2020 Oregon Wine Symposium | Powdery Mildew Management
•
0 likes•113 views
This session will explore the powdery mildew life cycle, assessing why this season was so challenging for mildew. Current research on resistance tracking and why some chemistries and programs are more susceptible to failure will be presented. The seminar will discuss tools for managing resistance build up, new chemistries available, how to eradicate mildew, and the chemistries that most successfully resist the disease.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
More from Oregon Wine Board
More from Oregon Wine Board (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
2020 Oregon Wine Symposium | Powdery Mildew Management
- 1. OSU EXTENSION SERVICE Agriculture and Natural Resources Powdery Mildew Management 2020 Jay W. Pscheidt OSU Extension Plant Pathology Specialist
- 11. Logo here Monitoring Fungicide Resistance Sarah Lowder, Ph.D. student Oregon State University
- 12. Logo here Types of Resistance Qualitative or sudden Ex) FRAC 11 Quantitative or gradual/rate dependent Ex)FRAC 3 Control No Control Control Moderate Control No Control
- 13. Logo here Qualitative (sudden) QoI Numberofindividuals Control No Control Fungicide Resistance highlow Field rate Quantitative (gradual/rate dependent) DMI Control No Control Fungicide Resistance highlow Types of resistance in the field Field rate
- 14. Logo here RiskofResistance Low Risk Medium Risk High Risk sulfur, oils, potassium, bicarbonates, materials of biological origin metrafenone, fenhexamid, quinoxyfen, DMIs: fenarimol, myclobutanil, difenconazole, tebuconazole cyflufenamid QoIs: azoxystrobin, pyraclostrobin, kresoxim-methyl, trifloxystrobin SDHIs: boscalid, fluopyram, benzovindiflupyr, Isofetamid High risk products are not bad; poor fungicide stewardship is Control No Control Control Moderate Control No Control
- 15. Logo here Fungicide Mode of Action FRAC 7, 11 Respiration •SDHI •QoI FRAC 9 Protein synthesis •Benomyl •Thiophanates FRAC 19 Cell wall •Polymyxin D FRAC 2, 12, 13 Signal Transduction •Dicarboximides •Phenyl Pyrroles •Quinoxyfen FRAC 3, 5, 17 Cell membrane synthesis •DMI •SBI •Amines FRAC M# Multisite •Copper (01) •Sulfur (02) •Mancozeb (03) •Captan (04) FRAC 4,8, 31, 32 Nucleic Acid •None for GPM or Botrytis FRAC 1 Microtubules •Benomyl •Thiophanates Adapted from Latin, Richard. 2011. A Practical Guide to Turfgrass Fungicides FRAC 50 Actin, Myosin, Fimbrin function •Aryl-phenyl- ketones
- 16. Logo here Fungicide Mode of Action FRAC 11 Respiration •QoI Adapted from Latin, Richard. 2011. A Practical Guide to Turfgrass Fungicides Preventative activity only: - Stops spore germination - Inhibits growth and leaf penetration Quinone outside Inhibitors or Strobilurins - Bind to the cytochrome b complex in the mitochondria
- 17. Logo here Detecting fungicide resistance • Isolate collection • Single spore isolation • Bioassays • Expensive in resources and time (results can take more than a month) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Germination(%) Trifloxystrobin concentration (mg/ml) Conidia Germination on Flint Amended Water Agar Qualitative or sudden Control No Control
- 18. Logo here Competitive TaqMan qPCR !G143A mutation is the only mutation found in grape powdery mildew !G143A mutation shown to be in 100% agreement with QoI resistance bioassays • Sensitive to a single spore • Can detect alleles when >10% of population with qPCR Tim Miles, et. al. 2020
- 19. Logo here ToughSpot Samples OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY 19 Detection limit – one conidiospore (80% of the time) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2016-18 Cooperator Collections
- 20. Logo here 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PercentDiseaseIncidence RateofFalseDetection Severity Rate of false detection May September 2019Visual Scouting Monitoring Disease Percent Disease Incidence
- 21. Logo here Workers manipulate the canopy throughout season Question: Can swabbing worker gloves can be a viable way to collect information on the disease quickly and inexpensively in the field? Photo: Heather Daenitz
- 22. Logo here Glove Swab Samples Detection limit – one conidiospore (~50% of the time) ---------------------------------- -- Cotton swabs with plastic cap
- 23. Glove Swabs vs. Leaf Swabs 0 0 0 0 0 09 45 15 Glove Swab Leaf SwabSampling Path Number indicates PM colonies/30 leaves 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 81 00000000 4 1 Fill color indicates Resistant, Susceptible, Mixed, or not detected
- 24. Logo here Glove Swab vs. Leaf Swab E. necator Glove Detect No Glove Detect Visual Detect 90 3 No Visual Detect 156 60 Fisher’s Exact test, p-value: <0.001 16 WillametteValley and 5 WA vineyard blocks sampled throughout 2019 season. Results from aggregated row samples vs. its paired glove sample 97% Sensitivity* 49% Accuracy* *assuming visual detection correctly represents real life Oobi.fandom.com/wiki/oobi ?
- 25. Logo here Glove Swab vs. Leaf Swab E. necator Glove Detect No Glove Detect Visual Detect 90 3 No Visual Detect 156 60 Fisher’s Exact test, p-value: <0.001 16 WillametteValley and 5 WA vineyard blocks sampled throughout 2019 season. Results from aggregated row samples vs. its paired glove sample 97% Sensitivity* 49% Accuracy* *assuming visual detection correctly represents real life
- 26. Logo here Glove Swab vs. Leaf Swab 88% Sensitivity* 96% Accuracy* *assuming visual detection correctly represents real life G143A Glove Detect Resistant Glove Detect Susceptible Visual Detect Resistant 32 9 Visual Detect Susceptible 2 47 Fisher’s Exact Test, p-value: <0.001 16 WillametteValley and 5 WA vineyard blocks sampled throughout 2019 season. Results from aggregated row samples vs. its paired glove sample
- 27. Logo here Does the glove material matter? Glove SwabSampling Path The same three rows were tested in multiple vineyards for each glove material Fill color indicates Resistant, Susceptible, Mixed, or not detected
- 28. Logo here Does the glove material matter? No significant difference between glove materials (glm) Only differences came from location (glm, p<0.001) Nylon gloves excluded from later trials due to water absorption
- 29. Logo here Airborne Impaction Spore Traps When used as a decision aid for timing fungicide applications it can - help determine when to initiate sprays at the beginning of the season - monitor success of program - can detect if resistance is present Currently commercially available
- 30. Logo here • Airborne inoculum spore traps • 12 vineyards sampled 2019 • Sampled 1-4 times between May and August 2019 Glove Swabs vs. Spore Traps
- 31. Logo here Glove Swabs vs. Spore Traps Glove Swab Spore TrapSampling Path First, let’s compare the spore traps to each swab individually Fill color indicates Resistant, Susceptible, Mixed, or not detected
- 32. Logo here Glove Swab vs. Spore Traps E. necator Glove Detect No Glove Detect Trap Detect 75 21 No Trap Detect 12 3 Fisher’s Exact test, p-value: 1 Compare spore trap to ANY of the glove swabs collected from block 78% Sensitivity* 70% Accuracy* *assuming visual detection correctly represents real life We can’t say these are different
- 33. Logo here Glove Swab vs. Spore Traps Compare spore trap to ANY of the glove swabs collected from block G143A Glove Detect Resistant Glove Detect Susceptible Trap Detect Resistant 24 24 Trap Detect Susceptible 5 22 Fisher’s Exact Test, p-value: 0.013 50% Sensitivity* 61% Accuracy* *assuming visual detection correctly represents real life All G143A disagreement (39%) from one Susceptible and one mixed sample
- 34. Logo here Glove Swabs vs. Spore Traps Glove Swab Spore TrapSampling Path Now aggregate all glove samples per block Fill color indicates Resistant, Susceptible, Mixed, or not detected
- 35. Logo here Glove Swab vs. Spore Traps E. necator Glove Detect No Glove Detect Trap Detect 26 1 No Trap Detect 4 0 Fisher’s Exact test, p-value: 1 Compare spore trap to AGGREGATE of all the glove swabs collected from block 96% Sensitivity* 84% Accuracy* *assuming visual detection correctly represents real life We can’t say these are different
- 36. Logo here Glove Swab vs. Spore Traps Compare spore trap to AGGREGATE of all the glove swabs collected from block 81% Sensitivity* 77% Accuracy* *assuming visual detection correctly represents real life G143A Glove Detect Resistant Glove Detect Susceptible Trap Detect Resistant 13 3 Trap Detect Susceptible 3 7 Fisher’s Exact Test, p-value: 0.015 All G143A disagreement (23%) from one susceptible and one mixed sample
- 37. Logo here Interpreting resistance results 2020 This decision tree can be found at framenetworks. wsu.edu
- 38. Logo here This decision tree can be found at framenetworks.wsu.edu
- 39. Logo here No This decision tree can be found at framenetworks.wsu.edu
- 40. Logo here This decision tree can be found at framenetworks.wsu.edu
- 41. Logo here The decision tree can be found at framenetworks. wsu.edu Take home messages - We can use G143A to detect potential QoI resistance before field failure may occur - A variety of monitoring methods can be used to effectively monitor GPM in the field for resistance or disease in general
- 43. • UC-Davis (Gubler Thomas) • New York (Gadoury) • Oi Diag (Germany) • Canada (Carisse) • Italy (Caffi)
- 45. 2014
- 46. 2019
- 49. Year Vineyard Cultivar Date 1 (phenology) Date 2 (phenology) # of days in bloom 2008 Vineyard A PN 6/12 (50-53) 7/15 (75) ? 2009 Vineyard A PN 6/16 (61) 6/29 (69-70) 9 2010 Vineyard A PN 6/21 (57-59), 6/28 (62-65) 7/21 (75-76) ? 2011 Vineyard A PN 7/4 (64-66) 7/9 (70) 5+ 2012 Vineyard A PN 6/15 (60) 7/5 (70) 20 2013 Vineyard A PN 6/6 (60-64) 6/13 (68-71) 7 2014 Vineyard A PN 6/2 (60-61) 6/12 (69-71) 10 2015 Vineyard A PN 6/1 (56-61) 6/15 (69-73) 14 2016 Vineyard A PN 5/23 (60) 6/1 (70) 10 2017 Vineyard B PN 6/19 (65), 6/21 (68) 7/3 (72-75) 7? 2018 Vineyard B PN 6/12 (61-62) 6/14 (65-68) 5? 2018 Vineyard C PN 6/15 (60), 6/20 (65) 7/5 (72) 7-10? 2019 Vineyard C PN 6/10 (57-58), 6/18 (65) 6/28 (71-72) 10? Average bloom period 9.6 days
- 50. Erysiphe necator
- 56. Anti-resistance strategies “Following the Rules” in Fungicide Stewardship Rotate and/or tank mix fungicides of different modes of action. Prepackaged mixes can also be useful. Use labeled rates Limit total number of applications of any 1 group Educate yourself. Start a fungicide program with multi-site mode of action materials
- 57. Resistance Management • Rotate A B A B A B • OK, if both can be on 2 weeks intervals • What if A is sulfur? S B S B S B S Do not ever go to 3 week intervals!
- 58. Resistance Management • Tank Mix A+B A+B A+B A+B A+B A+B • OK, if both can be on 2 weeks intervals • What if A is sulfur and resistance to B? S S S S S S
- 59. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 SeverityofPowderyMildew BBCH Growth Stage
- 62. Material and rate per A Leaf Severity (%) Cluster Severity (%) Non-treated 68.0 100 Microthiol 5 lb 3.4* 89.0* Leaf Incidence Non-treated 50 a 97 a Microthiol 5 lb 13 c 22 c
- 63. Material and rate per A Leaf Severity (%) Cluster Severity (%) Non-treated 68.0 100 Microthiol 5 lb 3.4* 89.0* Started 27 May 19 Leaf Incidence Non-treated 50 a 97 a Microthiol 5 lb 13 c 22 c Started 16 May 19
- 64. Material and rate per A Leaf Severity (%) Cluster Severity (%) Non-treated 68.0 100 Microthiol 5 lb 3.4* 89.0* Started 27 May 19 Leaf Incidence Non-treated 50 a 97 a Microthiol 5 lb 13 c 22 c Started 16 May 19 Powdery Mildew First Observed 13 May 19
- 65. Embedded computer, algorithms User interface touchscreenController circuitry Doppler speed sensor Pulse Width Modulation valves at each nozzle Lidar sensor
- 68. Material Rate per 10 gal water CFU’s after 7 days (%) Actinovate 1.3 oz 100 Neptune’s Harvest 10 oz 6 Regalia 3.2 fl oz 59 12.8 fl oz 0 Nitrozyme 10 oz 219 Stimplex 4.8 oz 482 9.6 oz 40
- 69. Rescue
- 71. Powdery Mildew
- 72. P. clandestina resistance to FRAC19 (polyoxin-D) • A total of 19 isolates from Oregon and Washington cherry orchards • Leaf-disc bioassay experiment showed 14 of 19 isolates developed resistance to FRAC Group 19, that include two isolates in Oregon • A molecular target, chitin synthase is being analyzed to determine MoA + + - - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * +, positive control; -, negative control; *, resistant colonies OR-1 isolate
- 74. Powdery Mildew Management Plan for 2020 !Review what happened in 2019 !Fungicide selection based on historical use. !Timely vine management – canopy system, leaf pulling, sucker control, … !Hot spot monitoring – weather, vine growth, scouting for disease
- 75. Powdery Mildew Management Plan for 2020 !Short intervals during (and shortly after) bloom with best products !Adjust interval to hit 10% bloom !Sulfur and/or alternative products should have multiple applications during bloom.
- 77. Foliar Pathology Lab 2020 Walt Mahaffee, Carly Allen, Jacob Corcoran, Hannah Soukup and Tara Neill: USDA-ARS Chelsea Newbold, Alex Wong - Grad Students Jessy Brown, Kale’a Galbreth, Iris Garber, Danielle Scutero - Undergrads Amy Peetz Funding USDA-ARS, Washington Wine Commission, Oregon Wine Board, American Vineyard Foundation, Erath Family Foundation Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research, USDA-NIFA-SCRI, National Grape Research Alliance Rob Stoll, Nate Miller Kam Leang and Eric Pardyjak Cynthia Schwartz, Chad Higgins Michelle Moyer Jason Kelley Tim MIles Monica Copper, Mark Battany, Larry Bettiga, Glenn McGourty Brian Bailey, Ioannis Stergiopoulos José Úrbez-Torres, Shunping Ding Grower Collaborators Questions?