Hostname: page-component-cd4964975-8tfrx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-03-29T04:56:09.266Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Evaluating anaerobic soil disinfestation and other biological soil management strategies for open-field tomato production in Florida

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Bodh R. Paudel
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL32611, USA
Francesco Di Gioia
Plant Pathology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL32611, USA
Xin Zhao*
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL32611, USA
Monica Ozores-Hampton
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida South West Florida Research and Education Center, Immokalee, FL34142, USA
Jason C. Hong
USDA-ARS, US Horticultural Research Laboratory, Fort Pierce, FL34945, USA
Nancy Kokalis-Burelle
USDA-ARS, US Horticultural Research Laboratory, Fort Pierce, FL34945, USA
Cristina Pisani
USDA-ARS, US Horticultural Research Laboratory, Fort Pierce, FL34945, USA
Erin N. Rosskopf
USDA-ARS, US Horticultural Research Laboratory, Fort Pierce, FL34945, USA
Author for correspondence: Xin Zhao, E-mail:


In the search for alternative practices to chemical soil fumigation (CSF), anaerobic soil disinfestation (ASD) has proven to be a promising tool for soil-borne pest management and crop production improvement. The ASD treatment with composted poultry litter (CPL) and molasses (M, a labile carbon source) was identified as an effective approach for a biologically based soil disinfestation system in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) production in Florida. However, environmental and food-safety concerns are associated with animal manure-based amendments, which led to the exploration of composted yard waste (CYW) as a potential substitute for CPL in ASD application. In this study, field trials were conducted in Citra and Immokalee, FL to examine the effects of ASD using CYW, CPL and M compared with a commercially available microbial amendment system on root-knot nematodes, weeds, fruit yield and quality of fresh-market tomato. Treatments included (1) ASD with CPL (11 Mg ha−1) and M (6.9 m3 ha−1) (ASD0.5), (2) ASD with CYW (26.9 Mg ha−1) and M (CYW1 + M), (3) ASD with CYW (13.5 Mg ha−1) and M (CYW0.5 + M), (4) Soil Symphony Amendment (SSA), (5) CYW (26.9 Mg ha−1) alone (CYW1) and (6) a combination of CYW1 + SSA, in comparison with (7) untreated control and (8) CSF (Pic-Clor 60 at 224 kg ha−1). Cumulative soil anaerobiosis was greater in ASD0.5 compared with all the other treatments. The root-knot nematode gall index ratings on the tomato crop were significantly lower in CSF, ASD0.5, CYW1 + M and CYW0.5 + M than untreated control in Citra. Although CYW1 and SSA alone had a moderately suppressive effect on weed coverage and root-knot nematodes, their positive impact on crop performance was limited when used alone. ASD0.5, CYW1 + M and CSF had significantly higher marketable and total fruit yields than untreated control in both locations, while all treatments showed promising results in the Immokalee trial in comparison with untreated control. In general, few differences in major fruit quality attributes were found. Although using CYW in ASD was not as effective as CPL in creating soil anaerobic conditions, the enhanced crop performance in CYW1 + M and CYW0.5 + M suggests the potential of using CYW as an alternative source of organic amendment in combination with M to achieve benefits similar to those obtained with CPL-based ASD.

Research Paper
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



Current address: Plant Science Department, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.


Ali, S, Charles, TC and Glick, BR (2014) Amelioration of high salinity stress damage by plant growth promoting bacterial endophytes that contain ACC deaminase. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 80, 160167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beneduzi, A, Ambrosini, A and Passaglia, LMP (2012) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): their potential as antagonists and biocontrol agents. Genetics and Molecular Biology 35, 10441051.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonilla, N, Vida, C, Martinez-Alonso, M, Landa, BB, Gaju, N, Cazorla, FM and de Vicente, A (2015) Organic amendments to avocado crops induce suppressiveness and influence the composition and activity of soil microbial communities. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 81, 34053418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyd, N (2015) Evaluation of preemergence herbicides for purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control in tomato. Weed Technology 29, 480487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridge, J and Page, SLJ (1980) Estimation of root-knot nematode infestation levels on roots using a rating chart. Tropical Pest Management 26, 296298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, DM, Kokalis-Burelle, N, Muramoto, J, Shennan, C, McCollum, TG and Rosskopf, EN (2012 a) Impact of anaerobic soil disinfestation combined with soil solarization on plant-parasitic nematodes and introduced inoculum of soil-borne plant pathogens in raised-bed vegetable production. Crop Protection 39, 3340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, DM, Rosskopf, EN, Kokalis-Burelle, N, Albano, JP, Muramoto, J and Shennan, C (2012 b) Exploring warm-season cover crops as carbon sources for anaerobic soil disinfestation (ASD). Plant and Soil 355, 149165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, DM, Kokalis-Burelle, N, Albano, JP, McCollum, TG, Muramoto, J, Shennan, C and Rosskopf, EN (2014 a) Anaerobic soil disinfestation (ASD) combined with soil solarization as a methyl bromide alternative: vegetable crop performance and soil nutrient dynamics. Plant and Soil 378, 365381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, DM, Shrestha, U, Dee, ME, Inwood, SE, McCarty, DG, Ownley, BH and Rosskopf, EN (2014 b) Low carbon amendment rates during anaerobic soil disinfestation (ASD) at moderate soil temperatures do not decrease viability of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum sclerotia or fusarium root rot of common bean. In: VIII international symposium on chemical and non-chemical soil and substrate disinfestation, Torino, Italy 1044, 203208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darby, HM, Stone, AG and Dick, RP (2006) Compost and manure mediated impacts on soil-borne pathogens and soil quality. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70, 347358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Gioia, F, Ozores-Hampton, M, Hong, J, Kokalis-Burelle, N, Albano, J, Zhao, X, Black, Z, Gao, Z, Wilson, C, Thomas, J, Moore, K, Swisher, M, Guo, H and Rosskopf, EN (2016) The effects of anaerobic soil disinfestation on weed and nematode control, fruit yield and quality of Florida fresh-market tomato. HortScience 51, 703711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Gioia, F, Ozores-Hampton, M, Zhao, X, Thomas, J, Wilson, P, Li, Z, Hong, J, Albano, J, Swisher, M and Rosskopf, E (2017) Anaerobic soil disinfestation impact on soil nutrients dynamics and nitrous oxide emissions in fresh-market tomato. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 240, 194205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djidonou, D, Simonne, AH, Koch, KE, Brecht, JK and Zhao, X (2016) Nutritional quality of field-grown tomato fruit as affected by grafting with interspecific hybrid rootstocks. HortScience 51, 16181624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duniway, JM (2002) Status of chemical alternatives to methyl bromide for preplant fumigation of soil. Phytopathology 92, 13371343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, S, Vepraskas, MJ and Richardson, JL (2007) Soil redox potential: importance, field measurements, and observations. Advances in Agronomy 94, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goud, JKC, Termorshuizen, AJ, Blok, WJ and van Bruggen, AHC (2004) Long-term effect of biological soil disinfestation on Verticillium wilt. Plant Disease 88, 688694.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, H, Di Gioia, F, Zhao, X, Ozores-Hampton, M, Swisher, ME, Hong, JC, Kokalis-Burelle, N, DeLong, AN and Rosskopf, EN (2017) Optimizing anaerobic soil disinfestation for fresh market tomato production: nematode and weed control, yield, and fruit quality. Scientia Horticulturae 218, 105116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, H, Zhao, X, Rosskopf, EN, Di Gioia, F, Hong, JC and McNear, DH (2018) Impacts of anaerobic soil disinfestation and chemical fumigation on soil microbial communities in field tomato production system. Applied Soil Ecology 126, 165173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handelsman, J and Stabb, EV (1996) Biocontrol of soil-borne plant pathogens. Plant Cell 8, 18551869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Islam, M, Doyle, MP, Phatak, SC, Millner, P and Jiang, X (2005) Survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in soil and on carrots and onions grown in fields treated with contaminated manure composts or irrigation water. Food Microbiology 22, 6370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katase, M, Kubo, C, Ushio, S, Ootsuka, E, Takeuchi, T and Mizukubo, T (2009) Nematicidal activity of volatile fatty acids generated from wheat bran in reductive soil disinfestation. Japanese Journal of Nematology 39, 5362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokalis-Burelle, N, Vavrina, CS, Rosskopf, EN and Shelby, RA (2002) Field evaluation of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria amended transplant mixes and soil solarization for tomato and pepper production in Florida. Plant and Soil 238, 257266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, A, Prakash, A and Johri, BN (2011) Bacillus as PGPR in crop ecosystems. In Maheshwari, DK (ed.), Bacteria in Agrobiology: Crop Ecosystems. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 3759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, L, Kong, J, Cui, H, Zhang, J, Wang, F, Cai, Z and Huang, X (2016) Relationship of decomposability and C/N ration in different types of organic matter with suppression of Fusarium oxysporum and microbial communities during reductive soil disinfestation. Biological Control 101, 103113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, FN (2003) Development of alternative strategies for management of soil-borne pathogens currently controlled with methyl bromide. Annual Review of Phytopathology 41, 325350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzola, M (2004) Assessment and management of soil microbial community structure for disease suppression. Annual Review of Phytopathology 42, 3559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazzola, M (2007) Manipulation of rhizosphere bacterial communities to induce suppressive soils. Journal of Nematology 39, 213220.Google ScholarPubMed
Mazzola, M and Freilich, S (2017) Prospects for biological soil-borne disease control: application of indigenous versus synthetic microbiomes. Phytopathology 107, 256263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzola, M, Muramoto, J and Shennan, C (2018) Anaerobic disinfestation induced changes to the soil microbiome, disease incidence and strawberry fruit yields in California field trials. Applied Soil Ecology 127, 7486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messiha, N, van Diepeningen, A, Wenneker, M, van Beuningen, A, Janse, J, Coenen, T, Termorshuizen, A, van Bruggen, A and Blok, W (2007) Biological soil disinfestation (BSD), a new control method for potato brown rot, caused by Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 2. European Journal of Plant Pathology 117, 403415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Momma, N (2008) Biological soil disinfestations (BSD) of soil-borne pathogens and its possible mechanisms. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly Journal 42, 712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Momma, N, Yamamoto, K, Simandi, P and Shishido, M (2006) Role of organic acids in the mechanisms of biological soil disinfestations (BSD). Journal of General Plant Pathology 72, 247252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowlick, S, Yasukawa, H, Inoue, T, Takehara, T, Kaku, N, Ueki, K and Ueki, A (2013) Suppression of spinach wilt disease by biological soil disinfestation incorporated with Brassica juncea plants in association with changes in soil bacterial communities. Crop Protection 54, 185193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) (2015) Hydric Soils Technical Note 11: Hydric soils technical standard and data submission requirements for field indicators of hydric soils. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), NRCS.Google Scholar
Nielsen, P and Sørensen, J (1997) Multi-target and medium-independent fungal antagonism by hydrolytic enzymes in Paenibacillus polymyxa and Bacillus pumilus strains from barley rhizosphere. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 22, 183192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novak, JM, Busscher, WJ, Laird, DL, Ahmedna, M, Watts, DW and Niandou, MAS (2009) Impact of biochar amendment on fertility of a southeastern coastal plain soil. Soil Science 174, 105112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozores-Hampton, M and Peach, DRA (2002) Biosolids in vegetable production systems. Hort Technology 12, 336340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozores-Hampton, M, Stansly, PA and Salame, TP (2011) Soil chemical, physical, and biological properties of a sandy soil subjected to long-term organic amendments. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 35, 243259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozores-Hampton, M, McSorley, R and Stansly, PA (2012) Effects of long-term organic amendments and soil sanitation on weed and nematode populations in pepper and watermelon crops in Florida. Crop Protection 41, 106112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paudel, BR, Carpenter-Boggs, L and Higgins, S (2016) Influence of brassicaceous soil amendments on potentially beneficial and pathogenic soil microorganisms and seedling growth in Douglas-fir nurseries. Applied Soil Ecology 105, 91100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-García, A, Romero, D and De Vicente, A (2011) Plant protection and growth stimulation by microorganisms: biotechnological applications of Bacilli in agriculture. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 22, 187193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raaijmakers, JM, Paulitz, TC, Steinberg, C, Alabouvette, C and Moënne-Loccoz, Y (2009) The rhizosphere: a playground and battlefield for soil-borne pathogens and beneficial microorganisms. Plant and Soil 321, 341–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabenhorst, MC and Castenson, KL (2005) Temperature effects on iron reduction in a hydric soil. Soil Science 170, 734742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosskopf, EN, Chellemi, DO, Kokalis-Burelle, N and Church, GT (2005) Alternatives to methyl bromide: a Florida perspective. Plant Health Progress (online) Scholar
Rosskopf, EN, Serrano-Pérez, P, Hong, J, Shrestha, U, del Carmen Rodríguez-Molina, M, Martin, K, Kokalis-Burelle, N, Shennan, C, Muramoto, J and Butler, D (2015) Anaerobic soil disinfestation and soil-borne pest management. In Meghavansi, MK and Varma, A (eds), Organic Amendments and Soil Suppressiveness in Plant Disease Management. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp. 277305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shennan, C, Muramoto, J, Koike, S, Bolda, M, Daugovish, O, Mochizuki, M, Klonsky, K, Rosskopf, EN, Kokalis-Burelle, N and Butler, DM (2011) Anaerobic soil disinfestation for suppressing Verticillium dahliae in strawberry production in California. HortScience 46, S174S175.Google Scholar
Shennan, C, Muramoto, J, Koike, S, Baird, G, Fennimore, S, Samtani, J, Bolda, M, Dara, S, Daugovish, O, Lazarovits, G, Butler, D, Rosskopf, E, Kokalis-Burelle, N, Klonsky, K and Mazzola, M (2017) Anaerobic soil disinfestation is an alternative to soil fumigation for control of some soil-borne pathogens in strawberry production. Plant Pathology 67, 5166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrestha, U, Auge, RM and Butler, DM (2016) A meta-analysis of the impact of anaerobic soil disinfestation on pest suppression and yield of horticultural crops. Frontiers in Plant Science 7, 1254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shrestha, U, Rosskopf, EN and Butler, DM (2018) Effect of anaerobic soil disinfestation amendment type and C:N ratio on yellow nutsedge tuber sprouting, growth, and reproduction. Weed Research 58, 379388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sydorovych, O, Safley, CD, Welker, RM, Ferguson, LM, Monks, DW, Jennings, K, Driver, J and Louws, FJ (2008) Economic evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives for the production of tomatoes in North Carolina. Hort-Technology 18, 705713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, S, Jiang, Y, Song, S, Huang, J, Ling, N, Xu, Y and Shen, Q (2013) Two Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strains isolated using the competitive tomato root enrichment method and their effects on suppressing Ralstonia solanacearum and promoting tomato plant growth. Crop Protection 43, 134140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tester, CF (1990) Organic amendment effects on physical and chemical properties of a sandy soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 54, 827831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture (1991) United States Standards for Grades of Fresh Tomatoes. Washington, DC: USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) (2010) Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States, a guide for identifying and delineating hydric soils. In Vasilas, LM, Hurt, GW and Noble, CV (eds), National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Research Conservation Service. Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) (2018) Vegetable 2017 Summary. Washington, DC: USDA (Accessed 20 March 2018). Scholar
van Agtmaal, M, van Os, GJ, Hol, WG, Hundscheid, MPJ, Runia, WT, Hordijk, CA and de Boer, W (2015) Legacy effects of anaerobic soil disinfestation on soil bacterial community composition and production of pathogen-suppressing volatiles. Frontiers in Microbiology 6, 112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walker, JT and Wilson, WJ (1960) The separation of nematodes from soil by a modified Baermann funnel technique. Plant Disease Report 44, 9497.Google Scholar
Zeck, WM (1971) A rating scheme for field evaluation of root-knot infestations. Pflanzenschutz Nachrichten Bayer AG 24, 141144.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Paudel et al. supplementary material

Paudel et al. supplementary material 1

Download Paudel et al. supplementary material(File)
File 86 KB