Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for

  • Author or Editor: Scott Ciliento x
Clear All Modify Search
Free access

Ed Stover*, Scott Ciliento and Gene Albrigo

Grapefruit are susceptible to melanose from initial set until fruit diam. is 6-7 cm, which can span 3 months. Common Indian River melanose-control practice has been application of Cu fungicides at petal fall, with reapplication every three wks. through the infection period. Research data were previously used to develop a computer model to estimate Cu levels on fruit and indicate when reapplication is needed to prevent potential infection. The purpose of this study was to compare melanose control using spray timings suggested by the computer model vs. standard 3 week intervals vs. non-sprayed checks and was conducted over 3 years in mature grapefruit groves near Ft. Pierce, Fla. All applications were made using airblast at 1180 L· ha-1. Melanose and melanose-like Cu injury could not be distinguished and were combined in a melanose/Cu marking (MCM) score for each fruit. Separate fruit samples from the interior and exterior of tree canopies were randomly selected from each tree. In no year was there a significant difference in interior fruit MCM from computer model vs. calendar spray timings when treated with standard rates of Cu fungicide. However, rainfall never occurred when calendar-sprayed fruit were projected to be at low Cu levels. In 2 of 3 yrs. exterior fruit in the non-sprayed checks had less MCM than those from trees treated with Cu, indicating that Cu injury predominated over melanose on exterior fruit. In these fruit, MCM increased linearly with maximum fruit Cu concentration, which was lower on trees managed using the computer model. The computer model appears to be a sound approach to managing melanose, but economic benefit over calendar-based spray timing may only become apparent when practiced over numerous groves and seasons.

Free access

Ed Stover, Scott Ciliento and Monty Myers

In spring 1999, a commercial NAA (1-naphthaleneacetic acid) preparation for trunk sprout inhibition was compared with a corrugated plastic trunk wrap, aluminum foil wrap, bimonthly hand removal of sprouts, use of NAA preparation plus bimonthly hand removal when sprouts appeared, and a nontreated control. Three recently planted groves on three different rootstocks [`Midsweet' orange (Citrus sinensis)] on Swingle citrumelo (Citrus paradisi × Poncirus trifoliata), `Valencia' orange on Volkamer lemon (Volk, Citrus limon), and `Minneola' tangelo (Citrus paradisi × C. reticulata) on Smooth Flat Seville (SFS, Citrus hybrid) received each of the treatments in a randomized complete block experimental design with trees blocked by initial height and circumference. Every 2 months, sprouts were counted on each tree and removed from the hand removal treatments. After 1 year, all sprouts were removed and counted and height and circumference of trees was determined. Across all experiments, 82% to 100% of nontreated trees produced trunk sprouts and all sprout control methods significantly reduced sprouts per tree. NAA treatments were never significantly less effective at sprout suppression than the wraps at the P = 0.05 level, although in two experiments, wraps were more effective than NAA at P = 0.10. Time of sprout appearance varied between the three experimental blocks. Plastic and foil trunk wraps enhanced development of trunk circumference compared with nontreated controls in `Midsweet'/Swingle and `Valencia'/Volk. Greater trunk circumference resulted from use of wraps versus NAA in all three experiments, which appeared unrelated to differential sprout suppression. In these experiments, it appears that either wraps enhanced tree development beyond the suppression of sprouts or NAA influence on tree metabolism somewhat reduced trunk growth. The economics of the sprout suppression methods are also discussed.

Full access

Frederick S. Davies, Glenn R. Zalman, Ed Stover and Scott Ciliento

EcoLyst, a formulation of N-N-diethyl-2-(4-methylbenzyloxy) ethylamine hydrochloride containing 1 g/floz [4.5 oz/gal (33.8 g·L-1)] a.i., is a plant growth regulator that has been reported to increase soluble solids concentration (SSC) in juice oranges by 0.6% to 1.2%. Our objectives were to determine the effectiveness of EcoLyst application for increasing SSC in Florida oranges (Citrus sinensis) and grapefruit (C. paradisi), and to identify the optimum rate and time of application. Experiments were conducted for three seasons using `Hamlin,' `Pineapple,' and `Valencia' sweet oranges; and for two seasons using `Flame,' `Marsh,' and `Ray Ruby' grapefruit, all in commercial groves. EcoLyst was applied at 6 and 12 floz/acre (0.44 and 0.88 L·ha-1) for oranges and 16 and 32 ppm (mg·L-1) [effectively 9 and 18 floz/acre (0.66 and 1.32 L·ha-1) in most sprays] for grapefruit, and included Silwet L-77 adjuvant at 0.05%. Applications were made at several stages of development from prebloom to initial fruit set. In all cases, SSC was determined as juice corrected SSC, by adjusting refractometer readings based on titratable acidity. In 13 trials with sweet orange only five displayed significant increases in SSC (P ≤ 0.05) resulting from EcoLyst application. Two additional trials produced SSC increases significant at P < 0.10. Even where significant increases in SSC occurred they were typically observed in only one harvest and at one time of application and were always relatively low in magnitude (highest increase over controls was 0.38%). No rate or timing of EcoLyst application was consistently associated with best response, although eight of nine SSC increases observed in orange occurred with applications ranging from prebloom to 25% open flowers. Only one significant increase in SSC was observed in five trials with grapefruit. In these studies, increases in SSC resulting from EcoLyst application were neither sufficiently consistent nor large enough to justify a recommendation for commercial use in Florida citrus.

Free access

Ed Stover, Robert Pelosi, Michael Burton, Scott Ciliento and Mark Ritenour

Adjacent but separate trials of `Oroblanco' and `Melogold', both triploid pummelo [Citrus grandis (L.) Osbeck] × grapefruit (Citrus paradisi Macf.) hybrids, were established on nine rootstocks in the Indian River citrus region of Florida in 1993. The trees on the citrandarin rootstock ×639 [Cleopatra mandarin (C. reticulata Blanco) × trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata L.)] were significantly more productive than trees on any other rootstock tested for `Oroblanco' and all rootstocks except Swingle citrumelo (C. paradisi × P. trifoliata) and Cleopatra mandarin for `Melogold'. Cumulative production of `Oroblanco' on ×639, through year 9, was 50% higher than for Swingle or Volkamer lemon [C. limon (L.)], which were the next highest in yield. `Melogold' displayed extremely low yield, with 45% of trees producing fewer than 50 fruit total in the 9 years of this study. Carrizo citrange (C. sinensis Osbeck × P. trifoliata) produced the smallest trees with both scion varieties, reflecting poor adaptation of this rootstock to the calcareous soil at the trial site. As expected, acidity of `Oroblanco' and `Melogold' was much lower than would be observed for grapefruit when fall harvested, with similar total soluble solids (TSS), and much higher TSS: titratable acidity ratio. Some rootstock effects on internal quality were observed.

Free access

Ed Stover, Scott Ciliento, Monty Myers, Brian Boman, John Jackson Jr. and Max Still

Six trials were conducted to determine whether lower spray volumes or inclusion of different surfactants would permit adequate thinning of mandarin hybrids (Citrus reticulata hybrids) at a much lower cost per hectare. Sprays were applied using a commercial airblast orchard sprayer during physiological drop when fruitlets averaged 8 to 16 mm in diameter. Surfactant was always included at 0.05% v/v. NAA always reduced fruit per tree, increased fruit size, and decreased production of smallest size fruit. However, in only three experiments, contrast of all NAA treatments vs. controls indicated increased production of the largest (80–100 fruit per carton) and most valuable fruit. In four of five experiments, comparison of spray volumes of 600 (only examined in three of four experiments), 1200, or 2300 L·ha–1 demonstrated significant fruit size enhancement from all NAA applications. Most individual NAA treatments resulted in fewer fruit per tree, but there were no statistically significant differences between NAA treatments at different spray volumes. In only one of the four experiments, there was a marked linear relationship between spray volume and fruit per tree, yield, mean fruit size, and production of largest fruit sizes. The effects of surfactants (Activator, a nonionic, Silwet L-77, and LI-700) on NAA thinning were tested in both `Murcott' and `Sunburst'. In comparisons between Silwet L-77 and Activator surfactant, one experiment with `Murcott' showed greater fruit per tree and yield reduction from using Silwet, but with a smaller increase in production of largest fruit sizes, whereas in another `Murcott' experiment, Silwet L-77 reduced numbers of smaller fruit size with no increase in production of larger fruit. Based on these findings, current recommendations for NAA thinning of Fla. mandarins are use of spray volume of ≈1100–1400 L·ha–1 on mature trees with proportionally lower volume on smaller trees. These data appear to support use of a nonionic surfactant rather than other tested surfactants in NAA thinning of Florida mandarins. Because experience with NAA thinning of Florida citrus is limited, it is only recommended where the disadvantages of overcropping are perceived to substantially outweigh the potential losses from overthinning.