Advertisement

Chemical Management

  • H. V. Morton

Abstract

Soilborne pathogens can infect a plant at any time during its growth and development, starting within 6-12 h of germination as shown by Nelson et al. (1986). Thus, the choice of a control measure for such damping-off diseases has to be made prior to planting. The controls available for perennials, and those diseases including the vascular wilts and sclerotial soilborne pathogens, are more involved. Key factors such as crop safety, environmental conditions, cultural practices, the complexity of the soil (e.g., absorption capacity), and the life cycle of the pathogen all interact to make chemical management of disease a challenging task. The above-mentioned factors also limit the options of chemicals available. Chemical control of pathogens in soil can be considered one of the last frontiers of “uncontrolled” diseases.

Keywords

Seed Treatment Soilborne Pathogen Soilborne Disease Chemical Management Metam Sodium 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ames BN, Gold LS (1990) Too many rodent carcinogens: mitogenesis increases mutagenesis. Science 249: 970–971PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arima K, Imanaka H, Kousaka M, Fukuda A, Tamura G (1965) Studies on pyrrolnitrin, a new antibiotic. J Antibiot Ser A 8: 201–219Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin CH Jr, Hope JH, Young HS (1991) Aliette (fosetyl-AL) and Al Rovral (Iprodione): a new fungicide combination for seedling disease control. Proc Beltwide Cotton Conf 1: 87Google Scholar
  4. Barnes G, Harris RI, Russell PE (1983) Tolclofos methyl, a new fungicide for the control of Rhizoctonia solani. Proc 10th Int Congr Plant Prot 1, Nov. 20–25, 1983, Brighton. Brit Cr Prot Council, Croydon, pp. 460–464Google Scholar
  5. Barnett AG (1990) Agricultural chemicals, their role, the risk and the balance. Seminar at Iowa State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  6. Goring CAI (1957) Factors influencing diffusion and nematode control by soil fumigants. Agric Chem Dev Bull No 110, Dow Chemical CompanyGoogle Scholar
  7. Howell CR (1991) Biological control of Pythium damping-off of cotton with seed-coating preparations of Gliocladium virens. Phytopathology 81: 738–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kataria HR, Verma PR (1990) Efficacy of fungicidal seed treatments against pre-emergence damping-off and post-emergence seedling root rot of growth chamber grown canola caused by Rhizoctonia-solani AG 2-1 and AG-4. Can J Plant Pathol 12: 409–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Main CE (1977) Crop destruction — the raison d’etre of plant pathology. In: Horsfall JG, Cowling EB (eds) Plant disease, vol 1. Academic Press, New York, pp 55–78Google Scholar
  10. Maude RB (1990) Seed treatment. Pestic Outlook 1: 16–22Google Scholar
  11. Nelson EB, Chao WL, Norton JM, Nash GT, Harman GE (1986) Attachment of Enterobacter cloacae to hyphae of Pythium ultimum: possible role in the biological control of Pythium pre-emergence damping-off. Phytopathology 76: 327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ross AF (1961) Systemic acquired resistance induced by localize virus infections in plants. Virology 14: 340–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schwinn FJ (1982) Chemical control of fungal diseases: importance and problems. In: Dekker J, Georgopoulos SG (eds) Fungicide resistance in crop protection. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation (PUDOC), Wageningen, pp 7–15Google Scholar
  14. Smith FD, Phipps PM, Stiper RJ (1992) Fluazinam, a new fungicide for control of Sclerotimia blight and other soilborne pathogens. Peanut Sci 19: 115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zadoks JC (1973) Schade, vol 4. Gewasbescherming, Wageningen, pp 71–75Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. V. Morton

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations