No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Imazaquin leaching in Karnak soil in Kentucky
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 June 2017
Abstract
Imazaquin movement in a field site that had Karnak silty clay soil was evaluated during a 2-yr study to determine if leaching was a significant dissipation mode for imazaquin. Imazaquin in water samples collected from subsurface tile drainage was measured by immunoassay. Total imazaquin losses due to leaching in 1993 were 0.8% of the total applied and in 1994, practically zero. Imazaquin concentrations as high as 80 μg L−1 were observed in drain water when rainfall occurred shortly after herbicide application. Imazaquin concentrations were lower with each successive drain flow event. Higher concentrations of imazaquin were associated with higher drainage flow, shortly after application. However, 40 d after application, the levels of imazaquin were low (<7 μg L−1) even when high tile flow occurred. The time between application and the first rainfall is an important factor in imazaquin leaching. In the dry growing season of 1994, imazaquin concentration in drain water did not exceed 5 μg L−1.
Keywords
- Type
- Soil, Air, and Water
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1997 by the Weed Science Society of America
References
Literature Cited
Basham, G. and Lavy, T. L.
1987. Microbial and photolytic dissipation of imazaquin in soil. Weed Sci.
35: 865–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basham, G., Lavy, T. L., Oliver, L., and Scott, H. D.
1987. Imazaquin persistence and mobility in three Arkansas soils. Weed Sci.
35: 576–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouma, J., Belmans, C.F.M., and Dekker, L. W.
1982. Water infiltration and redistribution in a silt loam subsoil with vertical worm channels. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
46: 917–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clesceri, L. S., Greenberg, A. E., and Trussed, R. R., eds. 1989. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 7th ed.
Washington, DC: American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Watet Pollution Control Federation, pp. 4–73–4-74.Google Scholar
Dick, W. A., Roseberg, R. J., McCoy, E. L., Edwards, W. M., and Haghiri, F.
1989. Surface hydrologic response of soil to no-tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
53: 1520–1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, G. H. and Phillips, R. E.
1991. Macroporosity of well-drained soil under no-till and conventional tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
55: 817–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, W. M., Norton, L. D., and Redmond, C. E.
1988. Characterizing macropores that affect infiltration into nontilled soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
52: 483–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, W. M., Shipitalo, M. J., Dick, W. A., and Owens, L. B.
1992. Rainfall intensity affects transport of water and chemicals through macropores in no-till soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
56: 52–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B.
1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci.
34: 788–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haszler, J. R.
1989. Drainage characteristics and nitrogen response on a tiled Karnak silty clay soil. M.S. thesis. University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY. 218 p.Google Scholar
Isensee, A. R., Nash, R. G., and Helling, C. S.
1990. Effect of conventional vs. no-tillage on pesticide leaching to shallow ground water. J. Environ. Qual.
19: 434–440.Google Scholar
Kanwar, R. S., Baker, J. L., and Laflen, J. M.
1985. Nitrate movement through the soil profile in relation to tillage system and fertilizer application method. Trans. ASAE
28: 1802–1807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kladivko, E. J., VanScoyoc, G. E., Monke, E. J., Oates, K. M., and Pask, W.
1991. Pesticide and nutrient movement into subsurface tile drains on a silt loam soil in Indiana. J. Environ. Qual.
20: 264–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W.
1989. Availability and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in soil. Weed Sci.
37: 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penman, H. L. and Schofield, R. K.
1941. Drainage and evaporation from fallow soil at Rothamsted. J. Agric. Sci.
31: 74–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A.
1988. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci.
36: 90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, T. L. and Stoenhuis, T. S.
1988. Tile drain sampling of preferential flow on a field scale. J. Contam. Hydrol.
3: 307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipitalo, M. J., Edwards, W. M., Dick, W. A., and Owens, L. B.
1990. Initial storm effects on macropore transport of surface applied chemicals in no-till soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
54: 1530–1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Shea, P. J., and Martin, A. R.
1990. Effect of soil type and pH on adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci.
38: 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, G. W. and Barfield, B. J.
1974. The unreliability of tile effluent for monitoring subsurface nitrate-nitrogen losses from soils. J. Environ. Qual.
3: 183–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, D. D. and Thomas, G. W.
1981. Chloride movement in undisturbed soil columns. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
445: 459–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, R. B. and Ahmed, Z. H.
1992. Development of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay fot imazaquin herbicide. J. Agric. Food Chem.
40: 811–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar