DOCSLIB.ORG

35 Years of the SAAGA Yearbook: a Review1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
35 Years of the SAAGA Yearbook: a Review1 35 Years of the SAAGA Yearbook: A Review1 Rob Blakey2 Nigel Wolstenholme3 Foreword This review includes the SAAGA Yearbooks from 1977 to 2012 – 35 yearbooks in total (there was no volume in 1980). The annual SAAGA Research Symposium is held in the first quarter of the year for the presentation of the preceding year’s research results. The objectives of this review were: (i) to consolidate and summarise the more important information in the yearbooks for the benefit of researchers and growers, and (ii) to translate the articles written in Afrikaans into English to make this information available to a wider audience. Multi-year projects have been combined. Many research projects are multi- or cross-disciplinary, necessitating cross-referencing. We recommend that you use the search function in an electronic copy of the review if you are searching for a specific topic. This manuscript does not report on or imply current best practice. Similarly, South African research published in journals, booklets, bulletins or newsletters other than the SAAGA Yearbook is not included. For a broader overview of international avocado research and production, please refer to the second edition of “The Avocado: Botany, Production and Uses” by Schaffer et al. (2013). The original SAAGA Yearbook articles are available online at www.avocadosource.com courtesy of the Hofshi Foundation. 1 This review was published in 2014 2 Westfalia Technological Services, [email protected] 3 University of KwaZulu-Natal, [email protected] 1 Table of Contents Foreword ......................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 6 The Golden Avocado ...................................................................................................... 11 1. International Production.......................................................................................... 12 1.1. Australia ..................................................................................................................... 12 1.2. Brazil .......................................................................................................................... 12 1.3. Israel........................................................................................................................... 12 1.4. Mexico ........................................................................................................................ 12 1.5. New Zealand ............................................................................................................... 12 1.6. Spain .......................................................................................................................... 13 1.7. United States .............................................................................................................. 13 2. Orchard Management.............................................................................................. 14 2.1. Soil ............................................................................................................................. 14 2.2. Site Selection & Preparation ........................................................................................ 15 2.3. Orchard Floor Management......................................................................................... 16 2.4. Irrigation ..................................................................................................................... 18 2.5. Nutrition & Fertilisation .............................................................................................. 20 2.5.1. Nutrient deficiencies ..................................................................................................... 20 2.5.2. Micro-nutrients ............................................................................................................. 21 2.5.3. Macro-nutrients ............................................................................................................ 23 2.5.4. Liming ............................................................................................................................ 23 2.5.5. Leaf sampling ................................................................................................................ 24 2.6. Growth Control ........................................................................................................... 25 2.6.1. Pruning .......................................................................................................................... 26 2.6.2. Phloem disruption ......................................................................................................... 27 2.6.3. Chemical growth control ............................................................................................... 28 2.6.4. Fruit size manipulation .................................................................................................. 29 2.7. Yield Estimation .......................................................................................................... 30 2 3. Pathology ................................................................................................................ 31 3.1. Tree Pathology ............................................................................................................ 31 3.1.1. Phytophthora root rot ................................................................................................... 31 3.1.2. Trunk cankers ................................................................................................................ 42 3.1.3. Avocado sunblotch viroid (ASBVd) ................................................................................ 42 3.1.4. Viruses ........................................................................................................................... 44 3.1.5. Avocado black streak .................................................................................................... 45 3.2. Flower Pathology ........................................................................................................ 45 3.3. Fruit Pathology ............................................................................................................ 45 3.3.1. Pre-harvest pathology ................................................................................................... 45 3.3.2. Post-harvest pathology ................................................................................................. 50 3.3.3. Biocontrol ...................................................................................................................... 53 3.3.4. Application machinery .................................................................................................. 56 4. Genetic Resources ................................................................................................... 57 4.1. ARC Breeding Programme ........................................................................................... 57 4.1.1. Scion cultivars ............................................................................................................... 57 4.1.2. Rootstock cultivars ........................................................................................................ 58 4.2. Rootstock Selection ..................................................................................................... 59 4.3. Scion Selection ............................................................................................................ 63 5. Anatomy & Physiology ............................................................................................. 66 5.1. Flowering .................................................................................................................... 67 5.2. Phenology ................................................................................................................... 69 5.3. Tree Physiology ........................................................................................................... 70 5.4. Plant Hormones .......................................................................................................... 73 5.5. Hass Small Fruit Phenotype ......................................................................................... 74 5.6. Pinkerton Problem ...................................................................................................... 75 6. Post-harvest ............................................................................................................ 78 6.1. Fruit Maturity ............................................................................................................. 78 6.1.1. Maturity methods ......................................................................................................... 78 6.1.2. Maturity standards ....................................................................................................... 80 6.1.3. Near-infrared spectroscopy .......................................................................................... 83 6.2. Picking & Handling ...................................................................................................... 84 3 6.3. Cold Storage ...............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • False Codling Moth Thaumatotibia Leucotreta
    Stone Fruit Commodity-Based Pest Survey False Codling Moth Thaumatotibia leucotreta Introduction False codling moth (Figure 1) is a significant pest because of its potential economic impact on many crops, including stone fruit, avocado, citrus, corn, cotton, and macadamia. It is not currently known to be present in the United States. Biology Depending on conditions, the false codling moth’s life cycle ranges from 30 to 174 days. It can produce from 2 to 10 generations each year, depending on multiple factors including temperature, food availability and quality, and humidity. To attract males, adult females release pheromones at FIGURE 1. Adult false codling moth (Thaumatotibia leucotreta). Photo courtesy of night. After the adults mate, the female deposits eggs on Pest and Diseases Image Library, Bugwood.org. host plants, either in batches or as single eggs. Later, the hatching larvae burrow into the rind of the host plant. Mature larvae spin cocoons and pupate before they emerge as adults. Symptoms False codling moth can attack stone fruit at any stage. Larvae can even develop in hard green fruit prior to application of control measures. Larvae burrow at the stem end into the fruit and cause damage by feeding around the stone. Damaged fruit can become vulnerable to secondary pests such as fungal organisms and scavengers. Peaches can be damaged by larvae beginning up to 6 weeks before harvest. False codling moth can also attack plants unsuitable for larvae development, such as avocado, causing lesions on fruit tissue and diminishing the marketability of fruit. Because false codling moth is an internal feeder, few symptoms are actually displayed by the larvae.
    [Show full text]
  • Insects and Molluscs, According to the Procedures Outlined Below
    Bush Blitz – ACT Expedition 26 Nov – 6 Dec 2018 ACT Expedition Bush Blitz Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, Orthoptera, Terrestrial molluscs 26 Nov – 6 Dec 2018 Submitted: 5 April 2019 Debbie Jennings and Olivia Evangelista Nomenclature and taxonomy used in this report is consistent with: The Australian Faunal Directory (AFD) http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/home Page 1 of 43 Bush Blitz – ACT Expedition 26 Nov – 6 Dec 2018 Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................. 2 List of contributors ................................................................................................................... 3 Abstract ................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 4 2. Methods .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Site selection ............................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Survey techniques ..................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Methods used at standard survey sites ................................................................... 7 2.3 Identifying
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Responses and Control of California Red Scale Aonidiella Aurantii (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae)
    Biological responses and control of California red scale Aonidiella aurantii (Maskell) (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) by Khalid Omairy Mohammed Submitted to Murdoch University in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education Murdoch University Perth, Western Australia March 2020 Declaration The work described in this thesis was undertaken while I was an enrolled student for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Murdoch University, Western Australia. I declare that this thesis is my own account of my research and contains as its main content work which has not previously been submitted for a degree at any tertiary education institution. To the best of my knowledge, all work performed by others, published or unpublished, has been duly acknowledged. Khalid O. Mohammed Date: March 10, 2020 I Acknowledgements بِ ْس ِمِِاللَّ ِـه َِّالر ْح َم ٰـ ِن َِّالر ِح ِيمِ ُ َويَ ْسأَلُ َونَك َِع ِن ُِّالروحِِِۖقُ ِل ُِّالر ُوح ِِم ْنِأَ ْم ِر َِر ِب َيِو َماِأ ِوتيتُ ْم ِِم َن ِْال ِع ْل ِمِإِ ََّّل َِق ِل ايًلِ﴿٨٥﴾ The research for this thesis was undertaken in the School of Veterinary and Life Science, Murdoch University. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisors Professor Yonglin Ren and Dr Manjree Agarwal “Postharvest Biosecurity and Food Safety Laboratory Murdoch” for their support with enthusiasm, constructive editing, and patience throughout the years of this wonderful project. I deeply appreciate their encouragement, assistance and for being so willing to take me on as a student. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those who helped me in completing this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • False Codling Moth on Chillies Thaumatotibia Leucotreta Prevention Monitoring Direct Control
    PEST MANAGEMENT DECISION GUIDE: GREEN LIST False codling moth on chillies Thaumatotibia leucotreta Prevention Monitoring Direct Control l Use mesh or net barriers to keep the l Start monitoring when the chilli fruits start developing as the larvae only attack l Control is difficult because the moth pest out of the crop when possible the fruits has many alternative hosts so l Insect: reinfestation is likely to occur l Eggs are less than 1 mm long, oval, flattened and difficult to see. They are l Hand pick the mature larvae from the laid singly or in group on the developing fruits crop Larva T. leucotreta (Tertia l Larvae are yellowish-white when young with dark spots. The full grown larva l If available, spray a mating disruption Grové, Institute for Tropical and is about 15 mm long, bright red or pink, with a yellow-brown head. The young pheromone into the crop to stop the Subtropical Crops, larvae mine fruit just beneath the surface, or bore into the skin causing males and females from mating Bugwood.org) premature ripening of the fruit l Destroy fruits that are infested and l The pupa (5-7 mm long) is contained within a tough silken cocoon and can be have fallen to the ground to reduce seen in the soil or amongst plant debris the build-up cycle and avoid carrying over the pest to the next season. Put l Adult moths are 15-16 mm (males) and 19-20 mm (female) in length. the fruits in plastic bags and expose Forewings have grey, brown, black and orange-brown markings.
    [Show full text]
  • Thaumatotibia Leucotreta
    Thaumatotibia leucotreta Scientific Name Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick) Synonyms: Cryptophlebia leucotreta (Meyrick), Cryptophlebia roerigii Zacher Olethreutes leucotreta Meyrick Thaumatotibia roerigii Zacher Common Name(s) False codling moth, citrus codling moth, orange moth, and orange codling moth Type of Pest Moth Figure 1. Larva of Thaumatotibia leucotreta (T. Grove Taxonomic Position and W. Styn, bugwood.org). Class: Insecta, Order: Lepidoptera, Family: Tortricidae Reason for Inclusion CAPS Target: AHP Prioritized Pest List - 2003 through 2014 Pest Description Eggs: Eggs are flat, oval (0.77 mm long by 0.60 mm wide) shaped discs with a granulated surface. The eggs are white to cream colored when initially laid. They change to a reddish color before the black head capsule of the larvae becomes visible under the chorion prior to hatching (Daiber, 1979a). 1 Larvae: First instar (neonate) larvae approximately 1 to 1.2 mm (< /16 in) in length with dark pinacula giving a spotted appearance, fifth instar larvae are orangey-pink, 1 becoming more pale on sides and yellow in ventral region, 12 to 18 mm (approx. /2 to 11 /16 in) long, with a brown head capsule and prothoracic shield (Fig. 1). [Note this coloration is only present in live specimens.] The last abdominal segment bears an anal comb with two to ten “teeth.” The mean head capsule width for the first through fifth instar larvae has been recorded as: 0.22, 0.37, 0.61, 0.94 and 1.37 mm, respectively (Daiber, 1979b). Diagnostic characters would include the anal comb with two to ten teeth in addition to: L pinaculum on T1 enlarged and extending beneath and beyond (posterad of) the spiracle; spiracle on A8 displaced posterad of SD pinaculum; crochets unevenly triordinal, 36-42; L-group on A9 usually trisetose (all setae usually on same pinaulum) (Brown, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • False Codling Moth
    Fact sheet False codling moth What is the False codling moth? The False codling moth (Cryptophlebia leucotreta) is an internal fruit feeding moth that can be found throughout the year in warm climates and has been recorded as feeding on over 50 different plant species. This moth causes economic loss in a range of crops in sub-Saharan Africa. Losses during infestations can be between 20-30%. What does it look like? Adult moths are 15-16 mm (males) and 19-20 mm Citrus Research International, Bugwood.org J.H. Hofmeyr, (female) in length. Forewings have grey, brown, Eggs are oval shaped and almost 1 mm long black and orange-brown markings. A triangular marking on the outer part of the wing with a crescent shaped marking above it distinguishes the False codling moth from other species. Young larvae are yellowish-white with dark spots but bright red or pink when fully grown (15 mm), with a yellow-brown head. Pupae are contained within a tough silken cocoon amongst debris or in the soil. Female moths lay 100-400 eggs (oval, flattened and almost 1 mm in length) singly on the fruits at night. J.H. Hofmeyr, Citrus Research International, Bugwood.org J.H. Hofmeyr, What can it be confused with? False codling moth pupae False codling moth can look similar to other moths but can be distinguished by the triangular marking near the edges of the wings. What should I look for? The young larvae mine fruit just beneath the surface, or bore into the skin causing premature ripening of the fruit.
    [Show full text]
  • Revision of the Eurybrachidae (XV)
    European Journal of Taxonomy 602: 1–40 ISSN 2118-9773 https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2020.602 www.europeanjournaloftaxonomy.eu 2020 · Constant J. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). Research article urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:D11E0841-00AF-4A10-BC58-AB57828AE6F1 Revision of the Eurybrachidae (XV). The Oriental genus Purusha Distant, 1906 with two new species and a key to the genera of Eurybrachini (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha: Eurybrachidae) Jérôme CONSTANT Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, O.D. Phylogeny and Taxonomy, Entomology, Vautier street 29, 1000 Brussels, Belgium. Email: [email protected] urn:lsid:zoobank.org:author:6E6072A1-9415-4C8D-8E60-2504444DB290 Abstract. The Oriental genus of Eurybrachidae (Hemiptera, Fulgoromorpha) Purusha Distant, 1906 is reviewed and a key to the genera of Eurybrachini is given. Two new species, P. bellissima sp. nov. and P. vietnamica sp. nov. are described from Myanmar and North Vietnam, respectively. Purusha rubromaculata Distant, 1906 is proposed as a junior synonym of P. reversa (Hope, 1843). All species are illustrated, including all type specimens and the male genitalia for the fi rst time. Distribution maps, identifi cation key to species and biological data are provided. The sexual dimorphism in the genus is discussed. Five species are currently placed in Purusha. Keywords. Eurybrachinae, planthopper, Fulgoroidea, Auchenorrhyncha, sexual dimorphism. Constant J. 2020. Revision of the Eurybrachidae (XV). The Oriental genus Purusha Distant, 1906 with two new species and a key to the genera of Eurybrachini (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha: Eurybrachidae). European Journal of Taxonomy 602: 1–40. https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2020.602 Introduction The family Eurybrachidae Stål, 1862 is a small family of planthoppers (Fulgoromorpha Evans, 1946) with 41 genera and 201 species, representing only 1.7% of the genera and 1.5% of the species of Fulgoromorpha.
    [Show full text]
  • Crop Profile for Avocados in Florida
    Crop Profile for Avocados in Florida Prepared: August, 2008 Production Facts • As of 2002, the Florida avocado industry consisted of about 6,600 bearing acres, 737 growers, and 35 registered handlers/shippers. The majority of avocados (80 percent) produced in Florida are sold outside the state. Permits must be obtained for anyone wishing to sell more that 55 pounds of avocados per day. Consequently, most are sold to packinghouses from the farm (1). • In 2004-2005, Florida produced an estimated 28,000 tons of avocados. The value of the 2004-2005 crop was approximately $14.5 million or $0.26 per pound (1). • In 2004-2005, Florida was second behind California in avocado production nationally. Florida accounted for 9 percent of the production nationally, but only accounted for 5 percent of the value, owing to the fact that Florida avocados sell for less than the price (on a weight basis) garnered by California avocados (1). • Three “races” of avocado are recognized: West Indian, Guatemalan, and Mexican. These differ in blooming/maturity season, development period, fruit size, skin texture/color, oil content, and cold hardiness. West Indian and West Indian- Guatemalan hybrid cultivars predominate in Florida (2). • Avocado may be self- or cross-pollinating, and they are separated into A and B varieties based on reproductive functionality (2). Production Region Avocado (Persea americana) is grown exclusively in south Florida. Over 99 percent of Florida-grown avocado is produced in Miami-Dade County. Of the 737 farms reported in 2002, 88 percent were less than 15 acres, accounting for about a third of production, while those 50 acres and above (5 percent) accounted for approximately half of the production.
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Dryinidae (Hymenoptera) - Auchenorrhyncha (Hemiptera) Host Associations Using Phylogenetics
    IDENTIFYING DRYINIDAE (HYMENOPTERA) - AUCHENORRHYNCHA (HEMIPTERA) HOST ASSOCIATIONS USING PHYLOGENETICS BY CHRISTIAN ABEL MILLÁN-HERNÁNDEZ THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Entomology in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2018 Urbana, Illinois Master's Committee: Dr. Christopher H. Dietrich, Chair, Director of Research Professor May R. Berenbaum Professor Andrew V. Suarez ABSTRACT Dryinidae is a family of ectoparasitoid wasps with cosmopolitan distribution that exclusively preys on and parasitizes members of the suborder Auchenorrhyncha (Hemiptera). Host records of these important biocontrol agents are fragmentary because previous records have been based on tedious laboratory rearing of parasitized individuals requiring environmental control and long waiting periods, usually with limited success. Molecular phylogenetic methods provide an alternative to expand knowledge of dryinid host breadth by DNA sequencing of host attached parasitoid larvae. For this study, 142 late-stage dryinid larvae were removed from parasitized individuals of Auchenorrhyncha (Hemiptera), mostly from a wet insect collection at the Illinois Natural History Survey representing all major biogeographic regions. The 28S D2-D3 nuclear ribosomal gene region was amplified using PCR and sequenced. Attempts to sequence Cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1, Cytochrome B and 18S DNA regions were unsuccessful due to contamination with host DNA. Sequence data were combined with data from a previous phylogenetic study based on adults and a maximum likelihood tree search was performed in the IQ-Tree webserver. The best tree was used to explore the significance of natural history traits including distribution, host taxonomy and habitat, for explaining host association patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • Biomass Power Project Invertebrates Scoping Level
    Biomass Power Project Invertebrates Scoping level John Irish 21 June 2017 Biodata Consultancy cc P.O. Box 30061, Windhoek, Namibia [email protected] 2 Table of Contents 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................3 2 Approach to study..............................................................................................................3 2.1 Terms of reference..........................................................................................................3 2.2 Methodology...................................................................................................................3 2.2.1 Literature survey..........................................................................................................3 2.2.2 Site visits......................................................................................................................5 3 Limitations and Assumptions.............................................................................................5 4 Legislative context..............................................................................................................6 4.1 Applicable laws and policies...........................................................................................6 5 Results...............................................................................................................................7 5.1 Raw diversity...................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • The Biodiversity and Systematics of the Entomophagous Parasitoid Strepsiptera (Insecta)
    The Biodiversity and Systematics of the entomophagous parasitoid Strepsiptera (Insecta) Jeyaraney Kathirithamby, Department of Zoology and St Hugh’s College, Oxford. [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT Strepsiptera are small group of entomophagous parasiroids of cosmopolitan in distribution. They parasitize seven orders of Insecta and the common hosts in Europe are Hymenoptera, Hemiptera and Thysanura. INTRODUCTION Strepsiptera are obligate endoparasites the hosts of which include Blattodea, Diptera, Hemiptera, Hymenoptera, Mantodea, Orthoptera, and Thysanura, and 33 families. The name of the group is derived form the Greek words: twisted ( Strepsi-) and wing (pteron ), and refers in particular to the twisted hind wing of the male while in flight. Representatives of the suborder Mengenillidia show more primitive characteristics and parasitise Thysanura (Lepismatidae), the only known apterygote to be parasitized. Strepsiptera are cosmopolitan in distribution and are difficult to find: often the host has to be located to find the strepsipteran. To date about 600 species have been described, but many more await description and some could be cryptic species. The group is relatively well known in Europe (Kinzelbach, 1971, 1978), where details of Strepsiptera life history have been studied in Elenchus tenuicornis Kirby (Baumert, 1958, 1959), a parasite of Delphacidae (Homoptera) and in Xenos vesparum (Christ) (Hughes et al ., 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2005), a parasite of polistine paper wasps (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). While most strepsipterans parasitize single taxa (leafhoppers or halictid bees), the males and females in the family Myrmecolacidae parasitize hosts belonging to different orders: (Formicidae and Orthoptera, respectively) (Ogloblin, 1939, Kathirithamby and Hamilton, 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • CAC Annual Report 2018
    CALIFORNIA AVOCADO COMMISSION 2018 ANNUAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAIRMAN’S MESSAGE . 3 BOARD OF DIRECTORS . 5 PRESIDENT’S LETTER . 7 2018 MARKETING HIGHLIGHTS AT A GLANCE . 10 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS . 11 Independent Auditor’s Report . 13 Management’s Discussion and Analysis . 16 Basic Financial Statements . 21 Supplementary Information . 36 INDUSTRY STATISTICAL DATA . 43 2 CALIFORNIA AVOCADO COMMISSION CHAIRMAN’S MESSAGE alifornia avocado growers are a chains — for transparency. CAC devel- resilient bunch. Despite a season oped an expansive sustainability profile of plagued with drought, epic fires, California avocado cultural management Cfloods, freeze events and extreme heat practices to share with constituents. To coupled with high winds we harvested 338 prepare California avocado growers for million pounds of premium California the implementation of the Food Safety avocados and secured an average price of Modernization Act Produce Safety Rule, $1.13 per pound. Our resiliency is the re- CAC updated its Food Safety manual to sult of decades of hard work, collaboration align with Primus’ GFS audit, hosted Pro- and proactive preparation. There’s very duce Safety Alliance training sessions and little we haven’t encountered — and we conducted on-farm readiness reviews with learn from the challenges that face us. the Food and Drug Administration and Our resiliency is also due, in no the California Department of Food and John Lamb small part, to the experience and ex- Agriculture. Chairman perimentation of our Industry Affairs and
    [Show full text]