Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:24:16.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fumigant Alternatives for Methyl Bromide Prior to Turfgrass Establishment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

J. Bryan Unruh*
Affiliation:
West Florida Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 4253 Experiment Drive, Hwy 182, Jay, FL 32565
Barry J. Brecke
Affiliation:
West Florida Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 4253 Experiment Drive, Hwy 182, Jay, FL 32565
Joan A. Dusky
Affiliation:
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 1038 McCarty Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611
John S. Godbehere
Affiliation:
Hendrix and Dail, Inc., 905 4th Street N.W., Cairo, GA 31728
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract

Potassium azide (PA) (112 kg/ha), oxadiazon + 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) (168 kg/ha + 140 L/ha), dazomet (392 kg/ha), dazomet + chloropicrin (392 + 168 kg/ha), dazomet + 1,3-D (392 kg/ha + 140 L/ha), iodomethane (IM) (336 kg/ha), metam-sodium (MS) (748 L/ha), MS + chloropicrin (748 L/ha + 168 kg/ha), and MS + 1,3-D (748 + 140 L/ha) were evaluated at Jay and Arcadia, FL, in 1998 and 1999 as alternatives to methyl bromide (MeBr) fumigation for the management of common turfgrass weeds. Potassium azide was as effective as MeBr in controlling ‘Coastal’ bermudagrass, yellow and purple nutsedges, alexandergrass, broadleaf signalgrass, tall and sharppod morningglories, and various winter annual broadleaf weeds, but it failed to provide acceptable control of redroot pigweed. 1,3-Dichloropropene + oxadiazon did not control yellow nutsedge, purple nutsedge, or Coastal bermudagrass. Similarly, this combination treatment failed to control carpetweed but did provide 83% control of the winter annual weed species, 71% control of alexandergrass and broadleaf signalgrass, and ≥ 80% control of tall morningglory, sharppod morningglory, and redroot pigweed. Dazomet + combination treatments provided control of Coastal bermudagrass at Jay; however, control of common bermudagrass, alexandergrass, and broadleaf signalgrass was not acceptable at Arcadia. Sedge species control with dazomet + combinations was poor (< 63%) at both sites. Iodomethane, a treatment not yet registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), controlled weedy grass species, sedge species, and broadleaf weeds present at the two locations under different environmental conditions. Metam-sodium alone and MS + chloropicrin, tarped and untarped, and MS + 1,3-D provided acceptable weed control; however, MS + chloropicrin covered with a plastic tarp for 48 h was the best MS treatment. Metam-sodium + chloropicrin, with plastic tarp, controlled weedy grass and broadleaf species equal to MeBr; however, unacceptable sedge species control at Jay and Arcadia was 56 and 79%, respectively. Metam-sodium applied alone failed to control redroot pigweed; however, MS + combinations provided control. These studies confirm that no EPA-registered fumigant alternative to MeBr, applied alone or in combination for preplant turf soil fumigation, exists. Consequently, until such time that an effective alternative is identified, turf managers will be forced to forego fumigation, or they will have to choose a less-effective alternative and accept the consequences of contamination.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Albritton, D. L. and Watson, R. T. 1992. Methyl bromide and the ozone layer: a summary of current understanding. In Montreal Protocol Assessment Supplement. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme. pp. 119.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1995. New Soil Blending Technique for Quality Golf Greens with Basamid® Granular. Limburgerhof, Germany: BASF Technical Publication. 12 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1998. Vapam product label. AMVAC: Los Angeles, CA. 17 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1999. Turfgrass Certification Standards of the Southern Seed Certification Association. Auburn, AL. pp. 128.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001. Basamid granular product label. Research Triangle Park, NC. pp. 15.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. W. 1991. Common bermudagrass eradication in pastures. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:189.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J. 1997. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide in Florida: A Preliminary Analysis. Washington: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. pp. 136.Google Scholar
Csinos, A. S., Johnson, W. C., Johnson, A. W., Sumner, D. R., McPherson, R. M., and Gitaitis, R. D. 1997. Alternative fumigants for methyl bromide in tobacco and pepper transplant production. Crop Prot. 16: 585594.Google Scholar
Csinos, A. S., Sumner, D. R., Johnson, W. C., Johnson, A. W., McPherson, R. M., and Dowler, C. C. 2000. Methyl bromide alternatives in tobacco, tomato and pepper transplant production. Crop Prot. 19: 3949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielson, L. L. 1965. Herbicidal effects of sodium and potassium azide on mugwort. Weeds 13: 9698.Google Scholar
Danielson, L. L. 1973. Elimination of volunteer Dutch Iris under field conditions. Hortic. Sci. 8: 479480.Google Scholar
Dickson, D. W., Locascio, S. J., and Mitchell, D. J. 1999. Evaluating methyl bromide fumigants on tomato under polyethylene mulch in Florida. In Methyl Bromide Alternatives. Volume 5: 18.Google Scholar
Duniway, J. M., Xiao, C. L., and Gubler, W. D. 1999. Strawberries respond to soil fumigation: microbial mechanisms and some alternatives to methyl bromide. In Vick, K. W., ed. Methyl Bromide Alternatives. Volume 5 (2). Beltsville, MD: USDA-ARS. pp. 1012.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. H. and Barnes, H. D. 1958. Changing greens from common bermudagrass to tifgreen. U. S. Golf Assoc. J. Turf Manag. 11 (5): 2532.Google Scholar
Griffin, K. A., Dickens, R., and West, M. S. 1994. Imazapyr for common bermudagrass control in sod fields. Crop Sci. 34: 202207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, G. D., Klingman, G. C., and Woltz, W. G. 1953. Chemical weed control in tobacco plant beds. N. C. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 382: 143.Google Scholar
Noling, J. W. 1996. Role of soil fumigants in Florida agriculture. In Seiber, J. N., Knuteson, J. A., Woodrow, J. E., Wolfe, N. L., Yates, M. V., and Yates, S. R., eds. Fumigants: Environmental Fate, Exposure, and Analysis. Proceedings of the 1996 American Chemical Society Symposium, August 20-25, 1996, Chicago. Washington: ACS. pp. 1424.Google Scholar
Noling, J. W. and Becker, J. O. 1994. The challenge of research and extension to define and implement alternatives to methyl bromide. J. Nematol. (Suppl.) 26 (4S): 573586.Google Scholar
Noling, J. W. and Gilreath, J. P. 2000. Propargyl bromide and other fumigants for nematode control. In Vick, K. W., ed. Methyl Bromide Alternatives. Volume 6 (1). Beltsville, MD: USDA-ARS. pp. 910.Google Scholar
Ohr, H. D., Sims, J. J., Grech, N. M., Becker, J. O., and McGiffen, M. E. Jr. 1996. Methyl iodide, an ozone-safe alternative to methyl bromide as a soil fumigant. Plant Dis. 80: 731735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W. M., McGiffen, M. E. Jr., Becker, J. O., Ohr, H. D., Sims, J. J., and Campbell, S. D. 1998. Effect of soil physical factors on methyl iodide and methyl bromide. Pestic. Sci. 53: 7179.Google Scholar
Zhang, W. M., McGiffen, M. E. Jr., Becker, J. O., Ohr, H. D., Sims, J. J., and Kallenbach, R. L. 1997. Dose response of weeds to methyl iodide and methyl bromide. Weed Res. 37: 181189.Google Scholar