Non-Target Impacts of Surround  : Horticulture

1. Non-Target Impacts of Surround: Horticulture UVM Apple Team M.E. Garcia L.P. Berkett T. Bradshaw Christopher Benedict Marlys Eddy

2. Kaolin = Surround WP • Organophosphate replacement • Approved for organic production • Control of Leafhoppers, OBLR, AM • Suppression of CM, PC, GFW “Reduced-Risk Pesticide”

3. Kaolin Particle Film

4. Kaolin (Surround WP)Research on Non-Target Impacts Objectives: -Determine effects of kaolin on apple tree vigor, productivity, and fruit quality, including an economic assessment of the gross monetary value of the crop -Examined the potential impact of kaolin on phytophagous and predacious mites within an apple orchard; on key diseases; and on bird damage.

5. Horticultural Impacts SurroundWP Label: “When applied at given rates and frequencies, benefits such as increased plant vigor and improved yields may occur on many crops. Under high ambient temperatures, Surround WP reduces canopy temperature and, therefore, can help to reduce heat and water stress. When Surround WP is used, many fruits have shown improved fruit color, soluble solids, smoothness, and size with less russet, dropping, sunburn, and cracking.” However, previous research was conducted under warmer, semi-arid environments.

6. UVM Hort. Research Center ‘McIntosh’ and ‘Liberty’ planted in 1988 on M 26 2001: Preliminary Horticultural and Disease data 2002-2004: Study Continued

7. Treatments:

8. Fungicides mancozeb, - pre-bloom at 2#/100DGA captan 80 WP, - post-bloom at 1.25#/100DGA Miticide - dormant oil, 2% Insecticides SurroundWP, 25-50#/100DGA Imidan 70 WP, 1#/100DGA Horticultural Sprays - CaCl, Zn, B Thinners – Carbaryl / NAA as needed

9. Fruit Quality Weight Size % Red color Firmness Starch index Soluble solids Fruit calcium Fruit Appearance Bitter pit Sunburn Russet Other Economic Assessment Data Collected:

10. Tree Spur characteristics Bloom density Leaf weight/leaf area Foliar analysis Defoliation Total yield Fruit drop Other Soil analysis Data Collected:

11. Diseases Scab Fruit and foliar Cedar apple rust Flyspeck Sooty blotch Fruit rots Other Phytophagous Mites Predacious Mites Data Collected:

12. Methods Statistical Analysis • Analysis performed for each year and for each cultivar utilizing an ANOVA (PROC GLM & PROC MIXED, SAS Institute 2002) • Specific contrasts to test for treatment differences • Differences considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05

13. Specific Treatment Contrasts: Horticultural Data • EKWF vs. LKWF • EKWF vs. IPM • LKWF vs. IPM • LKWF + EKWF vs. IPM

14. Reason for comparisons used for hort data: SCAB!

15. Results

16. Hort Data: Vegetative Shoot Length Data represents mean shoot length of 10 vegetative shoots per tree collected in October Differences considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05

17. Hort Data: Fruit Spur Diameter Data represents mean spur diameter of 5 fruit spurs per tree collected in October Differences considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05

18. Hort Data: Spur Leaf Characteristics Data represents mean leaf characteristics of 25 spur leaves per tree collected in October Differences considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05

19. Hort Data: Bloom and Thinning Data represents mean blossom count/bcsa for single flagged limb per tree; percent thinning = postthin set fruit n / prethin set fruit n Differences considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05

20. Hort Data: Yield Data represents mean fruit load per tree; TCSA collected at harvest Differences considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05

21. Hort Data: Yield and scab? Data represents mean % incidence of scab on leaves from 15 terminals per tree assessed in July Differences considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05

22. Hort Data: Fruit Drop Data represents mean n and Kg fruit dropped collected at harvest Differences considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05

23. Fruit Data: Fruit Weight & Color Data represents mean fruit weight and red color assessed from 100 fruit samples per tree on optimum harvest date Differences considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05

24. Fruit Data: Firmness & Soluble Solids Data represents mean fruit firmness and sugars (brix) assessed from 10 fruit samples per tree on optimum harvest date Differences considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05

25. Fruit Data: Starch Index Data represents mean starch index (brix) assessed from 10 fruit samples per tree on optimum harvest date Differences considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05

26. Fruit Data: Fruit Calcium Data represents mean Ca content assessed from 10 fruit samples per tree collected at harvest and analyzed at UMASS fruit lab Differences considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05

27. Misc. Data: Bird Damage Data represents mean % fruit with bird damage assessed from dropped fruit samples collected at harvest Differences considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05

28. Conclusions • No consistent differences found between IPM and kaolin treatments for: • Vegetative Shoot Length • Spur Characteristics • Blossom Number • Thinning Response

29. Conclusions • No consistent differences found between IPM and kaolin treatments for: • Fruit Weight • Firmness • Soluble Solids • Maturity at Harvest • Fruit Calcium Level • Bird Damage

30. Conclusions • Yield • Kaolin Treatments Had Lower Yield Efficiency in 2 of 3 Years • Kaolin Treatments Had Lower Total kg Fruit Harvested in 1 of 3 Years

31. Conclusions • Drop • Kaolin Treatments Had Higher Fruit Drop as a Percent of Total Fruit Weight in 1 of 3 Years • Drop Difference Was Not Consistent

32. Conclusions • Fruit Color • Kaolin Treatments Had Higher Red Fruit Color in 2 of 3 Years

33. USDA Pest Management Alternatives Program Thank you Vermont Tree Fruit Grower’s Association New England Tree Fruit Grower’s Research Committee

37. Fruit Data: Fruit Aluminum

38. Fruit Data: 2002 Packout

39. Fruit Data: 2003 Packout

40. Fruit Data: 2004 Packout