Eucalypt Plantation Pests & Diseases
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This document has been scanned from hard-copy archives for research and study purposes. Please note not all information may be current. We have tried, in preparing this copy, to make the content accessible to the widest possible audience but in some cases we recognise that the automatic text recognition maybe inadequate and we apologise in advance for any inconvenience this may cause. EUCALYPT PLANTATION ! '-. PESTS AND DISEASES - CROP LOSS STUDY By Jack Simpson Christine Stone and Robert Eldridge S TAT E FORESTS EUCALYPT PLANTATION PESTS AND DISEASES - CROP Loss STUDY by JACK SIMPSON CHRISTINE STONE ROBERT ELDRIDGE FOREST RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION STATE FORESTS OF NEW SOUTH WALES SYDNEY 1997 Research Paper No. 35 December, 1997 The Authors: Jack Simpson, Forest Pathologist, Plantation Technology, Forest and Wood Products, Forest Research and Development Division, State Forests of New South Wales Christine Stone, Research Scientist-Forest Entomology, Plantation Technology, Forest and Wood Products, Forest Research and Development Division, State Forests of New South Wales Robert Eldridge, Program Manager, Plantation Technology, Fprest and Wood Products, Forest Research and Development Division, State Forests of New South Wales. Published by: Forest Research and Development Division, State Forests of New South Wales, 121-131 Oratava Avenue, West Pennant Hills, 2125 p.a. Box 100, Beecroft. 2119 Australia. Copyright © 1997 by State Forests of~ew South Wales DDC 634.9609944/SIM, ISSN 1324-3829 ISBN 07310 91051 CONTENTS SUMMARY Hi INTRODUCI'ION 1 MATERIALS AND METHODS 2 1. SITE DESCRIPTIONS 2 2. SITE PREPARATION AND PLANTINGS 3 3. PLANT MATERIAL 4 4. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 4 5. TREATMENTS 5 6. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT 5 7. DATA ANALYSES 6 RESULTS 7 1. RAINFALL 7 2. COMPARISONS OF SPECIES AND PROVENANCES 7 (a) Tree growth 7 (b) Disease and insect damage 10 3. IDENTIFICATION OF FUNGI AND INSECI'S 13 (a) Insects 13 (b) Fungi 14 4. RESPONSE TO CHEMICAL TREATMENTS 14 (a) General comparisons 14 (b) Seasonality offungal and insect damage scores 17 (c) Specific response to chemical treatments 24 DISCUSSION 25 1. SYMPHYOMYRTUS VERSUS MONOCALYPTUS 27 2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PEST AND DISEASE STUDIES 28 IN NORTHERN NEW SOUTH WALES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 30 REFERENCES 31 TABLES Table 1. Summary description of pest and disease eucalypt trial sites 3 . Table 2. Symphyomyrtus species/provenance rankings according to mean tree 8 height (m), 27 months after planting, at three sites (pooling treatments) Table 3. Monocalyptus and Corymbia species/provenance rankings according to mean 9 tree height (m), 27 months after planting, at three sites (pooling treatments) Table 4. Summation of fungal and insect foliar damage scores (pooling treatments) for 11 Symphyomyrtus species/provenances at three sites, assessed in December and June STA TB FORESTS OF NEW SOUTII WALES EUCALYPT PLANTATION PESTS AND DISEASES - RESEARCH PAPER NO. 35 CROP LOSS STUDY F Table 5. Summation of fungal and insect foliar damage scores (POOling treatments) for 12 Monocalyptus and Corymbia species/provenances at three sites, assessed in December and June . Table 6A. Summary of the chemical treatment effects on tree growth and relative foliar 16 damage scores for the Symphyomyrtus species from each site, assessee in June, 27 monthS after planting Table 6B. Summary of the chemical treatment effects on tree growth and relative 16 foliar damage scores for the Monocalyptus species from each site, assessed in June, 27 months after planting Table 6C. Summary of the chemical treatment effects on tree growth and relative foliar 17 damage scores for the Corymbia species from each site, assessed in June, 27 months after planting FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the three trial sites used in the eucalypt plantation pest and disease 2 crop loss study Figure 2A. Fungal damage scores - Symphyomyrtus 18 Figure 2B. Fungal damage scores - Monocalyptus 19 Figure 2C. Fungal damage scores - Coryinbia 20 Figure 2D. Insect damage scores - Symphyomyrtus 21 Figure 2E. Insect damage scores - Monocalyptus 22 Figure 2F. Insect damage scores - Corymbia 23 Figure 3. Summary of some of the interactions prevailing in eucalypt plantations that 26 influence species/provenance selection (in red) and possible research options (in blue) APPENDICES Appendix 1. Selected species/provenances and their origin 34 Appendix 2. Eucalypt plantation trials - pest and disease monitoring sheet 37 Appendix 3. Disease and insect damage assessment codes associated with monitoring sheets 39 Appendix 4. List of potential insect pests sampled from each of the three trial sites 41 Appendix 5. List of potential fungal pathogens sampled from each of the three trial sites 44 EUCALYPT PLANT AnoN PESTS AND DISEASES - STATE FORESTS OF NEW SOUTH WALES ii CROP LOSS STIJDY RESEARCH PAPER NO. 35 SUMMARY 1. In 1993 the Biology Section at the Research Division initiated a research program in northern New South Wales designed principally to compare tree growth losses due to infectious diseases and insect pest attack on a range of eucalypt species and provenances during the plantation establishment phase. Plantations were established at three sites, namely Fridays Creek and Kennaicle Creek near Coffs Harbour and Cussacks Section near Walcha .and were regularly monitored for a period of27 months. The experiment involved regular application of fungicide and insecticide treatments to replicated plots. 2. Numerous fungal pathogens (eg Aulographina eucalypti, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, Hainesia lythrii, Harknessia spp., Macrophomina phaseolina, Mycosphaerella cryptica, Phomopsis sp., Pestalosphaeria sp., Ramularia pitareka, Seimatosporium!alcatum) and insect pest species, including Christmas beetles, chrysomelids, psyllids, autumn gum moth larvae and tip-feeding stink bugs, were sampled from the sites during this study. All these species are capable of causing considerable defoliation of young eucalypt plantations. It was not until the second summer, however, that trees were significantly attacked and many of the biological agents sampled ceased to be a problem after canopy closure (eg Christmas beetles). In general, trees on the ex-forested site at Fridays Creek, on average, grew faster than the trees at the Kennaicle Creek (ex-pasture) site and at Cussacks Section (Tablelands) site, and hence were exposed to these damaging pests and diseases for a shorter period of time. 3. At each site there was significant variation between species within the Symphyomyrtus ,Monocalyptus and Corymbia groupings in their susceptibility to damage from these biological agents. This variable specific response, in turn, was reflected in the relative benefits, in terms of height increment gained, from the chemical treatments. 4. Our results confirm that, in general, the Monocalyptus species suffered less leaf damage from insects and fungal diseases than the Symphyomyrtus. At27 months of age both the mean heights and diameters of untreated monocalypts exceeded that of the untreated Symphyomyrtus. However, when insecticide and fungicide treatments were applied, the average growth of the Symphyomyrtus species were equal to or, in some cases, better than the Monocalyptus species. At Kennaicle Creek, the Symphyomyrtus trees treated with insecticides were, on average, 25% taller than the control trees of the same species. 5. A phenomenon that requires further investigation was the presence ofelevated fungal damage on some of the insecticide-treated trees compared to the untreated controls. It occurred for several months at all three sites during both hot and colder times of the year and more commonly during periods of high levels offungal damage. Itwas more often associated with species ofSymphyomyrtusthanMonocalyptus or Corymbia. This phenomenon was not repeated when a fungicide was applied with the insecticide. It highlights the need to monitor both insect and fungal damage and, in future field trials, the need for water controls when applying foliar insecticide treatments. 6. The major insect pest problem in the study arose from the high levels of Christmas beetles present on the ex-pastural site at Kennaicle Creek. The eucalypt species most susceptible to attack from Christmas beetle were C. maculata, Eucalyptus amplifolia, E. botryoides, E. dunnii and E. grandis. The species which appeared most resistant to Christmas beetle attack were E. badjensis, E. cloeziana, E. agglomerata and E. g/oboidea. Hence the possibility of attempting to hybridize E. grandis with E. badjensis or E. pilularis with E. cloeziana may be worthy of consideration. STA TB FORESTS OF NEW SOUTII WALES EUCALYPT PLANTATION PESTS AND DISEASES - RESEARCH PAPER NO. 35 CROP LOSS STUDY iii - 7. The significant fungal pathogens varied between locations. All species of Corymbia were infected with Ramularia pitareka which caused dieback of leaders and shoots and a proliferation of apical branches. The pathogen was not recorded from any species of Eucalyptus. If plantations of species of Corymbia are to be commercially successful methods of managing this pathogen will be needed. Species of Monocalyptus at Cussacks were commonly infected with Aulographina eucalypti which caused premature leaf fall. This pathogen may be important in the long tem,: management of plantations of monocalypts on Tablelands sites. Mycosphaerella cryptica was recOrded from species of Symphyomyrtus (including E. globulus, E. nitens, E. sa/igna) at Cussacks but damage was not severe. The root rotpathogenMacrophomina phaseolina was present