Fungicidal and Herbicidal Properties of Brassica Napus, Brassica Juncea And
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Fungicidal and herbicidal properties of Brassica napus, Brassica juncea and Sinapis alba seed meal amended soils and phytotoxicity on tomato and pepper. A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master in Science with a Major in Plant Science in the College of Graduate Studies University of Idaho By Maxwell Handiseni January 2009 Major Professor: Jack Brown, PhD ii AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT THESIS This thesis of Maxwell Handiseni, submitted for the degree Master of Science with a major in Plant Science and titled “Fungicidal and herbicidal properties of Brassica napus, Brassica juncea and Sinapis alba amended soils and phytotoxicity on tomato and peppers” has been reviewed in final form. Permission, as indicated by the signatures and dates given below, is now granted to submit final copies to the College of Graduate Studies for approval. Major Professor___________________________________ Date________________ Jack Brown Committee Members ___________________________________ Date________________ Mark Mazzola ___________________________________ Date________________ Bob Zemetra Department Administrator ___________________________________ Date_________________ James B. Johnson College Dean ___________________________________ Date_________________ John C.Foltz Final Approval and Acceptance by the College of Graduate Studies ___________________________________ Date_________________ Margit von Braun iii ABSTRACT iv Increased demand for organic and sustainable agricultural production systems and restrictions on registration and use of toxic synthetic pesticides have generated demand for effective non-synthetic and environmentally friendly alternative weed and pathogen management strategies. Lack of effective alternatives have hampered organic production systems and also delayed the speedy phasing out of hazardous synthetic pesticides such as methyl bromide. Biofumigation is one technology that could be more environmentally friendly compared to the synthetic alternatives. Biofumigation can be defined as the incorporation of plant or animal biomass into soil, resulting in the release of toxic volatiles that reduce soil pests. Brassicaceae seed meal, a residue product of the oil extraction process, can provide a local resource for supplemental nutrients, disease control and weed suppression. Glucosinolate hydrolysis products are thought to be directly or indirectly responsible for the weed and soil borne pathogen suppression induced by Brassicaceae residues. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of amending soils with different Brassicaceae seed meals and application rates on the emergence and growth of weed seedlings (wild oat, Italian rye grass, pigweed and prickly lettuce) and soil borne pathogens (Pythium ultimum and Rhizoctonia solani AG-8) . In addition, the effect of delaying tomato and pepper seeding or transplanting after seed meal amendment on crop damage was evaluated. For most effective weed management and high tomato and pepper fruit yields, S. alba seed meal soil amendments applied at 2 Mt ha-1 and crop seedlings transplanted 4 days after seed meal amendments can be used in field production systems. Amending soils with high glucosinolate B. napus seed meal (i.e. Dwarf Essex) can achieve the same P. ultimum suppression as utilizing high glucosinolate B. juncea seed meal, but with relatively lower phytotoxicity. S. alba based amendments effectively and consistently v suppressed R. solani AG-8 in wheat production. However, approaches to avoid or minimize crop injury such as a delay seeding time after seed meal amendment or a compromise on application rates must be further evaluated. Brassicaceae seed meals soil amendments show good potential in suppressing weeds and soil borne pathogen; however, seeding and transplanting delays after soil amendment will likely need to be further investigated to realize the full potential on Brassicaceae seed meals as a biofumigant. vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Jack Brown, my major professor for all of his help and advice during the years of my studies at University of Idaho. I appreciate his effort in making my years of study most enjoyable. A big thank you also goes to the whole Canola research group whose interest and zeal in my work made all operations of my research possible and easier to achieve. Clark Neely, He She, Dan Maxfield, Megan Nelson and Adam Bullock, I appreciate your help. Donna Brown thanks for your support in the field and greenhouse which literally became my second home. I would also want to thank Jim Davis for his support and profiling glucosinolates in the seed meals used in the studies. Sheila Ivanov and Xiaowen Zhao for their help in setting and carrying out the Real-time PCR, Dr Timothy Paulitz for the permission to use the WinRhizo program and Nathalie Walters for showing me how to use the WinRhizo program. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr Robert Zemetra and Dr Mark Mazzola for their guidance and advice. Last but not least I would like to give a special thanks to my wife Aginella for all the love and support which motivates me to always do the best I can in everything. Finally I thank my daughters Shalom and Sharon who sometimes missed their well deserved time with me because of this work vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………………. iii Acknowledgements ….……………………………………………………………………... v Table of Contents ….……………………………………………………………………….vi List of Tables .…………………………………………………………………..………….vii Chapter 1. Introduction ……...........................................................................................1 Chapter 2. Herbicidal activity Brassicaceae seed meals on wild oat (Avena fatua), Italian rye grass rye grass (Lolium multiflorum), pigweed (Amaranthus retroflex)and prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola) …………………………………………………....……..6 2.1. Abstract ……………………………………………………………….…….7 2.2. Introduction …………………………………………………………………9 2.3. Materials and Methods ………………………………………………….…12 2.3.1. Glucosinolate analysis on seed meals ……………………...………12 2.3.2. Experimental Design ……………………………………………….14 2.3.3. Data collection and analysis ………………………………………..15 2.4 Results and Discussion ………………………………………………….....16 2.4.1 Grassy weed study ………………………………………………...16 2.4.2 Broadleaf weed study ………………………………….…………..19 2.5 Conclusions ……………………………………….………………..………22 2.6 Literature cited ………………………….……………………….…………24 2.7 Tables ……..………...……………….………………………………..……28 viii 2.8 Figures ………………...…………………………………………………....35 Chapter 3 Tomato and pepper crop emergence and growth following amendment with different brassicaceae seed meals in the greenhouse. ………………………………………………………………...36 3.1 Abstract. ……………………..……………………………………………..37 3.2 Introduction …………………………………………………………..…….39 3.3 Materials and Methods ……………………………………………………..42 3.3.1. Glucosinolate analysis of seed meals ……………………...……….42 3.3.2. Experimental design ………………………………………….…….43 3.3.3 Data collection and analysis ……………………...………………...43 3.4 Results and Discussion ………………………………………………..…...44 3.5 Conclusion ………………………………………...……………………….47 3.6 Literature cited ……………………………………………………………..49 3.7 Tables ………………………………………………………………………52 Chapter 4 Herbicidal and phytotoxicity effect of brassicaceae seed meal amendments in tomato and pepper crops in the field. ……………………..62 4.1 Abstract …………………………………………………………………….63 4.2 Introduction ……………………………………………………………...…64 4.3 Materials and Methods …………………………………………………......67 4.3.1. Glucosinolate analysis of seed meals. ………………...……67 4.3.2. Cultivars and site description ……………………………....67 4.3.3 Experimental design and field practices ………….………..68 4.3.4 Data collection and analysis ………………………….…….69 ix 4.4 Result and Discussion ……………………………………………...………70 4.4.1 Weeds …………………………………………...………….70 4.4.1.1. Weed counts ……………………….………70 4.4.1.2. Weed density and above ground dry biomass .……………………………………71 4.4.1.3. Time take to weed …………………………73 4.4.2. Phytotoxicity ……………………………………………….74 4.4.2.1. Phytotoxicity in tomatoes …………..……...75 4.4.2.2. Phytotoxicity in peppers ……………..…….75 4.4.3. Tomato and pepper seedling mortality ………………….....75 4.4.4. Yield ………………………………………………………..76 4.4.4.1. Tomato fruit number and yield …………….76 4.4.4.2. Pepper fruit number and yield ………..….…77 4.5. Conclusion ………………………………………………………...……….78 4.6 Literature cited …………………………………………………..…………80 4.7 Tables …………………………………………………………………...….83 Chapter 5 Fungicidal effect of different glucosinolate containing brassicaceous seed meals in Pythium ultimum on tomato and pepper in the greenhouse. ……………………………………………..94 5.1. Abstract ……………………………………………………………….……95 5.2. Introduction …………………………………...……………………………97 5.3. Materials and Methods ………………...…………………………...……..100 5.3.1. Glucosinolate analysis of seed meals ……………………….……100 x 5.3.2. Plant material …………………………………………….……….101 5.3.3. Seed meal treatments …………………………………………..…101 5.3.4. Fungal culture and growth conditions ………………………….....101 5.3.5. Pathogen inoculation and Experimental design …………….…....102 5.3.6. Data collection ……………………………………………………102 5.4 Results and Discussion …………………...………………………………103 5.5 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………..105 5.6 Literature cited ……………………………………………………………107 5.7 Tables ……………………………………………………….………..…...112 Chapter 6 Use of brassicaceae seed meal soil amendments to suppression of Rhizoctonia solani AG-8 in wheat. ........................................................114 6.1 Abstract. …………………………………………………………………..115 6.2 Introduction ……………………………………………………………….117 6.3 Materials and Methods ……………………………………………………119