Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:03:00.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Residual Fluometuron Levels in Three Arkansas Soils under Continuous Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

C. Brent Rogers ,
Ronald E. Talbert ,
John D. Mattice ,
Terry L. Law  and
Robert E. Frans
C. Brent Rogers
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Altheimer Lab., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Ronald E. Talbert
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Altheimer Lab., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
John D. Mattice
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Altheimer Lab., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Terry L. Law
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Altheimer Lab., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Robert E. Frans
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Altheimer Lab., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evidence has shown that fluometuron {N,N-dimethyl-N′-[3-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]urea} persists beyond the end of the growing season when used in continuous cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) production. Samples were taken from three soils following cotton production in 1980, 1981, and 1982. All three soils had been in production under the same herbicide use regime, fluometuron preemergence followed by fluometuron plus MSMA (monosodium methanearsonate), since either 1976 or 1977. The fluometuron remaining in each soil was quantified using a greenhouse bioassay and a chemical extraction technique followed by high-performance liquid chromatography determinations. The fluometuron concentrations determined by bioassay and chemical extraction methods had partial correlation coefficients of 0.62, 0.91, and 0.72 for a Sharkey silty clay, a Dundee silt loam, and a Loring silt loam, respectively. Predictive equations were determined for each soil to relate chemical extraction findings to plant response. Bioassay analysis indicated nearly 2 ppmw of fluometuron in the Sharkey silty clay in October 1980, with 1 ppmw in the Dundee silt loam, and approximately 0.27 ppmw in the Loring silt loam with annual application rates of 4.0, 2.9, and 3.5 kg/ha, respectively. Fluometuron concentrations as determined by chemical analysis were 0.83, 0.34, and 0.14 ppmw, respectively. Fluometuron concentrations declined over the winter in all three soils. Samples taken in March of 1981, 1982, and 1983 showed little difference in carryover levels in the Sharkey silty clay but more yearly variation in the other two soils. Fluometuron was found in all three soils to depths of 60 cm, but more than 55% of the fluometuron was found in the upper 15 cm of each soil. A controlled laboratory study conducted with the three soils showed that both cold and dry conditions reduced fluometuron dissipation rates. In the laboratory under conditions favorable for dissipation, fluometuron had a half-life of 26 days in the Dundee silt loam, 43 days in the Loring silt loam, and 73 days in the Sharkey silty clay. In the field, dissipation was very rapid in the Loring silt loam compared to the Dundee silt loam and the Sharkey silty clay.

Keywords

Bioassaychemical extractionherbicide degradationleaching
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , January 1986 , pp. 122 - 130
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. Baldwin, F. L., Santelmann, P. W., and Davidson, J. M. 1975. Movement of fluometuron across and through the soil. J. Environ. Qual. 4:191–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Brewer, F., Talbert, R. E., and Lavy, T. L. 1981. Effect of DBCP on fluchloralin persistence. Weed Sci. 29:605–609.Google Scholar
3. 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
4. Bozarth, G. A. and Funderburk, H. H. Jr. 1971. Degradation of fluometuron in sandy loam soil. Weed Sci. 19:691–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Darding, R. L. and Freeman, J. F. 1968. Residual phytotoxicity of fluometuron in soils. Weed Sci. 16:226–229.Google Scholar
6. Frans, R. E., Talbert, R. E., and Rogers, C. B. 1982. Influence of long term herbicide programs on continuous cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Production Res. Conf. Pages 228–229.Google Scholar
7. Harrison, G. W., Weber, J. B., and Baird, J. V. 1976. Herbicide phytotoxicity as affected by selected properties of North Carolina soils. Weed Sci. 24:120–126.Google Scholar
8. Hill, G. D., McGahen, J. W., Baker, H. M., Finnerty, D. W., and Bingeman, C. W. 1955. The fate of substituted urea herbicides in agricultural soils. Agron. J. 47:93–104.Google Scholar
9. Horowitz, M. 1969. Evaluation of herbicide persistence in soil. Weed Res. 9:314–321.Google Scholar
10. LaFleur, K. S., Wojeck, G. A., and McCaskill, W. R. 1973. Movement of toxaphene and fluometuron through Dunbar soil to underlying ground water. J. Environ. Qual. 2:515–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Liu, L. C. 1974. Leaching of fluometuron and diuron in a Vega Alta soil. J. Agric. Univ. P. R. 58:473–482.Google Scholar
12. Lynd, J. Q., Rieck, C., Barnes, D., Murray, D., and Santelmann, P. W. 1967. Indicator plant aberations at threshold soil herbicide levels. Agron. J. 59:194–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Maplebeck, L. and Waywell, C. 1983. Detection and degradation of linuron in organic soils. Weed Sci. 31:8–13.Google Scholar
14. Mattice, J. D. and Lavy, T. L. 1982. Rapid high performance liquid chromatographic method for determining trace levels of fluometuron in soil. J. Chromatogr. 250:109–112.Google Scholar
15. Meredith, W. R. Jr. 1982. The cotton yield problem: Changes in cotton yields since 1950. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Mech. Conf. Las Vegas, Nevada. Pages 35–38.Google Scholar
16. Murray, D. S., Rieck, W. L., and Lynd, J. Q. 1969. Microbial degradation of five substituted urea herbicides. Weed Sci. 17:52–55.Google Scholar
17. Rogers, C. B., Talbert, R. E., Mattice, J. D., and Lavy, T. L. 1982. Fluometuron carryover and potential effects on rotational crops. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 36:342.Google Scholar
18. Rogers, C. B., Talbert, R. E., and Frans, R. E. 1983. Long term effects of two herbicide programs in continuous cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 36:18.Google Scholar
19. Shahied, S. and Andrews, H. 1966. Leaching of trifluralin, linuron, prometryne and Cotoran in soil columns. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 19:522–534.Google Scholar
20. Sheets, T. J. 1964. Review of disappearance of substituted urea herbicides from soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 12:30–33.Google Scholar
21. Talbert, R., Frans, R., Rogers, B., Waddle, B., and Oakley, S. 1983. Long term effects of herbicides and cover crops on cotton yields. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf. Pages 37–39.Google Scholar
22. Talbert, R. E. and Fletchall, O. H. 1965. The adsorption of some s-triazines in soils. Weeds 13:46–52.Google Scholar
23. Timmons, F. L. 1970. A history of weed control in the United States and Canada. Weed Sci. 18:294–307.Google Scholar
24. Weber, J. B., Weed, S. B., and Waldrop, T. W. 1974. Effect of soil constituents on herbicide activity in modified-soil field plots. Weed Sci. 22:454–459.Google Scholar
25. Weed Science Society of America. 1983. Herbicide Handbook, 5th ed. Champaign, IL. 515 pp.Google Scholar
26. Wiese, A. F., Savage, K. E., Chandler, J. M., Liu, L. C., Jeffery, L. S., Weber, J. B., and LaFleur, K. S. 1980. Loss of fluometuron in runoff water. J. Environ. Qual. 9:1–5.Google Scholar