Methyl Bromide Alternatives for Root-Knot Nematodes Control in Tobacco Transplant Production

Article Preview

Abstract:

Field studies were conducted to evaluate potential methyl bromide alternatives against nematods in tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.). Metham-sodium and dazomet were evaluated respectively under a polyethylene cover as alternatives for methyl bromide in tobacco transplant production over a two-year period (2009-2010). One genera or species of nematodes, tobacco root-knot nematod (Meloidogyne spp.), was evaluated in Qingzhou, Shandong province of China. All of the fumigant candidates were successful in controlling the pest. Another Parameter, plant vigor, was measured too. Metham-sodium 60g/m2, dazomet 80g/m2 and methyl bromide were not significantly different (P=0.05) from each other in the parameters evaluated. Results of this study indicate that Metham-sodium and dazomet are potential methyl bromide alternatives available to growers for use in tobacco parasite nematods control.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 807-809)

Pages:

2071-2074

Citation:

Online since:

September 2013

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2013 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

[1] C.H. Bell, N. Price and B. Chakrabarti: The methyl bromide issue (John Wiley & Sons, UK 1996).

Google Scholar

[2] H.B. Singh, M. Kanakidou: Geophys. Res. Lett. Vol. 20 (1993) No. 3, pp.133-136.

Google Scholar

[3] D.W. Dickson, S.J. Locascio and D.J. Mitchell: Methyl Bromide Alternatives. Vol. 5 (1999), p.7.

Google Scholar

[4] R. McSorley: Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (Orlando, FL, November, 1996). pp.91-92.

Google Scholar

[5] J.A. Thies, R.L. Fery: Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions (San Diego, California, November 3-5, 1997). pp.321-322.

Google Scholar

[6] W.C. Johnson, B.G. Mullinix, Jr: Weed Science. Vol. 46 (1998) No. 3, pp.698-702.

Google Scholar

[7] W.J. Blok, J.G. Lamers, A.J. Termorshuizen, et al: Phytopathology. Vol. 90 (2000) No. 3, pp.253-259.

Google Scholar

[8] C.A. Chase, T.R. Sinclair, D.G. Shilling, et al: Weed Science. Vol. 46 (1998) No. 5, pp.575-580.

Google Scholar