Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for polyethylene-mulched tomato

被引:104
作者
Locascio, SJ
Gilreath, JP
Dickson, DW
Kucharek, TA
Jones, JP
Noling, JW
机构
[1] UNIV FLORIDA,GULF COAST RES & EDUC CTR,BRADENTON,FL 34203
[2] UNIV FLORIDA,DEPT ENTOMOL & NEMATOL,GAINESVILLE,FL 32611
[3] UNIV FLORIDA,DEPT PLANT PATHOL,GAINESVILLE,FL 32611
[4] UNIV FLORIDA,CTR AGR RES & EDUC,CTR CITRUS RES & EDUC,LAKE ALFRED,FL 33850
关键词
Lycopersicon esculentum; chloropicrin; 1,3-dichloropropene; metam-sodium; dazomet; tetrathiocarbonate; pest control; nematodes; fungi; weed control;
D O I
10.21273/HORTSCI.32.7.1208
中图分类号
S6 [园艺];
学科分类号
0902 ;
摘要
Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) was grown to evaluate various chemicals as possible alternatives to methyl bromide soil fumigation. Due to a combination of weeds, nematodes, and soil fungi, the use of a broad-spectrum fumigant has been essential for economical tomato production in Florida. Methyl bromide (MBr) and combinations of MBr with chloropicrin (Pie) are the fumigants of choice: for most growers using polyethylene mulch culture. In 1991, MBr was allegedly associated with stratospheric azone depiction. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has since mandated a phaseout of MBr for soil fumigation in the United States by the year 2001. At three locations in Florida, alternative soil fumigants were evaluated, including soil injected 98% MBr-2% Pic at 450 kg.ha(-1), 67% MBr-33% Pic (390 kg.ha(-1)), Pic (390 kg.ha(-1)), dichloropropene + 17% Pic (1,3-D + Pic) at 327 L.ha(-1), and metam-sodium (935 L.ha(-1)). Also, metam-sodium and tetrathiocarbonate (1870 L.ha(-1)) were applied by drip irrigation. Dazomet (450 kg.ha(-1)) was surface applied and soil incorporated. Pebulate (4.5 kg.ha(-1)) was soil incorporated with some treatments. Pic and 1,3-D + Pic treatments provided good to moderate control of nematodes and soil fungi except in one of the six studies, in which nematode central with 1,3-D was moderate to poor. Nutsedge densities were suppressed by addition of pebulate. Tomato fruit yields with 1,3-D + Pic + pebulate and with Pic + pebulate at the three sites ranged from 85% to 114%, 60% to 95%, and 101% to 119%, respectively, of that obtained with MBr treatments. Pest control and crop yield were lower with treatments other than the above pebulate-containing or MBr-containing treatments. These studies indicate that no one alternative pesticide can provide the consistent broad-spectrum control presided by MBr. Chemical names used: trichloronitromethane (chloropicrin); 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D); sodium N-methyldithiocarbamate (metam-sodium); sodium tetrathiocarbonate (tetrathiocarbonate); 3,5-dimethyl-(2H)-tetrahydro-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2-thione (dazomet);S-propyl butyl(ethyl)thiocarbamate (pebulate).
引用
收藏
页码:1208 / 1211
页数:4
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1976, US STAND GRAD FRESH
[2]  
Barker KR, 1986, METHODS EVALUATING P, P283
[3]  
GEUDER JK, 1996, FLORIDA AGR STAT VEG
[4]  
GILREATH JP, 1994, P FLA STATE HORT SOC, V107, P156
[5]  
JONES JP, 1991, COMPENDIUM TOMATO DI
[6]  
LOCASCIO SJ, 1994, P ANN INT RES C METH, P3
[7]  
*METH BROM TECHN O, 1995, UN ENV PROGR 1995 1
[8]  
NOLING JW, 1994, J NEMATOL, V26, P573
[9]  
OVERMAN A J, 1978, Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society, V91, P294
[10]  
*SAS I, 1995, PROPR SOFTW REL 6 11