Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:38:30.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Modified Power Tiller for Metham Application on Cucurbit Crops Transplanted to Polyethylene-Covered Seedbeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

W. Carroll Johnson III  and
Theodore M. Webster
W. Carroll Johnson III*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA 31793
Theodore M. Webster
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA 31793
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: cjohnson@tifton.cpes.peachnet.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Metham has been reported as an acceptable weed control alternative to methyl bromide. However, modified application equipment is required to allow its effective use in crops that are grown on polyethylene-covered seedbeds. A power tiller was modified using commonly available materials to apply metham in a 61-cm band and shape seedbeds for laying a black polyethylene tarp. Additional modification allowed the implement to be used in strip tillage and conventional tillage systems. Metham applied using this modified power tiller effectively controlled many species of weeds, including yellow nutsedge, in transplanted watermelon.

Keywords

Methamyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. CYPESwatermelon, Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) MansfAlternatives to methyl bromide, fumigationPPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergencePTO, power take-off
Type
Note
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 387 - 395
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

Anonymous. 1998. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998—Executive Summary. World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project Report 44. 43 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1999. Product Guide 99. Newport Beach, CA: AMVAC Chemical. pp. 103–120.Google Scholar
Bass, R. T. 1999. Georgia agricultural facts, 1998 edition. Athens, GA: Georgia Agriculture Statistics Service. pp. 39–44.Google Scholar
Cline, W. O. and Beute, M. K. 1986. Effect of metam sodium, peanut genotype and inoculum density on incidence of Cylindrocladium black rot. Peanut Sci. 13: 41–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csinos, A. S., Johnson, W. C. III, Johnson, A. W., Sumner, D. R., McPherson, R. M., and Gitaitis, R. D. 1997. Alternative fumigants for methyl bromide in tobacco and pepper transplant production. Crop Prot. 16: 585–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csinos, A. S., Sumner, D. R., Johnson, W. C. III, 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
Noling, J. W. and Becker, J. O. 1994. The challenge of research and extension to define and implement alternatives to methyl bromide. J. Nem. 26 (Suppl.): 573–586.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
Thompson, L. Jr., Skroch, W. A., and Beasley, E. O. 1981. Pesticide Incorporation—Distribution of Dye by Tillage Implements. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service Bull. AG-250. 32 p.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1999. Administration extends deadline on methyl bromide ban to 2005. Methyl Bromide Altern. 5:1.Google Scholar