2013 On-farm Grafted Tomato Trial to Manage Bacterial Wilt · Fumigated Field G = Grafted, NG =...
1
Materials & Methods Results Single Leader–Single stem Double Leader– Two stems 1 Grower Control + 2*2*3 Factorial Grafting Treatments = 13 Total Treatments David H Suchoff 1* , Christopher C. Gunter 1 , Jonathan R. Schultheis 1 , Frank J. Louws 2,3 2013 On-farm Grafted Tomato Trial to Manage Bacterial Wilt Both experimental sites were within a commercial field with history of BW Randomized complete block design with four 300x3ft repetition rows Each 300ft. repetition row contained 13 treatment plots Treatment plots consisted of 10 plants ‘Mt. Fresh’ guard plants were placed at the ends of each plot Tractor Road Fumigated Field Non-Fumigated Field Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 4 Rep 3 Rep 2 Rep 1 300ft Row Field Setup Data Collected Bacterial Wilt Incidence 4.5-7.5cm 7.5-9cm >9cm Yield Number of fruit/grade Fruit weight/grade Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge Randall Patterson and the Patterson Farm, Inc. crew who hosted, planted, maintained, and harvested this trial. We would also like to acknowledge the USDA NIFA- SCRI grant 2011-51181-30963 for funding this research as well as Rijk Zwaan for supplying the resources for this trial. Contact: [email protected] Mountain Fresh Nongrafted Single Leader 18” Grower Control 61-801 or 61-802 Mountain Fresh Scion Single Leader or Double Leader 18” 24” 30” A B C A. Two Rootstock treatments - 61-801 and 61-802. All grafted treatments had Mountain Fresh scions. B. Leader Treatments- Grafted plants had Single Leader (one stem) or Double Leader (two stems) via pinching of the scion apical meristem. C. Between-plant Spacing Treatment- plants had either 18”. 24” or 30” between plants. Grafting Treatments 1 Department of Horticultural Science 2 NSF-Centre for Integrated Pest Management, 3 Department of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27609 USA Spacing Effect on Marketable Yield* in Grafted Treatment in Fumigated Field Y Y Yield was not significantly different in the non-fumigated field due to lack of disease pressure and thus not shown. *Marketable Yield is the combined weights of all three fruit grades on a per acre basis. • North Carolina is ranked 4 th in the nation for the production of tomatoes and grosses over $37 million in annual sales. 1 • Patterson Farm, located in Rowan County, NC, has been producing and selling tomatoes since 1946 • An increasingly significant production constraint for tomato in this region and other production centers across the state is bacterial wilt(BW) caused by Ralstonia solanacearum (race 1). • In 2013, 20 acres of grafted tomatoes with rootstocks known to be resistant to bacterial wilt were planted in an effort to manage BW. Introduction Bacterial Wilt in fields adjacent to the experimental fields References 1. “2012 NC Annual Fruit and Vegetable Summary” NCDA & CS. http://www.ncagr.gov/markets/mktnews/fvsum.pdf A AB B 60 65 70 75 80 85 18(G) 24(G) 30(G) 18(NG) Marketable Yield (Thousand Lbs/Acre) Spacing (in) 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 NG 801SL 801DL 802SL 802DL Marketable Yield (Thousand Lbs/Acre) Comparison of Percent BW Incidence in Grafted Treatments vs. Nongrafted Grower Control Non-Fumigated Field Fumigated Field A B 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Nongrafted Grafted A A 0.51 0.515 0.52 0.525 0.53 0.535 0.54 0.545 Nongrafted Grafted Percent BW Incidence per Plot (%) Percent BW Incidence per Plot (%) Marketable Yield for Nongrafted and Grafted Treatments at 18 inches in Fumigated Field G = Grafted, NG = Nongrafted, 801/802 = Rootstock variety, SL = Single-leader treatment DL = Double-leader treatment Objectives 1. Evaluate two grafted rootstocks for bacterial wilt resistance and production in a field with known bacterial wilt 2. Compare performance of grafted plants to nongrafted grower control under the same field conditions. 3. Determine whether between plant spacing and number of stems of the grafted treatments increases yield compared to other grafted treatments Conclusions 1. In the presence of disease, grafting onto bacterial wilt resistant rootstocks significantly reduced disease incidence. 2. Grafting tended to increase marketable yield compared to the nongrafted grower control at the same spacing. 3. At wider spacing, grafted plants had comparable yield to the nongrafted grower control. Grafting offers an environmentally sound option for managing soilborne diseases and can improve yield even at lower plant densities. What is a Grafted Tomato? 3ft % of infected plants/plot
Transcript of 2013 On-farm Grafted Tomato Trial to Manage Bacterial Wilt · Fumigated Field G = Grafted, NG =...
Materials & Methods Results
Single Leader–Single stem
Double Leader– Two stems
1 Grower Control + 2*2*3 Factorial Grafting Treatments = 13 Total Treatments
David H Suchoff1*, Christopher C. Gunter1, Jonathan R. Schultheis1, Frank J. Louws2,3 2013 On-farm Grafted Tomato Trial to Manage Bacterial Wilt
Both experimental sites were within a commercial field with history of BW
Randomized complete block design with four 300x3ft repetition rows Each 300ft. repetition row contained 13 treatment plots Treatment plots consisted of 10 plants ‘Mt. Fresh’ guard plants were placed at the ends of each plot
Tractor Road
Fumigated Field
Non-Fumigated Field
Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4
Rep 4 Rep 3 Rep 2 Rep 1
300f
t Row
Field Setup
Data Collected Bacterial Wilt Incidence
4.5-7.5cm 7.5-9cm >9cm
Yield Number of fruit/grade Fruit weight/grade
Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge Randall Patterson and the Patterson Farm, Inc. crew who hosted, planted, maintained, and harvested this trial. We would also like to acknowledge the USDA NIFA-SCRI grant 2011-51181-30963 for funding this research as well as Rijk Zwaan for supplying the resources for this trial.
Contact: [email protected]
Mountain Fresh
Nongrafted
Single Leader
18”
Grower Control
61-801 or
61-802
Mountain Fresh Scion
Single Leader or
Double Leader
18” 24” 30”
A B C
A. Two Rootstock treatments - 61-801 and 61-802. All grafted treatments had Mountain Fresh scions.
B. Leader Treatments- Grafted plants had Single Leader (one stem) or Double Leader (two stems) via pinching of the scion apical meristem.
C. Between-plant Spacing Treatment- plants had either 18”. 24” or 30” between plants.
Grafting Treatments
1Department of Horticultural Science 2NSF-Centre for Integrated Pest Management, 3Department of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27609 USA
Spacing Effect on Marketable Yield* in Grafted Treatment in Fumigated FieldY
Y Yield was not significantly different in the non-fumigated field due to lack of disease pressure and thus not shown.
*Marketable Yield is the combined weights of all three fruit grades on a per acre basis.
• North Carolina is ranked 4th in the nation for the production of tomatoes and grosses over $37 million in annual sales.1
• Patterson Farm, located in Rowan County, NC, has been producing and selling tomatoes since 1946
• An increasingly significant production constraint for tomato in this region and other production centers across the state is bacterial wilt(BW) caused by Ralstonia solanacearum (race 1).
• In 2013, 20 acres of grafted tomatoes with rootstocks known to be resistant to bacterial wilt were planted in an effort to manage BW.
Introduction
Bacterial Wilt in fields adjacent to the experimental fields
References 1. “2012 NC Annual Fruit and Vegetable Summary” NCDA & CS. http://www.ncagr.gov/markets/mktnews/fvsum.pdf
A
AB
B
60
65
70
75
80
85
18(G) 24(G) 30(G) 18(NG)
Mar
keta
ble Y
ield
(T
hous
and
Lbs
/Acr
e)
Spacing (in)
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
NG 801SL 801DL 802SL 802DL
Mar
keta
ble Y
ield
(T
hous
and
Lbs
/Acr
e)
Comparison of Percent BW Incidence in Grafted Treatments vs. Nongrafted Grower
Control Non-Fumigated Field
Fumigated Field A
B 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Nongrafted Grafted
A
A
0.51
0.515
0.52
0.525
0.53
0.535
0.54
0.545
Nongrafted Grafted
Perc
ent B
W In
cide
nce
per
Plot
(%)
Perc
ent B
W In
cide
nce
per
Plot
(%
)
Marketable Yield for Nongrafted and Grafted Treatments at 18 inches in
Fumigated Field
G = Grafted, NG = Nongrafted, 801/802 = Rootstock variety, SL = Single-leader treatment DL = Double-leader treatment
Objectives 1. Evaluate two grafted rootstocks for bacterial wilt
resistance and production in a field with known bacterial wilt
2. Compare performance of grafted plants to nongrafted grower control under the same field conditions.
3. Determine whether between plant spacing and number of stems of the grafted treatments increases yield compared to other grafted treatments
Conclusions 1. In the presence of disease, grafting onto bacterial wilt
resistant rootstocks significantly reduced disease incidence.
2. Grafting tended to increase marketable yield compared to the nongrafted grower control at the same spacing.
3. At wider spacing, grafted plants had comparable yield to the nongrafted grower control.
Grafting offers an environmentally sound option for managing soilborne diseases and can improve yield even at lower plant densities.
What is a Grafted Tomato? 3ft
% of infected plants/plot
![GRAFTED TOMATO - Iserv1].pdf · GRAFTED TOMATO Grafted onto ... Grafting joins the top part of one plant (the scion) to the root ... (TPIE) - January 18-20, 2012 Spring Trials in](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/5aa1ea047f8b9a436d8c452d/grafted-tomato-1pdfgrafted-tomato-grafted-onto-grafting-joins-the-top-part.jpg)
