Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:11:11.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Soil Persistence of Tebuthiuron in the Claypan Resource Area of Texas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Rodney W. Bovey
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
Robert E. Meyer
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843
Hugo Hein Jr.
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Range Sci., Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX 77843

Abstract

Pelleted tebuthiuron {N-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl] -N,N′-dimethylurea} was applied aerially on duplicate plots at 2.2 and 4.4 kg/ha in spring, summer, fall, and winter of 1978 and 1979. Treatments were made near Bryan in the Claypan Resource Area of Texas on an area supporting a stand of mixed brush consisting mostly of oak (Quercus) species. Soils were sampled at eight locations in each plot at depths of 0 to 15 and 15 to 30 cm in March 1980. Bioassays using ‘Tamcot’ cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and ‘Caddo’ wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) were done in the greenhouse to detect levels of tebuthiuron residues in the soil. A standard curve was developed to compare known concentrations of tebuthiuron to the unknown content from treated plots. Tebuthiuron persisted in all treated soils and ranged from 0.08 to 0.49 μg/g. Concentrations were usually greater in soil treated in 1979 than in 1978 and in soil treated with 4.4 kg/ha of tebuthiuron than 2.2 kg/ha. No consistent differences in tebuthiuron residues existed either between soil depths or among seasons of application using the bioassay.

Type
Research Article
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

1. Baur, J. R. 1978. Effects of picloram and tebuthiuron on establishment of ryegrass winter pasture. J. Range Manage. 31:450455.Google Scholar
2. Baur, J. R. 1978. Movement in soil of tebuthiuron from sprays and granules. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Prog. Rep. 3524. 14 pp.Google Scholar
3. Baur, J. R. 1979. Establishing kleingrass and bermudagrass pastures using glyphosate and tebuthiuron. J. Range Manage. 32:119122.Google Scholar
4. Baur, J. R. and Bovey, R. W. 1975. Herbicide effects of tebuthiuron and glyphosate. Agron. J. 67:547553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Baur, J. R., Bovey, R. W., and Holt, E. C. 1977. Effect of herbicides on production and protein levels in pasture grasses. Agron. J. 69:846851.Google Scholar
6. Berard, D. F., Magnussen, J. D., and Rainey, D. P. 1977. Absorption, translocation and metabolism of tebuthiuron in sugarcane. Abstr., Weed Sci. Soc. Am. p. 94.Google Scholar
7. Bouse, L. F., Carlton, J. B., and Brusse, J. C. 1980. Improved metering system for aerial application of dry materials. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. Paper No. AA-80-003. 12 pp.Google Scholar
8. Bovey, R. W., Baur, J. R., and Bashaw, E. C. 1979. Tolerance of kleingrass to herbicides. J. Range Manage. 32:337339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Bovey, R. W., Burnett, E., Meyer, R. E., Richardson, C., and Loh, A. 1978. Persistence of tebuthiuron in surface runoff water, soil and vegetation in the Texas Blacklands Prairie. J. Environ. Qual. 7:233236.Google Scholar
10. Bovey, R. W. and Meyer, R. E. 1978. Control of huisache with soil applied herbicides. J. Range Manage. 31:179182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Chang, S. S. and Stritzke, J. F. 1977. Sorption, movement, and dissipation of tebuthiuron in soils. Weed Sci. 25:184187.Google Scholar
12. Eaton, B. J., Magnussen, J. D., and Rainey, D. P. 1976. Metabolism of tebuthiuron in soil and plants. Abstr., Weed Sci. Soc. Am. p. 83.Google Scholar
13. Eaton, B. J., Wilson, D. G., and Kurtz, W. L. 1981. Tolerance of forage grasses to tebuthiuron. J. Range Manage. (In press).Google Scholar
14. Fischer, M. L. and Stritzke, J. F. 1978. Effects of various soil properties on phytotoxicity of tebuthiuron. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 31:204.Google Scholar
15. Garcia, J. D. and Gontarek, B. D. 1976. Residues of the herbicide EL-103 in west Texas rangeland 14 months after application. Noxious Brush and Weed Res. Highlights. 6:10. Texas Tech. Univ., Lubbock, TX.Google Scholar
16. Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W. 1980. Control of live oak (Quercus virginiana) and understory vegetation with soil-applied herbicides. Weed Sci. 28:5158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Meyer, R. E. and Bovey, R. W. 1980. Control of whitebrush (Aloysia lycioides) and associated species with soil-applied herbicides. Weed Sci. 28:204212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Meyer, R. E., Bovey, R. W., and Baur, J. R. 1978. Control of an oak (Quercus) complex with herbicide granules. Weed Sci. 26:444453.Google Scholar
19. Scifres, C. J. and Mutz, J. L. 1978. Herbaceous vegetation changes following applications of tebuthiuron for brush control. J. Range Manage. 31:375378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Scifres, C. J., Mutz, J. L., and Hamilton, W. T. 1979. Control of mixed brush with tebuthiuron. J. Range Manage. 32:155158.Google Scholar
21. Shroyer, J. P., Stritzke, J. F., and Croy, L. I. 1979. Carbohydrate levels and control of blackjack oak and winged elm treated with tebuthiuron and 2,4,5-T. J. Range Manage. 32:6062.Google Scholar
22. Sosebee, R. E. 1979. Influence of tebuthiuron on forage quality of selected grasses — preliminary evaluations. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 32:334346.Google Scholar
23. Steinert, W. G. and Stritzke, J. F. 1977. Uptake and phytotoxicity of tebuthiuron. Weed Sci. 25:390395.Google Scholar
24. Stritzke, J. F. 1976. Use of tebuthiuron for control of undesirable vegetation in pastures and range. Abstr., Weed Sci. Soc. Am. p.38.Google Scholar