Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T03:05:16.605Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interactions of ALS-Inhibiting Herbicide Residues in Three Prairie Soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bryce G. L. Geisel ,
Jeff J. Schoenau ,
Frederick A. Holm  and
Eric N. Johnson
Bryce G. L. Geisel
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5A8
Jeff J. Schoenau*
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5A8
Frederick A. Holm
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5A8
Eric N. Johnson
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Scott, SK, Canada S0M 0E0
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jeff.schoenau@usask.ca.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine if the presence of two acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibiting herbicide residues in different Saskatchewan soils would result in additive, synergistic, or antagonistic interactions. This was determined through field trials where herbicides were applied sequentially over the course of 2 yr. The herbicides examined in these experiments were imazamethabenz, flucarbazone, sulfosulfuron, and florasulam, each in combination with imazamox and imazethapyr. The phytotoxicity and persistence of the herbicides in soil was assessed using an oriental mustard root inhibition bioassay. The determination of herbicide interaction was made through the comparison of the experimentally observed values to theoretically expected values derived from a mathematical equation. On the basis of the bioassay analysis, it was found that the herbicide residue combinations resulting from sequentially applied ALS-inhibiting herbicides in the three soils produced additive injury effects rather than synergistic or antagonistic interactions.

Keywords

Florasulamflucarbazoneimazamethabenzimazamoximazethapyrsulfosulfuronoriental mustard, Brassica juncea L. ‘Cutlass’Bioassayroot length inhibitionherbicide residuephytotoxicitypersistence
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , August 2008 , pp. 624 - 627
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

Beckie, H. J. and McKercher, R. B. 1989. Soil residual properties of DPX-A7881 under laboratory conditions. Weed Sci. 37:412–418.Google Scholar
Bresnahan, G. A., Koskinen, W. C., Dexter, A. G., and Lueschen, W. E. 2000. Influence of soil pH–sorption interactions on imazethapyr carry-over. J. Agric. Food Chem. 48:1929–1934.Google Scholar
Cobucci, T., Prates, H. T., Falcao, C. L. M., and Rezende, M. M. V. 1998. Effect of imazamox, fomesafen, and acifluorfen soil residue on rotational crops. Weed Sci. 46:258–263.Google Scholar
Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds. 15:20–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliason, R., Schoenau, J. J., Szmigielski, A. M., and Laverty, W. M. 2004. Phytotoxicity and persistence of flucarbazone-sodium in soil. Weed Sci. 52:857–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groves, K. E. M. and Foster, R. K. 1985. A corn (Zea mays) bioassay technique for measuring chlorsulfuron levels in three Saskatchewan soils. Weed Sci. 33:825–828.Google Scholar
Hernandez-Sevillano, E., Villarroya, M., Alonso-Prados, J. L., and Garcia-Baudin, J. M. 2001. Bioassay to detect MON-37500 and triasulfuron residues in soils. Weed Technol. 15:447–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. H., Jordan, D. L., Johnson, W. G., Talbert, R. E., and Frans, R. E. 1993. Nicosulfuron, primsulfuron, imazethapyr, and DPX-PE350 injury to succeeding crops. Weed Technol. 7:641–644.Google Scholar
Jourdan, S. W., Majek, B. A., and Ayeni, A. O. 1998. Soil persistence of imazethapyr and detection using a sensitive bioassay technique. J. Prod. Agric. 11:52–56.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1993. Effect of soil type and pH on persistence and carryover of imidazolinone herbicides. Weed Technol. 7:452–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, J. R. and Hamman, W. M. 2001. Factors affecting the toxicity of MON 37500 residues to following crops. Weed Technol. 15:42–47.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1991. Response of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) to herbicide residues in soil. Weed Technol. 5:622–627.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corm (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmigielska, A. M., Schoenau, J. J., and Greer, K. 1998. Comparison of chemical extraction and bioassay for measurement of metsulfuron in soil. Weed Sci. 46:487–493.Google Scholar