Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:07:09.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of Methyl Bromide Alternatives on Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) Control in Tomato and Pepper

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James P. Gilreath  and
Bielinski M. Santos
James P. Gilreath
Affiliation:
Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 5007 60th Street East, Bradenton, FL 34203
Bielinski M. Santos*
Affiliation:
Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 5007 60th Street East, Bradenton, FL 34203
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field trials were conducted to compare the effect of various soil fumigants along with in-bed pebulate and row-middle metribuzin applications on purple nutsedge control and on tomato and bell pepper growth and yield. Treatments consisted of combinations of soil fumigants, pebulate, and metribuzin. Fumigants levels were (1) untreated control, (2) methyl bromide (MBr) + chloropicrin (Pic) (67 + 33%, respectively), (3) Pic, (4) metham, (5) dazomet, and (6) 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) + Pic (83 + 17%, respectively). Pebulate levels were either applied in-bed or not applied. Row middles were either sprayed with metribuzin or untreated. In both crops, purple nutsedge populations were independently influenced by fumigants and pebulate applications, with the highest number of purple nutsedge plants in the untreated control. The addition of pebulate reduced purple nutsedge populations in all treatments. In tomato trials, the yield was affected by fumigants, with the highest losses (53 and 50% reductions in fruit number and weight) observed in the nonfumigated control. In pepper trials, fruit number and weight were individually influenced by fumigants and metribuzin sprayings. Application of metribuzin to row middles increased yields 10% relative to nontreated plots.

Keywords

Purple nutsedge, Cyperus rotundus L. # CYPROpepper, Capsicum annuum L.tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum MillChloropicrindazomet1,3-dichloropropeneinterferencemethammetribuzinpebulatesoil fumigants1,3-D, 1,3-dichlopropeneMBr, methyl bromidePic, chloropicrinWAT, weeks after transplanting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 341 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

∗ Publication R-09634 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series.

References

Literature Cited

Gilreath, J. P., Jones, J. P., and Overman, A. J. 1994. Soilborne pest control in mulched tomato with alternatives to methyl bromide. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 107:156–159.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii. 609 p.Google Scholar
[IFAS-UF] Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. 1999. Cost of Production for Florida Vegetables, 1997–98:. Web page: http://www.agbuscenter.ifas.ufl.edu. Accessed: December 5, 2000.Google Scholar
Jones, J. P., Gilreath, J. P., and Overman, A. J. 1995. Control of soil-borne disease of mulched tomato by fumigation. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 108:201–203.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P., Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., Dusky, J. A., and Bewick, T. A. 1997. Influence of nitrogen on the interference of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and Cyperus esculentus) with tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). HortSci. 32:431.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P., Santos, B. M., Stall, W. M., and Bewick, T. A. 1998. Influence of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) population densities on bell pepper (Capsicum annuum) yield as influenced by nitrogen. Weed Technol. 12:230–234.Google Scholar
Sargent, S. A. 1998. Tomato Production Guide for Florida: Harvest and Handling. Gainesville, FL.: IFAS-University of Florida Extension Rep. SP-214. 5 p.Google Scholar
Stall, W. M., Dusky, J. A., and Gilreath, J. P. 1997. Estimated effectiveness of recommended herbicides on selected common weeds in Florida vegetables. in Colvin, D. L., ed. 1997 Florida Weed Management Guide. Gainesville, FL: IFAS-University of Florida. Pp. 313–316.Google Scholar
Stall, W. M. and Gilreath, J. P. 2002. Weed control in tomato. in Stall, W. M., ed. Weed Management in Florida Fruits and Vegetables, 2002–2003. Gainesville, FL: IFAS-University of Florida. Pp. 55–58.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1998. Vegetables: Acreage, Production and Value: Web page: http://www.nass.usda.gov. Accessed: January 29, 1998.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1999. Vegetables: 1999 Summary. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. 128 p.Google Scholar
Watson, R. T., Albritton, D. T., Anderson, S. O., and Lee-Bapty, S. 1992. Methyl bromide: its atmospheric science, technology and economics. Montreal Protocol Assessment Supplement. United Nations Environmental Programme on Behalf of the Contracting Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Nairobi, Kenya. 235 pp.Google Scholar