Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:02:54.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of Imazaquin Residues on Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Clyde J. Barnes
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Altheimer Lab., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Andrew J. Goetz
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Altheimer Lab., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Terry L. Lavy
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Altheimer Lab., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701

Abstract

Field and laboratory studies were conducted in 1987 and 1988 on several Arkansas soils to determine the effects of residual levels of imazaquin on cotton. Imazaquin concentrations ranging from 0.007 to 0.024 μg/g and 0.00 to 0.015 μg/g were found in soil samples taken 12 and 24 months, respectively, following preplant-incorporated applications at rates of 140 g/ha. Cotton yields were reduced from 7 to 42% in 1987 as the soil concentration of imazaquin increased from 0.007 to 0.024 μg/g. Imazaquin persistence was greater in clay soils than loams or sandy loams. Imazaquin was weakly adsorbed to a clay, loam, and sandy loam soil in laboratory studies; the adsorption isotherms did not differ significantly by soil texture. A bioassay utilizing cotton as the indicator species was developed to determine imazaquin concentrations in soils ranging from 0 to 0.06 μg/g. Imazaquin concentrations determined by the bioassay method were found to be 75, 77, and 80% of those determined by chemical extractions for a clay, loam, and sandy loam soil, respectively.

Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the 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. Basham, G. W., Lavy, T. L., Oliver, L. R., and Scott, H. D. 1987. Imazaquin persistence in three Arkansas soils. Weed Sci. 35:576582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Basham, G. W. and Lavy, T. L. 1987. Microbial and photolytic dissipation of imazaquin in soil. Weed Sci. 35:865870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Burnside, O. C. and Schultz, M. E. 1978. Soil persistence of herbicides for corn, sorghum, and soybeans during the year of application. Weed Sci. 26:108115.Google Scholar
4. Dao, T. H., Marx, D. B., Lavy, T. L., and Dragun, J. 1982. Effect and statistical evaluation of soil sterilization of aniline and diuron adsorption isotherms. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46:963969.Google Scholar
5. Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 34:788793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Lindsay, W. L. 1979. Chemical Equilibria in Soils. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 449 pp.Google Scholar
7. Lloyd, R. W., Keeling, J. W., and Abernathy, J. R. 1986. Efficacy of new herbicides on nutsedge and rotational crops. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:473.Google Scholar
8. Ogram, A. V., Jessup, R. E., Ov, L. T., and Rao, P.S.C. 1985. Effects of sorption on biological degradation rates of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid in soils. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 49:582587.Google Scholar
9. Potts, C. 1986. Validation of HPLC method M-1631 for the determination of CL 252,214 residues in soil. American Cyanamid Co., Agric. Res. Div., Princeton, NJ 08540.Google Scholar
10. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:7883.Google Scholar
11. Witt, W. W. and Barrett, M. 1985. Comparison of bioassay techniques. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 40:51.Google Scholar