Skip to main content
ARS Home » Southeast Area » Fort Pierce, Florida » U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory » Subtropical Plant Pathology Research » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #228978
Title: Optimizing Alternative Fumigant Applications for Ornamental Production in Florida

Author
item Rosskopf, Erin
item Burelle, Nancy
item MCSORELY, ROBERT - University Of Florida
item SKVARCH, ED - University Of Florida

Submitted to: Extension Digital Information Source (EDIS)
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 10/11/2011
Publication Date: 6/1/2009
Citation: Rosskopf, E.N., Burelle, N.K., Mcsorely, R., Skvarch, E. 2009. Optimizing Alternative Fumigant Applications for Ornamental Production in Florida. Extension Digital Information Source (EDIS). ENY-901 (IN818)

Interpretive Summary:

Technical Abstract: In Florida, cut flower and other ornamental crop producers have a very limited number of alternatives to methyl bromide for several reasons including the lack of registered herbicides available for these crops, and the need to control previously planted cultivars volunteering as weeds within the same crop species. Also, land for ornamental crop production is often in desirable coastal areas with high value, and in close proximity to residential areas, limiting the materials that can be applied. In addition, the number of ornamental crop species being produced is high, and species vary in pest susceptibility and sensitivity to chemical pesticides. Growers often introduce new varieties whose susceptibilities to pests or residual pesticides are unknown. In-field feasibility of alternatives for major ornamental species remains to be demonstrated. Research trials with chemical alternatives, including iodomethane:chloropicrin and dimethyl disulfide:chloropicrin have been conducted for multiple ornamental crops over several years. In these trials, several application issues were identified that are related to the chemical properties of the fumigants. These included a delayed filling of application tubing that left large areas of untreated field, lack of fumigant movement when chisels were clogged, and gas release through chisel marks resulting from the application equipment. Several of these issues have been addressed by commercial applicators. Modifications that are required for use of standard methyl bromide application equipment are discussed.