Response of strawberry to soil fumigation: Microbial mechanisms and some alternatives to methyl bromide Annual Int. Res. Conf. Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions Abstract 6. Fennimore, S.A. Ajwa, H. Haar
Steven A. Fennimore, Milton J. Haar, Rachael E. Goodhue, and Christopher Q. Winterbottom
James P. Gilreath, Bielinski M. Santos, and Timothy N. Motis
strawberry provided by shank- and drip-applied methyl bromide alternative programs HortScience 38 55 61 Gilreath, J.P. Santos, B.M. Gilreath, P.R. Jones, J.P. Noling, J.W. 2004 Efficacy of 1,3-dichloropropene + chloropicrin application methods in combination
Grant R. Manning and Steven A. Fennimore
Methyl bromide has been the foundation of chemical weed control in strawberry (Fragaria ×ananassa) in California for over 40 years. The impending phaseout of methyl bromide may leave strawberry producers dependent on less efficacious alternative fumigants for weed control. The use of herbicides to supplement fumigants is a potential weed control strategy for strawberry. A 2-year field study was conducted in California to evaluate 10 herbicides as possible supplements for methyl bromide alternative fumigants. Herbicides were applied immediately after transplanting (immediate posttransplant), and 3 weeks after transplanting (delayed posttransplant). Napropamide applied immediate posttransplant was included as a commercial standard. Immediate posttransplant treatments that were safe in strawberry include carfentrazone at 0.075 and 0.15 lb/acre (0.084 and 0.168 kg·ha-1), flumioxazin at 0.063 lb/acre (0.071 kg·ha-1) and sulfentrazone at 0.175 and 0.25 lb/acre (0.196 and 0.28 kg·ha-1). Triflusulfuron at 0.016 lb/acre (0.017 kg·ha-1) was the only delayed posttransplant treatment with acceptable selectivity. Among the selective herbicides applied immediate posttransplant, flumioxazin and napropamide provided the most consistent control of bur clover (Medicago polymorpha) and shepherd's purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris). Triflusulfuron applied delayed posttransplant did not significantly reduce bur clover densities, but did reduce shepherd's purse densities.
S.M. Schneider, B.D. Hanson, J.S. Gerik, A. Shrestha, T.J. Trout, and S. Gao
369 377 10.2134/jeq2007.0088 Gerik, J.S. 2005 Drip-applied soil fumigation for freesia production HortTechnology 15 820 824 10.21273/HORTTECH.15.4.0820 Gilreath, J. Santos, B. Motis, T. Noling, J. Mirusso, J. 2005 Methyl bromide alternatives for
José M. López-Aranda, Luis Miranda, Juan J. Medina, Carmen Soria, Berta de los Santos, Fernando Romero, Rosa M. Pérez-Jiménez, Miguel Talavera, Steve A. Fennimore, and Bielinski M. Santos
método de extracción de nemátodos fitoparásitos por centrifugación en azúcar Plagas 9 183 189 10.1016/S0007-1536(73)80033-6 Norton, J.A. 2004 IR-4 methyl bromide alternative (MBA) programs review Proc. Annu. Intl. Res. Conf. Methyl Bromide Alternatives
Olha Sydorovych, Charles D. Safley, Rob M. Welker, Lisa M. Ferguson, David W. Monks, Katie Jennings, Jim Driver, and Frank J. Louws
.G. 1990 Commercial production of staked tomatoes in North Carolina North Carolina Coop. Ext. Serv. Publ. AG-60 Louws, F.J. Ferguson, L.M. Ivors, K. Driver, J. Jennings, K. Milks, D. Shoemaker, P.B. Monks, D.W. 2004 Efficacy of methyl bromide alternatives
Sanjeev K. Bangarwa, Jason K. Norsworthy, Ronald L. Rainey, and Edward E. Gbur
) are gaining attention in recent years as a methyl bromide alternative as a result of their lethal activity on several pests, including weeds ( Baysal and Miller, 2009 ; Boydston and Hang, 1995 ; Buskov et al., 2002 ; Matthiessen and Shackleton, 2005
Christopher L. Ray, Sandra B. Wilson, Kathy H. Brock, Bruce A. Fortnum, and Dennis R. Decoteau
Pest management is of primary importance to the vegetable industry in our nation. In recent years producers have undergone much scrutiny concerning their pest control strategies, which often include the use of chemical pesticides. Due to the detrimental effects of many fumigants, growers are being forced to incorporate more environmentally sound agricultural practices while still producing a healthy, marketable commodity. The effects of three different fumigants and reflective mulches on plant growth and development were studied in field-grown, staked tomatoes. Methyl bromide, Telone II, or Telone C-17 were used in fumigation of plots. The establishment of mulch color was done via applications of exterior enamel paint, white or red in color, to the surface of black polyethylene mulch. With the exception of total marketable yields, no interactions existed between mulch color and fumigant. Red mulch and Telone II treatments resulted in the highest total marketable yield. Telone II application increased early marketable yield. White mulch color increased preharvest yield and black mulch color decreased early marketable yield. Low initial populations of nematodes may be the cause for lack of response due to fumigation.
Olha Sydorovych, Charles D. Safley, Lisa M. Ferguson, E. Barclay Poling, Gina E. Fernandez, Phil M. Brannen, David M. Monks, and Frank J. Louws
Partial budget analysis was used to evaluate soil treatment alternatives to methyl bromide (MeBr) based on their cost-effectiveness in the production of strawberries (Fragaria ×ananassa). The analysis was conducted for two geographical areas: the piedmont and coastal plain area (including North Carolina and Georgia) and the mountain area of western North Carolina, based on 7 years of field test data. The fumigation alternatives evaluated were Telone-C35 (1,3-dichloropropene 61.1% + chloropicrin 34.7%), Telone II (1,3-dichloropropene 94%), chloropicrin (Chlor-o-pic 99% and TriClor EC), InLine (1,3-dichloropropene 60.8% + chloropicrin 33.3%), and metam sodium (Vapam or Sectagon 42, 42% sodium methyldithiocarbamate). The MeBr formulation was 67% MeBr and 33% chloropicrin (Terr-O-Gas) with the exception of the earlier trials where a 98:2 ratio was used. In the piedmont and coastal plain area, the soil treated with chloropicrin showed the best results with an additional return of $1670/acre relative to MeBr, followed by Telone-C35 with an additional return of $277/acre. The projected return associated with shank-applied metam sodium was approximately equal to the estimated return a grower would receive when applying MeBr. Fumigating with drip-applied metam sodium, InLine, and Telone II as well as the nonfumigated soil treatment resulted in projected losses of $2182, $2233, $4179, and $6450 per acre, respectively, relative to MeBr. In the mountain area, all of the alternatives resulted in a projected increase in net returns relative to MeBr. The largest projected increase was $1320/acre for the InLine treatment, while the added returns for the TriClor and Telone-C35 applications were estimated to be $509 and $339 per acre, respectively. The drip-applied metam sodium application resulted in an additional return of $40/acre, and the added revenue for the nonfumigated soil treatment was $24/acre more than MeBr treatment. Although technical issues currently associated with some of the alternatives may persist, results indicate that there are economically feasible fumigation alternatives to MeBr in the production of strawberries in the southeastern U.S.
S.A. Fennimore, M.J. Haar, and H.A. Ajwa
The loss of methyl bromide (MB) as a soil fumigant has created the need for new weed management systems for crops such as strawberry (Fragaria ×ananassa Duchesne). Potential alternative chemicals to replace methyl bromide fumigation include 1,3-D, chloropicrin (CP), and metam sodium. Application of emulsified formulations of these fumigants through the drip irrigation system is being tested as an alternative to the standard shank injection method of fumigant application in strawberry production. The goal of this research was to evaluate the weed control efficacy of alternative fumigants applied through the drip irrigation system and by shank injection. The fumigant 1,3-D in a mixture with CP was drip-applied as InLine (60% 1,3-D plus 32% CP) at 236 and 393 L·ha-1 or shank injected as Telone C35 (62% 1,3-D plus 35% CP) at 374 L·ha-1. Chloropicrin (CP EC, 95%) was drip-applied singly at 130 and 200 L·ha-1 or shank injected (CP, 99%) at 317 kg·ha-1. Vapam HL (metam sodium 42%) was drip-applied singly at 420 and 700 L·ha-1. InLine was drip-applied at 236 and 393 L·ha-1, and then 6 d later followed by (fb) drip-applied Vapam HL at 420 and 700 L·ha-1, respectively. CP EC was drip-applied simultaneously with Vapam HL at 130 plus 420 L·ha-1 and as a sequential application at 200 fb 420 L·ha-1, respectively. Results were compared to the commercial standard, MB : CP mixture (67:33) shank-applied at 425 kg·ha-1 and the untreated control. Chloropicrin EC at 200 L·ha-1 and InLine at 236 to 393 L·ha-1 each applied singly controlled weeds as well as MB : CP at 425 kg·ha-1. Application of these fumigants through the drip irrigation systems provided equal or better weed control than equivalent rates applied by shank injection. InLine and CP EC efficacy on little mallow (Malva parviflora L.) or prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare L.) seed buried at the center of the bed did not differ from MB : CP. However, the percentage of weed seed survival at the edge of the bed was often higher in the drip-applied treatments than in the shank-applied treatments, possibly due to the close proximity of the shank-injected fumigant to the edge of the bed. Vapam HL was generally less effective than MB : CP on the native weed population or on weed seed. The use of Vapam HL in combination with InLine or CP EC did not provide additional weed control benefit. Chemical names used: 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D); sodium N-methyldithiocarbamate (metam sodium); methyl bromide; trichloro-nitromethane (chloropicrin).