• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Report of the state plant board...
 Report of the plant commission...
 The Mediterranean fruit fly eradication...
 Plant inspection department
 Quarantine inspection departme...
 Apiary inspection department
 Entomology department
 Ornamental pathology departmen...
 Citrus pathology department
 Nematology department
 Staff publications














Group Title: Report for the period ... of the State Plant Board of Florida
Title: Report for the period ... /
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098574/00018
 Material Information
Title: Report for the period ... /
Alternate Title: Biennial report
Physical Description: 19 v. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: State Plant Board of Florida
Publisher: State Plant Board of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1954/56
Frequency: biennial
regular
 Subjects
Subject: Plants, Protection of -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: State Plant Board of Florida.
Dates or Sequential Designation: 4th (1920/22)- 23rd (1958/60).
Numbering Peculiarities: Vols. for 1950/52-1958/60 also called: Bulletin.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098574
Volume ID: VID00018
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 10989019
lccn - sn 86033752
 Related Items
Preceded by: Report for the biennial period ending ... and supplemental reports to ...
Succeeded by: Biennial report

Table of Contents
    Cover
        Cover
    Title Page
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 3
    Report of the state plant board of Florida
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Report of the plant commissioner
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    The Mediterranean fruit fly eradication campaign
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
    Plant inspection department
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
    Quarantine inspection department
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
    Apiary inspection department
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
    Entomology department
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
    Ornamental pathology department
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
    Citrus pathology department
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
    Nematology department
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
    Staff publications
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
Full Text

Volume II, Bulletin 1 A


STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
Ed L. Ayers, Plant Commissioner
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA



Twenty-First Biennial Report
FOR THE PERIOD

July I, 1954- June 30, 1956


/


The Mediterranean Fruit Fly (female)
Drawing by courtesy of A. D. Cushman, U. S. D. A.


Single copies free to Florida residents on request t.-
STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
John F. Seagle Building
Gainesville, Florida


May 1, 1957


.r


t 'I







Volume II, Bulletin 11 A


May 1, 1957


STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
Ed L. Ayers, Plant Commissioner
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA











Twenty-First Biennial Report

FOR THE PERIOD


July 1, 1954 June 30, 1956
















Single copies free to Florida residents on request to
STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
John F. Seagle Building
Gainesville, Florida












STATE PLANT BOARD


DR. RALPH L. MILLER, Chairman, Orlando
JAMES J. LOVE, Vice-Chairman, Quincy
FRED H. KENT, Jacksonville
J. LEE BALLARD, St. Petersburg Beach
HOLLIS RINEHART, Miami
S. KENDRICK GUERNSEY, Jacksonville
R. H. GORE, SR., Ft. Lauderdale
DR. J. BROWARD CULPEPPER, Secretary, Tallahassee
W. G. HENDRICKS, Business Manager, Tallahassee



STAFF

ED L. AYERS, Plant Commissioner
J. W. KNIGHT, Administrative Assistant
W. H. MERRILL, Chief Quarantine Inspector
H. A. DENMARK, Acting Chief Entomologist
P. E. FRIERSON, Chief Plant Inspector
H. S. FOSTER, Chief Apiary Inspector
MORTIMER COHEN, Chief Citrus Pathologist
JAMES TAMMEN, Chief Ornamental Pathologist
B. G. CHITWOOD, Chief Nematologist








CONTENTS


Page

REPORT OF THE STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA ................................. 4

REPORT OF THE PLANT COMMISSIONER ...........- ..................................... 7

THE MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT FLY ERADICATION CAMPAIGN ........................ 15

PLANT INSPECTION DEPARTMENT .......................................................... 24

Nursery Inspection ................ ................ ...............- ........ 24

Spreading D decline .................... .................... .. . .............. 29

Citrus Tree Survey ............ ........... 38

Citrus Budwood Certification Program ................. ......................... 42

Citrus Fruit Certification .............. ............. ............ .. 46

Vegetable Certification .. ............ .... ...... 48

QUARANTINE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT ..... ........................... ...... 52

Sweet Potato W eevil .................. ........... ................. ....... 56

Japanese Beetle ..................... .... .. ...... 58

W hite-fringed Beetle Project ................ ............................... 58

APIARY INSPECTION DEPARTMENT ................. .......... ............. 60

ENTOMOLOGY DEPARTMENT .............. ......... .. ....... 64

ORNAMENTAL PATHOLOGY DEPARTMENT ....................................... ...... 78

CITRUS PATHOLOGY DEPARTMENT ...................... ....... ................. 90

T risteza .. .. ...--.. ............ .----------.......... ..- .... ........ .... 94

NEMATOLOGY DEPARTMENT ........................... ..-. ............ ....... ...---. 103

STAFF P UBLICATION S .....................-- ...........- - .....................-.... ...... ....... 113










Letter of Transmittal


Gainesville, Florida
February 25, 1957
To His Excellency
LeRoy Collins
Governor of Florida
SIR: Herewith is submitted the report of the State Plant
Board for the biennium ending June 30, 1956. Please submit this
report to the Legislature.
Respectfully,
STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
By: RALPH L. MILLER, Chairman


REPORT OF THE STATE PLANT BOARD
OF FLORIDA
The biennial report of the State Plant Board is submitted
herewith for the information of the executive and legislative
branches of the State, as well as for the citizens of Florida.
Several changes in the State Plant Board of Florida, which
also functions as the Board of Control, were made during the
biennium. The terms of the Hon. W. Glenn Miller, Hon. George
W. English, Jr., Hon. William H. Dial, and Hon. Jessie Ball du-
Pont expired during this period. The Hon. Ralph L. Miller, Or-
lando, and Hon. R. H. Gore, Sr., Fort Lauderdale, were appointed
to memberships on the Board of Control by Governor Johns;
Hon. James J. Love, Quincy, and Hon. S. Kendrick Guernsey,
Jacksonville, were appointed by Governor Collins. The citizens
of Florida are grateful to Messrs. Miller, English, Dial, and
Mrs. duPont for giving so unstintingly of their time as members
of the State Plant Board. The valuable assistance rendered by
them in the agricultural regulatory problems of the State is
greatly appreciated.
The membership of the State Plant Board and Board of Con-
trol at the end of the biennium was: Fred H. Kent, Chairman,
Jacksonville; Dr. Ralph L. Miller, Vice Chairman, Orlando; J.
Lee Ballard, St. Petersburg Beach; Hollis Rinehart, Miami;
R. H. Gore, Fort Lauderdale; S. Kendrick Guernsey, Jackson-
ville; James J. Love, Quincy. Dr. J. Broward Culpepper con-







Twenty-First Biennial Report


tinued to function as Secretary of the Board during the bien-
nium.
The State Plant Board of Florida was created in 1915 to
bring about the eradication of citrus canker, an unwelcome plant
disease invader from Japan. The successful eradication of citrus
canker, the Mediterranean fruit fly, and the citrus blackfly in
the thirties-accomplishments that had not been duplicated else-
where in the world-gained for the State Plant Board of Florida
wide recognition as a competent and efficient plant pest control
organization.
During this biennium two more major problems have domi-
nated the scene. The burrowing nematode of citrus, which came
to the forefront during the last biennium, was being handled on
a containment basis. A lack of basic knowledge of nematodes
and their control had allowed this pest to spread to many areas
in the State. Not only have groves become infested, but also
nurseries and home properties have been affected. Protection
of commercial citrus plantings is possible and it is with this fact
in mind that destruction of infested plants has proceeded on a
rapid basis.
That the citrus-producing areas in the United States have
been without worm-infested fruit is indeed an amazing fact.
The majority of the citrus-producing areas outside of this coun-
try have had difficulty not only with the Mediterranean fruit
fly, but with a host of other insects which actually develop
and feed inside the fruit. Thus, when the Mediterranean fruit
fly made a second appearance in Florida the only thought in the
minds of leaders in the citrus industry and the staff of the State
Plant Board was to bring about the eradication of this pest as
rapidly as possible. This is being accomplished with the as-
sistance of the United States Department of Agriculture and it
is hoped that the program will be completed at an early date.
The state-wide survey of citrus groves continues at a rapid
rate. This survey, which was initiated during the last biennium,
will serve to obtain more accurate records such as: crop esti-
mates, both short and long range; accurate records on losses
from diseases; aid to growers in the selection of future varieties;
an estimate of trees needed by nurserymen for replacement
purposes.
Typical of the problems encountered by the Board during
the biennium was the enactment of new legislation by California
in regard to fruit and vegetable insects. On October 31, 1955, a







State Plant Board of Florida


station was established at Minneola for the inspection, fumiga-
tion, and certification of truckloads of citrus fruit in transit to
California and some other western States. This station and sev-
eral others throughout the State later handled the treatment and
certification of some vegetables for shipment to western points.
Inasmuch as this problem was unknown to the Board prior to
the biennium, no funds were apportioned for that purpose. It
was therefore necessary to reduce work in other fields and trans-
fer funds from other projects to maintain these inspection
stations.
The Chairman and other members of the Plant Board take this
opportunity to express their appreciation for the advice, counsel,
and support on the part of growers and governmental agencies,
both State and Federal. The Board is especially grateful for the
advice and aid furnished by the Governor and members of his
Cabinet at Tallahassee; the Director of the Florida Agricultural
Experiment Station and his associates; the Chief and Associate
Chiefs of the Plant Quarantine Branch and the Plant Pest Con-
trol Branch, United States Department of Agriculture; the
Chairman and members of the Florida Agricultural Council; and
the Collector and Assistant Collector of Customs of the Florida
District.
Respectfully submitted,
STATE PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA
RALPH L. MILLER, Chairman









Report of the Plant Commissioner

For Biennium Ending June 30, 1956


LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
Gainesville, Florida
February 25, 1957
Honorable Ralph L. Miller, Chairman
State Plant Board of Florida
SIR: I have the honor to present herewith my report as Plant
Commissioner for the biennium ending June 30, 1956.
Respectfully,
ED L. AYERS, Plant Commissioner


REPORT OF THE PLANT COMMISSIONER
During the past two years the normal regulatory functions of
the State Plant Board have increased appreciably. The appear-
ance of the Mediterranean fruit fly during the closing months
of the biennium served only to increase operating problems. The
loss of field personnel and technical staff to other State agencies
and industry, in the majority of instances because of higher pay,
was a severe handicap. It was only because the staff was willing
to exert itself under these handicaps that the work proceeded
smoothly.
During recent years the qualifications for employment with
the State Plant Board have been strengthened. Now the ma-
jority of the field inspectors are graduates of colleges of agricul-
ture and many hold master's degrees. The additional training
which these men have enables them to learn and adapt them-
selves readily to the work of the Board. After an initial training
period and some field experience with the Board, these men are
prepared to enter Federal service and commercial and private in-
dustry which, it would appear, are always in need of qualified
personnel.
During the biennium the services of two departmental heads
were lost. Mr. Joe N. Busby, Assistant Chief Plant Inspector,
left the Board to become Assistant Director of the Agricultural
Extension Service, University of Florida. Mr. George B. Mer-
rill, Chief Entomologist, retired in January 1956, after forty







State Plant Board of Florida


years' service in that department. Mr. Merrill's most notable
contributions were relative to the scale insects, and his several
publications on the subject have assisted greatly in work on this
group of economically important insects by entomologists of the
State Plant Board as well as others interested in the field of
entomology.
During the latter half of the biennium Florida became in-
fested with the Mediterranean fruit fly. A separate statement
of this problem is given elsewhere in this report. The report of
the Board for the previous biennium carried several references
to the fact that relaxation of baggage inspection by the United
States Customs Service at the various ports of entry May 1, 1953
might lead to such a problem. It is not certain that the fruit fly
entered the country in this manner, although the frequent find-
ing of infested contraband material at ports of entry is tanta-
mount to the fact. It is reported that the Customs Service rein-
stated examination of all baggage at Florida ports May 11, 1956.
The United States Department of Agriculture cooperated im-
mediately with the Board in planning the eradication of this in-
sect. Joint administrative staffs were developed. Application by
airplane of insecticidal baits served to speed up the work. From
a biological point of view, this infestation was far more severe
than the first, since it started in a more tropical section of the
State and became rampant at a time when an abundance of host
fruits was available. As a result, at this writing, the total area
infested includes that which was infested in the late 1920's-
Central Florida-and South Florida as well.
It was necessary to assign many of the Board's trained per-
sonnel to the supervision and implementation of the campaign
against spreading decline of citrus, caused by a nematode. The
only satisfactory method developed to date for protection of the
citrus industry against this pest, and the one recommended by
several investigators, consists of the removal and destruction
of infested citrus trees, together with some adjacent trees,
treatment of the soil by fumigation, and the maintenance of
a host-free period before replanting. A more complete and
detailed account of this project is given in the section devoted
to the Plant Inspection Department.
The nematode causing spreading decline has served to call
attention to the numerous other nematodes present in the State
and affecting agriculture. During the biennium a Department
of Nematology was created for the purpose of obtaining infor-







Twenty-First Biennial Report


mation about these nematodes. The field of nematology is not
new, but few men have conducted research on the subject. Con-
sequently, qualified nematode specialists are rare and knowledge
about the over-all problems caused by these pests is deficient,
both in this State and elsewhere. The newly created department
has concentrated on the identification of nematodes, which for
regulatory purposes must be rapid and accurate. A hot water
treatment for young citrus trees infested with the burrowing
nematode was also developed. This treatment, which is now used
in lieu of destruction of infested nursery stock, has saved the
industry a great deal of time and money.
During the biennium, the nurserymen and growers of Florida
were instrumental in having enacted new legislation which will
lead to the grading of nursery stock. A committee has been
formed by the Florida Nurserymen and Growers Association to
prepare and recommend acceptable grades.
These projects of major importance and several minor pro-
jects, which were not anticipated, have not only increased the
work load of the staff, as mentioned, but have also caused rou-
tine inspection to fall behind sharply. The concentration of ef-
fort on major projects is justified, but often routine inspection
focuses attention on problems which can be quickly and easily
disposed of before severe financial loss is suffered by the agri-
cultural industry.
Resources
A statement in regard to the funds available for the Board's
use during 1954-1955 and 1955-1956, as appropriated by the
Legislature and released by the Budget Commission, is as fol-
lows:
Table 1. Resources
Total
1954-55 1955-56 Biennium
(General Revenue)
Salaries
Balance Forward ....................$ 3,861.48 $ .00 $ 3,861.48
Current Appropriation or
Release ..............................- 447,620.00 527,609.00 975,229.00
Total Salaries ...............................$451,481.48 $ 527,609.00 $ 979,090.48
Expense
Balance Forward .................$- 7,934.82 $ .00 $ 7,934.82
Current Appropriation or
Release ........................... ... 119,102.00 156,146.00 275,248.00
Refunds ................... ......-...... 32,091.81 8,555.85 40,647.66
Total Expense ............................$159,128.63 $ 164,701.85 $ 323,830.48








State Plant Board of Florida


Table 1. Resources (continued)
Total
1954-55 1955-56 Biennium


Operating Capital Outlay
Balance Forward (Salaries for
Capital Outlay) ....................$ 9,000.00 $
Current Appropriation or
Release ...........-.......-------... 24,500.00
Refunds ..........--.....--..... --- ----.... 848.49

Total Operating Capital Outlay..$ 34,348.49 $
Emergency Fund
Balance Forward .....-................$ 25,507.22 $
Current Appropriation or
Release ........................ 35,000.00

Total Emergency ......................$ 60,507.22 $


Special
1. Spreading Decline .............$
2. Emergency Infestation
Fund .......-- ........-

Total Special .................... .. ..-


Total General Revenue


...$705,46


.00 $ 9,000.00


14,700.00
.00


14,700.00 $ 49,048.49


.00

.00

.00


.00 $1,756,300.00

:00 275,000.00

.00 2,031,300.00

5.82 $2,738,310.85


$ 25,507.22

35,000.00

$ 60,507.22

$1,756,300.00

275,000.00

2,031,300.00

$3,443,776.67


Agency Fund
Nursery Inspection Fees
(Receipts) ......... -.......-. ..$---- .00 $ 67,921.08 $ 67,921.08

General Inspection Fund
Citrus Tree Research (Receipts) $125,000.00 $ 80,000.00 $ 205,000.00

Total All Operating Funds ..........$830,465.82 $2,886,231.93 $3,716,697.75


Capital Outlay (Buildings and Im-
provements) and Special
(General Revenue)
1. Capital Outlay
A. Office and Laboratory
Building ....... ..... ........... ...$
B. Greenhouse ..--..-..
C. Cyclone Fence .... ............
D. Purchase of Land ..................

Total Capital Outlay ..................$
2. Special
A. Citrus Tree Count-
Transfer ..................... .......$
B. Repayment to Department of
Agriculture-Transfer ........

Total Special ........ ............ .. ..$

Total Capital Outlay and Special ..$


.00 $ 50,000.00
00 15,000.00
.00 5,000.00
.00 5,000.00

.00 75,000.00


.00

.00


$ 40,000.00

18,000.00

$ 58,000.00

$ 133,000.00


Grand Total All Funds ....................830,465.82 $3,019,231.93


39,200.00
848.49


50,000.00
15,000.00
5,000.00
5,000.00

75,000.00


$ 40,000.00

18,000.00

$ 58,000.00

$ 133,000.00

$3,849,697.75







Twenty-First Biennial Report


Expenditures

Expenditures of the Board for each year of the biennium are
shown in the following table:


Table 2. Expenditures

1954-55
Salaries Expense


Capital
Outlay*


Total


General Revenue
A. Office of the Board....$ 1,440.00
B. Plant Commissioner's
Office .................... .... 58,149.24
C. General Expense ...... .00
D. Plant Inspec. Dept. .. 217,498.37
E. Quarantine Inspection
Dept .......................... 101,880.00
F. Entomology Dept.... 36,152.20
G. Apiary Inspection
Dept .................... 34,980.00

Total General Revenue
(Regular Activities) $450,099.81
Emergency Fund
Spreading Decline ......$ 26,985.83
General Inspection Fund
Citrus Tree Research ..$ 37,101.24

Total All Funds
(Operating) ................$514,186.88


$ 1,987.55

10,243.35
25,066.30
69,412.99

17,174.27
10,679.70

23,360.49


$157,924.65

$ 33,496.91

$ 22,222.10


$213,643.66


1955-56
Salaries Expense


General Revenue
A. Office of the Board....$ 4,629.16
B. Plant Commissioner's
Office ......................... 29,183.31
C. General Expense ...... .00
D. Plant Inspect. Dept. 204,878.27
E. Quarantine Ins. Dept. 115,385.51
F. Entomology Dept. ... 42,409.54
G. Plant Pathology Dept. 50,792.52
H. Apiary Inspect. Dept. 38,028.20

Total General Revenue
(Regular Activities) ..$485,306.51

Special
A. Spreading Decline......$ 68,533.36
B. Emergency Infestation
Fund ........................$ 46,209.82

Total General Revenue
(Operating) .............600,049.69
Current Operating Capital Outlay.


$ 61.25

10,485.90
24,508.60
63,639.88
18,646.20
9,998.13
8,098.84
23,581.70


$159,020.50


$281,618.50

$144,563.86


$585,202.86


$ 1,233.50 $ 4,661.05

614.98 69,007.57
.00 25,066.30
30,693.20 317,604.56

.00 119,054.27
1,806.34 48,638.24

.00 58,340.49


$ 34,348.02 $ 642,372.48

.00 60,482.74

$ 997.81 $ 60,321.15


$ 35,345.83 $ 763,176.37


Capital
Outlay* Total


$ .00 $ 4,690.41

142.32 39,811.53
.00 24,508.60
4,678.57 273,196.72
345.06 134,376.77
1,057.57 53,465.24
991.34 59,882.70
114.80 61,724.70


$ 7,329.66 $ 651,656.67


$ 58,464.80 $ 408,616.66

$ 8,940.36 $ 199,714.04


$ 74,734.82 $1,259,987.37







12 State Plant Board of Florida


1955-56 Capital
Salaries Expense Outlay* Total

Agency Fund
Nursery Inspection-
Fees .--........................-----$ .00 $ 20,777.27 $ 2,695.00 $ 23,472.27
General Inspection Fund
Citrus Tree Research..$ 74,728.61 $ 32,870.01 $ 648.81 $ 108,247.43

Total All Funds
(Operating) ................$674,778.30 $638,850.14 $ 78,078.63 $1,391,707.07


1955-1956
Budget
Releases Expenditures Balance

Capital Outlay (Buildings and Improve-
ments) and Special (General Revenue)
1. Capital Outlay
A. Office and Laboratory Bldg.....$ 2,100.00 $ 100.00 $ 2,000.00
B. Greenhouse ....................- ............. 630.00 30.00 600.00
C. Cyclone Fence ........................... 5,000.00 2,531.00 2,469.00
D. Purchase of Land .......--............. 210.00 10.00 200.00

Total Capital Outlay ...................... 7,940.00 2,671.00 5,269.00
2. Special
A. Citrus Tree Count-
Transfer ....................................... 40,000.00 40,000.00 .00
B. Repayment to Department of
Agriculture-Transfer .......... 18,000.00 18,000.00 .00

Total Special ..................................... $ 58,000.00 $ 58,000.00 $ .00

Total Capital Outlay and Special ......$ 65,940.00 $ 60,671.00 $ 5,269.00
Total All Funds- 1954-1955 .................................. ......................$ 763,176.37
Total All Funds- 1955-1956 .................. ............. .... .............. $1,452,378.07

GRAND TOTAL (BIENNIUM) ..................... .................. $2,215,554.44

Current Operating Capital Outlay.







Twenty-First Biennial Report


Estimates

The Plant Commissioner presents herewith the estimates he
believes to be necessary to carry out the Board's activities in a
satisfactory manner during the two years of biennium 1957-1959.


Table 3. Estimates

1957-58
Salaries Expense


Operating Funds by
Department
Plant Commissioner's
Office .......................$ 45,920.00
General Expense .......... .00
Plant Inspection Dept... 294,480.00
Quarantine Insp. Dept. 127,500.00
Enotmology Dept. ...... 51,840.00
Plant Pathology
Department ............. 36,300.00
Nematology Dept. ...... 21,240.00
Apiary Inspection
Department ............ 45,660.00
Nursery Inspection-
Grades and
Standards .................. 32,040.00
Mediterranean Fruit Fly-
Survey ................. 78,750.00

Total ....................$ 733,730.00


$ 12,800.00
35,500,00
74,000.00
22,100.00
14,000.00

13,800.00
6,000.00

26,600.00


33,000.00

107,000.00

$344,800.00


1958-59
Salaries Expense


Capital
Outlay*


$ 3,300.00
.00
12,500.00
600.00
2,000.00

4,500.00
500.00

900.00


5,000.00

.00

$ 29,300.00


Capital
Outlay*


Total


$ 62,020.00
35,500.00
380,980.00
150,200.00
67,840.00

54,600.00
27,740.00

73,160.00


70,040.00

185,750.00

$1,107,830.00


Total


Operating Funds by
Department
Plant Commissioner's
Office ........................$ 46,460.00
General Expense ......... .00
Plant Inspection
Department .............. 302,160.00
Quarantine Inspection
Department ............ 130,740.00
Entomology Dept. ........ 52,980.00
Plant Pathology Dept. 37,200.00
Nematology Dept. ..... 21,960.00
Apiary Inspection
Department ............. 47,160.00
Nursery Inspection-
Grades and
Standards ................ 32,760.00
Mediterranean Fruit Fly-
Survey .................. 63,000.00

Totals ....................$ 734,420.00
Total Operating Funds
for the Biennium ....$1,468,150.00
Current Operating Capital Outlay.


$ 12,000.00
33,500.00

79,000.00

22,100.00
14,000.00
13,800.00
6,000.00

26,600.00


33,000.00

84,000.00

$324,000.00

$668,800.00


$ 2,500.00
.00

4,500.00

500.00
2,000.00
2,200.00
500.00

500.00


$ 60,960.00
33,500.00

385,660.00

153,340.00
68,980.00
53,200.00
28,460.00

74,260.00


5,000.00 70,760.00

.00 147,000.00

$ 17,700.00 $1,076.120.00

$ 47,000.00 $2,183,950.00







14 State Plant Board of Florida

Capital Outlay
Summary of Proposed Buildings and Improvements for the
1957-1959 Biennium

Project Estimated Cost

A. Office and Laboratory Building ......--..........................................$ 824,700.00
B. Greenhouses (2 @ $16,740) .................. ..----- ............... 33,480.00
C. Workshop and Storage Building ..-.......-- -- -................ 30,000.00
D. Irrigation System .......... ...........---.......... .............. 5,000.00
E. Cyclone Fence ....... ......... ......... ---------................... ...... 7,500.00
F. Screen House ........--- -- .-......................... .............. 5,000.00
G. Storage Building ......... ......................................... 18,050.00

Total -............ ........ ... .......... ... .........$. 923,730.00








The Mediterranean Fruit Fly Eradication

Campaign

The Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata (Wied.))
which had invaded Florida once before and was eradicated in
an 18-months-long campaign, returned to the State in this bien-
nium. Although it is too early to predict with accuracy, it is rea-
sonable to believe that the fly will again be eradicated, and in
record time. The reasoning for such an assumption is based on
the many changes which have occurred in the province of fruit
fly fighting.
These changes, perfected for the most part in other countries
and areas infested with the fruit fly, were not apparent in the
first weeks of the present campaign when old techniques were
employed as delaying action. Patterned along the lines of
the first eradication campaign, the program went through the
early days, slowed by the outmoded idea of removing breeding
spots by stripping host trees and plants of fruits and produce.
With the arrival of State and Federal fruit fly experts, the
entire complexion of the fight changed. These men brought with
them the latest techniques in their particular fields and de-
veloped a working program aimed at complete eradication. The
old method of eradication, which included fruit stripping, was
discarded. In its stead came a new theory of regulation through
fumigation and certification. The time-consuming and costly
system of ground applications of spray materials was largely
supplanted by the use of aircraft.
It is this greatly accelerated program of carrying the fight to
the fly as quickly and as thoroughly as possible that lends cred-
ence to the thought that the campaign will require less time than
did that of 1929-1930.
Where the first program resulted in the destruction of a con-
siderable volume of citrus fruits and host vegetables and plant-
ings, the present campaign calls for the ultimate movement of
all fruits and vegetables from quarantined zones to normal out-
lets through the process of fumigation and certification.
There is a striking similarity in the invasion patterns of the
Mediterranean fruit fly, although its two visits to this State were
separated by twenty-seven years. In each instance, the presence
of the fly first was noted during the month of April, and each






State Plant Board of Florida


time the initial appearance was as larvae in grapefruit. The
first discovery of the fruit fly in Florida was recorded on April
6, 1929, when a State Plant Board inspector noted larvae in
grapefruit which he had picked from a grove near Orlando. The
second invasion became evident on April 13, 1956, when a Miami
Shores resident went to the County Agent with questions about
larvae in a backyard planting of grapefruit.


Fig. 1.-This citrus fruit was severely damaged by Mediterranean
fruit fly larvae.

In each campaign there was the necessary delay while fruit
fly experts examined larvae and trapped adult flies before
announcing positive identification of the invader. At the same
time, plans were being assembled for an immediate start toward
eradication. In the first campaign, the method of destroying
host fruits and vegetables-starving the fruit fly-was devised
and proved successful, marking the only occasion in agricultural
history wherein the Mediterranean fruit fly had been eradicated
from any land.






Twenty-First Biennial Report


The same method was employed for nineteen days in the
present campaign, giving the fly fighters enough time to switch
to more modern tactics.


Fig. 2.-Multiengine aircraft made possible the rapid eradication of
the Mediterranean fruit fly from several areas in the State.

Almost five thousand men were in the employ of the State
Plant Board in the first eradication campaign, which affected
twenty counties of Central Florida and the West Coast. Ap-
proximately 625,000 boxes of citrus fruit were destroyed, to-
gether with approximately 50,000 bushels of host vegetables.
In the present program, the use of air power has provided
excellent control of the fruit fly with a minimum of manpower.
The entire operational force has not totalled 1,000 persons and
probably will not attain that figure as the results of eradication
become more evident.
As of June 30, 1956, infestations cover 19 counties, with the
heaviest concentrations of the fly being located on the lower
East Coast. The difference in the locales of the two campaigns
necessitated some of the changes in fly fighting, the scene shift-
ing from the large commercial citrus groves of Central Florida






State Plant Board of Florida


to the heavy residential areas in Dade, Broward, and Palm
Beach Counties.
By way of review, the first discovery of the Mediterranean
fruit fly in Florida (1929) brought a rush of State experts to
the Orlando area shortly after the larvae were received at
Gainesville for identification. A number of adult flies were cap-
tured and hurried off to laboratories at Gainesville and Wash-
ington. These finds were identified positively as Mediterranean
fruit fly on April 10.


Fig. 3.-Both two-engine and four-engine planes were used in the
Mediterranean fruit fly program. In the foreground are the mixing tanks
where the bait spray was prepared.

In the eighteen months that followed that disclosure, the suc-
cessful fight to eradicate the insect consumed $7,500,000 in
State and Federal appropriations. A total of 1,002 properties
were infested, embracing approximately 10,000,000 acres, of
which 120,000 were in citrus.
The spray formula at the beginning of that campaign con-
sisted of 100 gallons of water, plus 8 pounds of lead arsenate, 50
pounds of crude brown sugar, and 10 gallons of molasses. The






Twenty-First Biennial Report


arsenate was the killing force and the sugar and molasses served
as the attractant. Eventually, the arsenate was replaced by cop-
per carbonate, which was used at the rate of 8 pounds in 100
gallons of water. This new formulation also contained 25 pounds
of soft brown sugar and 5 gallons of black strap molasses.


"44


Fig. 4.-Small single-engine aircraft, such as this, were used extensively
to help in the campaign against the Mediterranean fruit fly.

The story of the second invasion began last April when Orlo L.
Prior of Miami Shores carried a larvae-filled grapefruit to As-
sistant County Agent Douglas M. Knapp. The latter hurried the
fruit to Homestead and the University of Florida Sub-tropical
Experiment Station, where Dr. D. O. Wolfenbarger, Entomol-
ogist, made a tentative identification of the larvae as Mediter-
ranean fruit fly.
Other tentative identifications were made by Dr. H. V. Weems,
Jr., at Gainesville and by Dr. R. H. Foote, Federal fruit fly
identification specialist for the Agricultural Research Service in
Washington.
Acting Chief Entomologist H. A. Denmark and Regional Plant
Inspector C. E. Shepard, of the State Plant Board, placed traps


..






State Plant Board of Florida


on Mr. Prior's property on April 19 and by nightfall had col-
lected 11 adult flies. Specimens were dispatched immediately
to Dr. W. L. Popham, Director of the Crops Regulatory Program
in Washington.
Positive identification of the flies was made on April 21 and
the news released to the public the following day.
Plant Commissioner Ed L. Ayers arrived in Miami April 23
to assume command of the fly fighting forces and was joined by
N. O. Berry, United States Department of Agriculture fruit fly
expert from Texas, Dr. Foote, and Mr. Denmark. Following a
conference the next day, headquarters were set up at the County
Agent's office, with separate units elsewhere for survey and
trapping, picking and spraying, and identification.
An emergency meeting of the State Plant Board in Miami on
April 27 was attended by Governor LeRoy Collins and a number
of legislators, all of whom offered backing for the eradication
program. The temporary program of fruit stripping began that
day. At that time the fruit fly laboratory had identified finds
accounting for 89 infestations ranging from Kendall in south
Dade County to Hollywood in Broward County.
Ground equipment furnished by the State Plant Board and
by private industry began the spraying operation on April 30,
the same date on which the first of 3,000 traps were placed in
the field. In charge of the trapping were eight experienced
United States Department of Agriculture men who brought the
traps directly from Texas and the Mexican fruit fly control
program. Within a week the traps had been scattered through
all of South and Central Florida to check against possible out-
breaks in other areas.
Wilbur Charles, Winter Haven citrus production expert, was
appointed May 3 to the role of Field Director for the State Plant
Board in the eradication program, serving as chief assistant
to Commissioner Ayers. This appointment was followed within
a few days by the arrival of G. G. Rohwer, of Macon, Georgia, to
assume the post of area supervisor for the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture.
A general check on the movement of prohibited fruits, vege-
tables, and nursery stock was set in motion in the form of road-
blocks for all vehicular traffic leaving the heaviest infested areas
in Dade and Broward Counties. This movement previously was
blamed principally for the rapid spread of the Mediterranean
fruit fly from the original area of infestation. To further limit






Twenty-First Biennial Report


this movement, inspection points were established at all air, rail,
and motor terminals within the heavily infested area. A short
time later, subsequent to the issuance of Federal Quarantine No.
78, the Post Office Department placed a ban on the mailing of
hosts of the fruit fly from quarantine zones at all post offices
in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. The only accept-
able fruits and vegetables were those which had been fumigated
and certified by State and Federal inspectors.


Fig. 5.-A new plastic trap baited with an insecticide and angelica seed
oil was developed to locate fruit fly infestations. In heavily infested areas
several dozen flies were taken in a single day as shown in this trap.

The cumbersome fruit stripping procedure was ended on May
16, and two days later the task of spraying was assumed by
single-engine aircraft. This move effected a great saving in time
and personnel and represented the most radical change in the
fly fighting program.






State Plant Board of Florida


Multiengine planes entered the campaign on June 15. The
larger planes made fast work of spraying larger areas and were
considered a necessary safety measure in covering the sprawling
residential areas on the East Coast. The small craft continued
to spray small acreages and rural areas, with ground equipment
being maintained in a supplementary role.
Ground and hand equipment were used in the treatment of soil
with dieldrin, an insecticide which obtained a high percentage
of kill on larvae entering the soil and a reasonable kill of adult
flies emerging from the pupal stage. The recommended treat-
ment is 50 pounds per acre of 10 percent granular dieldrin
30-40 mesh. The fumigation of citrus requires 8 ounces of ethy-
lene dibromide per 1,000 cubic feet for a period of 2 hours, while
10 ounces of the same chemical for the same area and period of
time are necessary in the treatment of mangoes. Some host
vegetables require 2 pounds of methyl bromide per 1,000 cubic
feet for a period of 31/2 hours.
The mixture used in aerial spraying consists of 2 pounds of 25
percent wettable malathion, 1 pound of an approved protein
hydrolyzate, and enough water to compose one gallon of liquid.
Two pounds of Staley Sauce Bait No. 2 were used in the early
formulas, with a later switch to Sauce Bait No. 7. This mixture
is distributed at the rate of one gallon per acre.
As of June 30, the eradication program has cost approxi-
mately $2,000,000 in State and Federal funds. Included in this
amount is an appropriation from the Federal Government for
$1,250,000. This money was made available on June 4, with an
additional $925,000 earmarked for use after July 1. The State
contributed $100,000 in emergency funds on May 1, added an-
other $100,000 on May 22, and offered $75,000 on June 12.
The first offer of funds to the program came from the Dade
County Commission, which voted $25,000 on April 26 for use
in meeting pay rolls and purchasing equipment, by way of pro-
viding men and material for assistance in the early stages of
the campaign.
In addition, an offer of $50,000 was made by Florida Citrus
Mutual, and Governor Collins announced that $1,0000,000 was
available in loans from other State agencies. Of this amount,
$500,000 was offered by the Florida Citrus Commission.

Editor's Note: At the conclusion of the calendar year 1956,
the Mediterranean fruit fly program has eradicated the fly






Twenty-First Biennial Report 23

from half the total of 28 infested counties. Eleven of these
counties had been released from fumigation requirements, with
only one of this number required to meet certification regu-
lations.
This work has been accomplished on an appropriation of
$10,000,000 equally divided between State and Federal Gov-
ernments.
With a network of approximately 50,000 traps girding the
State, only a few finds have been reported each week for the
past two months, giving rise to the thought that complete eradi-
cation might be attained early in 1957.









Plant Inspection Department
PAUL E. FRIERSON, Acting Chief Plant Inspector

The period July 1, 1954 to June 30, 1956 was the busiest ever
experienced by the State Plant Board. During this biennium,
the Board was directing two major emergency programs. Dis-
covery of the Mediterranean fruit fly in the Miami area in April
1956 set off immediately an eradication program. Subsequent
finding of the fly in other areas made necessary the expansion
and intensification of the program until it embraced all Central
and South Florida counties. Survey and "area" eradication of
the burrowing nematode, cause of citrus spreading decline, was
greatly intensified. The aim of this program is to eradicate bur-
rowing nematodes from areas of commercial citrus production.
Important projects administered during this biennium on a
smaller scale were eradication of stellate scale and control work
on the Asiatic red scale, new pests to the State found attacking
orchids and Podocarpus, respectively, on the lower East Coast.
An all-time high was reached in the fumigation and certifi-
cation of citrus fruits and vegetables as required for entry into
certain other states and countries.
A citrus tree research survey was launched to obtain accurate
figures of citrus acreage by varieties and rootstock and to
ascertain the disease status of the citrus industry.
Even with long hours, the inspectors have not been able to
maintain the desired number of inspections in some of the
regular inspection work while dividing their time with the
special projects.
A summary of accomplishments of the department is depicted,
by activities, in the following pages and tables.

NURSERY INSPECTION
An amendment to the Plant Act by the 1955 Legislature pro-
vided for the grading of nursery stock and for the collection of
inspection fees from all nurserymen, dealers, and agents. This
was the first major change in plant inspection legislation in
Florida for forty years. Since the enactment of this legislation,
representatives from this section have worked with a Grades
and Standards Committee appointed by the Florida Nurserymen
and Growers Association for the purpose of defining grades







Twenty-First Biennial Report


and standards for nursery stock sold in this State. At the
close of the biennium definite progress had been made along
this line after considerable opposition to the program from the
orchid and foliage plant growers. It seems probable now that
grades and standards will be established for a number of orna-
mentals and fruit trees before June 30, 1957.
After reaching a peak of 4,661 nurseries under inspection on
June 30, 1955, the number dropped slightly to 4,404 on June
30, 1956, or 406 more than were under inspection at the close of
the previous biennium.
The amount of nursery stock under inspection at the time
of inventory, which is a true indication of the growth of the
industry, increased from 168,416,878 on June 30, 1954 to 243,-
549,980. This was an increase of over 44 per cent in two years.
Increases in the number of nurseries, in the number of plants
to be inspected, and demands for personnel to perform other
TABLE 1.
Summary of Nursery Inspection Work for the Past Three Years

S1953-1954 1954-1955 1955-1956

Number of Plant Inspection
Districts ............................ 26 27 27
Number of Nurseries in the
State .......................................... 3,998 4,661 4,404
Average Number of Inspections
per Nursery ............................. 2.4 2.5 2.3
Total Number of Inspections
of Nursery Stock -...........-......... 10,225 13,184 13,872
Total Acreage of Nurseries in
in the State ....................--........ 6,256 7,208 7,284
Total Amount of Nursery Stock
in the State ................................ 168,416,878 211,229,593 243,549,980

TABLE 2
Number of Nurseries Under Inspection by Type

Type 1954-1955 1955-1956

Citrus ........................................ ... ...... 1,325 1,170
Ornam ental ...................................... ..... 2,153 2,056
General .......................... ...............-------.. 64 79
Citrus and Ornamental ......-................. ........ 356 266
Citrus and General ........................................- 24 27
Ornamental and General ......-......................... 275 292
Citrus, Ornamental, and General ..................... 464 514


Total ................


4,661


4,404









TABLE 3.
Approximate Acreage and Amount of Nursery Stock June 30, 1956,
As Compared with the Two Previous Years


Kind of Stock


Orange--............ ..- .....------ ..--.--
Grapefruit.....................--- ...
Tangerine--.................----...-
Tangelo--.................-- -..----------
Satsuma...... .....----- ---------..- --.-
Lemon --............---...---- --- ..
Lime .......----- .......----.---- .
Miscellaneous Citrus..-........--- ..----
Citrus Seedlings.............--- ..----


Total Citrus....... ....- ...--- ..-- ...- --.....

Ornamental----....-.. --.......... -----...

General -..... --..... ...............


Total Non-Citrus --..........------.........


Grand Total.. -----............ ----...........


1953-1954


Acres I


Plants


1954-1955


Acres I Plants


1955-1956


Acres Plants


932.89 3,951,542 1,084.30 4,357,216 1,128.40 4,767,274
286.17 1,012,045 254.38 869,697 151.93 424,897
32.52 128,439 51.25 103,169 78.33 182,031
30.27 109,047 32.26 123,078 39.81 129,893
25.98 151,960 23.75 93,356 29.20 100,163
21.46 70,734 27.06 108,118 47.22 273,921
28.86 140,006 26.35 137,260 35.54 206,377
42.44 169,859 50.23 171,435 49.67 265,978
502.74 6,710,717 658.33 11,063,244 743.51 13,606,293


1,903.33

4,040.14

313.41


12,444,349

154,591,214

1,381,315


2,207.91

4,727.31

273.58


17,026,573

192,690,842

1,512,178


2,303.61

4,570.78

410.45


I ___________________ __________________-_______


4,353.55


155,972,529


5,000.89


194,203,020


4,981.23


_I __________________________ i -- _________---


6,256.88
I


168,416,878


7,208.80


211,229,593


7,284.84


I ___________________ ________ __________-_______


19,956,827

221,894,268

1,698,885


223,593,153


243,549,980


-


Plants


Acres







Twenty-First Biennial Report


S5 5 5 5 5 5
46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Fig. 6.-The average number of times Florida nurseries have been
inspected in recent years has fallen off because of pressure of other insect
and plant disease problems, as shown in the above graph.

essential duties in connection with plant regulatory work re-
sulted in a slight drop in the average number of inspections made
per nursery from 2.4 to 2.3 over the two-year period. It is
hoped that this work can be pushed up so that there will be an
average of at least three inspections per nursery during the
coming biennium.

TABLE 4.
Citrus Nursery Stock Movement As Compared with Two Previous Years

Variety 1953-1954 1954-1955 1955-1956

Orange ........................ 1,184,494 1,549,621 1,686,692
Grapefruit ................. 153,278 92,079 61,671
Tangerine ................. 41,491 94,367 100,589
Tangelo ........................ 34,752 45,099 39,049
Satsuma .................... 12,704 25,998 19,763
Lemon ...................... 31,363 63,782 33,390
Lime ............................ 89,061 72,099 28,985
Miscellaneous ............ 37,581 25,682 22,135
Seedlings .......... ...... 609,511 1,555,873 2,464,070

Total ........................... 2,194,235 3,524,600 4,456,344











TABLE 5
Miscellaneous Bulbs and Plants Inspected (not included as nursery stock)
July 1, 1954 to June 30, 1956
1954-1955 1955-1956
Variety No. No. Plants No. No. Plants
Farms Acreage or Bulbs Farms Acreage or Bulbs
Amaryllis ........................... ..... ..... 34 63.64 2,115,727 22 44.40 1,349,740
Caladium ....- ........................... .........- 75 305.37 10,715,211 50 541.78 17,598,545
Chrysanthemum ................... ......... .... 15 13.21 1,257,450 19 32.93 5,779,450
Easter Lily .................................... 31 40.88 1,125,164 12 23.36 502,000
Ferns ....................... ............-.. 120 490.03 40,485,265 169 554.10 46,053,119
Gladiolus ............................................. 38 2,810.50 100,669,000 40 4,057.01 94,297;500
Hemerocallis ........... ... .... ................. 18 2.97 79,850 31 4.97 211,458
Narcissus ................ .............. 2 50.01 12,000,300 3 37.31 10,006,100
Tuberose* ............. .............. .. 8 6.49 226,500 *
Asters* ............... .......- ............. 2 .48 60,000 *
Aquatics* ..... ........... 3 1.08 120,000 *
Miscellaneous Bulbs and Plants............. 154 39.24 1,020,078 186 103.96 12,819,910
Cabbage ................. 8 22.09 15,483,200 9 45.08 4,522,500 Q
Tobacco ...................13 113.00 94,500,000 14 131.02 42,575,000
Tomato .................................. 69 2,326.54 190,717,060 58 2,215.45 248,511,400 P

Totals .......- ....... .....-- --....... 590 6,285.53 470,574,805 613 7,791.37 484,226,722

SIncluded in Miscellaneous Bulbs and Plants for 1955-1956.







Twenty-First Biennial Report


SPREADING DECLINE
H. L. JONES, Assistant Chief Plant Inspector

History
Spreading decline of citrus was first discovered near Winter
Haven, Florida between 1926 and 1928, but at that time it was
not realized that it was potentially an extremely serious threat
to the State's citrus industry. In 1953 Drs. R. F. Suit and E. P.
DuCharme, Pathologists of the Citrus Experiment Station, Lake
Alfred, Florida, demonstrated that the burrowing nematode,
Radopholus similis, was the causal organism. Scientists at
the Citrus Experiment Station have had this disease under study
for several years. It has been determined that the removal of
trees visibly infected and four trees in all directions from the
perimeter of the visibly infected trees, followed by fumigation of
the soil with 600 pounds of DD per acre, stopped the progress
of the nematode. This became known as the pull-and-treat
method. Such a program was suggested to growers, particularly
where only a small infestation existed in the grove. The pull-
and-treat method offered no guarantee of State eradication, but
it did seem to offer a possibility of control until further research
could be undertaken to prove this plan to be sound or to develop
a better plan of attack. Except for some revisions, no better
plan of attack has been developed, and the pull-and-treat pro-
gram as administered is proving effective. Nevertheless, there
continues the never-ending search for a better and less drastic
method of control.
Subsequent to the discovery of the cause of spreading decline,
representatives of the citrus industry requested the State Plant
Board to make a systematic survey of the citrus-producing area
of the State to determine the extent of the infestation of this
serious trouble. Many growers were anxious to apply the pull-
and-treat method in order to protect the healthy portions of their
groves or contiguous properties. These growers had to be ad-
vised as to what trees should be removed. The research workers
could not continue to do this job without interfering seriously
with the research program. The State Plant Board agreed to
take over the survey work, including the mapping of individual
groves to aid the growers in the pull-and-treat program, the
processing of root samples, and the identification work. The
Citrus Station agreed to train Board employees to accomplish







State Plant Board of Florida


this task and to furnish laboratory and office space where the
work could be done.
Appropriations
At the request of the Board and of representatives of the
industry, the State Budget Commission released $35,000 from
emergency funds on January 1, 1954 to augment State Plant
Board work on spreading decline. By February 1954, the State
Plant Board grove survey was under way. Before the Legisla-
ture convened in April 1955, it was necessary to request addi-
tional funds to carry on the work already started, and the
Budget Commission again released $35,000 to keep the program
operating until June 30, 1955.


Fig. 7.-State and Federal inspectors have cooperated in taking citrus
and other root samples for microscopic examination for the burrowing
nematode.

In the spring of 1955, a committee composed of growers,
nurserymen, and research and regulatory officials was ap-
pointed by the State Plant Board to study and advise the Board
as to what should be done with regard to spreading decline in
the State. The committee decided that a program to retard its







Twenty-First Biennial Report


spread would be the best policy to follow until more informa-
tion was available on its distribution and until better methods of
control could be developed.
Estimates of the cost of a suitable program for the period July
1, 1955 to June 30, 1957 were $3,512,600. The Florida Legisla-
ture was asked to provide $1,756,300, and this amount was made
available on July 1, 1955. The United States Congress was re-
quested to make a special appropriation of a similar amount for
the same period, but failed to do so. However, the Plant Pest
Control Branch of the United States Department of Agriculture
had previously requested the Golden Nematode Project at Long
Island, New York to furnish technical assistance to the State
Plant Board of Florida. On January 27, 1955, contingency funds
from the United States Department of Agriculture in the amount
of $35,000 were made available to Plant Pest Control personnel
for conducting burrowing nematode survey work in Florida. By
the middle of that year an additional $150,000 was provided by
the United States Department of Agriculture; however, $15,000
of this amount was to go for administration in Washington
and $10,000 for surveys outside of Florida, leaving $125,000
actually to be spent on Florida's program.
During May of 1956, the United States Congress approved
an appropriation for the United States Department of Agricul-
ture which included $475,000 to be allocated to the Plant Pest
Control Branch for their work on spreading decline beginning
July 1, 1956.
The Current Program
Basically the control program followed by the Plant Board
for pulling and treating infested grove areas is in accord with
that developed by the Citrus Experiment Station. Rules adopted
by the Board require the pulling of four trees past the last visibly
affected tree or two trees past the last tree in the roots of which
burrowing nematodes are found or all host plants within fifty
feet of the last known infected tree or plant, whichever is the
greater distance.
The State Plant Board pays the cost of the pull-and-treat
program described, but no compensation is made to the grower
for the trees destroyed.
Rules regulating the movement of nursery stock, relative
to burrowing nematodes, state that "no certificate shall be issued
for the movement of plants or nursery stock known to be infected







State Plant Board of Florida


with burrowing nematodes, or plants or nursery stock within
fifty (50) feet of a location known to be infested with said bur-
rowing nematodes, except that certificates may be issued for
the movement of said plants or nursery stock provided special
permission is granted by the Plant Commissioner or they have
been treated by submerging the entire root systems for ten
minutes in a tank of water maintained at 1220 F., or treated
by other methods as may be prescribed by the Plant Board and
provided that any treatment utilized must be carried out under
supervision of personnel appointed by the Plant Board."
Listed below is a report on the pull-and-treat program through
June 30, 1956:
TABLE 6.
Grove Properties Treated

Counties Number Properties Acres

Highlands ............ ---. .------ -----.. 33 226.75
Hillsborough .----........--.........- -------. --. 4 115.50
Lake ..----............-------------------.. 14 61.00
Orange ......-............ ----------.. .. -4 45.00
Pasco .............................---- .-- ... .. 1 12.00
Pinellas .......---------- ----.... ---- ----------- 1 5.00
Polk -.............. ---.......... .----- 130 963.92

Total Grove Properties Treated .......... 187 1,429.17
Approximate number of acres ready for treating ................-.......... 435.00
Number of acres being prepared for treating ............~.........-..- 754.83

Total acres treated, ready, or being prepared for treating.................. 2,619.00

Survey Results

It is the intention in this report to cover all survey work done
by the United States Department of Agriculture Plant Pest Con-
trol Branch and the State Plant Board up to July 1, 1956, so
there will be a comprehensive report on record. Prior to the be-
ginning of this biennium, detailed records of the burrowing
nematode survey have not been officially published.
The State Plant Board began the burrowing nematode survey
in December 1953, and the Plant Pest Control Branch joined in
the work in January 1955. To keep from overlapping Plant
Board activities in this field, the Federal agency limited its work
to counties outside of the "Ridge Section" where the Plant Board
had concentrated its efforts.








TABLE 7.
Report Covering All Survey Work Through June 30, 1956, Which Has Been Carried Out by the State Plant Board Since
December 1953 and the United States Department of Agriculture Plant Pest Control Branch Since January 1955*


Alac


County
Pr

hua ..........


Baker .............

Brevard ..........

Broward ..........


Charlotte ......


Citrus ............

Collier ............


Dade ............

DeSoto ............


Groves Nurseries
With Citrus Without Citrus
op. Samples Prop. Samples Prop. Samples

17 141 6 78

1 72
4 22 1 1 2 3
99 809 18 209 8 88

1 2
9 68 2 23
1 22
4 199 2 9 2 9
I 1
16 171 4 49 1 6

2 5
1 6 4 28


194
1
54


1,480
15
565


66
1,771


135


SFigures denote total properties and samples examined, both p
** G = grove; N = nursery: M = Dooryard and miscellaneous.


509
3,043
9
101


Dooryard and
Miscellaneous Reinspections
Prop. Samples G** N M




1 1[
1 6


2 15 1 3 1


4

1 2




23 313 56


1 8 1 3


Total
Prop. Samples

23 219
1 72

8 27
126 1,112
1 2
13 106

1 22
8 217
1 1
22 228
2 5
5 34
44 577
362 6,607
2 24
84 809


positivee and negative; bold figures denote positive properties and sample.





TABLE 7. (Continued)
Report Covering All Survey Work Through June 30, 1956, Which Has Been Carried Out by the State Plant Board Since
December 1953 and the United States Department of Agriculture Plant Pest Control Branch Since January 1955*
L a-x-u


G
County _
Prop.
Duval ..............

Hardee ............ 7
S134
Hendry ............ 1
5


Hernando ........
Highlands ......

Hillsborough .

Indian River..

Lake ................

Lee ..................
Manatee ........

Marion ............

Martin ............


36
140
286
8
188
8
90
98
820
16
2
45

26

13


roves


S iN
With Citrus


urseries
I Without Citrus


D.ooryaru aund I
Miscellaneous |


Samples Prop. I Samples Prop. Samples | Prop. I Samples I G**


1





1
11

2

1

14


22
.,099
2
47
396
,171
,174
47
,660
38
,025
707
,573
103
6
407

295

104


1
3
6
749

26


41
850
5
580
12
416
72
8,986
33
3
81
3
665

51


4





15
54
7
24
4
12
2
14
3
6
24

3
2
4


Reinspections


N M


Total
Prop. I Samples


11
75

13
8
27
248

216
1
93
40
145

i
1
27


|1


2






21

4

8 1

12



4




1


*Figures denote total properties and samples examined, both positive and negative; bold figures denote positive properties and sample.
** G = grove; N = Nursery; M = Dooryard and miscellaneous.


I


''


I


3
5
11
298
1
11
38
184
492
19
328
14
134
108
1,099
25
10
82
2
49
2
18


3
18
39
1,934
2
86
404
1,269
12,522
62
3,659
55
1,647
848
24,288
151
60
892
3
992
8
202





TABLE 7. (Continued)

Report Covering All Survey Work Through June 30, 1956, Which Has Been Carried Out by the State Plant Board Since
December 1953 and the United States Department of Agriculture Plant Pest Control Branch Since January 1955*


Groves
County With(
S Prop. Samples Prop.

Orange ........... 120 776 4
598 9,294 173

Osceola .......... 2 14 1
53 553 11

Palm Beach ... 2
3 20 4

Pasco ............. 3 64 1
79 1,132 17

Pinellas .......... 13 113 4
98 1,458 62

Polk ...... .. 596 5,563 66
1,545 46,089 511
Putnam ......... 2 49
49 438 2
Sarasota ..-......
14 109 14
Seminole ....... 2 7 1
64 682 13
St. Lucie ........
59 473 5
Sumter ........... 18 143 1
Volusia ............ 7 19 10
186 1,509 140

Grand Total* ] 1,016 | 8,613 132
I 4,819 1 97,222 1,690


Nurseries
Citrus Without Citrus
Samples Prop. I Samples

69 48 330
8,741 132 11,408
2 1 12
221 4 296
3 4 7
38 4 73
3
217 5 34
7 | 3 7


550U
168
5,106

29

89
2
500
12
281
11
17
1,174

493
31,570


71
675

30
2
50
75
1,326
7
87
5
13
289

1,185
19,737


Dooryard and
Miscellaneous I Reinspections


Prop. | Samples I G** N

6 45
51 566 77 1


26

64
165
1,169


1
3

12



2
55

296
3,108


1,558

2











2,084


7

1


3

169





4

5





313


S Total
I Prop. | Samples

178 1,220
1 954 30,009
4 28
68 1,070
6 10
21 175
4 67
105 1,409
20 127
208 2,441
773 5,967
12 2,403 53,039
2 4
52 497
2 3
33 251
7 84
91 2,520
5 19
73 841
20 159
25 51
358 3,027

1,439 | 10.587
15 | 7,609 1 151,637


* These grove figures include 418 groves inspected and 100 found positive prior to June 30. 1954.


I I


,_







State Plant Board of Florida


During September 1955, the Plant Pest Control Branch as-
sumed the task of making all the identification of samples col-
lected by the Plant Board in addition to their own collections.
This resulted in better coordination of efforts between the two
agencies.
The following is a report covering all survey work through
June 30, 1956, which has been carried out by the Plant Board
since December 1953, and the United States Department of
Agriculture since January 1955.
Since the aim of the program is to push and treat the bulk
of the infested groves in the commercial citrus producing areas
outside of the heavy residential sections by July 1, 1957, the
Plant Board and the Plant Pest Control Branch, by June 30,
1956, were gearing themselves to accomplish this goal.
After June 30, 1956, the Federal agency will assume the re-
sponsibility of collecting practically all samples, will perform
the delimiting of properties to be pushed and treated, and will
continue to do all of the nematode identification. The Plant
Board will arrange for the pushing and treating, as well as
finance those operations and enforce the regulations.

Board Hearing and Court Case
During May 1956, almost all requests for pushing and treat-
ing burrowing nematode infested groves were completed, and the
Plant Board began the involuntary phase of the program.
Many more growers were willing to concede to the pushing
and treating of the infested areas of their groves provided ad-
jacent properties would be done likewise; hence, the necessity of
a compulsory program.
The first grove selected to push without the owner's consent
was one remaining adjacent to treated properties on three sides
and owned by a grower who threatened court action. However,
instead of resisting, the owner welcomed the bulldozers and
asked for a few extra trees to be pushed to even up the rows.
Early in May 1956, E. A. Roop, a citrus grower at Davenport,
who had been using an organic fertilizer known as M-16, asked
for a hearing before the members of the State Plant Board to
obtain a delay in pushing his grove. On May 16, 1956, the hear-
ing was held at Jacksonville, and it was decided by the Board
that the control program could not be delayed for users of M-16
since evidence did not appear to warrant it. This product had
been thoroughly tested by the Citrus Experiment Station at Lake







Twenty-First Biennial Report


Alfred, and results there showed no significant change in the
condition of trees infected with the burrowing nematode.
On June 5, 1956, Plant Board representatives appeared be-
fore Circuit Judge Don Register at Bartow on behalf of a bill
requesting a temporary and mandatory injunction to prohibit
the destruction of real property. The plaintiffs in this case were
Harry Corneal and his wife, Gertrude Corneal, of Auburndale.
The defendants were the State Plant Board, a body corporate
under the laws of the State of Florida, and Charles Poucher, in-
dividually, and as agent for the Board. (Mr. Poucher had signed
a letter sent to the Corneals explaining the Board's intention to
push their property without their consent.) Judge Register de-
cided not to issue an injunction against the spreading decline
program pending the outcome of a continuance of this hearing at
a later date, provided the Plant Board would not destroy any
trees without the consent of the owner until a decision had been
reached.
Editor's Note: The following decision was reached in the
1956-58 biennium: The hearing was continued on July 16, 1956,
and lasted four days. The following week Judge Register an-
nounced his decision, which was a refusal to issue a permanent
or temporary injunction against the spreading decline program
as administered by the Plant Board. The case was appealed to
the State Supreme Court by the plaintiffs. The argument before
the high court was held on November 7, but as of December 20,
1956, a decision had not been handed down.

Handling of Nurseries in Relation to the Burrowing Nematode
There are 4,404 nurseries under inspection in Florida, of
which 2,321 have been examined for burrowing nematodes. A
total of 313 nurseries have been found positive and 132 of these
contain citrus stock, but only about half of the nurseries con-
taining citrus stock actually yielded burrowing nematodes from
the roots of citrus; the rest came from ornamental plants. It is
the nurseries where citrus trees are found positive that are
more strictly handled.
Almost all of the citrus nurseries in the heavy citrus producing
areas have been inspected for burrowing nematodes. Before a
new citrus nursery is permitted to move stock it must undergo
such inspection. All citrus nurseries found positive are placed
under quarantine and such nursery stock must be treated, before
movement, by immersing the roots for ten minutes in water held







State Plant Board of Florida


at 1220 F. This treatment is acceptable only when given under
the supervision of a plant inspector of the Board. The Board
has constructed two hot-water treating machines to be used for
this purpose.
There have been 103,147 budded citrus trees, 110,574 citrus
seedlings, and 3,395 ornamental plants treated by this method to
fulfill quarantine requirements. In addition, 611,498 orna-
mentals have been treated experimentally for control of other
nematodes. This makes a total of 828,614 plants treated by the
hot-water treating machines.
All plants shipped to California and Arizona, and host plants
shipped to Texas, need burrowing nematode certification accord-
ing to requirements specified by those States. All nurseries ship-
ping to States requiring such certification must be thoroughly
examined for burrowing nematodes once a year.

CITRUS TREE SURVEY
J. N. BUSBY, Assistant Chief Plant Inspector
and
W. F. CALLANDER, Supervising Statistician

There has been a growing insistence on the part of many seg-
ments of the citrus industry for more accurate current forecasts
of citrus production, as well as for information that will throw
light on future trends in production, especially of oranges and
grapefruit. After much discussion, the conclusion was reached
that the basic need was for a complete census of the citrus trees
in the commercial groves in the State by age, variety and root-
stock, plus other related information concerning the citrus trees
which seemed to have a direct bearing on their productivity
The problem of financing and organizing a project of this size
was a rather difficult one. The decision was finally reached
that the State Plant Board was the best qualified agency in the
State to undertake the task, because of its large corps of experi-
enced plant inspectors already familiar with the groves.
With the cooperation of the United States Department of
Agriculture, the Florida Citrus Commission, and the Florida
Citrus Mutual, the project was officially launched in the fall of
1954, although some experimental work was done by the State
Plant Board in Highlands County during the spring and sum-
mer.







Twenty-First Biennial Report


To start the work, $125,000 was initially contributed by these
agencies. These funds were placed in a trust fund under the
State Commissioner of Agriculture. Later the United States De-
partment of Agriculture contributed an additional $40,000 to
the trust fund, which was matched by an equal amount by the
State Plant Board from funds authorized to be used in this man-
ner by the State Legislature.


I


Fig. 8.-The census of citrus trees continued at a rapid rate. The data
taken include information about rootstocks, size of trees, replants, diseases,
etc.

From the beginning, the State Plant Board has also contrib-
uted heavily to the survey through furnishing the services of its
regular nursery and grove inspectors during periods when they
could be spared from their regular work, as well as by the pur-
chase of equipment, such as jeeps and other equipment and sup-
plies, from its regular funds.
The project has now been in progress for two seasons. No
work can be done during the summer months because of the dif-
ficulty of identifying the varieties in the absence of mature
fruits. It will be resumed in September 1956 and it is expected







State Plant Board of Florida


that the project will be completed in the spring of 1957. A final
detailed report will be issued covering all counties in the State
which produce citrus fruit in commercial quantities.
In addition to the regular inspectors who were assigned to
the Citrus Tree Survey, it was necessary to employ a number of
new inspectors. These men were given a thorough course of
training in all phases of the survey and detailed instructions
were prepared. A rather unique coding system was devised for
various items for the use of the field men which is not only sav-
ing a great deal of writing in the filling out of the grove reports,
but is also greatly reducing the work of coding the reports for
punching on the IBM cards. After a list of the types and varie-
ties of trees to be enumerated was set up, each type and variety
was numbered; e. g., Valencia oranges carry the code number
31. Codes were also set up for reporting the kinds of rootstocks
used; also a disease code, a planting system code, and a cultural
practice code. The inspectors have experienced little difficulty
in using the codes.
Most of the counting is being done from jeeps which traverse
the groves, two men to a jeep. Single and multiple counters are
used to count the trees. Where the groves are impassable for
jeeps, they are walked. Tally sheets are used in the groves and
the coded reports are filled out at the close of each day and sent
to Gainesville.
In order to save time and expense and because of the relative
unimportance of dooryard trees from a commercial standpoint, a
sampling plan was devised for use in all incorporated cities and
towns. A systematic sample is being used. After all the blocks
in a city br town have been numbered serpentinely every tenth
block is drawn, using a random start, and the trees in such
blocks counted. The estimates for the incorporated places so far
covered have shown an extremely low sampling error.
By May 1, 1956, when work on the survey was stopped for the
summer, 29,484,474 citrus trees, including non-bearing resets
and dooryard trees in the cities and towns, had been counted. It
is estimated that this number represents nearly three-fourths of
all the citrus trees in the 36 counties included in the survey. The
dooryard trees in the incorporated cities and towns were esti-
mated from a ten per cent sample of all of the blocks in these
places.
The status of the survey, as of May 1, was as follows:







Twenty-First Biennial Report


TABLE 8.
Counties in Which Tree Count Has Been Completed
County Total Trees

Broward ................................. .......... 389,337
Collier ........................... ..... ........ 7,467
D ade .............................................................. ...800,226
H endry .... ............. ..................49,388
H ighlands ............ .. ....... .................... .......................... 1,595,986
Lake .................................................... 7,358,580
Lee ................................................. 200,991
Pinellas ...................... ... ..... ... ........... ..... 1,267,130
Polk ....... .......... ........... .. .. ....... 8,177,643

T total .. ...................................................... .. .. .................. 19,846,748

TABLE 9.
Counties in Which Tree Count Has Been Partly Completed
Trees Counted Estimated Trees Total Estimated Per Cent
County to May 1 Yet to Count Trees to Count

Brevard ......... 310,852 889,148 1,200,000 74
Hardee .......... 1,143,661 106,339 1,250,000 8
Indian River 1,109,362 390,638 1,500,000 26
Manatee ........ 332,908 242,092 575,000 41
Orange .......... 3,647,804 1,902,196 5,550,000 35
Pasco ........... 1,031,493 568,507 1,600,000 35
Putnam .......... 137,577 182,423 320,000 56
St. Lucie ...... 1,924,069 175,931 2,100,000 9

Totals ........ 9,637,726 4,457,274 14,095,000 32

The survey has not yet been started in the following coun-
ties, which have an estimated total of slightly over seven million
trees: Alachua, Charlotte, Citrus, DeSoto, Duval, Flagler, Her-
nando, Hillsborough, Martin, Marion, Monroe, Okeechobee, Os-
ceola, Palm Beach, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Johns, Sumter, and
Volusia. Over half of these trees are located in Hillsborough,
Volusia, and Marion Counties.
The United States Department of Agriculture has indicated
its willingness to contribute additional funds to complete the
project, provided they can be matched from State sources. It
now seems likely that some satisfactory arrangement can be
made to match about $20,000 of Federal funds, which, with the
carry-over of trust funds now on hand and some assistance from
the regular inspectors of the State Plant Board, should be suf-
ficient to complete the survey in the spring of 1957.*

*On January 1, 1957, the United States Department of Agriculture had
contributed $12,000 of the $20,000 referred to above. It is anticipated that
the remaining $8,000 will be made available when needed.






State Plant Board of Florida


CITRUS BUDWOOD CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

G. G. NORMAN, Special Inspector
Citrus tree diseases cost Florida citrus growers an estimated
15 million dollars in 1952, the year Florida launched its Citrus
Budwood Certification Program to help reduce these staggering
annual losses. This estimate was made by Dr. J. F. L. Childs,
Pathologist of the United States Department of Agriculture's
Subtropical Fruit Field Station, Orlando, Florida. Dr. Childs
has studied citrus diseases all over the world and it is his opinion
that the citrus trees in Florida are no worse diseased than they
are in other citrus-producing areas. He states that the Citrus
Budwood Certification Program has been an important factor
in developing information that has helped clarify the citrus





























Fig. 9.-Two seedlings obtained from the same navel orange fruit: left, a
nucol!ar seedling; right a hybrid seedling of a navel orange and Poncirus
trifoliata.






Twenty-First Biennial Report


tree disease situation in Florida. He has great faith in the Flor-
ida Program, which he says is "probably the most complete and
the most advanced" program of its kind, and one that "has be-
come a pattern for other Programs to follow." It is the opinion
of Dr. Childs and many others that the Citrus Budwood Certifi-
cation Program is the most important constructive development
for Florida citrus in the past twenty years. He points out that
certified citrus trees are the answer to a big part of the tremen-
dous losses suffered each year because the trees will be less
subject to diseases and will be more productive.
Knowledge gained in the three years which have elapsed since
the inauguration of this Program indicates the need for em-
phasis on the following points:
1. Continued education of growers by every possible means,
with increasing emphasis on the importance of the selec-
tion of individual trees as sources of budwood.
2. Determined and sustained effort to find and test potential
sources of virus free budwood in the State including seed-
lings and nucellar trees.
3. To continue to make every possible contribution to citrus
virus research.
4. To continue exploratory testing of escaped (wild) citrus
trees with the ultimate view of a better knowledge of what
viruses they may be carrying which might lead to eventual
certification of citrus seed and citrus trees used as sources
of seed.
The accomplishments of the Citrus Budwood Certification
Program are summarized in the following tables:

TABLE 10.
Parent Trees

Number Trees Number Trees Number Trees Number Trees Remain-
Applied for Accepted Dropped ing Under Test

1199 929 253 676







44 State Plant Board of Florida


TABLE 11.
Analysis of Trees Dropped

Reason for Dropping Number of Trees


Bud Variation ..-- .................................................. 108
Psorosis or Xyloporosis ............... ........................... 33
Adjacent Tree Infection ..------....-........-- ............. ...... 64
Tristeza ...............--------.................. ............ 20
Adjacent Tree Tristeza ... ----...............---......... ........ 6
Lim e Blotch ............... ..... .......................... 5-
Miscellaneous Causes ..------- ............................ .... 17


Total ------................ .-.--- ---............. ..- 253



TABLE 12.
Citrus Varieties Remaining in Program

Variety Number of Trees


P ineapple .... ..... ...... ............................... 147
Vanenappe....------------------------------------------------------------I 142
V alencia .......................................... .................................. 142
H am lin ..................... --- --- ............................... 90
Marsh ........ -----...................-................... 53
T hom pson .... ............... ----...-- .. ..... ................... 41
Valencia, Nucellar Seedling ...... ..... .... ............ 20
T em ple ........................................ ............. -.. 22
Red, Ruby Red ............................--- ........--- ..... ...........--. 21
Duncan ---..... ------------ .. ..... -----...................... 21
N avel ---.. .--... --- ....... ............................. 20
Tangerine ----...................... .. ............. . . 17
Parson Brown ....... -------------- -------....................... .. 16
Orlando Tangelo ...---.-----.................. ........-- -. 10
Persian Lim e ....................... .... .. 9
Pesaffa me---------------------------------------------------------------- 89
Jaffa .............. ..... ....................................................... 8
Lue Gim Gong ....................................................... . 7
Sweet Seedling ............................... ...................... 7
Satsum a .....-.................. ............ ............................ 5
E enterprise ....................---------- ................--..........-.............. 4
M editerranean Sweet ......... ...............-...-------- .............. 2
Foster Pink -----------------....................................... 2
M cC arty ............................................. ..................................... 2
MCarmety-e------------------ --- --------------------------------------------- 2
Clem entine ... ..... ........... ..... .... .................... 2
M inneola Tangelo .............---.-- ..1-...................... ...... 1
M urcott ....................... ......-............... 1
Lim equat ......- ..-- .. ...----------------........................... 1
Seminole Tangelo ---.... ........-.......-- .....................
Tahiti Lime -- ..... .......................... 1
K ing .....................................---------------......----......- 1
Tangerine, Nucellar .......----.. ....... --1...... .
Parson Brown, Nucellar ............ -..... -..................... 1


Total .---..----... ..........- ...-- -- .......---- 676







Twenty-First Biennial Report


TABLE 13.
Number of Trees by County



County

P olk ............................................ ....................
M arion ............... -...- ...- ......- ....-
Orange ...............................................
Hillsborough ............................. -..........
Indian R iver ........................... .................
V olusia .......................................... ......
P asco ............. ... ..- ........--. ..............
Sem inole ............. ..... .......................
H ighlands ........... .... .....- ................
Lake .................................
H ardee ........... ................ -......... ... ....
S t. L ucie ..- ...-- ...-...-................... ....... ....--
Dade ................... .................
Manatee ............................................
O sceola ... .. -. ................... ..... ..
A lachua ...............................
H ernando ................ ........... .. ......
P in ellas .................. ....... ........................


T otal ........................... -................


and Participants


Number Number
| Candidate Trees Participants

284 19
92 4
58 4
50 3
32 2
27 4
26 1
21 1
19 3
16 6
11 1
10 1
9 4
7 1
3 0
3 1
1 0
7 2


676 57


Three of the 57 participants have trees in more than one county.


TABLE 14.
Summary of Certified Nurseries


Participants


Number Trees


W ard's Nursery, Avon Park ........................................ .........
Rhymes Nursery, Avon Park -------.....- ....--
Minute Maid Corporation, Plymouth ......................................
F. E. Gress Nursery, Lakeland .......... ........................
Eloise Groves, W inter Haven ........... ............................ ....
Lake Garfield Nursery Company, Bartow ..........................
Glen Saint Mary Nurseries Co., Winter Haven..................
Indian River Nursery, Vero Beach ................ ...... ..
Stanley Davis, Sebring ........................................ .- ... ..
Alcoma Corporation, Lake W ales ........................................
Kenneth Curtis, Lake Wales --.....................................-.
A. P. Brill, DeLand ........................... ..... ....... ..........
Adams Citrus Nursery, Winter Haven ...................................
G. O. Nordmann, DeLand ........... ............................ ..........
W R. M cM ullen, Tam pa ........... ........ ..... ............ .........
Tom B. Swann, Winter Haven ..............................................
Thornhill Nursery, Dundee ........................... ........- .......
K. R. W illiams, Ocala ....................-


Total Progeny Trees -.....--....-- ........-..--


4,659
3,810
1,355
89
7,415
3,928
217
2,944
295
227
1,480
1,084
803
1,724
210
1,182
3,427
1,667


36,516







State Plant Board of Florida


TABLE 15.
Summary of Scion Groves

Participants Number Trees

Ward's Nursery, Avon Park ....................... ... .-........ 675
Minute Maid Corporation, Plymouth ..................................... 368
Eloise Groves, W inter Haven ............ ..... ................. ....... 802
Lake Garfield Nursery, Bartow ........................................ 4,356
Lake County 4-H Club, Tavares .............................. ................. 64
Robert L. Mohler, Plant City ...................... ........... .... | 35

Total Scion Grove Trees ......................... .......... .... | 6,300


TABLE 16.
Total Trees in Program

Kind of Trees Number Trees

Candidate Parent Trees ...................... .. .................... 676
Scion Grove Trees ............... ....................... ................. 6,300
Progeny Nursery Trees ......... ....... .... .........- ...-....- ....... 36,516

T otal ........................................ .......................................... 43,492


CITRUS FRUIT CERTIFICATION

To reduce the number of inspectors required to supervise the
fumigation and to certify citrus fruit for shipment to California
and Arizona, the Plant Commissioner instructed the Plant In-
spection Department to open a fumigation and certification sta-
tion at Minneola for handling all truck shipments that could con-
veniently reach this point. The station was opened on October
31, 1955, and it has been of tremendous help in the handling of
the shipments to California and Arizona. Almost all of the truck
shipments are now being handled by this station. Limes from
Siuth Florida are still being certified by the State Department
of Agriculture inspectors at the point of origin.
The Minneola station is operated by two men, each alternating
staying on duty twenty-four hours and off duty twenty-four
hours. This is necessary because a large part of the work is at
night. The station has facilities for the inspector to sleep when
work permits.







Twenty-First Biennial Report


By agreement with the State Department of Agriculture, ex-
port shipments of citrus fruit are certified by the inspectors of
that department. This arrangement has relieved the State Plant
Board of a time-consuming job and has resulted in savings of
thousands of dollars. The Plant Inspection Department keeps
the records pertaining to export shipments, bills the shippers,
and collects the service charge for the Department of Agriculture.

TABLE 17.
Shipments of Citrus Fruit to California and Arizona During the Biennium


Variety


Persian Limes ......
Oranges .-.............
Temple Oranges .
Grapefruit ............
Tangerines ............
Tangelos ...............
Mixed Citrus
and Others ...


Totals ...............


California


1954-1955


8,978.02
1,755.00
6,505.50
80,865.70
12,400.00
10,197.50




120,701.72


1955-1956


12,518.775
11,673.00
2,651.50
162,909.80
10,616.50
10,760.50




211,120.075


Arizona
1954-1955 | 1955-1956


354.50
2,156.00 510.00
192.50 1,214.00
605.00 1,152.00
1,900.00 1,420.50


..... 2.00


4,853.50


4,653.00


" I -,- .-. "- ,


Fig. 10.-Before trucks are fumigated at the Plant Board station in Min-
neola they are made gas-tight by taping all doors and openings.







State Plant Board of Florida

TABLE 18.
Export Shipments


Variety


Oranges ................-- ----.....................--
Temple Oranges .................................
G rapefruit ............................. .. .... ........
Tangerines ........ ..... .. ... .......... ....


T otals ............... .. .- ......


1954-1955 1955-1956


893,167.25 1,157,905.00
18,801.50 41,593.00
97,627.50 236,015.50
113.00 850.00


1,009,709.25 1,436,363.50


Fig. 11.-Fruits and vegetables of several different kinds must be fumi-
gated before leaving Florida for destinations in various States. The fumi-
gants used are toxic to humans; hence the gas mask used by the operator.

VEGETABLE CERTIFICATION

During the year 1955-1956 California promulgated a quaran-
tine against Florida-grown cucurbits because of the melon and
pickle worms. Host vegetables are required to be fumigated with
two pounds of methyl bromide for two hours and a certificate
issued that this has been done.


............I----


|

|







Twenty-First Biennial Report

TABLE 19.
Shipments by Month (bushels)


Cucumbers


-....-..-.-... 600
........................ 2,573
........................ 30,835

........................ 28,347.2
........................ 22,986.8
...................... 35,395.5
..........-........... 33,892
..... ............ 2,056

........................ 156,685.5


Squash




2,605

4,853.5
2,567
3,676.5
1,883


15,585


Trucks | Car Lots


1
5
68 11

65 11
67 3
108 5
78 12
5..

397 42


The promulgation of this quarantine necessitated the station-
ing of an inspector at Pompano Beach to supervise the fumiga-
tion and handle the certification of the large volume of cucum-
bers and squash which is shipped from that area. Inspectors
located at Fort Myers, Arcadia, and Winter Haven handled a
small amount of this work, but the majority of the vegetables
from Central Florida was certified by the Minneola station.
It is anticipated that certification will have to be provided for
at least as large an amount of vegetables during the coming year.

TABLE 20.
Shipments Certified


Where Certified Number Trucks

Pom pano Beach .......................................... 271
M inneola ...............-..................... ......... 116
Fort M years ..........- ....... -. ...... .............- | 6
Zolfo Springs ....................................... ... 3
W ebster ...... ........................ ........... .. I
W inter Haven ................... .... ............. .... I 1

Total ............... ............................ .. 397


Number Cars

32

8
1
1


42


STELLATE SCALE

Since stellate scale (Vinsonia stellifera), a serious pest of
orchids, was first discovered in September 1953 by C. ,E.
Shepard, Plant Inspector, in a south Dade County nursery, three
additional nurseries in that county have been found infested.
The last was Fiddler's Green Nursery, found infested in January
1956. Twenty-two orchids imported from Puerto Rico by this


1955
October ....
November
December..
1956
January
February
March ......
April ........
M ay ..........

Total ....






State Plant Board of Florida


nursery on December 22, 1955 were discovered to be infested and
were burned at the owner's request. There seems to be no con-
nection between these four infestations. Apparently they were
four separate introductions. From the results of repeated in-
spections of the infested properties, it now appears that eradica-
tion has been accomplished. Periodic observations will be made
of the properties concerned for the next year.
Puerto Rico is now fumigating all orchids shipped to Florida,
so the danger of importing stellate scale into the State has been
greatly reduced.
ASIATIC RED SCALE
Asiatic red scale (Aonidiella taxus) was discovered in Florida
for the first time in May 1955 by C. 'E. Shepard, Plant Inspec-
tor, in Miami, and a few days later in West Palm Beach by G. W.
Dekle, Entomologist of the Board.
Control and survey work was started immediately by the State
Plant Board on all known infested properties, with the full
cooperation of the owners. The inspection of the properties re-
ceiving plants from the infested nursery in West Palm Beach
soon revealed infestations in about 25 nurseries and private
yards located in Palm Beach, Broward, Martin, and Dade Coun-
ties. It was known that Podocarpus plants had been shipped
from the nurseries to many points in the State and it was reason-
able to assume that some of the plants were infested. There was
no record available of all of these locations. Eradication of this
pest from the State would mean the inspection of all Podocarpus
and Taxus (the only known hosts of this insect) and this was
considered to be unwise because of the cost of such a program
and the limited host range. Therefore, on August 31, 1955, the
following instructions were issued concerning the control of
Asiatic red scale:
(1) The infested plants in all properties on which control
work had been started would receive three applications of
spray using 2 quarts of mayonnaise-type oil and 1 pound
of 15 per cent wettable parathion powder per 100 gallons
of water; this work to be completed by September 16,
1955.
(2) Nurseries found infested in the future, or those known to
be infested but on which control work was not started
prior to August 31, 1955, will have the Podocarpus






Twenty-First Biennial Report 51

quarantined until the owners have applied three applica-
tions of spray of the type shown in (1) above under the
supervision of a State Plant Board inspector.
(3) When a private property is found to be infested, the
owner is to be informed by the Plant Inspector that this
is a pest new to Florida and every effort made to per-
suade him to clean it up by spraying with oil and para-
thion.
It has been discovered that the spray being used to control
this pest is effective. It is believed that three applications will
eradicate the pest from most properties if complete coverage is
made of all foliage on infested plants.








Quarantine Inspection Department

W. H. MERRILL, Chief Quarantine Inspector

Plant quarantine activities for the biennium continue to show
a yearly increase. The increase in the number of arrivals of
military and commercial aircraft and vessels bringing pas-
sengers, baggage, cargo, and mail from foreign countries and
United States possessions brought about the demand for the
services of additional quarantine inspectors to furnish the re-
quired supervision connected with their entry. At the close of
the period, 22 State and 10 Federal inspectors were stationed at
the ports of entry in Florida located at Key West, Miami, Port
Everglades (Fort Lauderdale), West Palm Beach, Tampa, Jack-
sonville, and Pensacola. The inspectors not only meet incoming
planes and vessels arriving in their immediate area, but must
also provide coverage for arrivals at outlying airfields and ports
located several miles from their stations. As an example, the
inspectors at West Palm Beach meet vessels from foreign points
at Fort Pierce, some sixty miles north. The inspector at Pensa-
cola meets arrivals at Panama City, one hundred miles distant,
and occasionally must travel to Port St. Joe, one hundred and
thirty-eight miles from Pensacola.
Inspection of planes and vessels bringing passengers, baggage,
and plant materials is made possible with the limited personnel
available by working in close cooperation with the Customs Serv-
ice, Public Health, and other agencies held responsible for clear-
ance of foreign traffic.
Preventing the entry of insect pests and plant diseases of
economic importance from any country is of paramount con-
cern. Thus the quarantine service forms a line of defense in
enforcing existing plant quarantines. Plant quarantine enforce-
ment, always a complicated problem, becomes more so each year
because of world-wide development of air transportation. With
the cooperative working agreements with other agencies and
transportation companies, facilities are provided at the ports of
entry, air bases, both commercial and military, and postal ter-
minals for examination, treatment or destruction, if required, of
fruits, vegetables, plants and plant products, and any other ma-
terials that are offered for entry requiring the inspectors' at-
tention.
Hundreds of insect pests and plant diseases were intercepted
in and on fruits, plants, plant products, and soil. Larvae of the






Twenty-First Biennial Report


Mediterranean fruit fly and other fruit fly larvae of the genus
Anastrepha were collected 39 times during the period in their
hosts: orange, grapefruit, tangerine, guava, peach, mango,
mamey, soursop, Spondias sp., and coffee berries. The host ma-
terials originated in 4 South American, 5 Central American, 4
West Indian, and 2 European countries. Other insects and dis-
eases, many of which are not known to be present in this coun-
try, such as various species of ants, aphids, beetles and weevils,
flies, mites, moths and butterflies, scale-insects, mealybugs,
thrips, whiteflies, and other insect pests, together with molds,
fungi, rots, scabs, and several nematode species, are routine daily
collections at the ports of entry.
The number of export shipments of plant materials and prod-
ucts continues to increase yearly and demand the services of
the inspectors to comply with the export requirements made by
all countries. To move plant materials into foreign countries,
they must be inspected or given some form of treatment and
shipments certified to that effect. Some countries require field


Fig. 12.-Fruits and vegetables imported by car ferry are inspected by
State and Federal quarantine inspectors at West Palm Beach. These items
are typical of products routinely sent here from other countries.







State Plant Board of Florida


inspection during the growing season and others at the time of
shipment. All of this is time-consuming for the inspectors con-
nected with the Plant Inspection and Quarantine Departments.
Export shipments were made to 65 foreign countries and 2
United States possessions during the period.
Plant material arrived from 104 foreign countries and 6
United States possessions during the year ending June 30, 1955;
and from 111 foreign countries and 6 United States possessions
during the year ending June 30, 1956.
The completion of plans and the building of a large terminal
in the Miami area will greatly expand the long needed airport
facilities for clearance of foreign traffic. When the move from
the present terminal to the new passenger operations base is
made it will require additional manpower to cover the increased
area made available at the new terminal with continued opera-
tion of the present one.
The following tabulations report, in part, the volume of work
performed by plant quarantine inspectors during the biennium:

TABLE 1.
Number of Parcels of Plants and Plant Products Handled (Arriving by Ship,
Airplane, Express, and Mail. Passengers' Baggage Not Included in Total.)

1954-1955 1955-1956

Passed ..................................................... 3,788,370* 4,825,162*
Cleaned and passed ...................................... 4,243,237** 3,910,733**
Returned to shipper ...................................... 3,748 44
Returned to stores ...... ............................ 10,509 10,723
Contraband destroyed .............................. | 17,646 17,819
Diverted to Inspection Houses ...................... 630t 496t

Total .............................................. 8,064,140 8,764,977
Includes containers of cucumbers, tomatoes, pineapples, okra, and a few other
vegetables permitted entry from foreign countries.
** Consists mostly of bunches of bananas.
t The majority of shipments diverted to the Inspection Houses are given some
type of treatment before release to the consignee.

TABLE 2.
Record of Inspections of Aircraft, Watercraft, Passengers, and Baggage
Total Number Aircraft and Total TotalNo.
Year Watercraft Arriving Number Pieces of
Planes Vessels IPassengers Baggage

1954-1955 .............. 27,597 6,008 502,821 1,194,679
1955-1956 .............. 29,114 6,412 599,838 1,448,069







Twenty-First Biennial Report


TABLE 3.

Number Shipments and Plant Units Destined to Florida Received or Di-
verted to Federal Inspection Houses (Brownsville and Laredo, Texas; Ho-
boken, New Jersey; Miami, Florida; San Francisco, California; and Wash-
ington, D. C.) Inspected and Released or Treated and Released
Number Number Number Number
Year of Shipments of Plant' Pounds
Shipments Treated Units of Seeds

1954-1955 .................. 716 634 51,755 4,686

1955-1956 ............... 886 783 94,917 5,628


TABLE 4.

Number Containers and Units of Plant Material Arriving from Puerto Rico
Yer Number of Number of
Year Containers Plant Units*

1954-1955 ................................................. 1,999 1,146,548

1955-1956 ................ .. ..... .................. | 3,318 1,274,981
Includes plants, cuttings, canes and eyes of Aglaonema, Dieffenbachia, Dra-
caena, Philodendron, and Pothos. Other plants: Anthurium, Aralia. banana, cactus.
coffee, croton, caladium. Ficus, hibiscus. Ixora, Maranta, orchid, palm, and a few
other varieties.

TABLE 5.

Number Containers Domestic Agricultural Products Certified for Export to
Foreign Countries and United States Possessions Through Florida Ports

SNumber of Containers* Certified
Number
Year Ship- Bulbs,
Yements Fruits and Cut Plants Seeds, Total No.
SVegetables Flowers etc.** Containers

1954-1955 5,334 1,453,096 5,318 2,738 19,433 1,480,585

1955-1956 5,703 1,951,887 3,868 3,365 20,403 1,979,523
Bag, sack, basket, hamper, box, crate, lug.
** Grass cuttings, cotton lint, dry beans.


Y

19


19


TABLE 6.

California Citrus Fruit Entering Florida Under Permit and Inspection
Requirements at Delivery Point
Kind of No. of No. of ITotal Carton
ear Fruit Shipments I Cartons I of Citrus

154-1955 .............. Lemons 398,362
and 488 417,573
Oranges 19,211
955-1956 ............... Lemons 393,245
and 529 421,190
Oranges 27,945


IS






State Plant Board of Florida


THE SWEET POTATO WEEVIL
The known distribution of the sweet potato weevil includes
all of Florida, large parts of Texas and Louisiana, all coastal
counties in Mississippi and Alabama, a number of counties in
southern Georgia, and a few counties in South Carolina. It was
first reported in South Florida seventy-nine years ago. Since
then it has spread to all parts of the State.
New weevil infestations are caused when seed, plants, and
potatoes for food purposes are brought in from infested areas.
The weevil has been present in the counties in peninsular Flor-
ida for many years. In more recent years it has been reported
in all North Florida Counties.
The weevil can be eradicated in many localities by applying
clean cultural methods. It can be controlled very economically
in the field and in storage by a combination of practices plus the
proper use of recommended insecticides.
All the Southern States maintain quarantines in an attempt
to prevent further introduction and spread of the weevil and to
assist in its control and eradication in areas where it is feasible.
A few other States maintain quarantines that either prohibit the
entry of sweet potatoes or permit their entry under certain
restrictions from regulated areas. In Florida the present Rule
7 A (1) designates all that portion of the State lying east and
south of Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson Counties as infested
area where the sweet potato weevil is widely and generally dis-
seminated and eradication appears not to be practical. Rule 7A
(2) designates all that portion of the State of Florida lying west
of the eastern boundaries of Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson
Counties as the Control Area. Eradication in many sections in
the Control Area has been accomplished. Control of the insect
is possible in the Control Area where sweet potatoes are pro-
duced and stored more for home use than for commercial pur-
poses.
A cooperative program participated in by State and Federal
Governments was conducted in the area during the biennium.
Inspection, regulatory, and educational work, demonstration of
cleanup methods, and application of insecticides for control were
carried on in 18 North Florida counties during the period. The
services of 8 inspectors (4 State and 4 Federal) were devoted-
part-time-to the program. Inspectors are stationed at Monti-
cello, Tallahassee, Quincy, Marianna, Florala, and Pensacola.










TABLE 7.

Summary of Sweet Potato Weevil Work During the Biennium


County


Hamilton ............. ... ..........
Madison .................
Jefferson .............................
L eon ............. .... ........
Gadsden .......... .. ...........
Jackson .............. ...............
W ashington ............... ......
W akulla .............................. .
Franklin .......... .......... .
Liberty ...................
Calhoun .... .... ....................
G u lf ........... .... ...................
Bay ....................................
Holmes ................
W alton ...................................
Okaloosa ..............................
Santa Rosa .........................
Escambia .. ...................... I.


Total ..................................


Seed Be



202
124
76
57
6



8


Period
July 1, 1954 June 30, 1955 July
Number of Inspections I
*d Field Storage Contacts Seed Bed

18 3 30
1 31 659 102
348 225 2,244 228
I 626 328 12,606 206
379 79 2,661 104
596 72 1,052 83
181 4 587

...... .... ...... 2
--...... 1

11

61
...... .... ...... 6 1
2
35 1 71 17
11
-2,184 7.... 99 89

2,184 743 9,910 895


Period
S1, 1955 June 30, 1956
Number of Inspections
Field I Storage Contacts

81 ...... 58
158 109 615
274 93 1,180
590 283 2,168
430 135 2,188
515 97 706
30 ...... 267
29 ...... 94
2 14
19 I 2 114
71 4 114
18 6 61
25 6 91
121 66 293
117 10 206
126 55 238
126 ...... 208
86 ...... 102


2,818 880 8,703






State Plant Board of Florida


JAPANESE BEETLE
Federal Domestic Quarantine No. 48 declares all plants in soil
and certain fruits and vegetables to be hosts of the Japanese
beetle. Provisions under the guarantine regulate the movement
of host fruits and vegetables during the summer months, when
the beetles are in flight, from all seaboard States from North
Carolina to Canada and sections in Vermont, New Hampshire,
West Virginia, and Ohio. Such restricted movement of host ma-
terials is to assist in preventing the spread of the beetle to other
States.
During the year ending June 30, 1955, traps were placed out
at airfields in and around Jacksonville, West Palm Beach,
Miami, Tampa, Orlando, and Pensacola and attended during
the months of July, August, and September. No beetles were
collected during the season.
On May 14, 1956, a beetle collected on the grounds of the Uni-
versity of Florida campus by a student in late April was deter-
mined as a Japanese beetle by Dr. L. A. Hetrick, Associate
Professor of Entomology, University of Florida.
During May a survey was conducted on the campus grounds
and 12 Japanese beetle traps placed in and around the area
where the beetle was collected. Ten additional traps were placed
near railroad depots and sidings, at the airport, and in a flower
bed of the City of Gainesville. All traps were attended by Uni-
versity of Florida personnel until July 23, when trapping oper-
ations in the Gainesville area were discontinued. Traps were
collected and stored. Trapping results from May 16 to July 23
were negative.
For a number of years Japanese beetle trapping operations
have been conducted in cooperation with Federal services on a
small scale at selected locations in Florida, usually near large
airports, during the summer months. However, no trapping,
other than that in the Gainesville area, was carried on during
the fiscal year 1955-1956.

WHITE-FRINGED BEETLE PROJECT
The white-fringed beetle program was carried on in coopera-
tion with the United States Department of Agriculture, Plant
Pest Control Branch, in Escambia, Holmes, Jackson, Okaloosa,
Santa Rosa, and Walton Counties.







Twenty-First Biennial Report 59

The same inspectors, stationed at Monticello, Tallahassee,
Quincy, Marianna, Florala, and Pensacola, as listed in the re-
port on the sweet potato weevil program spent part time on the
white-fringed beetle project in inspection, regulatory, and edu-
cational work and in supervision of recommended control
methods.
MISCELLANEOUS INSPECTION
State inspectors assigned to the North Florida areas spend
the majority of their time on the sweet potato weevil and white-
fringed beetle projects. They also make inspections of the nurs-
eries in the area three or four times yearly and handle other
details when called upon.









Apiary Inspection Department

H. S. FOSTER, Chief Apiary Inspector

As a protection to the bee industry of Florida, the State Legis-
lature of 1919 passed the Florida Bee Disease Law. The duty of
carrying out the provisions of this law was placed upon the State
Plant Board. The object of the law was to prevent the introduc-
tion, dissemination, and establishment of diseases of bees. In
order to accomplish this there was built up an inspection service
consisting of a chief apiary inspector and a number of local or
district inspectors. The chief apiary inspector is a trained bee
specialist, while the local or district inspectors are practical bee-
keepers who have been given special training in inspection and
disease control. The chief inspector engages in field work,
supervising the activities of the local men. He also attends
meetings of beekeepers for the purpose of stimulating their
interest in better beekeeping and advising them regarding meth-
ods of recognizing and handling diseases of bees.
Under Chapter 584, Section 584.02, Florida Statutes, as
amended by Chapter 23674, 1947, and Chapter 25237, 1949, a
permit is required for the movement of bees within the State
of Florida, as well as all bees that are moved into the State. The
Apiary Inspection Department has charge of this service, mak-
ing the necessary inspections and issuing the certificates of in-
spection and the required permits.
To meet the requirements of other States and countries, bees,
queen bees, and used beekeeping equipment offered for shipment
must bear a certificate of inspection.
Beekeepers are fortunate in that there are few serious dis-
eases of honey bees. The most important of these are: American
foulbrood (Bacillus larvae), European foulbrood (Bacillus al-
vei), parafoulbrood (Bacillus para-alvei), and sacbrood (a
virus). American foulbrood, a bacterial disease of the brood
caused by the specific organism Bacillus larvae, is the most seri-
ous of these disease and is responsible for the most damage. The
spores of the organism causing American foulbrood are so small
that it would take 25,000 of them, placed end to end, to measure
one inch in length. The spores of Bacillus larvae have been
known to lie dormant from thirty to forty years and then, when
placed in the right environment, cause the disease to develop.
These spores may also lie dormant in honey for a number of








Twenty-First Biennial Report


years but, if the honey containing them is fed to honey bee lar-
vae, the disease will develop. This fact makes it possible for a
colony of bees to store honey containing spores of Bacillus lar-
vae in their hives. The spores will lie dormant until the bees feed
the honey to the brood. This may happen at any time and it
may be years before they feed it to the larvae. For this reason,
a beekeeper who has had an infection of American foulbrood in
his apiary need not be surprised if he finds a diseased colony
now and then over a period of several years.
Systems of control have been developed for European foul-
brood (Bacillus alvei) and sacbrood which have proved very
successful. Well informed beekeepers are able to control these
bee diseases with very little difficulty. In recent years, para-
foulbrood (Bacillus para-alvei) has almost completely disap-
peared.
It is also the duty of the State Plant Board to enforce the
provisions of the Florida Bee Disease Law in regard to move-
ment of bees under permit from point to point within the State
and movement of bees and equipment from other States into
Florida, as set forth under Rules 41A-1, 41A-2, 41A-3, and 41A-
4. In past years much of the American foulbrood found in
Florida has been traced to migratory bees, that is, bees brought
in from other States. Although these bees are entered under
certification of the State of origin, in some instances disease
has been found within a few days after their arrival in Florida.
When this happens the bees are removed from the State, as
required by Rule 411.
TABLE 1.
Inspection Records

1954-1955 1955-1956

Number colonies inspected ................................. 157,388 176,616
Number apiaries inspected ..... ................... 5,885 6,168
Number counties in which
inspections were made .............. .............. 59 63
Number apiaries infected with
American foulbrood ...................................... 524 460
Percentage infected colonies
of total colonies inspected ............................. .9 .66
Number infected colonies burned .................... 1,324 1,138
Number infected colonies treated
with sulfathiazole .............. ......... ........ 97 42
Number apiaries in which new infections
of American foulbrood were found .............. 227 I 213








62 State Plant Board of Florida

During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1955, the apiary in-
spection force made 157,388 colony inspections in 5,885 apiaries
in 59 counties; 1,421 colonies in 524 apiaries were found in-
fected with American foulbrood, or .9 per cent of the colony
inspections; 97 of the diseased colonies were treated with sulfa-
thiazole and 1,324 colonies were burned.

TABLE 2.
Summary of Apiary Inspection Work Since the Department Was Created
in July 1919
Apiaries Colonies
Apiaries Colonies Infected Infected
Year Ending With With
Inspected Inspected American American
Foulbrood Foulbrood

June 30, 1920 .................. 394 16,121 30 104
June 30, 1921 .................. 753 18,078 16 33
June 30, 1922 .................. 837 22,522 14 34
June 30, 1923 .................. 1,016 23,848 18 30
June 30, 1924 .................. 803 22,806 8 13
June 30, 1925 ................. 675 21,378 7 58
June 30, 1926 .................. 676 16,756 5 22
June 30, 1927 ................ 796 23,791 6 34
June 30, 1928 .............. 1,248 20,115 18 74
June 30, 1929 ................. 1,297 32,442 21 85
June 30, 1930 ................ 2,273 44,645 53 182
June 30, 1931 ................. 2,374 45,238 37 114
June 30, 1932 ............... 2,744 44,211 42 74
June 30, 1933 .................. 2,219 42,307 38 76
June 30, 1934 ................. 2,305 43,877 71 132
June 30, 1935 ................. 2,445 49,379 78 167
June 30, 1936 ................. 3,344 73,415 69 131
June 30, 1937 ............... 3,544 72,795 32 98
June 30, 1938 ................. 3,451 64,668 38 173
June 30, 1939 ................ 3,371 70,655 56 416
June 30, 1940 .................. 3,414 76,851 61 234
June 30, 1941 .............. 3,711 81,950 80 371
June 30, 1942 ................. 3,671 83,354 106 698
June 30, 1943 ................. 3,347 80,823 100 524
June 30, 1944 .................. 2,646 73,649 106 456
June 30, 1945 ................. 2,371 69,262 105 379
June 30, 1946 .................. 2,265 71,161 138 959
June 30, 1947 ................. 2,464 87,674 104 683
June 30, 1948 ................. 3,266 98,147 100 391
June 30, 1949 ................. 3,710 105,678 130 406
June 30, 1950 .............. 3,082 105,296 175 369
June 30, 1951 ................. 2,872 95,405 237 772
June 30, 1952 ................ 2,836 88,206 232 578
June 30, 1953 ................. 3,259 92,267 449 1,366
June 30, 1954 .................. 5,102 135,168 683 2,158
June 30, 1955 ................. 5,885 157,388 524 1,421
June 30, 1956 ................. 6,168 176,616 460 1,180


During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, the Apiary In-
spection Department made 176,616 colony inspections in 6,168







Twenty-First Biennial Report 63

apiaries in 63 counties; 1,180 colonies in 480 apiaries were found
infected with American foulbrood, or .66 per cent of the colony
inspections, which is a decrease of .2 per cent; 42 of the diseased
colonies were treated with sulfathiazole and 1,138 colonies were
burned. Some colonies were burned since they failed to clean up
after being treated with sulfathiazole.
On August 10, 1946, the State Plant Board authorized the use
of sulfathiazole for the treatment of American foulbrood. After
a period of ten years this was found to be very unsatisfactory
and a majority of the beekeepers in the State requested that this
rule be rescinded, which was done on May 17, 1956.










Entomology Department


H. A. DENMARK, Acting Chief Entomologist

The activities of the Entomology Department have continued
to increase during the past two years. This is a supporting de-
partment and is affected by the number of plant and quarantine
inspectors. Insect identification is the primary duty of this
department. The insect pest survey, inspection of approxi-
mately all foreign baggage at the ports of entry, and the em-
ployment of additional plant inspectors have greatly increased
the number of determinations for the entomological staff. The
department made 8,947 identifications from July 1, 1954 to
June 30, 1955; and 11,426 identifications from July 1, 1955 to
June 30, 1956.
In order that insect identifications can be made more effi-
ciently and quickly, the responsibility for the various groups of
insects has been assigned as follows: Mr. Harold A. Denmark-
aphids, ants, adult Lepidoptera, fleas, mites, thrips, and ticks;
Mr. George W. Dekle-immature Lepidoptera; Mr. Frank Mead
-Hemiptera, leafhoppers, planthoppers, Cicadas, treehoppers;
spittlebugs, and mosquitoes; Dr. Howard V. Weems, Jr.-mealy-
bugs, scales, whiteflies, Coleoptera, Diptera, Orthoptera, and
smaller miscellaneous groups; Dr. Roger A. Morse-Hymen-
optera.
About 90 per cent of the insect identifications in the State
are made by the Plant Board. Some insects and mites are re-
ferred to other specialists in or out of the State. The American
Museum of Natural History and the U. S. National Museum are
especially helpful in insect identification.
The department is continuing to build its collection toward
inclusion of all the Florida insects, as well as some foreign
insects that are or might be intercepted coming into Florida.
There are 106,293 pinned insects, 4,971 slide-mounted insects
and mites, and 2,034 insects in alcohol in the Plant Board col-
lection at this time. This is one of the better collections south of
the U. S. National Museum in Washington, D. C. This well
curated collection is the principal tool used by the entomological
staff in making identifications. A quick determination of a de-
structive insect pest could reduce materially the time needed to
control or eradicate a pest.






Twenty-First Biennial Report


The entomological library, second in importance only to the
insect collection as a working tool, is one of the larger ento-
mological libraries in the South. Largely through the efforts of
Mr. George B. Merrill, the library grew to its present size. Mr.
Merrill retired in January 1956 after forty years of service as
Entomologist. He has been active in several of the Florida and
national entomological societies and has made noteworthy con-
tributions to the field of entomology, especially in the scale in-
sects of Florida.
Some binding was done; however, only a few separate books
were added to the library during the past biennium with the
exception of the additions to the apicultural library. Although
the library is not indexed, there are plans for this project in the
future.
Because of their efforts in building up the libraries of the
State Plant Board, the entomological library has been designated
by the State Plant Board as The George B. Merrill Entomologi-
cal Library; and the beekeeping library has been named The
Robert E. Foster Beekeeping Library.

EQUIPMENT
Two additional cabinets to house 36 Cornell drawers each
have been purchased for the department. This gives a total of
four 36-drawer cabinets in addition to over 300 Schmitt boxes
for housing the insect collections. The insects are being placed
in unit pinning trays in the Cornell drawers in an alphabetical
arrangement. Genera are listed alphabetically on the front of
each drawer. One slide cabinet with a capacity of 3,000 slides
was purchased for housing slide specimens. Trays for 20 slides
each can be removed from the cabinet for convenience in work-
ing at a desk.
Two hundred specimen racks for storing alcohol material and
two metal cabinets for housing the racks also were purchased.
Four-dram vials with neoprene stoppers are used for preserv-
ing alcohol material. A 48-drawer cabinet was purchased for
storing collector, determiner, host, and locality labels. These
labels are prepared by offset printing, cut into individual strips,
placed in 3" x 6" manila envelopes, and filed alphabetically.
This system of printing and filing was initiated by Dr. Weems.
It affords convenience in quickly selecting a neatly printed label







State Plant Board of Florida


and facilitates the labeling of a large number of insects. These
labels also add to the aesthetic beauty of the well curated collec-
tion.


Fig. 13.-A Cornell type drawer with the unit pinning tray system was
adopted for the insect reference collection.

An IBM filing cabinet and cards were purchased for the fil-
ing system that has been adopted by the department. This new
filing system has the orders, families, genera, and species ar-
ranged alphabetically, saves space by elimination of two files,
and permits an individual report to be selected easily in the
office or long summaries to be tabulated quickly by the Statisti-
cal Laboratory on the campus of the University of Florida.


SPECIAL PROJECTS
HAROLD A. DENMARK, Acting Chief Entomologist

Mr. Denmark is in charge of the Insect Pest Survey for the
State of Florida. This survey is conducted jointly with the
United States Department of Agriculture in an effort to estab-
lish distribution, migration, host data, and the amount of dam-
age caused by economic pests. Mr. Kelvin Dorward, Head, Insect
Pest Survey for the Federal Government, is assisted by regional







Twenty-First Biennial Report


survey men. Mr. Jim Cowger is in charge of the southeastern
region which includes Florida. All reports in Florida are sent
to Mr. Denmark. These reports are summarized once a week
and sent to Mr. Kelvin Dorward in Washington, D. C. Copies
are also sent to all contributors.














INSECT LIGHT TRAP
LOCATIONS 0
S CE TRAIL -
1954- 56




SOUTH











Fig.14.-During the past two years Plant Board entomologists have co-
operated with the United States Department of Agriculture in an insect
survey. Light traps, positioned as indicated, are operated by State Plant
Board and Agricultural Experiment Station personnel.

The survey reports are filed on IBM cards and summaries of
insect conditions are available from 1954 to the present date.
Annual summaries are requested by the Federal Government in
addition to the weekly summaries.







State Plant Board of Florida


Electric insect traps are also being operated in connection
with the insect survey. All Southeastern States are operating
light traps in an effort to determine any migration of economic
pests. Some entomologists believe that the Southern States act
as a reservoir for insects during the winter months. Traps are
located at Homestead, Belle Glade, Bradenton, Plant City, San-
ford, Gainesville, Monticello, and Quincy. State entomologists
at the above locations are operating the traps and sending the
catches to the Plant Board for determination.
A comparison of different kinds of elements in electric insect
traps as attractants to insects is being conducted at Gainesville.
The electric insect traps with the blacklight element usually
catch more insects than traps with other elements. A compari-
son of omni- and uni-directional electric insect traps was con-
ducted at Homestead under the supervision of Dr. D. 0. Wolfen-
barger, Entomologist, South Florida Experiment Station. The
omni-directional electric insect trap caught larger numbers and
more species of insects.
In January 1956, Mr. Denmark attended a short course in
radioisotopes at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This course is designed
to train men in the various scientific fields, a safe procedure in
handling radioisotopes.
The purpose in having Mr. Denmark attend this course was
that he might learn laboratory techniques in marking insects for
release in migration studies. Migration is considered important
in some species of insects, especially as a means of distribution
of an economic pest. In order to trace patterns and distances
of flight, insects must be marked and released. Radioisotopes are
proving to be a most effective means of marking insects.
An IBM filing system has been developed jointly with the Uni-
versity of Florida Statistical Laboratory for systematic compila-
tion of biological data by an open-ended coding system. The
open-ended code does not call for the regimentation of a phy-
logenetic or alphabetic arrangement, but names are added at
random.
The Plant Board is in a position to summarize data by distri-
bution and host records. The system permits statistical analyses
of large masses of data and a rapid exchange of information be-
tween organizations. The system lends itself to adoption on an
international scale.







Twenty-First Biennial Report


SPECIAL PROJECTS
FRANK W. MEAD, Entomologist
The summer months of 1954 were spent on a white-fringed
beetle survey in West and North Florida under the supervision
of Mr. W. O. Owen, United States Department of Agriculture.
West Florida was surveyed in the summer months under the
supervision of Mr. Turner Boyd, United States Department of
Agriculture. Newly infested areas were found in both surveys.
Several hundred insects were collected during the survey trips
and added to the department's collection. The first record of
the chinch bug Blissus leucopterus from Florida was collected
in West Florida.


Fig. 15.-Mr. Frank Mead, Entomologist, prepares a genitalia drawing of
a leafhopper. Leafhoppers are vectors of many virus diseases.

Mr. Mead has cooperated with the University of Florida Ex-
periment Station at Leesburg by aiding Dr. J. M. Crall and Mr.
L. H. Stover in their work on the leafhopper vectors of Pierce's
disease. Several hundred leafhoppers were determined from the
insects collected on grapevines and on the Bermuda grass adja-
cent to the vines. Previous workers have shown that Bermuda







State Plant Board of Florida


grass serves as an alternate host for both the insect vectors and
the pathogenic virus.
Another project is being carried out in cooperation with the
Agricultural Experiment Station at the Biven's Arm Turf Plots
in Gainesville. Dr. Gene C. Nutter of the Experiment Station is
in charge of the plots. Sampling of the insect populations has
been encouraged on the six species of turf grasses plus several
varieties. Some of the results expected are to show which
grasses are most free from insects; to find if some insects are
confined primarily to one species of grass; to observe seasonal
variations in the insect species present and their fluctuations in
numbers; to compare the five Bermuda grass varieties of the
putting green, etc. Special emphasis is being placed on leaf-
hoppers.
A photographic darkroom has been built and equipped during
the past two years. With the exception of a few pieces of equip-
ment, the darkroom is equipped to handle most routine and
scientific work. Over 50 per cent of Mr. Mead's time has been
spent during the past two years in making and developing pic-
tures for the various departments. The spreading decline and
Mediterranean fruit fly campaigns greatly increased the photo-
graphic demands. The present darkroom is no longer adequate.
Many pictures have been requested for use by magazines,
newspapers, and governmental agencies.

SPECIAL PROJECTS
HOWARD V. WEEMS, JR., Entomologist
Dr. Weems is curator of the insect collection, and is assisted
by the other members of the department in handling their partic-
ular groups. Through the untiring efforts of Dr. Weems, the
collection is rapidly becoming a most valuable tool to the ento-
mological staff of the Plant Board as well as other entomologists
in the State of Florida. Many visiting entomologists from out
of the State also are taking advantage of the Plant Board col-
lection.
Noteworthy contributions of insect collections were received
during the biennium from Dr. Fred C. Harmston, Logan, Utah;
Dr. James Layne, Department of Biology, University of Florida,
Gainesville; Norman E. Flitters, United States Department of
Agriculture Laboratory, Brownsville, Texas; C. A. Frost, Fram-
ingham, Massachusetts; Dr. H. F. Strochecker, University of







Twenty-First Biennial Report


Miami, Miami, Florida; Dr. L. A. Hetrick, Department of Ento-
mology, University of Florida; Dr. A. N. Tissot, Agricultural
Experiment Station at the University of Florida; W. G. Ge-
nung, Everglades Experiment Station, Belle Glade, Florida; Mrs.
Connie Patton, Garden City, Michigan; Charles H. Wharton, De-
partment of Biology, University of Florida; Frank L. Wilson,
Pompano Trailer Park, Pompano Beach, Florida; Homer Price,
Payne, Ohio; C. P. Kimball, West Barnstable, Massachusetts
and Sarasota, Florida; W. W. Warner, Key West, Florida; S. V.
Fuller, Cassadaga, Florida; J. W. McReynolds, St. Benedict's
College, Atchison, Kansas; Dr. Henry Howden, Department of
Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee; Dr. R.
A. Morse of the State Plant Board; and several specialists of the
U. S. National Museum. Dr. Weems is currently working on the
following projects:
(1) Editing "Check List of Florida Lepidoptera," which is
being compiled by Mr. C. P. Kimball for publication by
the State Plant Board in 1957.
(2) Preparing a revision of G. B. Merrill's State Plant Board
bulletin on the scale insects of Florida, for publication by
the State Plant Board in 1957.
(3) Preparing a booklet on techniques and procedures in col-
lecting, rearing, preserving, and curating insects.
He was elected to membership in the Sociedade Brasileira de
Entomologia on January 24, 1956.

SPECIAL PROJECTS

GEORGE W. DEKLE, Entomologist

Mr. Dekle is constantly being called upon by the nurserymen
and growers for special help with their insect problems. He
makes many special surveys and assists the growers over the
State in addition to working with his special group of insects.
The following are some surveys that were conducted and some
insects that were reported for the first time from Florida.

Asiatic Red Scale

Asiatic red scale, Aonidiella taxus, an armored scale not pre-
viously reported in Florida, was collected on Podocarpus macro-
phylla in the Miami area by Mr. C. E. Shepard, Plant Inspector,
on May 3, 1955; at West Palm Beach by Mr. G. W. Dekle, Ento-
mologist, on May 5, 1955. Identification was made by Dr.







State Plant Board of Florida


Harold Morrison, United States Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service, Entomology Research Branch,
Insect Identification and Parasite Introduction Section, Wash-
ington 25, D. C.
Professor G. F. Ferris, Coccidae specialist, Stanford Univer-
sity, Stanford, California, gives a complete account of A. taxus
in his publication, "Atlas of the Scale Insects of North America,"
Series IV, 1942. Professor Ferris reported the original descrip-
tion from Italy on Taxus baccata; and also reports the scale from
Italy on Podocarpus neriifolia; from Japan on P. macrophylla,
P. nagi, and P. chinensis; from Argentina on P. andina; from
New Orleans, Louisiana, and Alhambra, California, United
States of America, on P. macrophylla.
Asiatic red scale apparently was introduced into Florida from
the vicinity of Lake Pontchartrain and New Orleans, Louisiana,
on infested seed collected by a Florida nurseryman and brought
by him to Florida for propagation. The scale occurs primarily
on the leaves of infested plants, which often are distorted and
chlorotic; however, the seeds and fleshy purplish receptacle
were observed infested in Florida. The female scale cover is
circular, translucent, and red-brown when observed on the host.
Eradicative measures and survey were initiated immediately
in the West Palm Beach-Miami area. Through cooperative ef-
forts with owners of the infested nurseries and plant inspectors,
14 nurseries and 15 private properties were found infested
within a month.
Eradication plans were discontinued on September 16, 1955
after a preliminary survey revealed 29 infested properties in
Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties. Funds for a com-
plete survey of all Podocarpus in the State would be costly, and
the scale insect can be controlled with insecticides commonly
used in regular nursery practices. Asiatic red scale is not likely
to become a problem where other insects are kept under control.
In the future, the State Plant Board will place under quaran-
tine all Podocarpus spp. and Taxus spp. stock in Florida nurs-
eries found by plant inspectors to be infested with Asiatic red
scale, A. taxus, until the infestation has been cleaned up.
During the survey a wasp parasite, Pseudhomalopoda prima,
was observed parasitizing A. taxus in West Palm Beach. This
wasp is known to parasitize Florida red scale, Chrysomphalus
aonidum.







Twenty-First Biennial Report


Red Wax Scale

Red wax scale, Ceroplastes rubens, one of the soft scales, was
collected on Aglaonema pictum tricolor and A. oblongifolium
curtisii in a nursery near Orlando, Florida by Mr. A. C. Crews,
Plant Inspector, during November 1955. Mr. Louis Daigle, Plant
Inspector, collected red wax scale on Aralia elegantissima and
on Philodendron giganteum at a Miami nursery on December 5,
1955. In February 1956, Mr. Daigle found the scale infesting
two additional plants, Aglaonema commutatum and Monstera
deliciosa.
Dr. H. V. Weems, Jr., Entomologist, recognized the insect as
a soft scale belonging to the genus Ceroplastes, but the species
seemed to be new. Mr. G. B. Merrill, former Chief Entomolo-
gist and Coccidae specialist, was consulted about this scale. Mr.
Merrill examined the scale and confirmed Dr. Weems' identifi-
cation; he also considered the scale new to Florida. Slide mounts
were prepared for the State Plant Board collection and the re-
mainder of the material was sent to Dr. Harold Morrison, United
States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Serv-
ice, Entomology Research Branch, Insect Identification and Par-
asite Introduction Section, Washington 25, D. C. Dr. Morrison
determined the scale as red wax scale, Ceroplastes rubens, and
stated, "Although reports indicate that this coccid occurs com-
monly in Hawaii and Japan and that it is present in several other
areas, we appear to have no previous record of its occurrence in
the continental United States." The scale has also been reported
in Australia, India, and Ceylon.
The adult female is hemispherical, approximately 3.5 mm. to
4.5 mm. in diameter; the waxy covering varies from a deep rose
red to grayish pink.
On January 14, 1956, the Aglaonema plants at the nursery
near Orlando were dipped in a solution containing 1/2 cup of
Volck plus 2 tablespoons 25 per cent wettable malathion in 3
gallons of water. The plants were examined on January 20.
Some yellowing of the foliage on Aglaonema pictum was ob-
served but was not considered serious by the grower. The plants
were examined again on February 24, and live scale was found
on several of the treated ones. The plants were again dipped in
the above solution and when examined on June 27 one was found






74 State Plant Board of Florida

infested. This plant was removed and destroyed by burning. At
a later inspection, live scales were found.
The insecticide used for control of this scale has been unsatis-
factory.
Grasshopper Survey
A survey of Alachua County during April 1955, and again
during April 1956, did not reveal a high population of over-
wintering adult American grasshopper, Schistocerca americana.
Some adults were observed and gravid females were collected.


R ak


*A'
V. '" ^C"'su


~~JAr



,, *

' ^AI -
Awl


*


.4.


a..~~F

.- a'
a


Fig. 16.-An occasional pest of young citrus near wooded areas is the east-
ern lubber grasshopper. Typical damage is shown above.


Al


r


-0


r

i~,$


r;
,~IIIYL







Twenty-First Biennial Report


The population during 1955 and spring of 1956 was low, with
no "hot spots" reported.
The southern red-legged grasshopper, Melanoplus femur-
rubrum propinquus, was observed damaging tobacco, partic-
ularly the marginal rows. Growers can expect some injury to
tobacco annually by this "hopper"; it can be reduced, however,
by applying a residual insecticide to surrounding vegetation
bordering tobacco fields.
In May 1955, an outbreak of eastern lubber grasshopper,
Romalea microptera, was reported in the Okahumpka area. The
"hoppers" had migrated into citrus groves from pasture and
woodland areas. In one grove, hundreds of adults were observed
in trees 15 feet high with canopy 20 feet or more. Feeding on
the older trees apparently was not a serious problem. Young
trees in a twenty-acre planting were almost completely de-
foliated. Small trees can be damaged by the defoliation and
girdling of the branches and trunk. Insecticides applied were
effective against the "hoppers". However, the number of "hop-
pers" moving in from the pasture land that could not be treated
was so great that it was necessary to place gallon cans, with tops
and bottoms removed, around the trunks of small trees. These
barriers protected the young trees from attack. This grass-
hopper has previously been reported damaging citrus in the
area.
Lychee Insect Survey
A survey of insects on lychee, Litchi chinensis, was initiated
by the State Plant Board during 1953. The first check list was
reported at the Lychee Growers Association annual meeting
during November 1954; later published in the yearbook, "Pro-
ceedings of the Florida Lychee Growers Association," Vol. I,
1955. The list recorded 56 insects; however, only 8 were con-
sidered economic. During 1955, the erinose mite, Aceria litchii,
was collected for the first time in Florida at Nokomis, Sarasota
County. The erinose mite is known to be a problem in Hawaii,
and eradicative measures are under way in Florida. Only one
grove was known to be infested with erinose mite.
Mr. Dekle also worked on the following projects:
(1) Fair exhibits at Winter Haven, Orlando, Williston, and Largo.
(2) Prepared, with the assistance of Mr. Gerald L. Jones, mounts
of Mediterranean fruit fly for distribution to personnel work-
ing with the project. At this writing, 5,227 mounts have been
made and distributed.







State Plant Board of Florida


SPECIAL PROJECTS
ROGER A. MORSE, Apiculturist
Special efforts have been made to fill in missing numbers in
the library through exchanges, purchases, and donations in the
apicultural library, and to a lesser extent in the entomological
library. Most of the expenditures for the library have been for
binding. The Klein Library from Nebraska was purchased for
$50, which represents only a small portion of its real value.
Some Czechoslovakian bee journals and books included in this
purchase will be exchanged for material in the English language
from the Cornell University Library.
Library of Congress cards for the apicultural library have
been purchased and call numbers will be printed on the books
and journals as time permits.
During the summer of 1955, Dr. Morse and Dr. John Sanjean
of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Co-
lumbia, Canada, conducted a cooperative project on the larvae
of the Sarcophagidae. Dr. Morse is rearing the larvae in Gaines-
ville, and Dr. Sanjean is describing the larvae of these flies in
Vancouver. The female flies are caught and forced to larvae-
posit on beef liver which is kept in a one-half pint container in
a rearing cage. When the larvae have pupated, the pupae are
placed on cotton wadding in a small pill box and packed in a
large mailing container. Some moist paper is put in the mail-
ing container so that the humidity will remain high. Since the
pupae are shipped by air mail, they are usually only a day or
two in transit.
Dr. Morse is currently working on the following projects:
(1) A bulletin on beekeeping in Florida.
(2) A project on honey handling equipment with F. A. Robinson
of the Agricultural Experiment Station.
(3) Collection of the wild bees, superfamily Apoidea, of Florida.
Meetings
All members of the department attended the annual meeting
of The Florida Entomological Society, held at Bradenton, Florida
on September 2-3, 1954. The 67th annual meeting of The Florida
Horticultural Society, held at Miami Beach, Florida on October
21-22, 1954, was attended by Mr. G. W. Dekle, Mr. H. A. Den-
mark, and Dr. H. V. Weems, Jr. Dekle presented a paper on
"Some Lychee Insects of Florida." Dekle, Denmark, and Weems
attended the annual meeting of The Entomological Society of







Twenty-First Biennial Report


America, held at Houston, Texas on December 5-8, 1954. Dekle
presented a paper on "Stellate Scale, Vinsonia stellifera
(Westw.), A Recent Introduction Into Florida." Rice Institute,
Texas Agricultural and Mechanical College, Louisiana State
University, and Tulane University were visited on this trip.
All members of the department attended the annual meeting
of The Cotton States Branch of The Entomological Society of
America, held in Tampa, Florida on January 17-19, 1955. Weems
presented a paper on "The Insect Identification Service of The
State Plant Board of Florida." Denmark presented a paper on
"The Insect Survey in Florida." All members of the department
attended the 38th annual meeting of The Florida Entomological
Society in Jacksonville, Florida on September 1-2, 1955. Weems
presented a paper on "Special Notes on Use of the Offset Print-
ing Process in Preparation of Data Labels for Insects." Den-
mark presented a paper on "Light Traps and Their Uses in
Surveys." The annual meeting of The Lepidopterists' Society,
held at Archbold Biological Station, Florida on December 28-
30, 1955, was attended by Dekle, Denmark, and Weems. Weems
and Denmark became members of this society during January
1956. Dekle attended the meeting of The Lychee Growers As-
sociation, in Winter Haven, Florida on November 15, 1954, and
gave a paper on "Insects Associated with Lychees in Florida."
He gave a paper on "Insects on Lychee During the Past Year" at
the meeting of The Lychee Growers Association, at Winter
Haven, Florida on November 14, 1955. Mead attended the meet-
ing of The American Institute of Biological Sciences in Gaines-
ville, Florida, August 1954 and presented a paper on "Some
Mosquito Habitats." Denmark attended the meeting of The
American Institute of Biological Sciences in East Lansing,
Michigan, October 1955, and presented a paper on "Open-ended
Coding for Biological Data." Morse attended the American
Beekeeping Federation meeting in Biloxi, Mississippi, January
1956; The Eastern Apicultural Society in College Park, Mary-
land, June 1956; The Florida State Beekeepers Association in
Fort Myers, Florida, October 1955; and eight meetings of The
Central Florida Beekeepers, two meetings of the South Florida
Beekeepers Association, and one meeting of the Tupelo District
Beekeepers Association during 1955-1956.









Ornamental Pathology Department

JAMES TAMMEN, Chief Ornamental Pathologist

In July 1954, the Ornamental Pathology Department was
established to keep pace with the rapidly expanding ornamental
plant industry of the State of Florida and with the correspond-
ing increase in ornamental plant disease problems. The primary
purpose in founding the laboratory was to service the Plant
Quarantine and Plant Inspection Departments of the State Plant
Board. To this end it has functioned in three fields:
1. Diagnosis of diseased ornamental plant specimens.
2. Training of plant quarantine and plant inspectors in rec-
ognizing diseases of ornamental plants.
3. Research projects to provide these departments with in-
formation essential to quarantine problems.
In addition, the Ornamental Pathology Department has under-
taken projects to supplement the programs of other research
agencies in Florida. It has worked cooperatively with such
agencies (particularly the University of Florida Department of
Ornamental Horticulture) in research projects and in the dis-
semination of information pertinent to diseases of ornamental
plants.

DIAGNOSES OF ORNAMENTAL PLANT DISEASES
An efficient, comprehensive diagnostic service has been
established to aid plant and quarantine inspectors to determine
the various diseases encountered in their rounds; to provide the
ornamental plant industry of Florida with quick, accurate diag-
noses of disease problems and with suggestions for disease con-
trol; and to serve as an index to plant diseases occurring in
the State (new diseases recently introduced and known diseases
becoming epiphyotic). All information obtained from the diag-
nostic service is forwarded to the departments) of the State
Plant Board concerned so that, if necessary, quarantines may
be applied.
The service has expanded rapidly since its inception, when
the average number of specimens submitted each month was 67,
to April 1954, when the monthly average reached 148. It has
thus become the most important function of the department.






Twenty-First Biennial Report


Assistance in these diagnoses was given by Drs. E. W. McElwee
and Thomas J. Sheehan of the Department of Ornamental Horti-
culture, University of Florida, and particularly by Mr. Erdman
West of the Plant Pathology Department, Agricultural Experi-
ment Station.


NUMBER OF SPECIMENS
o, o0
0 0


SUBMITTED

o


Fig. 17.-The diagnostic service of the Pathology Department has grown
considerably during the past few years as indicated in the above graph.

A breakdown of the types of ornamental specimens submitted
and of the general types of diagnoses made is given in Table 1.
A list of ornamental plant diseases new to Florida, discovered
through the efforts of the diagnostic service, will soon be pub-
lished.
A standard form is used for each specimen submitted, which
facilitates the keeping of records and the notification of inter-
ested individuals. Information pertinent to the disease in ques-





Ace. No. lHot:

0-0000 G


gardenia .Jasminoides


Causa Art.

Phnomnsis Pardenian


con. Joe Smith Ir a Apopka, Fla.
Dat.;12-1-55 I Prep. Bill Smit.h Mun-?.. Tnr..


n Plant Affected 0
EFFECT ON PLANT


SPECIMEN
FILED HANDLING
Herb. Mic. Ex. .
Slide Cult.
Pho-b NaOCI /
Pho-k Water /
Jar W.A.S. 1
Cult. P.D.A.
Let. / Sr.
Blend.
Beer.


Symptoms:

Plant wilted. Cankers in swollen area at


base of stem. Internal tissues at base of


stem yellow-orange in color.

Remarks:


Positive gardenia canker.


Cope to: Owner

I r ., Tammen Da., 12-10-55
OBN REPORT-BTATZ PLANT BOARD OF FLORIDA-PLANT PATHOLOGY
ort on each diagnosis, such as is shown here, is completed and sent to the departments and
individuals concerned.


128457 SPECIM
Fig. 18.-A specimen rep(


-~I-"~-I--~ -----`~~~ ~~-







Twenty-First Biennial Report


tion and to laboratory disposition is included on this form. Upon
completion of the diagnosis, copies are filed under host, causal
agent, and accession number; thus, a continuous record is kept
of the occurrence of diseases of ornamental plants in Florida.
This record is at present a valuable one and will become an in-
valuable aid to research and regulatory workers in the future.

TABLE 1.
Breakdown of Ornamental Disease Specimen Diagnoses July 1, 1954 -
June 30, 1956

Type I Fungus I Bacterial | Virus I Physiologic Other | Unknown Total
Woody ...... 434 8 8 64 95 217 826
Foliage .... 154 16 16 60 32 207 485
Cut Flower 167 27 29 7 1 18 106 354
Bulb .......... 61 1 23 0 6 19 110
Palm ........ 39 1 0 7 8 32 87
Other -....... 234 4 8 4 36 90 376
Total ...... 1089 57 84 142 195 671 2238


I)


Fig. 19.-An important phase of the work in plant pathology is the train-
ing of Plant Board inspectors to recognize the various disease symptoms.






State Plant Board of Florida


INSPECTOR TRAINING PROGRAM
The plant quarantine and plant inspector is the in-the-field
representative of the State Plant Board. He is the key man in
the organization without whom the aims of the various depart-
ments could not be attained. Improvements of the level of knowl-
edge of the inspector acts to improve his worth to the various
departments he serves, to the grower, and to the people of
Florida. Accordingly, one quarter of the total effort of the Or-
namental Pathology Department has been devoted to inspector
training to improve his ability not only to recognize and identify
diseases of ornamental plants but also to understand the various
factors essential to the occurrence of plant disease.
The inspector training program has been undertaken in two
ways:
1. In-the-field Training. Here individual inspector-pathologist
contact is made for the purpose of investigating and studying
specific problems in the inspector's district. Inspector-
pathologist-grower contacts are also made for the purpose of
giving the grower a better understanding of the nature of the
disease confronting him and of measures essential to control.
2. Inspectors' School. Once yearly inspectors are brought together
for a short-course study of the diseases of ornamentals. General
principles and concepts of plant disease have been discussed
and information concerning specific disease problems has been
disseminated. Exchange of information resulting from round-
table discussion has been of great value to both the inspectors
and staff.

INVESTIGATIVE PROJECTS
Several projects have been undertaken in the past two years
upon specific request either of the Plant Inspection Department,
the Department of Ornamental Horticulture of the University
of Florida, or the nurseryman. Few of these projects have been
brought to satisfactory completion. However, progress to date
on each is reported herein.

Root-Rot and Wilt of Chrysanthemum morifolium
The most serious disease of the pompon chrysanthemum
(Chrysanthemum morifolium) wherever grown in Florida is
that termed "root-rot and wilt." Though the nature of this
disease is not yet fully understood, it involves, as the name
might imply, a complex of organisms including Pythium spp.,
Rhizoctonia solani, Fusarium oxysporum, and root-knot nema-
tode (Meloidogyne spp.).
The symptom picture and the results of extensive isolations






Twenty-First Biennial Report


indicate that one or all of these organisms may be involved in
any particular case. Plants showing primarily root- and basal
stem-rot symptoms (i. e., red-brown root lesions, black root-rot,
and a moist, black, basal stem-rot) yielded Pythium spp. (P.
debaryanum, P. aphanidermatum). The author wishes to ex-
press appreciation to Dr. J. T. Middleton, University of Cali-
fornia, Riverside, for his identification of P. aphanidermatum.
Plants showing primarily a shredded rot of the basal stem
yielded Rhizoctonia solani. Plants showing vascular discolora-
tion and typical vascular wilt symptoms, in the absence of root-
or basal stem-rot symptoms, yielded primarily Fusarium oxy-
sporum. Thus, each organism apparently may produce a dis-
ease of chrysanthemum on its own. In the majority of the
cases, however, all symptom types were found on a single plant.
Isolations from these yielded all three organisms or combina-
tions of two of them. Where two organisms were involved, R.
solani and F. oxysporum or Pythium spp. and F. oxysporum
were the combinations primarily isolated. In individual cases
galls of root-knot nematode were found on the roots of plants
showing the above symptoms.


a ;1


Fig. 20.-Microscopic examination of plant diseases often alleviates the
necessity of making a culture for determination.






State Plant Board of Florida


Inoculations with the individual organisms have been carried
out, but inoculations with the various combinations of these
organisms have not been made. Inoculations with sand-corn
meal cultures of Rhizoctonia solani produced typical lesions on
the basal stem. Inoculations with sand-corn meal cultures of
Pythium debaryanum produced only slight root injury and no
above ground stem symptoms. The variety White Top was used
for inoculations with both the above fungi. The rooted cuttings
were inoculated at the time of planting and at intervals up to
three weeks after planting.
Extensive inoculations were carried out with various cultures
of Fusarium oxysporum originally isolated from chrysanthe-
mum. Actual inoculation was made by clipping roots of cuttings
immersed in sterile water spore suspensions of the fungus. All
inoculated plants were allowed to reach maturity before re-
isolations were made. Typical wilt symptoms were never ob-
served. In some cases vascular discoloration has been observed
extending several inches above the soil line and the fungus has
been re-isolated from stems showing these symptoms. Thus,
though there is some indication that infection occurred, these
inoculations have not produced conclusive evidence that this
organism is capable of producing a vascular wilt disease of
chrysanthemum.
Even though this disease was not fully understood, it was
evident that the organisms involved were soil-borne. Accord-
ingly three field tests, using several soil fumigants, were planned
in an attempt to discover a control. Two of these tests have been
completed and the third is now in progress. The soil fumigation
tests were a cooperative effort between Dr. C. E. Williamson,
Associate Pathologist, Cornell University; Dr. C. I. Hannon,
Plant Nematologist, Jesse C. Denmark, Plant Inspector, State
Plant Board of Florida, and the author.
The tests thus far completed have given little information on
the effectiveness of the various materials tested as far as dis-
ease control is concerned. Information has been obtained con-
cerning over-all increase in production, root-knot nematode con-
trol, and weed control. These tests have been unsatisfactory in
yielding specific information concerning disease control prob-
ably because the disease potential of the properties involved was
ton low to ohfain a measure of the effectiveness of the materials
used. For this reason, the third test was set up at the Plant
Pathology Laboratory, Gainesville, where the plots could be






Twenty-First Biennial Report


infected with the desired disease-producing organisms and the
effect of the soil fumigants measured. This test should be com-
pleted early in November 1956. At this time, the results of all
three tests will be combined into a single report for publication.

Wilt and Trunk-Rot of Palm (Cocos nucifera, Roystonia regia)
Specimens of this disease were first collected from the Fort
Lauderdale area in the fall of 1955, though this disease or one
similar to it was earlier reported from South Florida. Speci-
mens of a similar disease have also been collected from Key
West.
The earliest observable symptoms of this disease are the
greying and wilting of the lower fronds and the appearance of
rivulets of gum along the trunk. When the trunk is split longi-
tudinally at this stage of the disease, the vascular bundles in
small areas adjacent to the point of frond attachment may be
orange-red in color (Key West, Florida). A brown longitudinal
streak may show externally and internally on individual wilted
fronds (Fort Lauderdale, Florida).
From this point the progress of the disease is rapid. The
fronds continue to wilt upward and inward toward the bud.
The lower fronds may break and drop. Copious bleeding of the
trunk occurs and the interior of the trunk becomes a mushy
mass. The tree then collapses and dies.
Isolations from material collected both at Fort Lauderdale
and Key West, exhibiting early symptoms of the disease,
yielded primarily, but not exclusively, a Xanthomonas-type bac-
terium. Limited wound inoculation studies using this organ-
ism have been inconclusive. Though the bacterium was re-
isolated from tissues which were locally rotted several weeks
after inoculation, the symptoms produced did not compare with
those observed in the field.
Isolation and inoculation studies are being continued in an
attempt to determine the cause of this disease.

Stem Gall of Carissa grandiflora
The first specimen of this disease was submitted in July 1954
from Vero Beach, Florida.
Attempts by isolation and inoculation have thus far failed
to show that a pathogenic organism is causing the disease.
At the present time, histological studies are being undertaken
to determine the origin and ontogeny of the gall.






State Plant Board of Florida


Cold Injury on Philodendron cordatum
This project was undertaken with Dr. Howard N. Miller,
Ornamental Pathologist with the Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion, and Mr. Howard Van Pelt, Plant Inspector, of the State
Plant Board.
It was determined that an epidemic disease-like injury oc-
curring in the Apopka area of Florida was due to prolonged
exposure to cold, but not freezing, temperatures. This informa-
tion was published in the journal of the Florida Nurserymen
and Growers Association.

Phytotoxicity of Fungicides
This project, with the purpose of surveying a number of
fungicides for phytotoxicity to a number of plants, was under-
taken as a result of a conference dealing with problems of
growing ornamental plants in Florida. The Departments of
Plant Pathology and Entomology of the State Plant Board and
the Department of Ornamental Horticulture of the University
of Florida cooperated in the project.
The initial test was run using Zineb, Maneb, Captan 50 W,
P. C. N. B. 75 W, Nabam + Zn SO, and fixed neutral copper
(45 per cent), at twice the recommended amounts on Philoden-
dron spp., Syngonium sp., Pilea sp., Scindapsis sp., Gardenia
jasminoides, Schefflera sp., and Dieffenbachia spp.
A second test is under way at present, using those plant-
fungicide combinations which resulted in injury, to determine
if phytotoxicity occurs at lower concentrations of the fungi-
cides. The results of these tests will be reported at a symposium
of the Ornamentals Section of the Florida State Horticultural
Society in 1956.

Rust of Phaius grandifolius
This disease was introduced to Florida in April 1954, and
came under the jurisdiction of the Ornamental Pathology De-
partment in September 1954 for the purpose of determining
whether the fungus could be eradicated without destroying the
host.
Prior to this time, control studies using various fungicidal
sprays were undertaken by Mr. G. W. Dekle of the Entomology
Department. Sprays of Captan 50 W, Ferbam, and Natriphene
failed to give control.






Twenty-First Biennial Report


Attempts to germinate uredospores in pure culture, to infect
Cattleya orchid with atomized uredospore suspensions, and to
eradicate the disease by soaking pseudobulbs of infected plants
in a 1:2000 solution of 8-hydroxy quinolin sulfate for one hour
have also failed.
Stocks of infected plants are now being increased for future
studies concerning the nature of the disease and its control.

Rhizoctonia Leaf-Blight of Azalea
In the fall of 1954 a nursery in the Tampa area was affected
by a severe leaf-blight disease of azalea (Rhododendron indi-
cum). Starting apparently from localized centers, the disease
spread through entire beds, causing a severe leaf drop and
rot. Badly affected plants were completely denuded of their
leaves and eventually died. Laboratory examination of affected
material showed the presence of Rhizoctonia mycelium growing
over the surface of the stems and leaves. Cultures of affected
leaves and stems yielded Rhizoctonia sp. Observations made at
this nursery during the past 29 months have indicated that the
disease occurs in epiphyotic proportions during the fall of the
year when temperatures become moderate and, more important,
the dew fall becomes exceedingly heavy.
Because of the nature of the disease problem, it was decided
that control could best be effected by the use of a fungicidal
spray and soil drench. The plants were grown in ground beds
and it was believed that attempts to control the disease by soil
fumigation would probably fail because of the re-contamination
factor. Since the fungus apparently caused no below ground
symptoms, it was reasoned that if fungus movement up into the
tops of the plants could be prevented, by an effective fungicide
barrier at the soil line, disease control could probably be
achieved.
Pentachloronitrobenzene (75 W), an apparent specific for
the control of Rhizoctonia spp., was selected for these studies.
The first tests with this fungicide were run to determine its
phytotoxicity to azalea.
Twice replicated plots, measuring 6.25 square feet, were set
up at random on the greenhouse bench in order to test the mate-
rial, at various concentrations, both as a spray and as drench.
Six applications of the spray and of the drench were made at
varying intervals during a four-month period. Six varieties of
azalea, Triompha, Coral Bell, Pink Percat Supreme, Orchid







State Plant Board of Florida


Flora, Due de Rohan, and Hexe de Seffelara, planted in German
peat, were tested.
The plots were rated during the test by counting the number
of fallen leaves after each fungicide application and by an over-
all rating of phytotoxicity at the conclusion of the test. The re-
sults are summarized in Table 2.

TABLE 2.
Leaf Fall and Phytotoxicity Ratings Resulting from Spray and Drench
Applications of Pentachloronitrobenzene 75 W
Total Average Average Rating
Treatment Plot No. Leaf Leaf Drop Rating3
Drop Per Plot

50# Drench' 1 2754 1.0
2717 1.0
50# 2 2680 1.0
100 # 3 2858 1.0
2881 0.5
100 # 4 2904 0.0
150# 5 2682 1.0
2820 1.0
150 6 2959 1.0
2# Spray2 7 2453 0.0
2592 1.0
2# 8 2732 2.0
4# 9 3039 3.0
3031 2.5
4# 10 3024 2.0
6# 11 3236 3.0
3150 3.0
6# 12 3064 3.0
'50, 100, 150 pounds per acre.
2 2, 4, 6 pounds per 100 gallons.
3 0 = no toxicity symptoms; 1.0 = slight toxicity symptoms; 2.0 = moderate tox-
icity symptoms; 3.0 = severe toxicity symptoms.

Leaf drop data gave little information regarding phytotox-
icity. Apparently leaf drop increased with increased concentra-
tion of the fungicide, but it is doubtful that the differences
obtained are significant.
The rating of the plots given at the conclusion of the tests
would indicate that the danger of this material causing injury
to azalea when applied as a drench in six 150 pounds per acre
applications would be slight. Repeated spray applications of
the material at 2 pounds per 100 gallons also would apparently
be safe; but, repeated spray applications at 4 and 6 pounds per
100 gallons should be avoided.
Phytotoxicity was noted to be most severe on the varieties
Hexe de Seffelara and Coral Bell. Where phytotoxicity was
noted, the plants were stunted and young leaves became severely






Twenty-First Biennial Report 89

distorted and chlorotic. The leaf chlorosis began at the leaf
apex and continued toward the stem until the entire leaf was
yellow.
Tests to study the effect of pentachloronitrobenzene 75 W in
controlling the disease have not been put out. However, when
the disease appeared at this nursery in August 1956, based on
these phytotoxicity studies and commercial recommendations, a
100 pounds per acre drench was applied to the affected beds in
a split application. An application of 50 pounds per acre was
followed in one week by a second 50 pounds per acre applica-
tion. Results of these applications, to date, indicate that the
progress of the disease has been completely halted.









Citrus Pathology Department

MORTIMER COHEN, Chief Citrus Pathologist

The Citrus Pathology Department shares with the Ornamental
Pathology and Nematology Departments the well-equipped new
plant pathology laboratory and greenhouse on the Archer road
in Gainesville. The department provides technical help to the
Plant Board staff and to the public on diseases of citrus and
other fruit crops grown in Florida. It also devotes special
attention to plant disease problems which are not adequately
covered by other State or Federal agencies.

IMPROVEMENT OF CITRUS BUDWOOD SOURCES
One of the major activities of this department during the bien-
nium was the production of nucellar seedlings of the important
citrus varieties. Nucellar seedlings, found only in citrus and a
few other plant groups, have been of value in producing uni-
form high-yielding trees of some citrus varieties because they
can provide a vigorous, relatively virus-free source of budwood
of the variety.
Seedlings which are "nucellar" are produced exclusively by
the parent tree on which the fruit is borne and are thus pro-
duced asexually. This is in contrast to the more usual condition
in plants in which only sexual or "gametic" seedlings are seen
and where the influence of the pollen parent in the seedling is
equal to that of the seed parent.
Unfortunately, although most citrus varieties produce a high
proportion of nucellar seedlings, they cannot ordinarily be dis-
tinguished with certainty from the sexual seedlings which often
originate from the same "polyembryonic" seeds. It is possible,
however, by pollinating citrus flowers with the pollen of the tri-
foliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata) to cause all sexual seedlings
to have trifoliate leaves. Nucellar seedlings with their unifoliate
leaves can then be easily separated from the sexual. The tri-
foliate-leaved seedlings, since they are hybrids of each variety
with the trifoliate orange, may also be useful as rootstock
sources or for their fruit characteristics.
Experience has indicated that nucellar seedlings must be ten
years of age or older before they produce budwood of value but
such wood, like budwood from any source, must be tested for







Twenty-First Biennial Report 91


Fig. 21.-In the background a specimen sent in by a plant inspector is be-
ing prepared for examination as shown in the foreground.


Fig. 22.-Cultures of plant disease pathogens are frequently necessary to
make a positive identification of the organism involved.







State Plant Board of Florida


performance under field conditions before its value can be
known. Nucellar seedlings planted during this biennium will
thus not reach their greatest value for many years to come but
such seedlings represent a budwoodd bank" which will increase
in value with the years.
A listing of the fruits, seeds, and seedlings produced during
the biennium is given in Table 1. Nucellar seedlings of 10 com-
mon varieties were obtained as well as hybrids with trifoliate
orange for 7 of the 10 varieties. It will be seen that nucellar
seedlings greatly outnumber the hybrid or sexual seedlings ex-
cept in the Duncan grapefruit variety. Also of interest is the
fact that a total of 759 seedlings were produced by only 704
seeds, a reflection of the polyembryonic condition of citrus seeds.
Some of the Dancy tangerine seedlings are already in field loca-
tions. A large proportion of the remaining seedlings will be
moved into the field in the spring of 1957.

TABLE 1.
Nucellar and Trifoliate Orange Hybrid Seedlings of Ten Citrus Varieties
Produced During the Biennium July 1, 1954 June 30, 1956.
N NUMBER
Citrus Variety Fruits I Seed Nucellar Seedling Hybrid Seedling

Hamlin Orange 2 29 25 1
Parson Brown Orange 4 56 44 5
Navel Orange 6 21 34 2
Pineapple Orange 14 115 111 6
Valencia Orange 2 9 8 0
Marsh Grapefruit 16 91 56 19
Duncan Grapefruit 9 291 207 154
Glen Red Grapefruit 1 2 3 0
Orlando Tangelo 4 60 55 1
Dancy Tangerine 4 30* 28 0

Total .......................... 62 704 571 188

*Approximate number.

Indexing for tristeza of trees entered in the Budwood Certifi-
cation Program of the State Plant Board was continued. Dur-
ing this period 391 candidate trees were indexed on key lime
seedlings. Since 1953, 552 candidates have been indexed for tris-
teza and 31 of these have been found to be carrying tristeza
virus. More than 3500 key lime seedlings have been used in this
work. A more detailed discussion of the tristeza situation in
Florida is given later in this report.






Twenty-First Biennial Report


TAHITI LIME DISEASE PLOTS
The screening procedure used in the Budwood Certification
Program has uncovered budwood of many citrus varieties free
of three of the major viruses of citrus: psorosis, tristeza, and
xyloporosis. Tahiti lime trees have been found which are free
of these viruses and show no sign of "lime blotch" or of "lime
bark," two disease conditions which are not well understood but
are believed by some to be of virus origin. The Tahiti lime is a
variety which has many disease problems. The availability of
budwood about which so much is known has made possible a
new investigation of some of these problems in two disease study
plots in the Dade County area. The plan of this study was simply
to propagate trees from two of these relatively disease-free
sources and then to inoculate them in groups with live buds from
trees with each of the known diseases of Tahiti lime and with
some of the viruses found in Tahiti limes. Since trees in these
plots are identical except for the disease-carrying buds (which
are not allowed to grow) any differences between sets of plot
trees must be due to a disease agent (or virus) which moves out
from the bud inoculum into the tree itself. Budded trees some-
times react differently from the trees on their own roots, so
marcotted trees and cuttings are found in the plots as well as
trees budded on rough lemon seedlings.
This work is being carried out on two 2-acre plots in coopera-
tion with Dr. G. D. Ruehle and Dr. F. M. Lincoln of the Sub-
Tropical Experiment Station, University of Florida, and Mr.
Burt Colburn of the South Florida Growers Association of
Goulds, with one plot on the property of each of these organiza-
tions. These plots will also help make possible an evaluation of
the damage caused by infection of trees by some of the known
viruses. The sources of diseased buds for these plots include two
trees with lime blotch disease and separate trees carrying the
viruses of tristeza, xyloporosis, and psorosis. In addition, two
trees of the Idemor variety have also been used as diseased bud-
wood sources. The Idemor is a strain of Tahiti lime, introduced
some years ago and widely planted as a promising selection,
which was found to go into decline within a few years wherever
planted, whether on a seedling rootstock or on its own roots.
Some believe that this variety is virus infected. These test plots
should help determine whether a virus is involved.






State Plant Board of Florida


Although these disease study plots have been set up for a study
of the Tahiti lime only, this same procedure can and should
be used for an accurate assessment of the effect of the known
viruses on other citrus varieties and rootstock-scion combina-
tions. By this means it will be possible to gauge the tree effect
of vitrus diseases on apparently "tolerant" hosts.

TRISTEZA
The study of tristeza disease has been a continuing project of
the Citrus Pathology Department since its inception in coopera-
tion with the staff of the Plant Inspection Department. Although
damage to citrus in Florida from tristeza has not followed the
South American pattern, it is of interest to know what injury
has been produced by this disease. It is even more important
to know what are the prospects of future damage.
A. Economic Loss Due to Tristeza.-Severe economic loss has
been caused by tristeza in some groves. One grove area of ap-
proximately 60 acres near Winter Garden has been under study
since 1952. Of the trees in this planting which were healthy or
showed only slight symptoms of decline in 1952, almost 21 per
cent had died or become seriously diseased by 1956. Extensive
checking has indicated that the overwhelming majority of these
trees were attacked by tristeza disease. About 88 per cent of
the 4169 trees in this area are Temple orange trees on sour
orange, mainly 26 to 30 years old. Also in the grove are 297
Valencia trees on sour orange stock and about 200 Temple trees
on grapefruit rootstock. In 1952 this grove contained 334 trees
which were dead, in serious decline, or replants. Four years
later the corresponding figure was 1126 trees. It is evident that
trees will continue to be lost in this grove because many trees
can be found in all stages of decline. In July 1956 the count of
trees rated as showing slight symptoms of decline was 385 or
9.2 per cent of the total. Although not all trees with slight symp-
toms are suffering from tristeza, most of them are affected
and will undoubtedly continue to deteriorate from this disease.
The most surprising observation made in this grove during
the period of study has been the apparent absence of decline
from tristeza in the 200 trees on grapefruit rootstock. A few
trees on grapefruit stock show signs of decline but histological
examination of these trees does not reveal the necrosis of phloem
below the bud union which characterizes tristeza in trees on






Twenty-First Biennial Report


sour orange rootstock. Over-all, the trees on grapefruit stock
look healthier than any other group in the grove.
Valencia orange trees in this planting have not been as badly
affected by disease as the Temples. During the period studied
only 12 per cent of the Valencias died or went into serious
decline.
Even more striking as an example of the damage which can
be done by tristeza is a grove near DeLand. This grove, planted
with 15-year-old Valencias on sour orange rootstock, was first
examined in 1954 and a 400-tree block was selected for special
study. At that time 44 per cent of the trees in this block
were in serious decline or dead, almost entirely from tristeza.
The owner reported in 1954 that most of these trees had deteri-
orated within the previous year or two. By 1956, six per cent
more of the trees had become affected so that fully half of the
trees in the block were dead, replanted, or in serious decline. In
1956 few of the remaining mature trees showed visible signs of
disease, perhaps because of the practice in this grove of quick
removal of affected trees. At this time only 1.5 per cent of the
trees showed symptoms of slight decline as compared with 9.2
per cent in the Winter Garden grove. Nevertheless, additional
trees can be expected to be lost here. Histological study of 8
trees of healthy appearance in 1956 revealed one which was posi-
tive for tristeza. As explained below, this tree can be expected
to go into decline within 5 months to 2 years.
The high loss of citrus trees on sour orange rootstock in
these two groves should be pondered by those growers who are
still planting trees on sour stock.
B. Rate of Spread of Tristeza.-Soon after the discovery of
tristeza in Florida it became apparent that diseased trees fall
into two symptom categories. The first, familiar elsewhere in
the world where tristeza has been found, consists of mature trees
which suddenly become defoliated, have a heavy crop of fruit,
and show signs of marked deterioration. The second, which ap-
pears to be almost unique to Florida, includes stunted trees, often
with good leaf color and bearing a small crop, which scarcely
grow in size while their healthy neighbors show the normal
growth pattern. The stunted tree type of tristeza has been
found in all parts of Florida which contain citrus, but trees of
the first type are mainly confined to an area around Orange
County. Continued observation has indicated that most stunted






State Plant Board of Florida


trees of this type are trees in which the original sour orange
rootstock received a bud which was carrying tristeza virus.
Thus man has been the agent of dissemination of the disease
where stunted trees are concerned. On the other hand, where
mature tree decline was observed it was most probable that
virus was insect-transmitted. The role of man as a vector of tris-
teza can be controlled by the use of budwood of known quality
such as that obtained through the Budwood Certification Pro-
gram, but the action of insects, probably aphids, as vectors is
poorly understood.
The defoliation and decline of a tristeza-infected citrus tree
in the grove is the culmination of a long process. The immediate
cause of the poor condition of the tree is root starvation as a re-
sult of death of the phloem below the bud union. This does not
permit movement of manufactured food from the leaves to the
roots. Phloem deterioration can be detected in a citrus tree by a
histological test (the "Schneider" test) a year or more before
there is any indication of decline of the tree in the field. Deteri-
oration of the phloem does not occur until the tristeza virus has
moved from its point of entry on a leaf or stem tip to the bud
union. In this period virus particles multiply many million
times within the tree. Presence of the virus in a tree can be
detected by a transmission test to key lime seedlings before
there is any indication of injury to the phloem. It is not known
how long tristeza virus can exist in a susceptible tree before
phloem injury will occur. Nevertheless two tools, the histological
test and the transmission test, are available which might enable
the scientist to predict which trees will later show signs of
tristeza decline.
It was apparent from visual observation that active spread
of tristeza of the insect-transmitted type was confined almost
exclusively to the Central Florida area in the vicinity of Or-
lando. In 1954 a study was undertaken to help predict the future
course of this disease. For this purpose small groups of trees
were selected by plant inspectors in 31 locations in 16 counties.
At each location an average of 7 healthy-appearing trees on
sour orange rootstock near a tree known to have tristeza were
examined. All trees in the study were checked with both the
histological and transmission tests. Of the 228 trees which have
so far been examined 32 have been found by transmission test
to be carrying tristeza virus. Groves in Orange and Lake Coun-







Twenty-First Biennial Report


ties contained 28 of the tristeza trees with the other 4 being dis-
tributed in 4 other counties, one each in Brevard, Hillsborough,
Polk, and Putnam. Seven groves were examined in Orange and
Lake Counties and five of these proved to have some symptom-
less trees carrying tristeza virus. The results of the histologi-
cal test run at the same time as the transmission test were sur-
prising because none of the trees transmitting tristeza showed
any indication of deterioration of phloem. Most of the trans-
mission-positive trees have since been re-examined histologically
but only one tree, in Orange County, has developed histological
symptoms of tristeza.
Information regarding the presence of tristeza virus in citrus
trees, not necessarily on sour range rootstock, has also been
accumulating from another source, the project in which trees in
the Budwood Certification Program were indexed for tristeza.
To date, 552 trees have been indexed by transmission test and
31 have been found to be carrying tristeza virus. At least 4 of
of the tristeza-positive trees are on sour orange stock. Orange
County contained 20 trees with tristeza or 65 per cent of the
total, although only 16 per cent of the trees indexed were from
Orange County.
The full significance of these facts cannot be ascertained at
present. A high proportion of the citrus trees on sour orange
rootstock in Orange County appear to be carrying tristeza virus.
Some of these trees have been under observation for two years
and in one case for almost three years. However, only a very
small proportion of these trees show signs of the phloem break-
down which must precede the visual decline of the trees. It is
conceivable that this disease in Florida involves a long incuba-
tion period and that eventually all such trees will deteriorate.
Two other possibilities also exist, however: first, that some trees,
even on sour orange rootstock, are tolerant to the strain of tris-
teza which they are carrying; or, second, that another virus con-
dition, not as injurious as tristeza, has been duplicating the
symptoms of tristeza in the transmission tests. If it is true,
however, that trees which are positive for tristeza in the trans-
mission test will eventually go into decline, Orange County is
fated to lose a high proportion of its trees to this disease.
Healthy-appearing trees found to be transmission-positive will
be watched carefully for the next few years so that a more ac-
curate forecast can be made.







State Plant Board of Florida


C. Histological Studies.-Three plots consisting of Temple and
Valencia orange trees on sour orange stock have been main-
tained during the report period. These plots, with a total of
75 trees 15 to 30 years of age, are located in Orange and Volusia
Counties. They were established for a more intensive study of
areas in which tristeza appeared to be spreading actively. Bark
samples, collected periodically, are examined microscopically for
evidence of phloem breakdown below the bud union.
Since these plots were laid out in 1953 and 1954, 9 trees which
were visually healthy at the time bark samples were taken
proved to have phloem breakdown below the bud union and were
therefore rated "positive" or "possible" in the Schneider histo-
logical test. Seven of the 9 trees have already shown marked
signs of decline in the field and 4 of these have died or been re-
planted. An interval of from 5 months to more than 2 years
was found to elapse between the first indication of phloem
breakdown and the visual evidence of tree decline. The inter-
val cannot be measured exactly because successive bark samples
have sometimes been taken as much as a year apart. At the
same time, none of the trees in the plots which did not show
phloem breakdown have shown any sign of serious decline. This
is the experimental evidence which confirms the value in Florida
of the Schneider test as a means of predicting future tree de-
cline. On the basis of this work it can be predicted with some
degree of assurance that the remaining 2 trees with phloem
breakdown which still appear healthy will soon begin to deteri-
orate.
This study also throws some light on the time of first appear-
ance of "honeycombing," the pattern of tiny holes in the bark
below the bud union which has been used as a field symptom of
tristeza. In these trees an average of 11/2 years elapsed after
the first sign of phloem breakdown before definite honeycomb-
ing could be seen.
A brief histological study was made of preserved material
obtained by Dr. E. O. Olson, United States Department of Agri-
culture, Weslaco, Texas, from declining tangerine trees in the
State of Nuevo Leon, Mexico. These trees, superficially, show
a condition which resembles tristeza but histological examina-
tion at Gainesville suggested that tristeza was not involved. This
was confirmed by transmission tests on key lime seedlings car-
ried out in Mexico by Dr. Olson and Dr. Teodoro Rodriguez.









I, l\ t< \ I 1 N\ :11 \ I I I I!1 -'" I i 1 i -


I .. *I


i~ ;


.. :




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs