Micronised and non-micronised sulphur applications control peach scab equally well with negligible differences in fruit quality: Research article

11Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

In a 2-year study, micronised (finely ground) and non-micronised sulphur spray programmes were investigated for peach scab control and influence on peach fruit quality variables including fruit colouration, soluble solids content and flesh firmness. Both sulphur programmes, applied six or 11 times at 15 kg ha-1, controlled scab equally well in both years on cultivars (cvs) Contender and Cresthaven. Six applications of a half dosage of both micronised and non-micronised sulphur programmes were significantly less effective (P < 0.05) compared with all other programmes when scab incidence was >90% on cv. Contender. None of the sulphur programmes influenced significantly (P < 0.05) colouration and flesh firmness of harvested fruits compared with the industry standard (a chlorothalonil-captan programme). Only soluble solids concentrations showed significant differences among fungicide programmes (P < 0.05), but these differences were not consistent with either particle sizes of sulphur fungicide or reduced application fungicide programmes. In conclusion, our study showed that (a) micronised sulphur did not control peach scab more effectively compared to non-micronised sulphur; (b) six applications of sulphur were sufficient to control peach scab when disease pressure was low to medium; and (c) neither six nor 11 applications of sulphur-based products applied at 15 kg ha-1 had commercially relevant negative impacts on important peach fruit quality variables. © 2007 Association of Applied Biologists.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Schnabel, G., Layne, D. R., & Holb, I. J. (2007). Micronised and non-micronised sulphur applications control peach scab equally well with negligible differences in fruit quality: Research article. Annals of Applied Biology, 150(2), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2007.00121.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free