Nimitz nematicide field trials - NCSU

0

NIMITZ NEMATICIDE

FIELD TRIALS Kiwi-1 Ranch, Poplar, CA

Kiwi-3 Ranch, Earlimart, CA

John Ojala and Sherod Craig ver. 04/13/16

Abstract

Two randomized complete block field trials were conducted at Kiwi-1 Ranch,

Poplar, CA and Kiwi-3 Ranch, Earlimart, CA during 2015 to evaluate the efficacy of

Nimitz (a.i. fluensulfone) nematicide. The objectives of these trials were to

determine if seasonal application of Nimitz nematicide will reduce root-knot

nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) soil populations and root infestations in kiwifruit.

Nimitz was sprayed onto the top of the berms in 50 gallons per acre spray volume

and quickly followed by one inch of irrigation water to move the nematicide into

the soil profile. A single application of Nimitz in mid-summer (late July) at 3.5

pints per acre rate provided slight to no control of nematode populations in the

soil or within plant roots. A split application of Nimitz (3.5 pts/ac in late May +

3.5 pts/ac in late July) showed trends in reducing soil root knot nematode

populations 61 days after the first application and lasting through the summer.

The number of nematodes elutriated from fall root samples and the gall severity

on roots both trended less for the Split Application compared to the Control and

Mid-Summer (3.5 pts/ac in late July) treatments, but high variance among the

treatments made it difficult to achieve significance at the 95% confidence level in

these trials. No detectable levels of fluensulfone were present in the fruit.

2015 REPORT ON RESEARCH

1

SUMMARY

Kiwi-1 Trial Summary - These results indicate that the Mid-Summer (July 27th) treatment (3.5

pints Nimitz per acre rate) slightly reduced soil root knot nematode populations thirty-six days

after the Nimitz application, but did not sustain this level of control later (94 days after Nimitz

application) in the growing season. Fewer root knot nematodes were elutriated from the roots in

the Mid-Summer treatment compared to the Control, but not significantly due to high variance

between treatments. Gall formation on the roots was not significantly reduced in the first year of

Nimitz application. Total fruit yield was significantly greater in the Nimitz Mid-Summer

treatment. Fruit grade and fruit quality were not significantly improved by application of Nimitz.

This trial demonstrated a weak response to a late July application of 3.5 pints Nimitz per acre for

control of root knot nematodes in the soil and roots of kiwifruit. The post-harvest Nimitz treatment

will be evaluated in 2016.

Kiwi-3 Trial Summary – A split application of Nimitz (3.5 pts/ac in late May + 3.5 pts/ac in late

July) showed trends in reducing soil root knot nematode populations 61 days after the first

application and lasting through the summer. A single application of Nimitz in mid-summer (3.5

pts/ac in late July) did not significantly reduce soil root knot nematode population during the

summer months compared to the Control. The less effective control of nematodes in the Mid-

Summer compared to the other treatments may be due to the low application rate (3.5 pts/ac) or

later application timing, or both. The number of nematodes elutriated from fall root samples and

the gall severity on roots both trended less for the Split Application compared to the Control and

Mid-Summer (3.5 pts/ac in late July) treatments, but high variance among the treatments made it

difficult to achieve significance at the 95% confidence level in this trial. The split application of

Nimitz produced significantly fewer large (grade 25) and more medium (grade 36) size fruit

compared to the control.

Residue Testing – No detectable levels of fluensulfone were present in samples of fruit (peel +

flesh) from each treatment replication at both trial locations.

2

Nimitz Nematicide Field Trials

John Ojala and Sherod Craig

Introduction

Root knot nematodes are a pervasive problem for kiwifruit growers in California. The most

reliable chemical control methods are pre-plant fumigants that work well for the first few years

during vineyard establishment. However, nematodes soon re-establish their populations and begin

to create galls on roots that impair water uptake, produce sun burning on leaves/fruit, reduce vine

vigor and reduce fruit size. There are a few post-plant biological/organic products that may help

to suppress nematode populations but they are not generally regarded as reliable or highly effective

materials for seasonal nematode control in established vineyards. Nimitz (fluensulfone),

distributed by ADAMA Agricultural Solutions, is a new chemistry of nematicides that is currently

registered for use on solanaceous and cucurbit crops in California, with additional registration

being pursued for other permanent vine and tree crops. Research trials conducted by ADAMA

have shown that Nimitz has an efficacy similar to fumigants, yet is much safer and easier to use.

This research project evaluates Nimitz application rate and timing on root-knot nematode soil

populations and root infestations in kiwifruit, and supports an IR-4 Project whose goal is to add

kiwifruit to the Nimitz product label. Two field trails were conducted in 2015, one at the Kiwi-1

Ranch near Poplar, CA and the other at the Kiwi-3 Ranch near Earlimart, CA.

Materials & Methods

Kiwi-1 Ranch, Poplar – The trial was located in a 32 year old stand of Hayward kiwifruit with a 15 ft. by

15 ft. spacing on block 2 of the Sun Pacific Kiwi-1 Ranch near Poplar, CA (Appendix 1). This site was

selected because it has a history of root knot galls and nematode soil tests revealed moderate to high (570

to 788 count per 500 cc soil) root knot nematode populations were present in the soil. The trial design was

randomized complete block with three treatments and five replications per treatment. The treatments were:

1. 3.5 pts/ac Nimitz applied in mid-summer (July 27th)

2. 3.5 pts/acre Nimitz applied post-harvest (November 13th)

3. Untreated control.

Each replication consisted of two female vines (15 ft. row width x 30 ft. length). Berms were approximately

6 ft. wide. A border vine (15ft. of row length) was present between each treatment. The total size of all

plots was 0.15 acres (excluding borders) of which 0.10 acres were the Nimitz treatment plots. Sixteen soil

subsamples were collected to an eighteen inch depth from each replication on July 17th, September 1st and

October 29th. The subsamples from each replication were mixed together to make a single soil sample for

each of the fifteen plots. A Pesticide Research Authorization (permit #1507025) to apply restricted

materials was obtained from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Nimitz nematicide (lot

number BO4315002) was hand-sprayed onto the berms of treatment plots with an R&D sprayer fitted with

a hand wand containing a flat spray nozzle. The total spray volume applied to the berm of the Nimitz

treatments was 50 gallons per acre. The berms of all plots were irrigated with 1.0 inch of water within 48

3

hours of spraying to incorporate Nimitz into the soil profile. Irrigation water was applied by micro

sprinklers located about 3 ft. above the berms on 15 ft. spacing (one sprinkler on both sides of the vines).

The spray pattern of the sprinklers covered both the berms and the rows. Soil and root samples were

collected from each replication post-harvest on November 6th for nematode analysis. Nematode analyses

were conducted by ID Services, McFarland, CA. All samples that were submitted to ID Services were

blind and had no Nimitz application identification written on the sample bags, which means they did not

know which if any treatment had been applied to any of the samples. Root knot nematode populations

were measured in soil samples using a sieving sugar flotation extraction method. Live nematodes were

extracted from roots using a Baermann Funnel procedure. Gall injury on root samples were evaluated by

visually examining post-harvest root samples. A random sample of fruit from around all areas (high, low,

inside, outer) of the vines in each replication was collected on October 20th and stored under refrigeration

(45F) until sent to OMIC USA Inc. (Portland, OR) on October 22nd for residue analysis of the entire fruit

(peel + flesh). Total fruit weight from each replication was measured during harvest on October 20th and

21st. Individual weights were also measured during harvest from a random sample of three boxes (85 lbs.

to 108 lbs. ranging from 334 to 455 fruit) of kiwifruit from each replication and were used to estimate

average fruit size and grade category. A random sample of 60 fruit were collected from each replication

during harvest and were measured for total soluble solids content using an Extech portable refractometer

and for skin rupture force (maturity) using custom equipment. A small sample of 36 fruit was also collected

during harvest and placed into mesh bags for dry matter analysis. The fruit from all plots were treated as

crop destruct and after the weight and quality measurements were collected they were discarded into the

rows and disked. Trunk circumference was measured for each vine on June 23rd and again on November

11th.

Kiwi-3 Ranch, Earlimart - The trial was located in a 14 year old stand of Hayward kiwifruit with a 15 ft.

by 15 ft. spacing on block 16 of the Sun Pacific Kiwi-3 Ranch near Earlimart, CA (Appendix 1). This site

was selected because it has a history of root knot galls and nematode soil tests revealed moderate to high

(224 to 982 count per 500 cc soil) root knot nematode populations were present in the soil. The trial design

was randomized complete block with three treatments and five replications per treatment. The treatments

were:

1) 7.0 pints Nimitz per acre split application (3.5 pints Nimitz per acre applied on May 21st + 3.5 pints

Nimitz per acre applied on July 24th)

2) 3.5 pints Nimitz per acre applied in mid-summer (July 24th)

3) Untreated control.

Each replication consisted of two female vines (15 ft. row width x 30 ft. length). Berms were approximately

6 ft. wide. A border vine (15 ft. of row length) was present between each treatment. The total size of all

plots was 0.21 acres (excluding borders) of which 0.15 acres were the Nimitz treatment plots. Sixteen soil

subsamples were collected to an eighteen inch depth from each replication on May 20th, June 25th, July 21st,

August 26th and October 30th. The subsamples from each replication were mixed together to make a single

soil sample for each of the fifteen plots. A 12 inch depth soil sample was also collected from each plot on

September 10th. A Pesticide Research Authorization (permit #1505043) to apply restricted materials was

obtained from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Nimitz nematicide (lot number

BO4315002) was hand-sprayed onto the berms of the treatment plots with an R&D sprayer fitted with a

hand wand containing a flat spray nozzle. The total spray volume applied to the berms of the Nimitz

treatments was 50 gallons per acre. The berms of all plots were irrigated with 1.0 inch of water within 48

hours of spraying to incorporate Nimitz into the soil profile. Irrigation water was applied by micro

4

sprinklers located about 3 ft. above the berms on 15 ft. spacing (one sprinkler on both sides of the vines).

The spray pattern of the sprinklers covered primarily the berms with little water application into the rows.

Soil and root samples were collected from each replication post-harvest on November 6th for nematode

analysis. Nematode analyses were conducted by ID Services, McFarland, CA. All samples that were

submitted to ID Services were blind and had no treatment identification written on the sample bags, which

means they did not know which if any treatment had been applied to any of the samples. Root knot nematode

populations were measured in soil samples using a sieving sugar flotation extraction method. Live

nematodes were extracted from roots using a Baermann Funnel procedure. Galls injury on root samples

were evaluated by visually examining roots. A random sample of fruit from around all areas (high, low,

inside, outer) of the vines in each replication was collected on October 21st and stored under refrigeration

(45F) until sent to OMIC USA Inc. (Portland, OR) on October 26th for residue analysis of the entire fruit

(peel + flesh). Total fruit weight from each replication was measured during harvest on October 21st.

Individual weights were also measured during harvest from a random sample of three boxes (59 lbs. to 105

lbs. ranging from 233 to 478 fruit) of kiwifruit from each replication and were used to estimate average

fruit size and grade category. A random sample of 60 fruit were collected from each replication during

harvest and were measured for total soluble solids content using an Extech portable refractometer and for

skin rupture force (maturity) using custom equipment. A small sample of 36 fruit was also collected during

harvest and placed into mesh bags for dry matter analysis. The fruit from all plots were treated as crop

destruct and after harvest measurements were collected they were discarded into the rows and disked.

Trunk circumference was measured for each vine on June 24th and again on November 27th.

Statistical Analyses – In both trials, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted on dependent variables

containing homogeneous treatment variances. Dependent variables that were non-homogeneous

(significant ρ values in a Levene’s Test) were transformed (log10 or square root) and re-tested again for

variance homogeneity. If the treatment variances were homogenous then they were analyzed by ANOVA.

Any remaining dependent variables that still contained non-homogeneous variances were analyzed with

the non-parametric Welch’ test. Since the post-harvest Nimitz treatment at the Kiwi-1 trial location was

applied after all field and lab data was collected in 2015, the post-harvest plots were combined with the

untreated plots into a control treatment and statistically compared using a t-test for significance between

two means (control and mid-summer treatments). Statistica (StatSoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK) and SPSS (IBM

Corporation, New York, NY) software was used to conduct ANOVA, LSD mean separation, Levene’s Test,

Welch’s Test, Brown-Forsythe and other statistical analyses. ANOVA tables were checked for accuracy

against hand calculations.

5

Results & Discussion

Kiwi-1 Ranch Trial, Poplar – The variance and coefficient of variation for soil nematode

population within and between treatments was high (Table 1), particularly during the early

sampling date for the Control (122% coefficient of variation) and Mid-Summer (63% coefficient

of variation) treatments. Treatment variance homogeneity is an important assumption for ANOVA

and was found to be true for nearly all measurements (Table A in Appendix 5). Mean separation

can be difficult to achieve when the treatment

variability is high, as has occurred in this trial.

Soil nematode population was significantly

different between treatments only on the

September 9th sampling date. However,

trends in the data over time should also be

examined.

Root knot nematode soil populations were

lowest in the early samples (July), peaked in

late summer (September) and then declined

by mid-fall (October) (Fig. 1). The lower

nematode population in the Mid-Summer

treatment does not indicate nematicide

efficacy since the population levels of the

Mid-Summer treatment were also lower at the

beginning of the season.

The Mid-Summer (3.5 pints Nimitz/acre)

treatment plots had fewer root knot

nematodes than the Untreated on every

sampling date, including the pre-treatment

samples taken on July 17th (Fig. 1). Soil root

knot nematode populations of the Mid-

Summer treatment were significantly less

than the Untreated only on the September 1st

sampling date (Table 4 and Fig. 1-B),

suggesting some efficacy. For Nimitz to

demonstrate nematode control in the soil, the

seasonal soil root knot nematode populations

in the Mid-Summer treatment should not

have a parallel or converging trend when

compared to the Untreated. However, the two

trend lines are parallel (Fig. 1) during the first

two sample dates and ultimately converge on

the final sample date, suggesting poor

efficacy for the Mid-Summer treatment.

6

The count of root knot nematodes elutriated

from after-harvest root samples also trended

less in the Mid-Summer treatment (Fig. 3),

but not significantly. The gall scores of the

after-harvest root samples were not

significantly different between treatments

(Table 4).

Since the post-harvest Nimitz treatment was

applied after all field and lab data were

collected in 2015, the post-harvest plots were

combined with the control plots into one

treatment (Untreated). The soil population of

Table 1. Root knot nematode soil population, root infestation and galling score in 2015 Nimitz field trial at Kiwi-1 ranch, Poplar, CA.

Nimitz Application Plot

Rate Number 07/17/15 09/01/15 10/29/15 Roots2

Galls3

no. per gram root 0 to 10 score

Untreated (Control) none applied 1 1 291 601 788 192 5.00

none applied 2 5 442 1,418 357 264 0.00

none applied 3 9 261 1,103 362 409 2.50

none applied 4 11 333 1,430 749 522 3.75

none applied 5 14 2,315 1,624 694 308 6.25

Mean: 728 1,235 590 339 3.50

Std. Deviation: 890 401 213 129 2.40

Variance: 791,362 160,554 45,394 16,690 5.78

Coefficient of Variation: 122.1% 32.4% 36.1% 38.1% 68.7%

Post Harvest4 3.5 pts/acre 1 2 - 1,152 789 254 5.00

3.5 pts/acre 2 6 - 788 545 326 5.00

3.5 pts/acre 3 7 - 1,503 610 267 3.75

3.5 pts/acre 4 12 - 2,606 704 606 6.25

3.5 pts/acre 5 13 - 2,279 1,532 344 6.25

Mean: 1,666 836 359 5.25

Std. Deviation: 762 400 143 1.05

Variance: 580,254 159,952 20,379 1.09

Coefficient of Variation: 45.7% 47.8% 39.7% 19.92%

Mid-Summer5 3.5 pts/acre 1 3 267 970 441 100 8.75

3.5 pts/acre 2 4 370 315 550 90 2.50

3.5 pts/acre 3 8 521 491 560 275 5.00

3.5 pts/acre 4 10 39 1,006 367 242 2.50

3.5 pts/acre 5 15 624 1,135 818 502 5.00

Mean: 364 783 547 242 4.75

Std. Deviation: 228 358 171 167 2.56

Variance: 51,830 128,222 29,314 27,956 6.56


1 soil sample depth: 1 to 18 inches; extraction method: sieving sugar flotation.

2 root extraction method: Baermann Funnel procedure.

3 Gall Score: 0 = none (no galls found on roots), 5 = medium (one or more galls), 10 = high (more than 30% of roots have galls).

4 Nimitz application date on the post-harvest application treatment: November 13, 2015.

5 Nimitz application date on the mid-summer application treatment: July 27, 2015.

- - - no. root knot nematodes per 500 cc soil - - -

Treatment ReplicationSoil Sample Date

1Post-Harvest: 11/06/15

7

root knot nematodes were significantly (Table 5) less in the Mid-Summer Nimitz treatment (783

counts per 500 cc soil) compared to the untreated Control (1,450 counts per 500 cc soil) in the

combined plots (Table 11 in Appendix 2) and diverged away from the Control (Fig. 2).

The yield of kiwifruit in the Mid-Summer treatment was significantly greater than the Untreated

(Fig. 4). There was no difference between treatments in the average weight of fruit, total soluble

solids content of fruit, or fruit maturity as measured by skin pressure (Table 2). There was also no

difference between treatments in the grade of fruit (Table 3 and Fig. 5) or in trunk growth (Table

16 in Appendix 2) during the 2015 growing season.

Fruit samples from every treatment replication in the trial were collected at harvest and tested for

fluensulfone residue by OMIC USA, Inc. Fluensulfone residue in the fruit (peel + flesh) was

reported as ND (not detected) in all samples (Appendix 4).

Table 2. Yield and fruit quality in the 2015 Nimitz field trial at Kiwi-1 ranch, Poplar, CA.

Nimitz Application

Rate

Untreated (Control) none applied 225.2 b 112 ns 6.5 ns 20.1 ns

Post-Harvest1

3.5 pts/acre 214.6 b 116 ns 6.7 ns 19.5 ns

Mid-Summer2

3.5 pts/acre 325.4 a 112 ns 6.4 ns 19.6 ns



3 TSS - the total soluble solids in the fruit juice as estimated by measuring Brix.

4 Skin pressure test - the pressure required to rupture the fruit skin.

Numbers in a column followed by the same letters are not significantly (LSD .05) different from each other.

Total

Yield Ave. Weight

lbs per plot grams

TSS3

°Bx

SP4

Fruit

psi

Treatment

8

Table 3. Average fruit grade of each treatment in the 2015 Nimitz field trial at Kiwi-1 ranch, Poplar, CA.

45 42 39 36 33 30 27 25 23 20

Untreated (Control) 0.3% ns 0.1% ns 0.7% ns 1.4% ns 2.4% ns 7.5% ns 15.3% ns 17.8% ns 17.7% ns 22.9% ns 8.6% ns 5.3% ns

Post-Harvest 0.6% ns 0.2% ns 1.0% ns 2.0% ns 2.5% ns 7.0% ns 14.2% ns 14.3% ns 15.0% ns 19.9% ns 11.0% ns 12.2% ns

Mid-Summer 0.5% ns 0.2% ns 1.2% ns 2.2% ns 2.6% ns 8.3% ns 14.9% ns 17.0% ns 14.4% ns 19.3% ns 9.3% ns 10.1% ns

Numbers in a column followed by "ns" are not significantly (LSD .05) different from each other.

TreatmentUndersize

Percent of Total Yield

18 or Larger

Table 4. Randomized complete block ANOVA probability (ρ) values - Kiwi-1 trial location.

Dependent ANOVA

Variable ρ Value1

Nematode Soil & Plant Analyses

soil nematode population on 07/17/15 0.34846



nematode elutriation from roots on 11/2015 0.29073

gall rating of roots on 11/2015 0.32709

Yield & Fruit Quality

total yield from each plot 0.02596

average fruit weight 0.75966

fruit total soluble solids (TSS) 0.50708

fruit skin pressure test (SP) 0.27353

trunk circumference on 06/23/15 0.14891


delta trunk circumferences 0.69542

Fruit Grade

Undersize 0.65620

Grade 45 0.75675

Grade 42 0.77376

Grade 39 0.82033

Grade 36 0.99256

Grade 33 0.93886

Grade 30 0.95465

Grade 27 0.177052

Grade 25 0.25525

Grade 23 0.71759

Grade 20 0.76056

Grade 18+ 0.18478

1 probability (ρ) values that are less than 0.05 means that there is a 95% confidence level that a significant difference

between treatment means occurred (highlighted in red in the table).

2 Welch's test (used when varainces are heterogeneous).

9

Kiwi-1 Trial Summary - These results indicate that the Mid-Summer (July 27th) treatment (3.5

pints Nimitz per acre rate) slightly reduced soil root knot nematode populations thirty-six days

after the Nimitz application, but did not sustain this level of control later (94 days after Nimitz

application) in the growing season. Fewer root knot nematodes were elutriated from the roots in

the Mid-Summer treatment compared to the Control, but not significantly due to high variance

between treatments. Gall formation on the roots was not significantly reduced in the first year of

Nimitz application. Total fruit yield was significantly greater in the Nimitz Mid-Summer

treatment. Fruit grade and fruit quality were not significantly improved by application of Nimitz.

This trial demonstrated a weak response to a late July application of 3.5 pints Nimitz per acre for

control of root knot nematodes in the soil and roots of kiwifruit. The post-harvest Nimitz treatment

will be evaluated in 2016.

Table 5. T test statistics for comparing all untreated (control + post-harvest) to the mid-summer treatment.

Variables (rows) containing probability values (ρ) highlighted in red indicate that there is a significant (95% confidence

level) difference between treatment means.

T-tests; Grouping: Treatment (Kiwi-1 2015 Nimitz Trial - Combined Controls 2)

Group 1: Untreated

Group 2: Mid-Summer

Variable

Mean

Untreated

Mean

Mid-Summer

t-value df p Valid N

Untreated

Valid N

Mid-Summer

Std.Dev.

Untreated

Std.Dev.

Mid-Summer

F-ratio

Variances

07/17/15

09/01/15

10/29/15

Root Elutr

Galls

Total Yield

Ave. Fruit Wt.

TSS

SP

Grade Under

Grade 45

Grade 42

Grade 39

Grade 36

Grade 33

Grade 30

Grade 27

Grade 25

Grade 23

Grade 20

Grade 18+

TCircum 6/23/15

TCircum 11/11/15

Delta Circum

728.400 364.2000 0.88687 8 0.401021 5 5 889.5852 227.6614 15.26850

1450.400 783.4000 2.21223 13 0.045464 10 5 617.0127 358.0814 2.96910

713.000 547.2000 1.04544 13 0.314872 10 5 328.7468 171.2124 3.68682

349.200 241.8000 1.38283 13 0.190009 10 5 128.8563 167.2997 1.68569

4.375 4.7500 -0.31502 13 0.757747 10 5 1.9764 2.5617 1.68000

219.890 325.4400 -2.35364 13 0.034988 10 5 89.1299 62.5516 2.03035

113.752 111.8786 0.41042 13 0.688179 10 5 8.7116 7.4060 1.38366

6.583 6.3751 0.93107 13 0.368787 10 5 0.4668 0.2273 4.21798

19.822 19.5667 0.47640 13 0.641700 10 5 0.9499 1.0363 1.19027

0.004 0.0051 -0.32582 13 0.749744 10 5 0.0048 0.0058 1.43527

0.001 0.0018 -0.45669 13 0.655432 10 5 0.0019 0.0032 2.78684

0.008 0.0119 -0.66819 13 0.515699 10 5 0.0085 0.0122 2.06002

0.017 0.0221 -0.53506 13 0.601643 10 5 0.0169 0.0178 1.11413

0.025 0.0260 -0.11981 13 0.906467 10 5 0.0212 0.0182 1.36361

0.073 0.0829 -0.39166 13 0.701657 10 5 0.0466 0.0471 1.01941

0.148 0.1488 -0.03348 13 0.973799 10 5 0.0506 0.0431 1.38127

0.161 0.1698 -0.48861 13 0.633256 10 5 0.0399 0.0142 7.89877

0.163 0.1442 1.23101 13 0.240127 10 5 0.0318 0.0194 2.69132

0.214 0.1934 0.59521 13 0.561925 10 5 0.0622 0.0660 1.12452

0.098 0.0934 0.18583 13 0.855448 10 5 0.0474 0.0407 1.35772

0.088 0.1007 -0.44000 13 0.667164 10 5 0.0599 0.0380 2.47642

39.802 43.1780 -1.79137 13 0.096532 10 5 4.0161 1.4786 7.37709

40.036 43.3160 -1.85213 13 0.086845 10 5 3.8144 1.1131 11.74370

0.234 0.1380 0.31997 13 0.754075 10 5 0.5604 0.5182 1.16964

10

Kiwi-3 Ranch Trial, Earlimart – The variability of soil nematode population within treatments

was high across all the summer sampling dates in this trial. Large coefficient of variations were

present in both soil and root measurements (Table 6). All measured variables were evaluated (and

corrected when required) for variance

homogeneity (Table B in Appendix 6) before

ANOVA tests were conducted. However, the

large variances reduced the sensitivity of

ANOVA to detect significant (95%

confidence level) differences between

treatments in soil nematode count means

(Table 9). However, trends in the data

indicate that Nimitz did have a beneficial

effect in reducing root knot nematode

population in the soil.

Root knot nematode soil populations in the

Control and Mid-Summer treatments

followed a trend similar to the trial at the

Kiwi-1 location. Soil populations were low

early in the season, then peaked in late

summer and declined after harvest (Fig. 6).

The Split Application treatment did not

follow this pattern and instead showed

consistently low root knot soil populations

beginning 61 days after the first Nimitz

application and lasting through the summer.

The two applications and higher rate (7.0

pints/acre) of Nimitz in the Split Application

treatment reduced soil nematode populations

better than the Control or the single

application (3.5 pts/ac) of Nimitz in the Mid-

Summer treatment. However, the nematodes

elutriated from the roots (Fig. 7) and galls on

the roots (Fig. 8) after harvest were the same

in the Mid-Summer and Control treatments.

Nematodes presence in the roots and galls

appeared to trend lower in the Split

Application treatment when compared to

either the Control or Mid-Summer

treatments.

11

Ta

ble

6.

Ro

ot

kno

t nem

ato

de s

oil p

opula

tio

n1,

roo

t in

fest

ati

on a

nd g

allin

g s

core

in t

he 2

015

Nim

itz

field

tri

al a

t K

iwi-

3 r

anch

, E

arl

ima

rt,

CA

.

Nim

itz

Applica

tio

nP

lot

Ra

te a

nd T

imin

gN

um

ber

05

/20

/15

06

/25

/15

07

/21

/15

8/2

6/2

015

10

/30

/20

15

Ro

ots

Ga

ll S

core

4

no

. p

er g

ram

ro

ot

0 t

o 1

0 s

core

Unt

reat

ed (

Co

ntro

l)no

ne a

pp

lied

13

672

564

933

824

912

146

3.7

5

none

ap

plie

d2

5509

1,6

97

1,6

97

1,7

82

1,0

25

279

6.2

5

none

ap

plie

d3

7764

218

909

1,2

39

416

152

3.7

5

none

ap

plie

d4

11

400

230

285

691

521

35

10.0

0

none

ap

plie

d5

13

672

721

455

485

774

122

3.7

5

Mea

n:

603

686

856

1,0

04

730

147

5.5

0

Std

. D

ev

iati

on:

146

605

548

515

257

88

2.7

4

Va

ria

nce

:21,3

72

366,2

98

300,7

15

265,0

60

66,0

90

7,6

90

7.5

0

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

Va

ria

tio

n:

24.2

%88.2

%64.1

%51.3

%35.2

%59.8

%49.8

%

Sp

lit N

imitz

Ap

plic

atio

n23

.5 p

ts/a

cre

May

+ 3

.5 p

ts/a

c Ju

ly1

2964

661

800

1,4

36

1,0

03

169

6.2

5

3.5

pts

/acr

e M

ay +

3.5

pts

/ac

July

26

364

570

497

533

851

156

2.5

0

3.5

pts

/acr

e M

ay +

3.5

pts

/ac

July

38

339

485

448

661

868

13

1.2

5

3.5

pts

/acr

e M

ay +

3.5

pts

/ac

July

410

473

1,3

58

885

588

506

137

2.5

0

3.5

pts

/acr

e M

ay +

3.5

pts

/ac

July

515

679

1,9

27

1,2

36

648

451

30

2.5

0

Mea

n:

564

1,0

00

773

773

736

101

3.0

0

Std

. D

ev

iati

on:

261

623

320

374

243

74

1.9

0

Va

ria

nce

:68,0

33

388,1

35

102,3

61

139,8

91

59,0

16

5,4

70

3.5

9

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

Va

ria

tio

n:

46.3

%62.3

%41.4

%48.4

%33.0

%73.3

%63.2

%

Mid

-Sum

mer

33

.5 p

ts/a

cre

July

11

--

1,4

71

1,1

27

322

558

10.0

0

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly2

4-

-503

800

288

90

0.0

0

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly3

9-

-497

1,7

33

496

68

0.0

0

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly4

12

--

1,5

27

618

505

42

8.7

5

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly5

14

--

1,0

67

1,5

15

456

92

10.0

0

Mea

n:

--

1,0

13

1,1

59

413

170

5.7

5

Std

. D

ev

iati

on:

--

501

469

101

218

5.2

7

Va

ria

nce

:-

-250,8

08

219,6

99

10,2

77

47,4

21

27.8

1

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

Va

ria

tio

n:

--

49.4

%40.5

%24.5

%128.2

%91.7

%

1 s

oil s

amp

le d

epth

: 1 t

o 1

8 inch

es; ex

trac

tion m

ethod: si

evin

g su

gar

flota

tion.

2 N

imit

z a

pp

lica

tion d

ates

on t

he

split

app

lica

tion t

reat

men

t: M

ay 2

1, 2015 a

nd J

uly

24, 2015.

3 N

imit

z a

pp

lica

tion d

ate

on t

he

mid

-sum

mer

ap

plica

tion t

reat

men

t: J

uly

24, 2015.

4 G

all Sco

re: 0 =

none

(no g

alls

found o

n r

oots

), 5 =

med

ium

(one

or

more

gal

ls),

10 =

hig

h (

more

than

30%

of

roots

hav

e ga

lls)

.

Tre

atm

ent

Sa

mple

Da

teP

ost

-Ha

rvest

: 1

1/0

6/1

5

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

no

. ro

ot

kn

ot

nem

ato

des

per

50

0 c

c so

il

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

-

Replica

tio

n

12

There were no significant differences between treatments in total yield, average fruit weight, fruit

total soluble solids content and skin pressure tests for maturity (Fig. 9 and Table 7). Both the Split

and Mid-Summer Nimitz applications produced significantly more fruit in the medium 36 grade

size and less fruit in the larger 25 grade size compared to the Control (Fig. 10 and Table 8). In

general, production of more fruit in the 36 grade size is preferable to the larger 25 grade size. The

trunk growth of the Mid-Summer and Split Application treatments were not significantly different

from the Control (Table 20 and Fig. Q in Appendix 3) in the 2015 growing season

Fruit samples from every treatment replication in the trial were collected at harvest and tested for

fluensulfone residue by OMIC USA, Inc. Fluensulfone residue in the fruit (peel + flesh) was

reported as ND (not detected) in all samples (Appendix 4).

Table 7. Yield and fruit quality in the 2015 Nimitz field trial at Kiwi-3 ranch, Earlimart, CA.

Nimitz Application

Rate

Untreated (Control) none applied 233.1 ns 112 ns 5.6 ns 19.8 ns

Split Application1

3.5 pts/acre + 3.5 pts/acre 221.7 ns 106 ns 5.5 ns 19.6 ns

Mid-Summer2

3.5 pts/acre 149.7 ns 112 ns 5.9 ns 19.3 ns

1 Nimitz applications on the split application treatment: 3.5 pts Nimitz/acre on May 21, 2015 and 3.5 pts Nimitz/acre on July 24, 2015.

2 Nimitz application on the mid-summer application treatment: 3.5 pts Nimitz/acre on July 24, 2015.

3 TSS - the total soluble solids in the fruit juice as estimated by measuring Brix.

4 Skin pressure test - the pressure required to rupture the fruit skin.


SP4

psi

TreatmentTotal

Yield

lbs per plot

Ave. Weight

grams

TSS3

°Bx

Fruit

13

Kiwi-3 Trial Summary – A split application of Nimitz (3.5 pts/ac in late May + 3.5 pts/ac in late

July) showed trends in reducing soil root knot nematode populations 61 days after the first

application and lasting through the summer. A single application of Nimitz in mid-summer (3.5

pts/ac in late July) did not significantly reduce soil root knot nematode population during the

summer months compared to the Control. The less effective control of nematodes in the Mid-

Summer compared to the other treatments may be due to the low application rate (3.5 pts/ac) or

later application timing, or both. The number of nematodes elutriated from fall root samples and

the gall severity on roots both trended less for the Split Application compared to the Control and

Mid-Summer (3.5 pts/ac in late July) treatments, but high variance among the treatments made it

difficult to achieve significance at the 95% confidence level in this trial. The split application of

Nimitz produced significantly fewer large (grade 25) and more medium (grade 36) size fruit

compared to the control.

Table 8. Average fruit grade from each treatment in the 2015 Nimitz field trial at Kiwi-3 ranch, Earlimart, CA.

Untreated (Control) 0.3% ns 0.1% ns 0.6% ns 0.9% ns 1.2% c 5.9% ns 17.1% ns 21.5% ns 18.5% a 20.8% ns 8.5% ns 4.5% ns

Split Nimitz Application 1.6% ns 0.5% ns 1.8% ns 2.5% ns 4.4% a 10.6% ns 18.5% ns 18.0% ns 14.3% b 15.9% ns 6.2% ns 7.0% ns

Mid-Summer 0.9% ns 0.2% ns 1.4% ns 1.2% ns 2.3% b 6.2% ns 14.8% ns 17.0% ns 15.7% b 22.4% ns 9.9% ns 8.1% ns


TreatmentPercent of Total Yield

Undersize 45 42 39 36 33 30 27 25 23 20 18 or Larger

14

Table 9. ANOVA probability (ρ) values - 2015 Nimitz Trial, Kiwi-3 Ranch, Earlimart, CA.

Dependent ANOVA

Variable ρ Value1

Nematode Soil & Root Analyses





soil nematode population on 09/9/15 (12 in.) 0.86895


nematode elutriation from root samples 11/06/15 0.70319

gall rating of root samples 11/06/15 0.271004

Yield & Quality Measurements





tree circumference 06/24/15 0.50527


delta tree circumference 0.04583

Grade Measurements

Undersize 0.32612

Grade 45 0.09876

Grade 42 0.11584

Grade 39 0.08906

Grade 36 0.002173

Grade 33 0.05452

Grade 30 0.66002

Grade 27 0.12862

Grade 25 0.00285

Grade 23 0.17942

Grade 20 0.23028

Grade 18+ 0.23481

1 Variables containing probability values (ρ) highlighted in red indicate that there is a significant

(95% confidence level) difference between treatment means.

2 log10 transformed (to provide homogeneous treatment variances).

3 square root transformed (to provide homogeneous treatment variances).

4 Welch's non-parametric test for non-homogeneous variances.

15

Appendix 1

Trial and Plot Maps

Map 1: Kiwi-1 Ranch trial site field map

Map 2: Kiwi-1 Ranch plot map

Map 3: Kiwi-3 Ranch trial site field map

Map 4: Kiwi-3 Ranch plot map

16

17

Nimitz Field Trial

Kiwi-1 Ranch, Block 2

Block # I II III IV V

border border border border border

border border border border border

3 buffer 2 buffer 4 buffer 9 buffer 9 buffer

plants plants plants plants plants

row # 36 35 34 33 32 31 30

Ribbon

Color Treatments

orange 1 = mid-summer application (3.5 pts Nimitz/ac applied in July)

yellow 2 = post-harvest application (3.5 pts Nimitz/ac applied in October)

red 3 = untreated (control)

white border vines

3 9 12 156

1 3 2 12

2 8 11 145

2 1 3 33

1 7 10 134

3 2 1 21

N

W

S

E

18

19

Nimitz Field Trial

Kiwi-3 Ranch, Block 16

Block # I II III IV V

border border border border

border

border border border border

border

row # 15 14 13 12 11 10 9

Ribbon

Color Treatments

blue 1 = split application (3.5 pts Nimitz/ac applied in May + 3.5 pts Nimitz/ac applied in July)

green 2 = mid-summer application (3.5 pts Nimitz/ac applied in July)

red 3 = untreated (control)

white border vines

15

1

10

3

11

2

12

3

13

2

14

1

9

2

4

3

5

1

6

3

7

1

8

2

3

2

1

1

2

3

N

W

S

E

20

Appendix 2

Nematode & Yield Data: Kiwi-1 Ranch Table 10. Root knot nematode population

Fig. A. Root knot nematode soil

Fig. B. Root knot nematode roots

Fig. C. Root knot nematode gall score

Table 11. Root knot nematode population (untreated plots combined)

Fig. D. Root knot nematode soil (combined plots)

Fig. E. Root knot nematode roots (combined plots)

Fig. F. Root knot nematode gall score (combined plots)

Table 12. Yield and fruit quality

Fig. G. Kiwifruit yield

Table 13. Yield and fruit quality (untreated plots combined)

Fig. H. Kiwifruit yield (combined plots)

Table 14. Fruit grade

Fig. I. Fruit grade

Table 15. Fruit grade (untreated plots combined)

Fig. J. Fruit grade (combined plots)

Table 16. Trunk growth

Fig. K. Trunk circumference increase in 2015

21




Galls3


Untreated (Control) none applied 1 1 291 601 788 192 5.00

none applied 2 5 442 1,418 357 264 0.00

none applied 3 9 261 1,103 362 409 2.50

none applied 4 11 333 1,430 749 522 3.75

none applied 5 14 2,315 1,624 694 308 6.25

Mean: 728 1,235 590 339 3.50

Std. Deviation: 890 401 213 129 2.40

Variance: 791,362 160,554 45,394 16,690 5.78


Post Harvest4 3.5 pts/acre 1 2 - 1,152 789 254 5.00

3.5 pts/acre 2 6 - 788 545 326 5.00

3.5 pts/acre 3 7 - 1,503 610 267 3.75

3.5 pts/acre 4 12 - 2,606 704 606 6.25

3.5 pts/acre 5 13 - 2,279 1,532 344 6.25

Mean: 1,666 836 359 5.25

Std. Deviation: 762 400 143 1.05

Variance: 580,254 159,952 20,379 1.09



3.5 pts/acre 2 4 370 315 550 90 2.50

3.5 pts/acre 3 8 521 491 560 275 5.00

3.5 pts/acre 4 10 39 1,006 367 242 2.50

3.5 pts/acre 5 15 624 1,135 818 502 5.00

Mean: 364 783 547 242 4.75

Std. Deviation: 228 358 171 167 2.56

Variance: 51,830 128,222 29,314 27,956 6.56










22

(the post-harvest treatment is combined with the untreated control)




Galls3


Control (Untreated) none applied 1 1 291 601 788 192 5.00

none applied 2 5 442 1,418 357 264 0.00

none applied 3 9 261 1,103 362 409 2.50

none applied 4 11 333 1,430 749 522 3.75

none applied 5 14 2,315 1,624 694 308 6.25

Control (Post Harvest4) 3.5 pts/acre 1 2 - 1,152 789 254 5.00

3.5 pts/acre 2 6 - 788 545 326 5.00

3.5 pts/acre 3 7 - 1,503 610 267 3.75

3.5 pts/acre 4 12 - 2,606 704 606 6.25

3.5 pts/acre 5 13 - 2,279 1,532 344 6.25

Mean: 728 1,450 713 349 4.38

Std. Deviation: 890 617 329 129 1.98

Variance: 791,362 380,705 108,074 16,591 3.91



3.5 pts/acre 2 4 370 315 550 90 2.50

3.5 pts/acre 3 8 521 491 560 275 5.00

3.5 pts/acre 4 10 39 1,006 367 242 2.50

3.5 pts/acre 5 15 624 1,135 818 502 5.00

Mean: 364 783 547 242 4.75

Std. Deviation: 228 358 171 167 2.56

Variance: 51,830 128,222 29,314 27,956 6.56





4 Nimitz application date on the post-harvest application treatment: November 13, 2015; combined with the control data since Nimitz was applied to this treatment after data collection.





23

Table 12. Yield and fruit quality from each plot in the 2015 Nimitz field trial at Kiwi-1 ranch, Poplar, CA.

Nimitz Application Plot Total

Rate Number Yield Average Weight TSS1

SP2

lbs per plot grams °Bx psi

Untreated (Control) none applied 1 1 419.2 116 6.8 19.9

none applied 2 5 209.8 106 6.6 20.6

none applied 3 9 189.0 101 6.5 20.3

none applied 4 11 184.2 121 6.4 21.4

none applied 5 14 124.0 115 6.1 18.6

Mean: 225.2 112 6.5 20.1

Std. Deviation: 113.0 8 0.3 1.0

Variance: 12,773.6 65 0.1 1.1


Post Harvest 3.5 pts/acre October 1 2 265.3 103 6.1 19.6

3.5 pts/acre October 2 6 112.3 107 7.0 19.3

3.5 pts/acre October 3 7 281.0 121 7.6 20.4

3.5 pts/acre October 4 12 243.0 122 6.1 20.0

3.5 pts/acre October 5 13 171.4 125 6.6 18.2

Mean: 214.6 116 6.7 19.5

Std. Deviation: 70.9 10 0.6 0.8

Variance: 5,030.0 96 0.4 0.7


Mid-Summer 3.5 pts/acre July 1 3 425.1 116 6.5 21.0

3.5 pts/acre July 2 4 256.6 114 6.5 19.3

3.5 pts/acre July 3 8 326.2 117 6.3 19.2

3.5 pts/acre July 4 10 325.2 99 6.0 20.1

3.5 pts/acre July 5 15 294.2 114 6.5 18.3

Mean: 325.4 112 6.4 19.6

Std. Deviation: 62.6 7 0.2 1.0

Variance: 3,912.7 55 0.1 1.1


1 TSS - total soluble solids.

2 SP - skin pressure test.

Treatment ReplicationFruit

24

(the post-harvest treatment is combined with the untreated control)

Table 13. Yield and fruit quality from each plot in the 2015 Nimitz field trial at Kiwi-1 ranch.


Rate Number Yield Average Weight TSS1

SP2


Control (Untreated) none applied 1 1 419.2 116 6.8 19.9

none applied 2 5 209.8 106 6.6 20.6

none applied 3 9 189.0 101 6.5 20.3

none applied 4 11 184.2 121 6.4 21.4

none applied 5 14 124.0 115 6.1 18.6

Control (Post Harvest3) 3.5 pts/acre 1 2 265.3 103 6.1 19.6

3.5 pts/acre 2 6 112.3 107 7.0 19.3

3.5 pts/acre 3 7 281.0 121 7.6 20.4

3.5 pts/acre 4 12 243.0 122 6.1 20.0

3.5 pts/acre 5 13 171.4 125 6.6 18.2

Mean: 219.9 114 6.6 19.8


Variance: 7,944.1 76 0.2 0.9



3.5 pts/acre July 2 4 256.6 114 6.5 19.3

3.5 pts/acre July 3 8 326.2 117 6.3 19.2

3.5 pts/acre July 4 10 325.2 99 6.0 20.1

3.5 pts/acre July 5 15 294.2 114 6.5 18.3

Mean: 325.4 112 6.4 19.6


Variance: 3,912.7 55 0.1 1.1


1 TSS - total soluble solids.

2 SP - skin pressure test.

4 Nimitz application date on the post-harvest application treatment: November 13, 2015; combined with the control data since Nimitz was applied to this treatment after data collection.


25

Ta

ble

14

. F

ruit

gra

de f

rom

ea

ch p

lot

in t

he 2

015

Nim

itz

field

tri

al a

t K

iwi-

1 r

anch

.

Nim

itz

Applica

tio

nP

lot

Ra

te a

nd T

imin

gN

um

ber

Und

ersi

ze45

42

39

36

33

30

27

25

23

20

18

or

Lar

ger

Unt

reat

ed (

Co

ntro

l)no

ne a

pp

lied

11

0.2

%0.0

%0.0

%0.4

%1.2

%4.6

%14.0

%13.4

%20.2

%27.7

%11.8

%6.4

%

none

ap

plie

d2

50.3

%0.0

%0.8

%1.6

%3.3

%12.5

%19.3

%22.8

%16.3

%16.0

%3.8

%3.3

%

none

ap

plie

d3

90.8

%0.3

%2.5

%4.9

%6.6

%15.2

%20.1

%16.8

%12.0

%14.8

%4.3

%1.6

%

none

ap

plie

d4

11

0.0

%0.0

%0.0

%0.0

%0.7

%3.1

%8.7

%13.5

%21.5

%26.7

%14.1

%11.6

%

none

ap

plie

d5

14

0.0

%0.0

%0.0

%0.2

%0.2

%2.3

%14.7

%22.7

%18.4

%29.2

%8.8

%3.6

%

Mea

n:

0.3

%0.1

%0.7

%1.4

%2.4

%7.5

%15.3

%17.8

%17.7

%22.9

%8.6

%5.3

%

Std

. D

ev

iati

on:

0.3

%0.1

%1.1

%2.0

%2.6

%5.9

%4.6

%4.7

%3.7

%6.9

%4.5

%3.9

%

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

Va

ria

tio

n:

124.3

%223.6

%165.5

%143.5

%109.0

%78.3

%30.0

%26.2

%21.1

%30.1

%52.8

%73.6

%

Va

ria

nce

:0.0

01%

0.0

00%

0.0

12%

0.0

41%

0.0

69%

0.3

48%

0.2

12%

0.2

19%

0.1

39%

0.4

76%

0.2

05%

0.1

53%

Po

st H

arve

st3

.5 p

ts/a

cre

Oct

ob

er1

20.9

%0.0

%1.3

%3.6

%5.0

%12.3

%23.3

%17.6

%13.6

%12.7

%4.7

%4.9

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e O

cto

ber

26

1.4

%0.6

%1.7

%3.4

%3.4

%8.9

%16.7

%15.7

%14.6

%16.2

%9.5

%8.0

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e O

cto

ber

37

0.1

%0.1

%1.0

%1.6

%1.5

%6.5

%12.7

%12.0

%15.6

%20.3

%9.9

%18.8

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e O

cto

ber

412

0.0

%0.0

%0.0

%0.3

%0.4

%2.7

%8.0

%11.8

%18.3

%27.9

%18.8

%11.8

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e O

cto

ber

513

0.5

%0.1

%1.0

%1.1

%2.4

%4.8

%10.6

%14.3

%13.0

%22.5

%12.2

%17.5

%

Mea

n:

0.6

%0.2

%1.0

%2.0

%2.5

%7.0

%14.2

%14.3

%15.0

%19.9

%11.0

%12.2

%

Std

. D

ev

iati

on:

0.6

%0.2

%0.6

%1.4

%1.8

%3.7

%6.0

%2.5

%2.1

%5.8

%5.1

%6.0

%

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

Va

ria

tio

n:

104.0

%140.1

%62.3

%72.0

%70.6

%53.0

%41.9

%17.2

%13.8

%29.2

%46.5

%48.7

%

Va

ria

nce

:0.0

04%

0.0

01%

0.0

04%

0.0

21%

0.0

32%

0.1

39%

0.3

57%

0.0

61%

0.0

43%

0.3

39%

0.2

63%

0.3

55%

Mid

-Sum

mer

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly1

30.3

%0.0

%0.4

%1.3

%1.2

%4.4

%13.7

%17.9

%15.6

%23.2

%12.0

%10.0

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly2

40.7

%0.0

%1.1

%2.1

%2.2

%6.4

%12.4

%15.9

%13.9

%21.1

%9.3

%14.9

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly3

80.0

%0.0

%0.0

%0.7

%2.2

%5.4

%12.6

%16.0

%16.8

%22.8

%12.8

%10.7

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly4

10

1.4

%0.7

%3.1

%5.3

%5.8

%16.1

%22.5

%19.0

%11.6

%7.6

%2.5

%4.3

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly5

15

0.1

%0.1

%1.3

%1.7

%1.6

%9.1

%13.2

%16.0

%14.2

%22.0

%10.1

%10.5

%

Mea

n:

0.5

%0.2

%1.2

%2.2

%2.6

%8.3

%14.9

%17.0

%14.4

%19.3

%9.3

%10.1

%

Std

. D

ev

iati

on:

0.6

%0.3

%1.2

%1.8

%1.8

%4.7

%4.3

%1.4

%1.9

%6.6

%4.1

%3.8

%

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

Va

ria

tio

n:

113.8

%183.2

%102.9

%80.5

%69.8

%56.8

%28.9

%8.4

%13.4

%34.1

%43.6

%37.8

%

Va

ria

nce

:0.0

03%

0.0

01%

0.0

15%

0.0

32%

0.0

33%

0.2

21%

0.1

85%

0.0

20%

0.0

38%

0.4

35%

0.1

66%

0.1

45%

Tre

atm

ent

Replica

tio

nP

erc

ent

of

To

tal Y

ield

26

(the

post

-har

vest

tre

atm

ent is

com

bin

ed w

ith the

unt

reat

ed c

ont

rol)

Table

15. F

ruit

gra

de f

rom

each

plo

t in

the 2

015 N

imit

z fi

eld

tri

al at

Kiw

i-1 r

anch

.

Nim

itz

Applica

tion

Plo

t

Rate

and T

imin

gN

um

ber

Und

ersi

ze45

42

39

36

33

30

27

25

23

20

18 o

r L

arge

r

Cont

rol (

Unt

reat

ed)

none

applie

d1

10.2

%0.0

%0.0

%0.4

%1.2

%4.6

%14.0

%13.4

%20.2

%27.7

%11.8

%6.4

%

none

applie

d2

50.3

%0.0

%0.8

%1.6

%3.3

%12.5

%19.3

%22.8

%16.3

%16.0

%3.8

%3.3

%

none

applie

d3

90.8

%0.3

%2.5

%4.9

%6.6

%15.2

%20.1

%16.8

%12.0

%14.8

%4.3

%1.6

%

none

applie

d4

11

0.0

%0.0

%0.0

%0.0

%0.7

%3.1

%8.7

%13.5

%21.5

%26.7

%14.1

%11.6

%

none

applie

d5

14

0.0

%0.0

%0.0

%0.2

%0.2

%2.3

%14.7

%22.7

%18.4

%29.2

%8.8

%3.6

%

Cont

rol (

Post

Har

vest

)13.5

pts

/acr

e1

20.9

%0.0

%1.3

%3.6

%5.0

%12.3

%0.0

%17.6

%13.6

%12.7

%4.7

%4.9

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e2

61.4

%0.6

%1.7

%3.4

%3.4

%8.9

%16.7

%15.7

%14.6

%16.2

%9.5

%8.0

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e3

70.1

%0.1

%1.0

%1.6

%1.5

%6.5

%12.7

%12.0

%15.6

%20.3

%9.9

%18.8

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e4

12

0.0

%0.0

%0.0

%0.3

%0.4

%2.7

%8.0

%11.8

%18.3

%27.9

%18.8

%11.8

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e5

13

0.5

%0.1

%1.0

%1.1

%2.4

%4.8

%10.6

%14.3

%13.0

%22.5

%12.2

%17.5

%

Mean:

0.4

%0.1

%0.8

%1.7

%2.5

%7.3

%12.5

%16.1

%16.3

%21.4

%9.8

%8.8

%

Std

. D

evia

tion:

0.5

%0.2

%0.9

%1.7

%2.1

%4.7

%6.0

%4.0

%3.2

%6.2

%4.7

%6.0

%

Vari

ance

:0.0

00023

0.0

00004

0.0

00072

0.0

00285

0.0

00450

0.0

02173

0.0

03586

0.0

01593

0.0

01011

0.0

03872

0.0

02250

0.0

03585

Coeff

icie

nt

of

Vari

ati

on:

116.0

%166.7

%102.8

%98.8

%85.9

%64.0

%48.0

%24.8

%19.5

%29.1

%48.4

%68.3

%

Mid

-Sum

mer

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly1

30.3

%0.0

%0.4

%1.3

%0.0

%4.4

%13.7

%17.9

%15.6

%23.2

%12.0

%10.0

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly2

40.7

%0.0

%1.1

%2.1

%2.2

%6.4

%12.4

%15.9

%13.9

%21.1

%9.3

%14.9

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly3

80.0

%0.0

%0.0

%0.7

%2.2

%5.4

%12.6

%16.0

%16.8

%22.8

%12.8

%10.7

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly4

10

1.4

%0.7

%3.1

%5.3

%5.8

%16.1

%22.5

%19.0

%11.6

%7.6

%2.5

%4.3

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly5

15

0.1

%0.1

%1.3

%1.7

%1.6

%9.1

%13.2

%16.0

%14.2

%22.0

%10.1

%10.5

%

Mean:

0.5

%0.2

%1.2

%2.2

%2.4

%8.3

%14.9

%17.0

%14.4

%19.3

%9.3

%10.1

%

Std

. D

evia

tion:

0.6

%0.3

%1.2

%1.8

%2.1

%4.7

%4.3

%1.4

%1.9

%6.6

%4.1

%3.8

%

Vari

ance

:0.0

00033

0.0

00010

0.0

00149

0.0

00317

0.0

00443

0.0

02215

0.0

01855

0.0

00202

0.0

00376

0.0

04354

0.0

01657

0.0

01448

Coeff

icie

nt

of

Vari

ati

on:

113.8

%183.2

%102.9

%80.5

%89.1

%56.8

%28.9

%8.4

%13.4

%34.1

%43.6

%37.8

%

1 P

ost

-har

ves

t p

lots

wer

e tr

eate

d w

ith 3

.5 p

ints

Nim

itz p

er a

cre

on N

ovem

ber

13, 2015, af

ter

all y

ield

and n

emat

ode

dat

a had

bee

n c

ollec

ted, an

d t

her

efore

wer

e an

aly

zed

as

contr

ol (u

ntr

eate

d)

plo

ts.

Tre

atm

ent

Replica

tion

Perc

ent

of

Tota

l Y

ield

27

Table 16. Trunk growth measurements - Kiwi-1 trial location.


Rate and Timing Number 6/23/2015 11/11/2015 Increase or Decrease

Untreated (Control) none applied 1 1 40.10 39.55 -0.55

none applied 2 5 39.03 38.88 -0.15

none applied 3 9 35.41 36.11 0.70

none applied 4 11 35.28 36.44 1.16

none applied 5 14 43.45 43.40 -0.05

Mean: 38.65 38.88 0.22

Std. Deviation: 3.43 2.94 0.69

Variance: 11.79 8.63 0.48

Coefficient of Variation: 8.9% 7.6% 311.8%

Post Harvest 3.5 pts/acre 1 2 42.41 42.22 -0.19

3.5 pts/acre 2 6 43.47 43.20 -0.27

3.5 pts/acre 3 7 33.34 33.85 0.51

3.5 pts/acre 4 12 45.20 46.06 0.86

3.5 pts/acre 5 13 40.33 40.65 0.32

Mean: 40.95 41.20 0.25


Variance: 21.21 20.75 0.23


Mid-Summer 3.5 pts/acre 1 3 45.77 45.20 -0.57

3.5 pts/acre 2 4 42.71 42.58 -0.13

3.5 pts/acre 3 8 42.86 43.11 0.25

3.5 pts/acre 4 10 42.47 43.28 0.81

3.5 pts/acre 5 15 42.08 42.41 0.33

Mean: 43.18 43.32 0.14


Variance: 2.19 1.24 0.27


Treatment ReplicationTrunk Circumference, cm

28

Appendix 3

Nematode & Yield Data: Kiwi-3 Ranch Table 17. Root knot nematode population

Fig. L. Root knot nematode soil

Fig. M. Root knot nematode roots

Fig. N. Root knot nematode galls

Table 18. Yield and fruit quality

Fig. O. Kiwifruit yield

Table 19. Fruit Grade

Fig. P. Fruit Grade

Table 20. Trunk growth

Fig. Q. Trunk circumference increase in 2015

29

Table 17. Root knot nematode soil population1, root infestation and galling score in the 2015 Nimitz field trial at Kiwi-3 ranch, Earlimart, CA.


Rate and Timing Number 05/20/15 06/25/15 07/21/15 8/26/2015 10/30/2015 Roots Gall Score4


Untreated (Control) none applied 1 3 672 564 933 824 912 146 3.75

none applied 2 5 509 1,697 1,697 1,782 1,025 279 6.25

none applied 3 7 764 218 909 1,239 416 152 3.75

none applied 4 11 400 230 285 691 521 35 10.00

none applied 5 13 672 721 455 485 774 122 3.75

Mean: 603 686 856 1,004 730 147 5.50

Std. Deviation: 146 605 548 515 257 88 2.74

Variance: 21,372 366,298 300,715 265,060 66,090 7,690 7.50

Coefficient of Variation: 24.2% 88.2% 64.1% 51.3% 35.2% 59.8% 49.8%

Split Nimitz Application2

3.5 pts/acre May + 3.5 pts/ac July 1 2 964 661 800 1,436 1,003 169 6.25

3.5 pts/acre May + 3.5 pts/ac July 2 6 364 570 497 533 851 156 2.50

3.5 pts/acre May + 3.5 pts/ac July 3 8 339 485 448 661 868 13 1.25

3.5 pts/acre May + 3.5 pts/ac July 4 10 473 1,358 885 588 506 137 2.50

3.5 pts/acre May + 3.5 pts/ac July 5 15 679 1,927 1,236 648 451 30 2.50

Mean: 564 1,000 773 773 736 101 3.00

Std. Deviation: 261 623 320 374 243 74 1.90

Variance: 68,033 388,135 102,361 139,891 59,016 5,470 3.59

Coefficient of Variation: 46.3% 62.3% 41.4% 48.4% 33.0% 73.3% 63.2%

Mid-Summer3

3.5 pts/acre July 1 1 - - 1,471 1,127 322 558 10.00

3.5 pts/acre July 2 4 - - 503 800 288 90 0.00

3.5 pts/acre July 3 9 - - 497 1,733 496 68 0.00

3.5 pts/acre July 4 12 - - 1,527 618 505 42 8.75

3.5 pts/acre July 5 14 - - 1,067 1,515 456 92 10.00

Mean: - - 1,013 1,159 413 170 5.75

Std. Deviation: - - 501 469 101 218 5.27

Variance: - - 250,808 219,699 10,277 47,421 27.81

Coefficient of Variation: - - 49.4% 40.5% 24.5% 128.2% 91.7%


2 Nimitz application dates on the split application treatment: May 21, 2015 and July 24, 2015.



TreatmentSample Date Post-Harvest: 11/06/15

- - - - - - - - - - - - no. root knot nematodes per 500 cc soil - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Replication

30

Table 18. Yield and fruit quality from each plot in the 2015 Nimitz field trial at Kiwi-3 ranch, Earlimart, CA.


Rate and Timing Number Yield Average Weight TSS SP


Untreated (Control) none applied 1 3 335.1 111 5.3 19.4

none applied 2 5 197.0 121 5.6 19.5

none applied 3 7 269.7 108 5.3 18.7

none applied 4 11 213.7 107 6.1 21.6

none applied 5 13 149.8 110 5.9 19.5

Mean: 233.1 112 5.6 19.8


Variance: 5,091.4 32 0.1 1.2


Split Nimitz Application 3.5 pts/acre May + 3.5 pts/ac July 1 2 404.6 114 5.1 19.5

3.5 pts/acre May + 3.5 pts/ac July 2 6 63.0 120 6.0 19.4




Mean: 221.7 106 5.5 19.6

Std. Deviation: 133.6 10 0.4 0.5

Variance: 17,847.5 106 0.1 0.2



3.5 pts/acre July 2 4 116.9 120 6.0 19.4

3.5 pts/acre July 3 9 208.4 100 5.7 18.8

3.5 pts/acre July 4 12 58.7 114 6.1 19.4

3.5 pts/acre July 5 14 136.4 110 6.0 19.2

Mean: 149.7 112 5.9 19.3


Variance: 4,785.4 65 0.1 0.1


2 Nimitz application dates on the split application treatment: May 21, 2015 and July 24, 2015.



31

T

able

19

. F

ruit

gra

de f

rom

ea

ch p

lot

in t

he 2

015

Nim

itz

field

tri

al a

t K

iwi-

3 r

anch

.

Nim

itz

Applica

tio

nP

lot

Ra

te a

nd T

imin

gN

um

ber

Und

ersi

ze45

42

39

36

33

30

27

25

23

20

18

or

Lar

ger

Unt

reat

ed (

Co

ntro

l)no

ne a

pp

lied

13

0.0

%0.1

%0.3

%0.8

%0.9

%5.6

%17.0

%25.3

%20.1

%20.0

%5.8

%4.0

%

none

ap

plie

d2

50.0

%0.0

%0.2

%0.0

%0.0

%1.1

%7.2

%15.2

%18.7

%32.7

%17.7

%7.2

%

none

ap

plie

d3

70.5

%0.1

%0.8

%1.3

%2.3

%8.7

%20.6

%20.1

%15.8

%18.1

%6.7

%4.8

%

none

ap

plie

d4

11

0.3

%0.1

%0.5

%1.1

%1.6

%6.8

%23.8

%26.2

%18.3

%15.2

%4.7

%1.4

%

none

ap

plie

d5

13

0.4

%0.0

%1.2

%1.4

%1.4

%7.3

%17.0

%20.8

%19.8

%18.0

%7.6

%5.1

%

Mea

n:

0.3

%0.1

%0.6

%0.9

%1.2

%5.9

%17.1

%21.5

%18.5

%20.8

%8.5

%4.5

%

Std

. D

ev

iati

on:

0.2

%0.1

%0.4

%0.6

%0.9

%2.9

%6.2

%4.4

%1.7

%6.9

%5.3

%2.1

%

Va

ria

nce

:5

.632

E-0

66

.327

E-0

71

.726

E-0

53

.348

E-0

57

.246

E-0

58

.421

E-0

43

.901

E-0

31

.973

E-0

32

.849

E-0

44

.733

E-0

32

.769

E-0

34

.387

E-0

4

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

Va

ria

tio

n:

93.1

%91.3

%71.7

%60.9

%69.4

%49.1

%36.5

%20.6

%9.1

%33.0

%61.9

%46.4

%

Sp

lit N

imitz

Ap

plic

atio

n3.5

pts

/acr

e M

ay +

3.5

pts

/ac

July

12

0.1

%0.0

%0.5

%0.3

%1.1

%8.0

%17.0

%16.1

%16.5

%24.2

%10.0

%6.3

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e M

ay +

3.5

pts

/ac

July

26

0.0

%0.5

%0.5

%0.8

%1.1

%1.6

%7.6

%17.5

%16.0

%27.8

%14.1

%12.5

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e M

ay +

3.5

pts

/ac

July

38

5.5

%1.5

%4.7

%5.5

%6.8

%13.2

%16.4

%19.9

%11.5

%8.7

%1.2

%5.1

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e M

ay +

3.5

pts

/ac

July

410

0.5

%0.3

%1.9

%2.1

%5.9

%15.7

%26.9

%21.3

%11.6

%8.3

%2.8

%8.9

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e M

ay +

3.5

pts

/ac

July

515

1.6

%0.4

%1.7

%3.5

%7.0

%14.7

%24.5

%15.2

%15.7

%10.4

%3.0

%2.3

%

Mea

n:

1.6

%0.5

%1.8

%2.5

%4.4

%10.6

%18.5

%18.0

%14.3

%15.9

%6.2

%7.0

%

Std

. D

ev

iati

on:

2.3

%0.6

%1.7

%2.1

%3.0

%5.9

%7.6

%2.6

%2.5

%9.4

%5.5

%3.9

%

Va

ria

nce

:5

.363

E-0

43

.068

E-0

52

.937

E-0

44

.478

E-0

49

.119

E-0

43

.459

E-0

35

.802

E-0

36

.642

E-0

46

.230

E-0

48

.763

E-0

33

.068

E-0

31

.492

E-0

3

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

Va

ria

tio

n:

148.6

%103.8

%92.9

%86.3

%68.9

%55.4

%41.2

%14.3

%17.5

%59.0

%89.3

%54.9

%

Mid

-Sum

mer

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly1

10.0

%0.1

%0.2

%0.0

%0.9

%2.4

%11.6

%19.7

%19.7

%26.8

%9.7

%8.9

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly2

40.2

%0.0

%0.3

%0.3

%0.5

%3.0

%9.7

%13.0

%14.7

%30.3

%15.9

%11.9

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly3

91.0

%0.4

%3.0

%3.7

%4.6

%12.7

%27.8

%20.4

%14.8

%8.9

%2.3

%0.3

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly4

12

1.8

%0.3

%2.4

%1.4

%3.0

%3.9

%7.1

%14.3

%13.5

%28.1

%13.4

%10.8

%

3.5

pts

/acr

e Ju

ly5

14

1.3

%0.1

%1.2

%0.8

%2.4

%8.8

%17.7

%17.5

%15.5

%18.0

%8.2

%8.4

%

Mea

n:

0.9

%0.2

%1.4

%1.2

%2.3

%6.2

%14.8

%17.0

%15.7

%22.4

%9.9

%8.1

%

Std

. D

ev

iati

on:

0.8

%0.2

%1.2

%1.5

%1.7

%4.4

%8.3

%3.3

%2.3

%8.9

%5.2

%4.6

%

Va

ria

nce

:5

.913

E-0

52

.430

E-0

61

.561

E-0

42

.137

E-0

42

.746

E-0

41

.959

E-0

36

.861

E-0

31

.057

E-0

35

.519

E-0

47

.889

E-0

32

.727

E-0

32

.081

E-0

3

Co

eff

icie

nt

of

Va

ria

tio

n:

90.2

%81.6

%89.3

%117.3

%72.6

%71.6

%56.0

%19.1

%15.0

%39.6

%52.6

%56.5

%

Tre

atm

ent

Replica

tio

nP

erc

ent

of

To

tal Y

ield

32

Table 20. Trunk growth measurements - Kiwi-3 trial location.


Rate and Timing Number 6/24/2015 11/27/2015 Increase or Decrease

Untreated (Control) none applied 1 3 30.29 30.78 0.49

none applied 2 5 31.56 31.72 0.16

none applied 3 7 31.71 31.96 0.25

none applied 4 11 31.12 31.51 0.39

none applied 5 13 30.03 30.38 0.35

Mean: 30.94 31.27 0.33


Variance: 0.57 0.44 0.02


Split Nimitz Application 3.5 pts/acre May + 3.5 pts/ac July 1 2 33.63 33.97 0.34

3.5 pts/acre May + 3.5 pts/ac July 2 6 30.35 30.31 -0.04

3.5 pts/acre May + 3.5 pts/ac July 3 8 33.66 33.93 0.27



Mean: 32.41 32.60 0.19


Variance: 6.78 7.80 0.04


Mid-Summer 3.5 pts/acre July 1 1 29.77 30.19 0.42

3.5 pts/acre July 2 4 31.37 31.67 0.30

3.5 pts/acre July 3 9 31.75 32.38 0.63

3.5 pts/acre July 4 12 33.08 33.28 0.20

3.5 pts/acre July 5 14 30.14 30.88 0.74

Mean: 31.22 31.68 0.46


Variance: 1.76 1.48 0.05


Treatment ReplicationTrunk Circumference, cm

33

Appendix 4

Fluensulfone Residue Analyses on Fruit

Kiwi-1 Trial, Poplar, CA

Kiwi-3 Trial, Earlimart, CA

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

Appendix 5

RCB ANOVA Statistical Analyses

Kiwi-1 Trial Location

Table A. Levene’s Test for homogeneity of treatment variances

Table 21. RCB ANOVA probability (ρ) values

43

Table A. Levene's Test for homogeneity of treatment variances - Kiwi-1 trial location.

Dependent Levene's Test

Variable ρ Value1















Fruit Grade

Undersize 0.27366

Grade 45 0.42075

Grade 42 0.52796

Grade 39 0.89906

Grade 36 0.51956

Grade 33 0.28367

Grade 30 0.66769

Grade 27 0.01097

Grade 25 0.27521

Grade 23 0.69145

Grade 20 0.84730

Grade 18+ 0.331701 probability (ρ) values that are less than 0.05 means that there is a 95% confidence level that a significant difference

between treatment variances occurred (highlighted in red in the table).

44

Table 21. Randomized complete block ANOVA probability (ρ) values - Kiwi-1 trial location.

Dependent ANOVA

Variable ρ Value1















Fruit Grade

Undersize 0.65620

Grade 45 0.75675

Grade 42 0.77376

Grade 39 0.82033

Grade 36 0.99256

Grade 33 0.93886

Grade 30 0.95465

Grade 27 0.177052

Grade 25 0.25525

Grade 23 0.71759

Grade 20 0.76056

Grade 18+ 0.18478

1 probability (ρ) values that are less than 0.05 means that there is a 95% confidence level that a significant difference

between treatment means occurred (highlighted in red in the table).

2 Welch's test (used when varainces are heterogeneous).

45

Appendix 6

RCB ANOVA Statistical Analyses

Kiwi-3 Trial Location

Table B. Levene’s Test for homogeneity of treatment variances

Table 22. RCB ANOVA probability (ρ) values

46

Table B. Levene's Test for homogeneity of treatment variances - Kiwi-3 trial location.

Dependent Levene's Test

Variable ρ Value


















Grade Measurements

Undersize 0.05829

Grade 45 0.09510

Grade 42 0.18353

Grade 39 0.09537

Grade 36 0.00237

Grade 33 0.17377

Grade 30 0.67061

Grade 27 0.48347

Grade 25 0.39841

Grade 23 0.35339

Grade 20 0.84144

Grade 18+ 0.44471

Variables containing probability values (ρ) highlighted in red indicate that there is a significant

(95% confidence level) difference between treatment variances.

47

Table 22. ANOVA probability (ρ) values - 2015 Nimitz Trial, Kiwi-3 Ranch, Earlimart, CA.

Dependent ANOVA

Variable ρ Value1


















Grade Measurements

Undersize 0.32612

Grade 45 0.09876

Grade 42 0.11584

Grade 39 0.08906

Grade 36 0.002173

Grade 33 0.05452

Grade 30 0.66002

Grade 27 0.12862

Grade 25 0.00285

Grade 23 0.17942

Grade 20 0.23028

Grade 18+ 0.23481

1 Variables containing probability values (ρ) highlighted in red indicate that there is a significant

(95% confidence level) difference between treatment means.

2 log10 transformed (to provide homogeneous treatment variances).

3 square root transformed (to provide homogeneous treatment variances).

4 Welch's non-parametric test for non-homogeneous variances.

Documents

Nimitz nematicide field trials - NCSU