Download
disease update 04 paul e bertrand n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
DISEASE UPDATE 04 Paul E. Bertrand PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
DISEASE UPDATE 04 Paul E. Bertrand

DISEASE UPDATE 04 Paul E. Bertrand

231 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

DISEASE UPDATE 04 Paul E. Bertrand

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. DISEASE UPDATE 04Paul E. Bertrand

  2. SPOTTED WILT • TILLAGE • TRANSPLANTS • ADMIRE • ACTIGARD

  3. TILLAGE FIELD WEEDS

  4. WHEAT (GRASSES)AS A TSWV SOURCE

  5. WHEAT (GRASSES)AS A TSWV SOURCE 1.MOST THRIPS LEAVING WHEAT ARE CEREAL THRIPS WHICH DO NOT TRANSMIT TSWV.

  6. WHEAT (GRASSES)AS A TSWV SOURCE 1.MOST THRIPS LEAVING WHEAT ARE CEREAL THRIPS WHICH DO NOT TRANSMIT TSWV. 2.WHEAT IS NOT A TSWV HOST.

  7. TSWV ACQUIRED FOR TRANSMISSION ONLY BY JUVENILES and ---

  8. TSWV NECESSARY JUVENILE STAGE EXISTS ONLY 12 - 15 HRS. so ---

  9. TSWV TO TRANSMIT TSWV LATER THRIPS MUST HATCH ON OR NEAR INFECTED PLANTS

  10. WHEAT (GRASSES)AS A TSWV SOURCE 1.MOST THRIPS LEAVING WHEAT ARE CEREAL THRIPS WHICH DO NOT TRANSMIT TSWV. 2. WHEAT IS NOT A TSWV HOST. 3.TOBACCO THRIPS HATCHED ON WHEAT HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY TO ACQUIRE TSWV.

  11. IN FIELD WEED MANAGEMENT

  12. IN FIELD WEEDMANAGEMENT • CLEAN ROWS • WEEDY ROWS • WHEAT ROWS

  13. IN FIELD WEEDMANAGEMENT • 2 ROW • 4 ROW • 8 ROW TOBACCO

  14. 2004 EARLY WEEDS SUMNER: 42/90 ELISA+ GRINER: 58/90 ELISA+

  15. EFFECT OF COVER ON SPOTTED WILT NEXT TO COVER

  16. EFFECT OF COVER ON SPOTTED WILT NEXT TO COVER

  17. EFFECT OF COVER ON SPOTTED WILT NEXT TO COVER

  18. WHEAT SUMNER: 0/90 ELISA+ GRINER: 0/90 ELISA+

  19. REDISTRIBUTION OF ADULT THRIPS FROM WHEAT ?

  20. SUMNER FARM % TSWV ROW FROM COVER

  21. GRINER FARM % TSWV ROW FROM COVER

  22. WHEAT (GRASSES)AS A TSWV SOURCE 1.NOT A SOURCE but 2.CAN PLAY A ROLE

  23. TILLAGE STRIP TILL

  24. 2001 -2003

  25. RESULTS % TSWV but---

  26. 2004 LITTER LEFT STANDING

  27. LAY BY LITTER CUT OUT 5 WEEKS POST TP

  28. 2004 RESULTS % TSWV

  29. HOUSE PLANTSvsBED PLANTS

  30. ARE THE PLANTS THEMSELVES DIFFERENT ?

  31. HOUSE vs BED PLANTS • 9 SOURCES OF PLANTS • COLLECTED THE SAME DAY • GROWN AT 2 LOCATIONS • SET THE SAME DAY • ADMIRE 2.0 oz /1,000 (TPW)

  32. 2003 PLANT TRIALRESULTS

  33. HOUSE 0 - 1 % INFECTED TRANSPLANTS 2/5 LOTS HAD ONE ELISA+ PLANT

  34. HOUSE 0 - 1 % BED 0 % INFECTED TRANSPLANTS 2/5 LOTS HAD ONE ELISA+ PLANT

  35. EFFECT OF PLANT SOURCE % TSWV

  36. EFFECT OF PLANT SOURCE % TSWV

  37. EFFECT OF PLANT SOURCE % STAND

  38. EFFECT OF PLANT SOURCE % STAND

  39. EXPECTED RESULTS • BETTER RESPONSE TO TPW ADMIRE WITH HOUSE PLANTS • SOME STAND LOSS WITH BED PLANTS & TPW ADMIRE

  40. UNEXPECTED RESULTS • MORE INFECTED HOUSE PLANTS • MORE TSWV WITH HOUSE PLANTS

  41. 2004 PLANT TRIALRESULTS

  42. EFFECT OF PLANT SOURCE % TSWV

  43. EFFECT OF PLANT SOURCE % TSWV

  44. EFFECT OF PLANT SOURCE % STAND

  45. EFFECT OF PLANT SOURCE % STAND

  46. 2004 RESULTSSIMILAR TO 2003 • MORE TSWV WITH HOUSE PLANTS • BETTER RESPONSE TO TPW ADMIRE WITH HOUSE PLANTS • SOME STAND LOSS WITH BED PLANTS & TPW ADMIRE