Page Banner

United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Research Service

Title: Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Vineyard Replant - Results of Field Trials.

Authors
item Schneider, Sally
item Trout, Thomas
item Browne, Greg
item Ajwa, Husein - UC DAVIS
item Sims, J - UC RIVERSIDE

Submitted to: American Phytopathological Society
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: June 1, 2003
Publication Date: July 21, 2003
Citation: SCHNEIDER, S.M. ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE FOR VINEYARD REPLANT - RESULTS OF FIELD TRIALS.. AMERICAN PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 2003.

Interpretive Summary: Alternatives to methyl bromide for vineyard replant - results of on-going field trials. S.M. SCHNEIDER(1), T.J. Trout(1), G.T. Browne(2), H. Ajwa(3), and J. Sims(4). (1) USDA ARS, Parlier, CA 93648; (2) USDA ARS, Davis, CA 95616; (3) Univ. of California-Davis, Salinas, CA 93905; (4) Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521. Field evaluation of potential methyl bromide alternatives for vineyard replant must determine not only efficacy of pathogen control at the time of planting the new vineyard, but also the efficacy of pest control and impact on crop growth and yield during the early growth and fruiting years. This paper reports the on-going performance of chemical, cultural, and genetic control measures in field trials planted in 1998 and 2000. Sixty-five year old Thompson Seedless vineyards were removed and treatments imposed. Treatments included: drip-applied 1,3-dichloropropene (Telone); shank injected iodomethane; 1-, 2-, and 3-year fallow; resistant rootstocks; untreated control; and methyl bromide. Chemical treatments reduced nematode populations comparable to methyl bromide. Fallow and resistant rootstocks reduced populations of Meloidogyne spp., rootknot nematode, but not Tylenchulus semipenetrans., citrus nematode. Plant growth and yield varied with treatment and scion/rootstock combination.

Technical Abstract: Alternatives to methyl bromide for vineyard replant - results of on-going field trials. S.M. SCHNEIDER(1), T.J. Trout(1), G.T. Browne(2), H. Ajwa(3), and J. Sims(4). (1) USDA ARS, Parlier, CA 93648; (2) USDA ARS, Davis, CA 95616; (3) Univ. of California-Davis, Salinas, CA 93905; (4) Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521. Field evaluation of potential methyl bromide alternatives for vineyard replant must determine not only efficacy of pathogen control at the time of planting the new vineyard, but also the efficacy of pest control and impact on crop growth and yield during the early growth and fruiting years. This paper reports the on-going performance of chemical, cultural, and genetic control measures in field trials planted in 1998 and 2000. Sixty-five year old Thompson Seedless vineyards were removed and treatments imposed. Treatments included: drip-applied 1,3-dichloropropene (Telone); shank injected iodomethane; 1-, 2-, and 3-year fallow; resistant rootstocks; untreated control; and methyl bromide. Chemical treatments reduced nematode populations comparable to methyl bromide. Fallow and resistant rootstocks reduced populations of <i>Meloidogyne </i> spp., rootknot nematode, but not <i>Tylenchulus semipenetrans.</i>, citrus nematode. Plant growth and yield varied with treatment and scion/rootstock combination.

Last Modified: 10/30/2014