The Effects of Anaerobic Soil Disinfestation on Weed and Nematode Control, Fruit Yield, and Quality of Florida Fresh-market Tomato
F. Gioia,M. Ozores-Hampton,Jason C. Hong,N. Kokalis-Burelle,J. Albano,Xin Zhao,Zack Black,Zhifeng Gao,Christopher W. Wilson,John E. Thomas,K. Moore,M. Swisher,Haichao Guo,E. Rosskopf
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.51.6.703
2016-06-01
Abstract:Anaerobic soil disinfestation (ASD) is considered a promising sustainable alternative to chemical soil fumigation (CSF), and has been shown to be effective against soilborne diseases, plant-parasitic nematodes, and weeds in several crop production systems. Nevertheless, limited information is available on the effects of ASD on crop yield and quality. Therefore, a field study was conducted on fresh-market tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) in two different locations in Florida (Immokalee and Citra), to evaluate and compare the ASD and CSF performances on weed and nematodes control, and on fruit yield and quality. In Immokalee, Pic-Clor 60 (1,3-dichloropropene+ chloropicrin)was used as theCSF,whereas in Citra, the CSF was Paldin [dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) + chloropicrin]. Anaerobic soil disinfestation treatments were applied using a mix of composted poultry litter (CPL) at the rate of 22 Mg·ha, and two rates of molasses [13.9 (ASD1) and 27.7 m·ha (ASD2)] as a carbon (C) source. In both locations, soil subjected to ASD reached highly anaerobic conditions, and cumulative soil anaerobiosis was 167% and 116% higher in ASD2 plots than in ASD1 plots, in Immokalee and Citra, respectively. In Immokalee, the CSF provided the most significant weed control, but ASD treatments also suppressed weeds enough to prevent an impact on yield. In Citra, all treatments, including the CSF, provided poor weed control relative to the Immokalee site. In both locations, the application of ASD provided a level of root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne sp.) control equivalent to, or more effective than the CSF. In Immokalee, ASD2 and ASD1 plots provided 26.7% and 19.7% higher total marketable yield as comparedwith CSF plots, respectively. However, in Citra, total marketable yield was unaffected by soil treatments. Tomato fruit quality parameters were not influenced by soil treatments, except for fruit firmness in Immokalee, which was significantly higher in fruits fromASD treatments than in those fromCSF soil. Fruitmineral contentwas similar or higher in ASD plots as comparedwith CSF. In fresh-market tomato, ASD applied using amixture of CPLandmolassesmay be a sustainable alternative toCSF formaintaining or even improving marketable yield and fruit quality. Soilborne fungal pathogens, nematodes, and weeds represent some of the most important biotic factors limiting vegetable crop production and profitability in the world. After the phaseout of methyl bromide, although other chemical soil fumigants (CSF) are available, there is still a pressing need for effective, viable, and more sustainable options (Shennan et al., 2014). Among the nonchemical alternatives, ASD, also known as ‘‘biological soil disinfestation’’ (Blok et al., 2000) or ‘‘reductive soil disinfestation’’ (Shinmura et al., 1999), is considered as one of the most promising methods. Anaerobic soil disinfestation has proved to be effective against several soilborne fungal and bacterial plant diseases, and plant-parasitic nematodes and weeds, across a wide range of crops and environments (Butler et al., 2012a, 2012b; Lamers et al., 2010; Momma, 2008; Rosskopf et al., 2015; Shennan et al., 2014). Developed independently in Japan (Shinmura et al., 1999) and in the Netherlands (Blok et al., 2000), for both open field and protected crops, the technique is gaining interest in the United States, China, and other countries (Kim et al., 2007; Meng et al., 2015; Shennan et al., 2014). Suitable also for raised-bed crops, ASD does not require the use of chemicals and may be applied even in organic production systems. The current approach to ASD treatment in Florida recommends application 3 weeks before crop transplanting and consists of creating temporary anaerobic (reducing) conditions by 1) amending the soil with a readily decomposable C source to initiate rapid soil microbial growth and respiration, 2) covering the bed with oxygen impermeable polyethylene mulch to minimize gas exchange, and 3) irrigating the soil to saturate the pore space, which, besides creating anaerobic conditions, enhances the diffusion of by-products through the soil solution within the volume of soil that will host the crop root system (Butler et al., 2014; Shennan et al., 2014). The growth of aerobic microorganisms stimulated by the organic amendment causes a rapid decline in oxygen content in the soil with consequent decrease of the redox potential (Eh) and the development of anaerobic conditions that promote the growth of facultative and obligate anaerobic microorganisms over the aerobic microbial community (Mowlick et al., 2012, 2013a, 2013b; van Agtmaal et al., 2015). Under reducing conditions, the organic matter is subject to fermentation with consequent production of short-chain fatty acids (acetic, butyric, and propionic acids), aldehydes, alcohols, and volatile organic compounds (VOC) that are toxic and/or suppressive for several soilborne pathogens, plant-parasitic nematodes, and weeds (Bonanomi et al., 2007; Momma et al., 2006; Momma, 2008; Oka, 2010; van Agtmaal et al., 2015). Momma et al. (2011) reported that in presence of anaerobic conditions the generation of ions such asFe and Mn may contribute to the suppression of soilborne pathogens like Fusarium oxysporum. Although the mechanism of pest suppression by ASD is not fully understood and HORTSCIENCE VOL. 51(6) JUNE 2016 703 requires further research, an aspect that needs particular attention is the ASD application technique. It is critical for the adoption of ASD at the commercial level, to define and validate a feasible field-scale ASD application procedure. Themain factors affecting the level of anaerobiosis and low pH achievable, as well as the microbial type and population growth, and the maintenance of reducing conditions overtime are the soil type, the initial water volume applied, and the type and rate of organic matter applied (Butler et al., 2012b, 2014). A good C source should be locally and abundantly available, low cost, homogenous, easy to apply, and effective in supporting microbial growth. Depending on local availability and costs, the C sourcemay be constituted by cover crop residues, ethanol, molasses, rice or wheat bran, or a combination of organic materials (Rosskopf et al., 2015; Shennan et al., 2014). Although temporary, the reduction of Eh and the lowering of pH caused by the ASD treatment (Momma, 2008), may have a substantial impact on the pests and the entire soil-microorganism-plant system (Husson, 2013; Strauss and Kluepfel, 2015; van Agtmaal et al., 2015). Combined with solarization and using molasses as a C source, the ASD treatment provided equivalent or greater marketable yields than the methyl bromide control in a bell pepper (Capsicum annum L.)—eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) double crop system (Butler et al., 2014). However, while great attention has been given to the efficacy of control of the ASD against specific pests and pathogens (Blok et al., 2000, 2012a, 2012b; Lamers et al., 2010; Momma, 2008; Shennan et al., 2014), little is known about the effects of the ASD per se on tomato (S. lycopersicum) crop yield and fruit quality. Therefore, a field study was carried out in two different locations in Florida, which leads the United States in the production of fresh-market tomato, accounting for 34% of the U.S. fresh-market tomato harvested area and 39% of the national crop value in 2014 (USDA-NASS, 2015), the majority of which is produced using soil fumigation as the basis for pest management. The study was conducted in an open-field, fresh-market tomato production system to evaluate ASD in comparison with the reference CSF treatments for weeds and nematodes control as well as for influence on fruit yield and quality. Materials and Methods Experimental sites and treatments. During the spring season of 2015, two experiments were conducted in open-field fresh-market tomato in southwestern (Immokalee) and northern Florida (Citra). The conventional CSF was compared with two ASD treatments, which consisted of amending the soil with 22 Mg·ha of CPL and two rates of molasses [13.9 (ASD1) and 27.7 m·ha (ASD2)] as a C source. The first experiment was established on 2 Feb. 2015 at theUniversity of Florida (UF)/Institute of Food and Agriculture Science (IFAS)/South West Florida Research and Education Center (SWFREC) in Immokalee, FL. The second experiment was established inNorth Florida on 25Mar. 2015, at the UF Plant Science Research and Education Unit in Citra, FL. In Immokalee, the soil was a Spodosol classified as Immokalee fine sand (sandy, siliceous, hyperthermic Arenic Haplaquods), and the experimental field was previously characterized as having moderate weed and root-knot nematode pressure. In Immokalee, weed species homogeneously infesting the experimental field included yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.), the monocotyledonous goosegrass [Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn.], southern crabgrass [Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koel.], large crabgrass [Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.], and smooth crabgrass [Digitaria ischaemum (Schreb.) Muhl.], and the dicotyledonous pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), false daisy (Eclipta prostrata L.), and old world diamond (Hedyotis corymbosa L.), which represent some of the most common weeds infesting tomato crops in the area. In Citra, the soil was a Gainesville loamy sand (hyperthermic, coated typic quartzipsamments) and the experimental field had high weed pressure, consisting predominantly of yellow nutsedge. At this site, root-knot nematode pressure was also high based on previous observations. At each location, treatments (CSF, ASD1, and ASD2) were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. A nontreated control was not included because the ASD method has been proven to have efficacy against multiple soilborne pest species when compared with untreated soil (McCarty et al., 2014), while the comparison with the current commercial fumigants available in each area i
Biology