Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0230-0089
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-06-10T04:00Z

Page
1
U.
S.
A.
CUN2003/
049­
CUCURBITS­
FIELD
CUCURBITS
GROWN
OUTDOORS
WITH
PLASTIC
TARPS
COVERING
THE
ROWS
CUCURBITS,
INCLUDING
SQUASH,
CUCUMBER,
MELONS
OF
MANY
VARIETIES
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Introduction
................................................................................................................................
2
Critical
Need
for
Methyl
Bromide................................................................................................
2
Economic
Impacts.......................................................................................................................
3
Response
to
Questions
from
MBTOC/
TEAP...............................................................................
4
Historical
Emission
Reductions
&
Methyl
Bromide
Dosage
Rates
.............................................
12
Virtually
Impermeable
Film
(
VIF)
Tarps....................................................................................
12
Market
Window
Information.....................................................................................................
13
Definitions.................................................................................................................................
15
References
................................................................................................................................
16
LIST
OF
TABLES
Table
1.
Region,
Key
Pests,
and
Critical
Need
for
MB.................................................................
2
Table
2.
Measures
of
Economic
Impact
of
Metam­
Sodium
Use
in
Place
of
Methyl
Bromide
on
Cucurbits
in
the
U.
S..............................................................................................................
3
Table
3.
Fumigant
Alternatives
to
MB
for
Polyethylene­
Mulched
Tomato
(
Locascio
et
al.,
1997).
.............................................................................................................................................
7
Table
4.
Historical
Use
of
MB
in
the
Cucurbits
Sector................................................................
8
Table
5.
Calculation
of
the
Nominated
Amount
of
Methyl
Bromide
in
the
Cucurbits
Sector
........
9
Table
6.
Herbicides
registered
in
the
United
States
in
Cucurbits................................................
11
Page
2
INTRODUCTION
The
U.
S.
nomination
for
cucurbits
is
a
critical
need
only
for
an
amount
of
methyl
bromide
(
MB)
associated
with
moderate
to
severe
pest
pressure
(
primarily
nutsedge
in
Southeastern
United
States
and
Georgia,
and
Phytophthora
in
Michigan),
because
there
are
no
feasible
alternatives
and
farmers
face
economic
harm
in
using
alternatives
(
see
Table
1).
Alternatives
for
cucurbits
fail
to
provide
necessary
pest
control
for
moderate
to
severe
pest
pressure.
The
nomination
also
notes
that
applying
alternatives
is
further
complicated
when
plant­
back
restrictions
prevent
farmers
from
meeting
marketing
windows
(
e.
g.,
winter
for
Georgia
and
the
Southeast
and
spring
for
Michigan)
when
cucurbit
sale
prices
are
as
much
as
100%
higher
than
during
the
rest
of
the
year.
The
nomination
notes
progress
in
adopting
emission
reduction
technologies,
and
in
changing
formulations
and
application
rates
to
reduce
MB
dosage
rates
to
some
of
the
lowest
in
the
world.

CRITICAL
NEED
FOR
METHYL
BROMIDE
TABLE
1.
REGION,
KEY
PESTS,
AND
CRITICAL
NEED
FOR
METHYL
BROMIDE
Region
Key
Pests
Critical
Need
for
Methyl
Bromide
Georgia
(
CUE
02­
0048,
02­
0051,
02­
0052)

Southeastern
US
(
CUE
02­
0042)
­
a
consortium
comprising
Alabama,
Arkansas,
North
Carolina,
South
Carolina,
Tennessee,
and
Virginia
Weeds:
Yellow
Nutsedge
(
Cyperus
esculentum),
and
Purple
Nutsedge
(
C.
rotundus).
At
moderate
to
severe
pest
pressure,
particularly
where
C.
rotundus
is
dominant,
only
MB
can
currently
provide
effective
and
reliable
control
in
these
regions.
The
use
of
alternatives
is
limited
due
to
a
number
of
factors,
such
as
susceptibility
of
the
key
pests
to
alternatives,
and
regulatory
restrictions
such
as
mandatory
buffers
around
inhabited
structures.
MB
applications
in
cucurbits
are
typically
made
using
a
67:
33
mixture
with
chloropicrin
under
plastic.
Resulting
dosage
rates
are
150
kg/
ha
 
among
the
lowest
in
the
world
 
making
further
reductions
difficult
to
achieve
without
compromising
pest
control.

Michigan
(
CUE
02­
0005)
Diseases:
Soil
inhabiting
fungal
pathogens
 
Phytophthora
capsici
and
Fusarium
oxysporum
At
moderate
to
severe
pest
pressure,
particularly
for
P.
capsici,
which
has
shown
resistance
to
other
fungicides,
only
MB
can
provide
effective
and
reliable
control.
Michigan's
cool
and
cloudy
climate,
short
growing
season
and
narrow
market
window
exacerbates
the
need
for
consistent
control
of
fungal
pests
and
a
minimum
plant
back
interval.
MB
applications
in
cucurbits
are
typically
made
using
a
67:
33
mixture
with
chloropicrin
under
plastic.
Resulting
dosage
rates
are
150
kg/
ha
 
among
the
lowest
in
the
world
 
making
further
reductions
difficult
to
achieve
without
compromising
pest
control.
Page
3
ECONOMIC
IMPACTS
In
order
to
determine
whether
a
proposed
alternative
to
MB
was
considered
to
be
`
economically
feasible'
for
those
situations
where
technically
feasible
alternatives
exist,
the
U.
S.
took
a
`
weight
of
the
evidence'
or
`
portfolio'
approach.
Rather
than
rely
on
a
single
indicator
or
even
a
series
of
indicators,
each
with
a
`
bright
line',
the
situation
of
the
applicant
with
respect
to
five
measures
was
assessed.
The
five
measures
selected
for
consideration
were:
loss
per
hectare;
loss
per
kilogram
of
MB;
loss
as
a
percent
of
gross
revenue;
loss
as
a
percent
of
net
cash
returns;
and
change
in
profit
margins.
These
measures
were
selected
because
the
information
was
fairly
readily
available,
they
describe
different
aspects
of
potential
loss
and
are
independent
of
each
other.
In
cases
where
information
was
not
available
for
one
or
more
of
the
measures,
the
remaining
measures
were
used.
In
cases
where
a
stream
of
benefits
was
derived
from
a
MB
application,
net
present
value
was
used
in
the
calculations.

When
evaluating
the
case
made
by
each
application,
expert
economic
judgment
was
used
to
determine
whether
each
loss
(
or
change
in
profit
margin)
was
significant,
not
significant,
or
borderline
within
the
context
of
the
applicant's
market.
Once
decisions
on
individual
measures
were
reached,
an
overall
assessment
was
made
which
included
the
individual
measures
and
any
additional
considerations
such
as
social
benefit.

The
original
U.
S.
nomination
presented
data
showing
that
the
next
best
alternative
to
MB,
metam­
sodium,
is
not
economically
feasible
in
states/
regions
where
nutsedges
are
the
key
pests.
In
Michigan,
the
key
pests
are
soil
fungi,
for
which
metam­
sodium
has
not
shown
technical
feasibility.
In
Georgia
and
the
other
southeastern
states,
metam­
sodium
might
be
effective
against
low
to
moderate
nutsedge
infestations,
but
not
against
moderate
to
severe
pest
pressure.
Given
this
caveat,
an
economic
analysis
of
metam­
sodium
as
an
alternative
control
for
nutsedge
was
conducted.
Results
are
provided
in
Table
2.

TABLE
2.
MEASURES
OF
ECONOMIC
IMPACT
OF
METAM­
SODIUM
USE
IN
PLACE
OF
METHYL
BROMIDE
ON
CUCURBITS
IN
THE
U.
S.

Loss
Measure
Georgia
(
CUE
02­
0048,
02­
0051,
02­
0052)
Southeast**
(
CUE
02­
0042)
Michigan
(
CUE
02­
0005)

Yield
Losses
Up
to
17%
likely
10%
loss
Up
to
26%
loss
Likely
15%
loss
No
technically
feasible
option,
therefore
no
economic
analysis
was
conducted.

Loss
Per
Hectare
US$
391
 
$
2,918
likely
$
1,862
loss
US$
1,210
­
$
9,190
Likely
$
5,187
loss
No
technically
feasible
option,
therefore
no
economic
analysis
was
conducted.
Loss
Per
Kilogram
MB
US$
1.74
 
$
13.00
likely
$
8.29
loss
US$
5.40
­
$
41.10
Likely
$
23.10
loss
No
technically
feasible
option,
therefore
no
economic
analysis
was
conducted.
Loss
as
a
%
of
Gross
Revenue
Up
to
11%
likely
7%
loss
4
­
30%
loss
likely
17%
loss
No
technically
feasible
option,
therefore
no
economic
analysis
was
conducted.
Loss
as
a
%
of
Net
Cash
Returns
6
 
50%
likely
28%
loss
9
­
73%
loss
likely
41%
loss
No
technically
feasible
option,
therefore
no
economic
analysis
was
conducted.
Change
in
Profit
Margins
Not
Available
Not
Available
No
technically
feasible
option,
therefore
no
economic
analysis
was
conducted.
Notes.
**
Loss
measures
were
calculated
based
on
the
data
from
the
USDA,
National
Agricultural
Statistics
Service
Page
4
RESPONSE
TO
QUESTIONS
FROM
MBTOC/
TEAP
1.
Provide
details
of
the
reasoning
and
assumptions
used
to
calculate
the
nominated
amount.

The
details
of
the
reasoning
and
assumptions
used
to
calculate
the
nominated
amount
are
shown
in
Tables
4
and
5.

The
methodology
used
by
the
U.
S.
carefully
scrutinized
applications
from
the
user
community
and
took
out
(
1)
double
counting;
(
2)
any
requested
growth
beyond
historical
acreage
planted,
and
(
3)
requested
amounts
that
fall
under
QPS.
Furthermore,
the
United
States
adjusted
the
requests
from
the
user
community,
when
they
had
not
already
done
so,
to
change
the
amount
of
MB
nominated
to
account
for
(
1)
only
the
area
where
pest
pressure
cannot
be
controlled
by
alternatives,
(
2)
the
area
where
regulatory
constraints
limit
adoption
of
alternatives,
such
as
buffers
near
inhabited
areas,
and
(
3)
the
area
where
soil/
geological
features
limit
use
of
alternatives,
such
as
groundwater
contamination
in
areas
with
karst
topography.
The
nominated
amount
incorporates
minimum
efficacious
use
rates,
mixtures
of
MB
with
chloropicrin,
and
the
use
of
tarps
to
improve
efficacy
and
reduce
emissions.

2.
List
the
registration
status
of
herbicides
for
this
crop
and
provide
data
on
why
these
are
not
suitable
for
nutgrass
control
(
the
main
reason
why
MB
is
used
in
southeastern
USA).

A
list
of
herbicides,
with
activity
against
nutsedge
species,
which
are
currently
registered
for
some
or
all
U.
S.
cucurbit
crops,
is
provided
in
Table
6.
Herbicides
not
currently
registered
for
cucurbits,
but
which
have
shown
some
activity
against
nutsedge
in
vegetables,
are
also
listed.

3.
As
the
CUN
specifically
request
MB
for
areas
where
nutgrass
exists
in
heavy
infestations,
the
Party
is
requested
to
clarify
the
exact
amount
of
MB
required
for
this
use
and
to
validate
the
amount
of
MB
required
in
those
areas
where
1,3­
D
is
not
available
through
local
restrictions
(
e.
g.,
township
caps,
karst
topography).

The
details
of
the
reasoning
and
assumptions
used
to
calculate
the
nominated
amount
are
shown
in
Tables
4
and
5.
For
cucurbits,
MB
is
only
requested
for
areas
of
moderate
to
severe
nutsedge
infestations.

4.
The
Party
should
consider
recalculating
the
quantity
nominated
consistent
with
the
use
of
emission
control
technologies
applied
in
conjunction
with
chloropicrin
where
feasible.

The
U.
S.
nomination
considered
the
historical
efforts
by
cucurbit
growers
to
reduce
emissions
and
to
reduce
MB
dosages
described
in
the
section
below
titled,
"
Historical
Emission
Reductions
&
Methyl
Bromide
Dosage
Rates."
The
section
demonstrates
notable
success
in
the
United
States
at
efficiently
using
MB
at
low
dosages
with
emission
control
technologies
to
control
key
pests.
As
the
2002
MBTOC
report
states,
"
in
some
countries
(
e.
g.,
the
U.
S.)
the
potential
for
reducing
MB
dosages
for
soil
fumigation
Page
5
compared
to
many
other
countries
will
be
less
because
dosages
are
already
low."
Growers
requesting
this
exemption
have
routinely
used
plastic
tarpaulins
since
the
1980s
to
reduce
MB
emissions
and
maximize
MB
effectiveness.
Recent
efforts
have
continued
to
try
to
maximize
each
quantity
of
MB,
using
formulations
of
MB/
Pic
with
lower
MB
proportions
and
continued
testing
of
virtually
impermeable
film
(
VIF)
tarps.
The
difficulties
and
impediments
in
adopting
VIF
tarps
are
being
investigated
in
the
U.
S.
and
are
described
in
the
section
below
titled,
"
Virtually
Impermeable
Film
(
VIF)
Tarps."
The
U.
S.
nomination
is
calculated
based
on
growers
continuing
to
use
a
67:
33
mixture
of
MB
with
chloropicrin.
Because
the
U.
S.
nomination
already
accounts
for
the
use
of
emission
control
technologies
and
lower
methyl
bromide
content
mixtures,
no
recalculation
was
performed.

5.
The
Party
is
asked
to
provide
detail
on
why
key
alternatives
reported
by
MBTOC,
e.
g.,
1,3­
D/
Pic
and
grafting
are
not
effective
alternatives.

1,3­
dichloropropene
+
chloropicrin
The
United
States
has
found
no
evidence
that
these
chemicals
adequately
control
the
soil
fungi
cited
as
critical
pests
by
Michigan.
For
other
regions,
the
1,3­
D
+
chloropicrin
combination
has
shown
activity
suppressing
weeds,
but
control
of
nutsedge
has
not
been
as
consistent
or
as
effective
as
MB,
particularly
when
weed
populations
are
high
(
Locasio
et
al
1997).
Data
presented
in
Table
3
show
the
results
in
tomatoes
where
nutsedge
is
not
adequately
controlled
by
1,3­
D
+
chloropicrin.
The
U.
S.
nominations
have
attempted
to
differentiate
between
low
and
moderate
to
severe
pest
infestations.
Yield
loss
estimates
show
a
5%
reduction
in
cucumber
yield
can
occur
with
approximately
15
yellow
nutsedge
plants/
m
²
(
Johnson
and
Mullinix
1999).
Williams
and
Warren
(
1975)
showed
that
purple
nutsedge
also
could
reduce
cucumber
yield
by
as
much
as
43%
when
nutsedge
densities
reached
400
plants/
m2
or
more.
Considering
that
both
nutsedge
species
can
reach
densities
in
the
thousands
of
plants/
m2,
these
results
indicate
that
relatively
low
levels
of
nutsedge
infestations
are
enough
to
reduce
cucurbit
yield
significantly.
For
watermelon,
over
40%
yield
loss
can
occur
with
12
yellow
nutsedge
plants/
m
²
,
for
both
direct
seeded
and
transplant
watermelons.
A
10%
yield
loss
was
predicted
to
occur
at
only
two
yellow
nutsedge
plants/
m
²
.
(
Buker
et
al.,
2003)

Additionally,
there
are
practical
constraints
to
using
1­
3­
dichloropropene
in
the
United
States,
which
include:
i)
Prohibitions
of
use
in
certain
soil
types:
1,3­
dichloropropene
is
restricted
from
use
in
soils
underlain
by
karst
topography
and
sandy
(
porous)
sub­
soils,
because
these
geological
features
­
common
in
the
southeastern
United
States
­
could
lead
to
ground­
water
contamination
(
see
the
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(
RED)
for
this
chemical;
available
on
the
internet
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
REDs/
0328red.
pdf).
ii)
Set
back
restrictions
(~
100
meters
from
occupied
structures;
~
30
meters
for
emulsified
formulations
applied
via
chemigation),
which
are
often
imposed
by
local
jurisdictions,
further
limit
the
proportion
of
the
field
that
can
be
treated.
iii)
Highly
restrictive
personal
protective
equipment
(
PPE)
requirements
for
1,3­
dichloropropene
applications,
which
limit
feasibility
of
use
in
the
very
warm
and
Page
6
humid
climate
of
the
southeastern
United
States
during
the
typical
cucurbitgrowing
season.
For
example,
these
PPE
restrictions
require
applicators
to
wear
fully
sealed
suits,
with
respirators.
Such
suits
usually
do
not
have
refrigeration
components,
and
under
conditions
of
high
heat
and
humidity
rapidly
become
unbearable
for
a
typical
applicator.
Although
these
requirements
have
recently
been
eased
somewhat
so
that
fewer
people
are
subject
to
use
the
full
complement
of
PPE,
workers
who
come
in
close
contact
with
the
liquid
formulation
must
still
wear
heavy
layers
of
protective
equipment,
as
described
above.
iv)
A
3­
week
time
interval
before
planting
that
is
recommended
to
avoid
phytotoxic
levels
after
1,3­
dichloropropene
applications.
This
interval
can
cause
delays
in
production
schedules
for
the
cucurbits
in
question,
because
they
are
doublecropped
with
other
commodities
and
so
season­
long
production
of
both
crops
would
be
affected.
This
can
lead
to
growers
missing
specific
market
windows,
such
as
end­
of
year
premiums
for
the
winter
markets,
thus
reducing
profits
on
cucurbit
crops.

Grafting
Grafting
is
not
currently
a
viable
MB
alternative
for
commercial
production
of
cucurbits
in
the
United
States
because
it
does
not
address
nutsedge
or
Phytophthora
pest
pressure.
Grafting
has
shown
some
potential
for
Fusarium
(
but
not
Phytophthora)
management
(
Fritsch
2002,
Miguel
2002).
The
United
States
is
not
aware
of
grafting
being
a
viable
alternative
for
the
suppression
of
nutsedges
in
any
cucurbit­
producing
region
in
the
world.
In
addition,
a
review
by
Porter
et
al.
(
2002)
describes
resistant
rootstocks
"
to
protect
susceptible
annual
and
perennial
crops
against
soil­
borne
pathogens",
but
not
to
control
weeds.

6.
The
Party
is
requested
to
verify
that
MB
used
for
other
crops
in
rotation
[
with
cucurbits]
is
not
double
counted
with
that
requested
for
cucurbits.

The
U.
S.
Government
has
verified
that
there
is
no
double
counting
of
the
amount
requested
for
cucurbits
in
the
nomination.
Details
are
provided
in
Table
5.

7.
The
nomination
did
not
give
comparative
data,
except
some
yields,
to
determine
the
technical
feasibility
of
many
alternatives
and
their
comparative
performance
compared
to
MB
under
the
circumstances
of
the
nomination.

See
response
above
to
MBTOC/
TEAP
comment
#
5.
Additional
data
on
yield
losses
due
to
nutsedges
are
also
provided
below
in
Table
3
and
the
text
following
it.
Page
7
TABLE
3.
FUMIGANT
ALTERNATIVES
TO
METHYL
BROMIDE
FOR
POLYETHYLENE­
MULCHED
TOMATO
(
LOCASCIO
ET
AL.,
1997)

Chemicals
Rate
(/
ha)
Average
Nutsedge
Density
(#/
m2)
Average
Yield
(
ton/
ha)
%
Yield
Loss
(
compared
to
MB)

Nontreated
­
300
a­
c
20.1
f
59.1%

MeBr
+
Pic
67­
33
390
kg
90
e
49.1
a
­

Telone
+
Pic
(
C­
17)
327
L
340
a
34.6
bc
29.5%

Telone
+
Pic
(
C­
17)
+
Peb*
327
L
+
4.5
kg
150
de
42.5
ab
13.4%

Note:
Numbers
followed
by
the
same
letter
(
within
a
column)
are
not
significantly
different
at
a
0.05
level
of
probability.
For
details
please
original
citation
listed
in
references.
Note
that
pebulate
is
not
registered
in
the
U.
S.
at
this
time.

In
other
studies
of
cucurbit
crops,
a
regression
analysis
showed
a
5%
reduction
in
cucumber
yield
with
a
density
of
approximately
15
yellow
nutsedge
plants/
m
²
.
(
Johnson
and
Mullinix,
1999).
For
watermelon,
over
40%
yield
loss
with
12
yellow
nutsedge
plants/
m
²
for
both
direct
seeded
and
transplant
watermelons.
A
10%
yield
loss
was
predicted
to
occur
with
only
two
yellow
nutsedge
plants/
m
²
(
Buker
et
al.,
2003,
in
press).

8.
The
nomination
states
that
metam
sodium
is
a
technical
alternative
for
southern
US
States
with
low
to
moderate
nutgrass
pressure
and
requests
MB
be
given
a
CUE
for
25%
of
production
of
the
total
US
crop.

The
amount
nominated
for
the
southeastern
U.
S.
comprises
only
the
25%
of
production
acreage
that
is
affected
by
moderate
to
heavy
nutsedge
pressure.
Additional
details
on
the
specific
amounts
nominated,
summarized
from
the
nomination,
may
be
found
in
Table
5
of
this
document.
Note
that
in
the
key
pest
pressure
row
of
Table
5
includes
a
value
of
100%
for
the
southeast
sector
because
the
applicant
in
this
case
only
requested
methyl
bromide
in
those
areas
of
moderate
to
severe
pest
pressure
where
methyl
bromide
is
needed.

9.
Although
there
has
been
a
change
from
98%
to
67%
MB
in
formulations
to
date,
no
further
plan
has
been
presented
to
reduce
emissions.

U.
S.
growers
continue
to
test
formulations
with
lower
MB
concentrations,
as
well
as
testing
VIF
tarping.
Other
emission­
reducing
strategies,
such
as
the
use
of
LDPE
and
HDPE
plastic
tarps,
are
in
routine
use.
In
past
trials,
when
MB
and
chloropicrin
are
used
in
a
50:
50
combination,
they
tend
to
increase
plant
vegetative
growth
at
the
expense
of
fruit/
vegetable
production.
This
characteristic
is
desirable
for
orchard
replant
but
highly
undesirable
for
annual
crops
where
the
fruit
is
the
harvested
product
(
personal
communication
with
Sally
Schneider,
Agricultural
Research
Service,
US
Department
of
Agriculture,
and
Michael
V.
McKenry,
University
of
California
Riverside,
Parlier,
California).
Although
many
sectors
continue
to
test
the
50:
50
combination,
this
formulation
has
not
given
good
results
in
tested
cropping
conditions
because
it
provides
less
weed
control
and
there
is
increased
vegetative
growth
by
the
weeds
that
survive.
Page
8
Please
also
see
the
section
on
"
Historical
Emission
Reductions
&
Methyl
Bromide
Dosage
Rates"
for
additional
discussion.

TABLE
4.
HISTORICAL
USE
OF
METHYL
BROMIDE
IN
THE
CUCURBITS
SECTOR*

Historical
Use
Rates
(
kg/
ha)
Total
Amount
(
kg)
Area
Treated
(
ha)

1997
216
1,074,867
4,818
1998
216
1,265,303
5,617
1999
169
1,042,645
6,373
2000
146
1,019,770
6,791
2001
144
1,189,840
7,972
Acres
planted
in
U.
S.:
415,530
(
168,159
ha).
Percent
of
U.
S.
cucurbit
acreage
requested:
5%
Sources:
Rates,
amounts,
and
area
treated
are
from
applicants'
information.
Percent
of
U.
S.
acreage
is
from
USDA,
2001.
National
Agricultural
Statistics
Service,
Agricultural
Statistics
2001
Page
9
TABLE
5.
CALCULATION
OF
THE
NOMINATED
AMOUNT
OF
METHYL
BROMIDE
IN
THE
CUCURBITS
SECTOR.

Calculation
of
Nominated
Amount
0005
 
Michigan
Cucurbits
0042
 
SE
Cucurbit
Consortium
0048
 
GA
Fruit
and
Veg.
Growers
Association
 
Squash
0051
 
GA
Fruit
and
Veg.
Growers
Association
 
Cucumber
0052
 
GA
Fruit
and
Veg.
Growers
Association
 
Melon
Applicant
request
for
2005
Hectares
(
ha)
185
5,018
618
448
1,637
%
of
Regional
hectares
(
ha)(
A)
3
25
17
7
12
Kilograms
(
kg)
of
MB
28,187
753,688
92,874
67,224
245,800
Adjustments
to
Request
Double
counted
hectares
(
ha)(
B)
 
 
 
 
 
Growth
/
increasing
production
(
ha)(
C)
(
66.4)
 
 
 
0.4
Quarantine
and
preshipment
hectares
(
ha)(
D)
 
 
 
 
 
Adjusted
Hectares
Requested
(
ha)(
E)
185
5,018
618
448
1,636
Impacts
to
Adjusted
Hectares
Key
Pest
Impacts
(%)(
F)
100
100
100
100
100
Regulatory
Impacts
(%)(
G)
0
0
0
0
0
Soil
Impacts
(%)(
H)
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Combined
Impacts
(%)(
I)
100
100
100
100
100
Qualifying
Area
(
ha)(
J)
185
5,018
618
448
1,636
Use
Rate
(
kg/
ha)(
K)
152
150
150
150
150
CUE
Amount
Nominated
(
kg)(
L)
28,187
753,688
92,874
67,224
245,800
%
Reduction
from
Initial
Request
(
M)
0
0
0
0
0
Sum
of
all
CUE
Nominations
in
Sector
(
kg)(
M)
1,187,773
Multiplier
for
Margin
of
Error
(
N)
1.0000
Total
U.
S.
Sector
Nomination
(
kg)(
O)
1,187,773
Page
10
Footnotes
for
Table
5:

Values
may
not
sum
exactly
due
to
rounding.

A.
Percent
of
regional
hectares
is
the
area
in
the
applicant's
request
divided
by
the
total
area
planted
in
that
crop
in
the
region
covered
by
the
request
as
found
in
the
USDA
National
Agricultural
Statistics
Service
(
NASS).
Note,
however,
that
the
NASS
categories
do
not
always
correspond
one
to
one
with
the
sector
nominations
in
the
U.
S.
CUE
nomination
(
e.
g.,
roma
and
cherry
tomatoes
were
included
in
the
applicant's
request,
but
were
not
included
in
NASS
surveys).
Values
greater
than
100
percent
are
due
to
the
inclusion
of
these
varieties
in
the
U.
S.
CUE
request
that
were
not
included
in
the
USDA
NASS:
nevertheless,
these
numbers
are
often
instructive
in
assessing
the
requested
coverage
of
applications
received
from
growers.
B.
Double
counted
hectares
is
the
area
counted
in
more
than
one
application
or
rotated
within
one
year
of
an
application
to
a
crop
that
also
uses
MB.
There
was
no
double
counting
in
this
sector.
C.
Growth
/
increasing
production
hectares
is
the
amount
of
area
requested
by
the
applicant
that
is
greater
than
that
historically
treated
or
treated
at
a
higher
use
rate.
Values
in
parentheses
indicate
negative
values.
There
was
0.4
hectares
of
growth
removed.
D.
Quarantine
and
pre­
shipment
(
QPS)
hectares
is
the
area
in
the
applicant's
request
subject
to
QPS
treatments.
No
part
of
these
applications
was
for
a
quarantine
or
pre­
shipment
use.
E.
Adjusted
hectares
requested
is
the
hectares
in
the
applicant's
request
minus
the
acreage
affected
by
double
counting,
growth
/
increasing
production,
and
quarantine
and
pre­
shipment.
F.
Key
pest
impacts
are
the
percent
(%)
of
the
requested
area
with
moderate
to
severe
pest
problems.
Key
pests
are
those
that
are
not
adequately
controlled
by
MB
alternatives.
In
the
case
of
the
Michigan
application
only
those
acres
in
the
state
where
Phytophthora
is
endemic
were
included
in
the
nomination.
In
the
case
of
Georgia
and
the
Southeastern
U.
S.
applications
only
those
acres
in
the
state
where
Nutsedge
is
endemic
were
included
in
the
nomination.
G.
Regulatory
impacts
are
the
percent
(%)
of
the
requested
area
where
alternatives
cannot
be
legally
used
pursuant
to
state
and
local
limits
on
the
use
of
alternatives
intended
for
the
protection
of
human
health
or
the
environment
(
e.
g.,
township
caps).
H.
Soil
impacts
are
the
percent
(%)
of
the
requested
area
where
alternatives
cannot
be
used
due
to
soil
type
(
e.
g.,
heavy
clay
soils
may
not
show
adequate
performance).
I.
Total
combined
impacts
is
the
percent
(%)
of
the
requested
area
where
alternatives
cannot
be
used
due
to
key
pest,
regulatory,
or
soil
impacts.
In
each
case
the
total
area
impacted
is
the
area,
which
is
impacted
by
one
or
more
of
the
individual
impacts.
For
each
application
the
assessment
was
made
by
biologists
familiar
with
the
specific
situation
and
able
to
make
judgments
about
the
extent
of
overlap
of
the
impacts.
For
example,
in
some
situations
the
impacts
are
mutually
exclusive
 
in
heavy
clay
soils
1,3­
D
will
not
be
effective
because
it
does
not
penetrate
these
soils
evenly,
but
none
of
the
heavy
soil
areas
will
be
impacted
by
township
(
regulatory)
caps
because
no
one
will
use
1,3­
D
in
this
situation,
so
this
soils
impact
must
be
added
to
the
township
cap
regulatory
impact
in
a
California
application.
In
other
words
there
is
no
overlap.
In
other
situations
one
area
of
impact
might
be
a
subset
of
another
impact.
In
these
cases,
the
combined
impact
is
equal
to
the
largest
individual
impact.
J.
Qualifying
area
is
calculated
by
multiplying
the
adjusted
hectares
requested
by
the
total
combined
impacts.
K.
Use
rate
is
the
requested
use
rate
for
2005.
This
rate
was
adjusted
downward
from
the
applicants'
requested
use
rate
based
on
historical
use
patterns.
L.
CUE
amount
nominated
is
calculated
by
multiplying
the
qualifying
area
by
the
use
rate.
M.
Percent
reduction
from
initial
request
is
the
percentage
of
the
initial
request
that
did
not
qualify
for
the
CUE
nomination.
N.
Sum
of
all
CUE
nominations
in
sector.
Self­
explanatory.
O.
Multiplier
for
margin
of
error.
This
factor
is
applied
to
increase
the
total
US
Nomination
by
1
%.
This
factor
is
intended
to
compensate
for
the
compounding
influence
of
using
the
low
end
of
the
range
for
all
input
parameters
in
the
calculation
of
the
US
nomination
(
i.
e.,
using
the
lowest
percent
impact
on
the
lowest
number
of
acres
at
the
lowest
dosage
is
likely
to
result
in
values
that
are
unrealistically
too
small).
Cucurbits
was
nominated
for
the
entire
requested
amount
so
the
multiplier
is
1.0
Page
11
P.
Total
U.
S.
sector
nomination
is
calculated
by
multiplying
the
sum
of
all
sector
nominations
by
the
margin
of
error
multiplier.

TABLE
6.
HERBICIDES
REGISTERED
IN
THE
UNITED
STATES
IN
CUCURBITS
Herbicide
U.
S.
Registration
Status
*
Major
Comments
Halosulfuron­
methyl
Yes
Potential
crop
injury;
plant
back
restrictions
(
see
notes
below)

Pebulate
No
Was
registered
for
use
in
tomatoes
but
registration
lapsed
December
31,
2002
(
registrant
corporation
went
out
of
business)

S­
metolachlor
No
Registered
ONLY
in
tomatoes;
does
not
control
purple
nutsedge
Glyphosate
Yes
Non­
selective;
will
not
control
nutsedge
in
the
plant
rows;
does
not
provide
residual
control
Paraquat
Yes
Non­
selective;
will
not
control
nutsedge
in
the
plant
rows;
does
not
provide
residual
control
Terbacil
No
Registered
ONLY
in
strawberries;
rotation
restrictions
Rimsulfuron
No
Registered
ONLY
in
tomatoes;
rotational
restrictions
Trifloxysulfuron
No
Registration
pending
ONLY
in
tomatoes
*
Y
=
Registered
for
use;
N
=
Not
registered
for
use
Additional
notes
on
specific
herbicides
listed:
Halosulfuron­
methyl
In
December
2002,
halosulfuron­
methyl
(
Sandea
®
)
was
registered
to
control
nutsedge
in
tomatoes,
peppers,
eggplant,
and
cucurbits.
This
recent
registration
was
not
on
the
list
of
alternatives
from
MBTOC
and
several
years
are
needed
to
see
if
it
will
be
adopted.
The
many
limitations
to
halosulfuron,
when
combined,
limit
its
technical
feasibility
and
adoption
by
cucurbit
growers
in
the
United
States
in
the
areas
for
the
nominated
MB
amount.
Limitations
include:

Excessive
amounts
of
water
(
greater
than
2.5
cm)
soon
after
a
pre­
emergent
application
may
cause
crop
injury.
Rainfall
within
four
hours
after
a
post­
emergence
application
may
also
reduce
effectiveness.
Sudden
storms
with
greater
than
2.5
cm
of
rainfall
are
not
uncommon,
especially
in
the
southeastern
United
States.

Not
all
hybrids/
varieties
have
been
tested
for
sensitivity
to
halosulfuron­
methyl.
Halosulfuron
may
also
delay
maturity
of
treated
crops.

This
herbicide
has
plant
back
restrictions
from
0
to
36
months.
Many
of
the
vegetable
crops
fall
within
the
4
to
12
month
range,
although
some
are
longer.
The
economic
impacts
from
plant
back
restrictions
can
be
significant,
both
from
the
prospect
of
reduced
yields
as
well
as
by
missed
`
high
value'
market
windows.

Halosulfuron
should
not
be
applied
if
the
crop
or
target
weeds
are
under
stress
due
to
drought,
water
saturated
soils,
low
fertility,
or
other
poor
growing
conditions.

This
herbicide
cannot
be
applied
to
crops
treated
with
soil
applied
organophosphate
insecticides.
Foliar
applications
of
organophosphate
insecticides
may
not
be
made
within
21
days
before
or
7
days
after
halosulfuron
application.
Note:
All
the
limitations
above
are
listed
in
the
US
registration
label
for
halosulfuron,
which
in
turn
is
based
on
proprietary
data
submitted
to
EPA
by
the
registrant
company.

Glyphosate
Glyphosate
is
a
non­
selective
herbicide
that
usually
only
suppresses
but
does
not
control
nutsedge
development.
Additionally,
glyphosate
provides
no
residual
weed
control.
Glyphosate
may
be
applied
prior
to
planting
or
Page
12
ONLY
between
vegetable
rows.
Contact
of
glyphosate
with
the
crop
will
likely
cause
severe
injury.
Row
middle
application
use
is
limited
because
of
the
potential
of
glyphosate
drift
to
the
crop
causing
severe
injury.

Paraquat
Paraquat
is
a
non­
selective
herbicide
that
provides
poor
control
of
nutsedge.
Additionally,
paraquat
does
not
provide
residual
weed
control.
Paraquat
may
be
applied
prior
to
planting
or
ONLY
between
vegetable
rows.
Contact
of
paraquat
with
the
crop
can
cause
severe
injury.

HISTORICAL
EMISSION
REDUCTIONS
&
METHYL
BROMIDE
DOSAGE
RATES
All
states/
regions
are
continuing
to
test
formulations
with
lower
proportions
of
MB,
as
well
as
methods
for
using
higher
barrier
tarps
(
see
VIF
discussion
below).

In
the
Southeastern
U.
S.,
the
MB
dosage
rate
under
tarped
beds
in
1997
was
216
kg/
ha.
By
2002,
the
MB
dosage
rate
under
tarped
beds
had
dropped
to
150
kg/
ha.
All
areas
growing
cucurbits
in
the
southeastern
USA
inject
MB+
Pic
formulation
31
 
46
cm
below
the
soil
surface
and
beds
are
built
above
the
soil
surface
and
tarped,
so
the
formulation
is
injected
46
 
61
cm
below
the
surface
of
the
tarped
bed.
The
success
in
lowering
the
dosage
rate
is
due
principally
to
a
switch
from
a
98:
2
formulation
to
a
67:
33
formulation.

In
Georgia,
data
was
gathered
on
the
MB
dosage
rate
under
tarped
beds
since
1992.
In
1992,
the
MB
dosage
rate
below
tarped
beds
was
340
kg/
ha.
By
2002,
the
MB
dosage
rate
under
tarped
beds
had
dropped
to
150
kg/
ha.
All
areas
growing
cucurbits
in
the
Georgia
inject
MB+
Pic
formulation
approximately
30
cm
below
the
surface
of
the
tarped
bed.
The
success
in
lowering
the
dosage
rate
is
due
principally
to
a
switch
from
a
98:
2
to
a
67:
33
formulation,
but
also
was
accomplished
through
a
reduction
in
application
rates
since
1992.

In
Michigan,
95%
of
vegetable
growers
nominated
were
already
using
a
67:
33
formulation
of
MB+
Pic
in
1997
and
the
remaining
were
using
a
98:
2
formulation.
By
2000,
5%
of
growers
were
using
the
50:
50
formulation
with
the
remaining
95%
using
the
67:
33
formulation.
Although
there
was
a
shift
to
formulations
with
lower
MB,
growers
found
they
needed
to
increase
application
rates
due
to
the
increasing
problems
with
Phytophthora
capsici.
In
Michigan,
the
MB
dosage
rate
for
all
fresh
vegetables
has
been
between
120
­
152
kg/
ha
in
the
period
since
1997,
when
P.
capsici
populations
expanded.
The
MB+
Pic
formulations
are
injected
approximately
31
cm
below
the
tarped
beds
that
are
used
to
grow
all
fresh
vegetables
in
Michigan.

VIRTUALLY
IMPERMEABLE
FILM
(
VIF)
TARps
Although
many
sectors
are
continuing
to
test
VIF
tarps
in
trials
throughout
the
country,
at
this
time
VIF
tarps
are
generally
not
technically
and
economically
feasible
for
the
following
reasons:

Disposal
Issues

Landfill
disposal
of
VIF
and
VIF
burning
have
come
under
increasing
restrictions
in
some
jurisdictions;
both
are
labor­
intensive
and
costly.

Ingredients
in
VIF
limit
recycling
into
end­
use
products.
Page
13
Cost

Average
cost
of
VIF
tarps
is
$
580/
acre,
whereas
average
cost
of
low­
density
polyethylene
(
LDPE)
tarps
is
$
275/
acre,
and
high­
density
polyethylene
(
HDPE)
tarps
is
$
393/
acre.

Farmers
in
some
regions
report
VIF
tarp
removal
and
disposal
costs
of
more
than
$
240
per
acre
compared
to
removal
and
disposal
costs
of
approximately
$
60
per
acre
for
tarps
used
in
flat
fumigation.

Environmental
Consequences

Inorganic
bromide
residues
in
soil
are
higher
when
VIF
tarps
are
used;
further,
the
hydrolysis
of
MB
in
water
may
result
in
the
accumulation
of
bromide
ions,
thus
increasing
the
chances
for
groundwater
contamination.

Evidence
suggests
that
VIF
tarping
could
actually
lead
to
increased
levels
of
emissions
when
the
tarps
are
removed,
thus
increasing
exposure
to
workers
and
nearby
structures.

VIF
Supply
&
Demand
Logistics

VIF
tarps
are
currently
manufactured
only
in
Europe,
and
current
VIF
tarp
production
capacity
in
Europe
is
not
high
enough
to
meet
U.
S.
demands.

VIF
tarps
manufactured
in
Europe
do
not
meet
U.
S.
application
size
and
criteria.

European
firms
are
unlikely
to
make
the
investment
necessary
to
ensure
a
viable
supply
of
adequate
VIF
tarps
to
U.
S.
farmers
before
the
2005
phase­
out
date.

VIF
Challenges
to
Agricultural
Practices

A
glue
to
join
sheets
of
VIF
is
still
not
available.

Increasing
cover
times
with
VIF
to
between
10­
20
days
can
disrupt
double­
cropping
schedules
and
cause
growers
to
miss
optimum
marketing
windows.

Photo­
degradation
of
VIF
makes
it
brittle
and
ineffective
at
controlling
weeds
over
months
of
double
cropping
systems
(
current
non­
VIF
tarps
remain
on
beds
for
12­
15
months
after
one
MB
fumigation).

MARKET
WINDOW
INFORMATION
The
series
below
indicate
the
importance
of
considering
market
windows,
and
the
concomitant
large
difference
in
prices
that
accompany
them,
when
deciding
if
alternatives
to
MB
are
economically
feasible.
Although
such
detailed
series
are
not
available
for
all
crops,
both
tomatoes
and
strawberries
demonstrate
large
fluctuations
in
prices
over
three
week
intervals
from
peak
price
to
the
midseason
price.
This
pattern
is
also
observable
for
other
fresh
fruit
and
vegetable
crops,
including
cucurbit
crops.

Prices
received
by
strawberry
growers
rapidly
decline
from
their
early
season
peak.
The
average
price
received
by
Florida
Strawberry
growers
dropped
30%
between
February
and
March
in
1999,
37%
in
2000,
and
40%
in
2001.
In
California
strawberry
prices
declined
in
this
time
period
19%
in
1999,
29%
in
2000,
and
23%
in
2001.

The
existence
of
these
sharp
declines
in
prices
which
occur
after
a
short
period
of
high
prices
(
a
period
know
as
`
the
market
window')
ensure
that
revenue
losses
caused
by
the
longer
plant­
back
periods
required
when
using
certain
alternatives
will
not
be
proportional
to
the
lost
production
Page
14
time
but
will,
rather,
be
amplified
by
the
lower
commodity
price
of
the
post­`
market
window'.
The
result
is
a
decline
in
crop
revenue,
which
in
the
case
of
Florida
strawberries
would
be
approximately
40%
of
gross
revenue
apart
from
any
losses
due
to
reduced
production.

Fresh
strawberries
(
winter
and
spring),
prices
received
per
cwt,
monthly,
2001
Source,
NASS
Annual
Price
Report
2002
$
0.00
$
20.00
$
40.00
$
60.00
$
80.00
$
100.00
$
120.00
$
140.00
$
160.00
$
180.00
$
200.00
Jan­
01
Feb­
01
Mar­
01
Apr­
01
May­
01
Jun­
01
Jul­
01
Aug­
01
Sep­
01
Oct­
01
Nov­
01
Dec­
01
FL
CA
Fresh
strawberries
(
winter
and
spring),
prices
received
per
cwt,
monthly,
1999
­
2001
Source,
NASS
Annual
Price
Report
2002
$
0.00
$
20.00
$
40.00
$
60.00
$
80.00
$
100.00
$
120.00
$
140.00
$
160.00
$
180.00
$
200.00
Jan­
99
Mar­
99
May­
99
Jul­
99
Sep­
99
Nov­
99
Jan­
00
Mar­
00
May­
00
Jul­
00
Sep­
00
Nov­
00
Jan­
01
Mar­
01
May­
01
Jul­
01
Sep­
01
Nov­
01
FL
CA
Though
the
pattern
is
not
as
well
defined,
prices
for
tomatoes
follow
a
similar
cycle.
Three
weeks
is
the
added
plant­
back
time
required
when
using
1,3­
D
or
chloropicrin.
When
using
MITC
generators,
recommended
plant­
back
can
increase
to
six
weeks.

Fresh
tomatoes,
prices
received
per
cwt,
monthly,
2001
Source,
NASS
Annual
Price
Report
2002
$
0.00
$
10.00
$
20.00
$
30.00
$
40.00
$
50.00
$
60.00
Jan­
01
Feb­
01
Mar­
01
Apr­
01
May­
01
Jun­
01
Jul­
01
Aug­
01
Sep­
01
Oct­
01
Nov­
01
Dec­
01
FL
CA
Page
15
FRESH
TOMATOES,
PRICES
RECEIVED
PER
CWT,
MONTHLY,
1999
­
2001
Source,
NASS
Annual
Price
Report
2002
$
0.00
$
10.00
$
20.00
$
30.00
$
40.00
$
50.00
$
60.00
Jan
­
99
Mar­
99
May­
99
Jul­
99
Sep­
99
Nov­
99
Jan­
00
Mar­
00
May­
00
Jul­
00
Sep
­
00
Nov­
00
Jan
­
01
Mar­
01
May­
01
Jul­
01
Sep­
01
Nov­
01
FL
CA
DEFINITIONS
THAT
MAY
BE
RELEVANT
TO
THIS
CUN
Source
of
yield
loss
estimates
Where
published
studies
of
yield
losses
under
conditions
of
moderate
to
severe
key
pest
pressure
were
not
available
(
the
situation
for
which
the
U.
S.
is
requesting
continued
use
of
MB),
the
U.
S.
developed
such
estimates
by
contacting
university
professors
conducting
experiments
using
MB
alternatives
in
the
appropriate
land
grant
institutions.
The
experts
were
asked
to
develop
such
an
estimate
based
on
their
experience
with
MB
and
with
alternatives.
The
results
of
this
process
were
used
when
better
data
were
not
available.

Source
of
buffer
restriction
implications
for
methyl
bromide
use
Estimates
of
the
impact
of
buffers
required
when
using
some
MB
alternatives
on
the
proportion
of
acreage
where
such
alternatives
could
be
used
were
developed
from
confidential
information
submitted
to
EPA
in
support
of
a
registration
application
for
a
MB
alternative.
Because
at
the
time
of
the
analysis,
a
request
to
reduce
the
size
of
the
required
buffer
for
some
alternatives
was
under
consideration,
a
smaller
buffer
was
selected
for
the
analysis.
Since
that
time
the
size
of
the
regulatory
buffer
has
been
reduced
so
that
it
now
conforms
to
the
buffer
selected
for
the
analysis.

Source
of
area
impacted
by
key
pests
estimates
One
of
the
important
determinants
of
the
amount
of
MB
requested
has
been
the
extent
of
area
infested
with
`
key
pests',
that
is,
pests
which
cannot
be
controlled
by
alternatives
to
MB
when
such
pests
are
present
at
moderate
to
severe
levels.
Because
there
are
few
surveys
that
cover
substantial
portions
of
the
areas
for
which
MB
is
requested,
we
have
relied
on
a
variety
of
sources
in
addition
to
the
surveys.
These
sources
include
websites
of
land
grant
universities;
discussions
with
researchers,
both
those
employed
by
USDA
in
the
Agricultural
Research
Service
(
ARS)
and
those
at
land
grant
universities;
discussions
with
growers
whose
operations
cover
widely
different
locations
encompassing
different
incidences
of
key
pests;
information
from
pesticide
applicators;
and,
information
taken
from
the
applications
themselves.

Source
of
area
impacted
by
regulations
estimates
There
are
two
main
sources
used
to
develop
the
estimate
of
area
impacted
by
regulations.
First,
Page
16
for
the
impact
of
Township
caps
in
California
we
have
used
a
series
of
papers
by
Carpenter,
Lynch,
and
Trout,
supplemented
by
discussions
with
Dr.
Trout
to
ensure
that
any
recent
regulatory
changes
have
been
properly
accounted
for.
Second,
the
estimate
of
the
area
impacted
by
buffers,
is
described
above.

Source
of
area
impacted
by
soil
type
estimates
First,
for
the
area
impacted
by
karst
topography,
estimates
were
developed
and
mapped
by
he
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Protection.
The
area
of
California
used
for
agriculture
and
which
is
made
of
clay
soils
unsuitable
for
pest
control
with
a
MB
alternative
has
been
determined
by
discussions
with
agricultural
researchers
and
agricultural
extension
agents
in
California,
and
discussion
with
other
knowledgeable
individuals
such
as
pesticide
applicators.
The
estimates
for
California
understate
the
areas
in
which
alternatives
to
MB
are
not
suitable
because
no
effort
was
made
to
estimate
the
extent
of
hilly
terrain
where
currently
available
substitutes
cannot
be
applied
at
uniform
dosages.

Source
of
area
impacted
by
combined
impacts
estimate
Combined
impacts
were
determined
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
for
each
specific
crop/
location
combination
after
consultation
with
individuals
knowledgeable
with
the
specific
circumstances.
The
nature
of
the
individual
impacts
is
such
that
in
some
situations
they
are
independent
of
each
other,
in
some
they
are
mutually
exclusive,
and
in
some
cover
identical
areas.
It
was
not,
therefore,
possible
to
have
a
formula
that
would
arrive
at
an
appropriate
estimate
of
combined
impacts.
A
more
complete
description
is
found
in
the
footnotes
to
the
`
calculation'
table.

REFERENCES
Buker,
R.
S.,
III,
W.
M.
Stall,
S.
M.
Olson,
and
D.
G.
Schilling.
2003.
Season­
Long
Interference
of
Yellow
Nutsedge
(
Cyperus
esculentus)
with
Direct
Seeded
and
Transplanted
Watermelon
(
Citrullus
lanatus).
(
Unpublished;
in
press
for
Weed
Technology).

Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1998.
Reregistration
Eligibility
Decision
(
RED)
1,3
Dichloropropene.
Available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
REDs/
0328red.
pdf
Fritsch.
J.
2002.
The
current
status
of
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide
in
vegetable
crops
in
France.
In:
Proceedings
of
International
Conference
on
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide.
T.
A.
Batchelor
and
J.
M.
Bolivar
(
eds).
Available
on
the
Web
at:
http://
europa.
eu.
int/
comm/
environment/
ozone/
conference/

Johnson,
W.
C.,
III,
B.
G.
Mullinix,
Jr.
1999.
Cyperus
esculentus
interference
in
Cucumis
sativus.
Weed
Sci.
47:
327­
331.

Locascio,
S.
J.,
J.
P.
Gilreath,
D.
W.
Dickson,
T.
A.
Kucharek,
J.
P.
Jones,
and
J.
W.
Noling.
1997.
Fumigant
alternatives
to
methyl
bromide
for
polyethylene­
mulched
tomato.
HortScience
32
(
7):
1208­
1211.
Page
17
Miguel.
A.
2002.
Grafting
as
a
non­
chemical
alternative
to
methyl
bromide
for
tomatoes
in
Spain.
In:
Proceedings
of
International
Conference
on
Alternatives
to
Methyl
Bromide.
T.
A.
Batchelor
and
J.
M.
Bolivar
(
eds).
Available
on
the
Web
at:
http://
europa.
eu.
int/
comm/
environment/
ozone/
conference
Porter
et
al
(
2002).
2002
Report
of
the
Methyl
Bromide
Technical
Options
Committee,
2002
Assessment.
Ed.
Banks,
H.
J.
Pg
54.

Williams,
R.
D.
and
G.
F.
Warren.
1975.
Competition
between
purple
nutsedge
and
vegetables.
Weed
Sci.
23:
317­
323.