Cut-flower production systems are often complex, with growers continually planting small areas with a range of species and cultivars to ensure year-round availability of the highly perishable crop while also targeting key market windows. The intensity, diversity, and high capital costs inherent in this cropping system have led to a reliance on MB fumigation for preplant control of a broad range of soilborne pathogens, weeds, and nematodes. MB was classified as a Class I stratospheric ozone-depleting substance and became subject to the provisions of the Montreal Protocol in 1993. This international treaty called for elimination of MB use in developed countries by 2005 and in developing counties by 2015 (Ristaino and Thomas, 1997); however, critical use exemptions for MB are considered when alternatives are ineffective or not economically feasible (Duniway, 2002; Martin, 2003). In California cut flowers, currently registered chemical alternatives to MB include 1,3-dichloropropene, chloropicrin (Pic), dazomet, metam potassium, and metam sodium. Because of various efficacy and regulatory concerns, it is unlikely that any of these products alone can replace all MB uses (Gerik and Hanson, 2011). Importantly, few of the currently registered MB alternatives are labeled in California for use in protected greenhouse structures, a production system that accounts for ≈11% of the cut-flower acreage in the state [U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2009].
Soil solarization was proven to effectively control plant pathogens and weeds in vegetable and cut-flower production in Turkey and Portugal during the hot summer months when greenhouses were not in production (Ozturk et al., 2002; Reis, 2002). However, fog and cooler soil temperatures make solarization a less optimal tool for pest control in coastal California, where most cut flowers are produced (Elmore et al., 2007). In addition, Stapleton and DeVay (1986) suggest that even under favorable conditions, 4 to 8 weeks is ideal for effective solarization treatment, a substantial reduction in production time in a high-value crop such as cut flowers.
Steam has been used as a soil and substrate disinfestant since the late 1800s and has been suggested as an effective MB alternative (Newhall, 1955; Pizano, 2006). In the Netherlands, ≈50% of the cut-flower acreage is steam treated for soil disinfestation, and it is also used in Australia, Colombia, Brazil, and Italy (Pizano, 2006). High temperatures can control a wide range of pests, although selectivity and efficacy depend on the temperature and exposure duration (Bollen, 1969; Pullman et al., 1981; van Loenen et al., 2003).
When steam is used in California cut-flower production, typically it is applied with the sheet steaming technique described by Runia (1984) where steam is forced under a heat-resistant film and provides pest control as the heat moves down through the soil. This has limited the use of steam disinfestation in open fields because of high energy and labor costs (Fennimore et al., 2008). Efficiency can be improved by applying steam below the soil surface such as through a permanent drain-tile system or by actively pulling steam through the soil (Lu et al., 2010; Newhall, 1955; Runia, 2000); however, these techniques have not been evaluated in coastal California.
The combined effects of solarization and, more efficient, subsurface steam application may increase the viability of steam as a nonfumigant MB alternative for preplant soil disinfestation. The objective of this research was to evaluate the efficacy of steam treatments for the control of weeds and soil borne plant pathogens using several steam delivery methods and solarization treatments as MB alternatives in California cut-flower production.
Baalbaki, R.Z., Elias, S.G., Marcos-Filho, S. & McDonald, M.B. 2009 Seed vigor testing handbook. Contribution #32. Assn. Official Seed Analysts, Ithaca, NY
Baker, K.F. 1957 The U.C. System: A general summary, p. 3–27. In: K.F. Baker (ed.). The U.C. system for producing healthy container-grown plants. California Agr. Expt. Sta. Ext. Serv. Manual 23
Elmore, C.L., MacDonald, J.D., Ferris, H., Chase, A., Ajwa, H., Robb, K., Wilen, C., Zasada, I., Fennimore, S. & Tjosvold, S. 2007 Soil pests of floriculture crops and potential control with methyl bromide alternatives in California. 28 Feb. 2011. <http://ucanr.org/sites/mb3/Papers/>
Fennimore, S., Spataru, A. & Leslie, N. 2008 Steam and heat for soil disinfestation. Methyl bromide alternatives outreach. Proc. 2008 Annu. Intl. Res. Conf. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Emissions Reductions. p. 58
Gerik, J.S. & Hanson, B.D. 2011 Drip application of methyl bromide alternative chemicals for control of soilborne pathogens and weeds Pest Mgt. Sci. 67 1129 1133
Klose, S., Ajwa, H.A., Browne, G.T., Subbarao, K.V., Martin, F.N., Fennimore, S.A. & Westerdahl, B.B. 2008 Dose response of weed seeds, plant-parasitic nematodes, and pathogens to twelve rates of metam sodium in a California soil Plant Dis. 92 1537 1546
Komada, H. 1975 Development of a selective medium for quantitative isolation of Fusarium oxysporum from natural soil Rev. Plant Protection Res. 8 114 125
Lu, P., Ricauda Aimonino, D., Gilardi, G., Gullino, M.L. & Garibaldi, A. 2010 Efficacy of different steam distribution systems against five soilborne pathogens under controlled laboratory conditions Phytoparasitica 38 175 189
Luvisi, A., Materazzi, A. & Triolo, E. 2006 Steam and exothermic reactions as alternative techniques to control soil-borne diseases in basil Agron. Sustainable Dev. 26 201 207
Martin, F.N. 2003 Development of alternative strategies for management of soil-borne pathogens currently controlled with methyl bromide Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 41 325 350
O'Neill, T.M. & Green, K.R. 2010 Evaluation of some pre-plant soil treatments and chemical disinfectants for control of fusarium wilt diseases in protected cut flowers Acta Hort. 883 215 222
Ozturk, A., Yilmaz, S., Keceki, M., Unlu, A., Deviren, A., Ozcelik, A., Cetinkaya, S., Cevri, H., Akkaya, F. & Ozkan, C. 2002 Alternatives to methyl bromide for tomato and cucumber production in Turkey. Proc. Intl. Conf. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. p. 209–212
Pizano M. 2006 Report of the methyl bromide technical options committee. 28 Feb. 2011. <http://ozone.unep.org/teap/Reports/MBTOC/index.shtml>
Pullman, G.S., DeVay, J.E. & Garber, R.H. 1981 Soil solarization and thermal death: A logarithmic relationship between time and temperature for four soilborne plant pathogens Phytopathology 71 959 964
Reis, L. 2002 The use of methyl bromide alternatives in cut-flower production in Portugal. Proc. Intl. Conf. Alternatives Methyl Bromide. p. 243–246
Reuven, M., Szmulewich, Y., Kolesnik, I., Gamliel, A., Zilberg, V., Mor, M., Cahlon, Y. & Ben-Yephet, Y. 2004 Methyl bromide alternatives for controlling fusarium wilt and root knot nematodes in carnations Acta Hort. 698 99 104
Samtani, J.B., Ajwa, H.A., Weber, J.B., Browne, G.T., Klose, S., Hunzie, J. & Fennimore, S.A. 2011 Evaluation of non-fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for weed control and crop yield in California strawberries (Fragaria ananassa L.) Crop Protection 30 45 51
Samtani, J.B., Gilbert, C., Weber, J.B., Subbarao, K.V., Goodhue, R.E. & Fennimore, S.A. 2012 Effect of steam and solarization treatments on pest control, strawberry yield, and economic returns relative to methyl bromide fumigation HortScience 47 64 70
Solis, L. & Calderon, L. 2002 Alternatives to methyl bromide for cut-flower production in Guatemala. Proc. Intl. Conf. Alternatives Methyl Bromide. p. 253–255
Stapleton, J.J. & DeVay, J.E. 1986 Soil solarization: A non-chemical approach for management of plant pathogens and pests Crop Protection 5 190 198
U.S. Department of Agriculture 2009 2007 Census of agriculture—State data. 28 Feb. 2012. <http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/index.asp>
van Loenen, M.C.A., Turbett, Y., Mullins, C.E., Feilden, N.E.H., Wilson, M.J., Leifert, C. & Seel, W.E. 2003 Low temperature–short duration steaming of soil kills soil-borne pathogens, nematode pests and weeds Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 109 993 1002