Progress 09/01/13 to 08/31/14
Outputs
Target Audience: Fellow agricultural scientists Extension Educators Farmers Agricultural Industry Representatives Policy makers Changes/Problems: We requested a no cost extension to allow us to finish collecting and analyzing data from the 2014 field season in Michigan. This was necessary due to the statewide apple and cherry crop failure of 2012. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? One graduate student and multiple undergraduate students received training as part of project activities. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Results have been disseminated through more than 10 posters and presentations made at grower meetings and professional conferences in 2013 and 2014. The project has been highlighted in multiple trade publications. We also produced a 2nd year newsletter style report for stakeholder groups and are maintaining a website at www.canopydelivery.msu.edu. Project field days were completed in MI. A final newsletter report will be drafted in the next year that summarizes the total project. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Pursue competitive grant funding to supplement the remaining (no-cost extension) project funds. Expand trials to evaluate coverage and operation of SSCDS over 1/3 to ½ acre field plots. Produce a final newsletter and additional research and extension publications and presentations.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Activites: MSU and WSU Canopy Coverage: 2012 canopy coverage trials were repeated at MSU project field sites. We utilized water sensitive cards facing either up or down to measure top and bottom leaf coverage. We also evaluated the coverage produced by 5 different microsprayer arrangements at the MSU site. MSU Season Long Trials in Apples: We collected data on season long CM (MSU and WSU), OBLR (MSU), apple scab (MSU) management and yields among SSCDS, airblast and untreated control plots at the Clarksville Research Center (CRC [MSU]). New York Apple: Test plots were further established in a 1.1-acre section of a super-spindle apple orchard. MSU Cherry: We collected season long horticultural information in a hightunnel cherry planting located at CRC. MSU Canopy Cooling for Bloom Delay: Established experimental plots assessing how computer controlled applications of water during pre bloom affected bloom phenology at a sweet cherry site and two apple sites. WSU Plant Growth Regulators: Continued experiment evaluating the delivery of plant growth regulators to cherries, comparing SSCDS applications to air blast. WSU Summer Cooling for Apple Sunburn Prevention: Summer canopy cooling was compared to commercially available cooling systems at SRO. Sociology and Economics: Additional economic data were collected to compare SSCDS systems with airblast systems. Results: MSU Canopy Coverage: The SSCDS was better than the airblast with higher coverage on the tops of leaves and more dye deposition than in the airblast plots. The microsprayer arrangements evaluated indicated that microsprayers consisting of two vertically oriented sprayer bodies placed both in the center and top of the canopy on ¼” tubes provided the most consistent coverage, but required substantially more pressure to activate. MSU Season Long Trial in Apples: Fruit protection in the SSCDS plots was equivalent to the airblast sprayer plots. Data were still being collected at the time of this report due to an unusually cool summer and late harvest dates. Fireblight was not measurable in the orchard in 2014. New York Apple: Completed construction of the SSCD system in a 1.1-acre section of a super-spindle dwarf (M.9) apple orchard in its 5th leaf, in Wolcott (Wayne Co.), NY. Preliminary coverage data were collected but were inconclusive. MSU Cherry: Use of the SSCD system for routine pest control in 2013 led to variable coverage and significant areas of black cherry aphid infestation as well as cherry leaf spot. “Matching microemitter spray delivery characteristics to varying tree architectures remains a key objective for on-going and future research. MSU Canopy Cooling for Bloom Delay: Bloom was delayed between 5-10 days in SSCDS plots compared to untreated plots for both cherries and apples. Fruit set and harvest date was not affected. The test system used 80% less water compared to impact sprinklers used for the same purpose. WSU Summer Cooling for Apple Sunburn Prevention: Both standard cooling and SSCDS prevented sunburn. Ambient air temp was lower during the morning and early afternoon in rows cooled with SSCDS compared to standard cooling, but warmer in the later afternoon. A higher volume of water may be needed for effective SSCDS canopy cooling during the hottest part of the day. Sociology and Economics: Partial budget analysis indicates that the prototype system will cost at $69 per acre compared with $36 per acre for an airblast sprayer, over the lifetime of the system. A refined system was estimated to cost $49 per acre based on the expectation of the development of specialized equipment. This estimate does not take into account the potential additional benefits of canopy cooling to delay bloom and protect from frost events or protect fruit from sunburn.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Lang, G.A. 2013. Tree fruit production in high tunnels: current status and case study of sweet cherries. Acta Hort. 987:73-81.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Sharda, A., M. Karkee, Q. Zhang, I. Ewlanow, U. Adameit, and J. Brunner. Effect of emitter type and mounting configuration on spray coverage for solid set canopy delivery system. Computers and Electronics in AgricultureAvailable at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168169914001963 (verified 15 October 2014).
|
Progress 09/01/12 to 08/31/13
Outputs
Target Audience: Tree fruit growers/farms Agricultural Scientists Irrigation, Pesticide, Sprayer manufacturers Extension Educators Changes/Problems: Applied for and received a 1 year no cost extension due to the 2012 frost induced crop-failure at MSU and Cornell sites. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? This project has invovled two post doctoral associates three graduate students and may undergraduates, providing them with real world training and experience. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Results have been disseminated through more than 15 posters and presentations made at grower meetings and professional conferences in 2012 and 2013. The project has been highlighteed in multiple trade publications. We also produced a 1st year newsletter style report for stakeholder groups and are maintaining a website at www.canopydelivery.msu.edu. Project field days were completed in all three states. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Pursue competitive grant funding to supplement the remaining (no-cost extension) project funds. Repeat field long efficacy trials Repeat canopy-cooling trials
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Activites: MSU and WSU Canopy Coverage: 2012 canopy coverage trials were repeated at both MSU and WSU project field sites. We utilized water sensitive cards facing either up or down to measure top and bottom leaf coverage. Tartrazine dye to measure actual product deposition and laboratory bioassays testing field aged residues of insecticides impact on CM (WSU) and OBLR (WSU and MSU). MSU and WSU Season Long Trials in Apples: We collected data on season long CM (MSU and WSU), OBLR (MSU), apple scab (MSU), powdery mildew (WSU), fireblight (MSU) management and yields among SSCDS, airblast and untreated control plots at the Clarksville Research Center (CRC [MSU]) and Sunrise Research Orchard (SRO [WSU]). WSU Plant Chemical Thinners in Apples: We repeated chemical thinning studies in Gala and Fuji apple at SRS. New York Apple: Test plots were further established in a 1.1-acre section of a super-spindle apple orchard. MSU Cherry: We collected season long horticultural information in a hightunnel cherry planting located at CRC. WSU Cherry Plant Growth Regulators: Chemical thinning and GA3 applications in sweet cherry were compared among controls, SSCDS applied and airblast applied plots. MSU Canopy Cooling for Bloom Delay: Established experimental plots assessing how computer controlled applications of water during pre bloom affected bloom phenology at a sweet cherry site and two apple sites. WSU Summer Cooling for Apple Sunburn Prevention: Summer canopy cooling was compared to commercially available cooling systems at SRO. MSU SSCDS Mating Disruption Experiment: Experiments were conducted in apples to evaluate the effectiveness of CM and OFM mating disruption. 3 pheromone formulations were tested; 1) commercially available microencapsulated (MEC) pheromone for CM or OFM and 2) experimental sub-microencapsulated (SMEC) pheromone for CM. Pheromone formulations were tested at both a high and low rate. WSU Microsprayer engineering: Tests were conducted to: optimize emitter configuration and operating pressure in super spindle apple orchards, quantify time required to achieve target coverage when using SSCD systemand to investigate the feasibility of using Leaf Wetness Sensors (LWS) to quantify spray coverage. Sociology and Economics: Baseline surveys of practices for New York apples and Washington cherries were done. For the urban edge study, we made site visits to Chelan County, WA and Monroe County, NY. We also conducted observations at field days in Michigan, New York and Washington, and collected feedback from Michigan attendees. Results: MSU and WSU Canopy Coverage: The SSCDS was better than the airblast with higher coverage on the tops of leaves and more dye deposition than in the airblast plots. The bioassays showed that both application systems controlled OBLR. In contrast to MSU data, SSCDS at WSU apples produced poorer coverage compared to airblast sprayers on water sensitive cards and no difference was detected when comparing tartrazine dye deposition. In OBLR lab bioassays both SSCDS and airblast treatments provided control of the OBLR larvae; however the airblast was better than the SSCDS. For CM lab experiments, both airblast and SSCDS treatments provided control. MSU Season Long Trial in Apples: Fruit protection in the SSCDS plots was equivalent to the airblast sprayer plots. An average of 12.8%, 1.5% and 2.8% fruit had CM damage in the control, SSCDS and airblast plots, respectively. An average of 11%, 3% and 3% OBLR damage was detected in the control, SSCDS and airblast plots respectively. Apple scab infection data in the SSCD plots and air blast plots was not different (2.6% and 2.1%, respectively) but was different from the non-treated control (16.7%). Fireblight was not measurable in the orchard in 2013. WSU Season Long Trial in Apples: Fruit injury evaluations at the end of the second CM generation revealed that both SSCDS and Airblast treatments significantly reduced CM injured fruit relative to the untreated control; however, the airblast treatment was significantly better than SSCDS. Similar to CM control SSCDS systems provided significant control of powdery mildew compared to control plots but significantly lower control compared to airblast plots. WSU Chemical Thinners in Apples: 2013 fruit set was numerically reduced compared to the untreated control by both application methods. 2013 return bloom was signficanlty higher in Fuji airblast plots compared to SSCDS Fuji plots. Fruit size was similarly improved by 2012 thinning treatments for both SSCDS and airblast plots for both cultivars, although the results were not statistically significant in Fuji. New York Apple: Completed construction of the SSCD system in a 1.1-acre section of a super-spindle dwarf (M.9) apple orchard in its 5th leaf, in Wolcott (Wayne Co.), NY. Unanticipated delays in acquiring and installing these modifications prevented any further assays using this system for the remainder of the 2013 growing season. MSU Cherry: Use of the SSCD system for routine pest control in 2013 led to variable coverage and significant areas of black cherry aphid infestation as well as cherry leaf spot. “Matching microemitter spray delivery characteristics to varying tree architectures remains a key objective for on-going and future research. WSU Cherry Plant Growth Regulators: Chemical thinning did not produce significant differences among the SSCDS, airblast and control plots. GA3 applications from airblast sprayers significantly improved fruit size, color and firmness compared to the control. GA3 applications from SSCDS significantly improved fruit size but not color or firmness compared to the control. MSU Canopy Cooling for Bloom Delay: Bloom was delayed between 5-10 days in SSCDS plots compared to untreated plots for both cherries and apples. Fruit set and harvest date was not affected. The test system used 80% less water compared to impact sprinklers used for the same purpose. WSU Summer Cooling for Apple Sunburn Prevention: Both standard cooling and SSCDS prevented sunburn. Ambient air temp was lower in rows cooled with SSCDS and smaller droplet size of SSCDS is thought to be better suited for evaporative cooling. MSU SSCDS Mating Disruption Experiment: CM captures in traps were not significantly different between high rate MEC, low rate MEC and no pheromone treatments. Captures of OFM were significantly inhibited in the high and low rate MEC treated plots compared to controls (>90%). SMEC formulations for CM at either a high or low application rate provided over 80% and 40% inhibition of moth captures compared to the control for SSCDS and LV applications, respectively. WSU Microsprayer engineering: Field experiments to quantify coverage in upper and underside of leaves were completed for two emitter design layouts, three emitter types and three operating pressure. A high-speed camera was used to acquire images of water sensitive paper while spray application was performed using two emitter design layouts, three emitter types and three operating pressure. A spray simulator comprised of 4ftx4ftx8ft PVC tube frame, two emitters, and a observation platform was developed. Eight emitters representing different flow rate and droplet sizes were selected for the tests. Coverage estimated by Leaf Wetness Sensors (LWSs) and WSCs was collected to evaluate the accuracy of LWSs. Results are undergoing analysis. Sociology and Economics: Respondents indicated that a fixed canopy spray system would be at least somewhat useful (57%) or very useful (43%). Respondents were also interested in seeing more on pest control and plant growth regulation. Management practices survey results and urban edge study notes are currently being analyzed. Partial budget analysis indicates that the prototype system will cost at least $5000 per acre to establish but that refinements in materials could significantly reduce this cost.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Lang, G., E. Hanson, J. Biernbaum, D. Brainard, M. Grieshop, R. Isaacs, A. Montri, V. Morrone, and A. Schilder, D. Conner, and J. Koan. 2013. Holistic integration of organic strategies and high tunnels for Midwest/Great Lakes fruit production. Acta Hort. 1001:47-55.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Lang, G.A. 2013. Tree fruit production in high tunnels: current status and case study of sweet cherries. Acta Hort. 987:73-81.
|
Progress 09/01/11 to 08/31/12
Outputs
OUTPUTS: Our 2012 focus was the development of prototype solid set canopy delivery systems (SSCDS), initial coverage testing and collection of baseline sociological and economic data. SSCDS were established in apple blocks at the MSU horticulture farm (HF) and Clarksville Horticultural Research Station(CHRS) (MI), the WSU Sunrise Research Orchard near Wenatchee (WA) and at Fowler Farms (NY). SSCDS were also established in sweet cherries at CHRS and in a sweet cherry block at the WSU Prosser Research and Extension Center (WA). MSU Apple: Test plots were established in a 6 acre super slender spindle block in a randomized complete block design with 7 replicates of 0.05 acre plots (untreated, SSCD treated, and Airblast treated) Washington Apple: Test plots were established in a randomized complete block design across three separate 1.3-acre high-density apple blocks with a total of 9 replicates (untreated, SSCD treated, and airblast treated). New York Apple: Test plots were established in a 1.1-acre section of a super-spindle apple orchard in Wolcott (Wayne Co.). MSU Cherry: SSCDS was installed on a 3 acre cherry orchard: half under hightunnels and half unprotected. Washington Cherry: SSCDS was established along a single row with four replicates for an SSCDS and airblast sprayer treatment. SSCDS Design and Operation: SSCDS systems consisted of either a 1" or 3/4" polyethylene tubing looped from row to row creating a closed system. Jain Irrigation Modular Group 7000 series micro sprinklers designed to emit 9.2 gallons per hour at 30 psi, were used to deliver pesticides and plant growth regulators (PGRs). In WA there were 2 emitters for every 3' and in MI and NY there were 3 emitters per 6' (3500 and 2625 microsprayers/acre, respectively). In WA microsprayers were oriented horizontally at alternating 8' and 3' heights in the canopy. In MI and NY, emitters were staggered with 1 horizontally oriented emitter at 8' and 2 vertically oriented emitters at 3'. The NY system microsprayers were suspended on 8" or 28" lengths of tubing reservoirs alternating every 3 ft. The reservoir system is an entirely new design concept that will increase material use efficiency. Spray application units consisted of water tanks connected to a high volume pump and air compressor. Inputs were pre-mixed in the tanks then pumped into the SSCDS until the line was full. SSCDS pressure was then raised to 30 psi for 12-13 seconds, applying the pesticide at a rate of 100 gpa. Residual spray was pushed out of the mainline by air. An engineering team worked across the project to help characterize different aspects of an SSCDS. An initial test site was established at WSU Prosser and used to determine the pressure loss due to main line materials, length of the mainline, and drop or rise of spray emitters along the mainline. Sociology and Economics: Project sociologist and economists collected preliminary data for the development of partial budget comparisons and barriers to grower adoption of SSCDS. Grower focus groups were conducted in all three project states and surveys of apple growers conducted in MI and WA. PARTICIPANTS: Matthew Grieshop, Asst. Professor, grieshop@msu.edu Larry Gut, Professor, Tree Fruit Entomology, gut@msu.edu James R. Miller, Professor, Insect Behavior and Physiology, miller20@msu.edu Mark Whalon, Professor, Pesticide Alternatives Lab, whalon@msu.edu James Flore, Professor, Perennial Crop Physiology, flore@msu.edu Greg Lang, Professor, Tree Fruit Horticultural Physiology, langg@msu.edu John Wise, Assoc. Prof., Trevor Nichols Res. Coordinator, wisejohn@msu.edu Ron Perry, Professor, Precision Horticulture, perryr@msu.edu George W. Sundin, Professor, Tree Fruit Pathology, sundin@msu.edu Steven Miller, Assistant Professor, Economics, mill1707@msu.edu Jean Shumway, Haley Consulting Services, LLC, 13463N Seeley Hills Lane, Hayward, WI 54843, jean@usableknowledge.com Qin Zhang, Professor of Biological Systems Engineering and Center Director qinzhang@wsu.edu and Manoj Karkee, Asst. Professor, manoj.karkee@wsu.edu Jay Brunner, Professor, jfb@wsu.edu Dept. of Entomology, Washington State University, Wenatchee, WA 98801 Arthur Agnello, Professor, ama4@cornell.edu Dept. of Entomology, Cornell University, Geneva, NY 14456 John Nye, President, Irrigation system engineering, sandra@trickl-eez.com Matthew Whiting, Assoc. Professor, Tree Fruit Physiology, mdwhiting@wsu.edu Ines Hanrahan, Project Manager, Tree Fruit Horticulture, ines@treefruitresearch.com Kerik Cox, Assistant Professor, kdc33@cornell.edu Alison DeMarree, CALS Coop Extension Area Spec, Economics, amd15@cornell.edu Stuart Styles, Director, Irrigation Training and Research Center, sstyles@calpoly.edu, Andrew Landers, Senior Ext. Assoc., Pesticide app. tech. specialist, ajl31@cornell.edu TARGET AUDIENCES: North American apple and cherry producers. Irrigation supply companies. Tree fruit research and extension professional. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.
Impacts
MSU Coverage Assessments: MSU trials with tartrazine dye and water-sensitive paper showed that SSCD consistently provided superior coverage on the upper side of leaves compared to conventional airblast sprayers but variable coverage on the underside of leaves. Wind speed and tree architecture appeared to greatly affect SSCD coverage with light winds resulting in superior coverage and dead air resulting in poor under-leaf coverage. Leaf bioassays using leafroller larvae showed 100% mortality for both SSCD and airblast Dipel-treated foliage. A bioassay based on the evolution of ethylene from leaves where Ethrel was applied with the SSCD system indicated coverage equal to or greater than that provided by airblast application. MSU Season Long Management: Due to frost-induced region-wide crop failure, season-long management was not feasible in MI. However, examination of bacterial counts from individual trees indicated that the SSCD system successfully delivered the bacterial biological control agent Bloomtime Biological to apple trees comparably to conventional airblast spraying and a SSCD system proved effective at delivering codling moth and oriental fruit moth mating disruption products. WSU Apple Coverage assessments: Tartrazine dye showed that the SSCDS had a higher spray distribution within the tree canopy than the airblast sprayer, though both application systems had lower coverage of the lower part of the tree. Water- sensitive cards revealed that the SSCDS applied most of the spray to the top of leaves while the airblast sprayer applied more to the underside of leaves. Leaf bioassay using leafroller larvae showed much lower mortality associated with the SSCDS compared to the airblast application of Bt. Differences between MSU and WSU coverage trials likely reflect differences in system design (see outputs). WSU Season-Long Management: Codling moth (CM) was the primary insect pest in apple assessed in 2012. Fruit injury in the untreated control (UTC) was 36 and 43% after the first and second generation. The airblast application suppressed CM injury numerically better than the SSCDS (4.5 vs. 11.5% at harvest, respectively). Both the SSCDS and airblast applications reduced mildew severity (index from 0-4) relative to the UTC. Post-bloom fruit thinning: Chemical thinners delivered by the SSCDS effectively reduced fruit set in both Gala and Fuji apple plots compared to an UTC, but airblast application provided greater thinning in Fuji. Analysis of harvest fruit size and quality is ongoing. Sociological Outcomes: We have created a baseline of practices for apple growers in MI & WA. Most growers are college-educated males in their mid- to late 50's and 3/4 of survey respondents indicated farming was their primary source of income. More than 1/3 of respondents already use trellis systems. Focus group outcomes developed our understanding of major barriers to adoption: initial cost, system maintenance, system adaptability to specific horticultural practices and knowledge and training for workers and managers. Extension activities: field days were held in both WA and MI and a project website has been developed: www.fixedcanopydelivery.msu.edu.
Publications
- No publications reported this period
|