Methyl bromide alternatives for vineyard replant – assessment of control efficacy, fumigant movement, and crop response
Collaborating Team Members: Stephen Vasquez, UCCE, Fresno, CA; Suduan Gao, USDA-ARS, Parlier, CA; Carson Smith, Winegrape Assoc., Fresno, CA; Brad Hanson, USDA-ARS, Parlier, CA; Greg Browne, USDA-ARS, Davis, CA; Jim Gerik, USDA-ARS, Parlier, CA; Karen Klonsky, UC Davis, CA; Ruijun Qin, USDA-ARS, Parlier, CA; Jennifer Hashim, UCCE, Bakersfield, CA; Alfonso Cabrera, USDA-ARS, Parlier, CA
Currently, many grape growers in central California contract commercial fumigators to shank inject 1,3-D to control soil-borne plant parasitic nematodes during vineyard replant. To ascertain continued accessibility of 1,3-D products as a soil fumigant in grape replant, it is important to determine its pest control efficacy and reduce potential emission losses under the current fumigation practice. It is also critically important to evaluate other fumigation methods with different delivery and containment techniques to enhance fumigant distribution in the soil for pest control efficacy and emission reductions. According to an economic impact assessment by Carpenter et al (2000) comparing fumigation with MeBr, grape growers in the Central Valley of California already suffer about 5% yield losses on acreage treated with 1,3-D. About 15% yield loss would be expected if without 1,3-D. Click for more details about the problem and it's significance to grape management.
Click here for a list of literature citations relevant to this project.