An Integrated Disease Management of Oil Palms Affected by Bud Rot Results in Shorter Recovery Times
by
, ,
Andrés Tupaz-Vera
1, 
Iván Mauricio Ayala-Diaz
1,
Victor Rincon
1,
Greicy Sarria
1 and
Hernán Mauricio Romero
1,2,* 1
Colombian Oil Palm Research Center—Cenipalma, Oil Palm Biology and Breeding Research Program, Bogotá 11121, Colombia
2
Department of Biology, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá 11132, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(10), 1995; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11101995
Submission received: 31 August 2021
/
Revised: 28 September 2021
/
Accepted: 28 September 2021
/
Published: 1 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Pest and Disease Management)
Abstract
:Bud rot is a limiting disease that affects most oil palm crops destroying thousands of hectares in Latin America. Bud rot (BR) is caused by the oomycete Phytophthora palmivora (Butler). Integrated disease management (IDM) technology has been used to control the disease, which slows down the progress of the disease, allowing palm recovery. However, the effect of this technology on the recovery speed of treated palms is not well known. We studied the time taken for palm recovery from BR under the integrated management approach. The study was carried out on 21 oil palm commercial cultivars dura × pisifera (D × P) and O × G hybrids affected by BR in the Colombian oil palm Central Zone. The analysis included different recovery times (RT), the severity degree, time of the year (wet or dry season), number of reinfections, and cultivar. The RT of bud rot-affected palms ranges from 103 to 315 days, with an average of 202.8 days when an IDM is used. RT was lower than that reported in the diseased palms without IDM (540 days). According to the severity degree, the RT lasted 202 days for severity degree 1, 198 days for severity degree 2, and 222 with severity degree 3 and 4. In comparison, there was no significant difference between dry and rainy seasons in RT. Differences between cultivars were found; however, under IDM, all cultivars showed low RT. The IDM has a positive impact in reducing the RT to BR. Low RT has indirect effects minimizing potential yield losses, improving the number of successfully recovered palms, and reducing the risk of disease dissemination.
1. Introduction
Bud rot (BR) is a disease that affects oil palms in several countries [1], and it is one of the most devastating diseases for the crop [2]. The disease has affected oil palm plantations in Congo [3], Suriname [4], Ecuador [5], Brazil [6], and different countries of Central America [7]. However, it has economic importance in some countries of Latin America due to large areas vanished by the disease. In Colombia, it was first reported in “The Arenosa” plantation [8], and during the last three decades, more than 95,000 hectares have been lost because of the disease [9].
Colombia has four oil palm regions; BR disease is present in all of them. In the Colombian Eastern Plains (CEP), oil palms affected by BR may recover spontaneously [10]. Gil et al. [11] found, analyzing several isolates collected in Colombia, that genetic diversity in the pathogen affects BR incidence and severity, which is especially true with the isolates from the CEP. Thus, the recovery of the palms in that region is strongly influenced by the genetic background of the isolates. However, despite the recovery in the CEP, BR significantly impacts productivity depending on the severity of the disease and the length of the recovery time. For instance, in cultivars from Southeast Asia evaluated in the CEP, when 50% of the palms were affected by BR, fresh fruit bunches (FFB) production decreased by 17%. When the BR incidence was more than 70%, FFB production decreased 35% [12].
On the other hand, in the Colombian Southwest region (CSW), O × P palms affected by BR do not recover, regardless of their genetic origin, BR heavily affects palms in short periods. According to the data, in the CSW, BR can destroy entire oil palm states in less than 30 months after planting [13].
In 2008, Phytophthora palmivora (Butler) was identified as the causal agent of BR [14]. Biological studies on P. palmivora describe the infection process, infection times, entry sites, and colonization of bud tissue [15,16,17]. Moreover, the physiological and biochemical responses of oil palm to the pathogen have been recorded [18]. Simultaneously identifying the causal agent, an integrated disease management (IDM) program was developed for BR. The IDM was based on the early detection and identification of symptoms, followed by the immediate removal of the affected tissue, treatment of the affected plant and its neighbors with a solution of fungicides, bactericides, and insecticides, the improvement of the drainage systems, soil management, and fertilization programs [19,20]. However, the protocol works when the field reaches a disease incidence of a maximum of 5% [21]. The goal is to remove the affected tissue and to recover the canopy and healthiness of the palms. Under the IDM program for BR, when six healthy and complete leaves are observed, the program is considered successful; whereas palms that do not recover with the treatment are eliminated [22]
In Costa Rica, to reduce the incidence and severity of BR, the management is focused on implementing agronomic practices to improve the physical and microbiological conditions of the soil. These actions lead first to an enhancement of the root system of plants, followed by the recovery of the vegetative part, and finally ending in an increase in FFB production [23]. However, in Central America, BR is not considered an epidemic disease, as in other countries as Colombia and Ecuador, where devastation of the crop has been reported.
Since the 1980s in Ecuador, BR has been considered the most limiting threat to the continuity of the oil palm agribusiness. In many plantations, it has not been possible to recover the plants by implementing surgeries and rotating agrochemicals [24]. The IDM is no longer a suitable solution under epidemic behaviors presented in Colombia, Ecuador, and Brazil. Therefore, the genetic solution using hybrids between E. oleifera × E. guineensis, known as O × G hybrids, has become the main alternative to face the phytosanitary problem and continue with the sustainability of the crop [13].
A successful experience implementing the IDM for BR in oil palm was reported by Aya and Martinez [25]. They found that the number of palms recovered varies due to the severity degree when the palm was identified and intervened with IDM. Thus, in severity degree 1, the percentage of palms recovered had the highest rate with 95%. When the palms reached the severity degrees 2 and 3, the recovery was 90% and 80%, respectively. When the palms were identified or treated late (degree 4 or beyond), only 40% of the palms recovered. Therefore, early BR intervention improves management efficiency increasing the number of fully recovered palms.
Despite the IDM program offering benefits in fields with low BR [13], it is unknown how faster the palms under IDM overcome the disease. The time to recover makes the difference between the success or not of the methodology. In this sense, this study was focused on establishing the time it takes for a palm under an IDM system to recover from BR in different scenarios such as severity degree, year of evaluation, the season of the year, reinfections, and types of cultivars.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site
This research study was carried out at the Palmar de la Vizcaína Experimental Field (CEPV) of the Colombian Oil Palm Research Centre—Cenipalma, located in the rural area of Barrancabermeja, Santander, Colombia, at 6°58′863″ N and 73°42′186″ W. Elevation of 102 m above sea level, with an average annual rainfall of 3472 mm, the average temperature of 29 °C, 2020 annual average sunshine hours and relative humidity (HR%) between 72% and 77%.
2.2. Plant Material
A total of 21 oil palm cultivars were analyzed (1680 palms in total). About 18 commercial tenera (D × P) cultivars (6 cultivars from Malaysian and 12 cultivars commercialized in Colombia), mainly from crosses between Deli dura and pisiferas from different African sources, and three interspecific hybrids Elaeis oleifera × Elaeis guineensis (cultivar “Coari × La Mé”) were studied (Table 1). Cultivars evaluated in this study were planted in a density of 143 palms ha−1, BR records were taken from year 6 to 13 after planting. This experiment summarizes most of the cultivars available for oil palm production globally, including Deli × La Mé, Deli × AVROS, Deli × Yangambi [26], and O × G hybrids “Coari × La Mé” as the most representatives.
2.3. Data Collected
Eight years of records (2009–2016) of palms affected by BR with IDM were used as data input to the study. The IDM recommended by Cenipalma included the following activities: early detection of the disease, removal of infected tissue (surgery), implementation of phytosanitary rounds that consists of the application and rotation of oomycetes fungicides in the affected palms, elimination of palms beyond severity degree 4 or the ones that after two surgeries have not shown signs of recovery. Additionally, proper drainage management systems and adequate nutrition of the palm were implemented. After the BR diagnosis was recorded, the palms were intervened, and the recovery process was monitored. Then, a final decision was taken on whether the palm had fully recovered. When the palm did not show signs of adequate recovery, it was eliminated, cutting it down and removing/burning the tissues affected by BR, avoiding possible dispersion of the disease to the surrounding palms. This methodology made it possible to trace the progression of the BR disease for each of the palms evaluated. Total of 1680 palms in total were monitored from the 21 cultivars.
2.4. Data Analysis
The monitoring of each palm included three stages: (i) Management stage or diagnosis, where the palms were classified according to the degree of severity (degree 1 to degree 5); the severity was assessed based on the lesions found in the youngest leaves of each palm, using the scale developed by Cenipalma [18]. (ii) Monitoring, where the palms intervened with the IDM were followed up on the recovery process, and (iii) decision, where the palms were classified either as healthy to be released or eradicated after not showing signs of recovery after IDM. Table 2 shows the diseases categories according to the stage of the disease management process.
The recovery time (RT) was defined as the difference in the number of days a palm takes from removing the diseased tissue (FD) to the time removed from the monitoring and treatment management program. To be removed from the program, the plant must be declared vegetative recovered (FA), implying that it does not present signs of the disease and has at least six healthy and complete leaves [19]. The following equation shows the variables used to calculate the RT Equation (1).
𝑅𝑇𝑖 = 𝐹𝐴𝑖 − F𝐷𝑖
Moreover, it was verified that each palm in the management cycle had one diagnosis, one decision record, and intermediate management records. It was also considered that some palms might have multiple disease cycles or reinfections.
2.5. Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics, data normality, and confidence interval at 95% were used to analyze recovery times per palm, using the R package, version 3.4.0. [27]. Data normality was assessed by the Kolmogorov Smirnov test. To establish differences according to the dependence that the recovery time may have with other variables, separate analyses were carried out regarding the degree of disease severity, type of cultivar, number of reinfections in the year, and the season when the treatment took place.
3. Results
Out of the 1680 palms included in this study, 261 palms developed the disease during the observation period. They had an accumulated incidence of 15%. The RT of the infected palms ranged from 103 to 315 days, with an average of 202.8 days and a standard deviation of 39.7 days. Figure 1 shows the distribution of RT, where 90% of palms exhibited a RT ranging from 163 to 242 days.
3.1. Recovery Times According to BR Severity Degree
The RT was analyzed according to the severity degree found in palms treated with the IDM of BR. One hundred ninety-six cases were treated with severity degree 1, 48 cases with severity degree 2, and only 17 palms with severity degree of 3 and 4 were intervened. The recovery time for palms with severity degree 1 was on average 202 days, 198 days for severity degree 2, and in the palms with severity degree 3 and 4 was slightly over 222 days (Figure 2).
Data normality was assessed by the Kolmogorov Smirnov test, obtaining a p-value of <2.2 for severity degrees 1 and 2. However, the collected records for grades 3 and 4 were not enough (n = 17) to measure the normality of the data, as the IDM was focused on early detection. The confidence interval for palms detected with severity degree 1 was between 197 and 206 days, with a probability of 95%, while the confidence interval for palms detected with severity degree 2 was between 185 and 211 days (Table 3).
3.2. Recovery Times According to the Year of the Evaluation
Descriptive statistics of the RT according to the year in which the disease was detected is presented (Table 4). The RT for each year showed that 2015 recorded the lowest values, with 183 days of recovery time, while 2013 recorded the highest value, with an average of 214 days of RT. Although for these years, the rainfall pattern shows a 600 mm of difference, for 2015, the total amount of rainfall recorded was 2406 mm, and for 2013 total rainfall was 3069 mm, taking into account this rainfall pattern recorded it is likely that the high relative humidity favored the development of the disease. The RT that occurred in the different severity degrees across the years of evaluations was similar in palms affected by BR with severity degrees of 1 and 2 (Figure 3). Few palms found with severity degree 3 that began after the first two years of the evaluation showed BR again in 2013.
3.3. Recovery Times According to the Season
Meteorological data of the Palmar de la Vizcaína (CEPV) Experimental Field from 2009 to 2015 recorded an annual average rainfall of 3361 mm. Rainfall in this region has a bimodal pattern, with the dry season from December to March and June-July. The rainy season goes from March to mid-June and August to November. The maximum monthly rainfalls recorded were 613 mm in October 2010 and 589.6 mm in March 2009. The lowest monthly rains recorded were 3.3 mm in January 2010 and 3.5 mm in January 2011.
The data analyzed correspond to seven years of rainfall (Table 5). The average RT of palms affected by BR during the dry season was 199 days, with a confidence interval between 183 and 215 days (95% probability). The average RT during the rainy season was 203 days, with a confidence interval between 198 and 208 days (95% probability). No statistically significant differences were found in the recovery time between the dry and the rainy seasons.
Figure 4A shows the average RT for each season of the year, where the RT difference between dry and rainy seasons was only four days. Figure 4B shows the RT for the dry and rainy seasons across the severity degrees of infection. RT ranged from 103 to 315 with an average of 202 days, independent of the season or the BR severity degree.
3.4. Recovery Times According to the Number of Infections
The palms affected by BR in this study were classified according to the number of times they were infected. The results show that 210 palms presented a single infection, 43 palms had two infections, and seven palms had three infections. Only one palm was registered with four infections. The average recovery time was around 200 days for all palms, regardless of BR infections on the same palm (Figure 5).
3.5. Recovery Time According to the Type of Cultivar
In general, the recovery time for palms affected by BR in the 21 commercial cultivars ranged between 162 and 233 days, with 202 days on average (Figure 6). Cultivars (Djongo × Ekona) × Yangambi (T17) and Deli × AVROS (T3) showed the lowest RT in the study, with 161 and 163 days, respectively. The O × G hybrid “Coari × La Mé” (T15) and Deli × AVROS cultivars T9 and T4 had the highest recovery time: 230, 232, and 233 days, respectively.
T16 (O × G), T06 (Deli × Ghana), and T01 (Deli × AVROS Dumpy) had the highest number of infections, with 27, 25, and 24 accumulated cases respectively, and accumulated incidence of 33.8%, 31.3%, and 30.0% respectively (Table 6). On the other hand, T03 and T05 (Deli × AVROS) and T17 ((Djongo × Ekona) × Yangambi) had the lowest number of infections, with 2, 4, and 4 cases reported, respectively, and 2.5% and 5.0% accumulated incidence of the disease.
4. Discussion
The implementation of integrated disease management (IDM) on plants affected by BR positively impacted the reduction of RT with an average of 203 days from the time the disease was identified to the time the palms recovered. In contrast, without IDM, the RT was on average 540 days. Thus, the RT was 337 days shorter with IDM than without IDM [12]. The IDM also impacted how the palms reached the advanced stages of the disease. Without IDM, progressive destruction of the canopy was observed, with some palms losing up to 100% of the leaf area and reaching the highest disease severity degree called the crater state. Of the 540 days that an untreated palm took on average to fully recover, the first 270 days corresponded to the gradual process of the disease until reaching the crater state. The other 270 days went from the emergence of new healthy leaves until the canopy was fully developed [12]. Moreover, the palms had yield reductions without management, with a negative impact on average bunch weight, up to 8 kg. Additionally, the oil-to-bunch potential of palms affected by the BR may decrease by up to eight percentage points, due to low oil synthesis and poor bunch conformation, compared to bunches from healthy or recovered palms [28].
Our results showed that palms with severe degrees of the disease under IDM were sporadic and mostly happened during the first stages of the IDM implementation. Therefore, most of the cases treated early showed low RT, ranging from 161 to 233 days, with an overall average of 203 days. In this sense, in the last years of evaluations, only severity degrees 1 and 2 were detected due to different factors such as (i) the improvement of the process for identifying and monitoring BR disease under field conditions. (ii) The integrated disease management contributed to early detection of the disease, reducing inoculum sources. As a result, there were fewer cases of the disease, and more palms recovered.
Early detection under different scenarios such as years of evaluation and season of the year did not show statistical differences in RT, showing the benefits of early detection again. Additionally, even in heavy rainy seasons, the pattern of low RT was maintained, even though high rainfall and relative humidity favor the development of the disease. Thus, when an IDM program is implemented and carried out promptly when the plants are in the first degrees of severity, the loss of leaf area or canopy is mitigated, having enough canopy area to continue the physiological processes. Furthermore, the early detection and timely treatment of the disease minimizes FFB and oil extraction losses and reduces the risk of having high concentrations of potential inoculum in the field, reducing the risk of BR dissemination. In this sense, another successful experience in early detection is reported in Ganoderma boninense Pat. in Southeast Asia to reduce the risk of disease dissemination [29], supporting that early detection is a crucial strategy for mitigating the disease impact in oil palm.
According to Torres et al. [21], a palm affected by BR should undergo an IDM process instead of allowing the disease to continue until it reaches strong canopy and yields losses. When the IDM treatment is completed effectively, the palm shows continuous leaf growth and at least six healthy and complete leaves. At this point, the palm is considered healthy, and the canopy can support the new branches with normal development; however, it is important to highlight that reinfection could happen, although, in our research, low reinfection percentages of the initially affected palms were measured. Factors that enhance the disease development were considered and managed within the IDM, such as humidity, nutritional deficiencies, and excess water. These factors create a favorable environment for the development of P. palmivora to cause BR [17].
All cultivars evaluated in this study summarize the genetic basis of the commercial oil palm (E. guineensis, DxP) cultivars planted around the world [1]. Although they belong to different genetic backgrounds, they all respond positively to early BR management strategies in the Central Colombian region, showing low RT, even though they differ in the disease incidence. In the case of the evaluated O × G hybrids, BR was present. Previous reports showed that although they get sick, most of the time, the severity is low. For that reason, they are considered resistance cultivars against BR [10,13]. The hybrids also responded to IDM, showing similar RT to E. guineensis.
In this scenario of IDM, palms showed a positive response to the disease due to better agronomic and crop management practices [2]. However, early detection only works when the disease has low incidences, usually below 5%, and the IDM implementation protocol is rigorously followed [21]. Thus, the early detection strategy does not work in areas where the disease is epidemic, and severity reaches the worst degrees. As a result, the IDM does not impact palm recovery. For this reason, although genetic resistance has not yet been described in E. guineensis cultivars, it is the long-term way to ensure the sustainability of the crop in high-risk areas.
There is a learning curve in adopting the early treatment technology, which will determine the success of the management with a progressive reduction in the recovery times of the treated palms. The decrease in the recovery time not only depends on the early treatment with surgeries to remove the tissue affected by the disease, but also depends on multiple factors that make up the integrated agronomic management strategy. In time, IDM impacts the factors that limit crop productivity when BR is present, reducing yield and economic losses, showing the importance of timely management intervention [30].
5. Conclusions
Early detection is crucial for the integrated BR management in oil palm, positively impacting the RT. Low RT reduces yield losses and disease risk, and early identification improves the number of palms successfully recovered. Palms affected by BR and treated under an IDM can recover in less than seven months (202 days), far from the 18 months reported for non-treated palms (540 days). Although differences between cultivars were found, under IDM, all cultivars showed low RT. The reduction in RT occurs, regardless of the year, season, degree of severity, and the number of infections. However, IDM for BR just works under scenarios of low incidences of the disease and in non-epidemic regions.
Finally, early detection for BR management is one but not the only disease management strategy to ensure crop sustainability. It must be integrated with the best agronomic practices, chemical and biological control of the causal agent, and in the long-term, cultivars genetically resistant to the disease.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, A.T.-V.; V.R.; I.M.A.-D.; H.M.R.; Methodology, A.T.-V.; V.R.; I.M.A.-D.; H.M.R.; Formal analysis, A.T.-V.; I.M.A.-D.; V.R.; Investigation, A.T.-V.; V.R.; I.M.A.-D.; G.S.; H.M.R.; Writing—original draft, A.T.-V.; I.M.A.-D.; V.R.; G.S.; Writing—review and editing, A.T.-V.; I.M.A.-D.; H.M.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by The Colombian Oil Palm Promotion Fund (FFP) administered by Fedepalma.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy restrictions.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Palmar de la Vizcaína Experimental Field (CEPV) of the Colombian Oil Palm Research Centre—Cenipalma.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
References
- Corley, R.H.V.; Tinker, P.B. The Oil Palm, 5th ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2016; ISBN 9781405189392. [Google Scholar]
- Sundram, S.; Intan-Nur, A.A. South American Bud rot: A biosecurity threat to South East Asian oil palm. Crop. Prot. 2017, 101, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duff, A.D.S. Bud rot disease of the oil palm. Nature 1962, 196, 918–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Lande, H.L.; Zadoks, J.C. Spatial patterns of spear in oil palm plantations in Suriname. Plant Pathol. 1999, 48, 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Franqueville, H. Oil palm bud rot in Latin America. Exp. Agric. 2003, 39, 225–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Assis Costa, O.Y.; Tupinambá, D.D.; Bergmann, J.C.; Barreto, C.C.; Quirino, B.F. Fungal diversity in oil palm leaves showing symptoms of Fatal Yellowing disease. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0191884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chinchilla, C. Las Muchas Caras de las Pudriciones del Cogollo y Flecha en Palma Aceitera y La Importancia de un Enfoque Integral para su Manejo. [The Many Faces of Bud and Arrow Rots in Oil Palm and the Importance of a Comprehensive Approach to Their Management]. ASD Oil Palm Pap. 2008, 32, 11–23. [Google Scholar]
- Turner, P.D. Oil Palm Diseases and Disorders; Oxford University Press: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1981; 280p. [Google Scholar]
- Benítez, É.; García, C. The history of research on oil palm bud rot (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) in Colombia. Agron. Colombiana. 2014, 32, 390–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Navia, E.A.; Ávila, R.A.; Daza, E.E.; Restrepo, E.F.; Romero, H.M. Assessment of tolerance to bud rot in oil palm under field conditions. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2014, 140, 711–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil, J.; Herrera, M.; Duitama, J.; Sarria, G.; Restrepo, S.; Romero, H.M. Genomic variability of Phytophthora palmivora isolates from different oil palm cultivation regions in Colombia. Phytopathology 2020, 110, 1553–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santacruz, L.; Zambrano, J.; Amézquita, M. Comportamiento de la Pudrición de Cogollo en la Zona Oriental de Colombia. [Behavior of the Bud Rot in the Eastern Zone of Colombia]. Palmas 2004, 25, 220–231. [Google Scholar]
- Avila-Diazgranados, R.A.; Daza, E.S.; Navia, E.; Romero, H.M. Response of various oil palm materials (Elaeis guineensis and Elaeis oleifera × Elaeis guineensis interspecific hybrids) to bud rot disease in the southwestern oil palm-growing area of Colombia. Agron. Colomb. 2016, 34, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres, G.A.; Sarria, G.A.; Varon, F.; Coffey, M.D.; Elliott, M.L.; Martinez, G. First Report of Bud Rot Caused by Phytophthora palmivora on African Oil Palm in Colombia. Plant Dis. 2010, 94, 1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ávila-Méndez, K.; Avila-Diazgranados, R.; Pardo, A.; Herrera, M.; Sarria, G.; Romero, H.M. Response of in vitro obtained oil palm and interspecific O × G hybrids to inoculation with Phytophthora palmivora. For. Pathol. 2019, 49, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ochoa, J.C.; Herrera, M.; Navia, M.; Romero, H.M. Visualization of Phytophthora palmivora infection in oil palm leaflets with fluorescent proteins and cell viability markers. Plant Pathol. J. 2019, 35, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sarria, G.A.; Martinez, G.; Varon, F.; Drenth, A.; Guest, D.I. Histopathological studies of the process of Phytophthora palmivora infection in oil palm. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2016, 145, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno-Chacón, A.L.; Camperos-Reyes, J.E.; Ávila Diazgranados, R.A.; Romero, H.M. Biochemical and physiological responses of oil palm to bud rot caused by Phytophthora palmivora. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2013, 70, 246–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Martínez, G.; Arias, N.; Sarria, G.; Torres, G.; Varón, F.; Noreña, C.; Salcedo, S.; Aya, H.; Ariza, J.; Aladana, R.; et al. Manejo Integrado de la Pudrición del Cogollo (PC) de la Palma de Aceite. [Integrated Management OF THE Bud Rot (PC) of the Oil Palm]; Publicación la Corporación Centro De Investigación. en Palma Aceite: Bogotá, Colombia, 2009; ISBN 9789588360089. [Google Scholar]
- Ayala, I.; Romero, H.; Tupaz, A.; Daza, E.; Rincón, A.; Caicedo, A.; Fontanilla, C.; Mosquera, M. Comportamiento Agronómico de Cultivares Comerciales de Palma de Aceite en El Campo Experimental Palmar De La Vizcaína. [Agronomic Behavior of Commercial Oil Palm Cultivars in the Palmar De La Vizcaína Experimental Field]; Publicación la Corporación Centro De Investigación. en Palma Aceite: Bogotá, Colombia, 2017; ISBN 9789588360591. [Google Scholar]
- Torres, G.A.; Sarria, G.A.; Martinez, G.; Varon, F.; Drenth, A.; Guest, D.I. Bud Rot Caused by Phytophthora palmivora: A Destructive Emerging Disease of Oil Palm. Phytopathology 2016, 106, 320–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Martínez, G.; Arango, M.; Torres, G.; Sarria, G.A.; Vélez, D.C.; Rodríguez, J.; Mestizo, Y.; Aya, H.A.; Noreña, C.; Varón, F.H.; et al. Avances en la investigación sobre las dos enfermedades más importantes de la palma de aceite en Colombia: La pudrición del cogollo y la marchitez letal. [Advances in the Research of the Two Most Important Diseases on Oil Palm in Colombia: Bud Rot and Lethal Wilt]. Palmas 2013, 34, 39–47. [Google Scholar]
- Henry, J.; Gutiérrez, M.; Torres, J.; Chinchilla, C.; Escobar, R.; Mata, R.; Arauz, F. Recovery of oil palms (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) affected by spear rots. Asd Oil Palm Pap. 2015, 45, 30–41. [Google Scholar]
- Torres, E. Comportamiento del híbrido interespecífico O × G, Coari × La Mé en Palmeras del Ecuador. [Performance of the O × G Coari × La Mé Interspecific Hybrid in Palmeras del Ecuador]. Rev. Palmas. 2016, 37, 294–298. [Google Scholar]
- Aya, H.; Martinez, G. Manejo de la pudrición del cogollo de la palma de aceite en el Campo Experimental Palmar de la Vizcaina. [Bud Rot management in Oil Palm in the Experimental Field Palmar de la Vizcaína]. Palmas 2011, 32, 35–44. [Google Scholar]
- Neria, Y.; Neugebauer, R. Genetic Engineering of Oil Palm. Public Health 2018, 121, 572–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2018; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- Acevedo, C.; Buriticá, P.; García, J.; Galvis, N. Economic evaluation of oil losses generated by the Bud Rot in the Eastern Planes of Colombia. Palmas 2000, 21, 53–62. [Google Scholar]
- Liaghat, S.; Ehsani, R.; Mansor, S.; Shafri, H.Z.M.; Meon, S.; Sankaran, S.; Azam, S.H.M.N. Early detection of basal stem rot disease (Ganoderma) in oil palms based on hyperspectral reflectance data using pattern recognition algorithms. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2014, 35, 3427–3439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz, A.E.; Mesa, F.E.; Mosquera, M.M.; Barrientos, F.J.C. Technological factors associated with oil palm yield gaps in the Central Region in Colombia. Agron. Colomb. 2017, 35, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Recovery times distribution of 21 cultivars of oil palm D × P and O × G hybrids affected by bud rot, under an integrated disease management.
Figure 1.
Recovery times distribution of 21 cultivars of oil palm D × P and O × G hybrids affected by bud rot, under an integrated disease management.
Figure 2.
Recovery times of 21 cultivars of E. guineensis and O × G hybrids according to severity degree of BR under integrated disease management. The horizontal line represents the median of the data.
Figure 2.
Recovery times of 21 cultivars of E. guineensis and O × G hybrids according to severity degree of BR under integrated disease management. The horizontal line represents the median of the data.
Figure 3.
Recovery times of bud rot affected palms across severity degrees and years of evaluations of 21 cultivars of E. guineensis and O × G hybrids under integrated disease management. G: severity degree of BR disease.
Figure 3.
Recovery times of bud rot affected palms across severity degrees and years of evaluations of 21 cultivars of E. guineensis and O × G hybrids under integrated disease management. G: severity degree of BR disease.
Figure 4.
(A) Recovery time during the wet (rainy) and dry season. (B) Recovery time according to the year’s season and the severity degrees of BR in 21 cultivars of E. guineensis and interspecific O × G hybrids under integrated disease management. G: severity degree of BR disease. The horizontal line represents the median of the data.
Figure 4.
(A) Recovery time during the wet (rainy) and dry season. (B) Recovery time according to the year’s season and the severity degrees of BR in 21 cultivars of E. guineensis and interspecific O × G hybrids under integrated disease management. G: severity degree of BR disease. The horizontal line represents the median of the data.
Figure 5.
Recovery time of palms infected one (I1), two (I2), or more times (I3, I4) with bud rot under integrated disease management. The horizontal line represents the median of the data. The palms must have been released from the integrated disease management (total recovery) before the disease was detected again to be considered separated infections.
Figure 5.
Recovery time of palms infected one (I1), two (I2), or more times (I3, I4) with bud rot under integrated disease management. The horizontal line represents the median of the data. The palms must have been released from the integrated disease management (total recovery) before the disease was detected again to be considered separated infections.
Figure 6.
Recovery time of 21 cultivars of E. guineensis and O × G hybrids, under integrated disease management after being diagnosticated with BR. The horizontal line represents the median of the data.
Figure 6.
Recovery time of 21 cultivars of E. guineensis and O × G hybrids, under integrated disease management after being diagnosticated with BR. The horizontal line represents the median of the data.
Table 1.
Oil palm O × P and O × G commercial cultivars evaluated for Bud Rot recovery under Colombia’s Central Oil Palm Region conditions.
Table 1.
Oil palm O × P and O × G commercial cultivars evaluated for Bud Rot recovery under Colombia’s Central Oil Palm Region conditions.
| Cultivar | Crosses | Cultivar_ID |
|---|---|---|
| AAR | Deli ×AVROS Dumpy | 1 |
| CORPOICA | Deli × (La Mé, Pobe, Yangambi) | 2 |
| DAMI 103,101 | Deli × AVROS | 3 |
| DAMI 104,404 | Deli × AVROS | 4 |
| DAMI 114,112 | Deli × AVROS | 5 |
| Deli x Ghana-ASD | Deli × Ghana | 6 |
| Deli x Nigeria-ASD | Deli × Nigeria | 7 |
| FELDA | Deli × Yangambi | 8 |
| Golden Hope | Deli × AVROS | 9 |
| Guthrie | Deli × Yangambi | 10 |
| IOI | Deli × AVROS Dumpy | 11 |
| IRHO 1001 | Deli × La Mé | 12 |
| IRHO 1401 | Deli × La Mé | 13 |
| IRHO 2528 | Deli × La Mé | 14 |
| O × G 2777-Indupalma | Coari × La Mé | 15 |
| O × G 2783-Indupalma | Coari × La Mé | 16 |
| UNIPALM Y22683 | (Djongo × Ekona) × Yangambi | 17 |
| United Plantations | Deli × (AVROS × Yangambi) | 18 |
| O × G 2803-Indupalma | Coari × La Mé | 20 |
| Compacta-Ekona | Compacta × Ekona | 21 |
| Compacta-Ghana | Compacta × Ghana | 22 |
Table 2.
Disease categories in the bud rot (BR) monitoring according to the stage of the integrated disease management.
Table 2.
Disease categories in the bud rot (BR) monitoring according to the stage of the integrated disease management.
| Name | Description | Stage | Action/Control |
|---|---|---|---|
| BR-Degree 1 | State of the disease where no more than 20% of the youngest spear leaf area is affected. | Diagnosis | Surgery to removed affected tissue, fungicide/insecticide treatment, and disease monitoring |
| BR-Degree 2 | State of the disease where 20–40% of the youngest spear leaf area is affected. | ||
| BR-Degree 3 | State of the disease where 40–60% of the youngest spear leaf area is affected. | ||
| BR-Degree 4 | State of the disease where 60–80% of the youngest spear leaf area is affected. | ||
| BR-Degree 5 | State of the disease where 80–100% of the youngest spear leaf area is affected. | ||
| BR-Crater | State of the disease where the entire spear leaf package has collapsed. | Eradicate | |
| BR-Healthy new growth | State of the disease where the palm, after treatment (surgery), does not show signs of damage by BR. | Monitoring of recovery | Disease monitoring |
| BR-Diseased new growth | State of the disease where the palm, after treatment (surgery), new spear leaf growth shows lesions caused by BR. It must undergo surgery treatment again. | Do a new surgery again to remove the affected tissue, fungicide/insecticide treatment, and disease monitoring | |
| BR-Relapse | A palm that, after having been reported as Healthy new growth, shows signs of BR damage again. It must undergo surgery treatment again. | ||
| BR-Surgery under observation | A palm that after the surgery treatment, the health state of the new growth cannot be determined (healthy-diseased). | Disease monitoring | |
| BR-Released | The surgery treatment palm shows at least six healthy functional leaves and a healthy spear leaf package. | Decision | The palm is considered healthy and is no longer under disease monitoring in the IDM procedure |
| BR-Eradication | Removal of the palm after the two surgery treatments, the new growth still shows signs of the disease. | Eradicate |
Table 3.
Descriptive statistics for the recovery time in palms affected with bud rot according to the degree of severity at the time of the identification.
Table 3.
Descriptive statistics for the recovery time in palms affected with bud rot according to the degree of severity at the time of the identification.
| BR Degree of Severity | n | Minimum Value (Days) | First Percentile (25%) | Median (50%) | Mean (Days) | Third Percentile (75%) | Maximum Value (Days) | Confidence Interval 95% (Days) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 196 | 107 | 181 | 205 | 202 | 218 | 299 | 197–206 |
| 2 | 48 | 103 | 181 | 198 | 198 | 219 | 315 | 185–211 |
| 3 and 4 | 17 | 121 | 190 | 217 | 221 | 257 | 315 | 197–246 |
Table 4.
Bud rot recovery times according to the year in which the disease was detected.
| Year | n | Minimum Value (days) | First Percentile (25%) | Median (50%) | Mean (days) | Third Percentile (75%) | Maximum Value (days) | Confidence Interval 95% (days) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 111 | 107 | 188 | 216 | 205 | 218 | 315 | 197–213 |
| 2010 | 57 | 103 | 195 | 212 | 209 | 233 | 291 | 200–218 |
| 2011 | 37 | 112 | 176 | 190 | 191 | 204 | 299 | 179–202 |
| 2012 | 5 | 171 | 188 | 195 | 198 | 202 | 234 | 169–226 |
| 2013 | 9 | 105 | 214 | 222 | 214 | 243 | 282 | 175–253 |
| 2014 | 29 | 126 | 167 | 196 | 200 | 231 | 274 | 184–215 |
| 2015 | 13 | 108 | 146 | 186 | 183 | 214 | 274 | 153–213 |
Table 5.
Rainfall for the experimental conditions of the evaluations at the “Campo Experimental El Palmar de la Vizcaína-Cenipalma”, Barrancabermeja, Colombia.
Table 5.
Rainfall for the experimental conditions of the evaluations at the “Campo Experimental El Palmar de la Vizcaína-Cenipalma”, Barrancabermeja, Colombia.
| Year | Total mm year−1 | Monthy Max. | Monthly Min. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 3456 | 589.6 | 140.2 |
| 2010 | 4463 | 613 | 3.3 |
| 2011 | 3869 | 453.5 | 3.5 |
| 2012 | 2896 | 551.2 | 14.4 |
| 2013 | 3070 | 446.2 | 42.2 |
| 2014 | 3372 | 571.9 | 26.1 |
| 2015 | 2407 | 415.4 | 68.4 |
| 2016 | 3256 | 509.2 | 78.8 |
Table 6.
Descriptive statistics of recovery times in 21 cultivars of E. guineensis and O × G hybrids under Integrated Disease Management.
Table 6.
Descriptive statistics of recovery times in 21 cultivars of E. guineensis and O × G hybrids under Integrated Disease Management.
| Cultivar_ID (Table 1) | n | Minimum Value (days) | First Percentile (25%) | Median (50%) | Mean (Days) | Third Percentile (75%) | Maximum Value (Days) | Confidence Interval 95% (Days) | BR Accumulated Incidence (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T01 | 24 | 103 | 166 | 190 | 195 | 218 | 287 | 174–215 | 30 |
| T02 | 11 | 105 | 183 | 188 | 188 | 210 | 249 | 162–213 | 13.8 |
| T03 | 2 | 108 | 135 | 163 | 163 | 190 | 217 | NA | 2.5 |
| T04 | 6 | 152 | 203 | 230 | 233 | 276 | 299 | 174–291 | 7.5 |
| T05 | 4 | 120 | 120 | 169 | 176 | 225 | 247 | NA | 5 |
| T06 | 25 | 107 | 164 | 205 | 193 | 217 | 274 | 176–210 | 31.3 |
| T07 | 13 | 129 | 177 | 190 | 189 | 214 | 218 | 172–204 | 16.3 |
| T08 | 7 | 167 | 197 | 205 | 208 | 214 | 265 | 180–235 | 8.8 |
| T09 | 21 | 176 | 216 | 217 | 232 | 266 | 315 | 215–249 | 26.3 |
| T10 | 20 | 138 | 196 | 217 | 217 | 233 | 291 | 202–231 | 25 |
| T11 | 10 | 127 | 155 | 190 | 191 | 214 | 265 | 158–222 | 12.5 |
| T12 | 20 | 137 | 191 | 206 | 208 | 232 | 274 | 191–224 | 25 |
| T13 | 15 | 121 | 178 | 195 | 194 | 218 | 247 | 175–213 | 18.8 |
| T14 | 16 | 146 | 187 | 204 | 205 | 218 | 295 | 186–223 | 20 |
| T15 | 8 | 178 | 208 | 215 | 230 | 256 | 315 | 193–266 | 20 |
| T16 | 27 | 131 | 177 | 198 | 198 | 218 | 254 | 185–210 | 33.8 |
| T17 | 4 | 112 | 132 | 162 | 161 | 191 | 210 | NA | 5 |
| T18 | 7 | 138 | 169 | 195 | 199 | 218 | 286 | 153–244 | 8.8 |
| T20 | 8 | 188 | 199 | 215 | 216 | 222 | 260 | 196–234 | 20 |
| T21 | 7 | 178 | 190 | 192 | 198 | 207 | 226 | 182–214 | 17.5 |
| T22 | 6 | 162 | 173 | 205 | 199 | 216 | 238 | 166–230 | 15 |
DxP: dura x pisifera, O × G: interspecific hybrids between Elaeis oleifera x Elaeis guineensis. BR: bud rot, NA: not available due to low sample size.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Tupaz-Vera, A.; Ayala-Diaz, I.M.; Rincon, V.; Sarria, G.; Romero, H.M. An Integrated Disease Management of Oil Palms Affected by Bud Rot Results in Shorter Recovery Times. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1995. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11101995
AMA Style
Tupaz-Vera A, Ayala-Diaz IM, Rincon V, Sarria G, Romero HM. An Integrated Disease Management of Oil Palms Affected by Bud Rot Results in Shorter Recovery Times. Agronomy. 2021; 11(10):1995. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11101995
Chicago/Turabian StyleTupaz-Vera, Andrés, Iván Mauricio Ayala-Diaz, Victor Rincon, Greicy Sarria, and Hernán Mauricio Romero. 2021. "An Integrated Disease Management of Oil Palms Affected by Bud Rot Results in Shorter Recovery Times" Agronomy 11, no. 10: 1995. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11101995
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
