Effect of Trichothecium roseum, lime sulphur and phosphites to control blossom blight and brown rot on peach

Figures & data

Table 1. Description of treatments, spray schedules and rates of treatments used to control blossom blight and brown rot in peaches of ‘Granada’ and ‘Chimarrita’ in Rio do Sul – SC, Brazil (2005 and 2006).

	Sprays applied
	Early	Full	Petal	Days before harvest
Treatments^x	bloom	bloom	fall	28	21	14	7	1^w
Lime sulphur	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Trichothecium roseum (TR)	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
CaB ^y phosphites and K ^z phosphites	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
CaB phosphites/TR K phosphites/TR	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Control	-------- not treated -------

^xRates per 100 L of water (lime sulphur 300 mL during blooming and 400 mL at pre-harvest; Cab phosphite 300 mL and Kphosphites 200 mL, T. roseum at 10⁶ conidia mL⁻¹)

^yCalcium and boron phosphite (equivalent to 10.7% P₂O₅ + 3.89% Ca + 0.51% B), 300 mL per 100 L water applied in early bloom, full bloom and petal fall.

^zPotassium phosphite (equivalent to 40% P₂O₅ + 20% K₂O), 200 mL per 100 L water, applied at pre-harvest.

^wOn this date the treatments were sprayed just in 2006.

Table 2. Incidence (%) of blossom blight on flowers after incubation in the laboratory of cultivars ‘Granada’ and ‘Chimarrita’, collected before spraying (BS) and after spraying (AS) with the treatments, in 2005 and 2006, in Rio do Sul – SC, Brazil.

	‘Granada’^x				‘Chimarrita’
	2005		2006		2005		2006
Treatments	BS	AS	BS	AS	BS	AS	BS	AS
Lime sulphur^z	12 a^y	4 bc	40 a	24 bc	18 a	14 ab	54 a	48 b
	(±3.3)	(±0.8)	(±4)	(±6.4)	(±2.9)	(±3.6)	(±6)	(±3.3)
CaB and K phosphites/TR	18 a	2 cd	43 a	19 bc	17 a	10 b	48 a	35 c
	(±0.6)	(±0.8)	(±3)	(±10)	(±2.9)	(±3)	(±3)	(±3.3)
Trichothecium roseum (TR)^z	21 a	1 d	46 a	16 c	15 a	3 c	58 a	23 d
	(±2.2)	(±0.7)	(±4.9)	(±10)	(±1.7)	(±0.8)	(±4.4)	(±1.5)
CaB and K phosphites^z	23 a	8 b	52 a	30 ab	19 a	15 ab	48 a	52 b
	(±5.7)	(±2.3)	(±4.4)	(±9.1)	(±3.9)	(±3)	(±5.7)	(±3.8)
Control	25 a	20 a	39 a	39 a	15 a	19 a	53 a	64 a
	(±4.3)	(±1.8)	(±5.3)	(±10)	(±3.8)	(±2)	(±4.8)	(±3.7)
Averages (cultivar)	20 A	–	44 B	–	17 A	–	52 B	–

^x For BS and AS data are from full bloom of each season. The flowers were collected and assessed for latent M. fruticola after 3 days at 25 °C and 3 days at 4 °C under high (>95%) relative humidity.

^y Original data are presented; the data were transformed to arc sin √x values; numbers in columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (P < 0,05, Tukey test). Capital letters compare cultivars.

^z Calcium and boron phosphite (equivalent to 10.7% P₂O₅ + 3.89% Ca + 0.51% B) in 300 mL per 100 L water. Potassium phosphite (equivalent to 40% P₂O₅ + 20% K₂O) in 200 mL per 100 L water, CaB = Calcium and boron phosphites (equivalent to 40% P₂O₅ + 20% K₂O), T. roseum = 10⁶ conidia mL⁻¹; lime sulphur = 0.3–0.4%.

Table 3. Average incidence of latent infection of Monilinia fructicola on green fruit (after incubation in the laboratory) and brown rot incidence (%) at harvest and post-harvest on ‘Chimarrita’in 2005 and 2006 in Rio do Sul – SC, Brazil.

	2005			2006
Treatments	Green fruits	Harvest^x	Post-harvest	Green fruits	Harvest^x	Post-harvest
Lime sulphur^z	4 b ^y	20 a	44 ab	5 a	21 bc	33 ab
	(±1.4)	(±3.8)	(±6.7)	(±2.2)	(±4.7)	(±4)
Trichothecium roseum (TR)^z	3 b	21 a	16 b	9 a	15 c	22 b
	(±1.2)	(±3.1)	(±5.4)	(±1.1)	(±1.7)	(±5.1)
CaB and K phosphites^z	3 b	20 a	35 ab	10 a	27 ab	30 ab
	(±1.6)	(±2.9)	(±8.5)	(±3.6)	(±2.7)	(±4)
CaB and K phosphites/TR	5 ab	20 a	24 b	7 a	22 bc	44 a
	(±1.3)	(±2.9)	(±7.5)	(±2.2)	(±2.7)	(±5.5)
Control	8 a	21 a	43 a	8 a	33 a	45 a
	(±0.4)	(±2.4)	(±8)	(±2.4)	(±2.1)	(±4)

^xApplication during the pre-harvest, 7 days before the beginning of harvest in 2005 and 1 day in 2006.

^yOriginal data are presented; the data were transformed to arc sin √x values; numbers in columns followed by a common letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05, Tukey test). Data of green fruits and mature fruit at harvest are the averages of two evaluations for each. Data for post-harvest are the averages between the two samples of disinfected and non-disinfected fruits after 5 days.

^zCalcium and boron phosphite (equivalent to 10.7% P₂O₅ + 3.89% Ca + 0.51% B) in 300 mL per 100 L water; potassium phosphite (equivalent to 40% P₂O₅ + 20% K₂O) in 200 mL per 100L water; CaB = calcium and boron phosphites (equivalent to 40% P₂O₅ + 20% K₂O); T. roseum = 10⁶ conidia mL⁻¹; and lime sulphur = 0.3 to 0.4%.

Table 4. Averages of temperature (T), relative humidity (RH) and rainfall, 10 days before the collection of flower, green fruit and mature fruit at harvest of ‘Granada’ and ‘Chimarrita’ in 2005 and 2006 in Rio do Sul – SC, Brazil.

	2005			2006
Cultivar/Phase	T ^°C	RH %	Rain (mm)	T ^°C	RH %	Rain (mm)
‘Granada’
Flower collection	22	77	13	17	67	0
‘Chimarrita’
Flower collection	21	79	20	15	71	22
Fruit first collection	19	86	11	24	83	8
Harvest	28	68	1	27	77	35

Fig. 1 Progress of brown rot of peach ‘Chimarrita’ post-harvest after treatment with Trichothecium roseum (TR). (A) OP = Fruit were collected from an organic orchard (no conventional fungicides applied during the season). Inoculum for post-harvest brown rot infection was from field infections (fruit were not inoculated post-harvest). (B) CP = Fruits harvested from a conventional production orchard (with fungicides applied in the field). Harvested fruit were inoculated with 10⁵ conidia mL⁻¹ Monilinia fructicola 12 h after treatment with TR. In both cases, fruits were dipped in a 10⁶ conidia mL⁻¹ suspension of TR for 1 min. Proportion of brown rot of 0.8 is equal to 80% of incidence.