polyethylene and biodegradable plastic mulches improve...
TRANSCRIPT
Polyethylene and biodegradable plastic mulches improve growth, yield, and weed management in
floricane red raspberry
Huan Zhang, PhD student
Advisor: Lisa DeVetter; Co-advisor: Carol Miles
Washington State University Northwestern Research and Extension Center
1
Lisa DeVetter
2
Processed Red Raspberry~ 78 Million Pounds in Washington State
Whatcom County: over 97% of State Production
WRRC, 2018
Tissue CultureNumber of Plants
Aseptic Techniques
Establishment Difficulty
Weak Competitor with Weeds
http://kryptokoryne.aquaticscape.com/
3
Biodegradable Plastic Mulch (BDM)
• Manufactured with different feedstocks and additives compared to
polyethylene (PE) mulches
• Engineered to biodegrade in soils by microbial activities (ASTM
D5988)
• Potential to reduce plastic waste generation
4
Lisa DeVetter
ASTM, 2018
Why Consider a BDM?
Gerbrant, 2015; Król-Dyrek and Siwek, 2015; Tecco et al., 2016; https://www.mlive.com/
• Few studies, but promising results
• May reduce labor and costs associated with PE mulch
removal and disposal
• May promote on-farm efficiencies
5
Root Lesion NematodeMajor Plant Parasite
Activity
No Previous Studies
Zasada et al., 2014; Rudolph and DeVetter, 2015; Gerbrandt, 2015; https://communities.grdc.com.au/field-crop-diseases/root-lesion-nematode/
6
Spring-Planted Trial Established May 2017
7
Treatments
Treatment Code Thickness Extruder/converter
BASF 0.5 A 0.5 mil PolyExpert Inc.; Laval, Quebec, Canada
BASF 0.6 B 0.6 mil PolyExpert Inc.; Laval, Quebec, Canada
Novamont 0.5 C 0.5 mil Dubois Agrinovation; Saint Remi, Quebec, Canada
Novamont 0.6 D 0.6 mil Dubois Agrinovation; Saint Remi, Quebec, Canada
Polyethylene E 1.0 mil FilmTech, LLC., Stanley, WI
Bare Ground
(BG; control)
F -- --
BDMs
8
Spring Trial
9
Experimental Design
Size 2 acres
Design Randomized Complete
Block
Treatments 6
Replications 5
Plot Length 120 ft
Block Across Row
Fumigation Broadcast; Sept. 2016
Cultivar WakeTMField
Plot Map Design Details
Objectives
1. Plant growth
2. Fruit yield
3. Weed incidence
4. Root lesion nematode populations
5. Soil temperature and moisture
6. Mulch surface and in-soil degradation
10
Weixin Gan
11
▪ Primocane height, number, and
emergence
▪ Yield
▪ Percent soil exposure (PSE)
▪ In-soil degradation
▪ Apr. 2018 to Oct. 2019
Mulch
▪ Soil temperature
▪ Soil moisture
▪ Soil nutrient status Soils
Data Collection
▪ Weed number
▪ Weed shoot fresh and dry weight
▪ RLN root and soil densities Pests
Plant
Lisa DeVetter
Weixin Gan
July 2017
12
Sept. 29, 2017
Weixin Gan
13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
25
-Ma
y
30
-Ju
n
28
-Ju
l
30
-Au
g
29
-Se
p
27
-Oc
t
Prim
oca
ne
heig
ht
(in.)
BASF 0.5 BASF 0.6 Novamont 0.5 Novamont 0.6 PE Bare Ground
2017 Primocane Height
NS **
***
***
*** ***
NS: nonsignificant
*** : P ≤ 0.01
*** : P ≤ 0.000114
14 in.
difference
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
28
-Ju
l
30
-Au
g
29
-Se
p
27
-Oc
t
Prim
ocane n
um
ber
/ hill
BASF 0.5 BASF 0.6 Novamont 0.5 Novamont 0.6 PE Bare Ground
2017 Primocane Number
NS
***
***
***
NS:
nonsignificant
*** : P ≤ 0.000115
5 canes (71%) difference
January 2018
16
April 2018
17
Plant Growth Comparison (2018 April)
Mulched Non-mulched
BASF 0.5 BASF 0.6 Novamont 0.5 Novamont 0.6 PE BG
18
19Nadia Bostan
Treatment Primocane emergence/30 ft
July
Primocanes/plant
Sept.
Primocane height (in.)
Sept.
BASF 0.5 35 abz 5 125
BASF 0.6 37 ab 6 125
Novamont 0.5 30 b 6 128
Novamont 0.6 41 ab 6 125
PE 23 b 5 129
BG 45 a 6 124
P - value 0.05 0.28 0.71
2018 Plant Growth
zMeans followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05, using a means comparison with a Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference test except total yield, which was analyzed with LSD Student’s t
test.
20
Harvest 2018
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
1 h
arv
es
t
2 h
arv
es
t
3 h
arv
es
t
4 h
arv
es
t
5 h
arv
es
t
6 h
arv
es
t
7 h
arv
es
t
8 h
arv
es
t
9 h
arv
es
t
10
ha
rve
st
11
ha
rve
st
12
ha
rve
st
13
ha
rve
st
Yie
ld (
lbs/3
0ft
)
BASF 0.5 BASF 0.6 Novamont 0.5 Novamont 0.6 PE BG
Peaks
6/29 7/4 7/7 7/11 7/14 7/17 7/20 7/23 7/26 8/1 8/4 8/8 8/10
21
Treatment Early
6/29-7/10
Middle
7/11-7/25
Late
7/26-8/10
Total Yield
BASF 0.5 7.0 33.4 abz 16.7 a57.1 a
BASF 0.6 6.8 39.7 a 20.0 a66.5 a
Novamont 0.5 7.0 38.1 a 17.9 a63.0 a
Novamont 0.6 7.8 36.6 a 17.5 a61.8 a
PE 9.0 39.9 a 15.0 ab 64.0 a
BG 5.5 25.0 b 12.8 b 43.4 b
P - value 0.08 0.004 0.002 0.04
zAverages followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05, using a means comparison with a Tukey’s Honestly
Significant Difference test except total yield, which was analyzed with LSD Student’s t test.
Average Fruit Yield (lbs/30 ft)lbs/acre
8976
lbs/acre
6233
lbs/acre 22
Total Yield
8198
9555
9052
8882
9191
6233
2743
lbs/acre
23
▪ Primocane height, number, and
emergence
▪ Yield
▪ Percent soil exposure (PSE)
▪ In-soil degradation
▪ Apr. 2018 to Oct. 2019
Mulch
▪ Soil temperature
▪ Soil moisture
▪ Soil nutrient status Soils
Data Collection
▪ Weed number
▪ Weed shoot fresh and dry weight
▪ RLN root and soil densities Pests
Plant
Lisa DeVetter
Weixin Gan
Lisa DeVetter
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
30
-Ju
n
28
-Ju
l
30
-Au
g
29
-Se
p
27
-Oc
t
Weeds c
oun
t (n
um
ber/
11 ft2
)
BASF 0.5 BASF 0.6 Novamont 0.5 Novamont 0.6 PE BG
2017 Cumulative Weed Number
*
**
*
*
NS: nonsignificant
*** : P ≤ 0.0524
Hand weeded BG plots 3 times
during growing season
Root Lesion Nematode Densities(Sampled Oct. 11, 2017)
25
Rachel Rudolph
Root Lesion Nematode (RLN)
Lisa DeVetter
May 2017z October 2017 May 2018 September 2018
Treatment
RLN/
100g soil
RLN/
100g soil
RLN/
g root
RLN/
100g soil
RLN/
g root
RLN/
100 g soil
RLN/
g root
BASF 0.5 0 51 aby 105 ab 52 a 1538 258 ab 1352 ab
BASF 0.6 1 49 ab 134 ab 50 ab 937 225 ab 430 b
Novamont 0.5 0 66 ab 165 a 40 ab 1471 116 b 1620 ab
Novamont 0.6 0 100 a 164 ab 38 ab 1109 209 ab 1445 ab
PE 1 72 a 45 b 40 ab 995 350 a 2605 a
BG 0 5 b 44 b 10 b 997 212 ab 692 b
P - value 0.40 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.20 0.01 0.01zPre-plant densities.yAverages followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05, using a means comparison with a Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference
test for the May 2017 data and a non-parametric multiple comparisons Wilcoxon test for the October 2017, and May and September 2018 data.
26
▪ Primocane height, number, and
emergence
▪ Yield
▪ Percent soil exposure (PSE)
▪ In-soil degradation
▪ Apr. 2018 to Oct. 2019
Mulch
▪ Soil temperature
▪ Soil moisture
▪ Soil nutrient status Soils
Data Collection
▪ Weed number
▪ Weed shoot fresh and dry weight
▪ RLN root and soil densities Pests
Plant
Lisa DeVetter
Weixin Gan
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1005
/26
/17
6/1
5/1
7
6/3
0/1
7
7/1
4/1
7
7/2
7/1
7
8/1
5/1
7
8/3
0/1
7
9/1
5/1
7
9/3
0/1
7
10
/16
/17
10
/27
/17
11
/15
/17
11
/30
/17
12
/13
/18
1/7
/18
1/1
6/1
8
1/3
1/1
8
2/1
6/1
8
3/2
/18
3/1
9/1
8
3/3
0/1
8
4/1
6/1
8
PS
E (
%)
BASF 0.5 BASF 0.6 Novamont 0.5 Novamont 0.6 PE
Percent Soil Exposure (PSE; %)
NS *
* **
*
NS NS * **
*
*
7 wind events with a speed
over 10 mph in Oct. and Nov.
– WSU AgWeatherNet
BDM PE
Before cane tying: PE: 2.6%; BDMs: 67 to 81%
After cane tying: PE: removed; BDMs: 90 to 95%
NS: nonsignificant
*** : P ≤ 0.05
Raspberry cane tying
**
**
* *
27
Conclusions to Date
• Plants grown with BDMs and PE mulch exhibited greater primocane
height and number relative to the BG control
• Yield was higher in all mulched treatments than the BG control
• There is no difference in average berry weight
• Mulched treatments successfully controlled weeds so no hand weeding
was needed
• RLN soil and root populations were greater when soil and plants treated
with PE mulch
• Soil temperature was higher with mulched treatments
• PE removal activity could remove 1010 pounds soil per acre
• Overall, BDMs and PE mulch are viable tools to use in commercial red
raspberry production with plants established as TC transplants
28
Team
29
Lisa
DeVetter
Carol
Miles
Chris
Benedict
Me
Inga
Zasada
Shuresh
Ghimire
Left to right, top to bottom: Ed Scheenstra, Matt Arrington, Clara TeVelde, Naida Bostan, Qianwen Lu,
Weixin Gan, Sean Watkinson, and Washington raspberry growers.
Additional Team Members and Thanks
Funding and Material Support
31
Literature Cited
• American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2018. Standard Test Method for Determining Aerobic Biodegradation of Plastic Materials in Soil. ASTM D 5988-18. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. Accessed at www.astm.org on 29 June 2018
• Biodegradable mulch website: https://ag.tennessee.edu/biodegradablemulch/Pages/default.aspx.
• Gerbrandt, E. 2015. New techniques for getting raspberries and strawberries off to a better start. 2015 Lower Mainland Horticulture Improvement Association Horticulture Growers’ Short Course. Accessed on 19 Sept. 2017 at <http://www.agricultureshow.net/horticulture-growers-short-course>
• Król-Dyrek, K. and P. Siwek. 2015. The influence of biodegradable mulches on the yielding of autumn raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.). Folia Horticulturae 27(1):15-20.
• Rudolph, R. and L.W. DeVetter. 2015. Management strategies for Phytophthora rubi and Pratylenchuspenetrans in floricane red raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.). J. Am. Pom. Soc. 69(3):118-136.
• Tecco, N., C. Baudino, V. Girgenti, and C. Peano. 2016. Innovation strategies in a fruit growers association impacts assessment by using combined LCA and s-LCA methodologies. Sci. Total Environ. 568:253-262.
• Washington State Red Raspberry Commission (WRRC). 2017. PNW Red Raspberry Production Statistics. Accessed on 2 June 2018 at https://www.red-raspberry.org/statistics.
• Washington State University Small Fruit Horticulture website: https://smallfruits.wsu.edu/.
32
Thank You!
33
Huan Zhang
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 360-333-8527
Washington State University Small Fruit Horticulture website:
https://smallfruits.wsu.edu/