Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T00:44:27.255Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Soil Fumigation on Volunteer Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Tuber Viability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Rick A. Boydston  and
Martin M. Williams II
Rick A. Boydston*
Affiliation:
USDA–ARS, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Prosser, WA 99350-9687
Martin M. Williams II
Affiliation:
Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Washington State University, Prosser, WA 99350-9687
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: boydston@pars.ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Management of volunteer potato is difficult and requires an integrated approach. Soil fumigation is one tactic known to reduce population densities of certain weeds and may be a method to improve the management of volunteer potato. The effect of 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D) and metham sodium on potato tuber viability was tested in sealed glass jars at various doses, incubation temperatures, and times of exposure. Tuber viability data were fitted to a logistic model, and I 90 doses (90% suppression) were calculated for each combination of temperature and time of exposure. I 90 doses for 1,3-D ranged from 41 to 151 kg/ha and from 96 to over 480 kg/ha metham sodium. Both nondormant and dormant tubers were injured by exposure to metham sodium. Soil fumigation with 1,3-D and metham sodium has the potential to greatly reduce the number of viable potato tubers.

Keywords

1,3-dichloropropenemetham sodiumpotato, Solanum tuberosum L. ‘Russet Burbank’Groundkeeper1,3-D, 1,3-dichloropropeneMITC, methyl isothiocyanate
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 352 - 357
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Baines, R. C., Klotz, L. J., and DeWolfe, T. A. 1977. Some biocidal properties of 1,3-D and its degradation product. Phytopathology 67: 936–940.Google Scholar
Boydston, R. A. and Seymour, M. D. 2002. Volunteer potato (Solanum tuberosum) control with herbicides and cultivation in onion (Allium cepa). Weed Technol. 16: 620–626.Google Scholar
Csinos, A. S., Sumner, D. R., Johnson, W. C., Johnson, A. W., McPherson, R. M., and Dowler, C. C. 2000. Methyl bromide alternatives in tobacco, tomato and pepper transplant production. Crop Prot. 19: 39–49.Google Scholar
Gerstl, Z., Mingelgrin, U., and Yaron, B. 1977. Behavior of Vapam and methylisothiocyanate in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41: 545–548.Google Scholar
Gilreath, J. P. and West, D. W. 1996. Preliminary investigations with fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide in floricultural crops. Proc. Annu. Meet. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 109: 25–28.Google Scholar
Goring, C. A. I. 1962. Theory and principles of soil fumigation. Adv. Pest Control Res. 5: 47–84.Google Scholar
Hansson, D. and Ascard, J. 2002. Influence of development stage and time of assessment on hot water weed control. Weed Res. 42: 307–316.Google Scholar
Lembright, H. W. 1990. Soil fumigation: principles and application technology. J. Nematol. 22:(4S). 632–644.Google Scholar
Locascio, S. J., Gilreath, J. P., Dickson, D. W., Kuchareck, T. A., Jones, J. P., and Noling, J. W. 1997. Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for polyethylene-mulched tomato. Hortscience 32: 1208–1211.Google Scholar
McKenry, M. V. and Thomason, I. J. 1974. 1,3-Dichloropropene and 1,2-dibromoethane compounds: I. Movement and fate as affected by various conditions in various soils. II. Organism-dosage-response studies in the laboratory with several nematode species. Hilgardia 42: 392–438.Google Scholar
Morgan, W. C., Morgans, A. S., Birkenhead, W. E., and Stevenson, B. 1987. Soil fumigation for control of Solanum nigrum L. in direct-seeded processing tomatoes. J. Hortic. Sci. 62: 233–241.Google Scholar
Munnecke, D. E. and Van Gundy, S. D. 1979. Movement of fumigants in soil, dosage responses, and differential effects. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 17: 405–429.Google Scholar
Netter, J., Kutter, M., Nachsheim, C., and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. 4th ed. Chicago, IL: Irwin. pp. 429–434.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1975. Control of Canada thistle by soil fumigation without tarpaulins. Weed Sci. 23: 191–194.Google Scholar
Phatak, S. C. 1982. Effect of metham sodium applied through overhead irrigation systems on weed control and yield of vegetables. In Proceedings of the Second National Symposium on Chemigation. Tifton, GA: Georgia Coastal Plain Experiment Station Rural Development Center. pp. 23–27.Google Scholar
Pieczarka, S. J. and Warren, G. F. 1960. The influence of concentration of fumigant and time of exposure on the killing of dormant imbibed seeds. Weeds 8: 612–615.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9: 218–225.Google Scholar
Smelt, J. H. and Leistra, M. 1974. Conversion of metham-sodium to methyl isothiocyanate and basic data on the behavior of methyl isothiocyanate in soil. Pestic. Sci. 5: 401–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streibig, J. C., Rudemo, M., and Jensen, J. E. 1993. Dose-response curves and statistical models. In Streibig, J. C. and Kudsk, P., eds. Herbicide Bioassay. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. pp. 29–55.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R., Adams, P. B., and Johnston, S. A. 1983. Weed control after chemigation with low rates of metham. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 37: 258–262.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Taylorson, R. B. 1986. Weed seed response to methyl isothiocyanate and metham. Weed Sci. 34: 520–524.Google Scholar
Turner, N. J. and Corden, M. E. 1963. Decomposition of sodium methyldithiocarbamate in soil. Phytopathology 53: 1388–1394.Google Scholar
Van Wambeke, E. 1989. Behavior of fumigants and their degradation products in soil: consequences and solutions. Acta Hortic. 255: 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WSSA. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 352 p.Google Scholar