Source: UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA submitted to NRP
EVALUATION OF THE SUSTAINABILITY OF METHYL BROMIDE ALTERNATIVES IN A DOUBLE CROP SYSTEM.
Sponsoring Institution
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Project Status
COMPLETE
Funding Source
Reporting Frequency
Annual
Accession No.
0214959
Grant No.
2008-51102-19368
Cumulative Award Amt.
$421,445.00
Proposal No.
2008-02978
Multistate No.
(N/A)
Project Start Date
Aug 1, 2008
Project End Date
Jul 31, 2011
Grant Year
2008
Program Code
[112.C]- Methyl Bromide Transitions Program
Recipient Organization
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
G022 MCCARTY HALL
GAINESVILLE,FL 32611
Performing Department
GULF COAST RESEARCH & EDUCATION CENTER, BRADENTON
Non Technical Summary
Methyl bromide has been an effective tool for managing multiple pests since the early 1900's, with extensive use in vegetable and fruit crops since the 1950's (Ragsdale and Wheeler 1995). Methyl bromide has been the foundation for pest management in many of these crops, as it has provided effective broad spectrum pest control. The Montreal Protocol of 1991 defined methyl bromide as a chemical that contributes to the depletion of the Earth's ozone layer (USDA, 1999). Accordingly, based on scientific data, the manufacturing and importation of methyl bromide to developed countries is currently being phased out. Under-developed countries have a significant advantage as methyl bromide will be phased out slowly and complete phase out will not occur prior to 2015. Unless viable alternatives are found, US farmers will be at a disadvantage when competing in the global agricultural market (Ragsdale and Wheeler 1995). Fruiting vegetable and cucurbit crops account for the majority of plasticulture acres that utilize methyl bromide for pest control in Florida and Georgia. Nutsedge species are the most troublesome and among the most common weeds infesting Florida and Georgia fruiting vegetable and cucurbit crops (Webster, 2006). Yellow nutsedge growth and reproduction is reduced by polyethylene mulches (Majek and Neary 1991; Webster 2005a). However, another study demonstrated black polyethylene mulch promoted growth of purple nutsedge plants relative to non-mulched plots (Webster 2005b). A single nutsedge tuber was capable of producing 3,400 new shoots in black low density polyethylene mulch plots after 60 weeks of growth, nearly double the number of shoots in the non-mulched plots. Black low density polyethylene mulch also promoted lateral expansion of purple nutsedge patches (22.1 m2 after 60 weeks) compared to the non-mulched plots (11.6 m2 after 60 weeks). Though yellow nutsedge is typically more common in agronomic fields, purple nutsedge has been observed to be more tolerant of many of the methyl bromide alternatives (Culpepper and Langston 2004b, Stall 2000). This increased tolerance to fumigant alternatives coupled with the ability to thrive in black polyethylene mulch systems makes purple nutsedge a formidable pest. Re-use of polyethylene mulch often occurs in an effort to distribute the significant capital investments of the mulch and the drip irrigation over several crops. This use pattern raises at least two issues. First, excessive nutsedge piercing of the mulch barrier will reduce the stability and integrity of the mulch. Mulch that does not tightly adhere to the soil bed may allow for crop lodging if wind gets between the soil bed and the mulch. Second, black polyethylene will moderate cool autumn and winter temperatures and allow for earlier soil warming in the spring. The use of black polyethylene mulch may alter the environmental characteristics of the cropping system (i.e. extend growing seasons because of increased soil temperatures) to the benefit of purple nutsedge.
Animal Health Component
50%
Research Effort Categories
Basic
50%
Applied
50%
Developmental
(N/A)
Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)Subject of Investigation (SOI)Field of Science (FOS)Percent
2131460114012%
2131461114011%
2131429114011%
2121460116011%
2121461116011%
2121429116011%
2121460112011%
2121461112011%
2121429112011%
Goals / Objectives
The goals of this project are to evaluate the sustainability of potential methyl bromide alternatives over several seasons in large plot trials and to further evaluate other alternatives to determine their suitability for inclusion into methyl bromide alternatives recommendations. Several methyl bromide alternatives will evaluated to determine if their efficacy on weeds, diseases, and nematodes observed in the first year is sustainable in the third year of application. In the long term methyl bromide alternatives trial, tomato and pepper will be planted as a first crop with squash planted as a follow crop to deliver information on the sustainability of the alternatives over an additional cropping season. Through this research we hope to speed the adoption of viable and economic methyl bromide alternatives by growers in the Southeastern US. Objectives. The purpose of this research is to assist growers in the adoption of economically effective alternatives to methyl bromide for the control of weeds, diseases, and nematodes. 1.Determine the sustainability of possible methyl bromide alternatives applied in sequential years on the same production land. 2.Compare the economic validity of each fumigant/plastic system for potential adoption by Southeastern vegetable producers. 3.Distribute the results on the adoption of methyl bromide alternatives to growers and other interested parties.
Project Methods
Objective 1. Determine the sustainability of possible methyl bromide alternatives applied in sequential years on the same production land. One large scale plot experiment will be conducted each year over a period of three years on the same piece of crop production land. This land has been used for tomato production the last three years with methyl bromide plus chloropicrin (67:33 year one and two, 50:50 year three) used as the fumigant during the production seasons. Full plot size will be 3 beds wide by 300 ft long. Sub plot size will by one bed by 300 ft in length. Treatments will be replicated four times. Tomato and bell pepper will be planted as the first crop followed by squash as a second crop. Crop growth, weed emergence, soil borne disease, and nematode measurements will be taken. Data collected will include: 1) Crop Growth Measurements 2) Yield Measurements 3) Weed Response Measurements 4) Soilborne Disease Measurements 5) Nematode Measurements Objective 2. Compare the economic validity of each fumigant /plastic systems for potential adoption by Southeastern vegetable producers. In order for an alternative to be acceptable at the farm level, it must be economical. Thus, cost benefit analyses will be evaluated for all cropping systems. All the explicit and implicit cost components of each crop sequence will be captured and analyzed using both quantitative and qualitative models. The economic analysis will be vital to determine whether the results of this research will provide superior pareto-optimality to the farmers from economic, welfare, ecological and environmental perspective concomitantly. The economic analysis will be conducted using the primary data collected by each collaborating scientist in this project. Objective 3. Distribute results on the adoption of methyl bromide alternatives to growers and other interested parties. Distribution of information will be conducted using: 1) Extension County Meetings 2) Field Tours 3) State Meetings 4) Education/Professional Meetings

Progress 08/01/08 to 07/31/11

Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience was the growers and crop production managers in the Southeastern US. This was accomplished with the use of grower specific talks in multiple locaitons within Florida and Georgia as well as with large scale field days and grower association meetings conducted in Florida and Georgia. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Nothing Reported How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We have allowed access to all the presentations made to interested parties in attendance or otherwise for review of the data. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Goal 1. Determine the sustainability of possible methyl bromide alternatives applied in sequential years on the same production land. Results - We were not able to determine a specific methyl bromide alternative that was sustainable in the control of weeds. All tested alternatives showed variable increasing populations of nutsedge and some showed increases in annual grasses. Goal 2.Compare the economic validity of each fumigant/plastic system for potential adoption by Southeastern vegetable producers. Results - We were not able to provide an economic benefit for the adoption of a methyl bromide alternative. With the increasing weed poulations, the cost for maintaining control of those weeds would not be economical. It is just a matter of time unless other control options can be utilized to halt or decrease the population levels. Goal 3.Distribute the results on the adoption of methyl bromide alternatives to growers and other interested parties. Results - We presented the findings at 2 national society meetings of weed science, greater than 20 local grower meetings, two large grower association meetings in Georgia, and 3 large scale field days located in Florida. This information was also used in one on one coversations with growers about the adoption of methyl bromide alternatives.

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Submitted Year Published: 2016 Citation: Jacoby, T.P., A.W. MacRae, G.E. Vallad, J.W. Noling. 2016. The Long Term Sustainability of Methyl Bromide Alternatives in Tomato and Pepper. Hort. Tech.


Progress 08/01/08 to 07/31/09

Outputs
OUTPUTS: In the fall of 2008 a trial was initiated to look at the sustainability of four methyl bromide alternatives in a Florida double crop system. The initial treatments included Methyl Bromide 67:33 at 175 lbs/A, Midas 50:50 at 160 lbs/A, Paladin Pic at 60 gal/A, Telone II at 12 gal/A plus Chloropicrin at 150 lbs/A (2-Way), Telone II at 12 gal/A plus Chloropicrin at 150 lbs/A plus KPam at 60 gal/A (3-Way), and a non-treated control. All treatments were placed at 8 inches below the top of the bed except Telone II which was placed 12 inches below the bed top and KPam which was injected into the beds using double drip tape. Each treatment had a split plot of herbicide or no herbicide. The herbicides were applied beneath the plastic mulch and consisted of V10142 (0.3 lbs ai/A) and napropamide (2 lbs ai/A). The no herbicide subplots were planted with bell pepper and tomato while the herbicide plot was planted with tomato only. Only the initial crop data will be discussed due to space constraints. For the annual grass weed counts, the application of the herbicide under the plastic mulch increased annual grass control. Paladin Pic and the non-treated control had similar annual grass counts. All other fumigation treatments had lower annual grass counts and were similar to each other. For the broadleaf weed counts, the application of the herbicide under the plastic mulch increased broadleaf weed control. All fumigation treatments had lower broadleaf weed counts than the non-treated control. Paladin Pic had higher weed counts than any of the other fumigation treatments. For the nutsedge sp. counts (purple and yellow), the application of the herbicide under the plastic improved nutsedge control. The nutsedge pressure was low in this field, however all fumigation treatments provided similar control. For tomato marketable yield (mediums + large + extra large), all fumigation treatments produced greater yield than the non-treated control. The 3-Way treatment produced the greatest yield similar to only Paladin Pic. Paladin Pic and Midas produced similar yields. MB and the 2-Way treatment produced similar yields. For pepper marketable yield (medium and greater), only the 3-Way fumigation treatment produced yields greater than the non-treated control. All fumigation treatments produced similar yields. All fumigation treatments provided acceptable crop yields. However, the 3-Way treatment provided the most consistent high yields and weed control. Paladin Pic produced high yields but also had higher weed counts. These weed counts were greatly reduced with the addition of a herbicide and it would be expected that this product will be required to have a herbicide program as part of its control strategy. All fumigant systems showed an improvement in weed control with the addition of a herbicide. In year one of this trial, all fumigant systems showed promise as a methyl bromide alternative, but it appears as though a herbicide program will be required for all fumigant systems to improve sustainability. PARTICIPANTS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period. TARGET AUDIENCES: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Nothing significant to report during this reporting period.

Impacts
WE have only completed one year of the three year trial with the intention of determining sustainability of the fumigant systems being tested. We do not have any data on the sustainability, thus we have not disseminated any outcome to the stakeholders, nor did we have any impacts. We expect after year two that we will be able to start delivering some information to the growers.

Publications

  • No publications reported this period