

Source Priority

Miles 13K-3455-4374

Evaluating Grafted Eggplant for

Tolerance to Verticillium Wilt

$4,070

Total $4,070

116

PROGRESS REPORT


TITLE: Evaluating Grafted Watermelon & Eggplant for Tolerance to Verticillium Wilt

PERSONNEL: Carol Miles, Vegetable Horticulture Specialist, WSU Mount Vernon NWREC, 16650

State Route 536, Mount Vernon, WA 98273; (360) 848-6150, [email protected].


ACCOMPLISHMENTS

These studies were conducted at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC where we evaluated grafted watermelon

and eggplant for tolerance to Verticillium wilt. The design for both studies was a randomized complete

block with three replications for the watermelon and four replications for the eggplant. For the

watermelon grafting study, the susceptible cultivar Sugar Baby was grafted onto 5 commercially available

rootstocks, and a non-grafted control treatment was also included. For the eggplant grafting study, the

susceptible cultivar Night Shadow was grafted onto 5 rootstocks, and non- and self-grafted control

treatments were also included. Seeds were sown into 72-cell trays approximately 4 weeks prior to

grafting. Plants were grafted at NWREC, and transplanted to the field 2 weeks later (29 May for eggplant,

19 June for watermelon). Plants were rated for Verticillium wilt severity once a week throughout the

summer, and the severity data was plotted over time to generate area under disease progress curve

(AUDPC) values.

RESULTS

For the watermelon grafting study, treatments differed significantly in terms of disease severity (P =

0.004), average fruit biomass per plant (P = 0.0002) and average number of fruits per plant (P = 0.03).

Non-grafted ‘Sugar Baby’ had the highest average AUDPC value (502.4) and was significantly different

than all other treatments. ‘Sugar Baby’ grafted onto ‘Tetsukabuto’ had the lowest average AUDPC value

(24.1), and its average ranked value was significantly different than all other treatments. The AUDPC

values of the remaining treatments ranged from 114.2 (‘Sugar Baby’ grafted onto ‘Emphasis’) to 87.9

(‘Sugar Baby’ grafted onto ‘Titan’) but did not differ significantly from one another. ‘Sugar Baby’ grafted

onto ‘Tetsukabuto’ yielded significantly higher fruit biomass per plant (15.02 kg) as compared to all other

treatments. Non-grafted ‘Sugar Baby’ yielded the lowest average fruit biomass per plant (4.60 kg), but

was not significantly different than ‘Sugar Baby’ grafted onto ‘Rampart’. ‘Sugar Baby’ grafted onto

‘Tetsukabuto’ yielded the largest average number of fruit per plant (3.5) but did not differ significantly

from ‘Sugar Baby’ grafted onto ‘Titan’ and ‘Emphasis’ (2.83 and 2.78, respectively). Non-grafted ‘Sugar

Baby’ had the lowest average number of fruit per plant (1.39) but did not differ significantly from ‘Sugar

Baby’ grafted onto ‘Rampart’ and ‘Marvel’ (1.72 and 2.00, respectively).

For the eggplant grafting study, treatments differed significantly in terms of disease severity (P < 0.0001).

Non-grafted ‘Night Shadow’ had the largest average AUDPC (348), followed by self-grafted ‘Night

Shadow’ (331) and ‘Night Shadow’ grafted onto ‘Meet’ (259), and these treatments did not differ

significantly. The average AUDPC values of the remaining treatments ranged from 47 (‘Night Shadow’

grafted onto ‘Cherokee Purple’) to 88 (‘Night Shadow’ grafted onto ‘Celebrity’), and none differed

significantly from each other. There was a significant difference in average yield of fruit biomass per

plant (P = 0.004). ‘Night Shadow’ grafted onto ‘Meet’ had the highest average yield of fruit biomass per

plant (1.94 kg) but did not differ significantly from non-grafted ‘Night Shadow’ (0.61 kg). ‘Night

Shadow’ grafted onto ‘Estamino’ and ‘Cherokee Purple’ had the lowest average yield of fruit biomass per

plant (0.07 and 0.13 kg, respectively), and did not differ significantly from self-grafted ‘Night Shadow’

(0.31 kg). The average number of fruit per plant differed significantly (P = 0.005). ‘Night Shadow’

grafted onto ‘Meet’ had the highest average number of fruit per plant (2.85) but did not differ

significantly from ‘Night Shadow’ grafted onto ‘Early Girl’ (1.04) or non-grafted ‘Night Shadow’ (1.00).


117

Results from these studies indicate that grafting watermelon and eggplant onto certain rootstocks can

reduce Verticillium wilt severity significantly. For watermelon in this study, grafting also resulted in

increased yield as measured by fruit weight and number. In contrast, for eggplant in this study, grafting

resulted in reduced yield. These results indicate that grafting watermelon with rootstocks included in this

study can provide Verticillium wilt control and increased yield, whereas for eggplant more studies are

needed to test additional rootstocks so as to improve disease control and yield.

PUBLICATIONS

Abstracts

Wimer, J.A., C.A., Miles, and D.A. Inglis. 2014. Evaluation of watermelon rootstocks for resistance to

Verticillium wilt in northwestern Washington. ISHS International Symposium on Vegetable Grafting,

Wuhan, China, p. 59.

Wimer, J.A., C.A., Miles, and D.A. Inglis. 2014. Evaluation of watermelon rootstocks for resistance to

Verticillium wilt in northwestern Washington. HortScience 49: in press.

Proceedings

Miles, C.A., J.A. Wimer, and D.A. Inglis. 2014. Grafting eggplant and tomato for Verticillium wilt. ISHS

International Symposium on Vegetable Grafting, Wuhan, China, p. 53.

Fact Sheets

Galinato, Suzette P., C.A. Miles, and J.A. Wimer. 2014. 2013 cost estimation of producing seedless

watermelon in eastern Washington.

PRESENTATIONS

9 Nov 2014 Evaluation of watermelon rootstocks for resistance to Verticillium wilt in northwestern

Washington, U.S. 2014 Tilth Producers of Washington Conference. Vancouver, WA.

28 Oct 2014 Evaluation of watermelon rootstocks for resistance to Verticillium wilt in northwestern

Washington, U.S. 2014 BioAg Symposium. Washington State University, Pullman, WA.

21 Jul 2014 Grafting watermelon to manage Verticillium wilt in Washington State. South Seattle

Community College. WSU Mount Vernon, NWREC.

13 Jun 2014 Grafting watermelon to manage Verticillium wilt in Washington State. PlP 525 Field Plant

Pathology class, WSU. WSU Mount Vernon, NWREC.

10 Apr 2014 Brown Bag Seminar: WSU Mount Vernon, NWREC. Evaluation of watermelon

rootstocks for resistance to Verticillium wilt in northwestern Washington, U.S.

30 May 2014 Current research in vegetable grafting at WSU Mount Vernon, NWREC. Food, Health and

Sustainability class, Evergreen State College. WSU Mount Vernon, NWREC.

10 Apr 2014 Brown Bag Seminar: WSU Mount Vernon, NWREC. Evaluation of watermelon

rootstocks for resistance to Verticillium wilt in northwestern Washington, U.S.

18 Mar 2014 Evaluation of watermelon rootstocks for resistance to Verticillium wilt in northwestern

Washington, U.S. 1st ISHS International Symposium on Vegetable Grafting. Huazhong

University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.

25 Feb 2014 Grafting watermelon to manage Verticillium wilt in Washington State. Master Gardener

Training. Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Mount Vernon, WA.

118


Project Title: Evaluating Grafted Eggplant for Tolerance to Verticillium Wilt

Investigator: Carol Miles, Vegetable Horticulture Specialist, WSU Mount Vernon NWREC, 16650 State

Route 536, Mount Vernon, WA 98273; (360) 848-6150, [email protected].

Project Number:

Project Duration: 2015


Proposed Budget: $ 4,070

Other Support: We will submit a matching grant proposal to WSCPR


Eggplant is a high-value farm market crop in Washington, but production is limited by soil-borne

diseases, in particular Verticillium wilt (Verticillium dahliae). Our research field site at WSU Mount

Vernon NWREC has relatively high Verticillium wilt pressure (17 cfu g-1

soil), providing an ideal

naturally infested site to study disease management. Our research in 2013 showed that several

commercial eggplant rootstocks did not have resistance/tolerance to Verticillium wilt whereas tomato

cultivars and tomato rootstocks did have resistance/tolerance. Eggplant and tomato are both Solanaceous

crops and can be successfully grafted with the same rootstocks. In 2014 we grafted eggplant onto resistant

tomato and commercial tomato rootstocks and found that disease control was significantly increased as

compared to the non-grafted eggplant control, however yield was decreased. In 2015 we will test different

rootstocks in the search of increased disease resistance and increased yield for grafted eggplant.

Benefits: This project will identify successful combinations of rootstocks for eggplant for Verticillium

wilt control. Eggplant production will expand in Washington, and results will support a grafted vegetable

transplant industry in the region.


Currently there are no organic strategies to control Verticillium wilt disease, and crop rotation is not

effective as many crops are susceptible and the pathogen can survive in the soil for ten years or more.

Identification of disease tolerant rootstocks for eggplant will increase productivity and expand production

areas for this high-value crop.

Evaluation and Accountability: The scientists are responsible for evaluation and reporting of this project to the agricultural and the

scientific communities. NARF is responsible for evaluating project progress. Growers will evaluate and

adopt practices applicable to their operations.


119

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Project Number:

Title: Evaluating Grafted Eggplant for Tolerance to Verticillium Wilt


Personnel: Carol Miles, Vegetable Extension Specialist, WSU-Mount Vernon NWREC, 16650 State

Route 536, Mount Vernon, WA 98273; 360-848-6150; [email protected]

Justification:

Eggplant is a high-value farm market crop in Washington, but production is limited by soil-borne

diseases, in particular Verticillium wilt (Verticillium dahliae). Currently there are no organic strategies to

control this disease, and crop rotation is not effective, as many crops are susceptible, and the pathogen can

survive in the soil for ten years or more.

Our research field site at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC has relatively high Verticillium wilt pressure (17

cfu g-1

soil), providing an ideal naturally infested site to study management for this disease. Our research

in 2013 showed that the commercial eggplant rootstocks tested did not have resistance/tolerance to

Verticillium wilt whereas tomato cultivars and tomato rootstocks did have resistance/tolerance. Eggplant

and tomato are both Solanaceous crops and can be successfully grafted with the same rootstocks. In 2014

we grafted eggplant onto resistant tomato and commercial tomato rootstocks and found that disease

control was significantly increased as compared to the non-grafted eggplant control, however yield was

decreased.

In this study, we will test different commercial eggplant and tomato rootstocks in the search of increased

disease resistance and increased yield for grafted eggplant. By controlling Verticillium wilt, we can

increase productivity and expand production areas for these high-value crops.

Objective: 1. Evaluate 5 new rootstocks for grafted eggplant for tolerance to Verticillium wilt and increased crop

yield.

Procedures:

This study will be conducted at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC. The design is a randomized complete

block with four replications, and includes 5 rootstocks and a non-grafted control cultivar ‘Night Shadow’.

Rootstocks will include ‘Meet’ which provided the greatest disease control and yield in the 2013 and

2014 trials and four new rootstocks which will be identified in collaboration with commercial rootstock

seed companies. Seeds will be sown into 72-cell trays approximately 4 weeks prior to grafting. Plants will

be grafted at NWREC, and transplanted to the field 2 weeks later (approximately 1 June). Plants will be

rated for disease incidence once a week through the summer. Fruit will be harvested as it reaches

maturity.


120


1. Identification of successful combinations of rootstocks with eggplant for Verticillium wilt control.

2. Potential to increase productivity and expand eggplant production in Washington,

3. Further development of a grafted vegetable industry in Washington.

Budget:

Amount allocated by NARF during FY 2013-2014: $2,718

FY 2014 - 2015

Budget:

Salaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0

Timeslip wages1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,000

Goods & Services (materials and supplies) 2 . . . $ 500

Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0

Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0

Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0

Employee Benefits3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 570

Total Request for 2014 -2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,070 1 Wages: 250 hours @ $12/hr. = $ 3,000

2 Materials and supplies include seeds, pots, potting mix

3 Benefits: 19% = $570

Other Support of Project: We will submit a matching grant proposal to WSCPR.

2015 research proposals & 2014 progress...

Documents