Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T05:15:52.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Persistence of Phytotoxicity of Metribuzin and Its Ethylthio Analog

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David R. Shaw ,
Thomas F. Peeper  and
Robert L. Westerman
David R. Shaw
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Okla. State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Thomas F. Peeper
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Okla. State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Robert L. Westerman
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Okla. State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The persistence of biologically active metribuzin [4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one] and its ethylthio analog [4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(ethylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one] were compared using an intact-plant chlorophyll fluorescence bioassay technique with oats (Avena sativa L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Degradation of metribuzin phytotoxicity at concentrations of 0 to 1 ppm (w/w) ai in a Pond Creek silt loam soil was linear over time, with a half-life of 8 days at 35 C. Initial degradation of the biologically active ethylthio analog was much more rapid than for metribuzin, with a decrease in rate at later time intervals. A quadratic function best described this degradation pattern. The initial degradation rate of phytotoxicity for the ethylthio analog indicated a half-life of 4 days at 35 C. Soil pH had no significant influence on the activity or persistence of either herbicide within the range 4.9 to 6.9.

Keywords

Degradationbiological activitychlorophyll fluorescence bioassay
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , May 1986 , pp. 409 - 412
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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. Bouchard, D. C., Lavy, T. L., and Marx, D. B. 1982. Fate of metribuzin, metolachlor, and fluometuron in soil. Weed Sci. 30:629–632.Google Scholar
2. Hance, R. J. and Haynes, R. A. 1981. The kinetics of linuron and metribuzin decomposition in soil using different laboratory systems. Weed Res. 21:87–92.Google Scholar
3. 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
4. Ladlie, J. S., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1976. Effect of pH on metribuzin activity in the soil. Weed Sci. 24:505–507.Google Scholar
5. Ladlie, J. S., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1976. Role of pH on metribuzin dissipation in field soils. Weed Sci. 24:508–511.Google Scholar
6. Runyan, T. J., McNeil, W. K., and Pepper, T. F. 1982. Differential tolerance of wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30:94–97.Google Scholar
7. Savage, K. E. 1977. Metribuzin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 25:55–59.Google Scholar
8. Shaw, D. R., Peeper, T. F., and Nofziger, D. L. 1985. Comparison of chlorophyll fluorescence and fresh weight as herbicide bioassay techniques. Weed Sci. 33:29–33.Google Scholar
9. Weber, J. B. 1970. Mechanisms of adsorption of s-triazines by clay colloids and factors affecting plant availability. Pages 93–127 in Gunther, F. A. and Gunther, J. D., eds. Residue Reviews, Vol. 32. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
10. Weed Science Society of America. 1983. Herbicide Handbook, 5th ed. Champaign, IL.Google Scholar