Co-Investigators. Dr. Philip A. Stansly, UF/IFAS SWFREC. Dr. Johnny Ferrarezi, UF/IFAS IRREC. Dr. Mark Ritenour, UF/IFAS IRREC

Transcription

1 Metalized Reflective Mulch: More Fruit with Less Psyllids 2018 Florida Citrus Show January 25, 2018 by Robert C. Adair, Jr. Executive Director Florida Research Center for Agricultural Sustainability, Inc.

2 Co-Investigators Dr. Philip A. Stansly, UF/IFAS SWFREC Dr. Johnny Ferrarezi, UF/IFAS IRREC Dr. Mark Ritenour, UF/IFAS IRREC Dr. Ozgur Batuman, UF/IFAS SWFREC Mr. Matthew Adair, Fla. Research Center Dr. Brain Bowman*, UF/IFAS IRREC *Professor Emeritus

3 What is MRM MRM is an acronym for Metalized Reflective Mulch. The MRM used in this trial is called Shine N' Ripe XL and is made by Imaflex. It is a heavy duty 3 mil film coated with a reflective layer of aluminum that reflects >80% of solar radiation including: Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR), UV light, and Infrared Radiation for >3 years. It is being used in other crops. 4 yrs. this March Shine N Ripe XL is a product of Imaflex Inc., CANADA

4 Project Goals-- To Determine the Benefits of Compost and MRM On Newly Planted Grapefruit Trees for: Decreasing the bearing age of citrus trees in new plantings Increasing Crop Yields Reducing the incidence of HLB Reducing Psyllid populations Improving Fruit Size and Juice Quality Increasing Profitability

5 Layout, Treatments & Caretaking 7½ 50 wide Double Beds (Indian River Cty.) Planted March 17, 2014 Ray Ruby Red Grapefruit on Sour Orange Rootstock Planting Density 145 trees/acre (12 x 25 ) 3 Treatments (Bare Ground, Compost & Metalized Reflective Mulch (MRM) 5 replicates of 100 trees for each of the 3 treatments = 1,500 trees All treatments received identical horticultural caretaking i.e. sprays, fertilization, irrigation, and pesticide applications All applications were made according to IFAS recommendations.

6 Layout: Five ½-bed plots randomized into 3 treatments 500 trees per treatment Bare Ground 5 Reps Compost (UPD) Metallized Reflective Mulch (MRM) Treatments: RCB Design Rep. # 5C Rep. # 5M Rep. # 4M 51 Rep. # 4B 51 Rep. # 4C 51 Rep. # 3M Rep. # 3B North

7 11 Acre Study Site North

8 Extra tillage required due to installation of the MRM

9 Roller was use to firm up soil prior to laying the MRM

10 MRM * Installation Kennco Bedding Machine Ruskin, Fla. *Shine N Ripe XL is a product of Imaflex Inc., CANADA 6 ft. wide x 1,000 ft. long rolls.

11 Proper Installation requires smooth flat beds

12 Planting Details P. D

13 Irrigation Installation Each tree was equipped with two Bowsmith 2GPH Drippers Part no. SB20

14 Weed Issues Nutsedge Fire Ants can be a problem but was remedied with Extinguish Plus

15 110 days post planting 07/05/ days post planting 10/15/ days post planting 06/12/ days post planting 11/11/2015

16 Increase in Trunk Caliper from 5/8/14 to 10/20/14 (165 days) 45 Caliper Diameter in mm ± S.E % > Bare Ground 57.6 % > Bare Ground 5 0 Bare Ground Compost MRM Treatment

17 Growth Increase by Canopy Volume Canopy Volume (m 3 ) Oct July (19 months) (28 months) Bare Ground Compost MRM Treatment

18 Tree Size at 2½ Years Bare Ground MRM

19 Average Number of ACP Adults & Nymphs per Tree Based on Weekly Scouting from 7/27/15 to 12/28/15 (20 trees/treatment)

20 Average no. of ACP for Each Life Stage per Tree (±S.E.) Based on Weekly Scouting Annually For 2016 and 2017 Note reduction in nymphs & eggs Note reduction in nymphs & eggs

21 Relative CLas Incidence For Each Treatment Based on Real-Time PCR Analysis* % HLB Positive Trees Based on Real-Time PCR Analysis* (n=20) Sample Date: 02/14/ /10/2018 Bare Ground 20% 100% Compost 20% 100% MRM 10% 85% Average Ct Value for Each Treatment Based on Real-Time PCR Analysis* (n=20) Sample Date: 02/14/ /10/2018 Bare Ground S.E. ± S.E. ± 0.48 Compost S.E. ± S.E. ± 0.76 MRM S.E. ± S.E. ± 1.20 *Data: Courtesy of Dr. Ozgur Batuman SWFREC

22 Our results indicate less nymphs, eggs, and HLB in the MRM treatment -- adult D. citri that acquire Las through feeding on infected plants are less likely to successfully inoculate the pathogen compared with adults that acquired the pathogen as nymphs. Preventing oviposition and subsequent development of nymphs on Las-infected citrus plants may provide significant disease control if included as part of an integrated pest management strategy. Transmission Parameters for Las by Asian Citrus Psyllid, K. S. Pelz-Stelinski, R. H. Brlansky, T. A. Ebert, and M. E. Rogers. J. Econ. Entomol. 103(5), 2010.

23 Fruit Loss Assessment 8 Days Post Hurricane Irma (80 trees/treatment) Treatment # Fruit on Ground/Tree # of Fruit on Tree Total # of Fruit/Tree % Dropped Bare Ground % UPD Compost % Reflective Mulch % No trees were toppled. 50% of the leaves were blown off but amazingly the trees generally were in good condition. There was no damage to the MRM!

24 Fruit Size & Yield were determined with IRREC s Portable Optical Fruit Sizing Machine under the able operation and guidance by Dr. Kayla Thomason, IRREC). Data collected from each tree (80/treatment) included the total number of fruit per tree, their individual weights and diameters. The diameter data were used to develop a fruit size distribution curve for each tree which then was used to calculate yield as boxes/tree. Fruit diameters were converted to State standard sizes for grapefruit. Courtesy Dr. Johnny Ferrarezi, IRREC

25 Representative 1 st year tree crop for each treatment prior to harvesting Bare Ground 0.62 Boxes/Tree Compost 0.83 Boxes/Tree MRM 1.18 Boxes/Tree Photos taken 12/14/16

26 1 st and 2 nd Crop Yields for the Three Treatments Yield at 2.5 Years (12/14/2016) Bare Ground Boxes/Tree ±S.E ±0.04 a % Increase in Yield over Bare Ground Compost 0.83 ±0.09 a 34% MRM 1.18 ±0.16 b 90% Yield at 3.5 Years (12/01/2017) Bare Ground Boxes/Tree ±S.E ±0.04 a % Increase in Yield over Bare Ground Compost 0.54 ±0.06 a 5% MRM 1.40 ±0.16 b 172% No. of observations per treatment = 80 single trees Means with the same letter within the same column are not significantly different (P < 0.05) based on SAS GLM Procedure.

27 1 st and 2 nd Crop Yields for the Three Treatments 1.60 Yield in Boxes/Tree Boxes/Tree st Crop 2.5 yr. 2nd Crop 3.5 yr Bare Ground Compost MRM (80 reps/treatment)

28 No. of Fruit per Tree For the 1st and 2nd Crop Years 1st Crop Year 12/14/2016 Avg. No. of Fruit/Tree >64 % Increase in No. of Fruit/Tree over Bare Ground Bare Ground 46.1 a Compost 62.8 b 36% MRM 78.1 c 69% 2nd Crop Year 12/1/2017 Avg. No. of Fruit/Tree >64 % Increase in No. of Fruit/Tree over Bare Ground Bare Ground 56.9 a Compost 63.3 a 11% MRM b 138%

29 The Average No. of Fruit ( 64 ) per Tree for Each Treatment for the First Two Crop Years* 1 st Crop Year H.D. 12/12/16 2 nd Crop Year H.D. 11/30/17 Avg. No. of Fruit/tree 64 Avg. No. of Fruit 64 per tree Bare Ground Compost MRM 0 Bare Ground Compost MRM *Based on 60 trees randomly picked for each treatment and sized and counted with IRREC s Portable Optical Fruit Sizing Machine

30 Fruit Size Frequency for the Three Treatments in the 1 st Crop Year Percent Fruit Size Frequency 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% Note lower % of small fruit for MRM Bare Ground Compost MRM Note higher % of larger fruit for MRM 5% 0% < >23 Commercial Fruit Size 12/14/16

31 Fruit Size Frequency for the Three Treatments in the 2 nd Crop Year Percent Fruit Size Frequency 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% Again note lower % of smaller fruit Bare Ground Compost MRM Again note higher % of larger fruit 5% 0% < >27 Commercial Fruit Size 11/30/17

32 Average fruit juice quality and fruit weight for each treatment the first two crop years 1st Crop Year- picked at tree age of 2.75 years Avg. Fruit Juice vol. per Juice wt. per Treatment Brix Acid (%) Weight (g) fruit (cc) fruit (g) Bare Ground a a a a 51.0% ab 3.69 a Compost a a a b 49.8% a 3.43 b MRM b b b ab 52.0% b 3.57 ab P Values* Significant differences for fruit weight and juice volume 2nd Crop Year- picked at tree age of 3.75 years Avg. Fruit Juice vol. per Juice wt. per Treatment Brix Acid (%) Weight (g) fruit (cc) fruit (g) Bare Ground ab ab ab 8.39 a a 53.3% a 3.80 a Compost b a b 7.94 b b 52.7% a 3.56 b MRM a b a 8.50 a a 53.6% a 3.87 a P Values* No Major Signiicant Differences however MRM appears to have better quality *Means with the same letter within the same column are not significantly different (P = 0.05) based on Duncan's multiple range test SAS. (n=20 for each rep.) Pounds solids calculated using the % juice content and assuming 85lb grapefruit per box. Data: Courtesy of Dr. Mark Ritenour and Dr. Cuifeng Hu, IRREC TSS/TA Ratio TSS/TA Ratio Juice content (w/w) Juice content % (w/w) Possible Irma Effect?? Poundssolids Poundssolids/Box

33 Average fruit color of 20 fruit for each treatment at 3.75 yrs. old 2nd Crop Year- picked on Treatment a/b Hue Chroma Bare Ground a a a Compost a a a MRM b b a P Values* * Means with the same letter within the same column are not significantly different (P = 0.05) based on Duncan's multiple Data: Courtesy of Dr. Mark Ritenhour and Dr. Cuifeng Hu, IRCREC

34 Leaf Analysis Results Leaf analysis indicated no significant differences between treatments except that Calcium levels were lower in the Bare Ground treatment for both years sampled. Sample Date Treatment N % P % K % Ca % Mg % S % Fe ppm Mn ppm Zn ppm Cu ppm Na % B ppm Al ppm 11/17/16 Bare Ground Compost (UPD) MRM /31/17 Bare Ground Compost (UPD) MRM Optimum IFAS Standards

35 Bare Ground Costs Land Preparation for Bare Ground Grove Practice Equipment Cost/Acre Materials Cost/Acre Mow $ Herbicide $ $ ' Disk $ Tilage with Rotovator $ Install poly tubing & emitters $ $ Tree $1.40 ea. $ $ $ Total Cost per acre $ MRM Installation Costs Land Preparation and MRM Istallation Grove Practice Equipment Cost/Acre Materials Cost/Acre Mow $ st Herbicide $ $ Burn $ st Disk 12' $ nd Herbicide $ $ nd Disk 12' $ Tilage with Rotovator $ Roll flat with roller $ MRM Installation* $ Shine N' Ripe XL $ Install poly tubing & emitters $ $ Tree $1.40 ea. $ Additional planting $0.80 e $ $ $ Total Cost per acre $ 1, Additional Cost for MRM $ Compost Application Costs Land Preparation and Compost Application Grove Practice Equipment Cost/Acre Materials Cost/Acre Mow $ Herbicide $ $ ' Disk $ Tilage with Rotovator $ Apply Compost (3.75 tons/acre) $ $ Install poly tubing & emitters $ $ Tree $1.40 ea. $ $ $ Total Cost per acre $ Additional Cost for Compost $ Amortized Costs of MRM Cost per year with 3 yr. life span $ Cost per year with 5 yr. life span $ Based on 145 trees/acre 12 x 25 planting density

36 Cost of Production, Revenue and Return For Each Treatment Crop Return at 2.5 years 2016 Crop (12/14/2016) Price/Field Box Back to the Tree (56% Packout) Boxes/ Tree 145 trees/acre Revenue Per Acre Production Cost/Acre Net Return Per Acre Application or Installation Costs Net Return/Acre Minus Installation Costs Bare Ground $ $ 1,149 $ 1,899 $ (750) N/A $ (750) Compost $ $ 1,538 $ 1,899 $ (361) $ * $ (474) MRM $ $ 2,187 $ 1,899 $ 287 $ $ 65 Crop Return at 3.5 years 2017 Crop (12/01/2017 Price/Field Box Back to the Tree (70% Packout) Boxes/ Tree 145 trees/acre Revenue Per Acre Production Cost/Acre Net Return Per Acre Application or Installation Costs Net Return/Acre Minus Installation Costs Bare Ground $ $ 1,120 $ 2,333 $ (1,213) N/A $ (1,213) Compost $ $ 1,178 $ 2,333 $ (1,155) $ * $ (1,268) MRM $ $ 3,045 $ 2,333 $ 712 $ $ 489 * Compost applied Annually MRM Installation Amortized 3 Years

37 New Findings and Topics for Further Research Average No. of Insects/Tree/Week Average no. of ACP and Diaprepes per Tree (±S.E.) Based on Weekly Scouting From 7/27/15 to 12/28/15 Bare Ground Compost MRM ACP Adults ACP Nymphs Diaprepes

38 Severe Symptoms of Phytophthora/Diaprepes Complex is common in Bare Ground and Compost Treatments but is Symptom Free in the MRM Treatment MRM Treatment Compost Treatment

39 While the growth rate afforded by MRM is dramatic, the trees begin to shade out the 6 ft. MRM We should consider 8 ft. MRM for less ACP & Diaprepes and HLB & P/D Complex Trees at 2½ years old 11/11/2015

40 Acknowledgements Commercial Product Delivery Committee IMAFLEX INC.

41 For more information, please visit our website: