Postharvest diseases of avocados- from orchard …platina.inia.cl/seminarios/palto/docs/26-11-14/8.- Kerry...2/12/2014 1 The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited

2/12/2014

1

The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited

Postharvest diseases of avocados-

from orchard to market

Cultural and Chemical control

Dr Kerry Everett

Mt Albert Research Centre

Auckland, New Zealand


www.avocadosource.com

2/12/2014

2


Climate Comparison

– Uruapan Mexico and Tauranga New Zealand

Data redrawn from www.worldclimateguide.co.uk

http://geo-mexico.com/?p=2302


Climate Comparison

–La Serena Chile and Tauranga New Zealand


Irazabal, F.G. 2001. History and

Development of the Avocado in

Chile. California Avocado Society

Yearbook 85: 113-128

2/12/2014

3


Climate Comparison

–Lima Peru and Tauranga New Zealand




Irazabal, F.G. 2001. History and

Development of the Avocado in Chile.

California Avocado Society Yearbook

85: 113-128

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Mexico

California

Australia

Chile

New Zealand

Peru

South Africa

2/12/2014

4


Comparison of exports by value (USD)

www.factfish.com

2012 data


New Zealand avocado exports

Source: NZ Avocado Growers Association Inc. & Avocado Industry Council Ltd. Annual Report 2014

http://www.factfish.com/

2/12/2014

5


Two postharvest diseases

Stem-end rots

(pudrición peduncular)

Body rots (antracnosis)


2/12/2014

6



What causes rots?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

C.a. C.g. B.p. B.d. P.

Me

an

no

. is

ola

tio

ns/1

00

fru

it

Fungus

body rots

stem-end rots

Colletotrichum acutatum

Colletotrichum gloeosporioides

Botryosphaeria parva

Botryosphaeria dothidea

Phomopsis sp.

2/12/2014

7


Are rots a problem?

• USA

• Three strikes and you are out (late ’90’s)

• Rots

• Measles = rots in green fruit

• Australia

• 50% of consumers do not repeat purchase because of poor quality

due to rots (1990’s)*

• Large backlog of NZ fruit in the market place leading to extended

storage and fruit age problems (1997)

• Three issues

• rots

• fruit age

• measles

*Ledger, S., Campbell, T., Banks, A., Atkinson,I, Kernot, I. and Fullelove, G. 1993

Internal quality of avocados in retail shops.

Queensland Department of Primary Industries Internal Report (Avoman). 23pp.


What did we do to fix it?

Research

Avocado Rot Survey

• Three year survey of orchards to identify cultural and grower

practices that affected rots

• Followed it up with replicated trials

Determined:

• the storage limits of fruit

• the criteria for infection

• the relationship between lenticel damage and measles

Logistics

• Reviewed the research that had already been conducted in NZ

• Tightened up timeframes in the logistics pathway

• Cooperation amongst exporters to rationalise flow of avocados

to the market

2/12/2014

8


Avocado Rot Survey

• Sampled 8 orchards in January each year for 3 years

• Sampled an additional 13 orchards for 2 of the 3 years

• Assessed 100 fruit from each orchard for rots

• Collected orchard parameters including spray diaries and weather

• Analysed the data

Everett KR, Boyd LM, Pak HA, Cutting JGM 2007.

Calcium, fungicide sprays and canopy density influence

postharvest rots of avocado. Australasian Plant Pathology

36(1): 22-31.


Fungicide sprays reduce rots

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50R

2=83%

P=0.002

Y = 44.0 - 2.4 X

Me

an

no

. o

f fr

uit

wit

h s

tem

-en

d r

ots

(%

)

Mean no. of fungicide applications

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

R2=74%

P=0.04

Y = 16.0 + 3.4 X - 0.4 X2

Me

an

no

. o

f fr

uit

wit

h b

od

y r

ots

(%

)

Mean no. of fungicide applications

2/12/2014

9


Nutrition affects body rots

0.045 0.050 0.055 0.060 0.065 0.070 0.075 0.080 0.085 0.090 0.095 0.100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2000

no

. o

f fr

uit w

ith

bo

dy r

ots

(%

)

Ca+Mg

K

Y= 396.5 exp(-X/0.02) - 0.51

R2 = 56%

2001


Rainfall inversely related to body rots

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

P=0.03

R2=57.4%

Y=0.25-0.002X

Bo

dy r

ots

(m

ean

sev

eri

ty)

mm rainfall 20 days before picking

2/12/2014

10


Fig. 5. Relationships between body rots and calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and

potassium (K) expressed as (Ca+Mg)/K, rainfall and temperature.

Lo

g1

0 (n

o. o

f fr

uit

wit

h

bo

dy

ro

ts )

C

a+M

g

K

Rai

nfa

ll (

mm

)

Ca+Mg

K

Rainfall (mm) Temperature (°C)

0.050 0.055 0.060 0.065 0.070 0.075 0.080

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

P=0.02

R2=70.4%

Y=2.5-21.6X

60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

P=0.03

R2=63.3%

Y=1.78-0.006X

16.2 16.4 16.6 16.8 17.0 17.2 17.4

0.050

0.055

0.060

0.065

0.070

0.075

0.080

P=0.024

R2=67.2%

Y=0.399-0.03X

60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

0.050

0.055

0.060

0.065

0.070

0.075

0.080

P=0.03

R2=66.2%

Y=0.04+0.0002X

16.2 16.4 16.6 16.8 17.0 17.2 17.4

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8 P=0.01

R2=75.6%

Y=14.1-0.77X

16.2 16.4 16.6 16.8 17.0 17.2 17.4

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200


30 days BH 40 days BH


Fig. 5. Relationships between body rots and calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and

potassium (K) expressed as (Ca+Mg)/K, rainfall and temperature.

Lo

g1

0 (n

o. o

f fr

uit

wit

h

bo

dy

ro

ts )

C

a+M

g

K

Rai

nfa

ll (

mm

)

Ca+Mg

K

Rainfall (mm) Temperature (°C)

0.050 0.055 0.060 0.065 0.070 0.075 0.080

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

P=0.02

R2=70.4%

Y=2.5-21.6X

60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

P=0.03

R2=63.3%

Y=1.78-0.006X

16.2 16.4 16.6 16.8 17.0 17.2 17.4

0.050

0.055

0.060

0.065

0.070

0.075

0.080

P=0.024

R2=67.2%

Y=0.399-0.03X

60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

0.050

0.055

0.060

0.065

0.070

0.075

0.080

P=0.03

R2=66.2%

Y=0.04+0.0002X

16.2 16.4 16.6 16.8 17.0 17.2 17.4

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8 P=0.01

R2=75.6%

Y=14.1-0.77X

16.2 16.4 16.6 16.8 17.0 17.2 17.4

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200


30 days BH 40 days BH

2/12/2014

11


Canopy index influences body rots dead branches + (canopy density x leaf height inside canopy)/tree spacing

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45 P=0.02

R2=23.3%

Y=0.03+0.12X

mean s

everi

ty (

body r

ots

)

canopy index


3 way analysis of variance (body rots)

Fitted : logten.ca.mg.k. + no..of.months.sprayed + canopy.index

bo

dy.r

ots

0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

R2=67.4%

P=0.000125

2/12/2014

12


Replicated trials

1. Nutrition, canopy management and irrigation

2. Fungicide spray trial

3. Fruit age

4. Lenticel damage vs. Measles


Nutrition, canopy management and root

health (root health = irrigation + Phytophthora control)

R + R + R - R - R + R + R - R -

x x x x x x x x

xN+ x xN+ x xN+ x xN+ x

xN- x xN- x xN- x xN- x

x x x x x x x x

x xN- x xN- x xN- x xN-

x xN+ x xN+ x xN+ x xN+

x x x x x x x x

Key

symbol explanation

x Tree

Assessed trees

C-

R Root health

C Canopy management

N Nutrition

Two orchards- organic and conventional

C- = no canopy management

•Dead branches removed from the canopy of all other trees,

•the lower branches were trimmed to a height of 1 m.

2/12/2014

13



Nutrition, canopy management and

irrigation

R + R + R - R - R + R + R - R -

x x x x x x x x

xN+ x xN+ x xN+ x xN+ x

xN- x xN- x xN- x xN- x

x x x x x x x x

x xN- x xN- x xN- x xN-

x xN+ x xN+ x xN+ x xN+

x x x x x x x x

Key

symbol explanation

x Tree

Assessed trees

C-

R Root health

C Canopy management

N Nutrition

Two orchards- organic (5-6 yo) and conventional (15-20 yo)

C- = no canopy management

•Dead branches removed from the canopy of all other trees,

•the lower branches were trimmed to a height of 1 m.

R+ = Root health

• irrigated

• treated with phosphorous acid or mulch (organic orchard)

N+ = Nutrition

•Calcium was applied to the ground under trees.

2/12/2014

14


Results

Factors Body rots Stem-end rots Total rots

Tree n.s. n.s. n.s.

Box n.s. n.s. n.s.

N 0.004 n.s. 0.002

R <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

C n.s. n.s. n.s.

Factors Body rots Stem-end rots Total rots

Tree n.s. n.s. n.s.

Box 0.05 n.s. n.s.

N 0.05 n.s. n.s.

R n.s. n.s. n.s.

C n.s. n.s. 0.03

Conventional orchard (trees 15-20 years old)

Organic orchard (trees 5-6 years old)


Fungicide spray trial

Aims:

• More efficaceous fungicides

• Regional differences?

Procedures

• In vitro screening

• Replicated spray trials

2/12/2014

15


In vitro testing

Fungicide

C. acutatum

C. gloeosporioides

B. parva

B. dothidea

Phomopsis sp.

boscalid <0.1 <0.1 18.2 27.7 74.8

boscalid/

pyraclostrobin

7.0 0.2 2.3 0.2 0.2

Kocide 2000DS 0.4 8.1 0.6 15.6 1.5

Kocide 3000 7.3 140.9 0.3 4.8 0.1

Champ DP 1.0 57.6 0.1 11.4 2.7

copper

hydroxosulphate

0.1 2.3 4.0 98.2 1.5

dithianon <0.1 <0.1 3.1 18.5 <0.1

fluazinam 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.1

EC 50 spore germination

Everett KR, Timudo-Torrevilla OE 2007. In vitro fungicide testing for

control of avocado fruit rots. New Zealand Plant Protection 60: 99-103

http://www.nzpps.org/.

Everett KR, Owen SG, Cutting JGM 2005. Testing efficacy of fungicides

against postharvest pathogens of avocado (Persea americana cv. Hass).

NZ Plant Protection 58: 89-95. http://www.nzpps.org/


Fungicide

C. acutatum

C. gloeosporioides

B. parva

B. dothidea

Phomopsis sp.

boscalid 1921.0 >* 837.7 2154.4 >

boscalid/

pyraclostrobin

0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.8

Kocide 2000DS 2540.7 647.3 304.7 153.2 105.8

Kocide 3000 867.2 297.1 228.1 118.1 101.8

Champ DP 346.7 257.2 1321.7 197.0 193.3

copper hydroxosulphate 910.5 402.1 1645.3 749.9 543.0

dithianon 44.2 201.4 989.6 540.3 17.2

fluazinam 7.8 1.7 6.6 4.3 0.5

*EC50 value is greater than the highest concentration used

In vitro testing

EC 50

mycelial growth

Everett KR, Timudo-Torrevilla OE 2007. In vitro fungicide testing for

control of avocado fruit rots. New Zealand Plant Protection 60: 99-103.

http://www.nzpps.org/

Everett KR, Owen SG, Cutting JGM 2005. Testing efficacy of fungicides

against postharvest pathogens of avocado (Persea americana cv. Hass).

NZ Plant Protection 58: 89-95. http://www.nzpps.org/

2/12/2014

16


Field trials

fluazanim

dithia

non

boscalid

/pyra

clo

str

obin

boscalid

Bio

sta

rt

Cham

p D

P

Kocid

e 3

000

untr

eate

d --

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

***

*

Body rotsm

ea

n s

eve

rity

(0

-10

0 s

cale

)

Treatment

fluazanim

dithia

non

boscalid

/pyra

clo

str

obin

boscalid

Bio

sta

rt

Ch

am

p D

P

Kocid

e 3

000

untr

eate

d --

0

2

4

6

8

10

Stem-end rots

me

an

seve

rity

(0

-10

0 s

cale

)

Treatment

Everett, K.R., Timudo-Torrevilla, O.E., Hill, G.N. and Dawson, T.E. 2009.

Field testing alternatives to copper for controlling avocado fruit rots. NZ

Plant Protection 61: 65-69. http://www.nzpps.org/


Regional Field Trials

Fungicide product1 Active ingredient Chemical group

Rate applied Product/100 L

Pristine pyraclostrobin/ boscalid

strobilurin/ carboxamide

60 g

Kocide Opti copper hydroxide copper 90 g

Shirlan fluazinam pyridinamine 100 mL

4 orchards per region

4 treatments

100 fruit per treatment

8 applications (March to October)

Harvested November

2/12/2014

17


ANOVA Factors SER BR

Treatment <0.0001 <0.0001

Replicate n.s. n.s.

Region <0.0001 <0.0001

Orchard <0.0001 <0.0001

Fungicide product1 Active ingredient Chemical group

Rate applied Product/100 L

Pristine pyraclostrobin/ boscalid

strobilurin/ carboxamide

60 g

Kocide Opti copper hydroxide copper 90 g

Shirlan fluazinam pyridinamine 100 mL

4 orchards per region

4 treatments

100 fruit per treatment

8 applications (March to October)

Harvested November


Regional Field Trials

Pyraclostrobin/boscalid Fluazinam Copper hydroxide Untreated

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

c b b a

Ro

t In

cid

en

ce

(%

)

Treatment

SER

BR

a b b b

Everett, K.R., Pushparajah, I.P.S., Taylor, J.T., Astill, M.S., King, D.B.

and Ah Chee, A. 2010. Fungicide spray trial in three avocado growing

regions in New Zealand. NZ Avocado Growers' Association Annual

Research Report Vol. 8: 99-110. available on-line at


http://www.avocadosource.com/

2/12/2014

18


Storage limits of fruit

• Fruit inoculated with Colletotrichum acutatum

• Then placed in coolstore (5.5oC)

• Week 0 fruit was held at 20oC and assessed for SER after 1,3, 4, 6 and 7 days

• After 2 weeks fruit was removed from the coolstore, then every week for 7 weeks

• The fruit was assessed for SER and firmness on 5 occasions as for day 0:

usually 1,3, 4, 6 and 7 days after removal from the coolstore

0 2 3 4 5 6 7 Weeks in coostorage (5.5oC) 5.5oC

20oC

= 20 inoculated fruit &

20 uninoculated fruit


Storage limits of fruit

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ripeness of 5 by hand inoculated

control

ste

m e

nd

ro

t in

cid

en

ce (

%)

time in coolstorage (days)

0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

inoculated

control

ste

m e

nd

ro

t i

ncid

en

ce (

%)

time in coolstorage (days)

Fruit assessed when ripe

Everett, K.R. & Pak, H.A. 2002

Patterns of stem-end rot development

in coolstorage.

NZ Avocado Growers’ Association

Annual Research Report 2: 68-74

Dixon, J., Pak, H.A., Mandemaker, A.J.,

Smith, D.B., Elmsly, T.A. & Cutting, J.G.M. 2003

Fruit age management: the key to successful long

distance export of New Zealand avocados.



Fruit assessed when hard

2/12/2014

19


Infection criteria

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

C. gloeosporioides 24 hours

Y = 6.75 x (T-20)0.958

x (28.25-T)0.441

T optimum=25.6oC

R2=94.3%

P=0.006

% s

po

re g

erm

inati

on

Temperature (oC)

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

C. acutatum 24hr

Y=3.76 x (T-Tmin

)1.04

x (Tmax

-T)0.73

T optimum=23.3oC

R2=86%

P=0.003

% s

po

re g

erm

inati

on

Temperature (oC)

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

B. parva 24hr

% s

po

re g

erm

inati

on

Temperature (oC)

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Y = 60

1+e-1(x-17)

R2=46.2%

P=0.06

Phomopsis 24hr

% s

po

re g

erm

inati

on

Temperature (oC)

Everett, K.R. & Pak, H.A. 2002

Infection criteria for pathogens

causing body rots in avocados




Jan

uary

Fe

bru

ary

Ma

rch

Ap

ril

Ma

y

Ju

ne

Ju

ly

Au

gu

st

Sep

tem

ber

Oc

tob

er

No

ve

mb

er

De

ce

mb

er

Jan

uary

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Phomopsis sp.

C. acutatum

C. gloeosporioides

Kaitaia

Whangarei

TePuke

Tem

pe

ratu

re (

oC

)

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

B. parva 24hr

% s

po

re g

erm

inati

on

Temperature (oC)

Everett & Pak 2002


Annual Research Report 2: 68-74. www.avocadosource.com

2/12/2014

20


What causes measles?


2/12/2014

21



-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

unbagged bagged separate

flask

fruit

wate

r lo

ss (

g)

2/12/2014

22


Simulate damage

“Jostle” 10 x


2/12/2014

23


0.1 mm


0.1 mm

2/12/2014

24


0.1 mm


Fungal isolations from ‘measles’

C.a. C.g. B.p. B.d. P. No

isolation Sap.

control 6 24 2 0 0 163 5

‘measles’ 50 20 4 0 29 85 12

C.a. Colletotrichum acutatum

C.g. Colletotrichum gloeosporioides

B.p. Botryosphaeria parva

B.d. Botryosphaeria dothidea

P. Phomopsis sp.

Sap. saprotrophs

2/12/2014

25


Lenticel damage Measles

not

imbibed

imbibed not

imbibed

imbibed

Treatmentsa not jostled 2.9±0.57 1.5±0.31 5.2±2.02 5.5±1.63

jostled 7.1±1.02 10.5±1.18 16.9±4.31 17.2±3.58

P valuesb imbibed(I) 0.047

<0.0001

0.010

ns

ns

0.016

ns

ns

jostled(J)

I x J

fruit

aValues are means ± S.E.M. for 40 fruit

bP values are from a three-way analysis of variance


Conclusions

• Fruit are more susceptible to lenticel damage when imbibed and

when damaged

• Fruit are more susceptible to ‘measles’ when damaged, but

imbibation had no effect

• Measles are probably due to fungal infection, but lenticel damage

is a physical disorder

• To reduce lenticel damage (in NZ), pick before rainy periods

• To reduce measles, apply fungicides

• For both, make sure fruit are treated as gently as possible after

harvest

.

Everett KR, Hallett IC, Rees-George J, Chynoweth RW, Pak HA. 2008.

Avocado lenticel damage: the cause and the effect on fruit quality.

Postharvest Biology and Technology 48: 383-390

2/12/2014

26


Literature review - Postharvest fungicides

Treatment No. of trials % efficacy

Flusilazole 1 68.8

Permanganate (acidified) 1 58

Prochloraz 10 55.3

Benomyl 7 52.7

Hypochlorite 5 36.6

Benzalkonium chloride 1 18.8

Thiabendazole 2 17.8

10% ethanol 2 13

Phosphorous acid 2 4.8

Carbendazim 2 2.5

Kresoxim-methyl 2 8

Boscalid/pyraclostrobin 1 0

Everett, K.R. 2002 Avocado fruit rots: A review of industry funded

research. NZ Avocado Growers’ Association Annual Research Report 2:

8-16. www.avocadosource.com


Literature review - Postharvest fungicides

Prochloraz treatment- apply as soon after harvest as possible

Hours after harvest fruit treated

Not treated 0 2 4 12 24

% rots 73 28 27 35 34 40

y = 3,1x + 23,5 R² = 0,8371

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 2 4 12 24

% r

ots

Hours after harvest fruit treated

Everett, K.R. 2002 Avocado fruit rots: A review of industry funded research.

NZ Avocado Growers’ Association Annual Research Report 2: 8-16 www.avocadosource.com

2/12/2014

27


Finally- to reduce postharvest issues

Apply fungicides

Irrigate the trees and control Phytophthora

Apply calcium

Apply postharvest fungicides immediately after harvest

Minimise handling damage

Get fruit to the marketplace as quickly as possible

Rationalise the flow of fruit to the marketplace so there are no gluts leading

to fruit age problems



Gracias muchas Ian Hallett, Henry Pak, Shamini Pushparajah,

Olimpia Timudo, Jonathan Rees-George

The Organising Committee

Bruno Defilippi

Raúl Ferreyra

Sebastián Rivera

Fondecyt

WageningenUR Chile

http://industry.nzavocado.co.nz/industry/industry_welcome.csn

http://www.conicyt.cl/

Documents

Postharvest diseases of avocados- from orchard …platina.inia.cl/seminarios/palto/docs/26-11-14/8.- Kerry...2/12/2014 1 The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited