Fruit. SCEPTRE Conference. Tuesday 24 th February 2015 Kingsgate Conference Centre, Peterborough

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Fruit. SCEPTRE Conference. Tuesday 24 th February 2015 Kingsgate Conference Centre, Peterborough"

Theodore Brendan Park
5 years ago
Views:

1 Fruit SCEPTRE Conference Tuesday 24 th February 2015 Kingsgate Conference Centre, Peterborough

2 Fruit - Session Programme

3 Soft Fruit Weed Projects John Atwood, Harriet Roberts, Lynn Tatnell, ADAS

4 Project areas Strawberry residual herbicides (yrs. 1,2,4) Strawberry runner control (yrs. 3,4) Herbicides for control of perennial weeds Blackcurrant & raspberry (yrs. 1-3) Electric weed control (yrs. 2-4)

5 Strawberry residual herbicides 2011 & 2012, four herbicides screened on traditional planting, March application. 119 damaging, 05, 74, 76, possible. 74 potential for EAMU

6 Strawberry residual herbicides 2014, herbicide 165 compared with Dual Gold on substrate grown 60 day Cv. Elsanta No phytotoxicity or yield loss from either Potential for label or EAMU for 165

7 Strawberry runner control 2012 Pot tests using 109,116,124,129 All considered promising for field trials 2014 Field trials of 109 & 124 Two applications 14d apart Applied to alleyway between plastic raised beds Compared with one application Harvest (glufosinateammonium)

8 Results 2 wks after 1 st treatment 124 higher rate & 109 showed some initial control of runners, but the standard Harvest was more effective Excellent weed control achieved with 109, and Harvest, some control with 124

9 Results 2WAT 124 H 109 UTC Harvest

10 % pot area coverd Runner control 8 WAT All treatments caused significant phytotoxicity to runners. Harvest was most effective at killing crowns outright Untreated control 124 low 124 High 109 Harvest % runner cover pre treatment % Runner cover 8 wks

11 Blackcurrant & Raspberry: Herbicides and Bioherbicides Pot screening on perennial weeds Field trials established blackcurrants & raspberry Specific study, effect on buds of young blackcurrant bushes Bioherbicides tested on field perennials

12 Most promising herbicides tested Shark New EAMU 72 Conventional herbicide 109 Bioherbicide (botanical) 124 Conventional herbicide 135 Conventional herbicide

13 Efficacy on perennial weeds Herbicide Thistle (creeping) Nettle (perennial) Docks Shark Poor Moderate Not tested 72 Good Good Good 109 Poor Slight Good 124 Slight Slight Slight 135 Moderate Good Poor

14 Thistle 8 WAT 102 Untreated Roundup

15 2013 Docks: 21 DAT (2 spray applications) UTC Glyphosate

16 Docks: 42 DAT UTC Glyphosate

17 Effect of herbicide on buds Blackcurrants Ben Gairn & Tirran March or April application 15cm of stem base sprayed

18 Effect of herbicide on buds Herbicide Dormant bud Young leaf Translocated Shark XX 72 X XXX XXX 109 XX X 124 XX 135 X

19 Electrical weeding

Electrical weeding: Perennial weed control, hand held probe Established blackcurrant field High natural weed populations Weeds randomly selected & tagged

20 Electrical weeding: Perennial weed control, hand held probe Established blackcurrant field High natural weed populations Weeds randomly selected & tagged Tested voltages & speeds Visual assessment: 2, 4, & 10 weeks after treatment Blackcurrant plants touched for 1 or 5 seconds on the main stem or side branch

21 One hour post electrical weeding Dock Nettle Thistle

22 Two weeks post treatment Symptoms on blackcurrant leaf- 5 second treatment Dock Treated Untreated Nettle Thistle

23 Four weeks post treatment Creeping thistle Dock Untreated Control Treated: complete kill Treated: Re-growth Untreated Control

24 Four weeks post treatment Nettle Blackcurrant bushes Main stem dead: Signs of re-growth Treated for 5 seconds: Stem alive, leaves dead

25 Year 2 - Tractor-mounted weeder Creeping thistle only Natural weed population Trial design- 4 replicate random quadrats Treatments: Rows between crop (6m wide) Visual weed assessment: 1 & 5 weeks after treatment

26 Electrical contact with weeds

tall enough to receive physical contact with the

27 Electrical control of Creeping thistle Untreated control Regardless of treatment, thistles which were tall enough to receive physical contact with the electrode were killed by the electrical weeder One hour post treatment

28 Electrical weeding in blackcurrants year 3 Tested weeder with new fruit arm: Established blackcurrant bushes One treatment, May voltages compared Assessments 1, 3 & 6 WAT Bushes monitored for crop safety

29 Electrical weeder with bush fruit treatment arm attached

30 Blackcurrant damage: 2 WAT Damage to branches where probe touched

31 Conclusions Electric weeder Height of weeder arm limiting contact would benefit from a comb or brush arm to cover a range of weed heights Some damage to bush branches: not too much once power adjusted Needs further investigation Modified kit to improve weed contact? Further work on voltage/efficacy for different weed species?

32 Thank you - Consortium members H & H Duncalfe

33 Fruit SCEPTRE Conference Tuesday 24 th February 2015 Kingsgate Conference Centre, Peterborough

34 Fruit SCEPTRE Conference Tuesday 24 th February 2015 Kingsgate Conference Centre, Peterborough

35 Protected raspberry IPM: Insecticides + biocontrol Large raspberry aphid and potato aphid. Nick Birch Glasshouse (2 yrs) + field trials (2 yrs)

Use of multiple IPM tools reduces evolutionary selection pressure ( reduce crop protection failures) on the individual IPM tools) e.g.

36 Multiple, compatible IPM tools needed An integrated approach ( IPM toolbox ) based on understanding the whole agro-ecosystem. Combines complementary IPM tools to suppress pests, weeds and diseases below economic thresholds, integrating biological and chemical control strategies. Use of multiple IPM tools reduces evolutionary selection pressure ( reduce crop protection failures) on the individual IPM tools) e.g. R gene breakdown (raspberry) as an example of why and how IPM works. Single crop protection strategies are not sustainable Birch et al., 2007 R genes on their own select for virulent pest biotypes: Now at tipping point in co-evolutionary arms race

37 Biocontrol enhancement: Ecological engineering Buckwheat attracts and retains hoverflies With Koppert Ltd and BioProtection Centre + Lincoln University, N.Z Inundative release of 1-6 parasitoid spp 5% 90+% parasitism

2012: Raspberry aphid trial (glasshouse)

3 new conventionals (C-E), 3 new biopesticides

38 2012: Raspberry aphid trial (glasshouse) Glasshouse raspberries (Glen Ample) inoculated with 10 adults then sprayed with 8 different treatments (x5 weeks): Water (A), Calypso (B), 3 new conventionals (C-E), 3 new biopesticides (F-H). Randomised block design with 24 reps/treatment.

39 2012: Raspberry aphid, glasshouse All treatments (including water control = A, with very high counts) Treatments (excluding water control A) B= Calypso, C-E = conventionals, F-H = biopesticides Weekly counts for 5 weeks post application with precision sprayer

40 2013: Raspberry aphid - polytunnels Selected glasshouse trial winners trialled in experimental polytunnels Combine biopesticides with key natural enemies (e.g. parasitoids, commercial suppliers)

41 2013: Evaluation of bio-pesticides and biocontrol for raspberry aphids Large Raspberry Aphid + Potato aphid 9 replicates/treatment (3 tunnels; randomised block design) Commercial standard (Calypso; neonicotinoid) 1 novel convention, 3 biopesticides, water (+ve control) Calypso (-ve control) Release of 2 parasitoid spp + enhanced hoverflies using buckwheat as floral resource

42 2013: Treatment programme (4 weekly sprays ) Target pest: 2 spp aphids Treatment number SCEPTRE code Spray frequency (weekly) LRA+PA 1 Water (+ve con) 4 (+2 wks counts) LRA+PA 2 Calypso (-ve con ) 4 (+2 wks counts) LRA+PA 3 SI2013-RAS-50 4(+2 wks counts) LRA+PA 4 SI2013-RAS (+2 wks counts) LRA + PA 5 SI2013-RAS-51 4 (+2 wks counts) LRA+PA 6 SI2013-RAS-62 4 (+2 wks counts)

43 2013: Biocontrol using 2 parasitoid species and florally enhanced endemic hoverflies Parasitoid efficacy (black mummies = A. abdominalis; golden = A. ervi ) Least effective in combination with conventional insecticides Hoverflies attracted to buckwheat added to polytunnels; larvae predate aphids

44 2014:Raspberry IPM (Year 4) Polytunnel IPM trials combining biopesticides, conventionals & BCAs Raspberry cv Glen Ample Large raspberry aphid Amphorophora idaei (earlier attack) Potato aphid Macrosiphum eurphorbiae (later attack)

Calypso (C) - 50 0 46 71 3. RAS-59 (C) - - 32 77 100 97 4. RAS-50 (C) - - 63 54 0 6 5. RAS-62 (B) 46 47 66 41 6.

45 2014: Raspberry IPM (aphids) Integration of insecticides, bioinsecticides and BCAs Treatment 1. Water control Spray timing (week) % reduction of: Potato aphid (wk 2) Large raspberry aphid (wk 6) Adults Nymphs Adults Nymphs Calypso (C) RAS-59 (C) RAS-50 (C) RAS-62 (B) RAS-130 (B) Significant reductions (P <0.05) are shown in bold. Note that lack of efficacy of RAS-50 against large raspberry aphid is probably associated with spray timing. Good integration with BCAs (parasitoid wasps)

2014: Earlier Potato Aphids Post-spray application 1 for all

016 Percentage parasitism % of total number of aphids Week 1

46 2014: Earlier Potato Aphids Post-spray application 1 for all treatments (week 2) P = P = Percentage parasitism % of total number of aphids Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Mummies of Aphidius ervi Mummies of Aphelinus abdominalis Total number of aphids

47 2014: Later Large Raspberry Aphids Final week of experiment (week 6) P =0.040 P = 0.098

48 Summary 2014 IPM for 2 species of raspberry aphids: LRA +PA Potato aphids arrive earlier and were controlled well by treatments in wks1-4. LRA arrived 2 weeks later and were controlled well by most treatments in weeks 3-6 (except low persistence sprays used in weeks 1-3). Treatment 50 most effective v PA (>60%), but all treatments gave >40% control, including biopesticides. Treatment 59 was most effective v LRA (>90%) but biopesticides (62,130) were also moderately effective. Efficacy of biocontrol (released parasitoids) complemented spray treatments (no detected non-target effects, especially biopesticides). Few hoverflies during experiment, unlike 2013 (asynchrony). Max. parasitism rate 17% (A.ervi), due to moderate aphid numbers in 2014). A. abdominalis ineffective (<2%) in polytunnels v previous glasshouse trials (>80% aphid parasitism in glasshouse). All reduced spray frequencies effective.

Improve canopy penetration for biopesticides + BCAs (agronomy).

49 Remaining IPM issues Variable attack windows for 2 aphid species, constraining spray frequencies. Improve canopy penetration for biopesticides + BCAs (agronomy). Need 2 nd parasitoid in polytunnels to replace ineffective A. abdominialis. Add other IPM tools v other key pests (spider mites, raspberry beetle, SWD )

50 Thank you for your attention

51 Fruit SCEPTRE Conference Tuesday 24 th February 2015 Kingsgate Conference Centre, Peterborough

52 Evaluation of Fungicides and Biofungicides for Control of Soft Fruit Diseases Angela Berrie and Robert Saville East Malling Research

53 Strawberry Diseases Mucor and Rhizopus soft rots Phytophthora crown rot Powdery mildew

Evaluation of Treatments for Soft Rot Control in Strawberry 2011-2013 - Method Protected strawberry cv.

54 Evaluation of Treatments for Soft Rot Control in Strawberry Method Protected strawberry cv. Elsanta or Finesse Treatments applied as 5 spray programme from flowering / green fruit 2011 and 2012 evaluated full programmes of single products of both fungicides and biofungicides Best products identified combined in programmes in 2013 Phytotoxicity, yield, fruit quality, rots assessed at harvest Post-harvest tests on 50 fruit samples

Evaluation of Treatments for Soft Rot Control in Strawberry 2011-2013 Products selected based on results of HDC-funded

55 Evaluation of Treatments for Soft Rot Control in Strawberry Products selected based on results of HDC-funded laboratory screen Over three years in field trials evaluated 7 fungicides 4 alternative chemicals 4 plant extracts 6 biofungicides

56 Untreated 1 STR-40 STR-105 STR-146 STR-39 STR-06 Untreated 2 STR-99 STR-25a Switch Signum STR-77 Evaluation of Treatments for Soft Rot Control in Strawberry % Mucor in post-harvest tests Mean 7 harvests

57 Untreated 2 STR-187 Thianosan/STR_25a/Switch STR-47 Untreated 1 STR-187+Fungicides STR-186 STR Fungicides Thianosan/STR-77/Switch STR-37 Thianosan/Switch/Signum Evaluation of Programmes for soft rot Control Results % Mucor in post-harvest tests Mean of 7 harvests

58 Products for Control Soft Rots Conclusions None of the fungicides tested gave complete control Best products identified were Switch, Signum, Thianosan and STR-77 Combining fungicides in programmes applied were not completely effective in controlling soft rots None of the biofungicides evaluated were effective None of the plant strengtheners tested were effective A better understanding of epidemiology of soft rots is required in order to improve disease control A PhD study on Mucor and Rhizopus in strawberry started at EMR September 2013

59 Strawberry Crown Rot Products evaluated 3 Fungicides 3 Biofungicides 1 Plant extract Paraat included as standard Untreated control

Crown Rot Trials - Method Trial set up in polytunnel using peat bags raised on crates Planted with cv Elsanta or Malling Opal Drip irrigation to bags + Overhead irrigation 3X per day

60 Crown Rot Trials - Method Trial set up in polytunnel using peat bags raised on crates Planted with cv Elsanta or Malling Opal Drip irrigation to bags + Overhead irrigation 3X per day Fungicide treatments applied once. Biofungicides applied 3X Plant inoculated with P. cactorum introduced into each peat bag Trial assessed by recording numbers of plant collapsed or dead

61 Untreated STR-105 STR-121 Fenomenal STR-23 STR-24 Paraat Prestop STR-40 Crown Rot Control - Results % Infected plants Visual symptoms

62 Strawberry Crown Rot Method of Application Compared 4 fungicides, 2 biofungicides 3 methods application Pre-plant dip Post-plant drench Post-plant spray

63 Untreated 1 Fungicide dip Fungicide drench Fungicide spray Biofungicide dip Biofungicide drench Biofungicide spray Crown control Application method Visual symptoms % infected plants

64 Untreated Fungicide dip Fungicide drench Fungicide spray Biofungicide dip Biofungicide drench Biofungicide spray Crown control Application method Internal symptoms % infected plants

65 Crown rot - Conclusions Best fungicides Paraat and Fenomenal - approved Fungicides STR-23 and STR-24 also effective Biofungicides Prestop and STR-40 effective Results of best method of application experiments - Inconclusive

66 Strawberry Powdery Mildew Podosphaera aphanis on Strawberry Two trials conducted on cv. Elsanta grown under polytunnels One trial evaluating fungicides One trial evaluating biofungicides and plant extracts

67 Strawberry Powdery Mildew Fungicide trial Elsanta planted in July 2013 under polytunnel, mown off in June 2014,trial conducted on regrowth 4 replicates 10 products tested Systhane as standard and untreated control Six sprays applied at 1000 L/ha from early July Mildew assessed on 3 rd September

68 % leaf area mildewed Strawberry Powdery Mildew Fungicide Trial

69 Strawberry Powdery Mildew Fungicide Trial Untreated control Systhane STR-77 STR-159 STR-88 STR-118

70 Strawberry Powdery Mildew Biofungicide Trial Elsanta planted in July 2014 under polytunnel 5 replicates 10 products tested 7 biofungicides 3 plant extracts Systhane as standard and untreated control Six sprays applied at 1000 L/ha from late July Mildew assessed on 20 th August Fruit harvested and assessed for rots

71 % leaf area mildewed Untreated STR-43 Strawberry Powdery Mildew Biofungicide Trial - Results STR-90 STR-203 STR-178 STR-40 STR-187 STR-188 STR-157 STR-105 Systhane STR

72 Strawberry Powdery Mildew Biofungicide Trial - Results Untreated Control Systhane STR-06

Strawberry Powdery Mildew Conclusions 4 fungicide products identified giving excellent control STR-77, STR-88, STR-118, STR-159 All biofungicides reduced

73 Strawberry Powdery Mildew Conclusions 4 fungicide products identified giving excellent control STR-77, STR-88, STR-118, STR-159 All biofungicides reduced mildew compared to untreated control STR-06 and STR-105 performing as well as Systhane None of the biofungicides had any significant effect on strawberry rots

74 Raspberry Cane Diseases Spur blight Didymella applanata Cane spot Elsinoe veneta

Product choice based on in vitro fungicide testing

75 Raspberry Cane diseases Spur Blight (Didymella applanata) Fungicide & biofungicide efficacy testing. Product choice based on in vitro fungicide testing (2012) 1 untreated 1 standard (Folicur) 8 fungicides 5 biofungicides

76 Raspberry Spur Blight Treatment List Treatment Product number 1 Untreated 2 Folicur 3 Signum 4 Switch 5 RAS-32 6 RAS-77 7 RAS-17 8 RAS-25a 9 RAS RAS RAS-105 Serenade 12 ASO 13 RAS RAS RAS-99 Treatments applied prior to inoculation. Fungicide treatments applied once Biopesticide treatments applied twice Assess Spring 2015

77 Acknowledgements Thanks to Karen Lower, Tom Passey East Malling Trials Team for assistance with the trials

78 Funding SCEPTRE Consortium

79 Fruit SCEPTRE Conference Tuesday 24 th February 2015 Kingsgate Conference Centre, Peterborough

80 Evaluation of Fungicides and Biofungicides for Control of Tree Fruit Diseases Angela Berrie and Robert Saville East Malling Research

81 Tree Fruit Disease Targets in SCEPTRE Powdery mildew Botrytis fruit rot

82 Crop Apple Target Powdery mildew Apple: Powdery mildew Summary of trials Task Year Fungicide screening Orchard Small plot Efficacy Orchard Small plot Efficacy Orchard Small plot Programme Orchard Large plot Programme Biofungicide screening Initially included above Pot trial Efficacy Pot trial Efficacy/ Programme Orchard Small plot Programme Mildew management Orchard Large plot Current products Orchard Large plot Current products

Apple: Powdery mildew 2011-2014 Methods Potted

83 Apple: Powdery mildew Methods Potted rootstocks Trial on sand beds 8 pot plots - 6 reps - cv. MM106 Treatments applied using knapsack sprayer at 1000 L/ha 5 spray rounds applied at approx. 7 day intervals

84 Apple: Powdery mildew Methods Small plots Small plot experiment - 3 tree plots - 4 reps - cv. Cox Treatments applied using Stihl air-assisted sprayer at 500 L/ha Routine fungicide programme for scab and mildew control from bud burst to start of trial 5 spray rounds applied at approx day intervals from mid June

85 Apple: Powdery mildew Methods Programmes Large plot experiment ~150 trees/plot - 3 reps - Cox and Gala Treatments applied by tractor trailed orchard sprayer (Holder 500 air-assisted) at 300L/ha (*500L/ha) Standard programme for P&D control until green cluster. A full seasons programme from bud burst to the end of the growing season at 7-14 day intervals was evaluated.

Apple: Powdery mildew 2011-2014 Results Biofungicide pot trial 2012 % mildewed leaves mean of 3 assessments All of the biofungicide test products

86 Apple: Powdery mildew Results Biofungicide pot trial 2012 % mildewed leaves mean of 3 assessments All of the biofungicide test products reduced mildew incidence. Best control achieved by 160 (sulphur) Performed better alone rather than in combination with Potassium bicarbonate (158)

87 % mildewed leaves Apple: Powdery mildew Data Interpretation % mildewed leaves on apple shoots cv. Cox assessed at various times following treatment with effective or partially effective fungicide Untreated Partially effective fungicide Effective fungicide 20 0 Date assessed

88 Apple: Powdery mildew Biofungicide & Fungicide 2014 Programmes Treatment Number 1 22 May 2 2 June 3 9 June 4 16 June 5 23 June Product / Timing 6 30 June 7 7 July 8 14 July 9 21 July July Systhane Systhane Systhane Systhane Systhane Systhane Systhane Systhane Systhane Systhane 3 APL-32 APL-32 APL-105 APL-105 APL-105 APL-105 APL-105 APL-105 APL-105 APL-32 4 APL-32 APL-32 APL- 157* APL- 157* APL- 157* APL- 157* APL- 157* APL- 157* APL-157* APL-32 5 APL-32 APL-32 APL-90 APL-90 APL-90 APL-90 APL-90 APL-90 APL-90 APL-32 6 APL-32 APL-32 APL-06 APL-06 APL-06 APL-06 APL-06 APL-06 APL-06 APL-32 7 APL-17 APL-17 APL-105 APL-105 APL-105 APL-105 APL-105 APL-105 APL-105 APL-17 8 APL-17 APL-17 APL- 157* APL- 157* APL- 157* APL- 157* APL- 157* APL- 157* APL-157* APL-17 9 APL-17 APL-17 APL-90 APL-90 APL-90 APL-90 APL-90 APL-90 APL-90 APL APL-17 APL-17 APL-06 APL-06 APL-06 APL-06 APL-06 APL-06 APL-06 APL APL-17 APL-17 APL-88 APL-88 APL-06 Cosine APL-157 APL-06 APL-146 APL APL-32 APL-32 APL-88 APL-06 APL-157 Cosine APL-06 APL-157 APL-146 APL-32 Fungicide Biofungicide Managed

Apple: Powdery mildew 2011-2014 Biofungicide & Fungicide 2014 Results High

start of ALL the programmes Mildew epidemic increased once biofungicides were

89 Apple: Powdery mildew Biofungicide & Fungicide 2014 Results High levels of mildew in untreated An initial decrease in disease observed at the start of ALL the programmes Mildew epidemic increased once biofungicides were included in the programme Managed programmes were as good/better than Systhane standard

90 Apple: Powdery mildew Fungicide 2014 Programmes Timing Standard programme Experimental programme 1 Experimental programme 2 Bud burst 12 March Dithianon WG Dithianon WG Dithianon WG 24 March Dithianon WG + Indar Dithianon WG + Indar Dithianon WG + Indar Pre- Blossom 10 April Captan + Kindred Captan + Kindred Captan + Kindred Blossom 28 April Systhane + Captan APL-128 APL May Systhane + Captan APL-32 APL May Systhane + Captan APL-128 APL June Cosine Cosine Cosine 9 June Topas + Captan APL-88 + Captan APL-88 + Captan 17 June Systhane + Stroby + Captan APL-25a + Captan APL-25a + Captan 23 June* Cosine + Captan Cosine + Captan Cosine + Captan 30 June Topas + Captan APL-25a + Captan APL-25a + Captan 9 July Kumulus + Captan APL-88 + Captan APL-88 + Captan 14 July Topas + Captan APL-128 APL July Topas + Captan APL-32 APL-17 7 August* Topas + Captan Topas + Captan Topas + Captan * Applied at 500 L/ha

91 cv. Gala cv. Cox High incidence of 1 mildew Apple: Powdery mildew Fungicide 2014 Results % Mildewed leaves % Mildewed leaves Stand. programme Expt. programme 1 Expt. programme 2 All 3 programmes disease epidemic through season Expt. Programmes = lower incidence mildew at end of season = lower incidence of 1 mildew Spring 2015

Apple: Powdery mildew 2011-2014 Conclusions Promising new fungicide products for mildew control were identified When these products are registered they will most likely be limited to a maximum

required before they become cost effective on an orchard scale. Using biofungicides as part of a programme with fungicides may be feasible in low mildew orchards of less sus.

92 Apple: Powdery mildew Conclusions Promising new fungicide products for mildew control were identified When these products are registered they will most likely be limited to a maximum of 2-4 sprays per season This presents problems for a disease which requires a full season programme for control Biofungicides were only partially effective and improvement on efficacy will be required before they become cost effective on an orchard scale. Using biofungicides as part of a programme with fungicides may be feasible in low mildew orchards of less sus. cultivars but will require careful monitoring and mildew management to succeed HDC funded work will look at the potential of alternative products (elicitors/strengtheners, biological/chemical/physical agents)

93 Pear (postharvest) Crop Target Botrytis rot Pear: Botrytis rot Summary of trials Year 2011/ / /14 ambient vs. straight in cold store Experimented with rates CA vs. Air Cold fruit vs. Ambient fruit

Pear: Botrytis rot 2012 2014 Methods Pear cv.

94 Pear: Botrytis rot Methods Pear cv. Conference inoculated with plugs of botrytis at 2 places on cheek and sealed with coloured tape Inoculated fruit (10/crate) distributed amongst healthy fruit (~80/crate) 4 replicated crates per treatment Crates dipped in tank containing test product for 1 min Crates allowed to drain and dry before storage 2011: Air at -1oC 2012: Air at -1 o C 2013: Air at -1 o C or CA (2% O 2, 0% CO 2 ) at -1 o C

95 Pear: Botrytis rot 2013/14 Results Cold Ambient

96 Pear: Botrytis rot 2013/14 Results Air Controlled atmosphere

97 Pear: Botrytis rot 2011/ /14 Conclusions High inoculation pressure would never usually have such high disease pressure No improvement leaving at ambient 24hrs prior to cold store (as per Nexy label recommendation) PER-38 and PER-99 appeared to give better control of Botrytis at the higher rate used 2013 trials investigated; Temperature of fruit cold pears appeared to result in a reduction in efficacy Controlled Atmosphere Nexy and 99 (both yeast based) did not reduce Botrytis rot in CA storage 178 (bacteria-based) was as effective in CA as in air store Trials will continue in other projects to see whether this result is confirmed

98 Acknowledgements Karen Lower Tom Passey East Malling Field and Glass staff SCEPTRE disease group

99 Funding SCEPTRE Consortium

100 Fruit SCEPTRE Conference Tuesday 24 th February 2015 Kingsgate Conference Centre, Peterborough

Soft Fruit Experiments 2014

Soft Fruit Experiments 2014 Background to SCEPTRE (2010-2014) Loss of, & future threats to, actives Need for food security Requirement to identify other effective & crop safe actives including biopesticides