Overview of Soil Fumigation in Forest Tree Nurseries by: T. Ray Colvin, Jr.

Introduction
History of Soil Fumigation
Soil fumigation has been a practice of nurseries for many years, and since the early trials of treatments such as aqueous solutions of formaldehyde gas, methyl bromide, and ethylene dibromide, chemical based fumigation has been the commonly accepted practice in forest tree nurseries. Even though soil fumigation is an expensive practice, it is has been reported that 90% of the southern and western nurseries use fumigants to control a broad spectrum of pests, that include weed, disease, and insects (Landis et al. 1991).

Preparation for fumigation
One of the more important pre-treatment factors is the preparation of the soil for fumigation. "A good way to be sure the soil is prepared is to disk it until it looks perfect, and then disk it again," (Boone 1988). The amount of success related to the fumigation depends on the contact of the treatment with the targeted pest. Factors to be considered when preparing the soil for fumigation include: Breaking up soil clumps will expose more insects, weed seeds, and fungal spores for control. Excessive organic matter will tend to tie up fumigants and reduce the degree of pest control. Avoid adding organic matter immediately prior to treatment. Organic material may also release the fumigant more slowly, causing phytotoxicity, resulting in damage to the seedling crop. Soil samples should be collected before and after fumigation due to its affect on nutrient availability. Essential steps should be taken to adjust the soil nutrients to the desired range. Sanitation is the key. "Control the pest before they build up to the extent requiring drastic action such as fumigation," (Chapman 1992). Spot treatments with herbicides Spraying adjacent grass or weedy areas with herbicides and insecticides.

Nursery Pests

Soil Fungi Fungi can be characterized as a plant-like organisms that lack chlorophyll and conductive tissues. In essence. 1991). non-segmented threadlike roundworms that feed on. insects. target pests should be identified and all control options analyzed before a fumigant is used. This task can be dated back to 1881 when an attempt to control . or on the interior (Endoparasitc) of the host plant. Certain weed species common to southern nurseries include: nutsedge (Cyperus spp. Another pathogen common to nurseries is Rhizoctonia (James 1989). Insects Several species of insects live in the soil during a portion of their life cycles. target pests must be addressed with different control methods. and weeds. Chemical Based Fumigation Control of disease carrying and plant structure (life cycle) damaging organisms in forest tree nurseries has been a challenge to nursery operators for decades. instead. In forest tree nurseries." (Landis et al. one of the leading problems in seedling survival is caused by several different fungal pathogens. nematodes. necrotic symptoms caused by this pest are difficult to diagnose (May 1984).) Two other fungal pathogens that must be reduced for successful crops are Pythium spp. Without some control of these organisms. and horseweed (Coneza canadensis) (Carey 1995).In order for soil fumigation to be considered effective. The larval stage of the insects are usually more destructive in the nursery situations due to their feeding on the underground plant structures. Usually transparent. and Phytophthora spp. dogfennel (Eupatorium capifillifolium). Plant parasitic nematodes use a piercing stylet to feed on the plant roots. Damping-off. and injure plants.). any attempt to improve the number and quality of seedlings will be limited. plant pathogenic soil fungi can be present in several different forms. Fusarium spp. These target pests are usually divided into four major groups: fungi. pigweed (Amaranthus spp. Nematodes Nematodes are microscopic. In addition to the fact that insects can be very damaging to a seedling crop.). This feeding can occur either on the outside (Ectoparasitic). is one of the most important fungal pathogens that must be controlled (Landis and Campbell 1989. Weeds Weeds are characterized as a plant that is undesirable where it is growing and are another target for fumigation (Grierson 1989). these organisms are destructive in that they depend on other organisms as a food source. "Fumigation should never be used as an all-purpose pest control treatment. these small roundworms are considered to be one of the most damaging of the pests that have been targeted by soil fumigation (Landis and Campbell 1989). These water molds are usually more damaging in poorly drained soils.

insects. remain restricted in the area long enough to be effective. and has consistently been providing the most effective control of nursery pests. or by application to the soil surface from pressurized containers. Methyl Bromide Methyl bromide is a biocide that controls many target pests (soil-borne fungi. meta sodium. and organic matter content should all be considered. moisture content. whereas. When used in nursery situations. According to Cordell (1989) the use of methyl bromide being used in approximately 90% of the southern nurseries. Advantages of soil surface applications are the lower amounts of application equipment and the degree of simplicity for application (Cordell 1989). The purpose of chemical fumigation is clearly defined as being capable of penetrating to the location in the soil where the organism lives. physical condition of the soil. the chloropicrin in MBC-2 is only added as a "warning" agent to the methyl bromide due to its odorless nature (Landis and Campbell 1991). nematodes. and chloropicrin. kills the organism. dazomet. Some factors that contribute to methyl bromides' effectiveness are related to the soil's properties. soil surface application. soil insects. weeds) of forest tree nurseries. is most suitable for fumigating small localized seedbeds of nurseries. nematodes. Four of the most commonly used chemical based soil fumigants include: methyl bromide.nematodes with chemical applications of carbon disulphide (Cordell 1983). and some fungal pathogens. Soil temperature. Because methyl bromide volitilizes to a gas once released from its liquid state under . This combination usually is available in two formulations: *MBC-33 (containing 67% methyl bromide + 33% chloropicrin) *MBC-2 (containing 98% methyl bromide + 2% chloropicrin) The chloropicrin in MBC-33 is added to increase the efficiency of the fumigant. and depart from the soil without leaving any residual that might affect the conifer seeds (McElroy 1986). Methyl bromide seems to be more effective under the following situations: *Soil Moisture Level: Range = 30-70%(field capacity) Optimal = 50% *Soil Temperature: Range = 40-90 degrees F Optimal = 50-85 degrees F *Soil Condition: Tilled to seedbed condition MBC fumigants (MBC-33 or MBC-2) can be applied either with chisel injectors beneath the soil (Cordell and Kelley 1985). methyl bromide is usually combined with chloropicrin designated as methyl bromide/chlorpricrin (MBC). The other method. The injection approach uses a tractor equipped with chisels that penetrate the soil at various depths. MBC-33 is characterized as a stronger formulation is particularly effective against many soil-borne fungal pathogens of conifer and hardwood seedlings (Cordell 1983). MBC-2 is a broad range spectrum fumigant and is effective against weed seeds.

This waiting period can be broken down into two intervals: the exposure and aeration periods. This is used as a test for residual chemical. so application must be economically justifiable in terms of its benefits to the crop. the application of such fumigants may be prohibited in smaller nurseries. Results from one of the tests in dealing with weed control . and the aeration period is defined as the time in which the gas is allowed to dissipate from the fumigated areas. For this reason. should be implemented after the aeration period. and a value of $902/acre for a "in-house" nursery application of MBC (USDA 1989). One of the best alternatives for covering the fumigated areas is by a plastic tarp. a waiting period between fumigation and the actual sowing of the seed crop is recommended. the fumigated soil must be covered to promote the effectiveness of the application. whereas larger nurseries find it less expensive and can be easily justified (Landis and Campbell 1991). *Repair and seal any holes and open glue joints immediately. This can be done by either completely covering the area (continuous fumigated) or by alternate strips (Cordell 1989). The exposure period is defined as the time in which the soil is actively fumigated. *Alternate strips require longer fumigation and time intervals and increase the opportunity for contamination from adjacent non-fumigated soil strips. Soil temperature and weather conditions cause variations in the exposure and aeration periods. using rapidly growing species. After MBC has been applied to the soil. *Solid tarping requires shorter fumigation time intervals and minimizes opportunity for soil contamination.pressure. Cordell (1989) also outlines the guidelines for using tarps for increasing effectiveness of fumigation applications: Soil Tarping Guidelines and Precautions *Apply minimum 2 mil thickness polyethylene tarp immediately after fumigation for maximum effectiveness. Therefore the time from fumigating to sowing can range from 8 to 50 days. A study was performed in Georgia and South Carolina using three different chemicals as soil fumigants. Some figures listed on the USDA Forest Service nurseries report an average of $1137/acre for contract application of MBC. Fumigant Applied to the Soil and Sealed *Exposure Period (Gas Activity) 1 to 3 days Tarp Removed or Soil Seal Broken *Aeration Period (Gas Escapes) 2 to 14 days Test for Residual Fumes *Germination Testing 5 days Sow Crop *Total Waiting Period 8 to 22 days Soil fumigation costs tend to be very expensive. Chloropicrin and BasamidR applications were compared to a methyl bromide (MBC 33). Germination tests. A table constructed by BASF (1984) list the days associated with each waiting period when using methyl bromide/chloropicrin.

and Rhizoctonia spp.5-thiadiazine-2-thione) breaks down into methyl isothiocyanate which is toxic to soil-borne pests (Pennington 1995). Results presented on the selected soil samples revealed that the fumigation treatments reduced fungal populations (Carey 1995).). also known as BasimidR. After application to the soil surface. or by a polytheylene tarps.showed a significant decrease. the fumigant is tilled into the soil by a cultivator methods (McElroy 1986). Because methyl bromide has an ozone depletion rating of 0. and moisture (Pennington 1995).2 or greater be phased out in the United States within seven years. The soil surface can be sealed either by irrigation. Dazomet Now that methyl bromide is being phased-out. and nematodes. 2001 ( U. Like methyl bromide. Dazomet has also been classified as a broad range fumigant that controls soil pathogens. can suppress fungi such as Pythium and Fusarium (Boone 1988). Even though methyl bromide is one of the most effective treatments of forest tree nurseries. Dazomet (BasimidR ) comes in a granular form. temperature. but does prohibit the production and importation of the product (Title VI of Clean Air Act amendments 1990). or similar types of applicators. Studies report that methyl isothiocyanate. when applied correctly. which requires that any substance with an ozone depletion rating (ODR) of 0. .S. Weed control. weeds. was reduced from 29% to less than 1% ground cover using a 350 lb/acre rate of MBC33. alternatives to methyl bromide have become more important. the process of sealing the gases into the soil are the next major concern. Tarp guidelines for dazomet (BasimidR) are similar to those for methyl bromide application and include either the continuous coverage. this chemical compound will be lost due to its volatile nature. This phase-out of methyl bromide does not restrict the use of the chemical after the year 2001. These micro-granules are applied on the soil surface either by shakers. or the alternate strips (Cordell 1989). but not insects. thus requiring a broadcast treatment for application. dazomet (BasimidR ) is dependent on critical soil factors such as soil structure. Following the incorporation of dazomet (BasimidR ) into the soil.5dimethyl-2H-1. this fumigant is subject to Title VI of the Clean Air Act. the fumigant's active ingredient (tetrahydro-3. specifically nutsedge (Cyperus spp. Gandy spreaders. Studies presented later on collected soil samples in attempt to discover the fumigation effects on soil-borne fungi such as Fusarium spp. Production and importation of methyl bromide will be prohibited after January 1. Soil Factor Requirement Soil Structure fine tilth Soil temperature medium to warm *Soil Moisture available water *adequate soil moisture tends to be the most critical factor When applied to moist soils. Dazomet.6. is applied as a fine granule that volatilizes into a gas when it contacts moisture in the soil (Landis and Campbell 1989).3. EPA 1995). compacting.

Values reported by the USDA Forest Service in treating nurseries with dazomet (BasimidR) averaged $1032/acre. The Whitfield seeder feet were lowered so the BasimidR was placed about two inches deep and concentrated beneath area where seedling row was installed. For example.Similar to methyl bromide. Irrigation system was installed. The use of BasimidR in many nurseries is still experimental. 1990. the beds were roto-tilled again allowing residual fumes to escape. a waiting period after fumigation is recommended. Seedbeds were formed and roto-tilled. Fumigant Applied to the Soil and Sealed *Exposure Period (Gas Activity) 4 to 25 days Tarp Removed or Soil Seal Broken *Aeration Period (Gas Escapes) 2 to 20 days Test for Residual Fumes *Germination Testing 5 days Sow Crop *Total Waiting Period 11 to 50 days The cost of fumigation must be examined on a cost:benefit analysis in order to determine if the application is feasible. and 1992 during the spring months. a study by Chapman (1992) was performed in a MacMillan Bloedel Nursery that tested alternatives to methyl bromide. . 1991. Methods of application were similar to those run on a subsequent test on a small acreage in 1989. The Gandy spreaders were used in 1991 with slightly poorer results from observation. The study was as follows: Methods: Land preparation and fertilization was performed. with a range of $938 to $1173/acre (USDA 1989). At least one inch of water was applied following rolling of beds to form a crust to enhance sealing of the fumigant. Basimid R was applied with a Whitfield seeder in 1989. The beds were compacted with a heavy roller following BasimidR application. and 1992. After two weeks. A table prepared by BASF (1984) reveals the time that should be allotted for each period when applying dazomet (BasimidR). BasimidR was applied to the nursery in 1990.

the cost of BasimidR at 300-350 lbs/acre of is somewhat less than methyl bromide. Seedlings held their green color to a greater extent during the winter months. If enough nutgrass is present then control can become a problem without constant control measures. The polyethylene cover was not present. probably due to the skipped area i. is metam sodium. At least one top-dressing with nitrogen was eliminated during the growing season. and pigweed. and application through the nursery's irrigation system (Cordell 1989). it is the only soil fumigant that can be applied through irrigation systems (EPA 1995). The second year control does not appear to be as good as with methyl bromide. Populations of mycorrhizae (primarily Pisolithus tinctorius) were as numerous ( if not greater ) from observation. drenching the soil with a liquid formulation. and is also considered an alternative to methyl bromide. When used with the . Because metam sodium is water soluble and has low volatility. prostrate spurge. thus eliminating the disposal problem. Seedlings appeared more vigorous then seedlings grown on untreated areas. Germination was not been inhibited. A few negative results have been noted from using BasimidR as applied by MacMillan Bloedel. alley and shoulder area. This particular treatment has been proven effective when applied in any of these three forms: broadcasting vapan granules and mixing them in the soil. By treating only two-thirds of the total area.e. 1) As only two-thirds of the area is actually treated. pests such as nutgrass remained in the alleys and bed shoulders. Results: Several positive effects were noted from the use of BasimidR. Metam Sodium Another chemical that is used in the nurseries.To check for harmful residue. Basimid R does not appear to be as good as effective as methyl bromide toward controlling nutgrass. a germination test with mustard seed in a flat of treated soil was performed before seeding pine. This chemical is found in the compound Vapan.

metam sodium (Soil-PrepR) did not have any pretreatment soil samples. . Like dazomet. and soil moisture in the nursery (McElroy 1986). EPA 1995). When compared to the $1200-$1500 per acre for methyl bromide applications. but if set up properly.40 to $7. A well designed irrigation system was required. but the label recommends that it be covered with plastic tarps for better results (Landis and Campbell 1989). For this particular experiment. Proper application of metam sodium can result in complete suppression of Pythium and Fusarium (Boone 1988). with proper sprinkler overlap. Application of metam sodium ranges from $5. another form of metam sodium. would be considered an easy and inexpensive method of metam sodium application. Observations at the nursery noted that the irrigation water was subject to wind displacement. metam sodium can be water-sealed into the soil. temperature. metam sodium breaks down into methyl isothiocyanate as the active ingredient. For the application and conversion to be effective. Primary samples for treatment of Pythium revealed it third behind MC-33 and BasimidR granular 300 (Table 10). Like dazomet (BasimidR). Fumigant applied to the soil and sealed Exposure period (Gas Activity) 4-25 days Soil Seal Broken Aeration Period (Gas Escapes) 7-12 days Research on the use of metam sodium as a means of controlling soil-borne pests was tested by McElroy (1986) on a forest tree nursery in 1985 and 1986. McElroy's research reported that treatment with metam sodium (SP) was effective in controlling Fusarium in the primary soil samples. After fumigation with metam sodium compounds.40 per gallon with an average application of 75-100 gallons per acre. Metam sodium treatments (SP) gave the least control in both soil samples for controlling nematodes (Table 11). and must be metered in for five or six hours during the time of irrigation (McElroy 1986). This aeration period is determined by the chemical makeup. to assure complete coverage. This particular application required large quantities of water for an extended period of time. the chemical is applied in about an inch of water. Soil-Prep. the soil must be tilled to allow the escape of the methyl isothiocynate gas prior to planting. but secondary soil samples revealed it last when compared to the other chemical treatments.nursery's irrigation system.S. the soil must be exposed to the gas for several days under a water seal. metam sodium only costs $750-$1000 per acre (U. was applied to the nursery at 100 gal/acre. Secondary soil samples for Pythium recorded the metam sodium application (SP) less effective when compared to the other chemical treatments.

3-19-86 453 65 430 238 168 155 Table 2. Treatments: 0= untreated. .NURSERY C NEMATODE/SAMPLE DATE TREATMENT 10-2-85 10-29-85 3-19-86 183 3 123 65 60 35 0 294 463 200 MC-33 387 1 33 TELONE -69 88 SP -257 100 BG 150 513 156 44 BG 300 356 1 0 ______________________________________ Values are an average of 4 replications and reported as number/pint of soil. Sampling date 10-2-85 was pretreat .Table 1. Chloropicrin (CP) has primarily been used in forest nurseries as a mixture with methyl bromide (MB). is the second most commonly used fumigant in forest nurseries in the southern United States (South et al.NURSERY C FUSARIUM/SAMPLE DATE___________________________ TREAMENT 10-2-85 10-29-85 0 1402 1575 MC-33 1297 123 TELONE --58 SP --120 BG 150 1120 980 BG 300 1370 720 Values are an average of 4 reps and reported as propagules/gram of soil.= no sample taken.-EFFECT OF SOIL FUMIGATION TREATMENTS ON ROOT LESION NEMATODES . 1997). mc-33@325 #/ac. Chloropicrin Chloropicrin. which has been used for many years. SP = Soil Prep @ 100 gal/ac.EFFECT OF SOIL FUMIGATION TREATMENTS ON SOIL POPULATIONS OF FUSARIUM . (also see notes of Table 9). Telone II @ 30 gpa. BG = Basimid Granular @ 150 & 300 #/ac. remainder post-treat. .NURSERY C PYTHIUM/SAMPLE DATE TREATMENT 10-2-85 10-29-85 3-19-86 0 125 77 MC-33 121 3 TELONE 40 SP 20 BG 150 126 30 BG 300 113 13 _________________________________________ (See notes Table 9) Table 3.EFFECT OF SOIL FUMIGATION TREATMENTS ON SOIL POPULATIONS OF PYTHIUM ..

Earlier tests with 100% chloropicrin.3 18.1 30.2 12.1 P for treatment effect 0. In fact.7 0. 1990).5 3.5 7.5 chloropicrin 280 Yes 22.2 0.0 9.2 9. Recent tests are excluding the use of the tarp applications by packing the soil after application in an attempt to maximize the control of the soil pest.7 30.59 3.3 7.8 2.5 8.8 1.6 11.8 1.1 dazomet 157 No 18. Due to the eventual phase out of methyl bromide by the authority of the Clean Air Act.5 28.7 29.1 11. new chemically based alternatives of soil fumigation are being examined.6 8.2 8.4 13. Seedling production among the treatments were then compared.25 0.5 2.3 21.3 dazomet 314 No 20. (1997).15 _________________________________________________________________ .8 2.9 2.6 1.8 12.3 8.3 19.6 2. The results are listed in Table 4 of South et al (1997).61 0.8 0.3 20. can either be used as a warning agent (2% chloropicrin). This mixture.6 19.8 157 0 0 Yes No Yes 19. Rhizoctonia.4 2.12 21.0 1. _________________________________________________________________ Rate _____Statesboro ____ Summerville______ Chemical kg/ha Tarp Total Ones Twos Culls Total Ones Twos Culls__ MC33 392 Yes 20. A study by Carey (1995).8 lsd 2.8 2.88 2.9 15.1 28. was addressed in an article dealing with the use of chloropicrin as a soil fumigant by South et al.6 10.3 0. and 280 kg/ha and 140 kg/ha without a tarp. chloropicrin has been characterized as being a better fungicide than methyl bromide due to its effectiveness at lower application rates (Enebak et al.3 17.49 0.11 Mean value 20. and Pythium spp.2 3.0 1.7 dazomet 0.3 9.3 9.2 2. and the charge for disposing the polyethelene material.8 1.6 30.0 0.2 9. This particular study examined the chemical application in two loamy sand nurseries located in Georgia and South Carolina.5 1."This combination of MB and CP can dramatically increase the yield of nursery seedlings and also improves seedling growth and quality.1 None 1.16 3.0 29.8 21.1 28.1 19.9 8.1 10. 1997).9 30.0 5. 1990).7 9.4 14. or to enhance the control of soil-borne pest (33% chloropicrin) (South et al.3 5.1 28. Table 4. Chloropicrin.1 8.1 27.9 1.3 9. Chloropicrin applied at a 100% rate is now being studied with the intentions of finding an adequate replacement for methyl bromide.6 9. utilized a polyethelene tarp that raised above the soil surface to permit horizontal gas movement across the fumigated area (Cordell 1989).2 8.08 0. appears to be an effective method either in controlling or reducing the populations of certain soil-borne fungi such as Fusarium.4 6.7 11.7 chloropicrin 140 Yes 21.0 9.9 dazomet 314 Yes 19. Seedling production at the Statesboro nursery in Georgia and the Summerville Nursery in South Carolina.3 16.7 7.3 15.6 8. Chloropicrin was applied at 280 kg/ha and 140 kg/ha using a tarp.9 10.9 10.2 10.5 chloropicrin 280 No 22.1 8.1 9.3 8.3 2.1 2." (Enebak et al. This cost is expressed in the labor to lay and remove the tarp.0 chloropicrin 140 No 19.3 6.9 2. as stated earlier.9 None 2.7 10.8 30. when applied by itself. and reducing expenses by eliminating the cost of the tarp itself.

26 mm. The toxicity of common nursery fumigants in relation to other chemicals is listed in Table below which is from Landis' "Soil Fumigation in Bareroot Nurseries". Goring (1962) states that it might require at least two to 2. The fumigant was injected 30 cm into the soil.G. In this study. humans can either be affected or at risk when exposed to them. Effect of soil fumigation on white pine seedling production at the F. which was then covered by a polypropylene tarp and remained covered for 5 days. WI. 100 % chloropicrin was applied at a rate of 196 kg/ha to a nursery sown to white pine located in Grant County. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________ kg/ha square meter methyl bromide chloropicrin dazomet nonfumigated 392 196 280 0 plastic tarp yes yes no no seedling per 484 456 250 108 _____________________________________________________________________ ___ In terms of weed control. Seedling rated as ones. (1990).5 times as much 100% chloropicrin to equate weed control by the application of methyl bromide. two and culls have ground line diameters. (1990). Wilson State Nursery in Wisconsin (Enebak et al.0 -2.3. 1990). The toxicity of the fumigants are ranked as: severe. slight.75 mm . Health Hazards of Chemical Fumigation Fumigants are among the most toxic pesticides used in forest tree nurseries today.76 mm. In reference to Enebak et al. 1997). 4. and < 3.1 Seedlings per 0. Another reference to using chloropicrin in a 100% application is by Enebak et al. listed remaining seedlings per square meter after fumigation at the F. Wilson State Nursery in Wisconsin. moderate.25 mm. In fact. The actual hazard of any chemical is a function of both toxicity and exposure (Landis and Campbell 1991). 100% application of chloropicrin is not considered to be an effective method of controlling weed populations (South et all.G. -Table 5 Table 5. respectively of > 4. and very .929 m2. Because of their toxicity.

Extended exposure to methyl bromide can . Potential health hazards when exposed to chemicals can vary due to the nature of the chemical and the amount of time exposed to that particular substance. and may lead to double vision. and lack of coordination. tremors. vomiting.slight. exposure to methyl bromide in small amounts can cause nausea. For example.

Chloropicrin has an obnoxious odor and was used as a chemical warfare agent in World War I.cause or lead to coma and death. Table 7 . and causes severe chemical skin burns. and slurred speech.Insufficient information Reproductive/Developmental .No information on dazomet. fetal and maternal toxicity. and may lead to mental confusion. Examples of these health hazards can be found in Table 7 which is taken from Landis and Campbell (1990). Bohmont (1984): Great Lakes Chemical Company (1989). Known Health Although these chemicals can be rated high on the toxicity charts in terms of hazards to humans. 1. double vision.3-dichloropropene appears to be. lack of coordination.organ weight variation in offspring or rats. animals. Follow handling and application directions carefully. Cancer . proper precautions and application of the pesticide according to the label will reduce the risk of being exposed. but 1. swelling of bronchial membranes. swelling of bronchial membranes. skin.Highly irritating to eyes. Severe exposure may result in irregular heartbeat and asthma. Reproductive/Developmental .No information Dazomet Exposure symptoms .variable information. gasping. Reproductive/Developmental . but methyl isothiocyanate causes maternal toxicity and fetal death in animals.Potential health hazards of common nursery fumigants Fumigant Hazards_____________________ Methyl Bromide Exposure Symptoms. and vomiting. tremors. It is extremely irritating-causing tearing. Reproductive/Developmental .Dazomet is irritating to skin and eyes. Cancer . Small amounts will cause nausea and vomiting. Chloropicrin Exposure symptoms . and kidney damage.This chemical has no odor. Sources: USDA Forest Service (1989). causes birth defects in animals. Cancer . Vorlex Exposure symptoms . but xylene. . and plants. Steps or precautions listed in Cordell (1983) that should be recognized when applying pesticides (fumigants) include: Read and understand the fumigant formulation label prior to use. Cancer .None observed in animal studies. one of the ingredients. USDA Forest Service (1987). and lungs.Methyl isothiocyanate is not a carinogenic in animals.No information on vorlex. Continued exposure leads to coma and death.

compost. (1995). Personnel protective equipment should always be utilized as directed.S. The selection of a specific pest control method will always depend on the objectives.9 a 25. Both non-chemical. cm check 16 a 4." Integrated Pest Management Soil fumigation. Sowing of conifer seed early and shallow.6 a 19.5 cm (1x) or 5. Remember the safety precautions.7 a 23. many chemicals have come under restriction.5 a Pinebark 1x 18 ab 4.5 a 21. 3. it states. or methyl bromide. "Preliminary results with the conifer species tested indicate that at many nurseries.2. had the objective of enhancing implementation of integrated pest management of soil-borne diseases at forest tree nurseries. priorities. Forest Service funded study performed by Hildebrand et al. The beds were stocked with slash pine and were measured at time of lifting (1-0). Incorporation of slowly decomposing organic soil amendments. with and without periodic tilling. such as aged sawdust with additional nitrogen provided.1 ab MBC 20 b 4.8 ab Pinebark 2x 18 ab 4. and with weed control 3. Bare fallowing. Table 8 Andrews Nursery. But recently. cultural practices of this study included: 1. Decisions of an effective .2 b In the discussion and summary section of Hildebrand et al. Florida. should be viewed in the larger context of any overall nursery pest management plan. cultural treatments were applied in layers of either 2. like any other practice that involves the control of common nursery pests. due to their potential hazards to humans and the environment.0 cm (2x). and resources of the involved nursery. (1995). modification of cultural practices can greatly reduce the need for chemical fumigation. and covering seed with non-soil mulch as aged sawdust or hydromulch. 2. Andrews Nursery located in Chiefland. One of the cooperating nurseries.5 ab Compost 1x 18 ab 4. To obtain the objective. was treated with either pinebark. The fumigant should be applied by certified personnel only. Alternatives to Chemical Fumigation Chemical fumigation has been relied upon for improved forest-tree nursery seedling production for many years. mm Height.4 a 22. then incorporated in the soil. 4.6 a 21. In a U.6 ab Compost 2x 18 ab 4. 1-0 Slash Pine __________________________________________________________ Treatment Density Caliper.

1983. species of tree being grown. Limburgerhof. proceedings .K. . Reston Publishing. Chemical alternatives to methyl bromide. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-GTR-257. Reduces disease outbreaks and increases biological diversity. VA. Carey. and residual effects on the nursery's environment must also be considered. consumption of methyl bromide. Dumroese. T. in a more efficient manner. Landis and R. By coordinating and combining different pest control alternatives.D. The phase-out of methyl bromide production in year 2001 has caused more nurseries to use this integrated pest management approach to reach the same level of control methyl bromide exhibited. Reston. reports the nursery pest problem. B. control of the targeted organisms can be effectively controlled. 4-11. The new pesticide user's guide. References BASF. 1988.A.J. and maximizing production may be achieved. Basamid Granular. A nursery manager should use the Integrated Pest Management System that evaluates the objectives of the nursery. Conclusion Different forms of soil fumigation treatments have been used by nursery managers in forest tree nurseries with the same objective in mind. In an EPA (1995) publication by "The Weyerhaeuser Corporation" dealing with integrated approaches to developing alternatives to methyl bromide.pest management strategy should be based not only on the treatment's ability to control the pest. IN: Southern Forest Nursery Association. they list some of the benefits of an integrated pest management system. Soil Fumigation in Forest Tree Nurseries. IN: 1995 National proceedings : Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations. the objective of controlling nursery pest. risk to human health. and investigates the different methods of managing the soil-borne pest. 1984. p. 1995. Relies on a preventative proactive response. The different fumigation methods used could usually be related to the pest present in the nursery.S. 452. Agricultural Research Station 91 p. A. Germany: BASF.pp Boone. but the cost.L. Helps reduce U. Bohmont. The list of some of the benefits includes: Reduces the need for fumigation and decreases production costs. but more importantly the cost associated with the fumigant application. That objective was to either minimize or eradicate the nursery pest in an attempt to maximize quality and production of the particular crop species. 1988: 33-38. minimizing cost. eds. By using this integrated approach to managing soil-borne pest. W.

Blanchette. S. IN: Proceedings of Intermountain Forest Nursery Association.L. Cordell. p. p. USDA Forest Service..D. ed. AL.I. p.D. James. J. Theory and principles of soil fumigation. 38-39. Managing soil-borne pathogens of white pine in a forest nursery. Palmer.. 52-57.G 1989. 1992. Aug.. Effective Soil Fumigation. Soil fumigation in the Southern United States forest tree nurseries. S. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.A. Utah. Campbell. IN: Proceedings of Intermountain Forest Nursery Association. O'Brien.M. Pokorny. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Landis.J. 496-504. D.Chapman. Landis and B. .A. Alternatives to Chemical fumigation Technology Development Project: Preliminary Results. P. 1995. and W.. J. Methyl Bromide Fumigation at the Lone Peak State Forest Nursery. proceedings. Alternative Treatments to Methyl Bromide..D.. USDA Forest Service. Advances in Pest Control Research 5: 47 -84. proceedings. eds.. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service. T. S... Stone. 1990. IN: 1989 Proceedings of Intermountain Forest Nursery Associations. S. Hildebrand. 1992: 96-103. 1989.E. Material safety data sheet. R. 1989. 4-9. Frankel. on nursery management practices for southern pines. P. Plant Disease 74: 195-198. p. C.A. 13-28. James R. 1982: 196-201.J. 1989. S.M. 191-205.E. W. Forestry Canada.R.D. M.A. 1962. T. General Technical Report PNWGTR-365. Cram. USDA Forest Service. 29-24. Symp. General Technical Report RM-184: Enebak.. R. 1985.. ed. T.D. Sutherland. Southern Nursery Conferences. Landis. Pacific Northwest Research Station. T. David B. Soil fumigation in bareroot nurseries. Proceedings of the first meeting of IUFRO . D.. Landis. Cordell. Information Report BC-X-331. Great Lakes Chemical Co. 1985. J.G. C. Campbell.G. comp.K. p. comp.J. IN: Southern Forest Nursery Association. USDA Forest Service.. T. IN: 1995 National proceedings: Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations.E. Cregg. and Glover. 1989. 1983. T. Pacific Forestry Centre. General Technical Report RM-184. Soil fumigation in bareroot nurseries. IN: Proceedings of Intermountain Forest Nursery Associations. Landis. C. Effects of soil fumigation on soil pathogens and beneficial organisms.D. Cordell. M. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 1991. Soil fumigation in southern United States forest tree nurseries. 15-22.D. West Lafayette. Indiana Grierson. J. Kelley. ed. General Technical Report RM-184: 38-39. Landis. Landis. . C. south (Editor) Montgomery. Terr-O-Gas 67. Goring.s.D.L.. T.D. IN: Proceedings of the Int. General Technical Report RM-184.

EPA 430-R-95-009. Title VI of the Clean Air Act (Amendments of 1990). Agricultural Handbook. Use of Chloropicrin as a Fumigant in Pine Nurseries. W. McElroy.03-04. 1995. Use of Metam-Sodium and Dazomet Fumigants. commodity. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide: ten case studies-soil. BasamidR Granular Soil Fumigant: pre-plant soil fumigation update. 1993 . Diseases and Insects in Forest Nurseries.D. Thomson publications. USDA Forest Service 1987. eds. Cregg. Enebak. USDA Forest Service. USDA Forest Service. Pennington. US Environmental Protection Agency. Portland. 139-146. Carey. Landis.Working Party S2.D. IN: 1995 National Proceedings: Forest and Conservation Nursery Associations. 670. US Environmental Protection Agency. T.A. pp. Information Report. F. Fresno CA 210 p. 1988. In: 1986 Proceedings: Combined Western Forest Nursery Council and Intermountain Nursery Association Meeting. and structural use. Pacific Northwest Region. IN: Proceedings of the third meeting of IUFRO Working Party S7. South.B. Pacific Northwest Research Station. D. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. December 10.58FR 65018. Pesticide background statement. USDA Forest Service. S. Nursery pest management. Nursery Pesticides.. 1986. Diseases and insects in forest nurseries. 1995.T. . Thomson. Environmental Impact Statement. and rodenticides. repellents. OR. General Technical Report RM-137.07-09..A. Agricultural chemicals III: Fumigants. T. 13-14. growth regulators. 1989. W. 1990. Stratospheric Ozone Protection.D. W. 1997. No. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-365. Volume III. ed. Office of Air and Radiation (6205-J). p. Landis and B.