Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T03:50:24.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Metham Controls False Lily-of-the-Valley (Maianthemum dilatatum) in Cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Kim Patten and
John Wang
Kim Patten
Affiliation:
Washington State Univ.-Long Beach Res. and Ext Unit, Long Beach, WA 98631
John Wang
Affiliation:
Washington State Univ.-Long Beach Res. and Ext Unit, Long Beach, WA 98631
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Metham was applied in the dormant season to established cranberry for the control of false lily-of-the-valley. Rates of 108 to 214 kg ai/ha controlled false lily-of the-valley, but there were inconsistent results between years and fields. Soil temperature, organic matter content, and amount of water used for incorporation appeared to be important factors in determining results. The phytotoxicity of metham sodium to cranberry was sporadic, ranging from moderate at 214 kg ai/ha to severe at 108 kg ai/ha. The 142 kg ai/ha rate usually resulted in an acceptable level of crop injury. Sanding the bog after application reduced phytotoxicity and heat stress increased it.

Keywords

Metham, sodium methyldithiocarbamate: false lily-of-the-valley, Maianthemum dilatatum Woodcranberry, Vaccinium macrocarpon Ait.Fumigation

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1994, pp. 270 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Ben-Yephet, Y. and Frank, Z. R. 1985. Effect of soil structure on penetration by metham-sodium and of temperature on concentrations required to kill soilborne pathogens. Am. Phytopathol. Soc. 75(4):403–406.Google Scholar
2. Gerstl, Z., Mingelgrin, U., and Yaron, B. 1977. Behavior of Vapam and methylisothiocyanate in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41:545–548.Google Scholar
3. Leistra, M. and Smelt, J. H. 1974. Optimum soil conditions for fumigation with metham-sodium. Agro-Ecosystems 1:169–176.Google Scholar
4. Siebering, H. and Leistra, M. 1979. Computer simulation of fumigant behavior in soil. p. 135–160 in Mulder, D., ed. Soil Disinfestation. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., New York.Google Scholar
5. Smelt, J. H. and Leistra, M. 1974. Conversion of metham-sodium to methyl isothiocyanate and basic data on the behavior of methyl isothiocynate in soil. Pestic. Sci. 5:401–407.Google Scholar
6. Turner, N. J. and Corden, M. E. 1963. Decomposition of sodium N-methyldithiocarbamate in soil. Phytopathology 53:1388–1394.Google Scholar
7. Weed Science Society of America. 1989. Herbicide Handbook, 6th ed. WSSA, Champaign, IL 61820. p. 176–177.Google Scholar