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

Shrestha, Anil; Browne, G. T.; Lampinen, Bruce; Schneider, S. M.; Simon, Leo K.; Trout, Thomas J.

doi:10.1614/wt-07-122.1

Cited by 14 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When 1,3-D was sealed with HDPE and VIF, broadleaf weed density was reduced to less than 6 weeds per square meter, which was comparable to methyl bromide (table 4). These results are similar to a previous nursery study that indicated 1,3-D or 1,3-D plus chloropicrin sealed with HDPE or VIF resulted in weed seed viability and hand-weeding time comparable to methyl bromide (Shrestha et al 2008). Generally, intermittent water seals after a 1,3-D application resulted in broadleaf weed density similar to the untreated control.…”

Section: Commercial Nursery Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

Preplant 1,3-D treatments test well for perennial crop nurseries, but challenges remain

Hanson¹,

Gao²,

Gerik³

et al. 2013

Cal Ag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preplant fumigation with methyl bromide commonly is used in open-field perennial crop nurseries in California for control of plant-parasitic nematodes, pathogens and weeds. Because this fumigant is being phased out, alternatives are needed to ensure the productivity of the perennial crop nursery industry as well as the ornamental, orchard and vineyard production systems that depend on clean planting stock. As part of the USDA Area-Wide Pest Management Program for Integrated Methyl Bromide Alternatives, several perennial crop nursery projects were conducted in California from 2007 to 2011 to test and demonstrate registered alternative fumigants and application techniques that maximize performance and minimize environmental impacts. The project was designed to evaluate shank application and soil surface sealing methods intended to reduce aboveground emission and improve soil performance of 1,3-dichloropropene, a leading methyl bromide alternative for nurseries. In these garden rose and tree nursery experiments, 1,3-dichloropropene treatments performed well regardless of application techniques. In this article, we highlight recent research and discuss the significance and remaining challenges for adoption of methyl bromide alternatives in this unique nursery stock production system. P est-and pathogen-free planting stock is essential for successful establishment and future productivity of new orchards and vineyards. Clean stock is also a requirement for intrastate, interstate and international commerce of tree, vine and garden rose planting stock.To ensure the quality of commercially produced nursery stock in the state, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) enforces laws and regulations related to the production of certified nursery stock as outlined in the Nursery Inspection Procedures Manual (CDFA 2011). Because of the potentially large and long-term impacts on the nursery crop as well as the subsequently planted orchards, vineyards and ornamental landscapes, control of plant-parasitic nematodes in nursery fields is a major focus of the nursery stock certification program.Producers of perennial crop nursery stock in California can meet nematode certification requirements by fumigating the field at the beginning of the nursery cycle using an approved treatment or by conducting a detailed inspection of soil and planting stock at the end of the production cycle. If growers elect to use inspection procedures instead of approved treatments and soil or plant samples are found to contain prohibited nematodes, further sampling is conducted to delineate the extent of the problem, and nursery stock from the affected area usually is destroyed.Preplant soil fumigation thus reduces the economic risk of a nonsalable nursery crop and is used in most tree and garden rose nurseries in California. Grapevine nursery stock also must meet phytosanitary requirements to be certified in California, but in contrast to tree and rose growers, many grape nursery producers elect to use the inspection procedures rather than...

show abstract

Section: Commercial Nursery Resultssupporting

confidence: 88%

Preplant 1,3-D treatments test well for perennial crop nurseries, but challenges remain

Hanson¹,

Gao²,

Gerik³

et al. 2013

Cal Ag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are few studies on the relationship between hand-weeding time and weed density because most studies focus on comparisons between weed management techniques (Gopinath et al, 2009) and their economic results (Harunur et al, 2012). However, the data from Shrestha et al (2008), who compare handweeding times for woody crops, can be estimated similar to our study. A linear relationship was observed between the total hand-weeding time per hectare and the total number of weeds throughout the test period.…”

Section: A) B)supporting

confidence: 65%

Field sprayer for inter and intra-row weed control: performance and labor savings

Carballido

Rodríguez‐Lizana

Agüera

et al. 2013

Span. j. agric. res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competition from weeds in row crops can cause significant losses in crop yields and impair crop quality, resulting in unnecessary economic loss for the farmer. For example, sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) yield may be reduced by as much as 95% due to shading and competition for light from weeds (Scott & Wilcockson, 1976), and tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) yield losses resulting from weed interference can reach 88% (Miyama, 1999). Carrot (Daucus carota L.) and lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) yield reductions have been as high as 50% and 54%, respectively (William & Warren, 1975;Morales-Payan et al., 1996).Overall, the selection of a weed control method is influenced by the type and condition of the crop, the type and size of the weeds, the equipment available, and the time of treatment (Bainer et al., 1963). However, herbicides applied by field sprayers have been used most frequently because of their ability to control a broad spectrum of weed species, their proven efficacy, and their low cost compared to manual labor, such as hand hoeing. Where weeds have evolved resistance or are naturally tolerant to herbicide, a moderate amount of hand hoeing is required to remove intra-row weeds after chemical application. The current objective of precise herbicide application is to make operating input more efficient by minimizing overlap and skip incidents and eliminating application on non-crop areas. As this objective is achieved, fewer herbicides can be used compared to conventional application, resulting in lower cost and risk for the environment (Schroers et al., 2010).Field sprayer for inter-and intra-row weed control: performance and labor savings AbstractStudies of new tools and methods for weed control have been motivated by increased consumer demand for organic produce, consumer and regulatory demands for a reduction in environmentally harmful herbicide use, and the decreased availability of farm workers willing to perform manual tasks, such as hand weeding. This study describes the performance of a new sprayer system for commercial production that integrates two herbicide applications in a single pass, selective herbicide (SH) application in narrow bands over the crop row, and a non-selective herbicide (NSH) application between crop rows. A real-time kinematic (RTK) global positioning system (GPS) was used for autoguidance in seeding and spraying operations. Conventional broadcast SHs and experimental treatments were applied at a constant nominal speed of 5.5 km h -1 for comparison. Trials in commercial sugar beet fields demonstrated the following: (i) average hand-weeding time can be reduced by 53% (ii) the new sprayer system reduced SH use by 76%, and (iii) sugar beet density did not change significantly during treatment. These results demonstrate the feasibility of using the new RTK-GPS controller sprayer system for differential and efficient herbicide application in inter-and intra-row zones in row crop production.

show abstract

“…UC research on the effects of no-till agriculture in cotton and processing tomatoes has found that sustained management of no-till practices can achieve yields comparable to standard tillage (Mitchell, Klonsky et al 2012;Mitchell et al 2015) and can reduce seed banks of weeds (Shrestha et al 2008). Benefits of this method include lower labor costs (Mitchell, Klonsky et al 2012;Mitchell, Singh 2012), reduced particulate matter emissions (Baker et al 2005) and less evaporative water loss (Mitchell, Singh et al 2012), as well as increased soil carbon (Veenstra et al 2007).…”

Section: Tillagementioning

confidence: 99%

Managing for soil health can suppress pests

Hodson¹,

Lewis²

2016

Calif Agr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A "healthy" soil can be thought of as one that functions well, both agronomically and ecologically, and one in which soil biodiversity and crop management work in synergy to suppress pests and diseases. UC researchers have pioneered many ways of managing soil biology for pest management, including strategies such as soil solarization, steam treatment and anaerobic soil disinfestation, as well as improvements on traditional methods, such as reducing tillage, amending soil with organic materials, and cover cropping. As managing for soil health becomes more of an explicit focus due to restrictions on the use of soil fumigants, integrated soil health tests will be needed that are validated for use in California. Other research needs include breeding crops for disease resistance and pest suppressive microbial communities as well as knowledge of how beneficial organisms influence plant health.

show abstract

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

Cited by 14 publications

References 26 publications

Preplant 1,3-D treatments test well for perennial crop nurseries, but challenges remain

Preplant 1,3-D treatments test well for perennial crop nurseries, but challenges remain

Field sprayer for inter and intra-row weed control: performance and labor savings

Managing for soil health can suppress pests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About