Chemical fumigants as alternatives methyl bromide for soil disinfestation of plant integrated pest management
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Methyl bromide (MB) is an soil fumigants provide excellent, reliable disease and pest
control, increase yields, high quality produce, extended crop seasons and dependable economic returns, but also to increase
contamination of soil, water, and air as well as the main of a stratospheric ozone-depleting compounds. So, alternatives of
methyl bromide has effective on wide range of fungi, weed , nematodes and pest , biodegradable and non ozone depleting,
including fumigants chemicals, such as, 1,3-D, methyl isothiocyanate (MITC), chloropicrin, dichloropropene , methyl iodide (MI),
dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), propargyl bromide, sodium azide, propylene oxide. Combination of fumigants is highly effective
against nematodes, fungi, weeds and soil insects can provide and yield increases i.e., dichloropropene (1,3D) / chloropicrin
(Pic), 1,3D and methyl isothiocyanate (MITC),MITC and PIC,,MITC, 1,3-D and Pic. Ozone has potential to be an effective general
soil fumigant also is very effective at destroying bacteria, viruses and odors . Application of gaseous ozone to soil
sterilization change of soil physical, chemical and biological properties.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Abou, Z. N. M. and Noher, A. M. (2014). Efficacy of dmds as methyl bromide alternative in controlling soil borne diseases, root-knot nematode and weeds on pepper, cucumber and tomato in Egypt. Acta Horticulturae 1044:411-414.
Ajwa, H. A., Fennimore, S., Kabin, Z., Martin, F., Duniway, J., Browne, G., Trout, T., Khan, A. and Daugovish, O. (2004). Strawberry yield with chloropicrin and Inline in combination with Metham Sodium and VIF. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Orlando, Florida. pp. 38.
Butler, J. H. and Rodriguez, J. M. (1996). Methyl Bromide in the Atmosphere. The Methyl Bromide Issue. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Church, G., Rosskopf, E. and Holzinger, J. (2004). Evaluation of DMDS for production of ornamental cockscomb (Celosia argentea). Proc. Annual Int. Res. Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. MBAO. pp. 87-1:87-5.
Csinos, A., Webster, T., Sumner, D., Johnson, A., Dowler, C. and Seebold, K. (2002). Application and crop safety parameters for soil fumigants. Crop Protection 21:973-982.
Duniway, J. M. (2002). Status of chemical alternatives to methyl bromide for pre-plant fumigation of soil. Phytopathology 92:1337-1343.
Duniway, J. M. (2005). Alternatives to methyl bromide for strawberry production in california, USA. Acta Horticulturae 698:27-32.
Ebihara, K., Mitsugi, F., Ikegami, T., Nakamura, N., Hashimoto, Y., Yamashita, Y. and Sung, T.-L. (2013). Ozone-mist spray sterilization for pest control in agricultural management. The European Physical Journal Applied Physics 61: 24318.
Fritsch, J. (2005). Dimethyl disulfide as a new chemical potential alternative to methyl bromide in soil disinfestation in FRANCE. Acta Horticulturae 698:71-76.
Gamliel, A., Austerweil, M. and Kritzman, G. (2000). Non-chemical approach to soilborne pest management – organic amendments. Crop Protection 19:847-853.
Gamliel, A., Triky, S., Austerweil, M., Peretz-Alon, Y. and Ucko, O. (2005). Combined soil fumigants: Synergistic performance and improved yield. Acta Horticulturae, 698:135-140.
Gerik, J. S. and Hanson, B. D. (2011). Drip application of methyl bromide alternative chemicals for control of soilborne pathogens and weeds. Pest Management Science, n/a–n/a.
Gilreath, J. P. and Santos B. M. (2004). Methyl bromide alternatives for weed and soilborne disease management in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Crop Protection 23:1193-1198.
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 Protection 23:347-351.
Gilreath, J. P., Santos, B. M., Motis, T. N., Noling, J. W. and Mirusso, J. M. (2005). Methyl bromide alternatives for nematode and Cyperus control in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum). Crop Protection 24:903-908.
Kokalis-Burelle, N. (2003). Plant and Soil 256:273-280.
López-Aranda, J. M. (2014). Methyl bromide alternatives (chemical and non-chemical) for strawberry cultivation in conventional areas of production. Acta Horticulturae, 1049:77-88.
McGovern, R. J., Vavrina, C. S., Noling, J. W., Datnoff, L. A. and Yonce, H. D. (1998). Evaluation of application methods of metam sodium for management of fusarium crown and root rot in tomato in Southwest Florida. Plant Disease 82:919-923.
Minuto, A., Gullino, M. L., Lamberti, F., D’Addabbo, T., Tescari, E., Ajwa, H. and Garibaldi, A. (2006). Application of an emulsifiable mixture of 1,3-dichloropropene and chloropicrin against root knot Nematodes and Soil borne Fungi for Greenhouse Tomatoes in Italy. Crop Protection 25:1244-1252.
Nelson, S. D., Ajwa, H. A., Trout, T., Stromberger, M., Yates, S. R. and Sharma, S. (2013). Water and methyl isothiocyanate distribution in soil after drip fumigation. Journal of Environment Quality 42:1555.
Noling, J. W. and Gilreath, J. P. (2002). Field scale demonstration/ validation studies of alternatives for methyl bromide in plastic mulch culture in Florida. Citrus and Vegetable Magazine 65:19-31.
Noling, J. W., Gilreath, J. P. and Rosskopf, E. N. (2001). Alternatives to methyl bromide field research effort for nematode control in Florida. Proc. Annual Int. Research Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternative Reductions and Emissions Reductions, MBAO. pp. 141-143.
Noling, J. W., Rosskopf, E. N. and Chellemi, D. O. (2002). Impacts of alternative fumigants on soil pest control and tomato yield. Proc. Annual Int. Research Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternative Reductions and Emissions Reductions, MBAO, pp. 301-303.
Ohr, H. D. (1996). Methyl Iodide, an Ozone-Safe Alternative to Methyl Bromide as a Soil Fumigant. Plant Disease 80:731.
Papiernik, S. K., Dungan, R. S., Zheng, W., Guo, M., Lesch, S. M. and Yates, S. R. (2004). Effect of application variables on emissions and distribution of fumigants applied via subsurface drip irrigation. Environment Science Technology 38:5489-5496.
Peretz-Alon, I. and Ucko, O. (2005). Combined soil fumigants: synergistic performance and improved yield. Acta Horticulturae:135-140.
Porter, I. J., Brett, R. W. and Wiseman, B. M. (1999). Alternatives to methyl bromide: chemical fumigants or integrated pest management systems?. Australasian Plant Pathology 28: 65.
Rodriguez-Kabana, R. and Akridge, J. R. (2003). Sodium azide (SEP-100) for control of nematodes and weed problems in green pepper production. Proc. Annual Int. Research Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternative Reductions and Emissions Reductions, MBAO. pp. 461:468.
Rodriguez-Kabana, R., Akridge, J. R. and Burkett, J. E. (2003). Sodium azide (SEP-100) for control of nutsedge, root-knot nematode and Fusarium crown rot in tomato production. Proc. Annual Int. Research Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternative Reductions and Emissions Reductions, MBAO, pp. 2101-2112.
Samtani, J. B., Ajwa, H. A., Weber, J. B., Browne, G. T., Klose, S., Hunzie, J. and Fennimore, S. A. (2011). Evaluation of non-fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for weed control and crop yield in California strawberries (Fragariaan anassa L.). Crop Protection 30:45-51.
Schneider, S. M., Rosskop, 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 Management Science 59:814-826.
Thomas, J. T. and Husein, A. A. (2003). Application of soil fumigants through micro-irrigation systems. Las Vegas, NV.
Thomson, W. T. (1992). Agricultural Chemicals. Book III..Thomson Publications, Fresno, Ca., U.S.A. 206 pp.
Wanger, S. L. (1981). The Fumigants. In Clinical Toxicology of Agricultural Chemicals. Oregon State University, Environmental Health Sciences Center : Corvallis. pp. 284-290.