CA2103014A1 - Jojoba wax protective spray - Google Patents
Jojoba wax protective sprayInfo
- Publication number
- CA2103014A1 CA2103014A1 CA002103014A CA2103014A CA2103014A1 CA 2103014 A1 CA2103014 A1 CA 2103014A1 CA 002103014 A CA002103014 A CA 002103014A CA 2103014 A CA2103014 A CA 2103014A CA 2103014 A1 CA2103014 A1 CA 2103014A1
- Authority
- CA
- Canada
- Prior art keywords
- jojoba wax
- volume
- plants
- grape
- jojoba
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
Classifications
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
- A01N—PRESERVATION OF BODIES OF HUMANS OR ANIMALS OR PLANTS OR PARTS THEREOF; BIOCIDES, e.g. AS DISINFECTANTS, AS PESTICIDES OR AS HERBICIDES; PEST REPELLANTS OR ATTRACTANTS; PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS
- A01N3/00—Preservation of plants or parts thereof, e.g. inhibiting evaporation, improvement of the appearance of leaves or protection against physical influences such as UV radiation using chemical compositions; Grafting wax
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
- A01N—PRESERVATION OF BODIES OF HUMANS OR ANIMALS OR PLANTS OR PARTS THEREOF; BIOCIDES, e.g. AS DISINFECTANTS, AS PESTICIDES OR AS HERBICIDES; PEST REPELLANTS OR ATTRACTANTS; PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS
- A01N25/00—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators, characterised by their forms, or by their non-active ingredients or by their methods of application, e.g. seed treatment or sequential application; Substances for reducing the noxious effect of the active ingredients to organisms other than pests
- A01N25/02—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators, characterised by their forms, or by their non-active ingredients or by their methods of application, e.g. seed treatment or sequential application; Substances for reducing the noxious effect of the active ingredients to organisms other than pests containing liquids as carriers, diluents or solvents
- A01N25/04—Dispersions, emulsions, suspoemulsions, suspension concentrates or gels
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
- A01N—PRESERVATION OF BODIES OF HUMANS OR ANIMALS OR PLANTS OR PARTS THEREOF; BIOCIDES, e.g. AS DISINFECTANTS, AS PESTICIDES OR AS HERBICIDES; PEST REPELLANTS OR ATTRACTANTS; PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS
- A01N25/00—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators, characterised by their forms, or by their non-active ingredients or by their methods of application, e.g. seed treatment or sequential application; Substances for reducing the noxious effect of the active ingredients to organisms other than pests
- A01N25/30—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators, characterised by their forms, or by their non-active ingredients or by their methods of application, e.g. seed treatment or sequential application; Substances for reducing the noxious effect of the active ingredients to organisms other than pests characterised by the surfactants
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
- A01N—PRESERVATION OF BODIES OF HUMANS OR ANIMALS OR PLANTS OR PARTS THEREOF; BIOCIDES, e.g. AS DISINFECTANTS, AS PESTICIDES OR AS HERBICIDES; PEST REPELLANTS OR ATTRACTANTS; PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS
- A01N27/00—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators containing hydrocarbons
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
- A01N—PRESERVATION OF BODIES OF HUMANS OR ANIMALS OR PLANTS OR PARTS THEREOF; BIOCIDES, e.g. AS DISINFECTANTS, AS PESTICIDES OR AS HERBICIDES; PEST REPELLANTS OR ATTRACTANTS; PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS
- A01N65/00—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators containing material from algae, lichens, bryophyta, multi-cellular fungi or plants, or extracts thereof
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
- A01N—PRESERVATION OF BODIES OF HUMANS OR ANIMALS OR PLANTS OR PARTS THEREOF; BIOCIDES, e.g. AS DISINFECTANTS, AS PESTICIDES OR AS HERBICIDES; PEST REPELLANTS OR ATTRACTANTS; PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS
- A01N65/00—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators containing material from algae, lichens, bryophyta, multi-cellular fungi or plants, or extracts thereof
- A01N65/08—Magnoliopsida [dicotyledons]
Landscapes
- Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
- Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Environmental Sciences (AREA)
- Zoology (AREA)
- Agronomy & Crop Science (AREA)
- Wood Science & Technology (AREA)
- Plant Pathology (AREA)
- Dentistry (AREA)
- Pest Control & Pesticides (AREA)
- Toxicology (AREA)
- Mycology (AREA)
- Biotechnology (AREA)
- Microbiology (AREA)
- Chemical & Material Sciences (AREA)
- Dispersion Chemistry (AREA)
- Natural Medicines & Medicinal Plants (AREA)
- Agricultural Chemicals And Associated Chemicals (AREA)
Abstract
ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE
Fungal pathogens such as Powdery Mildew and Bunch Rot infect and destroy a significant portion of grape crops each year. Present control methods are at best preventative and may have unwanted side effects. A solution to the problem is to coat the grape plants with jojoba wax.
Spraying is effected using an aqueous solution of from 0.1 to 2% by volume jojoba wax and from 0.05 to 1.0% by volume compatible surfactant, the preferred solution containing 1%
by volume jojoba wax and 0.1% by volume surfactant.
Fungal pathogens such as Powdery Mildew and Bunch Rot infect and destroy a significant portion of grape crops each year. Present control methods are at best preventative and may have unwanted side effects. A solution to the problem is to coat the grape plants with jojoba wax.
Spraying is effected using an aqueous solution of from 0.1 to 2% by volume jojoba wax and from 0.05 to 1.0% by volume compatible surfactant, the preferred solution containing 1%
by volume jojoba wax and 0.1% by volume surfactant.
Description
21030~ ~ ~
,, ; ` ~ .
This invention relates to a method of treating grape plants to prevent infection and Bunch Rot.
More specifically, the invention relates to a composition and method for treating grape plants to prevent ~-~
infection by the fungal pathogens Powdery Nildew (Uncinula i-necator) and Bunch Rot (~otrytis cinerea ) using jojoba wax and a suitable surfactant.
Each year, fungal pathogens such as Powdery Mildew and Bunch Rot infect and destroy a significant portion of ~;~
grape crops. Present control methods are expensive in terms of cost of labour and control substances; they have a relatively short period of efficacy, in that they are --~
removed from the plant by washing or evaporation a few days after application; and they may have undesirable medical lS effects on both laborers and consumers.
An object of the present is to avoid these drawbacks by providing a composition for treating grapes for the prevention of fungal infection which is environmentally safe and edible, and which ha6 a relatively long period of efficacy. j~
S According to the composition aspect, this invention involves a formulation comprising an aqueous solution of 0.01% to 2.0% by volume jojoba wax and from 0.1 to 1.0% compatible eurfactant. With respect to the method aspect, this invention involves spraying the composition a minimum of one time onto the aerial portions of grape plants starting at capfall (anthesis) and continuing until the I ~ ~" ~ =;" ~"~ " ~"~ " ~ ;
,, ; ` ~ .
This invention relates to a method of treating grape plants to prevent infection and Bunch Rot.
More specifically, the invention relates to a composition and method for treating grape plants to prevent ~-~
infection by the fungal pathogens Powdery Nildew (Uncinula i-necator) and Bunch Rot (~otrytis cinerea ) using jojoba wax and a suitable surfactant.
Each year, fungal pathogens such as Powdery Mildew and Bunch Rot infect and destroy a significant portion of ~;~
grape crops. Present control methods are expensive in terms of cost of labour and control substances; they have a relatively short period of efficacy, in that they are --~
removed from the plant by washing or evaporation a few days after application; and they may have undesirable medical lS effects on both laborers and consumers.
An object of the present is to avoid these drawbacks by providing a composition for treating grapes for the prevention of fungal infection which is environmentally safe and edible, and which ha6 a relatively long period of efficacy. j~
S According to the composition aspect, this invention involves a formulation comprising an aqueous solution of 0.01% to 2.0% by volume jojoba wax and from 0.1 to 1.0% compatible eurfactant. With respect to the method aspect, this invention involves spraying the composition a minimum of one time onto the aerial portions of grape plants starting at capfall (anthesis) and continuing until the I ~ ~" ~ =;" ~"~ " ~"~ " ~ ;
2~3~1~
beginning of ripening (veraison) as necessary to cover new growth.
Studies by the inventor in 1991 and 1992 have --shown that jojoba wax can be used to control both Powdery Mildew and Bunch Rot. Jojoba wax is obtained from pressing the seed of the desert jojoba bush native to the American southwest. The wax has unusual chemical characteristics in that it contain6 no acylglycerides (between 16-18 carbons long), instead consisting of 9S~ monounsaturated esters having lengths of between 38 and 44 carbon atoms. Because these esters are known to be resistant to biotic degradation, it was deduced that an application of jojoba wax on the aerial parts of grape plants should provide a complete shield against fungal attack. In addition, jojoba wax has a high boiling point (398 degrees CelsiuR), and -should not easily evaporate from plant surfaces. Finally, jojoba wax has long been approved by health authorities for use in cosmetics and human health aids. Accordingly, ~-workers and consumers should experience no detrimental effects from the jojoba wax.
In order to determine the optimum concentration of jojoba wax for application to grape plants that would not `~
: .. .
produce any significant damage, a greenhouse study was ``
carried out using 96 Auxerrois grape plants. Each of the young plants received was thinned for the strongest shoot, then placed 20 centimeters apart in a random configuration so that environmental conditions were controlled. All 2 ~ ~ 3 ~
.^," ~ ., plants received 200 ml of water each day, and 100 ml of 2%
20-20-20 fertilizer available under the trademark Liqui-Life. All plants were maintained at a height of l.Om. With respect to the experimental spray program, 16 plants were sprayed for each concentration of jojoba wax (0.1%, 1.0%, 2.0~, 5.0%, 10.0%); the jojoba wax spray was emulsified by a 1.0% Triton X series surfactant (a trademark). The remaining 16 plants were sprayed with 1.0% of the surfactant alone, as a control. These sprays were applied when the plant leaves were young and unexpanded, and then 23 days later, when the leaves were mature and expanded.
In order to quantify any effects of these sprays, leaf area measurements to measure the amount of dead tis6ue on each leaf were done using a Licor 3000 (trademark) leaf lS aerometer 5 days before the second treatment. In addition, leaf stomatal resistance and photosynthesis measurements were made 26 days after the second treatment using a Licor 6200 (trademark) photosynthesis meter. Both sets of measurements were taken at the same location of all plants.
Data collected were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey tests if multiple compari?on tests were required. Moreover, subjective observations were made.
Although there were no differences in rates of photosynthesis between the groups, leaf damage and stomatal resistance measurements indicated that there was significant damage to leaves sprayed with higher concentrations of jojoba wax. It was determined that,in leaf damage, concentrations of jojoba wax of 0.1~ and 1.0~ had no more damage than the control, but concentrations over 2.0~ had significantly more leaf damage. With respect to stomatal resistance, jojoba wax concentrations of 0.1%, 1.0~ and 2.0%
were not different from the control, but concentrations above 5.0% resulted in a decrea6e of stomatal resistance.
Subjective observations of all plants showed that all plants, including the controls sprayed with the surfactant, became lighter in colour and developed translucent spots in leaf depressions. At concentrations of jojoba wax greater than 1.0~, the translucent spots became necrotic. This information in combination with the above physiological data led to the conclusion that jojoba wax is best sprayed on grape plants at a concentration of 1.0% or le6s. The field 6pray trial u6ed 1.0% since, if the fungi were not prevented, higher concentrations of jojoba wax would do more damage than good. Moreover, lower -concentration of surfactant were used to reduce the incidence of the translucent spot6 ob6erved.
The nature of field trial6 and the re6ults of such trials will be described with reference to the accompanying drawings, wherein:
Figure 1 i6 a graph of the number of powdery mildew colonies counted per leaf sampled averaged over treatments indicated for three sample6;
,, "i ., ~ , ", "" ,, " .. , "
21030~
"..,~
'`'`"" , . .
Figure 2 is a graph of the number of Powdery ~-Mildew or Bunch Rot infected clusters per grape plant in -~
indicated treatments at harvest;
Figure 3 is a graph of the yield of clusters of harvested grapes in indicated treatments for a 1992 trial;
Figure 4 is a graph of percentage of Powdery Mildew infections on leaves collected from indicated treatments at various times;
Figure 5 is a graph of cluster weight for plants treated at harvest; and Figure 6 is a graph of infected yield for the same plants.
The fir~t trial done to begin to ascertain whether jojoba wax worked as protection against the fungi wa~ done in 1991, using 162 Auxerrois plants at Torrs Vineyard, Kelowna, B.C., with equivalent aspect and slope. All plants were healthy, and had received the same standard of care by the vineyard operator. The plants were separated into 6 treatments, sach treatment further separated into 6 blocks ~
assigned randomly throughout the vineyard to control the ~ -environmental variation. All plants were watered, weeded, and trained as required for plant health and grape production. The six treatments were:
(1) a "zero" control, receiving no spray all season;
(2) a commercial control, Sulphur [Kumulus S - a trade -~
mark] biweekly from 10 to 15 cms new growth to 30 days prior to harvest, and Captan or Rovral - --` 21030~
`.~ .:;............................................................... .
(trademarks) (i) at bloom, (ii) at 80% capfall, (iii) bunch closure, (iv) veraison and (v) 10 to 14 days later if needed.
beginning of ripening (veraison) as necessary to cover new growth.
Studies by the inventor in 1991 and 1992 have --shown that jojoba wax can be used to control both Powdery Mildew and Bunch Rot. Jojoba wax is obtained from pressing the seed of the desert jojoba bush native to the American southwest. The wax has unusual chemical characteristics in that it contain6 no acylglycerides (between 16-18 carbons long), instead consisting of 9S~ monounsaturated esters having lengths of between 38 and 44 carbon atoms. Because these esters are known to be resistant to biotic degradation, it was deduced that an application of jojoba wax on the aerial parts of grape plants should provide a complete shield against fungal attack. In addition, jojoba wax has a high boiling point (398 degrees CelsiuR), and -should not easily evaporate from plant surfaces. Finally, jojoba wax has long been approved by health authorities for use in cosmetics and human health aids. Accordingly, ~-workers and consumers should experience no detrimental effects from the jojoba wax.
In order to determine the optimum concentration of jojoba wax for application to grape plants that would not `~
: .. .
produce any significant damage, a greenhouse study was ``
carried out using 96 Auxerrois grape plants. Each of the young plants received was thinned for the strongest shoot, then placed 20 centimeters apart in a random configuration so that environmental conditions were controlled. All 2 ~ ~ 3 ~
.^," ~ ., plants received 200 ml of water each day, and 100 ml of 2%
20-20-20 fertilizer available under the trademark Liqui-Life. All plants were maintained at a height of l.Om. With respect to the experimental spray program, 16 plants were sprayed for each concentration of jojoba wax (0.1%, 1.0%, 2.0~, 5.0%, 10.0%); the jojoba wax spray was emulsified by a 1.0% Triton X series surfactant (a trademark). The remaining 16 plants were sprayed with 1.0% of the surfactant alone, as a control. These sprays were applied when the plant leaves were young and unexpanded, and then 23 days later, when the leaves were mature and expanded.
In order to quantify any effects of these sprays, leaf area measurements to measure the amount of dead tis6ue on each leaf were done using a Licor 3000 (trademark) leaf lS aerometer 5 days before the second treatment. In addition, leaf stomatal resistance and photosynthesis measurements were made 26 days after the second treatment using a Licor 6200 (trademark) photosynthesis meter. Both sets of measurements were taken at the same location of all plants.
Data collected were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Tukey tests if multiple compari?on tests were required. Moreover, subjective observations were made.
Although there were no differences in rates of photosynthesis between the groups, leaf damage and stomatal resistance measurements indicated that there was significant damage to leaves sprayed with higher concentrations of jojoba wax. It was determined that,in leaf damage, concentrations of jojoba wax of 0.1~ and 1.0~ had no more damage than the control, but concentrations over 2.0~ had significantly more leaf damage. With respect to stomatal resistance, jojoba wax concentrations of 0.1%, 1.0~ and 2.0%
were not different from the control, but concentrations above 5.0% resulted in a decrea6e of stomatal resistance.
Subjective observations of all plants showed that all plants, including the controls sprayed with the surfactant, became lighter in colour and developed translucent spots in leaf depressions. At concentrations of jojoba wax greater than 1.0~, the translucent spots became necrotic. This information in combination with the above physiological data led to the conclusion that jojoba wax is best sprayed on grape plants at a concentration of 1.0% or le6s. The field 6pray trial u6ed 1.0% since, if the fungi were not prevented, higher concentrations of jojoba wax would do more damage than good. Moreover, lower -concentration of surfactant were used to reduce the incidence of the translucent spot6 ob6erved.
The nature of field trial6 and the re6ults of such trials will be described with reference to the accompanying drawings, wherein:
Figure 1 i6 a graph of the number of powdery mildew colonies counted per leaf sampled averaged over treatments indicated for three sample6;
,, "i ., ~ , ", "" ,, " .. , "
21030~
"..,~
'`'`"" , . .
Figure 2 is a graph of the number of Powdery ~-Mildew or Bunch Rot infected clusters per grape plant in -~
indicated treatments at harvest;
Figure 3 is a graph of the yield of clusters of harvested grapes in indicated treatments for a 1992 trial;
Figure 4 is a graph of percentage of Powdery Mildew infections on leaves collected from indicated treatments at various times;
Figure 5 is a graph of cluster weight for plants treated at harvest; and Figure 6 is a graph of infected yield for the same plants.
The fir~t trial done to begin to ascertain whether jojoba wax worked as protection against the fungi wa~ done in 1991, using 162 Auxerrois plants at Torrs Vineyard, Kelowna, B.C., with equivalent aspect and slope. All plants were healthy, and had received the same standard of care by the vineyard operator. The plants were separated into 6 treatments, sach treatment further separated into 6 blocks ~
assigned randomly throughout the vineyard to control the ~ -environmental variation. All plants were watered, weeded, and trained as required for plant health and grape production. The six treatments were:
(1) a "zero" control, receiving no spray all season;
(2) a commercial control, Sulphur [Kumulus S - a trade -~
mark] biweekly from 10 to 15 cms new growth to 30 days prior to harvest, and Captan or Rovral - --` 21030~
`.~ .:;............................................................... .
(trademarks) (i) at bloom, (ii) at 80% capfall, (iii) bunch closure, (iv) veraison and (v) 10 to 14 days later if needed.
(3) 1.0% jojoba wax + 0.2% Triton X100 surfactant at the same frequency as the commercial applications i until end of August;
(4) I.0% jojoba wax + 0.2~ Triton X100 surfactant for 3 sprays in June only; -~5) 1.0% jojoba was + 0.2% Triton X100 surfactant for 3 sprays in July only;
, ~, -(6) 1.0~ jojoba wax + 0.2~ Triton X100 surfactant for 3 sprays in August only.
Sprays were applied using a tractor-mounted 220 liter sprayer with a rotary pump which both mixed the components and generated the pressure for spraying. On ~ -Augu6t 11, all plants were equally exposed to 200 G grape clusters infected with Powdery Mildew. On September 28, all grape clusters were equally 6prayed with a suspension of ;;~ ;
Bunch Rot 6pores.
Stomatal resistance and transpiration measurements were taken in all plants the Saturday after each spray using a Licor 1600 (trademark) porometer. In addition, leaves were collected from 1.5m above the ground on September 7, 23 and October 11, and the chlorophyll was extracted from 2cm2 portions of the leaf using dimethylformamide. The amount of -'~
chlorophyll was determined spectrophotometrically. Grapes were harvested between October 5 and 11; the number of grape :
2~3~
berry clusters were determined, as well as berry cluster weight, berry weight, sugar, pH, titratable acidity for all treatments. With respect to the amount of Powdery Mildew infection, this was assayed as the number of colonies per leaf on September 1, 14 and 23, and as the number of infected clusters at harvest. Bunch Rot infection was assayed as the number of infected clusters at harvest. For all measured quantities, data was analyzed using ANOVA, and Duncan multiple comparison tests where required.
There was no significant difference between treatments with respect to plant vigour, growth, stomatal resistance or transpiration. However, the July treatment ~ ~
had slightly higher growth and vigour. Also there was no ~ ~-significant difference between treatments in terms of berry weight, sugar, pH, titratable acidity, and berry cluster count and weight for the harvest. However, the July treatment had slightly higher berry weight and sugar than other treatments. Also, according to Fig. 1, for the period starting 20 days after inoculation, all plants which were fully or partially covered with jojoba wax (due to continued growth beyond sprayed areas) were protected from Powdery Mildew infection. Over the entire period, infection on the plants increased in accordance with the length of time since the last application of jojoba wax. In addition, in terms of the amount of Powdery Mildew infection at harvest (Fig.
2), there is no significant difference between the all-season August, and commercial treatments. With respect to the amount of Bunch Rot, the all-season and August treatments provided significantly more protection than the ;
commercial control.
Moreover, in order to confirm the greenhouse conclusions that jojoba wax sprayed at concentrations of 1.0% with 0.2% Triton X surfactant causes no significant damage to grape plants, this study demonstrated that jojoba ;~
wax sprayed in tnis formulation has no detrimental effect6 as compared to the commercial spray regimes with respect to yield quantity or quality. Also, the slight (but not significant) increase in yield and growth in the July treatment may indicate the best time to spray jojoba wax on the grape plant. Finally, it was also shown that, as long as jojoba wax covers the aerial surface of the grape plant, jojoba wax provides a protective barrier against Powdery Mildew and Bunch Rot at least as proficiently as commercial spray materials.
Two field trials were done in 1992; a further, confirmatory trial was done at Torrs Vineyard, to verify 1991 results and to see if less jojoba wax could provide the same protection, and a trial was arranged at Agriculture Canada Research Station at Summerland, B.C., to determine the effects of jojoba wax on a second variety of grape plants.
For the 1992 trial, 16 more plants were added to the trial, making a total of 178 plants. These were 6eparated into 8 treatments, and 6 block6. The treatments 21~3~
:
were as follows, and included (except for the zero control) 0.2% Triton X-series surfactant:
Zero Control 0.2% Triton X all-season ~
1.0% jojoba all-season 0.2% jojoba all-season ~ ~4 1.0% jojoba in July only 0.2% jojoba in July only 1.0% jojoba in August only 0.2% jojoba in August only All plants were cared for and treated in the same manner as the trial in 1991. Also, while no stomatal resistance, transpiration, of chlorophyll measurements were taken, measurements to determine any differences in growth throughout the season, vigour, and harvest cluster weights were recorded. No infection of Bunch Rot occurred, but an existing infection of Powdery Mildew provided data on how -well jojoba wax worked.
There was no significant difference between -treatments with respect to the amount of physical growth throughout the season. However, the 1.0% July treatment had a significantly higher vigour than all other treatments. ~ ; -According to Fig. 3, the 0.2% all-season treatment yielded better result6 than all other treatments, and the 1.0% all-season and both July treatments had the second highest yields. In addition, the Powdery Mildew showed least on 1.0% all-season jojoba treated plants (Fig. 4), and the 0.2%
all-season, both July treatments and the Triton control provided the second highest protection. Jojoba wax again provided the greatest fungal protection without great decreases in yield, especially in terms of both all-season treatments. However, mo~t significant in this information is the 1.0% July treatment, which had the highest vigour, -`~` 2103~
. ., .: . - .
cost the least in terms of labour and spray component cost, had one of the highest yields and the lowest Powdery Mildew . .,, :
previous to infections. In a vineyard where a pre-extant `~-Powdery Mildew previous to jojoba wax application was not allowed, the applications of jojoba wax starting at the beginning of the July spray time period (anthesis) would likely provide the greatest all-round benefit.
The Agriculture Canada Research Station trial consisted of 39 Johannesburg Riesling grape plants separated into 3 randomly-blocked treatments - 1.0% jojoba wax + 0.2~
Triton X100 surfactant, the commercial control (sulfur), ~nd an unsprayed, zero control. The jojoba, commercial control, and the zero control treatments were sprayed with the commercial spray preparation until June 4; all treatments began on June 16 (anthesis) and continued until August 18 (veraison), with 6 applications of the jojoba wax and commercial spray6. All plants were cared for and treated in the same manner as the plants in the ~orrs Vineyard plot, except that Bunch Rot spores were applied equally to all the clu~ters on Sep~ember 23. No Powdery Mildew infection could be established at the Agriculture Canada vineyard.
While there was no significant difference in growth between treatments throughout the season, there were 6ignificant differences between treatments in cluster weight and the amount of Bunch Rot infection (Fig. 5). While there is a small reduction in the weight of harvested clusters, this was more than made up for by the decrease in Bunch Rot ~',, -. ~
-- 210301~ - -infection, as compared to both the commercial and zero ~ ~
controls. Hence, this trial, with jojoba spray between --anthesis and veraison, confirms the conclusions made in -Torrs Vineyard; that jojoba wax causes no significant S decrease in growth, it causes little or no significant decrease in yield, and it provides a significant increase in the amount of protection afforded to sprayed plants versus fungal pathogens as compared to present commercial preparations.
In the 1991 study, it was shown that jojoba wax could protect covered leaves of an uninfected plant for at least 30 days after application to a plant that was free of previous infection by fungal pathogens. It seems from the 1992 studies, that, on plants that are unaffected by fungal pathogens, the spraying of 1.0~ (or slightly less) jojoba wax starting the same time as the July spray (anthesis) and continuing to the beginning of the August spray (veraison) ehould result in protection of the plants during and thereafter against Powdery Mildew and ~unch Rot, as well as no or little decrease in yield, and an increase in vigour.
Previous to anthesis, commercial sprays could be used, to control any fungal pathogen outbreaks.
In the foregong, and in the appended claim, the expression "compatible surfactant" is intended to mean surfactant such as Triton X207 or Triton X100 which is completely miscible in water.
: ~ ~
' ;'~,:
, ~, -(6) 1.0~ jojoba wax + 0.2~ Triton X100 surfactant for 3 sprays in August only.
Sprays were applied using a tractor-mounted 220 liter sprayer with a rotary pump which both mixed the components and generated the pressure for spraying. On ~ -Augu6t 11, all plants were equally exposed to 200 G grape clusters infected with Powdery Mildew. On September 28, all grape clusters were equally 6prayed with a suspension of ;;~ ;
Bunch Rot 6pores.
Stomatal resistance and transpiration measurements were taken in all plants the Saturday after each spray using a Licor 1600 (trademark) porometer. In addition, leaves were collected from 1.5m above the ground on September 7, 23 and October 11, and the chlorophyll was extracted from 2cm2 portions of the leaf using dimethylformamide. The amount of -'~
chlorophyll was determined spectrophotometrically. Grapes were harvested between October 5 and 11; the number of grape :
2~3~
berry clusters were determined, as well as berry cluster weight, berry weight, sugar, pH, titratable acidity for all treatments. With respect to the amount of Powdery Mildew infection, this was assayed as the number of colonies per leaf on September 1, 14 and 23, and as the number of infected clusters at harvest. Bunch Rot infection was assayed as the number of infected clusters at harvest. For all measured quantities, data was analyzed using ANOVA, and Duncan multiple comparison tests where required.
There was no significant difference between treatments with respect to plant vigour, growth, stomatal resistance or transpiration. However, the July treatment ~ ~
had slightly higher growth and vigour. Also there was no ~ ~-significant difference between treatments in terms of berry weight, sugar, pH, titratable acidity, and berry cluster count and weight for the harvest. However, the July treatment had slightly higher berry weight and sugar than other treatments. Also, according to Fig. 1, for the period starting 20 days after inoculation, all plants which were fully or partially covered with jojoba wax (due to continued growth beyond sprayed areas) were protected from Powdery Mildew infection. Over the entire period, infection on the plants increased in accordance with the length of time since the last application of jojoba wax. In addition, in terms of the amount of Powdery Mildew infection at harvest (Fig.
2), there is no significant difference between the all-season August, and commercial treatments. With respect to the amount of Bunch Rot, the all-season and August treatments provided significantly more protection than the ;
commercial control.
Moreover, in order to confirm the greenhouse conclusions that jojoba wax sprayed at concentrations of 1.0% with 0.2% Triton X surfactant causes no significant damage to grape plants, this study demonstrated that jojoba ;~
wax sprayed in tnis formulation has no detrimental effect6 as compared to the commercial spray regimes with respect to yield quantity or quality. Also, the slight (but not significant) increase in yield and growth in the July treatment may indicate the best time to spray jojoba wax on the grape plant. Finally, it was also shown that, as long as jojoba wax covers the aerial surface of the grape plant, jojoba wax provides a protective barrier against Powdery Mildew and Bunch Rot at least as proficiently as commercial spray materials.
Two field trials were done in 1992; a further, confirmatory trial was done at Torrs Vineyard, to verify 1991 results and to see if less jojoba wax could provide the same protection, and a trial was arranged at Agriculture Canada Research Station at Summerland, B.C., to determine the effects of jojoba wax on a second variety of grape plants.
For the 1992 trial, 16 more plants were added to the trial, making a total of 178 plants. These were 6eparated into 8 treatments, and 6 block6. The treatments 21~3~
:
were as follows, and included (except for the zero control) 0.2% Triton X-series surfactant:
Zero Control 0.2% Triton X all-season ~
1.0% jojoba all-season 0.2% jojoba all-season ~ ~4 1.0% jojoba in July only 0.2% jojoba in July only 1.0% jojoba in August only 0.2% jojoba in August only All plants were cared for and treated in the same manner as the trial in 1991. Also, while no stomatal resistance, transpiration, of chlorophyll measurements were taken, measurements to determine any differences in growth throughout the season, vigour, and harvest cluster weights were recorded. No infection of Bunch Rot occurred, but an existing infection of Powdery Mildew provided data on how -well jojoba wax worked.
There was no significant difference between -treatments with respect to the amount of physical growth throughout the season. However, the 1.0% July treatment had a significantly higher vigour than all other treatments. ~ ; -According to Fig. 3, the 0.2% all-season treatment yielded better result6 than all other treatments, and the 1.0% all-season and both July treatments had the second highest yields. In addition, the Powdery Mildew showed least on 1.0% all-season jojoba treated plants (Fig. 4), and the 0.2%
all-season, both July treatments and the Triton control provided the second highest protection. Jojoba wax again provided the greatest fungal protection without great decreases in yield, especially in terms of both all-season treatments. However, mo~t significant in this information is the 1.0% July treatment, which had the highest vigour, -`~` 2103~
. ., .: . - .
cost the least in terms of labour and spray component cost, had one of the highest yields and the lowest Powdery Mildew . .,, :
previous to infections. In a vineyard where a pre-extant `~-Powdery Mildew previous to jojoba wax application was not allowed, the applications of jojoba wax starting at the beginning of the July spray time period (anthesis) would likely provide the greatest all-round benefit.
The Agriculture Canada Research Station trial consisted of 39 Johannesburg Riesling grape plants separated into 3 randomly-blocked treatments - 1.0% jojoba wax + 0.2~
Triton X100 surfactant, the commercial control (sulfur), ~nd an unsprayed, zero control. The jojoba, commercial control, and the zero control treatments were sprayed with the commercial spray preparation until June 4; all treatments began on June 16 (anthesis) and continued until August 18 (veraison), with 6 applications of the jojoba wax and commercial spray6. All plants were cared for and treated in the same manner as the plants in the ~orrs Vineyard plot, except that Bunch Rot spores were applied equally to all the clu~ters on Sep~ember 23. No Powdery Mildew infection could be established at the Agriculture Canada vineyard.
While there was no significant difference in growth between treatments throughout the season, there were 6ignificant differences between treatments in cluster weight and the amount of Bunch Rot infection (Fig. 5). While there is a small reduction in the weight of harvested clusters, this was more than made up for by the decrease in Bunch Rot ~',, -. ~
-- 210301~ - -infection, as compared to both the commercial and zero ~ ~
controls. Hence, this trial, with jojoba spray between --anthesis and veraison, confirms the conclusions made in -Torrs Vineyard; that jojoba wax causes no significant S decrease in growth, it causes little or no significant decrease in yield, and it provides a significant increase in the amount of protection afforded to sprayed plants versus fungal pathogens as compared to present commercial preparations.
In the 1991 study, it was shown that jojoba wax could protect covered leaves of an uninfected plant for at least 30 days after application to a plant that was free of previous infection by fungal pathogens. It seems from the 1992 studies, that, on plants that are unaffected by fungal pathogens, the spraying of 1.0~ (or slightly less) jojoba wax starting the same time as the July spray (anthesis) and continuing to the beginning of the August spray (veraison) ehould result in protection of the plants during and thereafter against Powdery Mildew and ~unch Rot, as well as no or little decrease in yield, and an increase in vigour.
Previous to anthesis, commercial sprays could be used, to control any fungal pathogen outbreaks.
In the foregong, and in the appended claim, the expression "compatible surfactant" is intended to mean surfactant such as Triton X207 or Triton X100 which is completely miscible in water.
: ~ ~
' ;'~,:
Claims (4)
EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OR PRIVILEGE IS CLAIMED ARE DEFINED AS
FOLLOWS:
1. A composition for treating grape plants for preventing infection by the fungal pathogens Uncinula necator and Botrytis cinerea comprising an aqueous solution of 0.1 to 2.0% by volume jojoba wax and from 0.01 to 1.0% by volume compatible surfactant.
2. A composition according to claim 1 including approximately 0.75% by volume wax and approximately 0.075%
by volume compatible surfactant.
by volume compatible surfactant.
3. A method of treating grape plants to prevent infection comprising the steps of spraying an aqueous solution of 0.1 to 2.0% by volume jojoba wax and from 0.01 to 1.0% by volume compatible surfactant on the plants, starting at grape flower capfall for at least 1 spray, repeating as necessary to cover new growth.
4. A method according to claim 3 wherein the aqueous solution contains approximately 0.75% by volume jojoba wax and approximately 0.075% by volume surfactant, and in which the spray is applied approximately 4 times; at grape flower capfall, the remaining 3 sprays are applied at approximately 2 week intervals.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA002103014A CA2103014A1 (en) | 1993-11-12 | 1993-11-12 | Jojoba wax protective spray |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA002103014A CA2103014A1 (en) | 1993-11-12 | 1993-11-12 | Jojoba wax protective spray |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CA2103014A1 true CA2103014A1 (en) | 1995-05-13 |
Family
ID=4152104
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA002103014A Abandoned CA2103014A1 (en) | 1993-11-12 | 1993-11-12 | Jojoba wax protective spray |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CA (1) | CA2103014A1 (en) |
Cited By (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US6174920B1 (en) * | 1999-05-21 | 2001-01-16 | Ijo Products, Llc | Method of controlling powdery mildew infections of plants using jojoba wax |
| EP2189062A1 (en) | 2008-11-25 | 2010-05-26 | Indena S.P.A. | Plant extracts for use as phytochemicals |
-
1993
- 1993-11-12 CA CA002103014A patent/CA2103014A1/en not_active Abandoned
Cited By (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US6174920B1 (en) * | 1999-05-21 | 2001-01-16 | Ijo Products, Llc | Method of controlling powdery mildew infections of plants using jojoba wax |
| EP2189062A1 (en) | 2008-11-25 | 2010-05-26 | Indena S.P.A. | Plant extracts for use as phytochemicals |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Youssef et al. | Applications of salt solutions before and after harvest affect the quality and incidence of postharvest gray mold of ‘Italia’table grapes | |
| EP3071033B1 (en) | Use of hydroxyapatite as a carrier of bioactive substances for treating grapevine trunk diseases | |
| Abada | A comparative study for the effect of green tea extract and some antioxidants on Thompson seedless grapevines | |
| AU2011333757A1 (en) | Novel method for the pre- or post-harvest treatment of plant products, using phosphonic acid and an essential oil | |
| Oneto et al. | Efficacy of mechanical and herbicide control methods for Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and cost analysis of chemical control options | |
| DE60124776T2 (en) | ANTIMICROBIAL COMPOSITION | |
| CA2103014A1 (en) | Jojoba wax protective spray | |
| Kunz et al. | Control of apple scab by curative applications of biocontrol agents | |
| Muthappa et al. | Chemical control practices around the world | |
| Waller | Control of coffee diseases | |
| CN113507836B (en) | Permanent ecological fertilizer for fruit physiological diseases and pests | |
| Sewell et al. | The effects of formalin and other soil treatments on the replant disease of apple | |
| CN106134698A (en) | A kind of pollution-free grape planting method | |
| CN107616040A (en) | The early prevention and treatment method of ornamental plant droop and the treatment method of middle and later periods | |
| Schirra et al. | Residues of the quinone outside inhibitor fungicide trifloxystrobin after postharvest dip treatments to control Penicillium spp. on citrus fruit | |
| CN1255286A (en) | Composite plant extract liquid as agricultural disinfectant | |
| CN107318542A (en) | A kind of processing method for suppressing olive fruits disease | |
| KR19990075598A (en) | Farming Method Using Ginseng Saponin | |
| CN106718406A (en) | A kind of method for preventing and treating Rose Powdery Mildew | |
| Oren et al. | Acquired resistance to Phytophthora root rot and brown rot in citrus seedlings induced by potassium phosphite/Durch Kaliumphosphit induzierte erworbene Resistenz gegen Phytophthora-, Wurzel-und Braunfäule an Zitrus-Jungpflanzen | |
| CN105191971A (en) | Synergistic formula, application and pesticide applying method of pesticides in field tank mixing | |
| Murat et al. | BALDNESS OF APPLES IN THE SOUTH-EAST OF KAZAKHSTAN AND MEASURES TO COMBAT THEM | |
| Raynal et al. | Downy and Powdery mildew control: adaptation of the doses of pesticides according to risks of epidemics and total leaf surface developed in the vineyard | |
| Taibi et al. | Characterization of the Folpet fungicidal activity against Plasmopara viticola | |
| Shukla et al. | Non-chemical Management of Postharvest Diseases of Mango |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| FZDE | Discontinued |