Almond Culture and Orchard Management

Transcription

1 Almond Culture nd Orchrd Mngement Project No. Project Leder: 08-HORT3-Krueger/Connell Joseph H. Connell UCCE Butte County 2279 Del Oro Avenue, Suite B Oroville, CA (530) jhconnell@ucdvis.edu Project Coopertors nd Personnel: Bill Krueger, Frm Advisor, UCCE Glenn/Tehm Co. Roger Duncn, Frm Advisor, UCCE - Stnislus County John Edstrom, Frm Advisor, UCCE - Colus County Brent Holtz, Frm Advisor, UCCE - Mder County Frnz Niederholzer, Frm Advisor, UCCE - Sutter nd Yu Counties Ojectives: Frm dvisors conduct numerous projects ddressing locl issues in their counties. Mny of these issues re ddressed with smll projects tht my not require mjor support to conduct nd complete the work. This project is designed to provide locl support for county frm dvisors generl extension reserch progrms relted to lmond production. Ech dvisor prticipting in this project highlights reserch results in their county from locl projects they feel ddress n importnt question worthy of reporting to growers t the nnul lmond industry conference. Incresing the Nonpreil Percentge: Effects of Pollenizer Arrngement nd Numer of Pollenizer Vrieties on Yield Joe Connell, Frm Advisor, UCCE - Butte County Joe Limerg, CSU - Chico University Frm Interpretive Summry: Yers go when orchrds were plnted 2:1 with Nonpreil pollenizer vrieties we oserved tht yields were lower etween the two Nonpreil rows. This ws overcome in the industry y going to 1:1 plntings ut the percentge of Nonpreil ws reduced to 50% of the orchrd. At the Nickels Estte in Aruckle, tril work hs indicted tht lternting vrieties down the row provides incresed production compred to hving the vrieties in single rows. Almond Bord of Cliforni Finl Reserch Report

2 This tril is designed to see if the Nonpreil percentge cn e incresed with judicious plcement of pollenizers while mintining the yield dvntges of the 1:1 plnting. Even if there re no significnt differences in yield, the vlue per cre will e higher s the Nonpreil percentge increses since Nonpreil is more vlule nut. In ddition, the question of whether one mid-looming pollenizer vriety is sufficient or if two pollenizers (n erly pollenizer plus mid-looming pollenizer) provide etter production is lso evluted in this tril. Mterils nd Methods: The orchrd used for this evlution ws plnted in Mrch 2002 t the Cliforni Stte University Chico frm in Butte County t tree spcing of pproximtely 18 x 21 feet resulting in 116 trees per cre. Vrieties included re Nonpreil, Price, nd Sno (Figure 1). Yield dt is collected to compre three tretments: the stndrd 1:1 plnting with Nonpreil t 50%, Price t 25%, nd Sno t 25%; plnting with Nonpreil in every row nd pollenizers rrnged every two trees down the row with pollenizer trees offset etween ech row, Nonpreil t 66%, Price t 17%, nd Sno t 17%; nd similr tretment with Nonpreil t 66% nd Price t 34% to compre one vs. two pollenizers. Figure 1. Schemtic of replicte 1 showing the plot lyout. Rows mrked with the # sign re yield rows representing the three tretments. X = Nonpreil M = Mid Pollenizer (Price) E = Erly Pollenizer (Sno) Rows in ech replicte re 27 trees long nd there re four replictes in the tril ws the orchrd s 7 th growing seson. Results nd Discussion: Results of the first yer s yield (4 th lef) in 2005 indicted tht there were no significnt differences etween tretments in either the yield of the individul vrieties or in the totl yield per cre. Nonpreil yield ws significntly greter in 2006 in the 2:1 plnting with two vrieties compred to the stndrd 1:1 plnting with 3 vrieties. In 2007, the opposite result occurred with Nonpreil yield significntly greter in the stndrd 1:1 plnting compred to either of the 2:1 plnting tretments (Tle 1). In 2008 there were no significnt differences in Nonpreil yields etween tretments nd neither Price nor Sno vrieties showed significnt yield differences etween tretments in 2006, 2007 or Almond Bord of Cliforni Finl Reserch Report

3 Yield - ls / tree 2008 (Figure 1). The totl yield verged 895 pounds of kernel per cre in the 5 th lef, 2392 pounds per cre in 6 th lef, nd 1634 pounds per cre in 7 th lef in 2008 (Figure 2). Totl yield of ll vrieties in 2005 through 2008 ws not significntly different etween ny of the tretments. If yield is not different etween tretments, n incresed Nonpreil percentge should increse the dollr return per cre since Nonpreil nuts re more vlule per pound thn re the pollenizer nuts. Tle 1. Men 2007 yield for ech vriety & totl men yield per cre of ll vrieties in ech tretment. Nonpreil Price Sno Totl Yield ls/cre Stndrd 1:1 Plnting, 3 Vrieties :1 Plnting in Every Row, 3 Vrieties :1 Plnting in Every Row, 2 Vrieties ns ns ns * vlues followed y different letters re significntly different t P < 0.05 ** ns t ottom of column indictes no significnt tretment effects t P < Figure Pounds of Kernel per Tree y Vriety, 2008 Stndrd 1:1 Plnting, 3 Vrieties 2:1 Plnting in Every Row, 3 Vrieties 2:1 Plnting in Every Row, 2 Vrieties Nonpreil Price Sno Vriety yields y tretment re not significntly different t P<.05 Almond Bord of Cliforni Finl Reserch Report

4 Pounds / Acre Figure Totl Yield of All Vrieties 2,372 2,394 2, ,752 1,689 1,462 0 Stndrd 1:1 Plnting, 3 Vrieties 2:1 Plnting in Every Row, 3 Vrieties :1 Plnting in Every Row, 2 Vrieties Tretments re not significntly different t P<.05 Recent Pulictions: Connell, J. H., J. Edstrom, M. Freemn, B. Holtz, F. Niederholzer, nd M. Viveros Almond culture nd orchrd mngement. p In: 35 th Almond Industry Conference Proceedings, Decemer 5-6, 2007, Modesto. Krueger, W.H., Joe Connell, Roger Duncn, John Edstrom, Brent Holtz, nd Frnz Niederholzer, Almond culture nd orchrd mngement. p In: 36 th Almond Industry Conference Proceedings, Decemer 10-11, 2008, Modesto. Topicl Applictions of Brk Penetrnt nd Fungicide Mixture to Control Certocystis Cnker Infections in Almond Roger Duncn, Frm Advisor, UCCE - Stnislus County Interpretive Summry: Almond trees often suffer injuries to trunks nd scffolds from shker dmge, lim tying, pruning nd other orchrd ctivities. Nitidulid eetles (Crpophilus spp.) nd other insects crry the cnker-cusing pthogen, Certocystis fimrit, from the soil or infected trees to the fresh wounds. The fungus then colonizes the dmged tissue nd forms perennil cnker tht cn girdle nd kill mjor scffolds nd eventully the entire tree. The ccumultion of injuries nd susequent Certocystis infections is mjor contriutor to premture decline of lmond orchrds. Surgicl removl of cnkers is possile ut difficult nd very costly. Almond Bord of Cliforni Finl Reserch Report

5 The pthogen is generlly restricted to the rk, lthough it occsionlly invdes young xylem. Becuse the fungus is reltively shllow in the tree, it is possile tht topiclly pplied fungicides, when mixed with rk penetrting surfctnt, could rech the pthogen nd stop progression of the disese. This would e much esier, cheper, nd potentilly more effective tretment option thn surgery. A new rk penetrting surfctnt clled Pentr-rk hs een purported to penetrte severl centimeters through the periderm nd into the vsculr tissue of pple nd some ornmentl tree species. Mterils nd Methods: On My 5, 2008, ten lmond trees (c.v. Nonpreil nd Crmel ) with trunk nd/or scffold infections of Certocystis fimrit were treted with Pristine (Pyrclostroin + Bosclid) t 14.5 oz per cre, Cptn l. per cre or left unspryed. Fungicides were pplied in mixture contining three ounces per gllon of Pentr- Brk (Quest Products, Corp., Louisurg, Knss), rk penetrting surfctnt. Mterils were pplied with hnd pump ck pck spryer until res within nd t lest two feet outside of the cnker mrgins were sturted with spry (pproximtely 0.3 gllons of spry per tree). Cnkers were re-evluted pproximtely five months fter tretment y mesuring cnker growth nd oserving the presence or sence of new sp t cnker mrgins. Results nd Discussion: Fungicide tretments hd no effect on growth of Certocystis cnkers. Cnkers grew n verge of 25 mm, 22 mm nd 28 mm for the untreted, Pristine nd Cptn tretments, respectively, during the five month evlution period. Cnkers in ll tretments ppered to still e ctive with newly excreted lls of sp present on most treted nd untreted trees. The experiment will e repeted to evlute other rk penetrting surfctnts in comintion with fungicides tht hve een shown to control C. fimrit in other plnt species. Evlution of Almond Production on Rised Beds John P. Edstrom, Frm Advisor, UCCE - Colus County Interpretive Summry: Evlute the fesiility nd possile dvntges of lrge Rised Bed plnting system in lmonds to expnd the potentil root zone nd overcome the restriction imposed to root development y shllow or lyered soils. Results nd Discussion: At the end of the third growing seson mesurements mde on Nonpreil trees (Tle 1) showed no difference in trunk circumference etween the Rised Bed nd Stndrd Berm plnted trees. The lrger volume of topsoil in the Rised eds hs not yet ffected Almond Bord of Cliforni Finl Reserch Report

6 tree growth. As tree cnopies develop, root growth my expnd into the deeper soil provided y Rised eds. In ddition to the effects of deeper topsoil, rised eds in other crops re purported to increse soil temperture nd oxygen levels providing more optiml root environment. We do not expect to find enefits of the eds until tree size demnds more from this shllow cly lyered soil. Hevy, reconstructive pruning following wind dmge lst yer set ck tree growth nd delyed fruitwood development limiting 3 rd lef crop production. No yield difference ws found etween the two plnting methods in High winds experienced erly this seson did not cuse more lim rekge to trees elevted on rised eds The lrge eds did not ffect the typicl culturl prctices of mowing nd sweeping/lowing/hrvesting nuts. However, djustments to the spry oom hve een required to evenly pply hericides. Soil moisture proe dt hs shown uneven internl wetting of the Rised eds. Some of the micro-sprinkler pplied wter runs down the slnted ed onto the flt middle. Adjusting the durtion nd frequency of irrigtions hs reduced this prolem ut further improvements re needed to tke full dvntge of the lrger soil volume creted y the rised ed. Fll surfce pplied gypsum filed to improve lte seson wter penetrtion while one month of continuous injection of gypsum in the summer hs not yet improved this condition. Tle1. Trunk Circ. cm Yield ls/plot Kernels/oz. Stndrd Berm Rised Bed ns Berm 8 x 5 Rised Bed 20 x 11 Almond Bord of Cliforni Finl Reserch Report

7 Processed-Kolin Prticle Film on Almond Brent A. Holtz, Pomology Frm Advisor, UCCE - Mder County Tome Mrtin-Duvll, Stff Reserch Associte Interpretive Summry: Surround, white cly-like processed-kolin prticle film, cn esily e dissolved into suspension nd spryed onto trees. Severl reserch reports hve een pulished in the Journl of Americn Society Horticulturl Science nd Hort Technology descriing how this reflective film cn reduce het stress, reduce solr injury, increse lef cron ssimiltion, nd reduce cnopy tempertures on numer of crops in severl countries (1, 2, 3). In 2001 processed-kolin prticle film ws pplied to 15 yer old Nonpreil, Sonor, nd Crmel lmond trees in preliminry experiment. Three inseson pplictions of Kolin ppered to result in more return loom, nut set, nd yield on Crmel trees in 2002 when compred to non-spryed Crmel trees (4). The Crmel trees in this orchrd were showing symptoms of severe ud filure. The Sonor nd Nonpreil vrieties ppered unffected y the Kolin. Record hot tempertures were experienced in the Sn Joquin Vlley in My 2001 nd ove norml tempertures t this time hve een shown to worsen the severity of ud-filure on Crmel. Mterils nd Methods: From four pplictions of Kolin (25 ls/100 gllons wter) were mde ech seson to Crmel nd Nonpreil trees plnted in Jnury 2002 in order to exmine if Kolin could reduce het stress nd the onset of ud filure. We lso exmined the effect of Kolin on tree wter sttus (middy stem wter potentil), cnopy tempertures, growth (tree circumference nd current seson shoot growth), nd yield. An lmond orchrd in Mder with 16 Crmel nd Nonpreil rows ws divided into replicted design where 8 rows of ech vriety received four Kolin pplictions ech yer while the 8 other rows did not. Results nd Discussion: In Surround-treted trees hd significntly more current seson shoot growth when compred to non-treted trees. In 2002 nd 2006 there were no significnt differences in current seson shoot growth etween Surround-treted nd untreted trees (Figure 1). We did not exmine current seson shoot growth in 2007 nd In significnt increse in trunk circumference ws oserved in Surround-treted trees (Figure 2). No difference in trunk circumference ws oserved in 2003 nd In 2005 no ud filure ws oserved on Crmel trees in either tretment (7). In 2006 we oserved ud filure in the Crmel vriety ut tretment differences were not significnt. In 2007 we oserved less (P 0.09) ud filure on the Surround-treted Crmel trees (10). In 2008 we oserved significntly less (P 0.02) ud filure on the Surround treted Crmel trees (Figure 3). In we oserved less ud filure on Surround-treted Nonpreil trees, ut differences were not significnt (Figure 3). Almond Bord of Cliforni Finl Reserch Report

8 In 2004 nd 2005 we counted fruit on 60 trees tht received Surround nd 60 control trees tht did not. In 2005 we found significntly more fruit on the Surround-treted trees (7). In 2007 the Crmel treted rows hd significntly (P 0.01) greter yield when compred to the non-treted (Figure 4). There ws no difference in yield etween Surround-treted Nonpreil tree rows when compred to untreted. In 2008 the Crmel treted rows hd significntly (P 0.02) greter yield when compred to the non-treted (Figure 5), nd the Surround-treted Nonpreil tree rows lso hd significntly (P 0.04) more yield when compred to untreted. We will repet pplictions of Kolin in 2009 in order to further investigte the effect of Surround on het stress nd ud filure in oth Crmel nd Nonpreil lmond vrieties. Acknowledgement: The project would not hve een possile without the coopertion of George Andrews Frms in Mder, CA nd the support of the Almond Bord of Cliforni. Literture: 1) Glenn, D.M., Prdo, E., Erez, A., Mc Ferson, J., nd Puterk, G.J A reflective, processed-kolin prticle film ffects fruit temperture, rdition reflection, nd solr injury in pple. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 127(2): ) Glenn, D.M., Puterk, G.J., Drke, S.R., Unruh, T.R., Knight, A.L., Bherle, P., Prdo, E., nd Bugher, T.A Prticle film ppliction influences pple lef physiology, fruit yield, nd fruit qulity. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 126(2): ) Schupp, J.R., Fllhi, E., nd Chun, I.J Effect of prticle film on fruit sunurn, mturity, nd qulity of Fuji nd Honeycrisp Apples. HortTechnology 12(1): ) Holtz, B.A Bud filure or crzy top the curse of the Crmel, the effect of Surround on Crmel return loom, hull rot on lmonds nd field meeting, vriety updte. The Pomology Post, Vol. 37, My, 8 pges. 5) Holtz, B.A, nd Hoffmn, E.W Processed-Kolin prticle film on lmond, Almond Bord of Cliforni, 31 st Almond Industry Conference Proceedings ) Holtz, B.A, nd Hoffmn, E.W Processed-Kolin prticle film on lmond, Almond Bord of Cliforni, 32nd Almond Industry Conference Proceedings ) Holtz, B.A., nd Hoffmn, E.W Processed-Kolin prticle film on lmond. Almond Bord of Cliforni, 33rd Almond Industry Conference Proceedings, pges ) Holtz, B.A. nd Mrtin-Duvll, T Processed-Kolin prticle film on lmond. Almond Bord of Cliforni, 34th Almond Industry Conference Proceedings, pges ) Holtz, B.A. nd Mrtin-Duvll, T Processed-Kolin prticle film on lmond. Almond Bord of Cliforni, 35th Almond Industry Conference Proceedings, pges ) Holtz, B Five yer UC study demonstrtes Surround crop protectnt enefits in lmonds. The NovSource Reporter, Volume 1, June: pges 1-2, Almond Bord of Cliforni Finl Reserch Report

9 Circumference (cm) (cm) Current Seson Shoot Growth Surround Control Figure 1. Pired columns with the sme dte with different letters were sttisticlly different when compred in Student s T-test (P 0.05). Tree Circumference Surround Control Figure 2. Pired columns with the sme dte with different letters were sttisticlly different when compred in Student s T-test (P 0.05). Almond Bord of Cliforni Finl Reserch Report

10 Green weight (ls) per row Bud filure trees per row Surround on Bud Filure Crmel Surround Crmel Control Nonpreil Surround Nonpreil Control Figure 3. Crmel Surround = Crmel vriety with Surround, Crmel Control = Crmel control without Surround, Nonpreil Surround = Nonpreil with Surround, Nonpreil Control = Nonpreil control. Pired columns with the sme dte with different letters were sttisticlly different when compred in Student s T-test (P 0.05) Surround Tril Surround Control Crmel Nonpreil Figure 4. Pired columns of the sme vriety with different letters were sttisticlly different when compred in Student s T-test (P 0.05). Almond Bord of Cliforni Finl Reserch Report

11 Green weight (ls) per row Surround Surround Tril Control Crmel Nonpreil Figure 5. Pired columns of the sme vriety with different letters were sttisticlly different when compred in Student s T-test (P 0.05). Evluting Soil Applied Boron Fertiliztion Rtes nd Timing in Sutter County Frnz Niederholzer, Frm Advisor, UCCE - Sutter/Yu Counties Jed Wlton, PCA, Big Vlley Ag Services, Gridley, CA Interpretive Summry: Compre the effect on lmond flower, lef, nd hull oron (B) levels from fll vs. spring ppliction of two rtes (10 l Soluor /cre or 20 l Soluor /cre) soil-pplied oron fertilizer (this report sustitutes for the originlly proposed study on Trunk Pinting Prctices to Improve Lim Section Options in First Lef Almond Orchrds ). Mterils nd Methods: Nonpreil/Lovell (<50 ppm hull B t hrvest, 2007) were treted with 10 or 20 ls/cre Soluor (20% B) on Octoer 12, 2007 or April 11, Mteril ws pplied evenly to hlf the distnce cross rows on ech side of the study trees using weed spryer (20 gp). Just under 0.45 of rin fell within week of fertilizer ppliction in Octoer, A regulr irrigtion set (3.5 of wter) ws pplied y the grower following tretment in April, Soil is n Olshes sndy lom, nd irrigtion is pplied y hose-pull impct sprinklers. The grower pplied liquid oron equivlent to 0.6 pounds Almond Bord of Cliforni Finl Reserch Report

12 of oron/cre s folir spry in Novemer, Flower smples (100 flowers/tree) were tken t full loom (Ferury 29, 2008). Lef (50 count) nd nut (10 count) smples were tken on April 11, 2008, just prior to spring fertilizer tretment. Lef (50 count) nd nut (10 count) smples were tken on August 2, Yield ws not mesured. Results nd Discussion: Soil pplied oron s 10 or 20 pounds/cre Soluor in Octoer did not significntly increse flower B levels in the spring following ppliction compred to ll other tretments (see Tle 1). Compred to the other tretments, the fll pplied 20# rte did produce sttisticlly higher lef B levels in April nd trend in higher lef nd hull oron levels y hull split. We expected higher lef nd hull oron levels in trees treted with soil pplied oron t lest y the hrvest smples. Our rtes nd/or fertilizer mteril selection my not hve een the est mtch for this loction. Soil pplictions of grnulr g orx (11.3% B) t pounds per cre re recommended to improve lmond oron sttus for 5-7 yers. This is equivlent to pounds of ctul B per cre. Our Soluor rtes were equivlent to 2-4 pounds ctul B/cre. At lest some of the fertilizer oron in our tretments my hve een leched from the root zone with winter rins nd/or irrigtion wter. Soil smple nlysis will help determine the fte of dded B. Smples were tken in April 11, 2008, ut hve not yet een nlyzed. This reserch will continue using higher rtes of Soluor plus dditionl tretments using recommended rtes of grnulr orx (10x less solule thn Soluor ) nd repeted folir pplictions. Almond Bord of Cliforni Finl Reserch Report

13 Tle 1. Nonpreil lmond flower, lef, nd hull oron concentrtions (verge of eight trees for ech tretment) in 2008 fter soil pplied Soluor fertilizer on Octoer 12, 2007 or April 11, There is 95% chnce tht tretments re significntly different if they do not shre letter, sed on Bonferroni s multiple comprison procedure. Tretment Flower Boron (ppm) Lef Boron (ppm) April 11 Nut Boron (ppm) April 11 Lef Boron (ppm) August 1 Hull Boron (ppm) August 1 Untreted l/cre Soluor Octoer 12, l/cre Soluor Octoer 12, l/cre Soluor April 11, l/cre Soluor April 11, Almond Bord of Cliforni Finl Reserch Report