IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0117980.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Methyl Bromide Alternatives Efficacy against Soil-Borne Pathogens, Nematodes and Soil Microbial Community

Author

Listed:
  • Hongwei Xie
  • Dongdong Yan
  • Liangang Mao
  • Qiuxia Wang
  • Yuan Li
  • Canbin Ouyang
  • Meixia Guo
  • Aocheng Cao

Abstract

Methyl bromide (MB) and other alternatives were evaluated for suppression of Fusarium spp., Phytophthora spp., and Meloidogyne spp. and their influence on soil microbial communities. Both Fusarium spp. and Phytophthora spp. were significantly reduced by the MB (30.74 mg kg-1), methyl iodide (MI: 45.58 mg kg-1), metham sodium (MS: 53.92 mg kg-1) treatments. MS exhibited comparable effectiveness to MB in controlling Meloidogyne spp. and total nematodes, followed by MI at the tested rate. By contrast, sulfuryl fluoride (SF: 33.04 mg kg-1) and chloroform (CF: 23.68 mg kg-1) showed low efficacy in controlling Fusarium spp., Phytophthora spp., and Meloidogyne spp. MB, MI and MS significantly lowered the abundance of different microbial populations and microbial biomass in soil, whereas SF and CF had limited influence on them compared with the control. Diversity indices in Biolog studies decreased in response to fumigation, but no significant difference was found among treatments in PLFA studies. Principal component and cluster analyses of Biolog and PLFA data sets revealed that MB and MI treatments greatly influenced the soil microbial community functional and structural diversity compared with SF treatment. These results suggest that fumigants with high effectiveness in suppressing soil-borne disease could significantly influence soil microbial community.

Suggested Citation

  • Hongwei Xie & Dongdong Yan & Liangang Mao & Qiuxia Wang & Yuan Li & Canbin Ouyang & Meixia Guo & Aocheng Cao, 2015. "Evaluation of Methyl Bromide Alternatives Efficacy against Soil-Borne Pathogens, Nematodes and Soil Microbial Community," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-12, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0117980
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117980
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117980
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117980&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0117980?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0117980. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.