Lingering Effects of Pruning, Plant Growth Regulators, and Propagation Technique on Woody Ornnamental Species One Year After Treatment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 5-2014 INCREASING NURSERY CROP CANOPY DENSITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE INSECT PEST MANAGEMENT Whitney Michelle Yeary University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Entomology Commons, and the Horticulture Commons Recommended Citation Yeary, Whitney Michelle, "INCREASING NURSERY CROP CANOPY DENSITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE INSECT PEST MANAGEMENT. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2014. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/2765 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Whitney Michelle Yeary entitled "INCREASING NURSERY CROP CANOPY DENSITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE INSECT PEST MANAGEMENT." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Plant Sciences. Amy Fulcher, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: William Klingemen, Jerome F. Grant Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) INCREASING NURSERY CROP CANOPY DENSITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE INSECT PEST MANAGEMENT A Thesis Presented for the Master of Science Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Whitney Michelle Yeary May 2014 DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this work to my husband, Robin, who put up with me when I was stressed, listened when I needed to vent, and held me when I needed it the most. I’m the luckiest girl in the world because you love me. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my major professor, Dr. Amy Fulcher for her guidance and encouragement during my graduate study here at the University of Tennessee. I would like to thank my other committee members Dr. William E. Klingeman and Dr. Jerome F. Grant for their valuable suggestions and assistance on this project. I have learned more practical knowledge from them than from any other source. Special thanks to Xiaocun Sun for her irreplaceable statistical analysis assistance. Ed Kinsey of Kinsey Gardens and Dale Bryan of Freedom Tree Farm also deserve thanks for their contribution of plant material. Ed Kinsey was also a wealth of information on several topics. Lastly, I would like to thank Deulin’ and Banjo for slobbery kisses, shenanigans, and the reminder to take a break every now and then. iii ABSTRACT Consumers are attracted to woody ornamental plants that have symmetrical, dense canopies. In order to get the desired canopy density and symmetry, growers often manipulate growth by pruning or applying chemical plant growth regulators. Another method of acquiring a dense plant canopy is for growers to purchase in vitro-propagated liners instead of traditional cutting-propagated liners. This work analyzed the validity of all three methods on several woody ornamental species. Liners from Cutting-propagated (CP) and in vitro-propagated (IVP) sources were purchased and treatments of pruning and PGRs were applied. Pruning only increased the canopy density of rhododendron (Rhododendron L. ‘Roseum Elegans’) and was even more effective when IVP plants were pruned. PGRs were generally ineffective on all species with the exception of blueberry (Vaccinum corymbosum L. ‘Duke’). IVP clethra (Clethra alnifolia L. ‘Hummingbird’) and rhododendron had greater canopy density than their CP counterparts. A dense plant canopy attracts customers more easily than a sparse canopy. However, as canopy density increases, the grower’s ability to achieve adequate spray penetration within the canopy decreases, causing insecticide application to be ineffective at controlling pests within the interior of the canopy. If insect pest populations within the plant canopy are not decreased by chemical application events, it is possible that natural enemy populations within the plant canopy will also be unaffected and therefore continue to aid in pest control. However, we cannot be certain that natural enemies will be within the plant canopy when an insecticide application occurs. In order to achieve the most effective pest control strategy, growers should apply chemicals that control insect pests but do not harm natural enemies. Systemic insecticides are generally thought to be safer for insects that do not directly ingest the plant material. A worse-case scenario was conducted where natural enemies were trapped in arenas with residue of a systemic or contact insecticide. Reactions to both systemic and contact insecticides were inconsistent between three species implying that no insecticide is inherently “safe” for all natural enemies. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................................3 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE GREEN INDUSTRY ............................................................................................................4 PRUNING ...........................................................................................................................................................................................4 PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS ...........................................................................................................................................5 PGRs in woody ornamental plant production .........................................................................................................8 IN VITRO PROPAGATION ......................................................................................................................................................13 In vitro variation ..................................................................................................................................................................15 Increased branching examples .....................................................................................................................................16 SPRAY PENETRATION ............................................................................................................................................................18 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL ..........................................................................................................................................................20 Natural enemies and complex canopies ..................................................................................................................22 SYSTEMIC INSECTICIDES......................................................................................................................................................23 PLANTS ...........................................................................................................................................................................................23 Blueberry .................................................................................................................................................................................23 Clethra .......................................................................................................................................................................................24 Magnolia ...................................................................................................................................................................................25 Rhododendron ......................................................................................................................................................................26 CHAPTER 2. ENHANCING ORNAMENTAL PLANT QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS WITH PRUNING, PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS, AND PROPAGATION TECHNIQUE OF Clethra alnifolia 'HUMMINGBIRD', Magnolia virginiana ‘Henry Hicks', AND Rhododendron 'ROSEUM ELEGANS' ........ 28 ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................................................................29 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................................................29 MATERIALS AND METHODS ...............................................................................................................................................31 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................................................34 Clethra .......................................................................................................................................................................................34