Advertisement

New Developments in Postharvest Fungicide Registrations for Edible Horticultural Crops and Use Strategies in the United States

  • J. E. AdaskavegEmail author
  • H. Förster
Chapter
Part of the Plant Pathology in the 21st Century book series (ICPP, volume 2)

Abstract

New developments in postharvest fungicide registrations of fresh fruit and vegetable crops and use strategies in the United States are discussed for preventing decay and crop losses while minimizing the potential of selection of resistant pathogen populations. Postharvest fungicides used on agricultural commodities are among the most rigorously tested and regulated chemicals in the world and their risk assessment analysis and residue limits are extensively reviewed by multiple regulatory agencies. Novel products and pre-mixtures increase the spectrum of fungal decays managed and the number of crops labeled allowing global marketing of crops. These product registrations are part of a continuum of integrated approaches of handling agricultural commodities designed for stewardship of products and their safe usage in the worldwide distribution of fresh produce. Optimized postharvest usage strategies of fungicides include integration with other fungicides (i.e., pre-mixtures) and sanitation treatments to optimize performance while allowing identification of methods that reduce the selection of resistant sub-populations of pathogens.

Keywords

Postharvest fungicides chemical control postharvest disease and decay management fungicide resistance management 

References

  1. Adaskaveg JE, Förster H, Sommer NF (2002) Principles of postharvest pathology and management of decays of edible horticultural crops. In: Kader A (ed) Postharvest technology of horticultural crops, 4th edn. UC DANR Publ. 3311. Oakland, CA, pp 163-195Google Scholar
  2. Adaskaveg JE, Kanetis L, Soto-Estrada A, Förster H (2004) A new era of postharvest decay control in citrus with the simultaneous introduction of three new “reduced-risk” fungicides. Proc Int Soc Citriculture Vol. III: 999-1004Google Scholar
  3. Adaskaveg JE, Förster H, Gubler WD, Teviotdale BL, Thompson DF (2005) Reduced-risk fungicides help manage brown rot and other fungal disease of stone fruit. Calif Agric 59:109-114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beresford R (1994) Understanding fungicide resistance. Orchardist 67:24Google Scholar
  5. Brent KJ (1995) Fungicide resistance in crop pathogens: how can it be managed? FRAC Monograph No. 1. GIFAP, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  6. Brent KJ, Hollomon DW (1998) Fungicide resistance: the assessment of risk. FRAC Monograph No. 2. GIFAP, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. Eckert JW, Ogawa JM (1988) The chemical control of postharvest diseases: deciduous fruits, berries, vegetables and root/tuber crops. Ann Rev Phytopathol 26:433-469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. EPA (2003) Reducing pesticide risk. www.epa.gov/pesticides/controlling/reducedrisk
  9. Förster H, Driever GF, Thompson DC, Adaskaveg JE (2007) Postharvest decay management for stone fruit crops in California using the “reduced-risk” fungicides fludioxonil and fenhexamid. Plant Dis 91:209-215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kanetis L, Förster H, Adaskaveg JE (2008a) Comparative efficacy of the new postharvest fungicides azoxystrobin, fludioxonil, and pyrimethanil for managing citrus green mold. Plant Dis 91:1502-1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kanetis L, Förster H, Adaskaveg JE (2008b) Optimizing efficacy of new postharvest fungicides and evaluation of sanitizing agents for managing citrus green mold. Plant Dis 92:261-269CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant Pathology and MicrobiologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plant PathologyUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations