Fungicide Sensitivity of Cold Climate Grape Varieties
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Fungicide Sensitivity of Cold Climate Grape Varieties Patricia McManus University of Wisconsin-Madison UW-Extension Topics • Role of copper and sulfur for disease control in grapes • Research results on copper, sulfur, and difenoconazole, 2012-2015 • Considerations for integrating copper and sulfur into a spray program Role of Copper and Sulfur in Managing Diseases of Grapes • Copper-based fungicides – Highly effective on downy mildew – Limited activity against other pathogens • Sulfur – Highly effective on powdery mildew – Little or no activity on other pathogens Role of Copper and Sulfur in Managing Diseases of Grapes • Liquid lime-sulfur, liquid sulfur – Dormant application may have eradicant activity on anthracnose, Phomopsis, and powdery mildew • GREEN TISSUES BURNED BY LIME-SULFUR! DO NOT APPLY AFTER LEAVES EMERGE! Role of Copper and Sulfur in Managing Diseases of Grapes 1. Fungicide resistance management – Both copper and sulfur act by non-specific disruption of proteins – Still effective after centuries of use – Sterol inhibitors, strobilurins, and others can be overcome by a few mutations in pathogens fungicide resistance 1. Some forms of copper and sulfur cheaper than synthetic fungicides Role of Copper and Sulfur in Managing Diseases of Grapes 3. Important in organic production – Some forms of copper and sulfur are approved by OMRI – Copper and sulfur often less expensive than other OMRI-approved products Topics • Role of copper and sulfur for disease control in grapes • Research results on copper, sulfur, and difenoconazole, 2012-2015 • Considerations for integrating copper and sulfur into a spray program Sensitivity to copper, sulfur, 2,4-D, and dicamba, as well as disease susceptibility Lots of Unknowns for Cold Climate Varieties Cultivar BR DM PM Phom. Anthr. S Cu Brianna ? + ? ? ? ? ? Edelweiss ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Maréchal Foch ++ + ++ + ++ Yes Yes Frontenac +++ + ++ + + No ? Frontenac gris ++ + ++ + + No ? La Crescent ++ +++ ++ +++ + ? ? La Crosse +++ ++ ++ ++ + ? ? Marquette +++ + + ? ? ? ? St. Croix ? ++ ++ +++ + ? ? Degree of susceptibility/sensitivity: + = slightly; ++ = moderately; +++ = highly; ? = not known Fungicide Sensitivity Research • Objective – Determine relative sensitivity of northern varieties to copper, sulfur, and difenoconazole • Collaborators – Matt Stasiak, Brian Shauske, Janet Hedtcke, Victoria Kartanos, Dave Jones—UW-Madison research stations and UW Plant Pathology Crop injury warning for products containing difenoconazole: Inspire, Inspire Super, Revus Top, Quadris Top Research Sites and Varieties Brianna Frontenac Frontenac gris La Crescent La Crosse Leon Millot Maréchal Foch Marquette PARS 1 & 2 MN1220 Noiret NY76 Petite Pearl St. Croix Valiant WM1 & WM2 Vignoles Treatments 1. Cuprofix Ultra 40 or Champ WG, 1.2 - 2 lb actual copper/acre 2. Microthiol Disperss, 8-10 lb micronized sulfur/acre 3. Inspire Super or Inspire, 0.114 lb difenoconazole per acre 4. Non-treated control Treatments • Applied 2 to 6 times at 2- to 3-week intervals in May- Aug 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 (11 trials total) • Applied without adjuvants and not mixed with other pesticides Data Collection • About every 2 weeks, foliage rated for injury 1 = no visible injury 2 = minor injury 3 = moderate injury 4 = severe injury • For any given trial, same person did ratings weekly season-long • Toxicity = average rating of 2.5 and statistically different from non-treated control Copper injury on Brianna, PARS 2012 Copper injury on Marquette, WMARS, 4-Sep 2013 Sprayed with sulfur Foch at Peninsular Station, 2013 Sprayed with sulfur Sprayed with copper Foch at Peninsular Station, 2012 Sensitivity to Copper 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Brianna M. Foch Frontenac Fronten gris LaCrescent LaCrosse Leon Millot Marquette MN1220 Noiret NY76 Petite Pearl St. Croix Valiant Vignoles Sensitivity to Copper • Do not apply copper to Brianna • Restrict copper to 1-2 sprays/season on Frontenac, Frontenac gris, LaCrescent, Leon Millot, Maréchal Foch, Marquette, and St. Croix Sensitivity to Sulfur 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Brianna M. Foch Frontenac Fronten gris LaCrescent LaCrosse Leon Millot Marquette MN1220 Noiret NY76 Petite Pearl St. Croix Valiant Vignoles Sensitivity to Sulfur • Do not apply sulfur to Maréchal Foch, Leon Millot, or Brianna • Restrict sulfur to 1-2 sprays/season on LaCrescent and St. Croix Sensitivity to Difenoconazole • Noiret was sensitive in 1 of 2 trials • The following varieties were tested in at least 3 trials, and none were sensitive: – Brianna, Frontenac, Frontenac gris, LaCrescent, LaCrosse, Leon Millot, Maréchal Foch, Marquette, NY76, St. Croix, Valiant, and Vignoles Topics • Role of copper and sulfur for disease control in grapes • Research results on copper, sulfur, and difenoconazole, 2012-2015 • Considerations for integrating copper and sulfur into a spray program Integrating Copper and Sulfur into a Spray Program Initial considerations • Do you have a good reason to try Cu and/or S? – Organic – Resistance management – Economics • Do you have any Cu or S sensitive varieties? • Are Cu and S compatible with other products you rely on? pH and Copper Solubility • At lower pH, copper ions released from “fixed” fungicides more quickly • Copper fungicides should not be mixed with phosphorous acid fungicides or any product that will reduce pH below 6.5 • Because some forms of copper are persistent, consider the interval between copper and PA fungicide sprays Integrating Copper and Sulfur into a Spray Program Further considerations • Do you need post-infection activity? – Cu strictly protective, needs to go on before infection – S primarily protective, but good post-infection control up until time that PM growth appears – Other fungicides provide better post-infection activity against DM and PM Integrating Copper and Sulfur into a Spray Program • Weather at time of application and within 24 hours after – Hot temps increases risk of S injury – Cool temps, prolonged wetness increase risk of Cu injury Integrating Copper and Sulfur into a Spray Program • “Weathering” of fungicides after application – S especially subject to wash off with 1-2 inches rain – Micronized forms of Cu and S more weather-fast than wettable powder Thank You! Questions? Vine Nutrition of Cold-Hardy Cultivars Carl Rosen and James Crants Department of Soil, Water, and Climate University of Minnesota Northern Grapes Project Webinar April 12, 2016 Collaborators Tim Martinson and Chrislyn Particka, Cornell University Paul Domoto and Diana Cochran, Iowa State University Harlene Hatterman-Valenti, North Dakota State University Rhoda Burrows and Anne Fennell, South Dakota State University Background . Recently developed cold hardy grape varieties offer new opportunities for winemaking . Optimal nutrition and soil management practices have not been established . Tissue analysis is a tool used to assess nutritional status, but critical values are based on V. labrusca and V. vinifera . Values may need to be adjusted for cold hardy varieties, which have a V. riparia background . Background . Tissue analysis is traditionally based on petioles samples . The use of petioles has come into question, even for traditional varieties . Leaf blade tissue or whole leaf (petiole + blade) may be a better indicator of nutritional status Background Optimum petiole sampling time? Bloom +: more time to correct issues -: nutrient concentrations unstable Veraison +: concentrations stable predict nutrient needs for next year -: little time to address problems before harvest Current Petiole Guidelines Element Bloom Veraison N (%) 1.60 - 2.50 0.90 - 1.3 Values tabulated by P (%) 0.16 - 0.60 0.13 - 0.40 Rosen and Domoto K (%) 1.50 - 4.00 1.50 - 2.50 S (%) no data no data Ranges based on Ca (%) 0.40 - 1.50 1.20 - 1.80 data from V. vinifera Mg (%) 0.20 - 0.40 0.26 - 0.45 and V. labrusca Zn (ppm) 20 - 100 20 - 40 Fe (ppm) 40 - 180 30 - 100 Western and Eastern Mn (ppm) 20 - 150 30 - 150 U.S. research Cu (ppm) 5 - 10 5 -15 B (ppm) 25 – 50 25 - 50 Overall Objectives . Establish/fine-tune nutrient diagnostic criteria and interpretations for recently released cold hardy grape cultivars . Determine relationships between soil characteristics and tissue nutrient levels (petiole, blade, whole leaf) and juice quality 14-16 Study Sites, 3 Years Used in 1 – 2 seasons Used in all 3 seasons Approach Four-year-old vines (or older) of Marquette, La Crescent, and Frontenac grape cultivars selected in 2012 3 replicates/cultivar per vineyard Original plan - 144 samples/cultivar over 3 years Soil samples for 0-8” and 8-16” depths collected in the springs of 2012 and 2015 Characterize physical and chemical properties Leaf blade and petiole samples collected in 2012, 2013, and 2015 at: Full bloom Midsummer (~ 30 days later) Veraison Approach . Full bloom Petioles and leaves opposite the bottom flower cluster Approach Midsummer (~ 30 days post-bloom) and veraison Petioles and leaves from the most recently matured leaf 5th to 7th leaf from the terminal 6 7 5 Approach Soil and tissue samples were sent to a commercial lab for analysis using standard protocols At harvest, grape yields were measured or estimated Grape samples were collected for juice quality analysis: Brix, pH, titratable acidity, YAN Approach – Data Used for Developing Nutrient Diagnostic Criteria Data from vines that had adequate yields (range ~ 4 – 39 lbs/vine); Eliminated highest and lowest nutrient concentration value in each cultivar Vines were also excluded if: Vines recovering from frost damage No yield per vine data