Effective methods of biofumigation: a meta-analysis
- 39 Downloads
Biofumigation, the burying of Brassicaceaous plant tissues to suppress soil pests, is an increasingly practiced technique. However, the efficiency of biofumigation varies considerably and motivated our meta-analysis on the topic.
We meta-analyzed data from 46 publications where 934 experiments used 363 unique controls, in order to determine effectiveness of this practice compared with untreated controls, and to identify which aspects of treatment regimens were most important for ensuring success.
Biofumigation generally reduced pest abundance, reduced incidence of disease, and increased crop yield by 30% over values seen in untreated controls. Neither the plant part incorporated, nor the method used to incorporate it, were important predictors of success. Contrary to our expectations, we found no evidence that solarization was beneficial, and only treatment regimens without solarization were generally effective. While treatment regimens varied, the most effective treatment combination that we identified was the incorporation of young Eruca and Raphanus plants, with high glucosinolate concentrations, applied at high doses with short exposure times to suppress the nematode Globodera in Solanaceous plants. Each component of this regimen would likely increase the effectiveness of biofumigation efforts aimed at other soil pests.
KeywordsBrassicaceae Fumigation Glucosinolate Isothiocyanate Pest suppression
Comments from three anonymous reviewers substantially improved this manuscript.
- Core Team R (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- Martin F (2003) Development of alternative strategies for management of soilborne pathogens currently controlled with methyl bromide. Annu Rev Phytopathol 41:325–350. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.41.052002.095514 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Meyer D, Zeileis A, Hornik K (2017) vcd: Visualizing categorical data. R package version 1.4–4Google Scholar
- Mocali S, Landi S, Curto G, Dallavalle E, Infantino A, Colzi C, d'Errico G, Roversi P, D'Avino L, Lazzeri L (2015) Resilience of soil microbial and nematode communities after biofumigant treatment with defatted seed meals. Ind Crop Prod 75:79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.04.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- New M (1987) Feed and feeding of fish and shrimp. A manual on the preparation and presentation of compound feeds for shrimp and fish in aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
- Piccinini E, Ferrari V, Campanelli G, Fusari F, Righetti L, Matteo R, Lazzeri L (2015) Effect of two bio-based liquid formulations from Brassica carinata in containing red spider mite (Tetranychus urticae) on eggplant. Ind Crop Prod 75:36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.05.060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rios P, Gonzalez M, Obregon S, Carbonero MD, Leal JR, Fernandez P, De-Haro A, Sanchez ME (2017) Brassica-based seedmeal biofumigation to control Phytophthora cinnamomi in the Spanish "dehesa" oak trees. Phytopathol Mediterr 56:392–399. https://doi.org/10.14601/Phytopathol_Mediterr-20771 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rudolph R, Zasada I, Hesse C, DeVetter L (2019) Brassicaceous seed meal, root removal, and chemical fumigation vary in their effects on soil quality parameters and Pratylenchus penetrans in a replanted floricane raspberry production system. Appl Soil Ecol 133:44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2018.08.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Thompson S, Sharp S (1999) Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med 18:2693–2708. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19991030)18:20<2693::AID-SIM235>3.0.CO;2-V CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 36:1–48Google Scholar
- Zasada IA, Halbrendt JM, Kokalis-Burelle N, LaMondia J, McKenry MV, Noling JW (2010) Managing nematodes without methyl bromide. Annu Rev Phytopathol 48(48):311–328. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-073009-114425 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar