Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T12:59:29.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Rate, Method of Application, and Tillage on Imazaquin Persistence in Soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

K. A. Renner ,
W. F. Meggitt  and
R. A. Leavitt
K. A. Renner
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
W. F. Meggitt
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop and Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
R. A. Leavitt
Affiliation:
Pestic. Res. Ctr., Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Preplant-incorporated (PPI) applications of 280 g ai/ha of imazaquin {2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acid} had significantly greater persistence than preemergence surface (PES) applications throughout the growing season in 1985. In 1984 there was no statistical difference in imazaquin remaining between PPI and PES treatments. Very little imazaquin was detected below 10 cm in the soil profile for all sampling dates each year. Imazaquin dissipated rapidly both years during the first 30 days following PPI and PES applications. A subsequent decrease in the dissipation rate occurred in the next 120 days of the growing season. Spring tillage had no significant effect on injury to corn (Zea mays L.) planted into the field the year following imazaquin application. Corn planted in 1986 into imazaquin-treated plots of 1985 had no growth reduction when compared to corn grown in plots where zero imazaquin had been applied. However, corn planted in 1985 into imazaquin applications of 1984 had significant injury. Greatest injury occurred where imazaquin had been incorporated, and injury increased as imazaquin rate was increased.

Keywords

AC-252,214imidazolinonepesticide degradationherbicide movementherbicide mobilitypesticide residuesconcentration effect
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 90 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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. Adams, R. S. Jr. 1973. Factors influencing soil adsorption and bioactivity of pesticides. Pages 1–54 in Gunther, Francis A., ed. Resieue Reviews. Vol. 47. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
2. Armstrong, D. E. and Konrad, J. G. 1973. Nonbiological degradation of pesticides. Pages 123–131 in Guenzi, W. D., ed. Pesticides in the Soil and Water. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
3. Ashton, F. 1982. Persistence and biodegradation of herbicides. Pages 117–131 in Matsumura, Fumio and Krisha Murti, C. R., eds. Biodegradation of Pesticides. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Banks, P. A., Ketchersid, M. L., and Merkle, M. G. 1979. The persistence of fluridone in various soils under field and controlled conditions. Weed Sci. 27:631–633.Google Scholar
5. Buchanan, G. A. and Hiltbold, A. E. 1973. Performance and persistence of atrazine. Weed Sci. 21:413–416.Google Scholar
6. Burns, R. G. 1975. Factors affecting pesticide loss from soil. Pages 103–141 in Paul, E. A. and McLauren, A. D., eds. Soil Biochemistry. Vol. 4. Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
7. Cheung, H. H. and Lehmann, R. G. 1985. Characterization of herbicide degradation under field conditions. Weed Sci. 33(Suppl. 2):7–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Duseja, D. R. and Holmes, E. E. 1978. Field persistence and movement of trifluralin in two soil types. Soil Sci. 125:41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Gerber, H. R. and Guth, J. A. 1973. Short theory, techniques, and practical importance of leaching and adsorption studies. Proc. Eur. Weed Res. Counc. Symp. Herbicides in Soil. Pages 51–68.Google Scholar
10. Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 34:788–793.Google Scholar
11. Grover, R. 1977. Mobility of dicamba, picloram, and 2,4-D in soil columns. Weed Sci. 25:159–162.Google Scholar
12. Hamaker, J. W. and Goring, C.A.I. 1976. Turnover of pesticide residues in the soil. Pages 219–243 in Kaufman, D. D., Still, G. G., Paulson, C. D., and Bandal, S. K., eds. Bound and Conjugated Residues. ACS Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. 29, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
13. Hance, R. J. and McKone, C. E. 1971. Effect of concentration on the decomposition rates in soil of atrazine, linuron, and picloram. Pestic. Sci. 2:31–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Hiltbold, A. E. 1974. Persistence of pesticides in soil. Pages 203–222 in Guenzi, W. D., ed. Pesticides in Soil and Water. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
15. Hurle, K. and Walker, A. 1980. Persistence and its prediction. Pages 84–122 in Hance, R. J., ed. Interactions Between Herbicides and the Soil. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
16. Lykken, L. 1972. Role of photosensitizers in alteration of pesticide residues in sunlight. Pages 449–469 in Matsumura, F., Mallory Roush, G., and Misato, Tomoma, eds. Environmental Toxicology of Pesticides. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
17. Miller, G. C. and Zepp, R. G. 1983. Extrapolating and photolysis rates from the laboratory to the environment. Page 89–110 in Residue Reviews. Vol 85. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
18. Morrill, L. G., Mahilum, B. C., and Mohiuddin, S. C. 1982. Organic Compounds in the Soil: Sorption, Degradation, and Persistence. Ann Arbor Sci., Buttersworth Group. Pages 267.Google Scholar
19. Oliver, L. and Frans, R. E. 1968. Inhibition of cotton and soybean roots from incorporated trifluralin and persistence in the soil. Weed Sci. 16:199–203.Google Scholar
20. Plimmer, J. R. 1976. Volatility. Pages 891–934 in Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds. Herbicides, Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action. Vol. 2. Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
21. Probst, G. W., Goolab, T., Hersberg, R. J., Holzer, F. J., Parka, S. J., VanderSchans, C., and Tepe, J. B. 1967. Fate of trifluralin in soil and plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 15:592–599.Google Scholar
22. Savage, K. E. 1973. Nitralin and trifluralin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 21:285–289.Google Scholar
23. Savage, K. E. and Barrentine, W. L. 1969. Trifluralin persistence as affected by depth of soil incorporation. Weed Sci. 17:349–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Shaner, D. L., Anderson, P. C., and Stidham, M. A. 1984. Potent inhibitors of acetohydroxyacid synthase. Plant Physiol. 76: 545–546.Google Scholar
25. Shea, P. J. 1985. Detoxification of herbicide residues in soil. Weed Sci. 33(Suppl. 2):33–41.Google Scholar
26. Smith, A. and Milward, L. J. 1983. Comparison of solvent systems for the extraction of diclofop acid, picloram, simazine, and triallate from weathered field soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 31: 633–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Walker, A. 1973. Use of simulation model to predict herbicide persistence in the field. Proc. Eur. Weed Res. Counc. Symp. Herbicides in Soil. Pages 240–249.Google Scholar
28. Walker, A. and Bond, W. 1977. Persistence of the herbicide AC 92,553 [N-(1-ethylpropyl)-2,6-dinitro-3,4-xylidine] in soils. Pestic. Sci. 8:359–365.Google Scholar
29. Williams, J. H. and Eagle, D. J. 1979. Persistence of dichlobenil in sandy soil and effects of residues on plant growth. Weed Res. 19:315–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Zimdahl, R. L. and Gwynn, S. M. 1977. Soil degradation of three dinitroanilines. Weed Sci. 25:247–251.Google Scholar