Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:05:33.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perennial Crop Nurseries Treated with Methyl Bromide and Alternative Fumigants: Effects on Weed Seed Viability, Weed Densities, and Time Required for Hand Weeding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anil Shrestha ,
Greg T. Browne ,
Bruce D. Lampinen ,
Sally M. Schneider ,
Leo Simon  and
Thomas J. Trout
Anil Shrestha*
Affiliation:
University of California Statewide IPM Program, Kearney Agricultural Center, 9240 South Riverbend Avenue, Parlier, CA 93648
Greg T. Browne
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Bruce D. Lampinen
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Sally M. Schneider
Affiliation:
Horticulture, Pathogens, & Germplasm, USDA-ARS, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Beltsville, MD 20705
Leo Simon
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720
Thomas J. Trout
Affiliation:
Water Management Research, USDA-ARS, Fort Collins, CO 80526
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Data on the efficacy of alternative fumigants to methyl bromide for weed control in perennial crop nurseries in California are needed because few herbicides are registered for this purpose. Field studies were conducted from 2003 to 2006 in four commercial perennial crop nurseries in California. Treatments included a nonfumigated control; methyl bromide (98%) (MeBr) with high-density polyethylene (HDPE) film; iodomethane (50%) + chloropicrin (50%) with HDPE film; 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) with HDPE film; 1,3-D (61%) + chloropicrin (35%) with HDPE film; 1,3-D (62%) + chloropicrin (35%) subsurface drip; and 1,3-D (61%) + chloropicrin (35%) with virtually impermeable film (VIF). All the fumigants reduced the seed viability of common purslane, johnsongrass, and tall morningglory but were not as effective on little mallow and field bindweed. Although total weed densities and the level of control provided by each fumigant differed between locations, weed density was generally reduced by all the fumigation treatments, compared to the nonfumigated control. At three locations, alternative fumigation treatments usually resulted in hand-weeding time similar to MeBr. Reductions in weed seed viability, weed emergence, and weed densities suggest that these alternative fumigants will provide weed control similar to MeBr in perennial nurseries.

Keywords

1,3-dichloropropene, chloropicrin (trichloronitromethane), iodomethane, methyl bromide, common purslane, Portulaca oleracea L. POROL, field bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L. CONAR, little mallow, Malva parviflora L. MALPA, johnsongrass, Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. SORHA, tall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth PHBPUHerbicideMontreal protocolmulch filmsstratospheric ozoneseed viability
Type
Weed Management — Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 267 - 274
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

Agamalian, H. S., Elmore, C. L., and Fischer, B. B. 1994. Weeds. Pages 99–113. in Flint, M. L., editor. Integrated Pest Management for Strawberries. Oakland, CA University of California IPM Publication No. 3351.Google Scholar
[CDFA] California Department of Food and Agriculture Nursery Inspection Procedures Manual. 2001. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/pe/NIPM.htm. Accessed: August 10, 2007.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, B. and Bell, C. H. 1993. The methyl bromide issue. Chem. Ind. 24:992–995.Google Scholar
Chase, C. A., Stall, W. M., Simonne, E. H., Hochmuth, R. C., Dukes, M. D., and Weiss, A. W. 2006. Nutsedge control with drip-applied 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin in a sandy soil. HortTechnology. 16:641–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chellemi, D. O., Olson, S. M., Mitchell, D. J., Secker, I., and McSorley, R. M. 1997. Adaptation of soil solarization to the integrated management of soilborne pests of tomato under humid conditions. Phytopathology. 87:250–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csinos, A. S., Summer, 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. 19:39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egley, G. H. 1986. Stimulation of weed seed germination in soil. Rev. Weed Sci. 2:67–89.Google Scholar
Fennimore, S. A. and Haar, M. J. 2003. Weed control in strawberry provided by shank- and drip-applied methyl bromide alternative fumigants. Hortscience. 38:55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilreath, J. P., Noling, J. W., and Santos, B. M. 2004. Methyl bromide alternatives for bell pepper (Capsicum annuum) and cucumber (Cucumis sativus) rotations. Crop Prot. 23:347–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilreath, J. P. and Santos, B. M. 2004. Efficacy of methyl bromide alternatives on purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control in tomato and pepper. Weed Technol. 18:341–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilreath, J. P., Santos, B. M., Busacca, J. D., Eger, J. E. Jr, Mirusso, J. M., and Gilreath, P. R. 2005. Validating broadcast application of Telone C-35 complemented with chloropicrin and herbicides in commercial tomato farms. Crop Prot. 25:79–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodhue, R. E., Fennimore, S. A., and Ajwa, H. A. 2005. The economic importance of methyl bromide: does the California strawberry industry qualify for a critical use exemption from the methyl bromide ban. Rev. Agric. Econ. 27:198–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabe, D. F. 1970. Tetrazolium Testing Handbook. Contribution No. 29 to the Handbook on Seed Testing. Stillwater, OK Association of Official Seed Analysts. 62.Google Scholar
Guerrero, M. M., Martínez, M. A., Martínez, M. C., Barceló, N., Lacasa, A., Ros, C., Guirao, P., Bello, A., and López, J. A. 2005. Biofumigation plus solarization efficacy for soil disinfestation in sweet pepper greenhouses in the southeast of Spain. Acta Hortic. 698:293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haar, M. J., Fennimore, S. A., Ajwa, H. A., and Winterbottom, C. Q. 2003. Chloropicrin effect on weed seed viability. Crop Prot. 22:109–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, B. and Shrestha, A. 2006. Weed control with methyl bromide alternatives. CAB Rev. 1/063):http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews/reviews.asp. Accessed: August 10, 2007.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, C. M., McGiffen, M. E. Jr, Sims, J. J., and Becker, J. O. 2003. Fumigant combinations for Cyperus esculentum L. control. Pest Manag. Sci. 60:369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klose, S., Ajwa, H. A., Fennimore, S. A., Martin, F. N., Browne, G. T., and Subbarao, K. V. 2007. Dose response of weed seeds and soil-borne pathogens to 1,3-D and chloropicrin. Crop Prot. 26:535–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locascio, S. J., Gilreath, J. P., Dickson, D. W., Kucharek, T. A., Jones, J. P., and Noling, J. W. 1997. Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for polyethylene mulched tomato. Hortscience. 32:1208–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majewski, M. S., McChesney, M. M., Woodrow, J. E., Prueger, J. H., and Seiber, J. N. 1995. Aerodynamic measurements of methyl bromide volatilization from tarped and nontarped fields. J. Environ. Qual. 24:742–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makowski, R. and Morrison, M. D. 1989. The biology of Canadian weeds. 91. Malva pusilla Sm. Can. J. Plant Sci. 69:861–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noling, J. W., Rosskopf, E. N., and Chellemi, D. O. 2000. Impacts of alternative fumigants on soil pest control and tomato yield. Pages 30-1–30-7. in. Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Orlando, FL. Fresno, CA: Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach.Google Scholar
Porqueddu, C., Loi, A., and Cocks, P. S. 1996. Hardseededness and pattern of hard seed breakdown of Sardinian populations of Medicago polymorpha under field conditions. J. Agric. Sci. 126:161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolston, M. P. 1978. Water-impermeable seed dormancy. Bot. Rev. 44:365–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosskopf, E. N., Charudattan, R., Chellemi, D. O., and Chandramohan, S. 2000. Alternatives to methyl bromide for weed control. Acta Hortic. 532:103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, B. M., Gilreath, J. P., Motis, T. N., Noling, J. W., Jones, J. P., and Norton, J. A. 2006. Comparing methyl bromide alternatives for soilborne disease, nematode and weed management in fresh market tomato. Crop Prot. 25:690–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 1028.Google Scholar
Schneider, S. M., Rosskopf, E. N., Leesch, J. G., Chellemi, D. O., Bull, C. T., and Mazzola, M. 2003. United States Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service research on alternatives to methyl bromide: pre-plant and post-harvest. Pest Manag. Sci. 59:814–826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stapleton, J. J., Elmore, C. L., and DeVay, J. E. 2000. Solarization and biofumigation help disinfest soil. Calif. Agric. 54:42–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unruh, J. B., Brecke, B. J., Dusky, J. A., and Godbehere, J. S. 2002. Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide prior to turfgrass establishment. Weed Technol. 16:379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[UNEP] United Nations Environment Programme 2000. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. http://www.unep.org/ozone/pdf/Montreal-Protocol2000.pdf. Accessed: August 10, 2007.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture 2000. Economic implications of the methyl bromide phaseout. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 756. Washington, DC United States Department of Agriculture. 12.Google Scholar
[USEPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency 2006. Methyl Bromide: Questions and Answers. http://www.epa.gov/ozone/mbr/qa.html. Accessed: August 10, 2007.Google Scholar
Wang, D. and Yates, S. R. 1998. Methyl bromide emission from fields partially covered with a high density polyethylene and virtually impermeable film. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32:2515–2518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yagi, K., Williams, J., Wang, N. Y., and Cicerone, R. J. 1995. Atmospheric methyl bromide (CH3Br) from agricultural soil fumigations. Science. 267:5206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yates, S. R., Gan, J., and Papiernik, S. K. 2003. Environmental fate of methyl bromide as a soil fumigant. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 117:45–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar