Evaluating anaerobic soil disinfestation and other biological soil management strategies for open-field tomato production in Florida

Abstract

In the search for alternative practices to chemical soil fumigation (CSF), anaerobic soil disinfestation (ASD) has proven to be a promising tool for soil-borne pest management and crop production improvement. The ASD treatment with composted poultry litter (CPL) and molasses (M, a labile carbon source) was identified as an effective approach for a biologically based soil disinfestation system in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) production in Florida. However, environmental and food-safety concerns are associated with animal manure-based amendments, which led to the exploration of composted yard waste (CYW) as a potential substitute for CPL in ASD application. In this study, field trials were conducted in Citra and Immokalee, FL to examine the effects of ASD using CYW, CPL and M compared with a commercially available microbial amendment system on root-knot nematodes, weeds, fruit yield and quality of fresh-market tomato. Treatments included (1) ASD with CPL (11 Mg ha−1) and M (6.9 m3 ha−1) (ASD0.5), (2) ASD with CYW (26.9 Mg ha−1) and M (CYW1 + M), (3) ASD with CYW (13.5 Mg ha−1) and M (CYW0.5 + M), (4) Soil Symphony Amendment (SSA), (5) CYW (26.9 Mg ha−1) alone (CYW1) and (6) a combination of CYW1 + SSA, in comparison with (7) untreated control and (8) CSF (Pic-Clor 60 at 224 kg ha−1). Cumulative soil anaerobiosis was greater in ASD0.5 compared with all the other treatments. The root-knot nematode gall index ratings on the tomato crop were significantly lower in CSF, ASD0.5, CYW1 + M and CYW0.5 + M than untreated control in Citra. Although CYW1 and SSA alone had a moderately suppressive effect on weed coverage and root-knot nematodes, their positive impact on crop performance was limited when used alone. ASD0.5, CYW1 + M and CSF had significantly higher marketable and total fruit yields than untreated control in both locations, while all treatments showed promising results in the Immokalee trial in comparison with untreated control. In general, few differences in major fruit quality attributes were found. Although using CYW in ASD was not as effective as CPL in creating soil anaerobic conditions, the enhanced crop performance in CYW1 + M and CYW0.5 + M suggests the potential of using CYW as an alternative source of organic amendment in combination with M to achieve benefits similar to those obtained with CPL-based ASD.

Dissipation of fomesafen in fumigated, anaerobic soil disinfestation‐treated, and organic‐amended soil in Florida tomato production systems

“…Soil and site‐related study conditions (i.e. bed construction, irrigation layout, and operation) have been previously described . In this study, four different crop management strategies were evaluated, including chemical fumigated soil (CSF), ASD‐treated soil (ASD0.5), and two organic‐amended soil treatments (SSA and composted yard waste (CYW1)).…”

“…In this study, four different crop management strategies were evaluated, including chemical fumigated soil (CSF), ASD‐treated soil (ASD0.5), and two organic‐amended soil treatments (SSA and composted yard waste (CYW1)). Treatments ASD0.5 and CYW1 were applied as reported in Table and previously described in detail . SSA is a proprietary blend of feed stocks, microbes, and carbon that is applied throughout the production cycle according to manufacturer recommendations.…”

“…All soil treatments were applied before planting to disinfest the soil, and all were compared to the standard industry practice of chemical soil fumigation relative to the marketable yield of tomatoes. After the different organic amendments were applied, the soil was tilled, irrigation drip lines were laid out, and beds were covered with a totally impermeable film (TIF) as previously described . After covering, ASD0.5 and CYW1 were irrigated for 4 h, applying the equivalent of 5 cm irrigation in the beds, in order to achieve anaerobic conditions within the top 10 cm.…”

Economic Analysis of Anaerobic Soil Disinfestation for Open-field Fresh-market Tomato Production in Southwest and North Florida

“…ASD has been applied for suppressing pests and diseases in andisol, alluvial, and sandy soils, as well as artificial substrates, in several cropping systems under various environmental conditions (Lamers et al, 2010;Momma et al, 2013;Rosskopf et al, 2015;Shennan et al, 2014;Strauss and Kluepfel, 2015). In many studies, ASD resulted in higher or similar crop yields to those achieved using chemical fumigation methods Di Gioia et al, 2016;Guo et al, 2017;Korthals et al, 2014;Mazzola et al, 2018;Paudel et al, 2018). Researchers in the Netherlands used ASD successfully in asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) and strawberry (Fragaria ·ananassa) production by combining different techniques, such as soil solarization, organic amendment applications, and soil saturation (Molendijk et al, 2009).…”

“…Most previous studies focused on the biological impacts of ASD, examining the effects on disease and pest suppression (Rosskopf et al, 2015), microbial communities (Guo et al, 2018;van Agtmaal et al, 2015), crop yield, plant growth, and nutrient cycling Di Gioia et al, 2017), rather than on the economics (costs and returns) of ASD. In Florida, in an attempt to increase ASD adoption as an alternative to chemical fumigation on a large scale, a consistent effort has been made in recent years to develop a more sustainable and economically feasible ASD method concerning optimization of inputs needed for ASD treatment (Di Gioia et al, 2016, 2017Guo et al, 2017;Paudel et al, 2018). However, the search for alternative approaches to reduce the costs while maintaining or increasing yields making ASD more affordable to growers, continues to be a major task for ASD research.…”