Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for polyethylene-mulched tomato

HortScience

Volumn 32, Issue 7, 1997, Pages 1208-1211

  Locascio, Salvadore J ^a   Gilreath, James P ^b   Dickson, D W ^a   Kucharek, Thomas A ^a   Jones, J P ^b   Noling, J W ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

1,3 dichloropropene; Chloropicrin; Dazomet; Fungi; Lycopersicon esculentum; Metam sodium; Nematodes; Pest control; Tetrathiocar bonate; Weed control

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031437237     PISSN: 00185345     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.21273/hortsci.32.7.1208     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Barker, K.R., J.L. Townshend, G.W. Bird, I.J. Thomason, and D.W. Dickson. 1986. Determining nematode population responses to control agents, p. 283-296. In: K.D. Hickey (ed.). Methods for evaluating pesticides for control of plant pathogens. APS Press, St. Paul, Minn.
2. Geuder, J.K. and N.L. Pugh. 1996. Florida agricultural statistics: Vegetable summary 1994-1995. Florida Agr. Stat. Serv., Orlando, Fla.
3. Gilreath. J.P., J.P. Jones, and A.J. Overman. 1994. Soilborne pest control in mulched tomato with alternatives to methyl bromide. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 107:156-159.
4. Jones, J.B., J.P. Jones, R.E. Stall, and T.A. Zitter. 1991. Compendium of tomato diseases. APS Press, St. Paul, Minn.
5. Locascio, S.J., D.W. Dickson, and T.A. Kucharek. 1994. Evaluation of multi-purpose soil fumigants for root-knot nematode and soilborne disease management on tomato in Florida. Proc. Annu. Intl. Res. Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction. p. 3.
6. Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee-United Nations Environment Program. 1995. 1994 report of the methyl bromide technical options committee for the 1995 assessment of the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. United Nations Environment Program. Australia.
7. Noling, J.W. and J.O. Becker. 1994. The challenge of research and extension to define and implement alternatives to methyl bromide. J. Nematol. 26(Suppl.):573-586.
8. Overman, A.J. and F.G. Martin. 1978. A survey of soil and crop management practices in the Florida tomato industry. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 91:294-297.
9. SAS Institute. 1995. Proprietary software release 6.11. SAS Inst., Cary, N.C.
10. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1976. United States standards for grades of fresh tomatoes. U.S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Marketing Serv., Washington, D.C.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. 40 C FR Part 82, Protection of stratospheric ozone: Final rule making. Federal Register, 10 Dec. 1993, 58(236):65018-65062.
12. Watson, R.T., D.L. Albritton, S.O. Anderson, and S. Lee-Bapty. 1992. Methyl bromide: Its atmospheric science, technology and economics. Montreal Protocol Assessment Suppl., United Nations Environmental Programme on Behalf of the Contracting Parties to the Montreal Protocol. Nairobi, Kenya.