Bell pepper producers are faced with the challenge of controlling weeds following the phase-out of methyl bromide (MBr). Numerous attempts have been made to find a single fumigant or herbicide to control a broad spectrum of weeds. Adequate weed control in bell pepper will likely require weed management systems utilizing both fumigant and herbicide options. A weed management system including the fumigant dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) plus chloropicrin (Pic) plus the herbicide napropamide prior to transplant followed by S-metolachlor POST may be necessary to replace MBr. Field experiments were conducted during 2010 and 2011 near Ty Ty, Georgia to determine bell pepper and weed response to DMDS plus Pic or in systems with napropamide and/or S-metolachlor. Bell pepper were not significantly injured by DMDS plus Pic or napropamide. Injury caused by S-metolachlor was transient and plants fully recovered by 4 weeks after treatment (WAT). Yellow nutsedge control 6 WAT using DMDS plus Pic applied at 468 or 560 L ha−1 controlled yellow nutsedge 91 to 95%. Large crabgrass control 6 WAT was 92 to 100% when DMDS plus Pic was applied at 468 or 560 L ha−1 with or without a(n) herbicide (S-metolachlor or napropamide). Palmer Amaranth control prior to harvest was 21, 64, and 85% using DMDS plus Pic at 374, 468, or 560 L ha−1, respectively. DMDS plus Pic applied at 468 or 560 L ha-1 with napropamide followed by S-metolachlor POST gave 95 to 99% control of Palmer amaranth 6 WAT. Consistent weed control and optimum yields were obtained when DMDS plus Pic was used at 468 L ha−1 plus napropamide beneath plastic mulch followed by S-metolachlor POST.

With the loss of methyl bromide (MeBr) and high prices of alternatives, tomato growers are applying lower fumigant rates or adopting a reduced system. Without the broad-spectrum control provided by the complete fumigant system, a fallow weed program might be needed to avoid an increase in pest pressure with consecutive years of application of the reduced-fumigant system. Nutsedges are among the pests of interest due to their fast reproduction by underground structures and ability to spread and quickly infest a field. Field trials were conducted between February and December of 2011 in Balm, FL, to evaluate the impacts of fallow treatments, fumigants, and halosulfuron on nutsedge control. The trial design was a split–split plot with main, sub-, and subsubplots being fallow, fumigant, and herbicide treatment, respectively. Fallow treatments were spaced evenly throughout the fallow season and consisted of sequential combinations of cultivation (C) and/or glyphosate (G) applied at 2.24 kg ae ha−1; including: C, CC, G, GG, CG, GC, GCG, and NO (nontreated control). Fumigant treatments included a reduced-fumigant system of 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin 40:60 (1,3-D + pic) at 281 kg ha−1, a complete fumigant system of dimethyl disulfide plus chloropicrin 79:21 (DMDS + pic) at 545 kg ha−1, and no fumigant (NoFum). Herbicide treatments were either two POST applications of halosulfuron at 39 g ai ha−1 (Hal) or no halosulfuron (NoHal). In general, the fallow weed treatment GCG was the most effective in reducing nutsedge shoot emergence through the plastic mulch. When the reduced-fumigant system 1,3-D + pic was combined with GCG fallow treatment and halosulfuron (GCG:1,3-D + pic:Hal), no differences were found between this combination and the complete fumigant system DMDS + pic with halosulfuron and combined with CC, G, GG, CG, GC or GCG. This study shows the importance of adding a fallow weed program and halosulfuron to either a reduced or complete fumigation system to minimize the reproduction and growth of nutsedges.