Printer Friendly

DISEASES INCIDENCE AND FUNGICIDE COST REDUCTION WITH OVERHEAD COVERED GRAPES/INCIDENCIA DE DOENCAS E REDUCAO DE CUSTOS COM FUNGICIDAS UTILIZANDO COBERTURA PLASTICA EM VIDEIRA.

INTRODUCTION

The cultivation of vines in Brazil occupies approximately 83.7 thousand hectares and Rio Grande do Sul is the Brazilian state with the largest wine production. In 2014, wine companies in Rio Grande do Sul processed 606.1 million kilograms, approximately 89.11% of this amount of American and hybrid grapes (IBRAVIN, 2015). Fungal diseases are one of the main problems of the vine crop and phytosanitary treatments are responsible for about 30% of the production cost (GRIGOLETTI JUNIOR; SONEGO, 1993). The main strategy used to control shoot diseases in grapevines is the use of fungicides and up to 14 sprays are usually carried out in open-grown Vitis vinifera grapes (FREIRE et al., 1992) and from eight to ten applications are made for the control of downy mildew (MENDES, 2002). There are regions of Brazil, as in the State of Parana, where up to 60 sprays are made in Vitis vinifera grapes (CHAVARRIA et al., 2009). Often, chemical control is carried out on the basis of a calendar with weekly applications, which may lead to unnecessary applications (CHAVARRIA et al., 2007a) and to the selection of resistant genotypes, such as the resistance of Botrytis cinerea and Plasmopara viticola in Italy (ANGELINI et al, 2014; TOFFOLATTI et al, 2015).

An alternative strategy for the control of shoot diseases is the use of plastic overhead cover. In this situation, free water is minimized on leaves and fruits, an essential factor for the onset of fungal infections (GRIGOLETTI JUNIOR; SONEGO, 1993). Chavarria et al. (2007) observed drastic reduction of free water on leaves, no establishment of downy mildew, reduction of incidence and severity of bunch rot and increase of residual fungicide captan under cultivation conditions with grapevine cover of Moscato Giallo cultivar. An important factor for the use of plastic overhead cover is related to the implementation cost, which will be directly related to the cost of phytosanitary control. Thus, the aim of this study was to search strategies for the reduction of the use of phytosanitary products and production costs, with the aid of the plastic overhead cover in grapevines.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The experiment was carried out in the 2010/2011 crop year at "Silveira" farm, located in Viamao - RS, Passo do Garcia, 30[degrees]08'51"S and 51[degrees]00'33"W, using Cabernet Sauvignon cultivar (Clone R5) grafted on Paulsen 1103 rootstock. This vineyard was implanted in 2004 in "Y" support system with 1.80 x 2.50 m spacing. The uncovered area presented the same implantation characteristics.

In all treatments, mixed pruning was carried out, with six production shoots with six buds and ten to twelve spurs of two buds per plant, and was performed on August 26, 2010. After pruning, dormancy breaking was performed with application of growth regulator based on hydrogenated cyanamide. Throughout the cycle, vegetative canopy management occurred in all treatments, such as sprouting, defoliation and shoot topping, which were performed according to the need for covered vineyard to avoid branches from touching the canvas or being exposed outside the canvas. In the uncovered vineyard, vegetative canopy management was also carried out.

The vineyard area under study was divided into four treatments, with 516 plants each, namely: Treatment 1: plastic overhead cover: phytosanitary treatment applied when leaf wetting was observed; Treatment 2: plastic overhead cover: curative treatment, when there were symptoms of disease in shoots; Treatment 3: plastic overhead cover: conventional calendar treatment every 15 days, with reapplication after leaf wetting and Treatment 4: without plastic overhead cover: conventional calendar treatment every 15 days, with reapplication after leaf wetting, treatment corresponding to control.

The active principles used in this study were captan (240g / 100L, 2L syrup per plant), cymoxanil (600g / ha, 1000L syrup / ha), dithianone (125g / 100L, 1000L syrup / ha), mancozeb (300g / 100L, 1200L syrup / ha), mancozeb + cymoxanil (3kg / ha, 1000L syrup / ha), procymidone (200g / 100L, 1000L syrup / ha), copper sulfate (700g / 100L syrup / ha), and methyl thiophanate + chlorothalonil (200mL / 100L, 900L syrup / ha) to control downy mildew, difeconazole (12mL / 100L, 600L syrup / ha), tebuconazole (100mL / 100L, 900L syrup / ha), methyl thiophanate (70g / 100L, 800L of syrup / ha) to control powdery mildew and potassium phosphite 30% [P.sub.2][O.sub.5] and 20% [K.sub.2]O (190mL / 100L). All active principles used have registration for disease control in grape crops. The variation in the use of active principles in the experiment occurred due to the environmental differences of treatments and techniques (plastic damage) between cultivation condition with and without the presence of plastic overhead cover.

Shoot diseases were visually monitored for incidence on leaves and bunches of 10 treatment-tagged plants at the beginning of the experiment, randomly before the onset of any disease symptom. Monitoring took place throughout the productive cycle, from sprout to harvest, at frequency of once a week to carry out the application of fungicides according to criterion for each treatment. The presence / absence of free water on leaves (leaf wetting) was visually monitored after the occurrence of rainfalls.

The incidence of downy mildew and powdery mildew was calculated based on the number of plants with symptoms (leaves and bunches) on the total number of plants evaluated at the end of the crop cycle. Productivity was evaluated after harvest. Data were submitted to analysis of variance and later to the Tukey test at significance level of 5%. In addition, comparison between treatments was performed, the total cost with phytosanitary products and productivity in each area.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As for the sum of the number of applications of active principles, comparing treatments 1, 2 and 3 with treatment 4, without the use of plastic overhead cover, it was observed that in treatment 3, using calendar and plastic overhead cover, there was a reduction of three applications of active principles (14.29%). In treatment 1, application when there was leaf wetting, a reduction of 17 applications (80.95%) was observed. In treatment 2, there was a reduction of 18 applications (85.71%), the largest reduction observed (Table 1).

The tendency to decrease the number of applications of phytosanitary products with the use of plastic overhead cover, as approached by Santos (2005) and Chavarria et al. (2007a), has been proven. Based on these results, the potential for the use of plastic overhead cover as an alternative for organic grape production was observed (CHAVARRIA et al., 2007b). Moreover, with a reduction in the frequency of applications, the possibility of selection of genotypes resistant to the frequent use of one or more active principles is reduced (BRENT; HOLLOMON, 2007), which has been observed in successive crop years and, in many cases, leads to an increase in the number of sprays and active principles used (GRIGOLETTI JUNIOR; SONEGO, 1993).

Another explanation is based on the residual accumulation of active principles applied in the crop. According to Chavarria et al. (2007a) in work conducted with Moscato Gialo cultivar, active principle captan was higher in bunches grown under plastic overhead cover in 18.26%, in the evaluation performed two days after the first application and in 33.1% and 27.52% in evaluations performed two and seven days after the second application, respectively.

In relation to the costs of fungicides used, it was verified that in the comparison between treatments 1, 2 and 3 and treatment 4, the reduction percentages were higher than those observed in the number of applications. Treatments 1, 2 and 3 provided respectively cost reductions of 91.62%, 94.72% and 60.76%, and increased productivity by approximately 20% (Table 2).

The results corroborate results obtained by Chavarria et al, (2007a), who observed a reduction from 17 to two applications in vineyard with plastic overhead cover and Genta et al. (2010), who observed differences between types of cover, verifying that it is possible to perform 75% less sprays for the control of downy mildew in plastic overhead cover compared to the anti-hail screen.

Regarding the occurrence of fungal diseases, the incidence of Botrytis bunch rot (Botrytis cinerea) and rip rot (Glomerella cingulata) was not observed. The incidence of downy mildew was observed only in leaves and it was observed that in the three treatments under plastic overhead cover, the incidence was significantly lower (Figure 1). The lower incidence of downy mildew in the covered environment is due to the lower occurrence of leaf wetting, an essential factor for the infection of Plasmopara viticola (Berk. & Curt.) Berlese & de Toni (GUBLER, 2013), (CHAVARRIA et al. 2007a). In the uncovered environment, leaf wetting occurs mainly with rainfall, as can be observed in table 3.

The opposite was verified for powdery mildew, where the incidence of this disease was observed only in treatments with plastic overhead cover. In the case of the occurrence of powdery mildew, the foliar wetting factor is not favorable to the infection and growth of Uncinula necator on the plant surface, therefore, a covered environment with reduction of leaf wetting favors the occurrence of the disease. Temperature and relative humidity conditions (Table 3) that occurred during the cycle, in general, were favorable to the occurrence of these diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

It was concluded that the criteria "leaf wetting" and "observation of presence of symptoms" are efficient for the decision-making for the application of fungicides in vineyards with plastic overhead cover which, consequently, impact on the cost reduction.

http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1590/0100-29452017020

REFERENCES

ANGELINI, R.M. de M.; ROTOLO, C.; MASIELLO, M.; GERIN, D.; POLLASTRO, S.; FARETRA, F. Occurrence of fungicide resistance in populations of Botryotinia fuckeliana (Botrytis cinerea) on table grape and strawberry in southern Italy. Pest Managment Science, New York, v.70, n.12, p.1785-1796, 2014.

BRENT, K.J.; HOLLOMON, D. Fungicide resistence in crop pathogens: how can it be managed? 2nd ed. rev. Brussells: Fungicide Resistance Action Committee, 2007. 60p. (Frac Monograph, 2)

CHAVARRIA, G.; SANTOS, H.P.; SONEGO, O.R.; MARODIN, G.A.B.; BERGAMASCHI, H.; SILVEIRA, L.C.; SCHENEIDER, E.P. Cultivo protegido: uma alternativa na producao organica de videira. Revista Brasileira de Agroecologia, Bento Goncalves, v.2, n.2, p.628-632. 2007b.

CHAVARRIA, G.; SANTOS, H.P.; FIN, E.; SONEGO, O.R.; GARRIDO, L.R.; MARODIN, G.A.B. Dispersao anemofila de esporangiosporos de Plasmopara viticola em cultivos protegido e convencional de videira. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, Jaboticabal, v.31, n.3, p.710-717, 2009.

CHAVARRIA, G.; SANTOS, H.P.; SONEGO, O.R.; MARODIN, G.A.B; BERGAMASCHI, H; CARDOSO, L.S. Incidencia de doencas e necessidade de controle em cultivo protegido de videira. Revista Brasileira da Fruticultura, Jaboticabal, v.29, n.3, p.477-482, 2007a.

FREIRE, L.M.M; FREIRE, J.M.; CALDART, V.Z. Transformacao na estrutura produtiva dos vinicultores da Serra Gaucha: 1985 -1991.

Bento Goncalves: Embrapa Uva e Vinho, 1992. (Documento, 7).

GENTA, W.; TESSMANN, D.J.; ROBERTO, S.R.; VIDA, J.B.; COLOMBO, L.A.; SCAPIN, C.R.; RICCE, W.S.; CLOVIS, L.R. Manejo de mildio no cultivo protegido de videira de mesa 'BRS Clara'. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, Brasilia, v.45, n.2, p.1388-1395, 2010.

GRIGOLETTI JUNIOR, A; SONEGO, O.R. Principais doencas fungicas da videira no Brasil.

Bento Goncalves: Embrapa Uva e Vinho, 1993. (Circular Tecnica, 17).

GUBLER, W.D.; LEAVITT, G.M.; BETTIGA, L.J. Downy Mildew. In: BETTIGA, L.J. Grape pest management. 3rd ed. Berkeley: University of California System, 2013. p.117.

IBRAVIN - Instituto Brasileiro do Vinho. Brasil vitivinicola. Dados estatisticos. Producao de uvas. Uvas processadas pelas empresas do RS. Comparativo 2004-2014. Bento Goncalvez, 2015. Disponivel em: <http://www.ibravin.org.br/dadosestatisticos.php>. Acesso em: 21 set. 2015.

INMET - Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia. Dados historicos do BDMEP. 2015. Disponivel em: <http:// www.inmet.gov.br/portal/index.php?r=bdmep/ bdmep>. Acesso em: 05 dez. 2015.

MENDES, CS. Flutuacao de inoculo no ar, desenvolvimento e validacao de um sistema de previsao do mildio da videira. 2002. 123 f. Dissertacao (Mestrado em Fitopatologia) Universidade de Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, 2002.

SANTOS, H. P. Fruteiras de clima temperado em cultivo protegido: desafios e perspectivas em videira e macieira. In: SEMINARIO DE PESQUISA SOBRE FRUTEIRAS DE CLIMA TEMPERADO, 1., 2005, Bento Goncalves. Programa e resumos ... Bento Goncalves: Embrapa Uva e Vinho, 2015. 44p.

TOFFOLATTI, S.L.; VENTURINI, G.; CAMPIA, P.; CIRIO, L.; BELLOTTO, D.; VERCESI, A. Sensitivity to cymoxanil in Italian populations of Plasmopara viticola oospores. Pest Managment Science, New York, v.71, p.1182-1188, 2015.

MARCUS ANDRE KURTZ ALMANCA (2), NATALIA SARTORI FRIGHETTO (3), JULIO CESAR TONELLO (4), SABRINA LERIN (5)

(1) (Paper 045-16). Received March 14, 2016. Accepted August 05, 2016.

(2) Agronomist. PhD. Professor of Plant Pathology, IFRS/Campus Bento Goncalves. Cx. Postal 540, 95700-206. Bento Goncalves-RS.

E-mail:marcus.almanca@bento.ifrs.edu.br

(3) Technician. IFRS. E-mail: nataliafriguetto@hotmail.com

(4) Technician. IFRS. E-mail: julio.c.tonello@gmail.com. Bolsista CNPq.

(5) Technician. M. Sc. PhD student, UF Pel. Department of Fruticulture. E-mail: sabrinalerin@gmail.com. Bolsista Capes.
TABELA 1--Comparison of active principles, number of applications
of each principle and total number of applications used in vineyards
with and without plastic overhead cover, and different criteria for
the use of chemical fungicides in Cabernet Sauvignon cultivar in
Viamao-RS.

Treatment   Active principles applied   Sum of the number of
            (Number of applications)    application of active
                                             principles

                  Mancozeb (1)                    4
1               Tebuconazole (1)
             Potassium Phosphite (2)

2               Tebuconazole (1)                  3
             Potassium Phosphite (2)

3                 Mancozeb (1)                   18
                Tebuconazole (3)
             Potassium Phosphite (7)
             Methyl thiophanate (1)
                  Cymoxanil (2)
              Methyl thiophanate +
                  Cymoxanil (2)
                Difeconazole (1)
            Cymoxanil + Mancozeb (1)

4                Dithianone (4)                  21
                   Captan (1)
                Procymidone ((2)
             Potassium Phosphite (2)
                  Cymoxanil (3)
            Cymoxanil + Mancozeb (2)
              1% Copper sulfate (7)

TABLE 2--Comparison of the cost of phytosanitary products and
productivity in vineyards with and without plastic overhead cover,
and different criteria for the use of chemical fungicides in the
Cabernet Sauvignon cultivar in Viamao-RS.

Treatment    Cost of the      Productivity
            phytosanitary        (Kg/ha)
            product (R$/ha)

1               174,06         14.930 a *
2               109,66          14.850 a
3               815,24          15.000 a
4               2077,8          12.000 b

* Averages followed by the same letter do not differ by
the Tukey test at 5% level.

TABLE 3--Meteorological data recorded during the
development of the work.

Year     Month     Rainfall      Maximum
                     (mm)      temperature
                               ([degrees]C)

2010   September     180.8         21.0
       October       57.8          24.5
       November      72.1          28.5
       December      92.9          29.5

2011    January      135.7         31.5
       February      119.5         30.2
         March       83.1          26.8

Year     Minimum        Average      RH
       temperature    temperature    (%)
       ([degrees]C)   ([degrees]C)

2010       16.5           18.8       77
           13.5           19.0       72
           16.1           22.3       70
           20.3           24.9       73

2011       22.8           27.2       79
           24.0           27.1       79
           18.9           22.9       84

RH: Relative Humidity. Source: Adapted from INMET.

FIGURE 1--Incidence of downy mildew and powdery mildew in Cabernet
Sauvignon plants with and without plastic overhead cover and
different criteria for the use of chemical fungicides in Viamao-RS.

               Incidence of     Incidence of
               downy mildew %   powdery mildew %

T 1               5,62 a *          2,9 b
T 2               6,39 a            3,49 b
T 3               5,23 a            4,07 b
T 4              11,05 b            0 a

* Means followed by the same letter, in each treatment, do not differ
by the Tukey test at 5% level.

Note: Table made from bar graph.
COPYRIGHT 2017 Sociedade Brasileira de Fruticultura
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Almanca, Marcus Andre Kurtz; Frighetto, Natalia Sartori; Tonello, Julio Cesar; Lerin, Sabrina
Publication:Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura
Date:Dec 1, 2017
Words:2538
Previous Article:FUNGITOXICITY OF ESSENTIAL OILS ON Plasmopara viticola, CAUSAL AGENT OF GRAPEVINE DOWNY MILDEW/FUNGITOXICIDADE DE OLEOS ESSENCIAIS SOBRE Plasmopara...
Next Article:EFFECT OF THIDIAZURON CONCENTRATION AND APPLICATION PERIOD ON 'ROYAL GALA' APPLE FRUITING AND PRODUCTION/EFEITO DA CONCENTRACAO E EPOCA DE APLICACAO...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |