Targeted application of insecticide has the potential to reduce pesticide usage in conventional farming systems yet maintain an effective control over agricultural pests. Focusing spray along field borders can also potentially address the issue of spray coverage, one of the main problems faced in field-wide treatment of pesticides that severely reduce the efficacy of applied chemicals . An example of successful targeted application of insecticides would be the recent efforts to control brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys Stål , in Northeastern USA by focus spraying along edges in peach orchards instead of orchard-wide application . The results are promising as pesticide usage was reduced by 25–61% using this method and the damage on peach caused by brown mamorated stink bugs was also reduced when compared with the common standard practices. In addition, better understanding of edge-biased distributions may be used to optimize deployments of anti-insect nets in the orchard industry . Finally, there is a growing body of literature on the potential use of banker plant systems . In these agricultural systems, the agroecological landscape is manipulated through integration of special plants along crop banks. These banker plants serve several purposes, including nectar and pollen for natural enemies, host plants for alternative prey of natural enemies, and shelter and oviposition sites for natural enemies. Thus,hydroponic nft banker plant systems represent ways to enhance the performance of biological control of crop pest. A very important aspect of banker plant systems is that the landscape manipulation is conducted along field edges, so edge-biased distributions of many insect pests are a contributing factor to the growing interest in this type of agricultural systems.
There are multiple ways in which removal of infected host plant tissue can be employed as an element of disease management. These include removal of reservoir hosts to limit pathogen spillover onto a focal host , roguing of infected focal hosts to limit secondary spread , and removal of localized infections within hosts to limit further infection or to retrain an unproductive plant . Studies of bacterial pathogens in perennial crops have evaluated the utility of pruning as a disease management tool, with mixed results . The removal of infected plant tissues is analogous to measures used for management of trunk diseases, often referred to as “remedial surgery,” as an alternative to replacing infected plants . In this study, we investigated whether severe pruning of Xylella fastidiosa-infected grapevines in commercial vineyards could clear vines of existing infections. Pierce’s disease is a lethal vector-borne disease of grapevines caused by the bacterium X. fastidiosa . After susceptible plants are inoculated by X. fastidiosa, pathogen populations multiply and move through the xylem network, leading to symptoms of reduced water flow , including leaf scorch, cluster desiccation, vine die back, and eventually death. There is no cure for grapevines infected with this bacterium; current strategies for management of PD in California vineyards involve limiting pathogen spread to uninfected vines by controlling vector populations, disrupting transmission opportunities, and eliminating pathogen sources in the surrounding landscape . PD is notable for the numerous sources of variability in infection levels and symptom severity in plants. X. fastidiosa infection levels vary among plant species , grapevine cultivars , seasons , and as a function of temperature .
Like other bacterial plant pathogens , X. fastidiosa is often irregularly distributed within individual hosts. For example, X. fastidiosa infection levels in grapevines may vary by more than 10-fold between grapevine petioles and stems ; in other hosts, infection levels may vary by more than 100-fold between basal and apical sections of shoots . This within-host heterogeneity may be epidemiologically significant if it affects pathogen acquisition efficiency . Moreover, if such variation is associated with protracted localized infection near inoculation points, such heterogeneity may facilitate other disease management tactics. In addition to grapevines, other plant species that are susceptible to X. fastidiosa infection include citrus in South America . Management of the resulting disease in C. sinensis relies on clean nursery stock, vector control, and pruning infected plant tissue from established trees or roguing young plants . The concept of pruning of infected plant material is based on the fact that, in established trees , tissue with early symptoms of infection can be pruned ~1 m proximal to the most symptomatic basal leaf, effectively eliminating infections, as the remaining tissue is free of X. fastidiosa . However, pruning is not adequate for young trees or for removing bacterial infections if any symptoms are present in fruit . X. fastidiosa multiplies and spreads through the xylem vessels, reaching the roots of perennial hosts such as citrus , peach , alfalfa , and blueberry . Nonetheless, under field conditions, chronic infection of grapevines is temperature and season dependent. In regions with freezing winter temperatures, infected plants can recover in winter, curing previously infected and symptomatic grapevines . Infections that occur during spring lead to chronic disease ; however, infections that occur during late summer and fall may cause disease symptoms in the current year, but a high proportion of vines lack symptoms of X. fastidiosa infection in the following year . The biological mechanism behind this winter recovery has been studied but is not fully resolved.
Nonetheless, models that incorporate low temperatures have substantial explanatory power in predicting rates of winter curing of X. fastidiosa infections in grapevine . Infections that occur early in the season may have a longer period during which X. fastidiosa can colonize and reach high infection levels, which may increase the likelihood of the disease surviving over the winter. Following this rationale, if most late-season infections remain in the distal ends of shoots and have lower infection levels, removing the symptomatic portion of the vine might eliminate X. fastidiosa. In other words, the efficacy of pruning infected grapevine tissue could depend on both the time of year in which the plant was infected and on winter temperature. A potential benefit of severe pruning versus replanting is that pruning leaves a mature root stock in place, which is likely to support more vigorous regrowth compared to the developing root stock of a young transplant . Recent attempts to increase vine productivity by planting vines with more well-developed root systems are based on this presumption. However, even if severe pruning can clear vines of infection,hydroponic channel it removes a substantial portion of the above ground biomass of the vine. Thus, a method for encouraging rapid regrowth of the scion after aggressive pruning is needed. We studied the efficacy of pruning infected vines immediately above the root stock graft union—the most aggressive pruning method—for clearing grapevines of infection by X. fastidiosa. We reasoned that if such severe pruning was ineffective at clearing vines of infection, less severe pruning would not be warranted; if severe pruning showed promise, less severe pruning could then be tested. We use the term “severe pruning” to refer to a special case of strategic pruning for disease management, analogous to the use of “remedial surgery” for trunk diseases . To test the efficacy of clearing vines of X. fastidiosa infection, we followed the disease status of severely pruned versus conventionally pruned vines over multiple years, characterized the reliability of using visual symptoms of PD to diagnose infection, and compared two methods of restoring growth of severely pruned vines.Pruning trials were established in Napa Valley, CA in commercial vineyards where symptoms of PD were evident in autumn of 1998. The vineyards used for these trials varied in vine age, cultivar, and initial disease prevalence . All study vines were cordon-trained and spur-pruned. We mapped the portions of the six vineyards selected for study according to evaluation of vines for disease symptoms. The overall severity of PD symptoms for each vine was recorded as follows: 0 = no symptoms, apparently healthy; 1 = marginal leaf scorch on up to four scattered leaves total; 2 = foliar symptoms on one shoot or on fewer than half of the leaves on two shoots on one cordon, no extensive shoot die back, and minimal shriveling of fruit clusters; and 3 = foliar symptoms on two or more shoots occurring in the canopy on both cordons; dead spurs possibly evident along with shriveled clusters. To test the reliability of the visual diagnosis of PD, petiole samples were collected from the six vineyard plots when symptom severity was evaluated for vines in each symptom category; these samples were assayed using polymerase chain reaction . Petioles were collected from symptomatic leaves on 25, 56, and 30 vines in categories 1, 2, and 3, respectively.Next, severe pruning was performed between October 1998 and February 1999 in the six vineyard plots by removing trunks of symptomatic vines ~10 cm above the graft union.
During a vineyard survey, severe pruning was conducted on 50% of vines in each symptom category; the other 50% of vines served as conventionally pruned controls. Sample sizes for control and severely pruned vines in each disease category ranged between six and 62 vines depending on the plot, with at least 38 total vines per plot in each control or pruned treatment. In spring 1999, multiple shoots emerged from the remaining section of scion wood above the graft union on severely pruned vines. When one or more shoots were ~15 to 25 cm long, a single shoot was selected and tied to the stake to retrain a new trunk and cordons, and all other shoots were removed at this time. We evaluated the potential of severe pruning to clear vines of infection, by reinspecting both control and severely pruned vines in all six plots for the presence or absence of PD symptoms in autumn 1999 and 2000. In all plots, category 3 vines were inspected in a third year ; in plot 6, vines were inspected an additional two years . Finally, in plot 6 we investigated chip-bud grafting as an alternate means of ensuring the development of a strong replacement shoot for retraining. To do this, 78 category 3 vines were selected for severe pruning, 39 of which were subsequently chip-bud grafted in May 1999. An experienced field grafter chip budded a dormant bud of Vitis vinifera cv. Merlot onto the root stock below the original graft union, and the trunk and graft union were removed. The single shoot that emerged from this bud was trained up the stake and used to establish the new vine. The other 39 vines were severely pruned above the graft union and retrained in the same manner as vines in plots 1 to 5. Development of vines in plot 6, with and without chip-bud grafting, was evaluated in August 1999 using the following rating scale: 1) “no growth”: bud failed to grow, no new shoot growth; 2) “weak”: multiple weak shoots emerging with no strong leader; 3) “developing”: selected shoot extending up the stake, not yet topped; and 4) “strong”: new trunk established, topped, and laterals developing.All analyses were conducted using R version 3.4.1 . We used a generalized linear model with binomial error to compare the relative frequency of X. fastidiosa-positive samples from vines in the different initial disease severity categories . Next, we analyzed the effectiveness of chip budding versus training of existing shoots as a means for restoring vines after severe pruning. This analysis used multi-nomial logistic regression that compared the frequency of four vine growth outcomes the following season: strong, developing, weak, or no growth. This main test was followed by pairwise Fisher exact tests of the frequency of each of the individual outcomes between chip budded-trained and trained vines . We analyzed the effect of severe pruning on subsequent development of PD symptoms using two complementary analyses. First, we compared symptom return between severely pruned and control vines in the three symptom severity categories for two years after pruning. To appropriately account for repeated measurements made over time, our analysis consisted of a linear mixed-effects model with binomial error, a random effect of block, and fixed effects of treatment , year , and symptom severity category . Next, we analyzed the rate at which PD reappeared in only severely pruned vines from category 3 in subsequent years using a survival analysis. Specifically, we used a Cox proportional hazards model with a fixed effect of plot .