Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:55:48.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determination of optimum metam-potassium rate for weed, tomato, and pepper termination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

Kshitij Khatri Open the ORCID record for Kshitij Khatri [Opens in a new window]  and
Nathan S. Boyd
Kshitij Khatri
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, University of Florida–Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, Wimauma, FL, USA
Nathan S. Boyd*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, University of Florida–Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, Wimauma, FL, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Nathan S. Boyd, University of Florida–Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, 14625 County Road 672, Wimauma, FL33598 Email: nsboyd@ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Metam potassium (metam-K) is a soil fumigant used commonly in Florida at the end of the tomato and pepper production season. The fumigant essentially cleans a field by killing the established weeds and crops after harvest. The goal of this project was to determine the optimal rate of metam-K for the effective termination of tomato, pepper, and established weeds such as purple nutsedge, goosegrass, and dogfennel. Tomato, pepper, and purple nutsedge at bed center were effectively terminated with the metam-K rate of 65 kg ha−1. Optimal rates required for the termination of goosegrass and dogfennel were 91 and 156 kg ha−1, respectively. In contrast, metam-K at 500 to 680 kg ha−1 was required to terminate purple nutsedge on bed edges. The reduced efficacy of metam-K at bed edge might be related to the limited movement of metam-K in soil.

Keywords

Metam potassiumdogfennelEupatorium capillifolium (Lam.) SmallgoosegrassEleusine indica (L.) GaertnpepperCapsicum annuum L.purple nutsedgeCyperus rotundus L.tomatoSolanum lycopersicum L.fumigationplasticulturesoil fumigationcrop terminationgrassy weedsbroad leaf weedssanitation
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 6 , December 2020 , pp. 801 - 806
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

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

Associate Editor: Robert Nurse, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

References

Ajwa, HA, Trout, T, Mueller, J, Wilhelm, S, Nelson, SD, Soppe, R, Shatley, D (2002) Application of alternative fumigants through drip irrigation systems. Phytopathology 2:1349–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baggio, JS, Chamorro, M, Cordova, LG, Noling, JW, Vallad, GE, Peres, NA (2018) Effect of formulations of allyl isothiocyanate on survival of Macrophomina phaseolina from strawberry. Plant Dis 102:2212–2219 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyd, NS, Vallad, G, Wu, F, Noling, J, Guan, Z (2017) Placement of metam potassium in combination with dimethyl disulfide, chloropicrin, and 1,3-dichloropropene for Cyperus rotundus L. and broadleaf weed control in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Crop Prot 100:45–50 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candole, BL, Csinos, AS, Wang, D (2007) Concentrations in soil and efficacy of drip-applied 1,3-D+chloropicrin and metam sodium in plastic-mulched sandy soil beds. Crop Prot 26:1801–1809 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, BS, Johnson, DE (2008) Germination ecology of goosegrass (Eleusine indica): an important grass weed of rainfed rice. Weed Sci 56:699–706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamorro, M, Seijo, TE, Noling, JC, Santos, B, Peres, NA (2016) Efficacy of fumigant treatments and inoculum placement on control of Macrophomina phaseolina in strawberry beds. Crop Prot 90:163–169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desaeger, JA, Seebold, KW, Csinos, AS (2008) Effect of application timing and method on efficacy and phytotoxicity of 1,3-D, chloropicrin and metam-sodium combinations in squash plasticulture. Pest Manag Sci 64:230–238 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desaeger, J, Dickson, DW, Locascio, SJ (2017) Methyl bromide alternatives for control of root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) in tomato production in Florida. J Nematol 49:140–149 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, LY, Barry, T, Mongar, K, Wofford, P (2006) Modeling methyl isothiocyanate soil flux and emission ratio from a field following a chemigation of metam-sodium. J Environ Qual 35:707–713 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macdonald, GE, Brecke, BJ, Shilling, DG (1992) Factors affecting germination of dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) and yankeeweed (Eupatorium compositifolium). Weed Sci 40:424–428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noling, JW (2006) The causes of pest control inconsistency with soil fumigation in Florida strawberry. Paper presented at the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, Orlando, Florida, November 2006Google Scholar
Noling, JW (2014) New technologies to study the spatial distribution and management of sting nematodes in Florida. Paper presented at the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, Orlando, Florida, November 2014Google Scholar
Owen, MD, Zelaya, IA (2005) Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides. Pest Manag Sci 61:301–311 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radewald, KC, Ferrin, DM, Stanghellini, ME (2004) Sanitation practices that inhibit reproduction of Monosporascus cannonballus in melon roots left in the field after crop termination. Plant Pathol 53:660–668 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riemens, MM, Weide, RY, Runia, WT (2008) Nutsedge, biology and control of Cyperus rotundus and Cyperus esculentus, review of a literature survey. PPO Report 32501002. Wageninen, Netherlands: Plant Research International B.VGoogle Scholar
Santos, BM (2009) Drip-applied metam potassium and herbicides as methyl bromide alternatives for Cyperus control in tomato. Crop Prot 28:68–71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, BA, Ferrell, JA, MacDonald, GE, Kline, WN (2009) Dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) size at application affects herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol 23:247–250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stucky, J (1984) Comparison of two methods of identifying weed seedlings. Weed Sci 32:598–602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA–NASS] United States Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service (2018) Vegetables 2017 Summary. https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/02870v86p/5425kd81z/9019s517t/VegeSumm-02-13-2018.pdf. Accessed: June 12, 2020Google Scholar
Webster, TM (2011) Weed survey-southern states: vegetable, fruit and nut crops subsection. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 59:260–277 Google Scholar
Yu, J, Boyd, NS (2018) Weed control and tolerance of sulfonylurea herbicides in caladium. Weed Technol 32:424–430 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, J, Boyd, NS, Guan, Z (2018) Relay-cropping and fallow programs for strawberry-based production system: effects on crop productivity and weed control. HortSci 53:445–450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar