Assessment of Pruning and Controlled-release Fertilizer to Rejuvenate Huanglongbing-affected Sweet Orange

摘要

Previous research has shown that Huanglongbing {HLB [causal agent Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas)]}-affected sweet orange (Citrus sinensis) trees have a reduced root-to-shoot ratio, potentially due to the high rate of root death. The diminished root system cannot support the existing aboveground canopy and a cycle of imbalance begins. As a result, the tree enters into a continuous carbohydrate stress cycle and, eventually, the tree declines. Therefore, the goal of this study was to evaluate pruning as a strategy to adjust the root-to-shoot ratio to improve growth and productivity of HLB-affected trees. In Jan. 2015, a 3-year trial was initiated on a 14-year-old grove of 'Hamlin' sweet orange on Swingle citrumelo (Citrus paradisi x Poncirus trifoliate) rootstock that was symptomatic of HLB and produced less than 180 lb of fruit per tree. The four pruning treatments were as follows: 1) 0% pruning (no canopy removal), 2) 25% pruning (canopy removed), 3) 50% pruning (canopy removed), and 4) 80% pruning (canopy removed). In a split-plot design, two sources of fertilizer were evaluated in combination with the pruning: 1) conventional fertilizer [CNV (dry granular)] applied at 200 lb/acre nitrogen (N) in five split applications per year, and 2) controlled-release fertilizer (CRF) applied at 150 lb/acre N, split in three applications per year. Within each pruning treatment, half of the trees received CNV and the other half received CRF. The fertilizer treatments were applied in each of the 3 years; however, pruning was performed only once in the beginning of the experiment. The trees that were pruned produced new vegetative growth that looked healthy with no visual HLB symptoms (initially); however, the trees remained positive for CLas throughout the study as determined by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. The 80% pruned trees grew vigorously over the course of 3 years but remained significantly smaller in canopy than control trees (0% pruning) for both CRF and CNV treatments. The 25% and 50% pruned tree canopies grew back and were similar in canopy size as 0% pruning (control) treatment by the end of year 2. At the end of the study, the use of CRF on 25% pruned trees resulted in a significantly higher leaf area index as compared with trees receiving CNV. A significant positive linear correlation was observed between canopy volume and root density; the root density decreased with intensive pruning. A significant positive correlation was also observed between canopy volume and yield, and a negative correlation between canopy volume and fruit drop. There were no significant increases in yield resulting from any pruning or fertilization treatments compared with controls (0% pruning). However, with the use of CRF, the amount of N and frequency of application were reduced. Overall, our results indicate that pruning did not improve the productivity of HLB-affected trees over the course of 3 years. Therefore, severe pruning is not a viable option to rejuvenate the HLB-affected trees.