Search Results

You are looking at 41 - 50 of 1,382 items for :

  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All
Free access

Steven J. McArtney and David C. Ferree

Early season vegetative development of grapevines was studied in the year after imposing three cropping levels to mature `Seyval' vines in the field or establishing two light levels to potted `DeChaunac' vines growing in the greenhouse. Heavily cropped `Seyval' vines (averaging 90 buds, 15.8 kg fruit per vine over the previous two growing seasons) had 85% fewer count buds and 31% fewer non-count (latent) buds than lightly cropped vines (averaging 25 buds, 9.7 kg fruit per vine). The rate of leaf area expansion was reduced on heavily cropped vines. Covering `DeChaunac' vines in the greenhouse with 80% shade from bloom onwards reduced the leaf area per shoot in the year after treatment by reducing both the rate of leaf appearance and the rate of leaf expansion. The leaf at node four from the base of the shoot had the greatest area on both shaded and control vines; however, the area was reduced 33% on shaded vines. Data from the greenhouse experiment were used to model the effect of leaf size at the transition from sink to source on total source leaf area per shoot. Prior to bloom the total source leaf area per shoot was increased when individual leaves became sources earlier, i.e., at a lower percent of their final size. Whether a leaf became a source at either 30%, 50%, or 80% of its final size had little effect on total source leaf area per shoot after bloom. The proportion of source to sink leaf area at bloom was greater than 90% for both slow- and rapidly growing shoots (those on shaded and control vines, respectively). Expansion of grapevine leaves was reduced by heavy cropping and low light levels in the previous year, greatly reducing the source leaf area per shoot.

Free access

L.A. Wasilwa, N. Ondabu, and G.W. Watani

The macadamia nut was introduced to the Kenyan highlands from Australia in the early 1960s. Seedlings were propagated at a nursery near Kiambu in central Kenya by Bob Harris and were subsequently distributed in the central and eastern highlands and later the western highlands. The majority of seedlings planted were one two species, Macadamia integrifolia Maiden and Betche or M. tetraphylla L. S. A less common species, Macadamia ternifolia, was also planted. Several hybrids of M. integrifolia and M. tetraphylla have been identified in the central and eastern highlands. A macadamia improvement research program was launched in the early part of 1980 by the Ministry of Agriculture. Since then, 30 trees of the seedlings planted in the later part of 1960s have been selected and evaluated in trial orchards located in the Kenyan highlands. Most of the recently planted orchards constitute of 10 clones that yield between 40 to 90 kg of nuts annually. Five high-yielding macadamia varieties from Hawaii were introduced to Kenya in the early 1980s. To date >90% of the cultivated macadamia trees in Kenya are either M. integrifolia or hybrids of M. integrifolia and M. tetraphylla. Until the late 1970s, there was no market for macadamia nuts in Kenya. Since then, several companies market this crop, which is mainly exported to Japan and Europe.

Free access

D.D. Treadwell, D.E. McKinney, and N.G. Creamer

Free access

Kim E. Hummer

The center of diversity for white pine blister rust (WPBR) (Cronartium ribicola J.C. Fischer) most likely stretches from central Siberia east of the Ural Mountains to Asia, possibly bounded by the Himalayas to the south. The alternate hosts for WPBR, Asian five-needled pines (Pinus L.) and Ribes L. native to that region have developed WPBR resistance. Because the dispersal of C. ribicola to Europe and North America occurred within the last several hundred years, the North American five-needled white pines, Pinus subsections, Strobus and Parya, had no previous selection pressure to develop resistance. Establishment of WPBR in North American resulted when plants were transported both ways across the Atlantic Ocean. In 1705, Lord Weymouth had white pine (P. strobis L.), also called weymouth pine in Europe, seed and seedlings brought to England. These trees were planted throughout eastern Europe. In the mid-1800s, WPBR outbreaks were reported in Ribes and then in white pines in eastern Europe. The pathogen may have been brought to Europe on an infected pine from Russia. In the late 1800s American nurserymen, unaware of the European rust incidence, imported many infected white pine seedlings from France and Germany for reforestation efforts. By 1914, rust-infected white pine nursery stock was imported into Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin, and in the Canadian provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia. The range of WPBR is established in eastern North America and the Pacific Northwest. New infection sites in Nevada, South Dakota, New Mexico and Colorado have been observed during the 1990s.

Full access

Andrea B. da Rocha and Ray Hammerschmidt

A major challenge facing horticultural crop production is the need to provide field and postharvest disease control measures that help maintain high quality plant products. Producers and consumers also expect high quality produce with minimal or no pesticide residues and competitive prices. The chemical management of disease is further complicated by the development of fungicide resistance in many important pathogens. Because of these concerns, an alternative or complementary approach is the use of disease resistance inducers that activate the natural defenses of the plant. Induced disease resistance in plants has been studied in many different pathosystems for nearly a century. Resistance to plant disease can be induced systemically by prior infection with pathogens, by certain non-pathogenic microbes that colonize the surface of roots and leaves, or by chemicals. The application of resistance inducers should protect plants through the induction of defenses that are effective against a broad spectrum of pathogens. Over the last few years, a number of materials that could potentially be used as inducers of resistance in horticultural crops have been identified. Some of these materials are already commercially available. Although induced resistance is known to provide a broad spectrum of disease suppression, it may not be a complete solution because variation in the efficacy of disease resistance induction has been observed. The variation in the response may be dependent on the plant species and even cultivars, as well as variability in the spectrum of pathogens that resistance can be induced against. Induction of resistance depends on the activation of biochemical processes that are triggered in the plant, and therefore a lag time between treatment and expression of resistance occurs. This lag effect may limit the practical application of disease resistance inducers. Since the efficacy of the inducers also depends on the part of the plant that was treated, the product delivery (i.e., how the inducers would be applied in order to optimize their action) is another factor to be considered. Some studies have shown that there may be side effects on growth or yield characteristics when certain inducers are used. Understanding the biochemical interactions occurring between plants, pathogens and the inducers will provide information that may be useful for the optimization of this new approach on disease control. Approaches to integrate induced resistance with other management practices need to be investigated as a means to aid the development of sustainable disease management programs that are effective as well as economically and environmentally sound.

Full access

Leslie A. Weston

Allelopathy can be defined as an important mechanism of plant interference mediated by the addition of plant-produced secondary products to the soil rhizosphere. Allelochemicals are present in all types of plants and tissues and are released into the soil rhizosphere by a variety of mechanisms, including decomposition of residues, volatilization and root exudation. Allelochemical structures and modes of action are diverse, and may offer potential for development of future herbicides. In the past, allelopathy was described by the Romans as a process resulting in the “sickening” of the soil; in particular, chickpea (Cicer arietinum) was described as problematic when successively cropped with other species. Other early plant scientists, such as De Candolle in the 1800s, first described the ability of plant roots to produce toxic exudates. More recently, research has focused on development of weed management strategies using allelopathic crop residues, mechanism of allelochemical action, and gene regulation of allelochemical production. This paper briefly describes a variety of weed and crop species that establishes some form of potent allelopathic interference, either with other crops or weeds, in agricultural settings, in the managed landscape, or in naturalized settings. Recent research suggests that allelopathic properties can render one species more invasive to native species and thus potentially detrimental to both agricultural and naturalized settings. In contrast, allelopathic crops offer strong potential for the development of cultivars that are more highly weed suppressive in managed settings. A new challenge that exists for plant scientists is to generate additional information on allelochemical mechanisms of release, selectivity and persistence, mode of action, and genetic regulation. Armed with this specific information, we can further protect plant biodiversity and enhance weed management strategies in a variety of ecosystems.