Whole Orchard Soil Re-incorporation: an Alternative Orchard Removal Strategy

Written by Brent Holtz (UCCE San Joaquin) and David Doll (UCCE Merced) You may have heard the news—co-generation plants are limiting the amount of chipped biomass they are accepting.  This is reducing the rate in which old orchards are removed, impacting the orchard redevelopment process. The soil incorporation of chipped or ground almond, peach, plum, or cherry trees during orchard removal could provide an alternative to co-generation plant or burning and could add valuable organic matter to our San Joaquin Valley soils.  Traditionally, many growers feared that wood chips or grindings would stunt tree growth by either allelopathic compounds or reduced nitrogen availability due to the high carbon to nitrogen ratio.  Interestingly enough, recent research has found this not to be true if the ground material is spread across and incorporated into the soil In 2008, University of California Farm Advisors and a USDA Plant Pathologist undertook a project at the UC Kearney Research and Extension center to compare the grinding of whole trees with burning as a means of orchard removal.  Twenty-two rows of an experimental orchard on nemaguard rootstock were used in a randomized blocked experiment with two main treatments, whole tree grinding and incorporation into the soil with ‘The Iron Wolf,’ a 50-ton rototiller, versus tree pushing and burning.  We examined second-generation orchard growth and hypothesized that soils amended with woody debris will sequester carbon at a higher rate, have higher levels of soil organic matter, increased soil fertility, and increased water retention.  Second generation almond trees (Nonpareil, Carmel, Butte) were planted in January/February 2009. The whole tree grinding did not stunt replanted tree growth.  In 2015, Greater yields were ultimately observed in the grind treatment, when compared to the burn (previous year’s yields were similar). In 2013, 2014, and 2015, soil analysis revealed  significantly more calcium,

November 14, 2015

Understanding and Applying Information from a Soil Test, Part 4: Boron, Chloride, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, and Zinc

Allan Fulton, UC Farm Advisor, Tehama County and Roland D. Meyer, Extension Soil Specialist Emeritus This article (Part 4) discusses micronutrients and the use of soil tests to evaluate their levels in orchard soils.  Micronutrients are essential to almonds and other nut crops, yet are required in much smaller amounts than macronutrients such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) or secondary nutrients  such as calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), or sulfur (S).  The eight micronutrients are boron (B), chloride (Cl), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), and zinc (Zn).  They fulfill important roles in the plant.  For instance, zinc is needed for plant cell expansion and it influences pollen development, flower bud differentiation, and fruit set while boron is a building block for the plant cell wall and strongly influences pollen tube germination and growth.  Flower abortion in almond and walnut has occasionally been associated with boron deficiency.  Nickel has recently been determined to be an essential nutrient and there are no known deficiencies in California. Zinc, iron and manganese deficiencies are not as commonly found in the Sacramento Valley as in the San Joaquin Valley.  Zinc deficiency is most common in almond and other nut crops.  Other micronutrient deficiencies that are occasionally seen in almond include B, Fe, and Mn.  Copper (Cu), Mo, and Ni deficiencies have not been documented in almonds; however, Cu deficiency is common in pistachios. Five of the micronutrients (Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, and Zn) largely exist in the soil as positively charged metal cations bound as minerals or adsorbed to the surfaces of colloids or soil particles.  Several factors in orchard soils may affect the solubility and availability of these metal cations to trees.  Soil pH greater than 7.5 has the major influence of reducing the tree availability of

November 6, 2015

Understanding and Applying Information from a Soil Test, Part 3: Secondary Plant Nutrients: Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), and Sulfur (S)

Written by Allan Fulton, Farm Advisor, Tehama County and Roland D. Meyer, Extension Soils Specialist Emeritus This article (Part 3) discusses the use of soil tests to evaluate levels of the secondary nutrients calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), and sulfur (S) in orchard soils.  It is a follow up to a series of articles on intrpretation of soil sampling results. These nutrients are considered secondary because while they are essential to crop development, seasonal crop uptake is usually lower than for the primary nutrients N, P, and K but considerably higher than the micronutrients zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), Manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), boron (B), and chloride (Cl). Calcium and Magnesium Plant uptake, cation adsorption and desorption in soil, leaching from rainfall and irrigation, and weathering of minerals all contribute to the concentration of water soluble Ca and Mg available to meet tree nutritional needs.  Water soluble cations are determined from the saturated paste extract soil test procedure while the exchangeable cations are determined with the ammonium acetate procedure.  Also important are the concentrations of exchangeable (non-water soluble) Ca and Mg which help to promote favorable soil structure.  Soil chemistry is in a constant state of change attempting to reach equilibrium between the soluble and non-soluble (exchangeable and mineral) phases.  The May 2009 newsletter discussed this dynamic process.  Calcium and magnesium share similar chemical properties in soils.  Both Ca and Mg are “double positively charged (divalent) cations in the soil-water phase and on soil cation exchange sites.  Calcium is adsorbed to soil exchange sites preferentially and more strongly than Mg.  When Ca and Mg are abundant in the soluble phase tree roots absorb these nutrients by mass flow.  If Ca and/or Mg are less abundant or limited by soil moisture, uptake occurs more slowly through diffusion. Table 1 provides ranges of exchangeable

September 21, 2015

Irrigation Rates and Hull Rot

Written by Andrew Ray, Staff Research Associate for Univ of CA Cooperative Extension, Merced County Our water production function (WPF) project within almond has given us an opportunity to look at how irrigation rates can impact the amount of hull rot that develops.  The goal of the WPF is to be able to calculate the impact that water applied has on yield.  This plot is replicated in three different places across the Central Valley. In the Merced WPF plot, there are five different treatments of water applied at the rates of 110%, 100%, 90%, 80% and 70% of the evapotranspiration rate (ETc).  There are 3 blocks of these treatments within an 80 acre orchard.  Irrigation rates stayed constant with their established relationship to ET through hull split, and reduced deficit irrigation was not applied. During mid August hull rot occurrence was estimated in the Merced WPF plot on two trees in each treatment within each block.  Twenty five branches were counted on each quarter of the tree, totaling 100 branches per tree, and the number of incidents of hull rot was recorded. There were two ratings performed by two different people and the estimated percentages were averaged. Table 1 shows the averages by treatment of all the trees rated.  Included in the table is the average stem water potential (SWP) for each tree and leaf nitrogen percentage.  The SWP measurements were taken with a pressure chamber on three separate occasions during hull split in early July.  Baseline SWP during that time was -9 bars.  Leaf tissue samples were taken in mid July and the average percentage of nitrogen for each treatment. Table 1: Average hull rot percentage observed in each irrigation treatment, along with average SWP during hull split, and leaf tissue nitrogen percentage. %ET % Hull Rot SWP (bars) %N

August 22, 2015

Poor Nut Removal: Causes

There have been a lot of reports of poor removal of ‘Nonpareil’ almonds. This issue may be caused by a few different issues, all which require a different management plan. The potential causes as well as some thoughts on management are provided below: 1. Uneven ripening. Uneven ripening can be caused by several different things. A long, protracted bloom can create a delay in ripening due to the length of time between the first and last fruit that was pollinated and fertilized. Also, vigorous growing conditions can delay the ripening process. These include more than adequate water and nitrogen through the entire growing season. Often, this is observed in younger orchards as they are being “pushed” along with increased water and nutrients. Not much can be done about the long bloom period, but properly timed irrigation and nitrogen applications in the spring (especially early spring) can help reduce excessive vigor. 2. Hull rot. Once a hull is infected by Rhizopus or Monilinia, a toxin is secreted which leads to the death of fruit wood. As this toxin kills tissues, it can cause them to gum – especially at the peduncle, effectively gluing the nuts to the spur. These nuts are very difficult to remove and hull rot management practices should be utilized to help reduce the occurrence of this disease. In years were humidity is high at the onset of hull split, cultural management practices appear to be less effective. 3. Boron Toxicity. Becoming a bit more common with the expansion of trees onto lower quality land or irrigation from low quality water. Boron toxicity is identified as die back of this year’s shoots, gummy deposits that form at wounds or other plant openings (bud scars, lenticels, etc.), and corky areas on the midrib on the lower side ofleaves. The gum that is exuded

August 14, 2015

2015 Harvest Time Updates

Over the past week, a few interesting observations have been made. These include: 1. Hull rot in Nonpareil appears worse in many ‘Nonpareil’ orchards. This is most likely due to the higher-than-normal humidity levels experienced during the initiation of hull-split. Most of the hull rot appears to be from the black bread mold Rhizopus. The dieback being observed is from the translocation of the toxin back into the limb. This often causes gumming which can reduce the ability to remove nuts during shaking. Applying a fungicide now will not cure the infections or prevent the movement of the toxin. 2. There have been several reports of Fuller Rose Beetles clogging micro-sprinklers. These insects lay a mass of eggs in the opening of the sprinklers, reducing water flow. Surprisingly, reports are even coming from growers who have switched to pop-up micro-sprinklers, which are considered more resistant to clogging. This nocturnal beetle has one generation per year with most of the adult activity occurring in August – October. The beetle needs to feed on leaves for a few weeks prior to laying eggs. Although chemigation of the soil is not effective for controlling the insect or eggs, there is some thought that treating the trunks with a registered broad spectrum insecticide may kill the beetle as it migrates from the soil to the trunk. If attempting this strategy, be wary of the PHI of the product you are planning to use. More information can be found in this presentation and at the UC IPM website (You may need to look under a different crop). Keep in mind that the best long-term management of this pest has been through the use of clog resistant, pop-up type microsprinklers. 3. Reports of gummy kernels from boron deficiency and stuck nuts from boron toxicity. Gummy kernels that occur may

August 1, 2015

Q&A: Evaluating a Water Supply for Suitability to Irrigate Nut Crops

After receiving the results of a water analysis, there are several components that need to be reviewed to determine suitability of the water for the planted crop. If the water does not meet the expected suitability range, it may require ammendments (e.g. gypsum or acid) or mixing with other water sources to prevent crop loss. Below are five questions that are usually asked when reviewing a water sample as well as some other information regarding a water analysis and conversions. Does the salt concentration (ECw) pose a potential problem (osmotic effects)?  Crop  Unit Degree of growth or yield reduction None Increasing Severe Almond and Walnut dS/m <1.1 1.1 -3.2 >3.2 Pistachio dS/m <4.0 4.0 – 8.0 >8.0 Are there specific elements (B, Cl, and Na) that could accumulate to potentially toxic levels?  Element  Unit  Crop Degree of growth or yield reduction None Increasing Severe B (boron) mg/l (ppm) Almond and Walnut <0.5 0.5 – 3.0 >3.0 Pistachio <4.0 4.0 – 10 >10.0 Cl (chloride) meq/l Almond and Walnut <4.0 4.0 – 10 >10.0 Pistachio <20.0 20 – 40 >40.0 Na (sodium) SAR(none) Almond and Walnut <3.0 3.0 – 9.0 >9.0 Pistachio <5.0 5.0 – 10 >10.0 Na (sodium) meq/l Almond and Walnut <4.0 4.0 – 7.0 >7.0 Pistachio <20.0 20 – 40 >40.0 Could the water chemistry contribute to unstable surface soil structure and lower water infiltration rates?  Lab Information  Unit Potential of Water Infiltration Problems Developing Unlikely Increasing Likelihood Likely Ratio of SAR/ECw ratio <5.0 5.0 – 10.0 >10 Ratio Ca/Mg ratio >2.0 2.0 – 1.0 <1.0 Could the water chemistry be prone to plugging drip emitters, microsprinklers, or filters?  Lab Information  Unit Potential for Water Infiltration Problems Developing Unlikely Increasing Likelihood Likely ECw dS/m <0.8 0.8 to 3.0 >3.0 HCO3+CO3 meq/l <2.0 2.0 – 4.0 >4.0 Mn (manganese) mg/l <0.1 0.1

May 16, 2015

2015 Mid-Spring Updates

A lot of excitement this past week with the passing storms. Some large thunderstorms passed through Merced Co. dropping some hail and rain. As with any thunderstorms, rainfall totals vary. A few calls have yielded some concerns which are highlighted below. 1. Irrigation for areas with low rainfall totals will most likely still be needed. Use is highly variable depending on the weather, but for the most part, a warm (>80F) sunny day will require 0.25″ of water/acre to maintain full irrigation for a mature block. Cloud cover and cooler temperatures can reduce demand by as much as 1/2. This is using an assumed Kc value of 1.00. 2. Ants. Fields should be scouted and, if needed, baits should be applied. Baits – since they are growth regulators- must be applied 1 month prior to harvest for maximum effectiveness.  Be mindful that not all ants present within the orchard feed on almonds. A quick trick to distinguish “good ants” from “bad ants” is to throw potato chips or a hot dog near the mound. If consumed, it can be assumed that the colony will also feed on almond kernels. Another trick is to  stomp near the mound to bring ants to the surface. If they swarm out of the mound, are red in color with a black butt and bite, they are mostly likely fire ants. Monitoring and treatment information can be found on this previous post and at the UC IPM Website . Ants often cause more damage than expected. High populations can consume between 1-2% of the crop within four days. 3. Hail damage. Hail can cause crop loss as it knocks nuts and new growth form the trees. Nuts that are “bruised” may fall 3-5 days after the damage occurred. If the nut remains on the tree, it will typically yield

May 8, 2015

Mid-Spring Considerations/Update

The 2015 almond season is in full swing. Many orchards have went through their drop, fertilizer applications and irrigation have began, and pest management concerns are beginning to form. Below are some thoughts and considerations from recent field visits. 1. Crop development is ahead of schedule – by as much as a month. Kernel fill is beginning in many ‘Nonpareil’ orchards, meaning that ‘Butte’/’Padre’ orchards won’t be far behind. This timing is important as about 80% of the season’s nitrogen budget should be applied prior to kernel fill – which may occur as early as early May! Secondly, it indicates that at this point – “What you see is what you’ll maximally get” in regards to kernel size, and farming practices – more particularly irrigation practices – can only reduce crop size. 2. Peach Twig Borer’s (PTB) “May Spray” timing looks to be an April timing. In the Merced area, our traps picked up a biofix around March 15th, which means we will be approaching 300 DD in about 7-10 days. Keep in mind that the spring spray timing for PTB is 300-400 degree days after the biofix. It may also be possible for the May Spray to have some effect on NOW.  Frank Zalom (UC Davis Entomologist) has found through research trials that timing the spray to 100 DD post NOW biofix (egg traps) and around 400 DD post PTB biofix can provide good control of NOW and PTB at harvest. 3. Rain is predicted for Tuesday (the 7th). Hopefully some rain will fall in the valley to help with the multitude of water issues. This rain may also bring some potential for fungal disease – especially rust and scab. Consider an application if there has been a history of disease. This application can be made 1-2 days after the rain event and

April 6, 2015

2014 Top Ten Articles

Following a long standing tradition of developing a “Top 10” list to celebrate the old and bring in the new year, here is a quick review of the top ten articles read this past year from “The Almond Doctor.” 10. Water Stress, Early Hullsplit, and Kernel Size. Severe water stress from the drought caused an induced hull-split in some blocks across the state. This article explains the impact of this observed phenomenon.

December 30, 2014