Bell pepper producers are faced with the challenge of controlling weeds following the phase-out of methyl bromide (MBr). Numerous attempts have been made to find a single fumigant or herbicide to control a broad spectrum of weeds. Adequate weed control in bell pepper will likely require weed management systems utilizing both fumigant and herbicide options. A weed management system including the fumigant dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) plus chloropicrin (Pic) plus the herbicide napropamide prior to transplant followed by S-metolachlor POST may be necessary to replace MBr. Field experiments were conducted during 2010 and 2011 near Ty Ty, Georgia to determine bell pepper and weed response to DMDS plus Pic or in systems with napropamide and/or S-metolachlor. Bell pepper were not significantly injured by DMDS plus Pic or napropamide. Injury caused by S-metolachlor was transient and plants fully recovered by 4 weeks after treatment (WAT). Yellow nutsedge control 6 WAT using DMDS plus Pic applied at 468 or 560 L ha−1 controlled yellow nutsedge 91 to 95%. Large crabgrass control 6 WAT was 92 to 100% when DMDS plus Pic was applied at 468 or 560 L ha−1 with or without a(n) herbicide (S-metolachlor or napropamide). Palmer Amaranth control prior to harvest was 21, 64, and 85% using DMDS plus Pic at 374, 468, or 560 L ha−1, respectively. DMDS plus Pic applied at 468 or 560 L ha-1 with napropamide followed by S-metolachlor POST gave 95 to 99% control of Palmer amaranth 6 WAT. Consistent weed control and optimum yields were obtained when DMDS plus Pic was used at 468 L ha−1 plus napropamide beneath plastic mulch followed by S-metolachlor POST.

Methyl bromide (MBr) has been an industry standard for soil fumigation in a multitude of crops for decades. However, it has been banned by the United Nations Environment Programme, and alternatives to MBr must be implemented to sustain productivity in many vegetable crops that depend on soil fumigation. One alternative that has been implemented in some areas is methyl iodide (MeI). Efficacy of MeI has been demonstrated on many pest species and has been generally similar to MBr. Methyl iodide is a costly material, which has likely limited its adoption. Virtually impermeable film (VIF) and totally impermeable film (TIF) provide greater fumigant retention than low-density and high-density polyethylene film, which can allow for reduced fumigant application rates while maintaining fumigant efficacy. The objectives of this research were to evaluate TIF with reduced rates of shank-applied MeI : chloropicrin (Pic) (50 : 50 w/w) for the control of yellow nutsedge in tomato. Treatments included a standard rate of MeI : Pic (93.3 L ha−1 [178 kg ha−1 broadcast]) under VIF and TIF, three reduced rates (37.3, 56, 74.6 L ha−1 [71.2, 106.8, 142.5 kg ha−1 broadcast, respectively]) under TIF, and a nontreated control under TIF. Results indicate fumigant use rates may be reduced from a standard 93.3 L ha−1 under VIF to 37.3 L ha−1 (60% reduction) under TIF while providing yellow nutsedge control and maintaining tomato yields.

Methyl bromide (MBr) was widely used as a soil fumigant to manage pests in the planting bed prior to transplanting fresh market tomato; however, it has been banned by the United Nations Environment Programme. Alternatives to MBr must be implemented to sustain productivity in fresh market tomato. Dimethyl disulfide plus chloropicrin (DMDS : Pic) is a fumigant alternative to methyl bromide for the management of yellow nutsedge and other soil-borne pests in tomato. Fumigant costs, environmental concerns, and risk mitigation measures encourage reduced fumigant application rates. Virtually impermeable film (VIF) and totally impermeable film (TIF) provide greater fumigant retention than low density and high density polyethylene film, VIF and TIF can allow for reduced fumigant application rates while maintaining fumigant efficacy. The objectives of this research were to evaluate TIF with reduced rates of shank-applied DMDS : Pic (79 : 21 w/w) for the control of yellow nutsedge in tomato. Treatments included a standard rate of DMDS : Pic (468 L ha−1) under VIF and TIF, a high rate (561 L ha−1) under VIF, three reduced rates (187 L ha−1, 281 L ha−1, and 374 L ha−1) under TIF, and a nontreated control under TIF and VIF. Results indicated rates may be reduced from a standard 468 L ha−1 under VIF to 187 L ha−1 (67% reduction) under TIF while maintaining yellow nutsedge control and tomato yields. In addition, the results indicated that nontreated TIF managed yellow nutsedge better than nontreated VIF because of decreased penetration of the mulch by yellow nutsedge.