Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:42:17.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the Interactions of Aminopyralid vs. Clopyralid with Soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bekir Bukun ,
Dale L. Shaner ,
Scott J. Nissen ,
Philip Westra  and
Galen Brunk
Bekir Bukun
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Protection, Harran University, Sanliurfa, Turkey
Dale L. Shaner*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Water Management Research Unit, Fort Collins, CO 80526
Scott J. Nissen
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Philip Westra
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Galen Brunk
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dale.shaner@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Laboratory studies were conducted to compare the soil adsorption of aminopyralid and clopyralid with the use of batch-slurry and centrifugation assays. The calculated soil binding constants for both herbicides varied between the two techniques, but the centrifugation assay had a lower coefficient of variation compared to the batch-slurry assay. These results indicate that a centrifugation assay is a more accurate procedure for measuring the interaction of aminopyralid and clopyralid with soils. Aminopyralid adsorbed more tightly than clopyralid to six of the eight soils tested. Adsorption Kd values ranged from 0.083 to 0.364 for clopyralid and 0.106 to 0.697 for aminopyralid. Pearson correlation analysis indicated that binding of both herbicides was highly correlated to soil organic matter and texture but not to soil pH. On average, soil thin-layer chromatography indicated that aminopyralid was less mobile (Rf = 0.82) than clopyralid (Rf = 0.91), although both were mobile. These results suggest that aminopyralid will have a lower leaching potential than clopyralid. Lower potential aminopyralid soil leaching, coupled with low use rates, suggests it may be the herbicide of choice in areas where potential for leaching could be a concern.

Keywords

AminopyralidclopyralidSoil adsorptionKdRf
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 473 - 477
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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.)

References

Literature Cited

Bergström, L., McGibbon, A., Day, S., and Snel, M. 1991. Leaching potential and decomposition of clopyralid in Swedish soils under field conditions. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:563–571.Google Scholar
Bovey, R. W. and Richardson, C. W. 1991. Dissipation of clopyralid and picloram in soil and seep flow in the Blacklands of Texas. J. Environ. Qual. 20:528–531.Google Scholar
Bukun, B., Gaines, T. A., Nissen, S. J., Westra, P., Brunk, G., Shaner, D. L., Sleugh, B. B., and Peterson, V. F. 2009. Aminopyralid and clopyralid absorption and translocation in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 57:10–15.Google Scholar
Carrithers, V. F., Burch, P. L., Kline, W. N., Masters, R. A., Nelson, J. A., Halstvedt, M. B., Troth, J. L., and Breuninger, J. M. 2005. Aminopyralid: a new reduced risk active ingredient for control of broadleaf invasive and noxious weeds. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 58:59–60.Google Scholar
Cox, L., Hermosin, M. C., and Cornejo, J. 1995. Adsorption and desorption of thiazafluron as a function of soil properties. Int. J. Anal. Chem. 58:305–314.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. A., Cessna, A. J., Nicholaichuk, W., and Tollefson, L. C. 2000. Leaching rates and preferential flow of selected herbicides through tilled and untilled soil. J Environ. Qual. 29:1650–1656.Google Scholar
Enloe, S. F., Lym, R. G., Wilson, R., Westra, P., Nissen, S., Beck, G., Moechnig, M., Peterson, V., Masters, R. A., and Halstvedt, M. 2007. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control with aminopyralid in range, pasture, and noncrop areas. Weed Technol. 21:890–894.Google Scholar
Farenhorst, A., Florinski, I., Monreal, C., and Muc, D. 2003. Evaluating the use of digital terrain modeling for quantifying the spatial variability of 2,4-D sorption within agricultural landscapes. Can. J. Soil Sci. 83:557–564.Google Scholar
Farenhorst, A., Papiernik, S. K., Saiyed, I., Messing, P., Stephens, K. D., Schumacher, J. A., Lobb, D. A., Li, S., Lindstrom, M. J., and Schumacher, T. E. 2008. Herbicide sorption coefficients in relation to soil properties and terrain attributes on a cultivated prairie. J. Environ. Qual. 37:1201–1208.Google Scholar
Gustafson, D. I. 1989. Groundwater ubiquity score: a simple method for assessing pesticide leachability. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8:339–357.Google Scholar
Helling, C. S. 1971. Pesticide mobility in soils II. Applications of soil thin-layer chromatography. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 35:737–743.Google Scholar
Helling, C. S. and Turner, B. C. 1968. Pesticide mobility: Determination by soil thin-layer chromatography. Science. 162:562–563.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. M. and Sims, J. T. 1998. Sorption of atrazine and dicamba in Delaware coastal plain soils: a comparison of soil thin layer and batch equilibrium results. Pestic. Sci. 54:91–98.Google Scholar
Kah, M. and Brown, C. D. 2007. Changes in pesticide adsorption with time at high soil to solution ratios. Chemosphere. 68:1335–1343.Google Scholar
Klute, A. 1986. Water retention: laboratory methods. Pages 635–662. In Klute, A. ed. Methods in Soil Analysis Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd ed. Madison, WI ASA/SSSA.Google Scholar
Novak, J. M., Moorman, T. B., and Cambardella, C. A. 1997. Atrazine sorption at the field scale in relation to soils and landscape position. J. Environ. Qual. 26:1271–1277.Google Scholar
[OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development 1997. Test no. 106: Adsorption–desorption using a batch equilibrium method. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Paris, France OECD.Google Scholar
Pik, A. J., Peake, E., Strosher, M. T., and Hodgson, G. W. 1977. Fate of 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid in soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 25:1054–1061.Google Scholar
Sakaliene, O., Papiernik, S. K., Koskinen, W. C., Kavolinaite, I., and Brazenaitei, J. 2009. Using lysimeters to evaluate the relative mobility and plant uptake of four herbicides in a rye production system. J. Agric. Food Chem. 57:1975–1981.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc 2004. SAS OnlineDoc® 9.1.3. Cary, NC SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Schütz, S., Vedder, H., Düring, R. A., Weissbecker, B., and Hummel, H. E. 1996. Analysis of the herbicide clopyralid in cultivated soils. J. Chromatogr. A. 754:265–271.Google Scholar
Senseman, S. A., Hancock, H. G., Wauchope, R. D., Armburst, K. L., Peters, T. J., Massey, J. H., Johnson, D. H., Reynolds, J., Lichtner, F., MacDonald, G. E., Rushing, D. W., Kitner, D., McLean, H. S., and Vencill, W. 2007. Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 458 p.Google Scholar
Smith, A. E. and Aubin, A. J. 1989. Persistence studies with the herbicide clopyralid in prairie soils at different temperatures. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 42:670–675.Google Scholar
Tomlin, C. 1994. The Pesticide Manual. 10th ed. Farnham, Surrey, UK British Crop Protection Council. 1341 p.Google Scholar
Walker, A. and Jurado-Exposito, M. 1998. Adsorption of isoproturon, diuron and metsulfuron-ethyl in two soils at high soil:solution ratios. Weed Res. 38:229–238.Google Scholar