Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:39:44.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of DBCP on Fluchloralin Persistence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Fayte Brewer ,
Ronald E. Talbert  and
Terry L. Lavy
Fayte Brewer
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701. Senior authors's
Ronald E. Talbert
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701. Senior authors's
Terry L. Lavy
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701. Senior authors's
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three field studies were conducted over a 2-yr period to evaluate the persistence of fluchloralin [N-(2-chloroethyl)-2,6-dinitro-N-propyl-4-(trifluoromethyl) aniline], and to determine whether DBCP (1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane) affected persistence. Fluchloralin was applied to field plots at 1.1 kg/ha with and without DBCP at 20.5 kg/ha. In the first study, soil samples were taken periodically over a 1-yr period and assayed for fluchloralin by both gas chromatography (GC) and a sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench ‘AKS-516’) root-elongation bioassay. Both methods of analysis indicated that fluchloralin persistence was unaffected by DBCP. An oat (Avena sativa L. ‘Ora’) bioassay of soil from the field plots 41 weeks after treatment showed no residual herbicide activity. In the next two field studies, soil samples were taken periodically over a 32-week period and assayed by GC for fluchloralin. A greenhouse sorghum bioassay of soil samples taken from both tests 32 weeks after application showed residual activity of fluchloralin in one test, but differences were not attributable to DBCP. A two-phase process of fluchloralin dissipation in field soil was indicated from analysis of the data using a complex first-order regression, as opposed to a simple first-order regression. Half-life values describing fluchloralin persistence, using the complex first-order regression, ranged from 2.3 to 3.7 weeks for the first phase and 9.5 to 26.7 weeks for the second phase.

Keywords

Dinitroaniline herbicidedissipationsoil fumigantherbicide-nematicide interactions
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 29 , Issue 5 , September 1981 , pp. 605 - 609
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

1. Abernathy, J. R. and Keeling, J. W. 1979. Efficacy and rotational crop response to levels and dates of dinitroaniline herbicide applications. Weed Sci. 27:312–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bardsley, C. E., Savage, K. E., and Walker, J. C. 1968. Trifluralin behavior in soil. II. Volatilization as influenced by concentration, time, soil moisture content, and placement. Agron. J. 60:89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Brewer, F., Lavy, T. L., and Talbert, R. E. 1979. Effect of residue levels of selected dinitroaniline herbicides on rice production. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 32:313.Google Scholar
4. Elliot, A. P. and Donawa, A. 1977. Effect of 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane on oxygen uptake and populations of soil microorganisms. Soil Sci. 124:332–333.Google Scholar
5. Harvey, R. G. 1974. Soil adsorption and volatility of dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 22:120–124.Google Scholar
6. Hodges, L. R. and Lear, B. 1974. Persistence and movement of DBCP in three types of soil. Soil Sci. 118:127–130.Google Scholar
7. Hyzak, D. L. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1974. Rate of degradation of metribuzin and two analogs in soil. Weed Sci. 22:75–79.Google Scholar
8. Jordan, T. N., Baker, R. S., and Barrentine, W. L. 1978. Comparative toxicity of several dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 26:72–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Kennedy, J. M. and Talbert, R. E. 1977. Comparative persistence of dinitroaniline type herbicides on the soil surface. Weed Sci. 25:373–381.Google Scholar
10. Ketchersid, M. L., Bovey, R. W., and Merkle, M. G. 1969. The detection of trifluralin vapors in air. Weed Sci. 17:484–485.Google Scholar
11. McWhorter, C. G. 1977. Johnsongrass control in soybeans with soil-incorporated dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 25:264–267.Google Scholar
12. Parochetti, J. V. and Hein, E. R. 1973. Volatility and photodecomposition of trifluralin, benefin, and nitralin. Weed Sci. 21:469–473.Google Scholar
13. Savage, K. E. 1978. Persistence of several dinitroaniline herbicides as affected by soil moisture. Weed Sci. 26:465–471.Google Scholar
14. Soderquist, C. J., Crosby, D. G., Moilanen, K. W., Seiber, J. N., and Woodrow, J. E. 1975. Occurrence of trifluralin and its photo-products in air. J. Agric. Food Chem. 23:304–309.Google Scholar
15. Spencer, W. F. and Cliath, M. M. 1974. Factors affecting vapor loss of trifluralin from soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 22:987–991.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Zimdahl, R. L. and Gwynn, S. M. 1977. Soil degradation of three dinitroanilines. Weed Sci. 25:247–251.Google Scholar