USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 1 of 15

NOMINATING PARTY : The United States of America FILE NAME: USA CUN13 SOIL STRAWBERRY FRUIT Open Field BRIEF DESCRIPTIVE TI TLE OF NOMINATION : Methy l Bromide Critical Use Nomination for Preplant Soil Use for Strawberry Fruit Grown in Open Fields (Submitted in 2011 for the 2013 Use Season) CROP NAME (OPEN FIEL D OR PROTECTED): Strawberry Fruit Open Field QUANTITY OF METHYL B ROMIDE NOMINATED: T ABLE 1: Q UANTITY OF M ETHYL N OMINATED

Year N OMINATION A MOUNT 201 3 531,737 kg NOMINATING PARTY CONTACT DETAILS: C ontact Person: John Thompson Title: Division Director Address: Office of Environmental Policy U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street, N.W. Room 2658 Washington, D.C. 20520 U.S.A. Telephone: (202) 647

- 9799 Fax: (202) 647

- 5947 E
- ma il: thompsonje2@state.gov Following the requirements of Decision IX/6 paragraph (a)(1) The United States of America has determined that the specific use detailed in this Critical Use Nomination is critical because the lack of avail ability of methyl bromide for this use would result in a significant market disruption

. . ■ Yes  No

Signature Nam e Date Title: (Details on this page are requested under Decision Ex. I/4(7), for posting on the Ozone Secretariat website under Decision Ex. I/4(8).) This form is to be used by holders of single

- year exemptions to reapply for a subsequent year’s exemption (for example, a Party holding a single

- year exemption for 2005 and/or 2006 see king further exemptions for 2007). It does not replace the format for requesting a critical

- use exemption for the first time. In assessing nominations submitted in this format, TEAP and MBTOC will also refer to the original nomination on which the Party’

s first

- year exemption was approved, as well as any supplementary information provided by the Party in relation to that original nomination. As this earlier information is retained by MBTOC, a Party need not re - submit that earlier information.USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 2 of 15

CONTAC T OR EXPERT(S) FOR FURTHER TECHNICAL DETAILS: Contact/Expert Person: Jack Housenger Title: Director Address: Biological and Economic Analysis Division Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mailcode 7503P Washington, D.C. 20460 U.S.A. Telephone: (703) 308

- 8200 Fax: (703) 308

- 7042 E
- ma il: Housenger.Jack@epa.gov
LIST OF DOCUMENTS SENT TO THE OZONE SECRETARIAT IN OFFICIAL NOMINATION PACKAG E: 1. PAPER DOCUMENTS: Title of paper documents and appendices No. of pages Date sent to Ozone Secretariat USA CUN13 SOIL STRAWBERRY FRUIT Open Field 14

2. ELECTRONIC COPIES OF ALL PAPER DOCUMENTS: *Title of each electronic file (for n aming convention see notes above) No. of kilobytes Date sent to Ozone

Secretariat USA CUN13 SOIL STRAWBERRY FRUIT Open Field
* Identical to paper documentsUSA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 3 of 15



### METHYL BROMIDE CRITICAL USE RENOMINATION FOR PREPLANT SOIL USE ( OPEN FIELD OR PR OTECTED ENVIRONMENT) STRAWBERRY FRUIT 1. SUMMARY OF THE NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE AS A CRITICAL USE This nomination is for the critical use of methyl bromide for the productio n of strawberries in California (Table 1)

. Strawberry growers have been replacing methyl bromide and reducing its use rates in all production areas , but a critical need remains for areas where alternatives are not effective , have not been tested, or not allowed due to regulatory restrictions

. California growers have a critical need fo r methyl bromide to treat fields where alternatives are not available due to regulations or to complete a fumigation program that includes a once per three ye ar treatment with methyl bromide to manage two new diseases. Alternative fumigants include 1,3

- D/ chloropicrin and iodomethane (methyl iodide) , which has been newly registered in California (as of December, 2010)

. U se of methyl bromide has been reduced over the y ears (approximately

one - third of strawberry

land was treated with meth yl bromide in 2006 (NASS, 2007; Table 2 )

. The U.S. Government (USG) has reviewed all factors affecting transition rates in this sector. Based on this assessment the transition rate has been greatl y increased for this sector. For the area covered in this nomination, the US G believes that the narrative discussion included in this document is technicall y valid. The USG has nominated amounts of methyl bromide based onl y on those sub

- sectors that cannot transition away from methy l bromide at the accelerated rate.
2. SUMMARIZ E WHY KEY ALTERNATIV ES ARE NOT FEASIBLE Alternatives are considered not feasible where 1) they have not been sufficiently tested or protocols have not been sufficientl y developed for their use, 2) costs are excessive, 3) application difficulties exist due to such factors as hilly terrain or equipment requirements, 4) areas of environmental sensitivity or characteristics reduce their efficacy , 5) regulatory restrictions prevent their use, 6) pest pressure is to such an extent that alternatives are not effec tive. Approximately

two
- thirds of strawberry

land in California use alternatives to methyl bromide (Table 2). In California, township caps currently restrict the use of the most thoroughl y studied alternative, 1,3

- D . Restrictions could affect approxim ately 40

- 62% of total strawberry land (California Strawberry

Commission, 2008). T ownship caps restricting the use of 1,3

- D (Trout, 2005) may

affect between 5,700 and 9,000 hectares by 2011 (California Strawberry Commission, 2008, see Appendix JJ.11). N ow that iodomethane has been registered in California, it may help to relieve township cap overages of 1,3

- D. However, i odomethan e has not been tested extensively on large

- scale production land at the low rates specified on the California label. Furthermo re, CaliforniaUSA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 4 of 15

requires much larger buffer zones (5 to 10 times those on the federal label). R esearch using higher rates (comparable to those on the federal label) generall y indicates good efficacy (see
“ Research ” section below). The new fumigant should be available in several formulations with chloropicrin, but impacts of buffer restrictions and use rate efficacy in California will be unclear until experience with the formulations and its activity against various pests is known.
3. IS THE USE COVERED BY A CERTIFICATION S TANDARD? There is no certification standard for strawberry fruit production.
4. PROPORTION OF CROP USING METHYL BROMIDE T ABLE 2. P ROPORTION OF C ROP U SING M ETHYL B ROMIDE REGION WHERE METHYL BROMIDE USE IS REQUE STED T OTAL CROP AREA ( HA ) A REA NOMINATED FOR METHYL BROMIDE USE IN 2012 (H A ) P ROPORTION 1 OF TOTAL CROP AREA TO BE TREA TED WITH METHYL BROMIDE (%) California 14,500 2 4,856 33 1 Based on the amount of methyl bromide nominated for the 2012 use season for straw berry fruit produc tion. 2 NASS, 2007. 2006

- season data. 3 Based on estimates from various recent extension publications of states associated with the requesting consortium.
5. IF PART OF THE CROP AREA IS TREATED WITH METHYL BROMIDE, INDICATE THE REASON WHY METHYL BROMIDE IS NOT USED IN THE O THER AREA, AND IDENTIFY W HAT ALTERNATIVE STRA TEGIES ARE USED TO CONTROL THE TARGET P ATHOGENS AND WEEDS W ITHOUT METHYL BROMIDE THERE. The USG has reviewed all factors affecting transition rates in this sector. Based on this assessment the transition rate has been greatl y increased for most portions of this sector. For the area covered in this nomination, the USG believes that the narrative discussion included in this document is technicall y valid. The USG has nominated amounts of methyl bromide based onl y on those sub

- sectors that cannot transition away from methy l bromide at the accelerated rate. Pest problems vary , and therefore, no one strategy is appropriate for the variety of pests and growing conditions in strawberry production . Alternatives are used on two

- thirds of strawberry production land in California. For example, “Methyl bromide is often being used in rotation with alternative fumigants. Many growers will use alternative fumigants for 2

- 3 years then rotate back to methyl bromide to clean up emerging weed and disease problems. While, in some locations, local permit conditions may not allow the use of methyl bromide due to the proximity of sensitive sites such as schools or housing, thus alternative fumigants such a s I nline are used. In these locations, growers may accept lower returns over time due to higher weeding costs and reduced yields or they will cease growing strawberries in those fields if soil borne disease losses and weed density gets too high” (California Strawberry Commission, 2008).USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 5 of 15

Furthermore, in California, the choice of fumigant “ is influenced by a number of factors including the regulatory situation for a particular ranch, their financial situation

— can they afford methyl bromide, the type of crop they are producing (summer plantings typically do not use methyl bromide because they have a short production season while growers in the northern district are more likely to use methyl bromide since they have a very long season), the prevalence of disease or weed problems, etc...” ( Legard, personal communication, 2008 ). Land currentl y requiring methyl bromide may be able to transition to iodomethane, but it is unclear how much, if an y, fruit production will be affected.
6. WOULD IT BE FEASIBLE TO EXPAND THE USE OF THESE MET HODS TO COVER AT LEAST PART OF THE CROP THAT HAS REQUESTED USE OF METHYL BROMIDE? WHAT CHANGES WOULD BE NEC ESSARY TO ENABLE THIS? In California, expansion of alternative methods to critica l areas may be likely with the registration of iodomethane , but i t is not clear what might be the impact of iodomethane on the emergence of charcoal rot ( Macrophominia phaseolina) and Fusarium wilt ( F. oxysporum )

—two diseases that have caused problems in fields not exposed to methyl bromide in recent ye ars . However, r esearch with virtually and totall y impermeable films in California suggest s that sequential treatments of fumigants such as iodomethane , 1,3

- D and metam potassium could provide effective pest management and acceptable yields (Othman et al ., 2009). T he California Strawberry Commission has funded Farming Without Fumigants Initiative whose goal is to develop strawberry fruit production methods that can avoid the complexities of highl y regulated fumigants. This research includes collaborat ion with the University of California and USDA (see section “Summary of Recent Research” below).
7. SUMMARY OF RECENT RESEARCH 1) There was no significant difference in the mean of strawberry yield from soil treated with methyl bromide and soil treated with DMDS + chloropicrin (Othman et al., 2010). Efficacy against Py

thium and problem weeds, such as annual grasses and pigweed, were also comparable to meth yl bromide treatments. 2) Macrophimina and Fusarium have been said to be increasing in incidence in recent y ears ( personal communication, 2008) . Outbreaks of both pathogens have been associated with wilting, stunting, and d yi ng plants in coastal and inland strawberry production areas (Koike et al., 2009). Some growers have returned to using a methy l bromide treatment after two y ears treatment with alternatives in order to “clean

- up” the soil contaminated with both emerging pathogens and weeds. Koike et al. (2009) found cultivar differences in susceptibility to the two diseases.USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 6 of 15

3) Norton (2008) r eported that excellent weed and disease control have been achieved with drip

applied 1,3

- D/chloropicrin (InL ine) followed 5

- 8 day s later by metam
- sodium. W eed control was highl y dependent on optimal fumigant placement, which has not always been applied. 4) Research continue d regarding steam treatment of soils (Fennimore and Samtani, 2010). Estimated costs for labor, fuel, and equipment are $3848/acre. While efficacy and flexibility appear to make steam worthy of further research, disadvantages include high consumption of fuel, carbon emissions, the need for large numbers of expensive steam applicators, and water treatments. Results suggest s that some treatments with steam manage various weed populations comparabl y t o methyl bromide soil treatments and yi elds after steam treatments are similar to yi elds after methyl bromide (Gilbert et al., 2009; Daugovish et al., 2009; Fennimore et al., 2009; Fennimore and Goodhue, 2009). Field demonstrations were used to demonstrate the latest in experiments in fumigation and non

- fumigation methods for strawberry

production (Fennimore et al., 2009). Treatments also included various low

- or non - permeable tarps. Steam was the onl y non - chemical fumigant that had comparable weed control compared to methy l bromide. Costs of steam treatments were discussed by Fennimore and Goodhue (2009) with regard to orchard replant and ornamental nursery beds. Yellow nutsedge was more successfully managed with steam in fall treatments (Daugovish et al., 2009). Phy sical barriers (paper and plastic mulches) appeared to reduce populations of nutsedge. A combination of steam and ph ys ical barriers may be effective. Work is continuing on steam treatment for strawberry production. 5) M ethods of strawberry production were conducted to test the efficacy of production with non

soil substrates (Fennimore and Samtani, 2010; Fennimore et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2010). Advantages are comparable or higher yi elds compared to fumigated soils and the lack of need for fumigants. Disadvantages are lim itations in the volume of material (such as coir and peat) necessary for production, and the need for in

- place irrigation and sensors making crop rotation with vegetables difficult. Small

- scale plots tested various substrates including peat and peat with p erlite or rice hulls, and coconut coir used with green mulch or skunk mulch (Gabriel et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2009). Initial results indicated that most of the soilless treatments provided greater yi elds than the field soil

- grown strawberry plants and w ater use, while variable, might be within acceptable parameters. Pathogen populations of Verticillium dahliae , Phytophthora cactorum , and Colletotrichum spp. were apparentl y affected b y various treatments, but results were inconclusive at the early stages of testing (Gerik et al., 2009). 6) Anaerobic soil disinfestation is being studied as a possible means of soil pest management (Shennan et al., 2010). This involves creating anaerobic conditions through solarization, soil amendment with organic matter, and high soil moisture to impede the growth of aerobic organisms. Initial experiments in pots indicate that Verticillium dahlia e populations decreased significantly

in some experiments. However, the level of control was not consistent among all studies and treatments. 7) O ngoing field demonstration trials (Noling et al., 2010c; Noling, 2009 a ; Noling 2009b ) in Florida indicate generally positive results regarding alternatives. In the trials, “most alternative fumigants evaluated produced yi elds which we re statistically equivalent to that of methyl bromide chloropicrin, and are being recommended to growers, with caveat, as viableUSA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 7 of 15

alternatives to meth yl bromide.” One caveat, however, is that application problems with some alternatives resulted in signific ant yield declines compared to methyl bromide treatments. Treatments included chisel applied 50:50 and 67:33 methy l bromide:chloropicrin, 79:21 DMDS:chloropicrin, Pic Clor 60, Telone C35 + herbicide. In addition, drip applications were provided with Pic Clor 60 and Telone InLine. 8) Sting nematode infestation of strawberry fields impacts approximately 40% of Florida fields, resulting in plant stunting if left uncontrolled (Noling et al., 2010b ). Remote sensing technology

was used to compare strawberry yields with plant size and relate plant size to fumigant treatments. Relative yields determined from the ground truth survey of plant sizes were correlated with remote sensing information of canop y cover. Nematode

- induced crop losses were derived from end of season plant size assessments and remote sensing. This information is provided to growers to assess methyl bromide alternatives for nematode management. 9) Trials with Pic Clor 60, Telone C35, and DMDS + chloropicrin at two locations in Florida resul ted in comparable yi elds to methyl bromide

- treated soils (Noling, 2010b ). While VIF film retained fumigants significantl y more than LDPE film, yield improvement was not observed. 10) The USDA A reawide project for large

- scale field demonstrations in Flori da evaluated s everal drip fumigants for efficacy , yield, and risk mitigation to reduce buffer zone distances that (Noling, 2010 a ) . The feasibility of using two drip tapes per bed was examined. In addition, there was an examination of the feasibility of d ouble cropping strawberries by drip

applied fumigant through previous y ear’s plastic film. Impacts of double cropping were not evaluated due to unseasonable cold winter weather in 2009

- 2010. In general, two drip tapes likely increased plant density

sugge sting a higher yield. 11) Experiments examining fumigant diffusion and soil retention of fumigants were conducted within various moisture gradients (Noling et al., 2010a ) . In 2008, no differences in gas concentrations were observed for Telone C35 or io domethane (50:50) with VIF, while in 2009, significant differences in soil gas concentrations, plant size distributions, and strawberry

yield were observed with Pic Clor 60 and Telone C35. 12) During the 2009 growing season in Florida , refinements were made in soil application technologies for 1,3

- D to address inconsistent soil application. In addition, integrated methods are being phased

- in as growers learn to take a broad view of pest management strategies. Transition to alternatives requires growers to integrate new fumigant application methods, and new tillage and irrigation practices to reduce emissions. (Noling, 2009b). 13) Trials with TIF and various alternative fumigants continued in North Carolina (Welker et al., 2010 ). In addition, activitie s for outreach to growers are helping communicate new information. Mustard seed

- amended soil was tested to determine its efficacy to suppress weed populations and provide acceptable yi elds (Dey ton et al., 2010). The latest results from ongoing experiment s indicate that mustard seed meal provided greater yield than water sealed plots. In addition, mustard seed meal gave similar weed control to dazomet.USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 8 of 15

14) At a research station in North Carolina, various rates of iodomethane were tested (Poling et al., 2 009). MIDAS (iodomethane:chloropicrin) at 200 kg/ha of 50:50 with standard tarps and at 135 kg/ha with virtually impermeable film had the highest marketable yields in the study and statistically

similar to methyl bromide at 196 kg/ha with virtuall y imperm eable film. The MI DAS rate of 135 kg/ha provided greater yi elds than higher rates of the product under virtually impermeable film. Researchers concluded that “the net benefit of using Midas 50:50 at 120 lb/A [135 kg/ha] with VIF could easily exceed $10,0 00 per acre in extra profits for the grower compared to no fumigation. This much economic benefit from fumigation would not likely

be observed on sites where good crop rotation is possible, but on sites where rotation is not possible, a serious crop reduc tion may occur for growers who do not fumigate.” 15) In the southeast area

- wide USDA

- funded trials, researchers reported (Welker et al., 2009) “we have had great success with the alternatives and y ield data has shown comparable yi elds to methyl bromide fumigation from at least one alternative.” However, the trials showed that “alternatives are not nearly as forgiving as methyl bromide under less than ideal environmental conditions.”
8. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES In this stud y net revenue is calculated as gross revenue minus operating costs. This is a good measure to describe the direct losses of income that may be suffered by

the users. The net revenue does not represent net income to the users. Net income, which indicates profitability of an operation of an enterprise, is gross revenue minus the sum of operating and fixed costs. Net income should be smaller than the net revenue measured in this study . Fixed costs were not included because it is often difficult to measure and verify

. Sum mary of Economic Feasibility The economic anal ys is of strawberry fruit production compared data on yields, crop prices, revenues and costs using methy l bromide and using alternative pest control regimens in order to estimate the loss of methyl bromide ava ilability . For California, the primary alternative is 1,3

- D/chloropicrin followed by metam sodium. The economic factors that drive the feasibility analy sis for fresh market strawberry fruit use of methyl bromide are increased production costs, which may be due to the higher

- cost of using an alternative, additional pest control requirements, and/or resulting shifts in other production or harvesting practices and yield losses. Crop budgets were anal yzed for pre

- plant sectors to determine the likel y econo mic impact if methyl bromide were unavailable. Various measures were used to quantify the impacts, including the following:USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 9 of 15

(1) Loss per Hectare. For crops, this measure is closely tied to income. Itis relatively eas y to measure, but may

be difficult to interpret in isolation. (2) Loss per Kilogram of Methyl Bromide . This measure indicates the value of methyl bromide to crop production. (3) Loss as a Percentage of Gross Revenue. This measure has the advantage that gross revenues are usually

eas y t o measure, at least over some unit, e.g. , a hectare of land or a storage operation. However, high value commodities or crops may provide high revenues but may also entail high costs. Losses of even a small percentage of gross revenues could have important impacts on the profitability of the activity

. (4) Loss as a Percentage of Net Operating Revenue . Net cash revenues are defined as gross revenues minus operating costs. This is a very good indicator of the direct losses of income that may be suffered b y the owners or operators of an enterprise. However, operating costs can often be difficult to measure and verify

. (5) Operating Profit Margin . Operating profit margin is defined as net operating revenue divided by

gross revenue per hectare. This measu re would provide the best indication of the total impact of the loss of methy l bromide to an enterprise. Again, operating costs may be difficult to measure and fixed costs even more difficult, therefore fixed costs were not included in the anal ys is. Thes e measures represent different way s to assess the economic feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives for strawberry fruit producers. Because producers (suppliers) represent an integral part of an y definition of a market, the threshold of significant mark et disruption is met if there is a significant impact on commodity suppliers using methy l bromide. The economic measures provide the basis for making that determination. For California strawberry producers, there is no change in impacts from the previou s y ear estimates as iodomethane is not yet registered . The loss to gross revenue for growers using alternatives to meth yl bromide is estimated to remain about 14% as compared to the use of methyl bromide. Table 3 illustrates the 2008 economic impact asse ssment for California strawberry

fruit growers. Now that iod o methane (trade name Midas) is available for California strawberry producers, there is a change in impacts from the previous y ear estimates. Iodomethane is used in combination with c h lor o picrin in 33/67 formulation at a rate of 224 kg/ha . The loss to gross revenue for growers using alternatives to methyl bromide is estimated to range from 6

- 14% as compared to the use of meth yl bromide. Table 3 illustrates the 2010 economic impact assessment for California strawberry

fruit growers.USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 10 of 15

T ABLE 3 . C ALIFORNIA : E CONOMIC I MPACTS OF M ETHYL B ROMIDE A LTERNATIVES

CALIFORNIA M ETHYL B ROMIDE I ODOMETHANE PIC + MB 1,3 D +

PIC P RODUCTION L OSS (%) 0% 0% 15% 14% P RODUCTION PER H ECTARE 49,410 49,410 4 1,999 42,475 * P RICE PER U NIT ( US $) $ 1.37 $ 1.37 $ 1.37 $ 1.37

= G ROSS REVENUE PER H ECTARE ( US $) $ 67,537 $ 67,537 $ 66,020 $ 58,057

- O PERATING C OSTS PER H ECTARE ( US $)** $ 66,849 $ 71,426 $ 57,432 $ 66,100

= N ET REVENUE PER H ECTARE ( US $) $ 688 $ (3,8 89) ($ 8,614) ($ 8,042) *L OSS M EASURES * 1. L OSS PER H ECTARE ( US $) $ 0 $ 4,576 $ 9,302 $ 8730 2. L OSS PER KILOGRAM OF M ETHYL B ROMIDE ( US $) $ 0 $ 22.81 $ 46.36 $ 43.51 3. L OSS AS A P ERCENTAGE OF G ROSS REVENUE (%) 0% 7% 14% 13% 4. L OSS AS A P ERCENTAGE OF N ET O PERATING REVENUE (%) 0% 685% 1352% 1269% 5. O PERATING P ROFIT M ARGIN (%) 4% - 6% - 15% - 14% **Note that the measures in the tables above must be interpreted carefully. Operating costs do not include fixed costs and net revenue equals gross revenue minus operating costs.USA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 11 of 15

9 . RESULTANT CHANGES TO REQUESTED EXEMPTION QUANTITIES The USG has applied an aggressive transition rate, which is reflected in the nomination amount and detailed in Table 4
. TABLE 4 . N OMINATION A MOUNT :

SECTOR STRAWBERRY FRUIT California Strawberry Commission Sector Total / Average Quantity Requested for 2012: Amount (kgs) 751,596 751,596 Quantity Recommended by MBTOC/TEAP for 2012 : Amount (kgs) 673,08 5 673,085 Quantity Approved by Parties for 2012: Amount (kgs) 673,085 673,085 Ar ea (ha) 4,421 4,421 Rate 152 152 Transition from 2012 Baseline Adjusted Value Percentage (%) - 21%

- 21% Quantity Required for 2013 Nomination: Amount (kgs) 

### 531,737 531,737 Ar ea (ha) 4406 4406 Rate 170 170 CITATIONS Bo yd, V. 2010. New soi l

- borne pest control. Citrus and Vegetable. Sept

- Oct 2010. http://www.citrusandvegetable.com/PastIssues/ArticleLanding/tabid/70/De fault.aspx?tid=1 &cid=839107&issueid=792 California Strawberry

Commission. 2008. Request for a critical use exemption for meth yl bromide on strawberries for the 2011 use season. Daugovish, O., Mochizuki, M., and Fennimore, S. 2009. Yellow nutsedge manage ment with chemical, ph ys ical and thermal treatments. International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009). http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/014DaugovishOSummary Nutsedge.pdf Dey ton, D. E., Sams, C. E., Kopsell, D. A., and Cummins, J. C. 2010. Using mustard seed meal to biofumigate strawberry soil. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010). ; http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/079SamsC.pdf Fennimore, S. and Samtani, J. 2010. Strategies to sustainably produce strawberry

without fumigants. International Res earch Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives andUSA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 12 of 15

Emissions Reductions (2010). International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010). http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/078FennimoreSsteamposter.pdf

. Fennimore, S., Ajwa, H., Subbarao, K., Daugovish, O., Martin, F., Browne, G., Samtani, J., Serohijos, R., Wang, D., Sjulin, T., Greene, I., Legard, D. 2010. facilitating adoption of a lternatives to meth yl bromide in California strawberries. http://mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/032FennimoreSAreawidestrawberry .pdf Fennimore, S., Ajwa, H., Subbarao, K., Mart in, F., Browne, G., and Samtani, J. 2009. Facilitating adoption of alternatives to methyl bromide in California strawberries. International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009). http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/016FennimoreSprogressreportstrawberry AWP8170 9.pdf Fennimore, S. and Goodhue, R. 2009. Estimated costs to disinfest soil with steam. Annual International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009). http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/003FennimoreSMBAOAbstractSteambu siness.pdf Gabriel, M. Z., Wang, D., Gerik, J., and Gartung, J. 2009. Strawberry production in soil

- less substrate troughs

—

plant growth. Annual International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009). http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/098GabrielMMBAO2009MagdalenaRaBetplants.p df Gerik, J., Wang, d., Gabriel, M. Z., and Gartung, J. 2009. Strawberry production in soil

- less substrate troughs

—

pathology . Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009). http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceed ings/099GerikJMBAO2009Pathology .pdf Gilbert, C., Fennimore, S., Subbarao, K., Hanson, B., Rainbolt, C., Goodhue, R., Weber, J. B., and Samtani, J. 2009. Sy stems to disinfest soil with heat for strawberry and flower production. Annual International Resear ch Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009). http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/015FennimoreSMBAOAbstractSteamSolar82809.p d f Gilreath, J., Santos, B., Mirusso, J., Noling, J., and Gilreath, P. 2005c. Application considerations for successful use of VIF and metalized mulches with reduced fumigant rates in tomato. U. Florida Extension publ. HS287. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HS/HS27000.pdfUSA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 13 of 15

Koike, S., Gordon, T., Ajwa, H., Daugovish, O., Bolda, M., Legard, D. 2009. Fumigant and strawberry

variet y evaluations in Macrophomina and Fusarium fields. http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/013DaugovishOSummary Pathogens.pdf Legard, D. 2008. Personal communication, email 24 September, 2008. NASS (National Agriculture Statistics S ervice), 2007. Agricultural Chemical Usage 2006 Vegetable Summary

. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/AgriChemUsVeg/AgriChemUsVeg

- 07

- 25

- 2007_revision.pdf

) Noling, J. W. 2010 a . USDA ARS areawide project: L arge scale field demonstrations in Florida strawberry

2009

- 10. Annual International Research Conference on Methy l Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010). http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/036NolingJAreaWide.pdf Noling, J. W. 2010b. USDA CSREES: Methyl bromide transitions in Florida strawberry 2008

- 10. Annual International Research Conference o n Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010). http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/042NolingJTranistionsFloridaStrawberry .pdf Noling, J. W., T homas, J., and Cody, M. 2010a. VIF mulches, optimized irrigation and tillage practices for fumigant use in Florida strawberry

. Annual International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010). http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/016NolingJVIFMoistureCompaction.pdf Noling, J. W., Schumann, A. W., and Cody , M. 2010b. Assessing field distribution, crop impact and sting nematode mana gement in Florida strawberry

. Annual International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010). http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/046N olingJRemoteSensing.pdf Noling, J. W., Botts, D. A., and MacRae, A. W. 2010c. Alternatives to methyl bromide soil fumigation for Florida vegetable production. University of Florida Publ. SP170

- 23. May , 2010. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/CV/CV29000.pdf

. Noling, J. W. 2009 a . L arge scale field demonstration validation trials in Florida strawberry

. Individual research program, CSREES

- USDA grant, FLA

- LAL

- 04553; http://ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=411977&fy=2009 ) Noling, J. W. 2009b. Grower field demonstration trialing of gas impermeable plastic mulches, reduced rates of soil fumi gants, and optimized irrigation and cultural practices. CSREES

USDA grant, FLA

- LAL

- 04776. http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/215116.html ) Norton, J. A. 2008. Metam co mbinations as alternatives to methyl bromide in US

- grown strawberries and mulched vegetables. Annual International Research Conference on Meth ylUSA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 14 of 15

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2008). http://www.mbao.org/2008/046Norton.pdf Othman, M., Ajwa, H., Fennimore, S., Martin, F., Subbarao, K., and Hunzie, J. 2010. Dimethyl disulfide plus chloropicrin as methyl bromide alternative for strawberry production. Annual International Research Conferenc e on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010). http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/004OthmanM.pdf ; http://mbao.org/2010 /4Othman.pdf Othman, M., Ajwa, H. A., Fennimore, S., Martin, F., Subbarao, K., Browne, G., and Hunzie, J. 2009. Strawberry

production with reduced rates of methy l bromide alternatives applied under retentive film. Annual International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009). http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/055OthmanMAbstract2009Strawberry productionwi thReducedRatesofMeth yl BromideAlternatives.pdf Poling, E. B., Schiavone, R., and Franck, C. T. 2009. Influence of MIDAS 50:50 and MIDAS 98:2 on strawberry

plasticulture yields in North Carolina. Annual International Resear ch Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2009). http://mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/113PolingBsummary .pdf Poling, E. B. and Schiavone, R. 2008. Strawberry p lasticulture research with MI DAS 50:50 and MI DAS 98:2 in North Carolina, 2007

- 2008 (Central Crops Research Station, Clay ton). http://ncsu.edu/enterprises/strawberries/files/2009/09/poling

- report2007_2008.pdf Shennan, C., Muramoto, J., Koike, S., Bolda, M., Daugovish, O., Mochizuki, M., Rosskopf, E. N., Kokalis

- Burelle, N., Butler, D. 2010. Optimizing anaerobic soil disinfestations for strawberry

production in California. Annual International Research Conference on Methy l Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010). http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/023ShennanC.pdf Trout, T. 2005. Impact of township caps on Telone use in California. Annual International Research Conference on Methy l Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2005). h ttp://mbao.org/2005/05Proceedings/127TroutT%20mb

- pest
- use - telone

- rpt05

- mbao.pdf Wang, D., Gerik, J., Gartung, J., Sjulin, T., Fennimore, S., Rowe, D., Greene, I, Legard, D. 2010. Yield and water assessment of strawberry production in raised

- bed troughs. Annual International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010). http://www.mbao.org/2010/Proceedings/041WangDStrawberry RaisedBeds. pdf

). Wang, Gartung, J., Vaughan, P., Gerik, J., Gabriel, M. Z., and Legard, D. 2009. Strawberry production in soilless substrate troughs

— water management. Annual International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions ( 2009). http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/017WangDMBAO2009RaBetwater.pdfUSA CUN13 SOIL Strawberry Fruit Open Field Page 15 of 15

Welker, R. M., Driver, J. G., Rivard, C. L ., Louws, F. J. 2010. Outreach and new approaches for methyl bromide alternatives through the USDA areawide project. Annual International Research Conference on Methy l Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2010). http://www.mbao.org/2 010/Proceedings/040L ouwsF.pdf Welker, R. M., Driver, Rivard, C. L ., and Louws, F. J. 2009. Research and extension efforts to enable successful transition away from methy l bromide fumigation. Annual International Research Conference on Methy l Bromide Alte rnatives and Emissions Reductions (2009). http://www.mbao.org/2009/Proceedings/041WelkerRMBAOProceedings2009.pdf Welker, R. M., Driver, J. G., Smith, J. P., Schiemann, C. A., and Louws, F. J. 2008. On

- farm research and extension activities to implement MB alternatives: an area wide initiative update. Annual International Research Conference on Meth yl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions (2008). http://www.mbao.org/2008/Proceedings/009WelkerRMBAOAREAWIDEFJ L. pdf