Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Poinsettia Discussion Group Meeting
Varietal introductions and growth control in poinsettia production
21 November 2019
Neame Lea Nursery, Horseshoe Road, Spalding, Lincolnshire PE11 3JB
Staplehurst Nurseries, 8 October 2019 – water deficit and PGR grown crops
Event programme
Time Presentation Speaker 9.30 Registration, coffee/tea refreshments 10.00 Event welcome by the BPOA Poinsettia Group
Chairperson Graeme Edwards,Woodlark Nurseries
10.05 Growing with water deficit irrigation, the pros and cons
Vasile Agache, Neame Lea Nurseries
10.30 Water deficit trial 2019 Mark Else, NIAB EMR
11.00 Coffee/tea refreshments
11.15 Results from the poinsettia monitoring scheme and residue testing work
Neil Bragg, Substrate Associates
11.30 IPM update for pest and disease control in poinsettia
David Hide, Fargro
12.00 Plant growth regulator programmes for poinsettia trial
Jill England, ADAS
12.15 Poinsettia variety trial 2019 Harry Kitchener, Consultant
12.30 Lunch 13.00 Visits to on-site demonstrations (30 mins each):
PGR programme assessment trial Water deficit trial Poinsettia production at Neame Lea Poinsettia variety trial scoring
Jill England, ADAS Mark Else, NIAB, EMR Vasile Agache, Neame Lea Harry Kitchener, Consultant
15.00 Any other business including further discussion on research needs and study tour ideas for 2020
Graeme Edwards, BPOA Poinsettia GroupChairperson
15.30 Coffee/tea refreshments and depart
Contents
Presentation Page Growing poinsettia crops using water deficit irrigation Vasile Agache
1
PO22: Developing precision and deficit irrigation techniques to reduce reliance on PGRs and to optimise plant quality, uniformity and shelf-life potential in commercial protected pot and bedding plant production Mark Else
6
Poinsettia monitoring scheme and active ingredient residue testing Neil Bragg
18
Poinsettia: an IPM update David Hide
20
Evaluation of PGRs on poinsettia Jill England
29
Poinsettia variety scoring sheet 34
Growing poinsettia crops using water deficit irrigation Vasile Agache
Growing poinsettia crops using water deficit irrigation
Vasile Agache
21 November 2019
HKConsultancy
Substrate associates
Ltd.
Water Deficit trial - the beginning
2015 - 15,000 poinsettia grown on benches, with capillary matting
2016 - first 25,000 poinsettia grown without any PGR, but no data captured
2017 - 100 plants: data was captured for the first time as part of AHDB WD trial
Water Deficit trial continued…
2018 - 4,000 plants were grown with WD method
2019 - 40,000 plants were grown with the same method
2020 - we will aim to grow as many poinsettia as we can with this innovative technology
Page 1
Growing poinsettia crops using water deficit irrigation Vasile Agache
Advantages
• NO PGR use – environmental friendly
• Better plant shelf life
• Better quality plants for end customer
• Better root system
Further advantages
• Less risk of disease
• Better foliage colour
• Stronger, sturdier plants
• Significantly smaller water bills for those using mains water or not recycling
Further advantages
• Electricity and other bills related to crop irrigation
• Chemical cost saving
• No risk of phytotoxicity after PGR application
• Reduces the risk of nutrient locking or flushing
Page 2
Growing poinsettia crops using water deficit irrigation Vasile Agache
More advantages
• WD uses latest technologies which can maintain the optimum moisture content for crop
• Data updated every 15 min to smartphone, tablet, PC or Mac
• Mild and temporary wilting will not damage the crop prior to flower initiation
And even more advantages …
• Use the available technology to be able to irrigate the crop
• Use precise irrigation events based on data provided by sensors
Disadvantages
• Poor root structure when drying regime is applied may cause cropfailure
• Drying the crop too much might cause crop failure
• Pot moisture content may vary on the same bench or within the glasshouse
Page 3
Growing poinsettia crops using water deficit irrigation Vasile Agache
Disadvantages
• Uneven growing surface will cause uneven growth/dry spots
• Watering benches at different pressure, hence more or less water quantity
• Growing media with quick drainage
• Confusion between water deficit trial being used as a grower tool and not a system which grows poinsettia without growers input
Disadvantages
• Wrong sensor calibration will cause inaccurate readings
• Always must have clean bench drainage holes and filters in place
• It is unlikely to happen but sensors, dataloggers and telemetry may be unreliable
Other things to consider when using WD method
• Weather probability forecasting to help irrigation scheduling
• Outdoor weather and indoor phytoclimate
• Light transmission (PAR) across the growing area
• Need appropriate controls
Page 4
Growing poinsettia crops using water deficit irrigation Vasile Agache
Other things to consider when using WD method
• Choose carefully when to dry down – avoid hot, sunny days with high VPD
• The bench with sensors must be representative for the whole crop toreduce variability
• The water quality needs to be high, with very low salinity, to avoid the accumulation of salts within the root zone
Page 5
PO22: Developing precision and deficit irrigation techniques to reduce reliance on PGRs and to optimise plant quality, uniformity and shelf-life potential in commercial protected pot and bedding
plant production
AHDB PO 22, 21 November 2019 [email protected]
HKConsultancy
Substrate Associates Ltd
WPs 2 & 3: Using precision irrigation and regulated deficit irrigation to control stem
height without reliance on PGRs
Contents
Objectives for 2019 PI RDI trials
Remote monitoring of substrate water contents – DeltaLINK Cloud and Dashboard
RDI - height control with reduced reliance on PGRs
Staplehurst – one spray
Neame Lea – no sprays
Mapping variability across the growing area
Vapour Pressure Deficit (VPD) and crop co-efficients
Summary of progress
Next steps:
Does stress pre-conditioning improve shelf-life potential?
Scaling-up using crop-coefficients and VPD forecasts
Page 6
PO22: Developing precision and deficit irrigation techniques Mark Else
Objectives for the 2019 PI RDI trials
Use PI & RDI to deliver height control in four varieties
‘Freya Red’, ‘Astro Red’, ‘Infinity Red’, Week 30 – Neame Lea
‘Hera Red’, Week 29 – Staplehurst Nurseries
Use PI technology to schedule irrigation to separate blocks
Identify SVMC (substrate volumetric moisture content) values at which visible wilting first occurred in each variety under a range of VPDs
Determine the timing and frequency of water deficits needed to control stem height effectively - regulated deficit irrigation (RDI)
Quantify the impact of RDI on plant quality and shelf-life potential
Derive crop co-efficients for the four varieties to facilitate scaling-up
Monitoring of substrate water contents
SM150T sensors installed in nine pots of each variety
Sensors being calibrated for each substrate
Temperature-corrected moisture content measured every 15 min
Data from nine sensors averaged, and displayed in DeltaLINK Cloud
Air temperature, RH, VPD and PAR measured every 15 min
Remote access to real-time data
DeltaLINK Cloud Reports
Data updated every 15 min to smartphone, tablet, PC or Mac
Alarm sent to user if values move below or above pre-determined thresholds
Page 7
PO22: Developing precision and deficit irrigation techniques Mark Else
Grower Dashboard
Dashboard not shared with Staplehurst team…
Irrigation to Commercial crop
Commercial crop - a ‘growy’ season
Crop sprayed with CCC after pinching (14 August 2019, Week 33)
Subsequently sprayed 5 times with Bonzi, once with CCC
Onset of bract colouration advanced in commercial crop
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
29.5
30.5
31.5
32.5
33.5
34.5
35.5
36.5
37.5
38.5
39.5
40.5
41.5
42.5
43.5
44.5
45.5
Plant heigh t (cm
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
23/08/19
30/08/19
06/09/19
13/09/19
20/09/19
27/09/19
04/10/19
11/10/19
18/10/19
25/10/19
01/11/19
Rate of stem extendion (mm / day)
Page 8
PO22: Developing precision and deficit irrigation techniques Mark Else
Change in slope indicates that plants are experiencing water deficit stress
Rate of change in SVMC is slowed by stomatal closure
RDI stress imposed on three occasions
Remote detection of RDI stress
Stress…
RDI - height control with reduced reliance on PGRs
Crop sprayed with CCC after pinching (14 August 2019, Week 33)
Three RDI events applied
Height control also achieved during RDI pre-conditioning phase (Weeks 36-37)
Any adverse or positive effects on plant quality….?
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Plant heigh t (cm
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Rate of stem extendion (mm / day)
Page 9
PO22: Developing precision and deficit irrigation techniques Mark Else
Minimising on-bench and between-bench variability
Drips!
Laser-levelled / water-levelled benches
Pressure-regulated irrigation inputs to benches
Clean bench trays and channels
Clean drainage holes, with mesh grids, similar drainage rates
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
29 30
CCC and PI RDI plants from Staplehurst at dispatch
Which plants are the PI RDI ones?
Beneficial stress…
Page 10
PO22: Developing precision and deficit irrigation techniques Mark Else
Growth-controlling water deficits – ‘Astro Red’
Pre RDI conditioning treatment applied from 12 – 30 September 2019
RDI applied from 21 September 2019 and continuing…
Target SVMC in 2018 was 24% (applied with caution in Week 46)
Pre‐conditioning RDI
Changing height specs mid season is challenging….
Mapping on bench variability
Plant-and-pot weight (g)
Substrate VMC (m3 m-3)
Pore E.C. (mS m-1)
Substrate temperature (oC)Orientation
W S E
Sam
plin
g p
osi
tion
alo
ng
be
nch
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
440.3
500.3
480.3
460.3
480.3
480.3
460.3
500.3
460.3
440.3
Plant-and-pot wt (g)
W S E
Sa
mp
ling
po
sitio
n a
lon
g b
ench
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
540.3
520.3
500.3480.3
540.3
520.3
540.3
520.3500.3480.3
500.3
PI/RDI Bl5, #2 14/09/19 CC Bl4, #2 14/09/19
Page 11
PO22: Developing precision and deficit irrigation techniques Mark Else
Mapping on bench variability
Orientation
W S E
Sa
mp
ling
posi
tion
alo
ng
ben
ch
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
19.0
18.9
18.9
19.219.1
19.0
18.9
18.7
18.7
18.7
18.7
18.6
19.0
18.618.5
18.4
18.6
19.018.9
18.7
19.0
19.0
19.1
19.519.4
19.2
19.3
18.8
18.8
18.8
18.8
19.3
Substrate temp. (oC)
W S E
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
19.5
19.4
19.6
19.6
19.5
19.4
19.2
19.2
19.1
19.5
19.2
19.4
19.3
19.3
19.3
19.3
19.3
19.3
19.3
PI/RDI Bl 5, #2 04/10/19 PI/RDI Bl 5, #3 04/10/19
Orientation
W S E
Sa
mp
ling
pos
itio
n a
lon
g b
enc
h
0
1
2
3
4
5
60.20
0.25
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.25
SVMC (m3 m-3)
W S E
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.25
PI/RDI BL 5, #2 04/10/19 PI/RDI BL 5, #3 04/10/19
Orientation
W S E
Sa
mp
ling
po
sitio
n a
long
be
nch
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
300.3
300.3
300.3
300.3
W S E
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
300.3
250.3250.3
250.3
PI/RDI Bl 5, #2 04/10/19 PI RDI Bl5, #3 04/10/19
Plant-and-pot wt (g)
Mapping variability between benches
Orientation
W S E
Sa
mp
ling
pos
itio
n a
long
be
nch
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
300.3
350.3
300.3
300.3
300.3
300.3
Plant-and-pot wt (g)
W S E
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
500.3
500.3
500.3
500.3
450.3
450.3
PI/RDI Bl3, #2 26/09/19 CC Bl4, #2 26/09/19
W S E
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
400.3
350.3
400.3
350.3
350.3
PI RDI Bl5, #2 26/09/19
Orientation
W S E
Sam
plin
g p
ositi
on
alo
ng b
ench
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.25
0.30
0.25
0.25
0.30
0.25
0.25
Substrate VMC (m3 m-3)
W S E
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.55
0.50
0.50
0.500.50
0.45
0.55
0.45
0.45
0.40
0.55
0.50
PI RDI Bl3, #2 26/09/19 CC Bl4, #2 26/09/19
W S E
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.40
0.35
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.30
0.35
0.35
0.45
0.30
0.30
PI RDI Bl5, #2 26/09/19
Mapping variability between benches
Orientation
W S E
Sam
plin
g p
ositi
on a
long
ben
ch
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
290.3
280.3
290.3
280.3
270.3
270.3
270.3
280.3
270.3
290.3
330.3320.3310.3
290.3
280.3
300.3
Substrate VMC (m3 m-3)
W S E
270.3260.3
270.3
290.3
280.3
280.3
270.3
PI RDI Bl3, #202/10/19
PI RDI Bl3, #302/10/19
W S E
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.23
0.24
0.23
0.220.21
0.20
0.20
0.20
Plant-and-pot weight (g)
W S E
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.230.220.21
0.24
0.22
0.260.240.23
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.25
PI RDI Bl3, #202/10/19
PI RDI Bl3, #302/10/19
Orientation
W S E
Sa
mpl
ing
pos
itio
n a
lon
g b
ench
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
450.3
450.3
450.3
450.3
Substrate VMC (m3 m-3)
W S E
450.3
450.3
450.3
450.3
PI RDI Bl3, #202/10/19
PI RDI Bl3, #302/10/19
W S E
0.35
0.40
0.40
0.50
0.450.45
0.35
0.40
0.35
0.45
Plant-and-pot weight (g)
W S E
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.350.30
0.450.40
0.40
0.45
0.35
PI RDI Bl3, #202/10/19
PI RDI Bl3, #302/10/19
Before irrigation After irrigation
Page 12
PO22: Developing precision and deficit irrigation techniques Mark Else
Mapping variability on benches
Before irrigation After irrigation
Orientation
W S E
Sa
mp
ling
pos
itio
n al
ong
ben
ch
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
290.3
280.3
290.3
280.3
270.3
270.3
270.3
280.3
270.3
290.3
330.3320.3310.3
290.3
280.3
300.3
Substrate VMC (m3 m-3)
W S E
270.3260.3
270.3
290.3
280.3
280.3
270.3
PI RDI Bl3, #202/10/19
PI RDI Bl3, #302/10/19
W S E
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.20
0.24
0.18
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.18
Plant-and-pot weight (g)
W S E
0.20
0.22
0.20
0.220.20
0.24
0.18
0.260.24
0.18
PI RDI Bl3, #202/10/19
PI RDI Bl3, #302/10/19
Orientation
W S E
Sam
plin
g po
sitio
n al
ong
benc
h
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
450.3
450.3
450.3
450.3
Substrate VMC (m3 m-3)
W S E
450.3
450.3
450.3
450.3
PI RDI Bl3, #202/10/19
PI RDI Bl3, #302/10/19
W S E
0.35
0.40
0.40
0.50
0.450.45
0.35
0.40
0.35
0.45
Plant-and-pot weight (g)
W S E
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.450.40
0.40
0.45
0.35
PI RDI Bl3, #202/10/19
PI RDI Bl3, #302/10/19
Mapping variability between benches
Orientation
NE NW SW
Sam
plin
g posi
tion a
long
benc
h
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
330
330
320
360
340
340
340
340330
330
320
350
350350
350
NE NW SW
326
322
318
314
326
322
322
318
322
318
322
PI RDI Astro Red#6, 24/09/19
NE NW SW
310.3
310.3
320.3
320.3
340.3
340.3
330.3
330.3
340.3
360.3
300.3350.3
350.3
350.3
350.3
Plant-and-pot weight (g)
NE NW SW
360.3
360.3
440.3
440.3
430.3
430.3
420.3
420.3
410.3
410.3
390.3
390.3
380.3
380.3
370.3
370.3
440.3
430.3420.3
410.3
400.3
400.3
400.3
400.3
NE NW SW
370.3
360.3
360.3340.3
340.3
340.3
330.3
320.3
310.3
350.3
350.3
NE NW SW
330.3
320.3
310.3
330.3
340.3
340.3
390.3
380.3
380.3
370.3
370.3
360.3
360.3
350.3
350.3
NE NW SW
370.3
360.3
360.3340.3
340.3
360.3340.3
330.3
370.3
370.3
360.3
330.3
350.3
350.3
350.3350.3
#11#16Sensor bench #21 #26 #31 #36
Using VPDs to schedule PI and RDI
High VPDs result in higher rates of transpiration… until stomata close
Plants recover from wilting quickly once VPD begins to fall
Mild and temporary wilting will not damage the crop (growth stage…)
Page 13
PO22: Developing precision and deficit irrigation techniques Mark Else
Linking VPD with plant water loss
Daytime rate of change (RoC) of substrate drying correlates with plant water loss
Relationship changes with plant development stageMature bracts don’t have stomata and so water loss is slowed at maturity
Should be able to estimate plant water loss and degree of plant stress…
10.4%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Accumlated day tim
e hourly VPD
(kPa)
Daily water loss (% decrease in VMC)
Daily water loss vs VPD
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Daily RoC VSM
C (%)
Accumulated day time hourly VPD kPa)
VPD vs Daily water loss
Forecasting VPD to help to schedule irrigation
05/08/19 19/08/19 02/09/19 16/09/19 30/09/19
VP
D (
kPa
)
0
1
2
3
Frittenden
Date
05/08/19 19/08/19 02/09/19 16/09/19 30/09/19
Inte
rnal
VP
D (
kPa
)
0
1
2
3
Trial area
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Outside vs inside VPD
Series1 Series2
Summary of Staplehurst PI RDI work…
‘Hera Red’, potted Week 29, into short days on 12 September 2019
Market date 11 November 2019, height spec. 23-32, target 27-28 cm
One CCC spray applied following pinching
All plants spaced and graded twice to date
Commercial crop sprayed x7 times to date
PI RDI crop sprayed once
Sensors, dataloggers and telemetry reliable and working well
Remote access to real-time data informs decision-making
Repeated exposure to water deficits over a 3-week period (Week 38-41) should optimise growth control
Page 14
PO22: Developing precision and deficit irrigation techniques Mark Else
Summary of Neame Lea PI RDI work so far…
‘Freya Red’, ‘Astro Red’, ‘Infinity Red’, Week 30 – Neame Lea
No PGR sprays
Changing height specs mid-season is a challenge…
Sensors, dataloggers and telemetry reliable and working well
Remote access to real-time data informs decision-making
Grower Dashboard helpful to check on SVMCs and VPDs
Repeated exposure to water deficits over a 4-week period (week 39-42) will optimise growth control
Choose carefully when to dry down – avoid hot, sunny days with high VPD
WP 5: Capillary matting and drip irrigation
Substrate Associates Ltd
• Took a number (>700) of moisture readings in several areas representing, dry, wet,or just watered pots on capillary matting
• Weighed pots in some areas to double check moisture variation• Data sets being analysed
Measurements at Volmary
Page 15
PO22: Developing precision and deficit irrigation techniques Mark Else
WP 6: Plant quality and shelf-life potential
HKConsultancy
Objective assessment of plant qualityQuality Criteria
Characteristic Description/method Description of range Standard specificationPlant height Assessment is made from pot top to tallest part of plant n/a Dependant on customer
specificationShoot loss Only plants with 4 shoots enter assessment. Counts of the loss
of primary shoots from removal of sleeves onwardsn/a 4 should be maintained
through entire processLeaf drop Observed as sleeve removed and then weekly count of drop
with a final assessment of overall loss as a proportion of the total number of leaves using a 1-5 scale
Final score 1= all fallen off, to 5= all present 3 and above
Bract drop Observed as sleeve removed and then weekly count of drop with a final assessment of overall loss as a proportion of the total number of bract leaves using a 1-5 scale
Final score 1= all fallen off, to 5= all present 3 and above
Bract head difference in height
Measure the distance between the highest and lowest of the 4 main bract heads
Pass/fail Customer dependant specification
Bract head diameter
Measure with of width at broadest part of the bract head n/a More important to compare difference between CC and RDI
Bract edge blackening
Observed once sleeve removed and home-life testing underway
n/a Absent
Cyathia quality Single overall score which takes size, pollen production and abscission into consideration
1= closed bud; 2=closed bud with colour showing; 3=pollen visible, stigma closed; 4=no pollen, stigma open; 5=pollen visible, stigma open; 6=presence of scars from abscission of cyathia
3 and above
Plant quality Single overall score which takes into consideration all scored aspects as well as plant habit/shape, bract position, bract colour (how it is maintained over time), cyathia colour, leaf colour.
1= of unacceptable standard in one or more aspects, 2= 2nd quality does not achieve retail standards, 3= acceptable in all aspects, 4= less than excellent in one aspect, 5 =excellent quality in all areas
3 and above
• First scoring of quality ‘at dispatch’ by nursery staff• Sleeved plants placed 6 in a box• Transportation with data recording • Arrival at testing facility• Removal of sleeves after 1 +6 days• Second quality scoring 24 h after sleeve removal• Plants placed in shelf life room, randomised, spaced and on saucers• Wireless temperature and RH sensors located around shelf-life room• Installation of SM150T moisture sensors to track changes in SVMC• Weekly scoring for 6-8 weeks completing in early January 2020
Quality assessment and shelf / home life testing
Page 16
PO22: Developing precision and deficit irrigation techniques Mark Else
Thanks to:Marcel, Martyn, Simon, John, Geoff and SteveVasile and ViktorijaHilary, Ben and HarryMike, Fernando, Lucia, Matteo, Victor, Pablo
AHDB PO 22, 21 November 2019 [email protected]
HKConsultancy
Substrate Associates Ltd
Page 17
PO22: Developing precision and deficit irrigation techniques Mark Else
Poinsettia monitoring scheme and active ingredient residue testing Neil Bragg
Poinsettia monitoring scheme and active ingredient residue
testing
Neil Bragg
Summary of the issues raised: Poinsettia Monitoring Scheme ‐ 2019
• Far fewer growers have opted for ‘Infinity’, therefore generally less lower leaf visible marking
• Most growers switched to high phosphate feeds at the end of August, this avoided the usual drop in phosphate levels
• Some growers failed to check their injector systems or fertiliser stock tanks
• This led in some cases to dangerously low overall fertiliserlevels
• Compared to plants seen in Germany, crops were generally paler!
Examples of poinsettia ‐ UK Vs Germany
Page 18
Poinsettia monitoring scheme and active ingredient residue testing Neil Bragg
Examples of poinsettia ‐ UK Vs Germany
Leaf active ingredient residue levels at rooted cutting stage (mg/kg)
Azoxystrobin 0.02Buprofezin 0.83
Chlorothalonil 39.0
Deltamethrin 0.25Fluopyram 2.80
Mepanipyrim 1.30Metalaxyl‐M 0.02
Pyrimethanil 0.04
Azadirachtin 0.57Carbendazim 0.02
Cryomazine 3.80Flonicamid 0.25
Spiromesifen 0.08Spirotetramat 0.24
Thiophanate‐methyl 0.01
Possible side effects of active ingredient residues on bio‐control agents
Page 19
Poinsettia: an IPM update David Hide
Poinsettia: an IPM update
Main culpritsAphids: several species including Peach‐potato aphid (Myzus persicae), Glasshouse potato aphid (Aulacorthumsolani) and Potato aphid (Macrosiphum euphorbiae).
Thrips: Japanese or Eastern Flower Thrips (Thripssetosus).
Whitefly: Glasshouse, Honeysuckle, Bemisia tabaci.
Spider mite: Lewis mite (Eotetranychus lewisi).
Bacterial leaf spot: Xanthomonas arboricola.
Aphid control on poinsettiaBiological: Aphidius colemani + A. ervimix per 1 to 2 m2 per fortnight on 4 to 6 occasions as soon as aphids found.
IPM compatible sprays: Sequoia 200g/ha.
Mainman: EAMU 0045 of 2013 at 0.14 kg/ha in 200 to 1,500 ltwater (14 g per 100 lt at 1,000 lt/ha rate).
Page 20
Poinsettia: an IPM update David Hide
Controls aphid and whitefly. Unique mode of action. No cross resistance to other chemical classes. Active ingredient is new ‐ sufloxaflor. Approved for use on ‐
Permanent protection with full enclosure crops of:ornamental plant production,tomato, aubergine pepper,cucumber, melon, courgette.
New product Sequoia
4
New product Sequoia ‐mode of action
5
New product Sequoia ‐ propertiesLack of cross‐resistance to all other insecticide MOAs.
Control of pyrethroid, carbamate, flonicamid and OP resistance aphid biotypes.
Controls neonicotinioid resistance aphids in S. Europe (not found in UK to date).
Systemic and translaminar activity.
Active by contact and ingestion.
Safe on a wide range of ornamental plants.
Labelled for control of whitefly and aphid.
Activity likely on: psyllids, scale insects, leafhoppers, capsids, mealybugs.
6
Page 21
Poinsettia: an IPM update David Hide
New product Sequoia• Sequoia – speed of activity
7
Sequoia ‐ Compatibility with Beneficial insects & mites
State of play at April 2019.
For more informationSee Fargro Technical Notes
8
Sequoia ‐ key points
Rapid acting. Systemic and translaminar. Controls aphids and whitefly. Contact and ingestion . New chemical class: sulfoximines ‐ IRAC 4C. Usable in biological programmes.
9
Page 22
Poinsettia: an IPM update David Hide
Sequoia ‐ the label
Whitefly rate 1 application per year at 400 ml/ha.
Aphid rate 2 applications per year at 200 ml/ha.(minimum of 14 days apart if needed)
10
Sequoia ‐ further information Further information see the leaflet, label or Technical Notes available from
Fargro or your distributor. For more information on the active see http://isoclast.eu
11
Polyphagous, very similar host range to WFT.
Dark brown to black, similar to cereal thrips.
Virus transmission, TSWV (same as WFT).
Similar life cycle to WFT, eggs laid in leaves, first and second instar larvae feed in patches on the underside of leaves causingcharacteristic silvering with minute black faecal pellets.
Thrips setosus ‐ Eastern Flower Thrips
Page 23
Poinsettia: an IPM update David Hide
Thrips setosus ‐ Eastern Flower Thrips
Photo adult T. setosus leaf damage and excrement. Courtesy : Wietse den Hartog (NPPO of NL)
Photo of adult T. setosus courtesy Rens van den Biggelaar, NVWA
Photo of adult Limothrips cerealium courtesy Nigel
Cattlin
Limothrips cerealium: Cereal thrips.
Glasshouse whitefly Trialeurodes vaporariorum
Cotton whitefly: Bemisia tabaci
Whitefly ‐ Glasshouse vs Bemisia tabaci
Photo’s courtesy Nigel Cattlin
Trialeurodes Bemisia tabaci
‘Pork pie’ or Cornish pasty
Page 24
Poinsettia: an IPM update David Hide
Glasshouse whitefly control by parasitoidsEncarsia formosa
1 : 1 up to 60 eggs per female wasp.
Min temp 12oC.
Eretmocerus eremicus
1 : 1 up to 50 eggs per female wasp,host feeding is high.
Min temp 17oC but good up to 40oC.
Photo’s courtesy Nigel Cattlin
Whitefly control
Macrolophus pygmaeus
• 1 : 500 +, 70 eggs per female.
•Mediterranean origin.
•Min temp 15oC.
• Licensed for use on protected crops inproduction.
• Supplementary food to improveestablishment.
Photo’s courtesy Nigel Cattlin
Whitefly control by pathogen
Beauveria bassianaLecanicillium lecanii
Min 60% Rh, (B. bassiana) 95% at leafsurface (L. lecanii).Slow curative.Ideal for severe ‘hot spots’ and mixingwith selective pesticides.
Page 25
Poinsettia: an IPM update David Hide
Batavia ‐ 18449 EAMU 20192597
Control for whitefly, aphid, and thrips.Approved for use in protected and permanent protection with fullenclosure ornamental plant production.
Maximum individual dose 0.75l/ha.
2 applications, min 14 days apart.
Latest application 14 days before or following flowering.
Worker PPE 39 days, thermal comfort checks.
Additional controls
FLiPPER
SB Plant Invigorator
Applaud
Gazelle SG
Azatin?
Lewis mite: Eotetranychus lewisi
Page 26
Poinsettia: an IPM update David Hide
Spider mites ‐ Eotetranychus lewisi
Smaller than common two‐spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae.
Yellowish with 2 small dark spots.
Leaf damage and life cycle similar to TSSM.
Amblyseius andersoni far better than Phytoseiulus.
A. montdorensis and A. swirskii limited activity on spider mites.
Dynamec (abamectin), good but will disrupt Encarsia and Eretmocerus for whitefly control.
Lewis mite: Eotetranychus lewisii
Photo of adult E. lewis mite courtesy Tetsuo goto
Capsicum Carica papaya Cucumis sativus Euphorbia pulcherrima Solanum Citrus
Major host plants (all protected crops)
Xanthamonas arboricola pv. poinsettiicola
Photo courtesy: Y.‐A. Lee 1*, P.‐C. Wu 1 and H.‐L. Liu New Disease Reports (2006) 13, 24
Page 27
Poinsettia: an IPM update David Hide
Xanthamonas arboricola pv. poinsettiicola
Found recently in West Sussex on Poinsettia from Ethiopia,rooted in Germany.
Similar symptoms found in UK since 2006.
Classified under various Xanthamonas species and sub‐species.
Common name bacterial leaf spot.
Xanthamonas arboricola pv. poinsettiicola
Initially as small spots on leaves, quickly turn brown and surrounded by pale yellow haloes. Spots and haloes enlarge rapidly and coalesce into irregular, yellow to brown lesions.
6 interceptions in the UK since July 2006, all on poinsettia, incidence of infected plants ranged from 0.5% to 30%. All interceptions traced toone supplier via the Netherlands, plants originally from Brazil,Zimbabwe and other unknown locations.
Thank you!
Page 28
Evaluation of PGRs on poinsettia Jill England
Evaluation of PGRs on poinsettia
w w w .adas.uk
Dr Jill England, Chloe Whiteside, David Talbot, Chris Need and Harry Kitchener
The Bedding and Pot Plant Centre (PO 019a)New product opportunities for bedding and pot plant growers
@ahdbbppc@ADAS_hortic
Overview
1. Evaluation of PGRs and fungicides on
poinsettia.
2. Further information.
Evaluation of PGRs, fungicides and nutrients on poinsettia 2019
Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and phytotoxicity of a range of plant growth regulators (PGRs), fungicides and nutrients for use on poinsettia.
Page 29
Evaluation of PGRs on poinsettia Jill England
Product approvals
Product Active ingredient / formulation Approval status
1 Terpal (PGR)Ethephon (155 g/L) +
mepiquat chloride (305 g/L)EAMU 0151/18
2Stabilan 750
(reference, PGR)Chlormequat (750 g/L) EAMU 0910/17
3 Bonzi (PGR) Paclobutrazol (4.0 g/L) Label approval
4 HDC P006 (adjuvant) ‐ EAMU application
5 Topas (fungicide) Penconazole (100 g/L) EAMU 0169/19
6 Control Seaweed based nutrients n/a
Non‐approved uses applied under experimental permit. Applied in 300 L/ha water except for *Bonzi (T10) applied in 600 L/ha water.
Modes of action
Glyceraldehyde phosphate
Geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate
ent‐Kaurene
GA12 ‐ aldehyde
GA19
GA20
GA8
Quaternary Ammonium Compounds (QAC)e.g. chlormequat chloride, mepiquat chloride(Stabilan 750, HDC P005, Terpal)
Triazoles e.g. paclobutrazol, propiconazole (Bonzi, Bumper)
Prohexadione calcium, trinexapac‐ethyl, daminozide (Regalis Plus, HDC P005, Primo Maxx II, B‐nine, Moddus)
Exception: ethephon (Terpal, Cerone), breaks down to ethylene
Gibberellin biosynthesis pathway
Evaluation of PGRs ‐ 2018
• Terpal: Good efficacy. No phytotoxicity.Recommend rate 1.67 ml/L (0.5 L/ha) orlower (300 L/ha water).
• Bonzi: Good efficacy at higher rates, nophytotoxicity. Useful during late stages.
• Regalis Plus: Limited efficacy andrestricted use; most expensive.
• HDC P006: Once approved, use withTerpal and Stabilan 750 at reduced doserates.
• HDC P005 and Primo Maxx II:Phytotoxicity. Use not recommended.
Page 30
Evaluation of PGRs on poinsettia Jill England
Evaluation of PGRs and fungicides
Culture
• Variety: ‘Infinity’ (Dummen).
• 13 cm pots.
• Potted: week 30.
• Pinched: week 33.
Treatments
• Weekly applications, week 39‐43(5 applications).
• Holding spray of Bonzi if necessary.
Standard dose rates ‐ 2019
Treatment Product Dose rates (L/ha) Dose rate (ml/L)
1 Terpal 0.5 L/ha 1.67 ml/L
2 Stabilan 750 0.15 L/ha 0.5 ml/L
3Bonzi 0.105 L/ha 0.35 ml/L
4 HDC P006 0.75 L/ha 2.5 ml/L
5 Topas 0.5 L/ha 1.67 ml/L
6 Control 1.5 L/ha 5.0 ml/L
Non‐approved uses applied under experimental permit. Applied in 300 L/ha water.
Treatments ‐ 2019
Non‐approved uses applied under experimental permit. Applied in 300 L/ha water.
Treatme
ntSpray 1 Spray 2 Spray 3 Spray 4 Spray 5
1 Water Water Water Water Water Water
2 Stabilan 750 Stabilan 750 Bonzi Bonzi Bonzi
Bonzi holdingtreatment3
Stabilan 750
+ HDC P006
Stabilan 750
+ HDC P006Bonzi Bonzi Bonzi
4 Terpal Terpal Terpal Terpal Terpal
5Terpal + HDC
P006
Terpal + HDC
P006
Terpal +
HDC P006
Terpal + HDC
P006
Terpal + HDC
P006
6 Stabilan 750 Stabilan 750 Terpal Terpal Terpal
7Stabilan 750
+ HDC P006
Stabilan 750
+ HDC P006Terpal +
HDC P006
Terpal + HDC
P006
Terpal + HDC
P006
8 Bonzi 0.35 Bonzi 0.35 Bonzi 0.35 Bonzi 0.35 Bonzi 0.35
Page 31
Evaluation of PGRs on poinsettia Jill England
Treatments ‐ 2019
* Applied in 600 L/ha water.
Treatme
ntSpray 1 Spray 2 Spray 3 Spray 4 Spray 5
9 Bonzi 0.5 Bonzi 0.5 Bonzi 0.5 Bonzi 0.5 Bonzi 0.5
Bonzi holding treatment
10* Bonzi 0.35 Bonzi 0.35 Bonzi 0.35 Bonzi 0.35 Bonzi 0.35
11 Terpal Terpal Terpal Stabilan 750 Stabilan 750
12 Topas x1 Topas x1 Topas x1 Topas x1 Topas x1
13 Topas x0.5 Topas x0.5 Topas x0.5 Topas x0.5 Topas x0.5
Obs 1Topas x2
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Obs 2 Control Control Control Control Control Control
Obs 3 Control x2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
PGR costs
ProductCost of active*
(p)Cost /L of spray
(p)Terpal (1.67 ml/L) 1.7 /ml 2.8Bonzi (0.35 ml/L) 9.5 /ml 3.3Stabilan 750 (0.5 ml/L) 0.3 /ml 0.2HDC P006** (2.5 ml/L) tbc tbcControl (5.0 ml/L) 2.7 /ml 13.4*Non‐discounted, excluding VAT**Awaiting approval, not currently marketed in the UK.
Further information
Twitter: @ahdbbppc
Report: March 2020
AHDB Horticulture News articles
Poinsettia Discussion Group meeting, 15th January 2020
Page 32
Evaluation of PGRs on poinsettia Jill England
Thank you
• Stuart Whiteman, Nick Nolan and the team at Newey.
• Peter Seymour and Megan‐Rose Beard, ADAS.
• BASF.
• Syngenta.
• Nufarm.
• GrowDesign.
• AHDB.
Page 33
PO 023 'Commercial evaluation of new poinsettia varieties'
Poinsettia variety trials 2019
Grower poinsettia variety assessment at harvest, prior to shelf life 21 November 2019, Neame Lea Nurseries Spalding
There are 20 varieties from five suppliers, 12 will go into shelf life.
Please score the varieties below out of 10, with 0 being unmarketable and 10 representing best quality.
Variety Score Comments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Please tick which market you supply with poinsettias and indicate numbers produced:
Market supplied Garden centres Local retailers Multiple retailers
Number of 13cm poinsettias grown
Further comments, ideas and suggestions
Page 34