R.Rancane, M.Eihe, L.Vilka

Latvian Plant Protection Research Centre

Riga, Latvia

EXPIERENCE AND RESULTS OF APPLE SCAB SIMULATION

MODEL RIMpro ADOPTION IN PRACTICE IN LATVIA

The simulation model RIMpro gives information on the discharge of ascospores and can be helpful in determining the time of the severe infection during the primary scab infection period.

Venturia inaequalis (Cooke) Wint.) isthe most important fungal pathogenin fruit-growing in Latvia.

In 2007 the aim of investigation was to determine efficacy of RIMpro use in practice in Latvia.

Adaptation of apple scab simulation model RIMpro in integrated plant protection in Latvia was carried out in Latvian Plant Protection Research Centre during 2003 – 2007 (2003 – 2005 in 1, 2006 – 3 and 2007 – 8 farms).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RIMpro installed on PC of LPPRC

Weather stations located in different regions of Latvia

Type of weather stations: Metos Compact (companyPessl) – 1, Lufft – 9

RIMpro signals above 50 RIM value were accepted as the risk

Information for growers were sent via mobile phone

Orchards were inspected 3 times per season to determine efficacy of signals showed by RIMpro

Type of assessments: damaged surface by 9 scores scale, calculated in %, on 100 leaves and fruits per plot

SIA “Malum”

Ugu i, J.Iganatovi s

P res DIS

z/s “Mucenieki”

Jaunlutri u pag., L.RezgaleLVAI

z/s “ bel tes ZS”

Ceraukstes pag., D.Anuža

z/s “Kalnanoras”

Ikš ile, G.Rullis

z/s “Svitkas”

Kauguru pag., M.Eliass

k/s “Poceri”

Lone, M.L pl sis

z/s “Bandari”

ornajas pag., J.Batars

z/s “Ievulejas”

Vi aka, V.Romanovs

Company “Lufft “– 9 stations

Company “Pessl” – 1 station

LOCATION OF THE WEATHER STATIONS

RESULTS

• In all apple orchards the first protective application with copper containing fungicide Champion was carried out during green tip stage of apples before ascospores discharge (15. – 28.04.).

• Further applications were carried out according to RIMpro signals and our recommendations.

PURE RESEARCH STATIONTukums region

west / central part of Latvia

–0–1317. – 19.06.Effector029.05.24627.05. – 01.06.

Chorus 75014.05.44111. – 16.05.–6.0–9008.05.

Champion 50–17.04.––

FungicideResidues fromprevius use, %DateRIM values per

day (>150 RIM)Dates

Fungicides usePrimary scab infection period

Cultivar – ‘Antonovka’

–––0–4.03 + 0

fruitsfruitsfruitsleavesfruitsleaves

RIMprosignalsControlRIMpro

signalsControl

SeptemberAssessment – 3rd 10 day period of June

Amount of infected objects, %Number of fungicides

applications(during

primary + secondary infection period)

Apple scab incidence in Pure Research Station

Score 250628.05.27627.05. – 01.06.Score 2502116.05.4214. – 16.05.Chorus 751610.05.958. – 13.05.

Effector–27.04.––Mancozeb–16.04.––

FungicideResidues fromprevius use, %DateRIM values per

day (>150 RIM)Dates

Fungicides usePrimary scab infection period

MUCENIEKISaldu region

south / west part of Latvia

Cultivar – ‘Saltanat’

11.046.005.055.046.05 + 1

fruitsfruitsfruitsleavesfruitsleaves

RIMprosignalsControlRIMpro

signalsControl

SeptemberAssessment – 3rd 10 dayperiod of June

Amount of infected objects, %Number offungicides

applications(during

primary + secondary infection period)

Apple scab incidence in farm “Mucenieki”

ABELITESBauska region

south / central part of Latvia

Mancozeb + Score 250030.06.024. – 29.06.

–0–6015. – 17.06.

–0–9811. – 12.06.

Mancozeb + Chorus 75601.06.42229.05. – 02.06.

Candit423.05.21026. – 28.05.

–22–5814. – 16.05.

Mancozeb + Chorus 751311.05.4218. – 9.05.

Champion 50–15.04.––

FungicideResidues fromprevius use, %

DateRIM values per day (>150 RIM)

Dates

Fungicides usePrimary scab infection period

Cultivar – ‘Ligol’

Apple scab incidence in farm “Abelites”

03.0002.04.05 + 0

fruitsfruitsfruitsleavesfruitsleaves

RIMprosignalsControlRIMpro

signalsControl

SeptemberAssessment – 3rd 10 dayperiod of June

Amount of infected objects, %Number offungicides

applications(during

primary + secondary infection period)

KALNANORASOgre region

central part of Latvia

Cultivar – ‘Spartan’

–12–7829.05. – 01.06.Chorus 75028.05.65226. – 28.05.Chorus 752516.05.33714. – 15.05.Chorus 751410.05.8328. – 11.05.Mancozeb2627.04.––

Champion 50–18.04.––

FungicideResidues fromprevius use, %DateRIM values per

day (>150 RIM)Dates

Fungicides usePrimary scab infection period

Apple scab incidence in farm “Kalnanoras”

6.982.34.50.2539.027.34 + 1

fruitsfruitsfruitsleavesfruitsleaves

RIMprosignalsControlRIMpro

signalsControl

SeptemberAssessment – 3rd 10 dayperiod of June

Amount of infected objects, %Number offungicides

applications(during

primary + secondary infection period)

SVITKASValmiera region

north part of Latvia

Cultivar – ‘Auksis’

–0–6027. – 29.06.

–0–8315. – 18.06.

–0–8912.06.

Score 250004.06.22431.05. – 01.06.

Mancozeb + Chorus 751826.05.73926.05.

Score 2501417.05.16815. – 16.05.

Candit3906.05.538. – 12.05.

Champion 50–24.04.––

FungicideResidues fromprevius use, %Date

RIM values per day (>150 RIM)Dates

Fungicides usePrimary scab infection period

Apple scab incidence in farm “Svitkas”

018.00016.016.05 + 1

fruitsfruitsfruitsleavesfruitsleaves

RIMprosignalsControlRIMpro

signalsControl

SeptemberAssessment – 3rd 10 dayperiod of June

Amount of infected objects, %Number offungicides

applications(during

primary + secondary infection period)

BANDARIRezekne region

east part of Latvia

Cultivar – ‘Belorusskoye Malinovoye’

–0–35615.– 19.06.–5–37231.05.

Effector + Chorus 751124.05.11020.05.Chorus 754312.05.4378. – 10.05.

Champion 50–28.04.––

FungicideResidues fromprevius use, %DateRIM values per

day (>150 RIM)Dates

Fungicides usePrimary scab infection period

Apple scab incidence in farm “Bandari”

0000003 + 0

fruitsfruitsfruitsleavesfruitsleaves

RIMprosignalsControlRIMpro

signalsControl

SeptemberAssessment – 3rd 10 dayperiod of June

Amount of infected objects, %Number offungicides

applications(during

primary + secondary infection period)

IEVULEJASBalvi region

north / east part of Latvia

Cultivar – ‘Lobo’

–19–29930.05. – 02.06.Chorus 75029.05.38527.05.

– (!)11– (!)3648. – 10.05.Champion 50–20.04.––

FungicideResidues fromprevius use, %DateRIM values per

day (>150 RIM)Dates

Fungicides usePrimary scab infection period

Apple scab incidence in farm “Ievulejas”

––7638.094.054.02 + 1

fruitsfruitsfruitsleavesfruitsleaves

RIMprosignalsControlRIMpro

signalsControl

SeptemberAssessment – 3rd 10 dayperiod of June

Amount of infected objects, %Number offungicides

applications(during

primary + secondary infection period)

POCERIJekabpils region

south / east part of Latvia

Cultivar – ‘Geneva Early’

Candit (!)018.06. (!)40516. – 18.06.– (!)0– (!)14512. – 14.06.

Mancozeb + Candit2229.05.2231.05. – 01.06.Mancozeb + Chorus 75014.05.5015.05.

– (!)18– (!)53608. – 09.05.Champion 50–23.04.––

FungicideResidues fromprevius use, %DateRIM values per

day (>150 RIM)Dates

Fungicides usePrimary scab infection period

Apple scab incidence in farm “Poceri”

–96.03.03.092.085.04 + 1

fruitsfruitsfruitsleavesfruitsleaves

RIMprosignalsControlRIMpro

signalsControl

SeptemberAssessment – 3rd 10 dayperiod of June

Amount of infected objects, %Number offungicides

applications(during

primary + secondary infection period)

CONCLUSIONS

• The common apple scab primary infection periodlasted from the May 8th until the June 19th inLatvia, 2007.

• In different regions there were 3 – 6 separate scabinfection periods above 50 RIM values (1 – 4 above100 RIM).

• 3 – 5 fugicides applications (including the first protective) were necessary for sufficient scab control if carried out in determined terms.

• Even one undone application resulted with significant scab expansion (farm “Ievulejas”).

• In 2007 mainly curative fungicides Chorus 75 or Score 250 separately or in mixture with protective product after infection was recommended.

• In generally RIMpro signals were acceptable for control apple scab in Latvia if the fungicides applications were carried out accordingly to recommendations.

PROBLEMS...

technical problemsaccess to internetprofessional advisorscomputer specialistsamount of weather stationsno precisely weather prognosis

How to make RIMpro user friendly???

It is easer to create new DSS than to achieve that farmers use and trust in it.

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION!!!