Comparison of phosphite application methods for control of Phytophthora cinnamomi in threatened communities

• Published in: Australasian plant pathology Vol. 43; no. 2; pp. 143 - 149
• Main Authors: Crane, C. E., Shearer, B. L.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 01.03.2014; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Agriculture; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Ecology; Entomology; Life Sciences; Phytophthora cinnamomi; Plant Pathology; Plant Sciences; Stem spray; Biodiversity protection; Stem injection; Integrated adaptive management; Low and high-volume foliar spray; Phosphonate; Phosphite
• ISSN: 0815-3191; 1448-6032
• DOI: 10.1007/s13313-013-0260-9

Stem injection, high and low-volume aerial spray and stem spray using Pentra-bark® and Pulse® as bark penetrants were compared to determine whether application method could increase the effectiveness of phosphite in inhibiting colonisation by Phytophthora cinnamomi . Phosphite stem injection and stem spray inhibited P. cinnamomi more effectively than aerial application. In contrast, low-volume aerial phosphite spray showed the least effectiveness. Colonisation in B. attenuata was significantly reduced by stem spray of phosphite alone at 400 g/L and phosphite at ≥200 g/L when combined with Pentra-bark® or Pulse®. For B. baxteri , colonisation of P. cinnamomi was significantly reduced by stem spray of phosphite alone at ≥200 g /L and by phosphite ≥100 g /L when combined with Pentra-bark® and phosphite at ≥200 g /L combined with Pulse®. Stem spray did not significantly control of colonisation in L. inermis var. inermis . Only stem injection overcame the ineffectiveness of phosphite application in L. inermis var. inermis previously recorded. Different responses of species to phosphite application highlights the need to assess effectiveness at the species level.