Effects of nematodes, fungi and bacteria on the growth of young apple trees grown in apple replant disease soil

1992 ◽  
Vol 139 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. S. Utkhede ◽  
T. C. Vrain ◽  
J. M. Yorston
Keyword(s):  
Apple Trees ◽  
Apple Replant Disease ◽  
Replant Disease ◽  
Young Apple

THE EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL FUMIGANTS, NITROGEN, PLASTIC MULCH AND METALAXYL ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF YOUNG APPLE TREES IN APPLE REPLANT DISEASE SOIL

1988 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 255-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
PAUL JENSEN ◽  
DEBORAH BUSZARD
Keyword(s):  
Methyl Bromide ◽  
Malus Pumila ◽  
Steam Sterilization ◽  
Plastic Mulch ◽  
Apple Trees ◽  
Apple Replant Disease ◽  
Replant Disease ◽  
Malus Pumila Mill ◽  
Young Apple ◽  
Cultural Treatment

Postplanting weekly or biweekly applications of metalaxyl at 0.312 mg or 0.600 mg a.i. L−1 soil were as effective as steam sterilization in controlling apple replant disease (ARD) symptoms in greenhouse studies. Growth improvements obtained with metalaxyl suggest that Oomycetes may be involved in ARD in Quebec. In orchard trials plastic mulch, as a cultural treatment, was found to be as effective as methyl bromide, chloropicrin and formalin against ARD; metalaxyl, Vorlex and nitrogen were found to be less effective.Key words: Replant, apple, Malus pumila Mill., Pythium, mulch

scholarly journals The Effect of Rotating Apple Rootstock Genotypes on Apple Replant Disease and Rhizosphere Microbiome

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 273-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Deakin ◽  
Felicidad Fernández-Fernández ◽  
Julie Bennett ◽  
Tom Passey ◽  
Nicola Harrison ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Mycorrhizal Fungi ◽  
Genetic Relationships ◽  
Stable State ◽  
Operational Taxonomic Unit ◽  
Tree Establishment ◽  
Apple Trees ◽  
Apple Replant Disease ◽  
Rhizosphere Microbiome ◽  
Replant Disease

Continuous plantation of apple trees (Malus pumila) at the same sites where the same or a closely related species were grown previously leads to poor establishment, reduced growth vigor, and subsequent crop losses; this phenomenon is termed apple replant disease (ARD). Management of ARD is a continual challenge due to (i) restrictions on the use of broad-spectrum soil fumigants, (ii) putative causal agents of ARD can be site-specific, and (iii) more than one causal agent can be present at a site. We conducted an experimental study at two orchard sites to investigate the succession effect of rootstock genotypes on apple tree establishment with three specific objectives: (i) whether ARD in newly planted apple trees is more severe if the same rootstock as the previous one is replanted, (ii) whether trees develop better in the aisle than in original tree stations, and (iii) the extent of association of rootstock genotypes with rhizosphere microbiome in relation to ARD. Tree growth and rhizosphere microbiome were assessed within 30 months of replanting. In one orchard, replanting trees with a rootstock genotype different from the previous one can be effective in reducing ARD development, susceptibility to ARD is likely to be genetically controlled, and replanting trees in the previous grass aisle can reduce ARD development. However, the opposite results were obtained in the other orchard, possibly due to the lack of weed management in the grass aisle affecting tree establishment in the grass aisle. Rhizosphere microbiota associated with specific rootstock genotypes reached a stable state within 7 months of replanting. An arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi operational taxonomic unit (OTU) had reduced abundance with ARD trees; however many other OTUs associated with ARD cannot be identified to low taxonomic ranks and hence their roles cannot be easily interpreted. In conclusion, replanting trees with rootstocks that are genetically differently from the previous one can reduce ARD development. However, in adopting this strategy, the extent of genetic relationships among rootstock genotypes needs to be considered.

scholarly journals Response of ‘Honeycrisp®’ Apple Trees to Combinations of Pre-plant Fumigation, Deep Ripping, and Hog Manure Compost Incorporation in a Soil with Replant Disease

HortScience ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 45 (11) ◽  
pp. 1702-1707 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Gordon Braun ◽  
Keith D. Fuller ◽  
Kenneth McRae ◽  
Sherry A.E. Fillmore
Keyword(s):  
Soil Phosphorus ◽  
Apple Trees ◽  
Apple Replant Disease ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Nutrient Analysis ◽  
Yield Efficiency ◽  
Manure Compost ◽  
Replant Disease ◽  
Hog Manure ◽  
Contrast Analysis

This study evaluated the effects of pre-plant treatments: deep ripping (DR), fumigation (F), deep ripping plus fumigation (DRF), deep ripping plus hog manure compost (DRC), and deep ripping plus fumigation plus hog manure compost (DRFC) in comparison with a non-treated control (NTC) on shoot and root performance of ‘Honeycrisp’ apple trees on M.4 rootstocks in an old orchard site with apple replant disease (ARD). Cylindrocarpon spp., Pythium spp., and Pratylenchus penetrans Cobb, all potential agents of ARD, were present in the orchard soil. Fine-root numbers (1 to 2.9 mm diameter) were significantly greater in the DRC and DRFC treatments than the DR treatment. After 6 years, trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA) and yield were largest for the DRFC treatment followed closely by F. The DR treatment had no effect on TCSA, yield, or yield efficiency when applied alone compared with the NTC. Contrast analysis demonstrated that F was significantly better than non-F for yield in all years and TCSA and yield efficiency in 2007. Also, there was a significant interaction between DR and F treatment in 2005 that significantly reduced yield in the DRF treatment. Contrast analysis showed that compost had a significant positive effect on yield in all three production years and TCSA and yield efficiency in 2007. Yield efficiency in the third production year was largest for F, DRC, and the DRFC treatments. Nutrient analysis revealed that soil phosphorus concentrations in compost-treated plots were double those in other treatments. High phosphorus content of compost may have contributed to the amelioration of ARD symptoms. This study found that in 2007, soil fumigation alone, as conventionally used for ARD control, and composted hog manure were equally effective in increasing yield and yield efficiency of apple trees planted in an ARD soil. The DRFC treatment was the overall best treatment in all years.

scholarly journals Controlling Apple Replant Disease in `McIntosh' Apple Trees on Various Rootstock

HortScience ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph F. Costante ◽  
Wesley R. Autio ◽  
Lorraine P. Berkett
Keyword(s):  
Apple Trees ◽  
Apple Replant Disease ◽  
Replant Disease

scholarly journals INFLUENCE OF SOIL FUMIGANTS AND A NEMATICIDE ON GROWTH AND YIELD OF `MCINTOSH' APPLE TREES ON VARIOUS ROOTSTOCKS

HortScience ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 479f-479
Author(s):  
Joseph F. Costante ◽  
Wesley R. Autio ◽  
Lorraine P. Berkett
Keyword(s):  
Growing Season ◽  
Growth And Yield ◽  
Cumulative Yield ◽  
Apple Trees ◽  
Apple Replant Disease ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Replant Disease ◽  
Lesion Nematode ◽  
Soil Fumigants ◽  
Tree Performance

`Rogers Red McIntosh' apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) trees on MM. 111, MM. 106, M.7a, or M.26 were planted in 1984 on an old orchard site, diagnosed with an apple replant disease (ARD) problem. Soil treatments included Telone c-17, Vorlex, Nemacur 3, or not treated. After six years, tree performance problems usually associated with severe ARD did not develop. Lesion nematode [Pratylenchus penetrans (Cobb) Filipjev and Schuurmans-Stekhoven] populations feeding within or on the surface of roots were not affected by nematicide treatments nor rootstocks, even though slightly damaging levels were found in 1986. At the end of the sixth growing season, trunk cross-sectional areas were similar for trees in treated and in untreated soils. Trees on MM. 111 and MM. 106 were the largest, and those on M.26 were the smallest. Cumulative yield was not influenced by soil treatments, but trees on MM. 111 produced the greatest cumulative yields, whereas trees on M.26 were the most yield efficient.

scholarly journals Resistant Rootstocks, Preplant Compost Amendments, Soil Fumigation, and Row Repositioning for Managing Apple Replant Disease

HortScience ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 841B-841
Author(s):  
Michelle M. Leinfelder ◽  
Ian A. Merwin ◽  
Gennaro Fazio ◽  
Terence Robinson*
Keyword(s):  
Tree Growth ◽  
Soil Fumigation ◽  
Growth Responses ◽  
Apple Trees ◽  
Apple Replant Disease ◽  
Trunk Diameter ◽  
Growing Seasons ◽  
Replant Disease ◽  
K Fertilizer ◽  
Growth Differences

We are testing control tactics for apple replant disease (ARD) complex, a worldwide problem for fruit growers that is attributed to various biotic and abiotic soil factors. In Nov. 2001, “Empire” apple trees on five rootstocks (M.26, M.7, G.16, CG.6210, and G.30) were planted into four preplant soil treatments—commercial compost at 492 kg/ha soil-incorporated and 492 kg·ha-1 surface-applied), soil fumigation with Telone C-17 (400 L·ha-1 of 1,3-dichloropropene + chloropicrin injected at 30 cm depth five weeks prior to replanting), compost plus fumigant combination, and untreated controls—at an old orchard site in Ithaca, N.Y. Trees were replanted in rows perpendicular to, and either in or out of, previous orchard rows. Irrigation was applied as needed, and N-P-K fertilizer was applied in 2001 to all non-compost treatments to compensate for nutrients in the compost treatment. After two growing seasons, the rootstock factor has contributed most to tree-growth differences. CG.6210 rootstock supported greater growth in trunk diameter, central leader height, and lateral shoot growth (P < 0.05), regardless of preplant soil treatments and replant position. Trees on M.26 grew least over a two year period. Replant growth was greater in old grass lanes than in old tree rows, despite higher root-lesion nematode populations in previous grass lanes. Growth responses to preplant soil fumigation were negligible. Preplant compost did not increase tree growth during year one, but did increase lateral branch growth in year two. Results thus far suggest that replanting apple trees out of the old tree-row locations, and using ARD tolerant rootstocks such as CG.6210, may be more effective than soil fumigation for control of ARD in some old orchard sites.

Root exposure to apple replant disease soil triggers local defense response and rhizoplane microbiome dysbiosis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia Balbín-Suárez ◽  
Samuel Jacquiod ◽  
Annmarie-Deetja Rohr ◽  
Benye Liu ◽  
Henryk Flachowsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Plant Defense ◽  
Defense Response ◽  
Soil Column ◽  
Soil Layer ◽  
Soil Microbiome ◽  
Control Soil ◽  
Apple Rootstocks ◽  
Apple Replant Disease ◽  
Replant Disease

Abstract A soil column split-root experiment was designed to investigate the ability of apple replant disease (ARD) causing agents to spread in soil. ‘M26’ apple rootstocks grew into a top layer of Control soil, followed by a barrier-free split-soil layer (Control soil/ARD soil). We observed a severely reduced root growth, concomitant with enhanced gene expression of phytoalexin biosynthetic genes and phytoalexin content in roots from ARD soil, indicating a pronounced local plant defense response. Amplicon sequencing (bacteria, archaea, fungi) revealed local shifts in diversity and composition of microorganisms in the rhizoplane of roots from ARD soil. An enrichment of OTUs affiliated to potential ARD fungal pathogens (Ilyonectria and Nectria sp.) and bacteria frequently associated with ARD (Streptomyces, Variovorax) was noted. In conclusion, our integrated study supports the idea of ARD being local and not spreading into surrounding soil, as only the roots in ARD soil were affected in terms of growth, phytoalexin biosynthetic gene expression, phytoalexin production, and altered microbiome structure. This study further reinforces the microbiological nature of ARD, being likely triggered by a disturbed soil microbiome enriched with low mobility ARD-causing agents that induce a strong plant defense and rhizoplane microbiome dysbiosis, concurring with root damage.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document