English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The banning of methyl bromide (MeBr) as a pre-plant soil fumigant due to its implication as an ozone depleting substance, has led to increased interest in finding alternative soil fumigants to replace MeBr (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 2009). One of the promising alternatives for certain crops is methyl isothiocyanate (MITC). Several MITC generating compounds, such as metam sodium®, metam potassium®, and dazomet® are being used to control a wide variety of fungal pathogens, weeds, and nematodes in soils. The physiochemical characteristics of MITC are significantly different than that of MeBr, such as that its effectiveness in regards to dissipation and movement in the soil is altered by multiple factors, such as soil type, texture, and soil moisture content. The largest challenge to soil fumigation is the prevention of fumigant loss to the atmosphere and especially to the nearby communities and homes adjacent to farm land. Rapid off-gassing or non-target release of the fumigant to the atmosphere can lead to poor pesticide performance and ineffective pest control. To combat this problem that is common to all soil fumigants currently on the market, various methods have been employed to reduce chemical offgassing. A few of these methods are tarping the soil surface immediately following chemical application with high density polyethylene plastic, incorporation of organic matter to the soil surface to absorb the fumigant, or altering chemical formulations. Another method of reducing fumigant loss can be applying a surface water application as a means of sealing the soil surface to prevent chemical volatilization. On-farm field scale studies have been performed to evaluate all of these methods to better evaluate the potential for reducing fumigant loss to the atmosphere. However, field-scale studies are expensive to perform, and experimental error is challenging to control and replicate due to diurnal temperature fluctuations, varying soil physical properties, and air current differences. Thus, the volatilization loss in one study will not represent the typical fumigant loss from site to site. A more controlled laboratory environment is needed to more adequately predict fumigant loss under specific conditions. Laboratory-scale columns can be used to study soil fumigant release from soils under a wide array of conditions and under controlled

Evaluating Surface Seals in Soil Columns to Mitigate Methyl Isothiocyanate Volatilization