Inga Zasada and Jerry Weiland, USDA-ARS HCRL, Corvallis, OR
Lisa Wasko DeVetter, WSU NWREC, Mount Vernon, WA
Tom Walters, Walters Ag Research, Anacortes, WA
Much has changed in the soilborne disease management landscape for red raspberry growers, from increased buffer zones to shortages of Telone and Vydate. However, a team of public and private scientists has been researching best management options for red raspberry growers and shared a summary of their findings at a field day held on July 31 in Everson, Washington.
The information they shared summarized approximately eight years of research and represents the current recommendations. Tables 1-7 provide a condensed form of the information shared at the field day and is intended to be a resource for growers and field managers as they plan field renovation and soilborne disease management.
Pros and cons of pre-plant fumigant management options in raspberry.
Disclaimer: Always consult the label before applying a product. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this document is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by USDA and WSU.
The below tables are available as a pdf.
Quick links to tables
| Telone C-35 (34.7% chloropicrin:63.4% 1,3-dichloropropene) | ||
| Pro | Con | |
| Broadcast application without a tarp | • What raspberry growers are familiar with • Mixture favors nematode control over root rot (Phytophthora rubi) control |
• Not available • In some soils with high sand content, limited efficacy at shallow soil depths • Mixture favors nematode (Pratylenchus penetrans and Xiphinema spp.) control over root rot control • Larger buffer zones |
| Broadcast application with a tarp | • Tarping improves efficacy at shallow soil depths • Mixture favors nematode control over root rot control • Smaller buffer zones |
• Not available • Mixture favors nematode control over root rot control • Tarp is an added up-front cost |
| Bed application without a tarp | • Available • Mixture favors nematode control over root rot control • Leaving alleyways untreated has not been demonstrated to be an issue for nematode control • Smaller buffer zones |
• Mixture favors nematode control over root rot control • Leaving alleyways untreated may be an issue for root rot control |
| Bed application with a tarp | • Tarping improves fumigant efficacy • Smaller buffer zones |
• Not available • Tarp is an added up-front cost |
| Pic-Clor 60 (59.6% chloropicrin:39% 1,3-dichloropropene) | ||
| Pro | Con | |
| Broadcast application without a tarp | • Available • Mixture favors root rot control over nematode control |
• Mixture favors root rot control over nematode control • In some soils, limited efficacy at shallow soil depths • Larger buffer zones |
| Broadcast application with a tarp | • Available • Mixture favors root rot control over nematode control • Tarping improves fumigant efficacy • Smaller buffer zones |
• Mixture favors root rot control over nematode control • Not available • Tarp is an added up-front cost |
| Bed application without a tarp | • Available • Mixture favors root rot control over nematode control • Leaving alleyways untreated has not been demonstrated to be an issue for nematode control • Smaller buffer zones |
• Mixture favors root rot control over nematode control • Leaving alleyways untreated may be an issue for root rot control |
| Bed application with a tarp | • Tarping improves fumigant efficacy • Smaller buffer zones |
• Not available • Tarp is an added up-front cost |
| Vapam (sodium methyldithiocarbamate) and K-Pam (potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate) | ||
| Pro | Con | |
| Broadcast application without a tarp | • Available • Affordable • Broad-spectrum fumigant (nematodes and root rot) |
• May not target organisms deep in soil profile • No commercial application equipment available |
| Broadcast application with a tarp | • Available • Affordable • Broad-spectrum fumigant • Improved efficacy over nontarped application |
• May not target organisms deep in soil profile • No commercial application available • Tarp is an added up-front cost |
| Bed application without a tarp | • Available • Affordable • Broad-spectrum fumigant |
• May not target organisms deep in soil profile • No commercial application available |
| Bed application with a tarp | • Available • Affordable • Broad-spectrum fumigant • Improved efficacy over nontarped application |
• May not target organisms deep in soil profile • No commercial application available • Tarp is an added up-front cost |
| Drip applied for crop termination | • Used effectively in other cropping systems | • Has not been tested in raspberry |
| Basamid (tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl-2H-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2-thione) | ||
| Pro | Con | |
| Broadcast application without a tarp | • Available • Affordable • Broad-spectrum fumigant • Experience with this product by Canadian raspberry growers |
• No commercial application available • May not target organisms deep in soil profile • Irrigation required |
| Broadcast application with a tarp | • Available • Affordable • Broad-spectrum fumigant • Improved efficacy over nontarped application |
• No commercial application available • May not target organisms deep in soil profile • Irrigation required • Tarp is an added up-front cost |
| Bed application without a tarp | • Available • Affordable • Broad-spectrum fumigant |
• No commercial application available • May not target organisms deep in soil profile • Irrigation required • Tarp is an added up-front cost |
| Bed application with a tarp | • Available • Affordable • Broad-spectrum fumigant • Improved efficacy over nontarped application |
• No commercial application available • May not target organisms deep in soil profile • Irrigation required • Tarp is an added up-front cost |
| Dominus (allyl isothiocyante) | ||
| Pro | Con | |
| Broadcast application without a tarp | Available • Broad-spectrum fumigant • Smaller buffer zones |
• Expensive • May not target organisms deep in soil profile |
| Broadcast application with a tarp | • Available • Broad-spectrum fumigant • Smaller buffer zones • Tarping improves fumigant efficacy |
• Expensive • May not target organisms deep in soil profile • Tarp is an added up-front cost |
| Bed application without a tarp | • Available • Broad-spectrum fumigant • Smaller buffer zones |
• Expensive • Questions regarding mobility in soil |
| Bed application with a tarp | • Available • Broad-spectrum fumigant • Smaller buffer zones • Tarping improves fumigant efficacy |
• Not available • Expensive • Tarp is an added up-front cost |
| Drip applied for crop termination | • Has not been tested in raspberry • Expensive |
|
| Inline (33.8% chloropicrin:60.8% 1,3-dichloropropene) | ||
| Pro | Con | |
| Drip applied for crop termination | • Used effectively in other cropping systems | • Has not been tested in raspberry |
Pros and cons of pre-plant nonfumigant management options in raspberry.
| Pro | Con | |
| Soil solarization | • Effective in some systems and climates • No buffer zones |
• Climate in northern WA marginal for this practice • Inconsistent nematode and root rot control across years |
| Rotation | • Allows the land to rest | • If weeds are allowed to grow, many are hosts for root lesion nematode; perennial weeds can also be difficult to control • Most available cover crops are a host to root lesion nematode • Unknown how long land needs to be out of raspberry production for root rot control • Increased herbicide usage • Increased tillage • Land out of raspberry production for an extended period |
| Brassica seed meal | • Provides additional nitrogen to the system • Potential for improved soil health • No buffer zones |
• Expensive • Not widely available • Nematode control results are inconsistent |
| Brassica cover crops | • Addition of organic matter into the soil • Potential for improved soil health • No buffer zones |
• Many brassica cover crops are hosts for root lesion nematode • Land out of raspberry production for an extended period • Nematode control results are inconsistent • Unknown root rot control • Need to exercise care when purchasing seeds – they need to be treated so that they are not hosts to black leg [Phoma lingam (sexual stage: Leptosphaeria maculans)] • In some areas, need to make sure they don’t encroach on isolation distances for brassica seed production |
| Anaerobic soil disinfestation | • Some promising results for soil fungal and pathogen management • No buffer zones |
• Climate in northern WA likely too cool and marginal for this practice • Practice requires use of labile carbon source • Inconsistent results |
| Post-plant fungicides | • Mefenoxam and fosetyl-Al products registered for use on raspberry | • Resistance can be a concern if mefenoxam is overused |
| Post-plant nematicides | • Label for nonbearing oxamyl available • Several other nematicides registered for use in raspberry |
• Efficacy of many of registered nematicides in the raspberry system is unknown |
Acknowledgments
Much of the information provided in this document is based upon research trials conducted in commercial red raspberry fields. The authors would like to thank their grower cooperators and Trident Agricultural Products for their support, as well as the funding sources listed below.
