U.S. House of Representatives: Committee on Energy and Commerce, Republicans Prepared Witness Testimony: Noling, Joseph W.

Prepared Witness Testimony

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce

Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
June 3, 2003
2:00 PM
2322 Rayburn House Office Building

It is an honor for me to be here and I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this important hearing. I am here today to serve as a scientific expert, representing the research and extension arms of the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. I am not here to specifically represent any particular agricultural industry or commodity group of Florida.

As a research and extension nematologist with the University of Florida, it is my responsibility to develop farm level, pest management strategies which are cost effective, environmentally compatible, and worker safe. During the past 18 years, I have had many opportunities to research various pest management, methyl bromide alternative tactics and to observe the outcomes of this experimentation and the degree to which various pest problems or cultural practices effect fruit and vegetable crop production within Florida. As a scientific expert representing the USA, I served four years on the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). During the period 1996 to 2002, I also served as the statewide coordinator for alternatives to methyl bromide research in Florida. I am very familiar with the breadth and diversity of U.S. research on alternatives to methyl bromide and understand the potential problems associated with its phase out.

During the six year period for which I served as statewide coordinator of a University of Florida task force to research alternatives to methyl bromide, over $1.4 million dollars of research funding was made available by congressional mandate through the United States Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service (USDA ARS). Monies were provided on an annual basis ($243,000) to support the long term USDA-ARS Specific Cooperative Agreement (SCA) 58-6617-6-013 "Field Scale Demonstration / Validation Studies of Alternatives For Methyl Bromide in Plastic Mulch Culture in Florida". Overall, fifty-four projects, involving 21 University of Florida and USDA scientists, were funded during the six year granting period 1996-2002. The diversity of projects was broad, involving evaluations of various chemical, nonchemical, and integrated pest management (IPM) tactics. The principal objective of this SCA was to evaluate and validate the effectiveness and economic viability of alternatives to methyl bromide soil fumigation for nematode, disease, and weed control in plastic mulch vegetable production systems in Florida. The results of this work has been annually reported in various trade and scientific journals, conference proceedings, as well as in a five volume, comprehensive final report and executive summary submitted to USDA (see literature citation section this document). Much of this research information was submitted to EPA and MBTOC in U.S. nominations for Critical Use Exemption (CUE) for Florida crops.

A similar research program in California, receiving identical USDA ARS funding, was initiated during the same period to evaluate alternatives to methyl bromide for many different annual and perennial crops and pest management tactics and crop production systems. Considering both the Florida and California programs, it should be clear that the U.S. has made a substantial investment of time, labor, and capital resources to independently research and specifically define alternatives to methyl bromide in the USA. No other country in the world has invested more in research than that of the USA. Undisputedly, the U.S. has assumed a leadership role within the international scientific community with regard to the breadth and diversity of research, and as a result of this leadership, have a more comprehensive understanding of the merits and possible impacts of implementing the proposed alternatives to methyl bromide in commercial U.S. agriculture. Once again, much of this research information was submitted EPA and MBTOC in U.S. nominations for Critical Use Exemptions to support continued use of methyl bromide after the 1 January 2005 phaseout date.

During the period of USDA funding, significant advances were made in the evaluation and integration of various chemical and nonchemical tactics. A number of pest management or crop production systems have been devised which either have some potential as economically viable replacements for methyl bromide or may contribute to a replacement tactic. As a University of Florida scientist, I am here to provide testimony and opinion regarding the extent to which viable alternatives currently exist and to help define potential impacts to Florida agriculture with the phase out of methyl bromide.

The main message of my testimony is that every currently defined potential alternative, at their present stages of research and development, comes with certain practical constraints or incompatibilities, which affect the technological or economical feasibility of the potential alternative. These constraints, such as high costs, lower efficacy, increased production or environmental risks, regulatory constraints, and/or reduced farm profitability can negatively impact future widespread adoption of such alternatives. The adoption of these alternatives will involve trade-offs of one sort or another, and can have tremendous future impacts on Florida agriculture. In addition, the extent to which we can rely on many of these tactics, and those proposed by UNEP Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and MBTOC, as long-term solutions in the absence of methyl bromide has not been scientifically, statistically, or even 'practically' established.

Alternatives to Methyl bromide Research - Florida Efforts

Since 1993, when methyl bromide was added to the class 1 category of ozone depleting substances and a phase out date of 2001 established under the Clean Air Act, a substantial amount of research has been conducted by University of Florida scientists, the objective of which was to identify and evaluate alternatives to methyl bromide with minimal agricultural impact. As a statewide coordinator of these efforts, I am familiar with current research on alternatives to methyl bromide.

A brief summary of Florida research would indicate that no single, equivalent replacement (chemical or nonchemical) currently exists which matches the broad spectrum efficacy of methyl bromide. For example, a summary of over 40 large scale field demonstration trials evaluating various chemical alternatives suggests that a chemical cocktail of different fumigants (1,3 dichloropropene with chloropicrin) and separate, but complementary herbicide treatment(s) have potential as a methyl bromide alternative to control soilborne pests and sustain crop yield. Since 1996 these trials have focused on comparisons of Telone C-17 or Telone C-35 applied in-row or broadcast, in combination with herbicides such as Tillam to methyl bromide for weed, disease, and nematode control and for tomato crop yield response. Although with some variability, average yield of the Telone C-17 or Telone C-35 + Tillam in-row applied treatments is expected to be within 1 to 5% of methyl bromide yield. The requirement for a full spray suit, rubber gloves, boots, and a full face respirator by all personnel in the field at the time of fumigant application prompted a refocusing of research efforts towards evaluation of broadcast, rather than in-row, treatments applied prior to bedding to minimize the numbers of field workers and personnel protective equipment requirements. Based on the results of other large-scale demonstration trials, tomato yields averaged from broadcast Telone treatments are expected to be about 10% less than that of methyl bromide. It is reasonable to believe at this time that yield losses currently estimated for use of Telone broadcast treatments potentially can be reduced with additional research and refinements in application technology, and or when combined with an additional fumigant application of Chloropicrin at the time of bedding.

It is not clear at this time however, whether any U.S. EPA regulatory change to reduce the requirement for personal protective equipment (boots, gloves, respirators, etc.) or to reduce buffer zones, which currently restrict application of Telone products within 300 feet of any occupied dwelling, is achievable in the near term. Nor is their any certainty whether certain herbicides such as Tillam (Pebulate), which serves as an integral component of the methyl bromide potential alternative for tomatoes, will be available in the future if a new manufacturer is not identified, and certain regulatory issues are not resolved between the U.S. EPA and this new manufacturer.

The impact of regulatory constraints regarding use of Tillam, Telone products (1,3-dichloropropene), and even future reregistration of chloropicrin cannot be overstated. For example, regulatory implementation of buffer zone restrictions will almost assuredly preclude use of this best alternative approach within the majority of the current Florida strawberry producing acreage due to the close proximity of residential housing to most fields. These fields are actually bounded on most sides by either commercial structures, grower homes, or residential housing. To satisfy federal pesticide label requirements, Florida strawberry growers only recourse at this time is to actually acquire new land and move production to isolated rural areas where buffer zones are not a consideration. At this time, no other alternative pest and production system has been identified which does not result in significant strawberry yield and profit reduction. Nor is there land available which is environmentally suited for strawberry production and at the same time is permitted for irrigation use of water by state water management districts. In the short term, significant impacts to the Florida strawberry industry are expected with the methyl bromide phaseout. Some critical use exemption or provision for the continued use of methyl bromide must be considered to preserve the economic viability of these very important agricultural industries.

If broadcast application technologies cannot be developed to sustain economic production, then the requirement for rubber gloves, boots, full face respirator, and coveralls for all workers in the field at the time of fumigant application constitutes yet another major obstacle to the implementation of Telone (1,3 dichloropropene) and chloropicrin combination product. Given current state and federal rules and recommendations governing heat stress avoidance in workers by growers, continuance of personal protective equipment requirements could as much as triple labor requirements (if additional labor forces can be made available) for the field application process of this compound. In some states, field workers are prohibited from working in full spray suits at temperatures in excess of 85°F. Temperatures of this magnitude are common in Florida agriculture.

The breadth and focus of the methyl bromide alternatives research program in Florida is not limited exclusively to evaluations of chemical combination treatment regimes. Rather, the program encompasses an evaluation of a diversity of nonchemical tactics as well. It should be recognized that many of the nonchemical alternatives specifically evaluated are already an established component of commercial crop production practice in Florida agriculture (items 1,2,3,6,7,9,10, and11 below). Since 1993, the nonchemical alternatives which have been evaluated for broad spectrum soil borne pest control in field experimentation include:

§ 1) Cover Crops

§ 2) Host Plant Resistance

§ 3) Organic Amendments

§ 4) Solarization / Biofumigation

§ 5) Biological Control Agents

§ 6) Paper and Plastic Mulch Technologies and Emissions Reduction

§ 7) Natural Product Pesticides

§ 8) Super Heated Water (Hotwater) and Steam

§ 9) Crop Rotation

§ 10) Supplemental Fertilization

§ 11) Fallowing

In general, the results from some of the nonchemical studies has been encouraging, but in most cases must be construed as incomplete from a soil pest control or crop yield enhancement perspective when evaluated in the absence of soil fumigant treatment. Many are only marginally effective, but also impractical, cost prohibitive, or having requirements for specialized equipment and operators. As such, none of the nonchemical tactics should be considered stand alone replacement strategies for methyl bromide soil fumigation at this time.

I should also point out that research within Florida has been principally confined to the tomato and strawberry industries. Moreover, a host of other crops currently dependent upon methyl bromide still require a considerable amount of "discovery" type research. These crops include: pepper, eggplant, cucurbits, cut flowers, caladiums, turf, and ornamentals. Further, the consequences to the current double cropping systems have not been broadly considered for most of the crops identified above. It is often the profit from a second crop, benefiting from residual pest control properties of the initial methyl bromide treatment, that economically sustains the overall production system in Florida. Besides farm level impacts, please recognize that all of these industries are very important to state and local economies, and significant multiplier effects are expected to spill over into other areas of the private sector. In these cases as well, some critical use exemption or provision for the continued use of methyl bromide after the phaseout must be considered to preserve the economic viability of these very important agricultural industries, particularly if regulatory constraints cannot be satisfactorily resolved.

Comparison of USA and International Research Efforts:

The TEAP progress report states that similar field research efforts, funded by UNEP, UNIDO, and Multilateral Fund monies, have been initiated on a global scale and several methyl bromide alternatives have been selected for extensive adoption as part of a Methyl Bromide phaseout investment projects. For example, the TEAP progress report indicates that by December 2002 the Multilateral Fund had approved a total of 232 methyl bromide projects in more than 63 countries. This included 44 demonstration projects for evaluating and customizing alternatives to soil fumigation uses of methyl bromide. As reported by TEAP, these projects: 'trialled a wide range of chemical and non-chemical alternatives, in diverse countries, climatic zones, soil types and cropping systems, and for many different types of methyl bromide users and economic situations'. According to the TEAP report, one or more of the alternatives tested in each crop situation have proven 'comparable' to methyl bromide in their technical effectiveness for the control of pests and diseases. As a major shortcoming of both TEAP and MBTOC reports, no mention is made of differences in crop yield among treatments and demonstration sites, and the degree to which these alternatives actually 'compare' with methyl bromide has not been quantified in summary document or tabular format by either MBTOC or TEAP, or more importantly, subjected to the same statistical and scientific scrutiny as that of the U.S. based research data. It would appear, that we are expected to accept the UNEP/ UNIDO / Multilateral funded studies carte blanc, not to judge them for scientific merit, or via actual numerical and statistically comparison of treatment differences, but by MLF dollars spent, shear number of demonstrations conducted, and pounds of methyl bromide that could be eliminated in Article 5 undeveloped countries if the alternatives were adopted. Since grower opinion surveys are never presented within TEAP or MBTOC reports, it also seems possible that a grower consensus in each of these countries has not been attained, and the growers themselves might even disagree with validity of TEAP and MBTOC claim for the various alternatives.

Utilizing the results of much of this work, MBTOC and TEAP have declared the existence of alternatives for all uses of methyl bromide. In this regard it would appear that the U.S. is being held to comparison by a standard or benchmark for alternatives response which has not, or can not be confirmed via summaries of Multilateral Fund (MLF) field demonstration studies. Based on U.S. experiences, the cultural, biological, and environmental disparities that invariably and unavoidably occur between demonstration site locations preclude their (MBTOC,TEAP) abilities to validly compare and discriminate between the myriad of treatments and crops evaluated in these studies, ie., declare one alternative superior to another. There is simply not enough statistically valid, site-standardized data to summarize and support such broad global claims of technical feasibility, economic viability, and global transferability. The U.S. is keenly aware of the response variability problem that can occur, since over 40 field demonstrations were performed in Florida alone comparing a single alternative fumigant compound with that of methyl bromide. Similar to the demands placed on countries who nominate a specific critical use exemption, TEAP and MBTOC must also be held accountable to quantitatively show the accuracy and validity of research claims and adequacy of various substitute they propose for methyl bromide.

Conversely, it has been our observation and research philosophy in Florida and other areas of the U.S., that treatment response consistency is the benchmark for success when defining a next best alternative to methyl bromide. In the U.S., alternatives with defined potential to replace methyl bromide have been repeatedly evaluated as independent treatments in replicated field trials, often in the same location, with the same crops for repeated production cycles to insure response consistency and or to characterize any response degradation. In these published U.S. trials, treatment responses are statistically characterized by means and standard errors, and oftentimes even characterized on a relative basis to show and report deviations from a methyl bromide standard. In this regard, the U.S. in its leadership role has adopted a higher standard of acceptability and consistency than that of TEAP or MBTOC for defining a technically feasible and economically viable alternative to methyl bromide. To do otherwise would be disservice to U.S. farmers and discredit to the research institutions of this country. Conversely, to permit TEAP to judge and compare U.S. CUE's using such low, and or, unsubstantiated standards for treatment response consistency is patently wrong and in this case, performs a travesty to U.S. farmers who currently rely on methyl bromide for their livelihoods.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

Since 1996, the research and extension faculty of the University of Florida, in collaboration with USDA-ARS research scientists, have conducted field research programs to identify and evaluate a diverse mix of pest control products, application technologies, nonchemical pest management tactics and treatment regimes, as well as entirely new crop production system approaches to replace soil fumigant uses of methyl bromide. Initially, we invested heavily in an alternative chemical approach and only later expanded to include nonchemical tactics and approaches. Significant advances have been made in the integration of some of these tactics, and a pest management system has been devised which has the potential to replace methyl bromide. Overall, it has been a building process, in which new blocks of information, developed and acquired on an annual basis, have all contributed to the development of an overall IPM strategy. It began with the recognition that the simple substitution of one alternative fumigant for that of methyl bromide was not the answer and that other IPM components were essential.

During the past ten years, we have widely published the results of this research, documenting our continuing quest to develop an effective and economically viable alternative to methyl bromide soil fumigation. During this period, a number of significant scientific advancements have been made which have important, practical implications. For example, we have enhanced our basic understanding of drip irrigation water movement and how to most efficiently use the drip tube for delivery of agrichemicals. We have identified post plant pest control strategies (crop rescue) which serve to reduce pest pressure and help restore crop yield potential. Conversely, we have demonstrated how early crop destruction can provide expanded opportunity to enhance overall integrated pest management strategy. We have demonstrated the utility of virtually impermeable plastic mulches (VIF) and identified some of the problems with its use.

Overall, the results of this collective work also have shown that tank mix applications of various herbicides will likely be required to effectively broaden the spectrum of weed control to the near equivalence of methyl bromide. The large scale field demonstration trials and small plot herbicide tolerance and efficacy studies have demonstrated that crop growth can be severely restricted, and yield significantly reduced in response to some preplant, preemergence, or post emergence applied herbicides. Differences in timing, rates, and methods of herbicide application and incorporation can all be important factors contributing to phytotoxic crop response and weed control efficacy. The results of these studies also serve to document the need by growers to learn how to effectively choose, apply, and incorporate these herbicides to maximize weed control and to avoid dealing with unsolvable production problems of plant stunting, mortality, and or crop loss.

During the tenure of the USDA project, the combined results of the alternative chemical studies continued to show the combination of 1,3 -D (Telone II) and chloropicrin, formulated as Telone C-17 or Telone C-35 as the most promising, currently registered, alternative fumigant combination to that of methyl bromide for Florida fruit and vegetable production. In general, these studies indicate that tomato yields were greater following use of Telone C-35 compared to that of Telone C-17 and that in-row applications were generally superior to broadcast applications. The higher yields obtained with in-row applications are likely the simple result of more uniform fumigant dispersion, distribution, and reduced dissipation under the raised, plastic mulch covered beds compared to bare ground, broadcast applications made to undisturbed soil subjected to environmental flux. Even though tomato yields improved with in-row and or broadcast applications of Telone C-17 or Telone C-35, they were not always to the level of methyl bromide. The results of recent studies further suggests that when soilborne disease pressure is low, broadcast application of Telone C-35 can be as effective as in bed application; however, when disease pressure is greater, broadcast application of Telone C-35 benefits from the addition of another fumigant treatment with chloropicrin at the time the beds are formed.

Regardless of alternative chemical or application method, the culmination of this work shows that pest control efficacy for all of the fumigant alternatives can be a little less than that of methyl bromide and are more highly dependent upon uniform delivery and distribution. Unlike methyl bromide, prevailing soil and climatic conditions, pre and post fumigant application, are much more important determinants of efficacy and crop response with the alternative chemicals. With these new alternatives, it has also become apparent that the growers themselves can cause significant response variability due to inappropriate land preparation or substandard application procedures.

USDA-ARS funded research has helped to identify and further define optimum conditions and procedures required to maximize performance of Telone, chloropicrin, and other fumigant and herbicide products. However, the culmination of this research also has demonstrated that satisfactory yield responses probably cannot be achieved consistently in every field or in every season as equivalent to that of methyl bromide. As a result, growers must learn to expect some disease, some loss, and recognize that some inconsistency is unavoidable. The biggest continuing challenge facing the scientific community and growers of Florida is developing and improving alternatives which further minimize the 5-10% impacts on yield for each of the methyl bromide dependent crops. It is also imperative that regulatory changes occur to declare the new system which includes Telone, Chloropicrin, and various herbicide products a viable alternative.

And finally, please recognize that MBTOC and TEAP claims of comparability of proposed alternatives (ie., soil solarization and biofumigation) cannot be confirmed or denied, but nor should they be accepted as unchallenged fact with such critical issues of national importance at stake. The pest control performance and economic viability of most of these approaches have been repeatedly discounted in replicated, statistically valid, U.S. field experimentation. Both MBTOC and TEAP make judgement that a variety of alternatives perform satisfactorily in the undeveloped Article 5 countries, and that they are economically feasible, and apparently transferable, when U.S. data shows that they are not. These international committees are fully aware of the significant body of U.S. research and choose to ignore it or claim to be unaware of its existence. This concern is important and must be raised since TEAP indicates that " No CUE will be awarded if there is an alternative practice in use in the global market, and that this alternative is available to the applicant". In this case, MBTOC and TEAP make judgements that their alternatives are viable, showing no data or scientific confirmation, and discount our research demonstrating the converse. This is but one example to show how the TEAP and MBTOC system is significantly flawed and manipulated by biased individuals, often steeped with conflict of interest. Based on personal experience, I have no confidence in the way the international process has worked, the timetables in which CUE's have been requested and more importantly evaluated, and finally, the flawed scientific and economic standards which are used to judge and discriminate among nominations and international need.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - TESTIMONY Dr. JOSEPH W. NOLING

. No other country in the world has invested more in research than that of the USA.

. Significant U.S. advances have been made in the evaluation and integration of various chemical and nonchemical tactics which either have potential as economically viable replacements for methyl bromide or may contribute to a replacement tactic.

. U.S. research has demonstrated that satisfactory yield responses probably cannot be achieved consistently in every field or in every season as equivalent to that of methyl bromide. As a result, growers must learn to expect some disease, some loss, and recognize that some inconsistency is unavoidable with the alternatives.

. The biggest continuing challenge facing the scientific community of the U.S. and growers of Florida is developing and improving alternatives which further minimize the 5-10% impacts on yield for each of the methyl bromide dependent crops.

. Significant impacts to Florida agricultural industries are expected with the methyl bromide phaseout and as such, some critical use exemption or provision for the continued use of methyl bromide must be considered to preserve the economic viability of these very important agricultural industries, particularly if EPA regulatory constraints regarding the chemical alternatives cannot be satisfactorily resolved.

. The extent to which we can rely on many of the tactics proposed by UNEP Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and the Methyl Bromide Technical Option Committe (MBTOC) as long-term solutions in the absence of methyl bromide has not been scientifically, statistically, or even 'practically' established in the USA. As such, TEAP and MBTOC must be held accountable to quantitatively show the accuracy and validity of research claims and adequacy of various substitute they propose for methyl bromide. To permit TEAP to review, judge, and compare U.S. CUE's using such low, and or, unsubstantiated standards for treatment response consistency is a travesty to U.S. farmers who currently rely on methyl bromide for their livelihoods. SUGGESTED REFERENCES

1. Duncan, L.W. and J.W. Noling. Agricultural Sustainability and Nematode IPM. in K.R. Barker, G.A. Pederson, and G.L Windham (eds.) Plant-Nematode Interactions. 1998. Agronomy Society of America. Monograph Series. Madison, WI, USA.

2. Dunn, R.A., and J.W. Noling. (Eds.). Florida Nematode Management Guide. University of Florida, IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service. SP-54. 2002. 168 pp.

3. Gilreath, J.P., J. W. Noling, S.J. Locascio, and D.O. Chellemi. Efficacy of methyl bromide alternatives in tomato and double-cropped cucumber. 1999. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp. 15-1 - 15-2.

4. Gilreath, J.P., J. W. Noling and P. R. Gilreath. Field Validation of 1,3 Dichloropropene + Chloropicrin and Pebulate as an Alternative to Methyl Bromide in Tomato in Florida: Result of Grower Trials. 1997. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp. 23-1 - 23-2.

5. Gilreath, J.P., J. W. Noling and P. R. Gilreath. Field Validation of 1,3 Dichloropropene + Chloropicrin and Pebulate as an Alternative to Methyl Bromide in Tomato. 1997. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. (In press).

6. Gilreath, J.P., J. W. Noling and P. R. Gilreath. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Management of Weeds. 1997. Proc. Fla. Tomato Institute. University of Florida, IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service. PRO 110: 34-35.

7. Gilreath J.P. , J.P. Jones, and J.W.Noling. Possible soil fumigant alternatives for methyl bromide in mulched tomato production. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Newsletter. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Vol. 2, No.3. 1996. pp. 8-9.

8. S. J. Locascio,S.J., J.P. Gilreath, D. W. Dickson, T. A. Kucharek, J. P. Jones, and J. W. Noling. Pest Control with Alternative Fumigants to Methyl Bromide for Tomato. 1997. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.22-1 - 22-4.

9. Locascio, S.J., J.P. Gilreath, D.W. Dickson, T.A. Kucharek, J.P. Jones, and J.W. Noling. Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for polyethylene mulched tomato. 1997. Horstcience 32:1208-1211.

10. Noling, J.W. and J.P. Gilreath. Methyl Bromide : Progress and problems identiying alternatives. 2000. Citrus & Vegetable Magazine 64(10): A3-A15.

11. Noling, J.W. The Role of Soil Fumigant in Florida Agriculture. Pp. 14-24. In J.N. Seiber, J.A. Knuteson, J.E. Woodrow, N.L. Wolfe, M.V. Yates, and S.R. Yates (eds.) Fumigants: Environmental Fate, Exposure, and Analysis. 1996. American Chemical Society Sypmposia Series 652. 236 pp.

12. Noling, J.W. Use of hot water for nematode control: A Research Summary. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Newsletter. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Vol. 2, No.2. 1996. pp. 10-11.

13. Noling, J.W. Use of alternatives in the Netherlands: A Florida Perspective. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Newsletter. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Vol. 2, No.4. 1996. pp. 4-5.

14. Noling, J.W. Physical method of nematode control. Proceedings Third International Nematology Congress. Gosier, Guadeloupe. 1996. Pp. 62-63.

15. Noling, J.W. Nematodes. In: D. N. Maynard and G.J. Hochmuth (eds.) Vegetable Production Guide for Florida. University of Florida, IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service. SP-170. 1998. 258pp.

16. Noling, J. W. Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for nematode control.1997. Proc. Fla. Tomato Inst. University of Florida, IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service. PRO 110: 27-29.

17. Noling, J.W. Relative lethal dose, a time-temperature model for relating soil solarization efficacy and treatment duration for nematode control. 1997. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.17-1-17-4.

18. Noling, J.W. Responses of susceptible and resistant tomato cultivars to Meloidogyne incognita. Society of Nematology Annual Meeting, St. Louis, MO. 1998. 1998. Journal of Nematology:

19. Noling, J.W. Plant resistance and soil amendments in Florida tomato and pepper. 1999. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.34-1 - 34-4.

20. Noling, J.W. and J.P. Gilreath. Alternatives to methyl bromide for nematode control. A Florida synopsis. Society of Nematology Annual Meeting, St. Louis, MO. 1998. 1998. Journal of Nematology:

21. Noling, J.W. and J.P. Gilreath. Propargyl bromide, biorationals and other fumigants for nematode control. 1999. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.33-1 33-4.

21. Noling, J.W. and J.P. Gilreath. Alternatives to methyl bromide for nematode control. A Florida synopsis. Society of Nematology Annual Meeting, St. Louis, MO. 1998. 1998. Journal of Nematology:

22. Noling, J.W. and J.O. Becker. The challenge of research and extension to define and implement alternatives to methyl bromide. 1994. Journal of Nematology. 26: 573-586.

23. Noling, J.W. 2002. The practical realities of alternatives to methyl bromide. Phytopathology: 92: 1373-1375.

24. Noling, J.W. and K.R. Barker. 2002. Nematodes. American Phytopathological Society, Compendium of Brassicae Plant Diseases. First Edition. APS Press. Minneapolis, MN. (submitted, 12pp.)

25. Noling, J. W. 2002. Field scale demonstration / validation studies of alternatives for methyl bromide in plastic mulch culture in Florida.. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.11-13.

26. Noling, J. W. and J.P. Gilreath. 2002. Weed and nematode management: Simultaneous Considerations. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp. 61-64.

27. Gilreath, J.P., J.M. Mirusso, and J.W. Noling. 2002. Efficacy of broadcast Telone C-35 in tomato.Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.191-192.

28. Gilreath, J.P., B. Poling, and J.W. Noling. 2002. Nursery and fruiting field fumigant effect on strawberry. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.151-152.

29. Noling, J. W. Opportunities for replacement of methyl bromide in the USA. Proceedings Society of Chemical Industry UK. Crop Protection Group. London, UK.

30. J. W. Noling and J.P. Gilreath. 2002. Field scale demonstration / validation studies of alternatives for methyl bromide in plastic mulch culture in Florida.. Citrus & Vegetable Magazine 67(4) December 2002 pp. A18-A31.

31. J. W. Noling. 1996-1997. Annual Report. Field scale demonstration / validation studies of alternatives for methyl bromide in plastic mulch culture in Florida.. USDA ARS Specific Cooperative Agreement SCA#58-6617-6-013.

32. J. W. Noling. 1997-1998. Annual Report. Field scale demonstration / validation studies of alternatives for methyl bromide in plastic mulch culture in Florida.. USDA ARS Specific Cooperative Agreement SCA#58-6617-6-013.

33. J. W. Noling. 1998-1999. Annual Report. Field scale demonstration / validation studies of alternatives for methyl bromide in plastic mulch culture in Florida.. USDA ARS Specific Cooperative Agreement SCA#58-6617-6-013.

34. J. W. Noling. 1999-2000. Annual Report. Field scale demonstration / validation studies of alternatives for methyl bromide in plastic mulch culture in Florida.. USDA ARS Specific Cooperative Agreement SCA#58-6617-6-013.

35. J. W. Noling. 2000-2001. Annual Report. Field scale demonstration / validation studies of alternatives for methyl bromide in plastic mulch culture in Florida.. USDA ARS Specific Cooperative Agreement SCA#58-6617-6-013.

36. J. W. Noling. 1996-2001. Executive Summary. Field scale demonstration / validation studies of alternatives for methyl bromide in plastic mulch culture in Florida.. USDA ARS Specific Cooperative Agreement SCA#58-6617-6-013. 107pp.

37. Olson, S.M., J.R. Rich, and J.W. Noling. Evaluation of alternative fumigants for tomato production in north Florida. Proceedings Third International Nematology Congress. Gosier, Guadeloupe. 1996. Pp. 186.

38. Potter, J.T., J.W. Noling, and B. Westerdaul. Nematodes. American Phytopathological Society, Compendium of Strawberry Plant Diseases. 1996. APS Press. Minneapolis, MN.

39. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2002 Report of the Methyl bromide Technical Options Committee. 2002 Assessment. http://www.teap.org/report/downloads/MBTOC2002.pdf

40. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2002 Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel. May 2003. Progress Report. hhtp://www.unep.org/ozone/pdf/teap-2003-report.pdf.

PUBLICATIONS DERIVING FROM USDA ARS FUNDING - 1996

Gilreath, J. P., P. R. Gilreath and W. M. Stall. 1996. Row middle and double weed control in cucurbit crops. Fla. Agr. Conf. and Trade Show. Vegetable Crops Proc. 39-41.

Gilreath, J. P., J. P. Jones, J. W. Noling and R. J. McGovern. 1996. Possible soil fumigant alternatives for methyl bromide in mulched tomato production. Methyl Bromide Alternatives (U.S.D.A. Newsletter) vol. 2, no. 3: 8-9.

Gilreath, J.P., J. P. Jones and J. W. Noling. 1996. Effect of incorporation method on pebulate efficacy under polyethylene mulch in tomato. Proc. Florida State Horticultural Society 109:190-192.

Gilreath, J. P. and D. W. West. 1996. Preliminary investigations with fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide in floricultural crops. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 109:

Gilreath, J. P., J. P. Jones and J. W. Noling. 1996. Soilborne pest control in polyethylene mulched pepper. Proc. International Res. Conf. On Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, pp. 441-442.

Gilreath, J. P., J. P. Jones and J. W. Noling. 1996. Fumigant/herbicide alternatives for methyl bromide soil fumigation in mulched pepper. Proc. National Pepper Conf. 59-60.

Noling, J. W., J. P. Gilreath, C. K. Chandler and D. E. Legard. 1996. Alternative strategies to methyl bromide for soilborne pest and disease control in Florida strawberry. Proc. International Res. Conf. On Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, pp. 391-393.

Noling, J.W. 1996. Summary of Florida studies: possible chemical alternatives for tomatoes. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Newsletter. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Vol. 3, No.2. Pp. 6-7.

Noling, J.W. 1996. Use of hot water for nematode control: a research summary. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Newsletter. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Vol. 2, No.2. Pp. 10-11.

Noling, J.W. 1996. Use of alternatives in the Netherlands: a Florida perspective. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Newsletter. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Vol. 2, No.4. Pp. 4-5.

Noling, J.W. 1996. Physical method of nematode control. Proc.Third International Nematology Congress. Gosier, Guadeloupe. Pp. 62-63.

Olson, S.M., J.R. Rich, and J.W. Noling. 1996. Evaluation of alternative fumigants for tomato production in north Florida. Proc. Third International Nematology Congress. Gosier, Guadeloupe. P. 186.

Sotomayor, D., and L.H. Allen, Jr. 1996. Control of nematodes and weed populations by pre-plant soil flooding? Paper No. 97. In 1996 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 4-6 November 1996, Orlando, Florida.

Stall, W.M. and J.P. Gilreath, 1996, Evaluation of Pepper Tolerance to Selected Preplant Herbicides, Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 109: 1996, pp 187-189.

PUBLICATIONS DERIVING FROM USDA ARS FUNDING - 1997

Allen, L.H., Jr. 1997. Mechanisms and rates of O2 transfer to and through submerged rhizomes and roots via aerenchyma. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Florida Proc. 56:41-54.

Allen, L.H., D.R. Sotomayor, D.W. Dickson, and Z. Chen. 1997. Soil flooding during the off-season as an alternative to methyl bromide. Paper No. 97. In 1997 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 3-5 November 1997, San Diego, California.

Buker, S. III, W.M. Stall and S.M. Olson, 1997, Watermelon Tolerance to Halosulfuron Applied Preemergence and Postemergence, Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 110: 1997, pp 323-235.

Chandler, C. K., D. E. Legard, J. W. Noling and J. P. Gilreath. 1997. Non-fumigated soil tolerance trial. Dover GCREC Research Report. DOV 1997-1. Page 17.

Chase, C. A. T. R. Sinclair, S. J. Locascio, D. W. Dickson, J. P. Gilreath, and J. P. Jones. 1997. An evaluation of improved polyethylene films for cool season soil solarization. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 110:326-329.

Chase,C. A. T. R. Sinclair, D. G. Shilling, S. J. Locascio, and J. P. Gilreath. 1997. Photomorphogenesis in nutsedge (Cyperus spp.): implications for control by soil solarization. Proc. So. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:84-87.

Chase, CA, TR Sinclair, DO Chellemi, SM Olson, J Rich, SJ Locascio, JP Gilreath and JP Jones. 1997. Soil solarization as an alternative to methyl bromide in vegetable production. Proc. Southern Weed Sci. Soc. 50:82-83.

Chase, C. A. T. R. Sinclair, S. J. Locascio, J. P. Gilreath, and D. O. Chellemi. 1997. Soil temperature as affected by soil solarization in a humid climate. Proc. International Res. Conf. on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp. 16-1 - 16-2.

Gilreath, J.P. 1997. Strawberry weed control. Dover GCREC Research Report. DOV 1997-1. Page 8.

Gilreath, J. P., J. W. Noling, and P. R. Gilreath. 1997. Alternatives to methyl bromide for management of weeds. Proc. Fla. Tomato Institute. PRO 110:34-35.

Gilreath, J. P., J. P. Jones, and J. W. Noling. 1997. Methyl bromide and tomato production in Florida: the future. U. of Fla., IFAS, IPM Newsletter.

Gilreath, J.P., J. W. Noling and P. R. Gilreath. 1997. Alternatives to methyl bromide for management of weeds. University of Florida. Cooperative Extension Service. IFAS. Proc. Florida Tomato Institute. PRO 110. Pp. 34-35.

Gilreath, J.P., J. W. Noling and P. R. Gilreath. 1997. Field Validation of 1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin and pebulate as an alternative to methyl bromide in tomato in Florida: Results of grower trials. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Pp. 23-1 - 23-2.

Gilreath, J.P., J. W. Noling and P. R. Gilreath. 1997. Field Validation of 1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin and pebulate as an alternative to methyl bromide in tomato. Proc. Florida State Horticultural Society 110:273-276.

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: 1208-1211.

Locascio,S.J., J.P. Gilreath, D. W. Dickson, T. A. Kucharek, J. P. Jones, and J. W. Noling. 1997. Pest control with alternative fumigants to methyl bromide for tomato. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Pp.22-1 - 22-4.

Noling,J.W., J. P. Gilreath, C. K. Chandler, and D. E. Legard. 1997. Summer cover cropping x nematode study. Dover GCREC Research Report. DOV 1997-1. Page 22.

Noling, J.W. 1997. Nematode Control. Pepper production guide for Florida. University of Florida. Cooperative Extension Service. IFAS. SP 215. Pp. 21-26.

Noling, J.W. 1997. Relative lethal dose, a time-temperature model for relating soil solarization efficacy and treatment duration for nematode control. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Pp.17-1 - 17-4.

Noling, J.W. 1997. Relative lethal dose, a time-temperature model for relating thermal induced mortality of nematodes for ambient environments. Journal of Nematology: 29:596.

Noling, J.W. 1997. Nematode Control. Tomato production guide for Florida. University of Florida. Cooperative Extension Service. IFAS. SP 214. Pp. 21-25.

Noling, J. W. 1997. Alternatives to methyl bromide for nematode control. University of Florida. Cooperative Extension Service. IFAS. Proc. Florida Tomato Institute. PRO 110. Pp. 27-29.

Stanley, D. and J. P. Gilreath. 1997. Using Tillam on Florida-grown tomatoes. Methyl Bromide Alternatives (USDA Newsletter) vol. 3, no. 2, pp.3-4.

Sotomayor, D.R., L.H. Allen, Jr. and D.W. Dickson. 1997. Soil Flooding during off-season as an alternative to methyl bromide. p. 213, AGRONOMY ABSTRACTS. 89th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Agronomy. Oct. 26-31, 1997, Anaheim, CA.

PUBLICATIONS DERIVING FROM USDA ARS FUNDING - 1998

Chase, C. A., T. R. Sinclair, D. G. Shilling, J. P. Gilreath and S. J. Locascio. 1998. Light effects on nutsedge (Cyperus sp.) rhizome morphogenesis: implications for control by soil solarization. Weed Science 46: 575-580.

Dunn, R.A., and J.W. Noling. 1998. Florida nematode management guide. University of Florida. Cooperative Extension Service. IFAS. SP-54. Revised 1998. 168 Pp.

Gilreath, James P. and Michelle L. Bell. 1998. Chemical weed control in gladiolus. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 111: in press

Gilreath, James P., Geraldine J. Cashion and Michelle L. Bell. 1998. Phytotoxicity of multiple applications of preemergence herbicides to liriope. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 111: in press.

Gilreath, J. P. and D. O. Chellemi. 1998. Gas impermeable mulch film affects pepper production. Annual International Research Conf. On Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Pp. 15-1, 15-2.

Gilreath, J.P., J. W. Noling and P. R. Gilreath. 1998. Methyl bromide alternatives research update 1998. University of Florida. Cooperative Extension Service. IFAS. Florida Agricultural Conference & Trade Show (FACTS) Proceedings. Pp. 26-30. Lakeland, FL.

Gilreath, J.P., J.P. Jones and J. W. Noling. 1998. The impact of methyl bromide alterantives in tomato on double-cropped cucumber. Methyl Bromide Alternatives. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Vol. 4, No.4. Pp. 8-9.

Gilreath, P. R. and J. P. Gilreath. 1998. Methyl bromide and the year 2001 - agriculture and change. Peace River Farmer and Rancher. June 1998, pp. 26 and 31.

Gilreath, P. R. and J. P. Gilreath. 1998. Methyl bromide alternatives and worker safety. Vegetarian, May 1998, pp. 4-5.

Gilreath, J. P. and S. J. Locascio. Methyl bromide alternatives research - preliminary findings. Hillsborough County Vegetable Newsletter. March- April 1998.

McGovern, R.J., C.S. Vavrina, J.W. Noling, L.A. Datnoff, and H.D. Yonce. 1998. Evaluation of application methods of metam sodium for management of Fusarium crown and root rot in tomato in southwest Florida. Plant Disease 82:919-923.

McMillan, R.T. and H.H. Bryan, 1998, Vapam as an Alternative to Methyl Bromide for South Florida Tomato Growers, Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reduction, Dec. 7-9, 1998, Orlando, FL.

Noling, J. W. and J. P. Gilreath. 1998. Alternatives to methyl bromide for nematode control: a south Florida synopsis. Annual International Research Conf. On Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Pp. 40-1 - 40-3.

Noling, J. W. and J. P. Gilreath. 1998. USDA evaluates alternatives to methyl bromide. Citrus and Vegetable Magazine. May 1998, pp. 21 and 24.

Noling, J. W. and J. P. Gilreath. 1998. Methyl bromide alternatives for strawberry. Hillsborough County Vegetable Newsletter. March- April 1998.

Noling, J.W. and P. Gilreath. 1998. Technology transfer of methyl bromide alternatives for soilborne pest management. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Pp. 431-433.

Noling, J. W. and J.P. Gilreath. 1998. The scientific, economic and political reality of the phaseout of methyl bromide. University of Florida. Cooperative Extension Service. IFAS. Proc. Florida Tomato Institute. PRO 111. Pp. 23-25, 77.

Noling, J.W. 1998. Current status and future prospects for methyl bromide. Proc. Strawberry Agri-tech Educational Seminar and Trade Show. Plant City, FL Pp. 10-11.

Noling, J.W. 1998. Nematodes. in D.N. Maynard and G.J. Hochmuth (eds.) Vegetable production guide for Florida.. Chapter 14. University of Florida. Cooperative Extension Service. IFAS. SP 170. Pp. 65-73.

Noling, J.W. 1998. Responses of susceptible and resistant tomato cultivars to Meloidogyne incognita. Journal of Nematology: 30:509.

Noling, J.W. and J.P. Gilreath. 1998. Alternatives to methyl bromide for nematode control: a south Florida synopsis. Journal of Nematology: 30:509.

Olson, S.M. 1998, Methyl Bromide Situation, 1998 Florida Agricultural Conference and Trade Show ( Facts) Proceeding, Lakeland, Florida.

Rhoads, F.M., S.M. Olson, J.R. Rich, and D.O. Chellemi, 1998, Strip-till Tomato in Bahiagrass Sod: Management of Fertility and Grass in Middles, FACTS proceedings, Lakeland, FL.

Sotomayor, D., Z. Chen, D.W. Dickson, and L.H. Allen, Jr. 1998. Solarization and anaerobic soil management practices as alternatives to methyl bromide for vegetable production in Florida. Paper No. 2, p. 2-1 to 2-2. In Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, December 7-9, 1998, Orlando Florida.

VanSickle, John J., and Charlene Brewster. 1998. "The Impact of the Methyl Bromide Ban on the U.S. Vegetable Industry." 1998 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. (Dec. 1998): 38-1 to 38-2.

PUBLICATIONS DERIVING FROM USDA ARS FUNDING - 1999

Chase, C.A., T. R. Sinclair, and S. J. Locascio. 1999. Effects of soil temperature and tuber depth on Cyperus spp. Control by soil solarization. Weed Sci. 47:467-472.

Chase, C. A., T. E. Sinclair, D. O. Chellemi, S. M. Olson, J. P. Gilreath & S. J. Locascio. 1999. Heat-retentive films for increasing soil temperatures during solarization in a humid, cloudy environment. HortScience 34(6): 1085-1089.

Gilreath, J. P., J. W. Noling, S. J. Locascio, and D. O. Chellemi, 1999. Effects of methyl bromide, 1,3 dichloropropene & chloropicrin with pebulate and soil solarization on soilborne pest control, in tomato followed by double-cropped cucumber. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 112:292-297.

Gilreath, J. P. R. McSorley & R. J. McGovern. 1999. Soil Fumigant and Herbicide Combinations for Soilborne Pest Control in Caladiums. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. (in press).

Gilreath, J. P. R. McSorley & R. J. McGovern. 1999. Soil Fumigant and Herbicide Combinations for Caladiums. Proc. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp. 16-1 & 16-2.

Gilreath, J.P., J.W. Noling, S.J. Locascio, and D.O. Chellemi. Efficacy of methyl bromide alternatives in tomato and double-cropped cucumber. 1999. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.151-152.

Gilreath, J.P., J.P. Jones, J. W. Noling, and P.R. Gilreath. 1999. Field validation of 1,3 dichloropropene + chlropicrin and pebulate as an alternative to methyl bromide in tomato. Florida Weed Science Society. Book of Abstracts. Pp. 11-12.

Gilreath, J.P., J. W. Noling and P. R. Gilreath. Soilborne pest control in tomato and double-cropped cucumbers. 1999. Proc. Fla. Tomato Inst. PRO 516: 10-12.

Gilreath, J.P., J. W. Noling and P. R. Gilreath. Soilborne pest control in tomato, pepper, and double-cropped cucumbers. 1999. Fla. Agricultural Conference & Trade Show Vegetable and Methyl Bromide Proceedings. PRO 515: 22-25.

Locascio, S. J., S. M. Olson, J. P. Gilreath, D. W. Dickson, D. J. Mitchell, J. W. Noling, C. A. Chase, T. R. Sinclair, and E. N. Rosskopt. 1999. Alternative treatments to methyl bromide for strawberry. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 112 :297-302.

Locascio, S. J., S. M. Olson, C. A. Chase, T. R. Sinclair, D. W. Dickson, D. J. Mitchell, and D. O. Chellemi. 1999. Strawberry production with alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation. Proc. Natl, Agric, Plastics Cong. 28:148-152.

Locascio, S. J. 1999. Alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation for polyethylene-mulched strawberry. Fla. Agric. Conf. & Trade Show September 28-29 1999. p. 25-26.

McMillan, R.T., and H.H. Bryan, 1999, Effect of Metam Sodium and Methyl Bromide on Root-Knot Weeds and Yield in Florida Tomatoes, Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reduction, Nov. 1999, San Diego, CA.

Nelson, S.D., L.H. Allen, S.J. Locascio, D.W. Dickson, and D.J. Mitchell. 1999. Soil Flooding and alternative chemical replacements for methyl bromide. p. 103, AGRONOMY ABSTRACTS. 91th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Agronomy. CSSA, and SSSA (Madison WI), Oct. 31-Nov. 4, 1999, Salt Lake City, UT.

Nelson, S. D., S. J. Locascio, L. H. Allen, Jr., D. W. Dickson, and D. J. Mitchell. 1999. Soil flooding and chemical alternatives to methyl bromide in tomato production. Proc. Annual Intern. Res. Conf. On Methyl Bromide Alter. And Emissions Reductions. pp.13-1 - 13-3.

Noling, J.W. and J.P. Gilreath. Methyl bromide alternatives research for nematode control and regulatory update 1999. 1999. Fla. Agricultural Conference & Trade Show Vegetable and Methyl Bromide Proceedings. PRO 515: 16-19.

Noling, J.W. and J. P. Gilreath. 1999. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Research for Nematode Control and Regulatory Update 1999. 1999 FACTS Proceedings PRO515: 16-19.

Noling, J.W. Propargyl bromide, biorationals, and other fumigants for nematode control. 1999. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.331-333..

Noling, J.W. Plant resistance and soil amendments in Florida tomato and pepper. 1999. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.3341-344.

Noling, J. W. and J.P. Gilreath. Methyl bromide issues, formulations, availability, and alternative practices. 1999. Proc. Fla. Tomato Inst. PRO 516: 13-17.

Noling, J. W. Nematicides registered for use on Florida tomato.1999. Proc. Fla. Tomato Inst. PRO 516: 75.

Rich, J.R. and S.M. Olson, 1999, Utility of Mi-Gene Resistance in Tomato to Manage Meloidogyne javanica in North Florida, Supplement to the Journal of Nematology, Vol. 31, No. 45, December 1999, pp 715-718.

Sotomayor, D.R., L.H. Allen, Jr., Z. Chen, D.W. Dickson, and T. Hewlett. 1999. Anaerobic soil management practices and solarization for nematode control in Florida. Nematropica 29:153-170.

VanSickle, John J., Charlene Brewster, Thomas H. Spreen. 1999. "Impact of Methyl Bromide Ban on the U.S.Vegetable Industry." University of Florida Food and Resource Economics Dept.. Gainesville, FL. SP 99-11.

VanSickle, John J, Charlene Brewster, Thomas H. Spreen. 1999. "Sustainable Impacts for a Seamless Transition in the U.S. Vegetable Industry." 1999 Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 19-1 to 19-2.

PUBLICATIONS DERIVING FROM USDA ARS FUNDING - 2000

Gilreath, J.P., C. A. Chase, and S. J. Locascio. 2000. Influence of sublethal glyphosate rates on leaf mineral content of tomato. HortScience (in press).

Gilreath, J.P., C. A. Chase, and S. J. Locascio. 2000. Phytotoxic effects of glyphosate on pepper. Weed Technology (in press).

Gilreath, J.P., J.W.Noling, J.P. Jones, S.J. Locascio, and D.O. Chellemi. 2000. Soilborne pest control in tomato followed by cucumber with 1,3-D + chloropicrin and solarization. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.411-412.

Gilreath, J.P. and J. W. Noling. Weed control in the post methyl bromide era. 2000. Proc. Fla. Tomato Inst. PRO 517: 13-15.

Gilreath, J.P. and J. W. Noling. Telone and weed control options post methyl bromide. 2000. Fla. Agricultural Conference & Trade Show Vegetable and Methyl Bromide Proceedings. PRO 515: 22-25.

Locascio, S. J., D. W. Dickson, and D. J. Mitchell. 2000. Chloropicrin enhancement of metam-sodium as an alternative to methyl broide for mulched tomato. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 113:198-200.

Locascio, S. J. and D. W. Dickson. 2000. Broadcast vs in-row application of 1, 3-D plus chloropicrin as an alternative for tomato fumigants. Proc. Annual Inter. Res. Conf., on Methyl Bromide Alter. And Emissions reduction. 42-1- 42-4.

McMillan, R.T. and.H. Bryan, 2000, Effect of Metam Sodium and Methyl Bromide on Root-Knot Nematode, Nutsedge and Damping Off on Cucumber cv. Dasher II, Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reduction, Nov. 2000, Orlando, FL.

McMillan, R.T., 2000, Summary of Emerging Technology Workshop, Miami-Dade County Agricultural and Rural Land Retention Study, Soil Fumigation for Vegetable Crops, November 21, 2000, unpublished research report, Tropical Research and Education Center, IFAS-University of Florida, Homestead, FL.

Nelson, S. D., L. H. Allen, Jr., G. C. Riegel, D. W. Dickson, S. J. Locascio, and D. J. Mitchell. 2000. Can virtually impermeable films reduce the amount of fumigant required for pest control. Soil and Crop Sci., Soc. Fla. Proc. 59:85-89

Noling, J.W. and J.P. Gilreath. 2000. Methyl bromide: Progress and Problems Identifying Alternatives. Citrus & Vegetable Magazine 64:A1-A15.

Noling, J. W., E. Rosskopf, and D.O. Chellemi. 2000. Impacts of alternative fumigants on osil pest control and tomato yield. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.301-303.

Noling, J. W. and J.P. Gilreath. Nematode Control in the post methyl bromide era. 2000. Proc. Fla. Tomato Inst. PRO 517: 31-33.

Noling, J. W. Nematicides registered for use on Florida tomato. 2000. Proc. Fla. Tomato Inst. PRO 517: 49.

Noling, J.W. and J.P. Gilreath. Current status of alternatives to methyl bromide. 2000. Fla. Agricultural Conference & Trade Show Vegetable and Methyl Bromide Proceedings. PRO 515: 16-19.

Noling, J.W. and J.P. Gilreath. 2000. Propargyl bromide and other fumigants for nematode control. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Newsletter. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Vol. 6, No. 1. Pp. 9-10.

Noling, J.W. 2000. Effects of continuous culture of a resistant tomato cultivar on Meloidogyne incognita soil population density, and pathogenicity. Journal of Nematology: 32:(in press). 1 p.

Rosskopf, E.N., Chellemi, D.O., Charudattan, R., and Chandramohan, S. 2000. Alternatives to methyl bromide for weed control. Acta Hort. 532:103-107.

VanSickle, John J., Charlene Brewster, Thomas H. Spreen. 2000. "Impact of a Methyl Bromide Ban on the U.S. Vegetable Industry." University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida. Exp. Stat. Bull. 333.

Zinati, G., 2000, Finding an Alternative to the Methyl Bromide System, BioCycle, August 2000, pp 66-67.

PUBLICATIONS DERIVING FROM USDA ARS FUNDING - 2001

Chandler, C.K., D.E. Legard, and J.W. Noling. 2001. Performance of strawberry cultivars on fumigated and nonfumigated soil in Florida. HortTechnology 11:44-46.

Eger, J.E., J. P. Gilreath, and J. W. Noling. Better bed wetting through science. 2001. Proc. Fla. Tomato Inst. PRO 518: 45-50.

Eger, J.E., J.P.Gilreath, and J.W.Noling. 2001. Effect of irrigation times on wetting patterns in Florida vegetable soils. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.481-484.

Gilreath, J.P. and J. W. Noling. Methyl bromide alternatives: Long term trials, application techniques and herbicides. 2001. Proc. Fla. Tomato Inst. PRO 518: 29-39.

Gilreath, J.P., J.W.Noling, J.P. Jones, S.J. Locascio, and D.O. Chellemi. 2001. Three years of soilborne pest control in tomato with 1,3-D + chloropicrin and solarization. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.131-133.

McMillan, R.T. and H.H. Bryan, 2001, Effect of Metam Sodium and Methyl Bromide on Root-Knot Nematode, Yellow Nutsedge, and Damping-off on Cucumber cv. Dasher II, Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 114: 2001, pp 266-267.

McMillan, R.T. and H.H. Bryan, 2001, Efficacy of Vapam and Kapam Against Rhizoctonia Root Rot And Root-Knot Nematodes By Bed Fumigation In Tomato, cv. Florida 90, unpublished research report, Tropical Research and Education Center, IFAS-University of Florida, Homestead, FL.

Nelson, S.D., L.H. Allen, Jr., J. Gan, C. Riegel, D.W. Dickson, S.J. Locascio, and D.J. Mitchell. 2001. Can virtually impermeable films reduce the amount of fumigant required for pest management in high value crops? Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Florida Proc.59:85-89.

Nelson, S.D., C. Riegel, L.H. Allen, Jr., J. Gan, D.J. Mitchell, D.W. Dickson, and S.J. Locascio. 2001. The volatilization of 1,3-Dichloropropene in Florida plasticulture and its effects on fall squash production. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 126(4):496-502.

Noling, J. W., J.P. Gilreath, and E.R. Rosskopf.. 2001. Alternatives to methyl bromide field research efforts for nematode control in Florida. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.141-143.

Noling, J.W., J.P.Gilreath, and J.E. Eger. 2001. Effect of irrigation volume on wetting patterns in Florida vegetable soils. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. pp.491-493.

Noling, J.W. Getting the message out: A U.S. perspective. 2001. Proc. Australasian Plant Pathology Society. ca.8pp.

Noling, J. W. and J.P. Gilreath. Methyl bromide rates, reductions, formulations and IPM alternatives for nematode control. 2001. Proc. Fla. Tomato Inst. PRO 518: 40-44.

Noling, J. W. Nematicides registered for use on Florida tomato. 2001. Proc. Fla. Tomato Inst. PRO 518: 75.

Noling, J. W. and J.P. Gilreath. 2001. Methyl bromide: Progress and Problems Identifying Alternatives. Volume II. Citrus & Vegetable Magazine 66(4):A1-A15.

Noling, J. W. and J.P. Gilreath. 1998. USDA Evaluates alternatives to methyl bromide. Citrus & Vegetable Magazine. 62:21,24.

Ou, L.-T., J.E. Thomas, L.H. Allen, Jr., J.C. Vu, and D.W. Dickson. 2001. Dispersion and emissions of volatile soil fumigants that are potential alternatives to methyl bromide. Soil and Water Science Research Brief SWS-01-10. IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville. 2 p.

Ou, L.-T., J.E. Thomas, L.H. Allen, Jr., J.C. Vu, and D.W. Dickson. 2001a. Dispersion of 1,3-dichloropropene in soil affected by water content, organic matter, and film cover. Abstract. 93rd Annual meeting of the American Society of Agronomy, CSSA, SSSA (Madison, WI), Oct. 21-25, 2001, Charlotte, NC.

Ou, L.-T., J.E. Thomas, L.H. Allen, Jr., L.A. McCormack, J.C. Vu, and D.W. Dickson. 2001b. Dispersion and emissions of 1,3-D in Florida sandy soil. Paper No. 1, p. 1-1 to 1-2. In Eighth Annual International Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, Nov. 5-9, 2001. San Diego, CA.

Riegel, C., D.W. Dickson, L.N. Shaw, L.G. Peterson and E.B. Whitty, 2001, Comparison of Different Chisel Types for 1,3-Dichloropropene Fumigation in Deep Sandy Soils, Nematropica , Vol. 31, No. 2, 2001: 289-293.

Riegel, C., S.D. Nelson, D.W. Dickson, L.H. Allen, Jr., and L.G. Peterson. 2001. Efficacy of 1,3-Dichloropropene in soil amended with compost and unamended soil. J. Nematol. 33(4S):289-293.

PUBLICATIONS DERIVING FROM USDA ARS FUNDING - 2002

Gilreath, J.P., J.M. Mirusso, J.W. Noling, J.P.Jones, and P.R. Gilreath, 2002, Effectiveness of Broadcast Application of Telone C-35 and Tillam + Devrinol in Tomato, Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 2002, in Press.

Nelson, S.D., S.J. Locascio, L.H. Allen, Jr., D.W. Dickson, and D.J. Mitchell. 2002. Soil Flooding and fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide in tomato and eggplant production. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. (In Press).

Nelson, S. D., S. J. Locascio, L. H. Allen, Jr., D. W. Dickson, and D. J. Mitchell. 2002. Soil flooding and fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide in tomato and eggplant production. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 127: (In press).

Ou, L.-T., J.E. Thomas, L.H. Allen, Jr., L.A. McCormack, J.C. Vu, and D.W. Dickson. 2002a. Influence of soil water, organic matter and film cover on emissions and dispersion of 1,3-dichloropropene in soil in microplots. Environmental Sci. & Technol. (submitted, in review).

Ou, L.-T., J.E. Thomas, L.H. Allen, Jr., L.A. McCormack, J.C. Vu, and D.W. Dickson. 2002b. Emissions and dispersion of 1,3-dichloropropene in Florida field sandy soil. Jour. Environ. Qual. (in preparation).

VanSickle, John J. and Sikavas NaLampang. 2002. "The Impact of the Phase Out of Methyl Bromide on the U.S. Vegetable Industry." University of Florida International Agricultural Trade and Policy Center, Gainesville, Florida. IW 02-3.

CIRRICULUM VITAE:

JOSEPH WAYNE NOLING, Ph.D

PROFESSOR / EXTENSION SPECIALIST

DEPARTMENT OF ENTOMOLOGY and NEMATOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

CITRUS RESEARCH & EDUCATION CENTER

700 EXPERIMENT STATION RD

LAKE ALFRED, FL 33850

1. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES with the UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

This is a 70% Extension and 30% Research position with principal statewide responsibility for nematology extension programs in fruit crops and vegetable crops.The principal function of the position is to communicate information to growers, managers, field personnel, news media, and the public about nematode pests and their control. Other functions include liaison between the University of Florida, Institute of Food & Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) and other state agencies, the agrichemical industry, and clientele organizations to help identify important nematode problems in Florida.

2. AREA(S) OF SPECIALIZATION: Nematode Population Dynamics; Nematode management, Crop Loss Assessment, Integrated Pest Management (IPM), Extension :

3. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

University Field Degree Date

Univ.of California, Riverside Entomology/Nematology Ph.D. 1981-85

Michigan State University Entomology M.S. 1978-80

Michigan State University Entomology B.S. 1975-77

Muskegon Community College A.S. 1971-74

Embry Riddle Aero. Instit. Professional Pilot Program 1969-70

4. PUBLICATIONS

Books, Contributor of Chapters:

1. Duncan, L.W. and J.W. Noling. Agricultural sustainability and nematode IPM. in K.R. Barker, G.A. Pederson, and G.L. Windham (eds.) Plant-Nematode Interactions. Chapter 13. Agronomy Society of America. Monograph Series. Madison, WI, USA. 1998. Pp. 251-287.

2. Potter, J.T., and J.W. Noling. Nematodes. American Phytopathological Society, Compendium of Strawberry Plant Diseases. Second Edition. APS Press. Minneapolis, MN. 1998. Pp. 76-81.

3. Noling, J.W. The Role of Soil Fumigants in Florida Agriculture. In J.N. Seiber, J.A. Knuteson, J.E. Woodrow, N.L. Wolfe, M.V. Yates, and S.R. Yates (eds.) Fumigants: Environmental Fate, Exposure, and Analysis. Chapter 2. American Chemical Society Symposia Series 652. 1996. Pp.14-24.

f) Refereed Publications:

1. J.W. Noling. Relative lethal dose: Time-temperature model relating thermal induced mortality of nematodes for ambient environments. Annals Applied Nematology. 1998. (accepted for publication).

2. McGovern, R.J., C.S. Vavrina, J.W. Noling, L.A. Datnoff, and H.D. Yonce. Evaluation of application methods of metam sodium for management of Fusarium crown and root rot in tomato in southwest Florida. 1998. Plant Disease 82:919-923.

3. Locascio, S.J., J.P. Gilreath, D.W. Dickson, T.A. Kucharek, J.P. Jones, and J.W. Noling. Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for polyethylene mulched tomato. 1997. Hortscience 32:1208-1211.

4. McSorley, R., P. A. Stansly, J.W. Noling, T.A. Obreza, and J.M. Conner. Impact of organic soil amendments and fumigation on plant-parasitic nematodes in a southwest Florida vegetable field. 1997. Nematropica 27:181-189.

5. J.W. Noling and J.O. Becker. Viewpoint: The Challenge of Research and Extension to Define and Implement Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 1994. Journal of Nematology 26:573-586.

g) Non-referred publications:

1. Noling, J.W. and J.P. Gilreath. Alternatives to methyl bromide for nematode control: A south Florida synopsis. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 1998. Pp. 401-403.

2. Noling, J.W. and P. Gilreath. Technology transfer of methyl bromide alternatives for soilborne pest management. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 1998. Pp. 431-433.

3. Noling, J.W. Relative lethal dose, a time-temperature model for relating soil solarization efficacy and treatment duration for nematode control. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 1997. Pp. 17-1-17-4.

4. Locascio,S.J., J.P. Gilreath, D. W. Dickson, T. A. Kucharek, J. P. Jones, and J. W. Noling. Pest Control with Alternative Fumigants to Methyl Bromide for Tomato. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 1997. Pp.22-1 - 22-4.

5. Gilreath, J.P., J. W. Noling and P. R. Gilreath. Field Validation of 1,3 Dichloropropene + Chloropicrin and Pebulate as an Alternative to Methyl Bromide in Tomato in Florida: Result of Grower Trials. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 1997. Pp. 23-1 - 23-2.

6. Gilreath, J.P., J. W. Noling and P. R. Gilreath. Field Validation of 1,3 Dichloropropene + Chloropicrin and Pebulate as an Alternative to Methyl Bromide in Tomato. 1997. Proc. Florida State Horticultural Society 110:273-276.

7. Noling, J.W., J.P. Gilreath, C.K. Chandler, and D.L. Legard. Alternative strategies to methyl bromide for soilborne pest and disease control in Florida Strawberry. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 1996. Pp.391-393.

8. Gilreath, J.P., J.P. Jones, and J.W. Noling. Soil-borne pest control in polyethylene mulched pepper. Proc. International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 1996. Pp.441-442.

9 . Gilreath, J.P., J. P. Jones and J. W. Noling. Effect of incorporation method on pebulate efficacy under polyethylene mulch in tomato. 1996. Proc. Florida State Horticultural Society 109:190-192.

Printer Friendly

Status of Methyl Bromide under the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol.