4.7 Article

Potential secondary inoculum sources of Botrytis cinerea and their influence on bunch rot development in dry Mediterranean climate vineyards

期刊

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
卷 70, 期 6, 页码 922-930

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ps.3629

关键词

epidemiology; fungicide timing; latent infections; necrotic tissues; surface inoculum; regression

资金

  1. University of Lleida for Carlos Calvo Garrido's PhD grant
  2. European Union

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUNDEpidemiological studies have described the life cycle of B. cinerea in vineyards. However, there is a lack of information on the several infection pathways and the quantitative relationships between secondary inoculum and bunch rot at harvest. RESULTSOver two seasons, different spray programmes were used to determine key phenological stages for bunch rot development. Secondary inoculum sources within the bunch were also studied. The relative importance of flowering was evidenced in the given conditions, as treatments that included two fungicide applications at flowering were the most effective. In 2010, under conducive meteorological conditions for B. cinerea development after veraison, an extra application provided significantly higher control. Infections of necrotic tissues inside the bunch and latent infections developed mainly during flowering, while very low quantities of B. cinerea conidia were recovered from the fruit surface at veraison. Regression analysis correlated the incidence of latent infections and B. cinerea incidence on calyptras and aborted fruits at veraison with incidence of Botrytis bunch rot at harvest, presenting R-2 = 0.95 for the overall regression model. CONCLUSIONThis work points out key phenological stages during the season for bunch rot and B. cinerea secondary inoculum development and relates quantitatively inoculum sources at veraison to bunch rot at harvest. Recommendations for field applications of antibotrytic products are also suggested. (c) 2013 Society of Chemical Industry

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据