The Role of Cover Crops with Biofumigation Potential for the Suppression of Plant-Parasitic Nematodes in Vineyards

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "The Role of Cover Crops with Biofumigation Potential for the Suppression of Plant-Parasitic Nematodes in Vineyards"

Transcription

1 The Role of Cover Crops with Biofumigation Potential for the Suppression of Plant-Parasitic Nematodes in Vineyards Kruger, N., Fourie, J.C., Malan, A.P.

2 1. Introduction Table of Contents: 2. Bioassays 3. Host trials 4. Field trials 5. Conclusion 6. Acknowledgements

3 Source: Dept of Agric & Business Day ) INTRODUCTION Number of Commercial Farmers in RSA

4 Transformation of South African Agriculture MARGINAL FARMERS COMMERCIAL PRODUCERS AGRICULTURAL BUSINESSES Survival/Lifestyle farming Strong input approach Region based Mostly output drive Nationally and possibly internationally based < 20% 60 70% 20 30%

5 Aim of the study The long term effect of different cover crops, known for their biofumigation potential, and the management thereof on: Nematode status Grapevine performance Soil nutrient status Soil-borne disease status Weed suppression

6 2) Bioassays to determine the potential of cover crops to control Meloidogyne javanica and Criconemoides xenoplax when applied as green manure Cover crops used in Bioassays: *Common name Oats Canola White mustard Scientific name and cultivar Avena sativa cv. Pullinup Brassica napus cv. AV Jade Sinapis alba cv. Braco Caliente 199 Brassica juncea cv. Caliente 199 Nemat Eruca sativa cv. Nemat * These cover crops were also used in the crop host trials and the field trials

7 5 Results Bioassays: Meloidogyne javanica 4 a ab a Gall index 3 2 b b b 1 0 Oats White mustard Canola Caliente 199 Nemat Control Treatment 95% confidence interval (p < 0.005). Bars with the same letter did not differ significantly.

8 Results Bioassays: Criconemoides xenoplax a a a 280 a a C. xenoplax per 250 ml soil a Oats White mustard Canola Caliente 199 Nemat Control Treatment No significant difference was found between the different treatments (p = 0.802)

9 3) Host status of Brassicaceae cover crops for Meloidogyne javanica and Criconemoides xenoplax in glasshouse trials

10 Results Host trials: Meloidogyne javanica 6 e 5 4 Gall index 3 2 ad ab b bc 1 d 0 Oats White mustard Canola Caliente 199 Nemat Tomato Treatment 95% confidence interval (p < 0.05 ). Bars with the same letter did not differ significantly

11 Canola Caliente 199 Oats Nemat White mustard Tomato

12 Results Host trials: Criconemoides xenoplax c C. xenoplax per 250 ml soil ab ab a ab bc ab 50 0 Oats White mustard Canola Caliente 199 Nemat Tomato Control (soil only) Treatment 95% confidence interval p < 0.005). Bars with the same letter did not differ significantly.

13 Summary crop host status Cover crops Root-knot nematode M javanica Ring-nematode C xenoplax Oats Avena sativa cv Pallinup Poor Maintenance/ (Poor) White mustard Sinapis alba cv Braco Maintenance Maintenance Canola Brassica napus cv AV Jade Maintenance/(Good) Maintenance/(Poor) Caliente Brassica juncea cv Caliente 199 Maintenance Maintenance/(Poor) Nemat Eruca sativa cv Nemat Poor/(Non-host) Maintenance Source: DHM Kruger, 2014 Thesis - Chapter 2 + 3: Green manure and Crop Host bioassays

14 4) Field trials:

15 Experiment layout: Field trial Treatment no. Cover crop Management practice at bud break 1 Avena sativa L. cv. Pallinup CC 1 2 Avena sativa L. cv. Pallinup MC 2 3 Sinapis alba cv. Braco CC 4 Sinapis alba cv Braco MC 5 Brassica napus cv AV Jade CC 6 Brassica napus cv AV Jade MC 7 Brassica juncea cv Caliente 199 CC 8 Brassica juncea cv Caliente 199 MC 9 Eruca sativa cv Nemat CC 10 Eruca sativa cv Nemat MC 11 Weeds (control) CC 12 Weeds (control MC 13 Weeds + Nematicide CC 14 Weeds + Nematicide MC 1 Full surface chemical control from bud break. 2 Chemical control vine row, mechanical incorporation in work row from bud break, full surface chemical control from berry set.

16 Plot layout Workrow 1 Workrow 2 Workrow 3 Vine row Vine row

17 Nematode sampling intervals Before establishing of cover crops (April/May) 0 days: Just before the application of the management practices (End August/Beginning September) 15 days: After the management practices 30 days: After the management practices 60 days: After the management practices

18 Statistical design + analyses The experiment was arranged in a randomized block design with 14 treatments replicated five times. The treatments were repeated for three consecutive seasons in 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12. Ten experimental grapevines per plot were used for measurements. An analysis of variance was performed separately for each season, using SAS. Student s t least significant difference (LSD) was calculated at the 5% and 10% significance level to facilitate comparison between treatment means. The Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to test for non-normality (Shapiro & Wilk, 1965).

19 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Nematodes present at trial site 1) Criconema xenoplax (Ring) 2) Meloidogyne spp (Root knot) 3) Helicotylenchus spp (Spiral) 4) Xiphinema spp (Dagger) 5) Pratylenchus spp (Root lesion)

20 Dry matter production (DMP) of the different cover crops used, measured in August of 2009, 2010 and No. Treatment DMP (t/ha) August 2009 August 2010 August Oats (Avena sativa cv. Pallinup), CC Oats, MC White mustard (Sinapis alba cv. Braco), CC White mustard, MC Canola (Brassica napus cv. AV Jade), CC Canola, MC Caliente 199 (Brassica juncea cv. Caliente 199), CC Caliente 199, MC Nemat (Eruca sativa cv. Nemat), CC Nemat, MC Weeds, CC Weeds, MC Weeds, nematicide, CC Weeds, nematicide, MC LSD (p 0.05)

21 The effect of different cover crops and management practices on the suppression of Criconemoides xenoplax, in the vine row over the three seasons. Treatments Cover crop MP Oats (Avena sativa cv Pallinup) CC Oats MC White mustard (Sinapis alba cv. Braco) CC White mustard MC Canola (Brassica napus cv. AV Jade) CC Canola MC Caliente 199 (Brassica juncea cv. Caliente 199) CC Caliente 199 MC Nemat (Eruca sativa cv. Nemat) CC Nemat MC Weeds CC Weeds MC Weeds + nematicide CC Weeds + nematicide MC LSD (p=0.2)

22 C. xenoplax per 250 ml soil The effect of different cover crops and management practices on the suppression of Criconemoides xenoplax in the vine row, over the three growing seasons Brassica napus (CC) Brassica juncea (CC) Weeds + nematicide (CC) Weeds + nematicide (MC) Seasons Criconemoides xenoplax numbers in the vine row, measured at 60 days after the management practice for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons.

23 The effect of different cover crops and management practices on the suppression of the total plant parasitic nematode population in the vine row, over the three growing seasons. Total plant-parasitic nematode population per 250 ml soil B. juncea (CC) B. napus (CC) Seasons Total plant-parasitic nematode numbers measured in the vine row, 60 days after the management practice.

24 5) Conclusion Biomass trials: Biofumigation crops had a suppressing effect on M. javanica population. Biofumigation crops had no significant suppressing effect on C. xenoplax. Host status: Nemat Poor host for M. javanica successfully be implemented in rotation programs Canola and Caliente 199 Positive suppressing trend in C. xenoplax population Field Trials: Canola (CC) and Caliente 199 (CC) showed definite suppressing trends in die C. xenoplax and total plant parasitic nematode population over time. Not primarily as a result of Biofumigation, but more a crop host impact on the population.

25 6) Acknowledgements: Agricultural Research Council Stellenbosch University Winetech THRIP Funding Terason