Retention of the Soil Fumigant Dimethyl Disulfide by Virtually and Totally Impermeable Film Mulches

• Published in: HortScience Vol. 48; no. 9; pp. 1154 - 1158
• Main Authors: MCAVOY, Theodore P, FREEMAN, Joshua H
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Alexandria, VA American Society for Horticultural Science 01.09.2013
• Subjects: Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions; Biological and medical sciences; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Insecticide; Horticulture; Film; Pesticides; Fumigant; alternative; Protected cultivation; Retention; Soil management; Soils; Plasticulture; Mulching; Methyl bromide
• ISSN: 0018-5345; 2327-9834
• DOI: 10.21273/HORTSCI.48.9.1154

Alternative soil fumigants are needed to replace methyl bromide (MBr). One possible MBr alternative is dimethyl disulfide (DMDS). Highly impermeable plastic films such as virtually impermeable film (VIF) and totally impermeable film (TIF) can be used to increase fumigant retention. Possible advantages of increased fumigant retention are decreased fumigant use rates, decreased buffer zone requirements, reduced fumigant emissions, and improved pest control. Reduced fumigant emission may be especially important with DMDS because it has a sulfur odor, which is easily perceivable by the human nose. One potential drawback of decreasing film permeability may be longer plant back intervals, especially during periods with cool wet soils. The objective of these experiments was to evaluate the effect of TIF on DMDS retention at various rates compared with VIF. Experiments were conducted at the Virginia Tech Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center (ESAREC) in Painter, VA, using high (561 L·ha −1 ), standard (468 L·ha −1 ), and reduced application rates (374, 281, and 187 L·ha −1 ) of DMDS in combination with TIF and VIF during spring and fall seasons. Soil temperature and fumigant concentration within the soil were recorded. A stepwise decrease in fumigant retention was seen as fumigant rates were reduced under TIF. Retention periods were impacted by soil temperature. High temperatures decreased the retention period and low temperatures increased the retention period. Standard fumigant rates (468 L·ha −1 ) under VIF resulted in similar fumigant concentrations in the soil as 281 L·ha −1 under TIF. Similar fumigant concentrations and possibly similar planting interval can be achieved by reducing fumigant use rates ≈40% to 50% under TIF compared with VIF.