DOCSLIB.ORG

Crop Profile for Grape in Canada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Crop Profile for Grape in Canada Crop Profile for Grape in Canada Prepared by: Pesticide Risk Reduction Program Pest Management Centre Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada August 2006 1 Crop Profile for Grape in Canada Pest Management Centre Pesticide Risk Reduction Program Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 960 Carling Avenue, Building 57 Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6 CANADA This profile is based on a report prepared on contract ( 01B68-3-0041) by: Gerry Walker Wine and Agricultural Consultant 59 Huntington Lane St.Catherines,Ontario L2S 3R5 CANADA The authors recognize the efforts of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, provincial pest management representatives, industry specialists and growers in the gathering of information that was required, and the review and validation of the content of this publication. Product trade names may be included and are meant as an aid for the reader, to facilitate the identification of products in general use. The use of these trade names does not imply endorsement of a particular product by the authors or any of the organizations represented in this publication. Information on pesticides and pest control techniques are provided for information purposes only. No endorsement of any of the pesticides or pest control techniques discussed is implied. Information contained in this publication is not intended to be used by growers as a production guide. Provincial publications should be consulted by growers for this information. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information in this publication is complete and accurate. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada does not assume liability for errors, omissions, or representations, expressed or implied, contained in any written or oral communication associated with this publication. Errors brought to the attention of the authors will be corrected in subsequent updates. Information for many of the tables in this crop profile is incomplete. It has been collected and will be published in an updated version of the crop profile on this website in the near future. 2 Table of Contents General Production Information ..................................................................................................... 5 Production Regions......................................................................................................................... 5 Cultural Practices............................................................................................................................ 6 Production Issues ............................................................................................................................ 7 Abiotic Factors Limiting Production......................................................................................... 11 Key Issues.................................................................................................................................. 11 Growing Season ..................................................................................................................... 11 Hours of Sunshine .................................................................................................................. 11 Water Limitations and Excesses ............................................................................................ 11 Extreme Winter Temperatures ............................................................................................... 11 Diseases ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Key Issues.................................................................................................................................. 12 Major Diseases .......................................................................................................................... 14 Powdery Mildew (Uncinula necator) .................................................................................... 14 Botrytis Bunch Rot (Botrytis cinerea) ................................................................................... 16 Downy Mildew (Plasmopara viticola) .................................................................................. 17 Phomopsis Cane and Leaf Spot (Phomopsis viticola) ........................................................... 18 Black Rot (Guignardia bidwellii) .......................................................................................... 18 Crown Gall (Agrobacterium vitis).......................................................................................... 19 Minor Diseases .......................................................................................................................... 20 Grape Decline (Pythium ultimum).......................................................................................... 20 Eutypa Die-Back (Eutypa lata).............................................................................................. 21 Grapevine Fanleaf Virus (GFLV) .......................................................................................... 21 Arabis Mosaic Virus (ArMV) ................................................................................................ 22 Grapevine Leafroll Virus (GLRV) (strains I and III)............................................................. 22 Tomato Black Ring Virus (TBRV) ........................................................................................ 23 Tomato Ringspot Virus (TRSV) ............................................................................................ 23 Rugose Wood Complex ......................................................................................................... 24 Insects and Mites .......................................................................................................................... 31 Key Issues.................................................................................................................................. 31 Major Insects and Mites ............................................................................................................ 33 Grape Berry Moth (Endopiza viteana)................................................................................... 33 Leafhopper Complex: Potato Leafhopper (Empoasca fabae )............................................... 34 Grape Leafhopper (Erthroneura comes) and Threebanded Leafhopper (E. tricincta) .......... 35 Virginia Creeper Leafhopper (Erythroneura ziczaz) and Western Grape Leafhopper (Erythroneura elegantula)...................................................................................................... 36 Multicoloured Asian Lady Beetle (MALB) (Harmonia axyridis)........................................ 37 Minor Insects and Mites ............................................................................................................ 38 Nematodes.............................................................................................................................. 38 Grape Phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae)........................................................................ 39 European Red Mite (Panonychus ulmi ), Two-Spotted Spider Mite (Tetranychus urticae) and Grape Erineum Mite (Colomerus vitis).................................................................................. 40 McDaniel Spider Mite (Tetranychus mcdanieli).................................................................... 41 Grape Cane Gallmaker (Ampeloglypter sesostris)................................................................. 41 Grape Cane Girdler (Ampeloglypter ater).............................................................................. 42 Grape Flea Beetle (Altica chalybea) ...................................................................................... 42 Grape Tumid Gallmaker (Janetiella brevicauda) .................................................................. 43 3 Click Beetle or Wireworm (Coleoptera: Elateridae)............................................................. 43 Climbing Cutworms (Peridroma saucia and Xestia c-nigrum) ............................................. 44 Western Flower Thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis).............................................................. 45 Lecanium Scale (Lecanium coryli)......................................................................................... 45 Snailcase Bagworm (Apterona crenulella) ............................................................................ 46 Weeds............................................................................................................................................ 54 Key Issues.................................................................................................................................. 54 Major Weeds.............................................................................................................................. 56 Annual Grass and Broadleaf Weeds....................................................................................... 56 Biennial Weeds ...................................................................................................................... 56 Perennial Grass (Quack Grass) and Perennial Broadleaf (Thistle, Dandelion, Poison Ivy, Plantain, Milkweed, Creeping Charlie, Wild Grape, Bindweed, Vetch, Perennial Nightshade) ................................................................................................................................................ 56 Weed Pest Management........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In Mississippi
    Biodiversity of Bariditae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Conoderinae) in Mississippi By TITLE PAGE Ryan J. Whitehouse Approved by: Richard L. Brown (Major Professor) Robert S. Anderson Gerald T. Baker Kenneth Willeford (Graduate Coordinator) George M. Hopper (Dean, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences) A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Mississippi State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Agricultural Life Sciences in the Department of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology, Entomology & Plant Pathology Mississippi State, Mississippi May 2020 Copyright by COPYRIGHT PAGE Ryan J. Whitehouse 2020 Name: Ryan J. Whitehouse ABSTRACT Date of Degree: May 1, 2020 Institution: Mississippi State University Major Field: Agricultural Life Sciences Major Professor: Richard L. Brown Title of Study: Biodiversity of Bariditae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Conoderinae) in Mississippi Pages in Study: 262 Candidate for Degree of Master of Science A survey of Bariditae in Mississippi resulted in records of 75 species in 32 genera and included two undescribed species and 36 new state records. An additional two species were recognized as possibly occurring in Mississippi as well. Diagnoses for all of the genera and species in the state are provided and keys to the genera as well as all of the species were made. Species were found in every county within Mississippi and are representative of the Bariditae fauna of the southeastern United States. Open, prairie-like habitats and aquatic wetland habitats were the habitats with the highest biodiversity of Bariditae in the state. Species of Baris, Geraeus, Linogeraeus, and Odontocorynus, were found in the highest numbers and Linogeraeus and Sibariops were found to be the most speciose genera in the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Large-Scale Experimental Landscapes Reveal Distinctive Effects of Patch Shape and Connectivity on Arthropod Communities
    Landscape Ecol (2011) 26:1361–1372 DOI 10.1007/s10980-011-9656-5 RESEARCH ARTICLE Large-scale experimental landscapes reveal distinctive effects of patch shape and connectivity on arthropod communities John L. Orrock • Gregory R. Curler • Brent J. Danielson • David R. Coyle Received: 26 October 2010 / Accepted: 2 September 2011 / Published online: 14 September 2011 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 Abstract The size, shape, and isolation of habitat nectivity (via habitat corridors) independently of area patches can affect organism behavior and population and edge effects. We found that patch shape, rather dynamics, but little is known about the relative role of than connectivity, affected ground-dwelling arthropod shape and connectivity in affecting ecological com- richness and beta diversity (i.e. turnover of genera munities at large spatial scales. Using six sampling among patches). Arthropod communities contained sessions from July 2001 until August 2002, we fewer genera and exhibited less turnover in high-edge collected 33,685 arthropods throughout seven 12-ha connected and high-edge unconnected patches relative experimental landscapes consisting of clear-cut to low-edge unconnected patches of similar area. patches surrounded by a matrix of mature pine forest. Connectivity, rather than patch shape, affected the Patches were explicitly designed to manipulate con- evenness of ground-dwelling arthropod communities; regardless of patch shape, high-edge connected patches had lower evenness than low- or high-edge unconnected patches. Among the most abundant arthropod orders, increased richness in low-edge unconnected patches was largely due to increased Electronic supplementary material The online version of richness of Coleoptera, whereas Hymenoptera played this article (doi:10.1007/s10980-011-9656-5) contains an important role in the lower evenness in connected supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
    [Show full text]
  • Weevils) of the George Washington Memorial Parkway, Virginia
    September 2020 The Maryland Entomologist Volume 7, Number 4 The Maryland Entomologist 7(4):43–62 The Curculionoidea (Weevils) of the George Washington Memorial Parkway, Virginia Brent W. Steury1*, Robert S. Anderson2, and Arthur V. Evans3 1U.S. National Park Service, 700 George Washington Memorial Parkway, Turkey Run Park Headquarters, McLean, Virginia 22101; [email protected] *Corresponding author 2The Beaty Centre for Species Discovery, Research and Collection Division, Canadian Museum of Nature, PO Box 3443, Station D, Ottawa, ON. K1P 6P4, CANADA;[email protected] 3Department of Recent Invertebrates, Virginia Museum of Natural History, 21 Starling Avenue, Martinsville, Virginia 24112; [email protected] ABSTRACT: One-hundred thirty-five taxa (130 identified to species), in at least 97 genera, of weevils (superfamily Curculionoidea) were documented during a 21-year field survey (1998–2018) of the George Washington Memorial Parkway national park site that spans parts of Fairfax and Arlington Counties in Virginia. Twenty-three species documented from the parkway are first records for the state. Of the nine capture methods used during the survey, Malaise traps were the most successful. Periods of adult activity, based on dates of capture, are given for each species. Relative abundance is noted for each species based on the number of captures. Sixteen species adventive to North America are documented from the parkway, including three species documented for the first time in the state. Range extensions are documented for two species. Images of five species new to Virginia are provided. Keywords: beetles, biodiversity, Malaise traps, national parks, new state records, Potomac Gorge. INTRODUCTION This study provides a preliminary list of the weevils of the superfamily Curculionoidea within the George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP) national park site in northern Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • MUSEU PARAENSE EMÍLIO GOELDI UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO PARÁ PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM ZOOLOGIA Revisão Taxonômica Dos Go
    i MUSEU PARAENSE EMÍLIO GOELDI UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DO PARÁ PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM ZOOLOGIA Revisão taxonômica dos gorgulhos do gênero Bondariella Hustache & Bondar, 1942 (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Baridinae), com notas sobre sua associação com palmeiras. MARIANO BRANDÃO CORDEIRO JUNIOR Belém 2012 ii MARIANO BRANDÃO CORDEIRO JUNIOR Revisão taxonômica dos gorgulhos do gênero Bondariella Hustache & Bondar, 1942 (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Baridinae), com notas sobre sua associação com palmeiras. Dissertação apresentada ao Programa de Pós- Graduação em Zoologia da Universidade Federal do Pará/Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi, para a obtenção do título de Mestre. Orientadores: Dra. Maria Cristina Espósito Dra. Roberta de Melo Valente Belém 2012 iii MARIANO BRANDÃO CORDEIRO JUNIOR Revisão taxonômica dos gorgulhos do gênero Bondariella Hustache & Bondar, 1942 (Coleoptera, Curculionidae, Baridinae), com notas sobre sua associação com palmeiras. ______________________________________________________________________ Dra. Maria Cristina Espósito (Orientadora) ______________________________________________________________________ Dra. Roberta de Melo Valente (Co-Orientadora) ______________________________________________________________________ Dr. Sérgio Antônio Vanin ______________________________________________________________________ Dr. José Ricardo Mira Mermudes ______________________________________________________________________ Dr. José Antônio Marin Fernandes ______________________________________________________________________ Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Arthropod Management in Quebec Vineyards
    agriculture Review Sustainable Arthropod Management in Quebec Vineyards Charles Vincent 1,* and Jacques Lasnier 2 1 Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu Research and Development Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 430 Gouin Blvd., Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, QC J3B 3E6, Canada 2 Co-Lab R&D division Ag-Cord Inc., 655 Delorme, Granby, QC J2J 2H4, Canada; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-579-224-3058 Received: 14 February 2020; Accepted: 23 March 2020; Published: 27 March 2020 Abstract: In Quebec (Canada), viticulture is practiced at the fringe of what is known as a cool climate area. Quebec has a very recent history of viticultural entomology as the first artisanal permit for wine making was issued by the Quebec Government in 1985, and the first formal research project about arthropods associated with vineyards was initiated in 1997. The Quebec viticultural industry has consistently developed over ca. 35 years and, given the prospects of global warming, warmer abiotic conditions will allow to cultivate cultivars of better oenological value. Meanwhile, some invasive species that recently arrived in Quebec are causing concerns because they are threatening the sustainability of pest management programs. In this article, we will review of the evolution of entomological research in Quebec vineyards. We will then treat technology transfer activities that allowed to translate research results into protection programs. Finally, we will discuss new and coming entomological problems that are challenging the sustainability of pest management programs in Quebec vineyards. Keywords: viticulture; arthropod management; insects; sustainability; invasive species; climate change; biocontrol; vegetation management; flower strips; biodiversity 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Grape Cane Gallmaker Node
    http://hdl.handle.net/1813/43098 Grape IPM 1984 THE EGGS Insect Identification Sheet No. 2 The female hollows out a small cavity just above a grape cane gallmaker node. After placing a single egg into the cavity she fills it with frass. Then she proceeds to hollow out from 8 to Ampeloglypter sesostris (LeConte) 14 additional cavities in a straight line up the cane (Fig. 2). Only the first hole contains an egg.lt is a yellowish­ white color, oval in shape, and 0.6 mm lonQ. The eQQ hatches after 7 to 10 days. INTRODUCTION THE LARVAE The grape cane gall maker is one oftwoAmpeloglyp­ ter species which can damage new shoot growth in the The cane swells in the area of the oviposition injury spring. This small snout beetle is apparently present (Fig. 4). The young larva feeds on tissue surrounding throughout eastern and midwestern North America the egg cavity. Later it feeds along the center of the and has caused considerable injury in some areas dur­ shoot in the pith above or below the gall (Fig. 5). The ing recent years. It has only one generation per year. mature larva is 10 mm long, legless, is a yellowish­ white color, and has a light-brown head with dark THE ADULTS mouth parts. The reddish-brown adults are small, 3 mm long THE PUPAE weevils with a distinctive curved snout (Fig. 1). Except for their color they look similar to the shiny-black The larva pupates within the gall (Fig. 6). The pupa, adults of the grape cane girdler, Ampeloglypter ater which resembles the adult beetle with legs and snout LeConte.
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated Checklist of the Weevils (Curculionidae Sensu Lato ) of North America, Central America, and the West Indies (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea)
    Annotated checklist of the weevils (Curculionidae sensu lato ) of North America, Central America, and the West Indies (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea) Charles W. O'Brien and Guillermo J. Wibmer INTRODUCTION This checklist treats the names of the 843 genera and 7,068 species (as well as their synonyms) currently recognized as valid that are found in the New World north of South America (except for those from Trinidad and Tobago which will be considered in a subsequent publication on South American Curculionidae sensu lato). The idea for a weevil checklist originated with Ross Arnett, Jr. as part of the North American Beetle Fauna Project. When this project was terminated in 1980, we decided to expand the scope of the checklist and publish it in an annotated form. While it owes its origin to the NABFP it is published independently of that organization. The checklists of the weevils of North America (Leng 1920, Leng and Mutchler 1927 and 1933, Blackwelder 1939, and Blackwelder and Blackwelder 1948), and of Mexico, Central America, the West Indies and South America (Blackwelder 1947) have become increasingly outdated because of numerous revisions and descriptions of new taxa. In this list we have added many new distribution records as well. We have attempted to follow the current classifications of most specialists, as published. For this reason the classification used here is not identical with that of the Coleopterorum Catalogus, the two checklists mentioned above, nor that used by Kissinger (1964). We have tried to verify all citations by checking original references and those "Not seen" are so marked in the bibliography.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the RESTRUCTURING of ARTHROPOD TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS in RESPONSE to PLANT INVASION by Adam B. Mitchell a Dissertation Submitt
    THE RESTRUCTURING OF ARTHROPOD TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS IN RESPONSE TO PLANT INVASION by Adam B. Mitchell 1 A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the University of Delaware in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Entomology and Wildlife Ecology Winter 2019 © Adam B. Mitchell All Rights Reserved THE RESTRUCTURING OF ARTHROPOD TROPHIC RELATIONSHIPS IN RESPONSE TO PLANT INVASION by Adam B. Mitchell Approved: ______________________________________________________ Jacob L. Bowman, Ph.D. Chair of the Department of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology Approved: ______________________________________________________ Mark W. Rieger, Ph.D. Dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Approved: ______________________________________________________ Douglas J. Doren, Ph.D. Interim Vice Provost for Graduate and Professional Education I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: ______________________________________________________ Douglas W. Tallamy, Ph.D. Professor in charge of dissertation I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: ______________________________________________________ Charles R. Bartlett, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Signed: ______________________________________________________ Jeffery J. Buler, Ph.D. Member of dissertation committee I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic and professional standard required by the University as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Vineyard Establishment for the Connecticut Homeowner
    The Connecticut Vineyard Agricultural Establishment for Experiment the Connecticut Station, Homeowner JOAN L. BRAVO, MS New Haven Department of Forestry and Horticulture Bulletin 1055 May 2019 Vineyard Establishment for the Connecticut Homeowner Vineyard Establishment for the Connecticut Homeowner JOAN L. BRAVO, MS Department of Forestry and Horticulture Abstract Proper planning is critical for establishing a healthy, successful vineyard. The steps include: Site selection, cultivar selection and planting, trellising and training, growth and maintenance, disease and insect scouting, and harvest. Site Selection Successfully growing grapes begins with proper site selection and preparation. Determine if your property has the requirements for grapes because it typically takes three years before a harvestable crop can be obtained. Changing to a new location is time consuming and costly once vines are planted and trellising is installed. Zones 6a and b are a safe bet in the majority of Connecticut. Before you select any plant material, determine your hardiness zone using the USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map 2012 shown at left. Sun Exposure and Elevation Grapes prefer full sun exposure for optimal growth and maturity. Vineyards should receive direct sunlight for at least three to four hours a day. In Connecticut (zones 5b-7a), a north/south row orientation would allow for optimum sun exposure. East facing slopes are optimal because the early morning sunshine results in more rapid drying of dew or rain off foliage and fruit (Gladstones 1992). This can reduce disease problems (Rombough 2002). Eastern slopes are more sheltered from the afternoon sun which helps to retain volatile aromatic compounds in fruit and is necessary for converting the carbohydrates in the grapes to sugars.
    [Show full text]
  • Arthropod Management in Vineyards
    Arthropod Management in Vineyards Noubar J. Bostanian • Charles Vincent Rufus Isaacs Editors Arthropod Management in Vineyards: Pests, Approaches, and Future Directions Editors Dr. Noubar J. Bostanian Dr. Charles Vincent Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Horticultural Research and Horticultural Research and Development Center Development Center 430 Gouin Blvd. 430 Gouin Blvd. Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, QC, Canada Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, QC, Canada Dr. Rufus Isaacs Department of Entomology Michigan State University East Lansing, MI, USA ISBN 978-94-007-4031-0 ISBN 978-94-007-4032-7 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4032-7 Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London Library of Congress Control Number: 2012939840 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifi cally for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.
    [Show full text]
  • The Grapecane Gall-Maker and the Grapecane Girdler Fred E
    West Virginia Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources Station Bulletins And Design 1-1-1909 The Grapecane Gall-Maker and the Grapecane Girdler Fred E. Brooks Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/ wv_agricultural_and_forestry_experiment_station_bulletins Digital Commons Citation Brooks, Fred E., "The Grapecane Gall-Maker and the Grapecane Girdler" (1909). West Virginia Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Bulletins. 119. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wv_agricultural_and_forestry_experiment_station_bulletins/119 This Bulletin is brought to you for free and open access by the Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources And Design at The Research Repository @ WVU. It has been accepted for inclusion in West Virginia Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Bulletins by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION MORGANTOWN, W. VA. Bulletin 119. January, 1909. The Grapecane Gall-Maker and the Grapecane Girdler. By FRED E. BROOKS. [The Bulletins and Reports of this Station will be mailed free to anj citizen of West Virginia upon written application. Address Director of Agricultural Experlpient Station, Morgantown, W. Va.l . REGENTS OF THE WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY Name of Regent P. O. Address Hon. C. M. Babe Falls, W. Va. Parkersburg, Va. Hon. J. B. Finluy W. Hon. D. C. GaIvIvAhdr Charleston, W. Va. Hon. E. M. Grant Morgantown, W. Va. Hon. C. E. Haworth Huntington, W. Va. Hon. C. p. McNell Wheeling, W. Va. Hon. L. J. WiLUAMS Lewisburg, W. Va Hon. T. p. Jacobs New Martinsville, W. Va. Hon. J. R. Trotter Buckhannon, W.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Plant Disease Diagnostic Laboratory Report
    Plant Disease Diagnostic Laboratory Summary 2017 by: J.W. Beale, C.A. Bradley, N.A. Ward Gauthier, B.S. Kennedy, S.J. Long, E.E. Pfeufer, P. Vincelli and K.A. Wise TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3 NATURE OF WORK ....................................................................................................................... 4 WEATHER SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................ 5 EXPLANATORY REMARKS ........................................................................................................ 5 SUMMARY TABLES Table 1. Summary of diagnoses by crop category and causal agent type ................................................. 6 Table 2. Summary of biotic problems by crop category ........................................................................... 7 Table 3. Number of routine plant samples and diagnoses by crop category ............................................ 8 Table 4. Summary of routine samples received by grower type and crop category ................................. 9 Table 5. Number of routine samples referred to other departments, UK laboratory facilities or outside agencies for diagnosis or consultation. ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]