Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-6kn8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T18:56:12.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sorption, Movement, and Dissipation of Tebuthiuron in Soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

S.S. Chang  and
J.F. Stritzke
S.S. Chang
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74074
J.F. Stritzke
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74074
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Adsorption of tebuthiuron N-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N’-dimethylurea appeared to be related to organic matter and clay content. After six successive desorption extractions, 40% of the tebuthiuron was adsorbed in soil with 4.8% organic matter but less than 1% was adsorbed in soil with 0.3% organic matter. Differences in adsorption were also reflected in the activity of tebuthiuron on soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] and corn (Zea mays L.) where it took 4.9 and 9.5 times as much tebuthiuron, respectively in soil with the greater adsorption to reduce growth by 50%. Soil mobility of tebuthiuron was identical to fluometuron[1,1-dimethyl-3-(α,α,α-trifluoro-m-tolyl),urea] in three soils tested. Soil mobility of herbicides was greater in soil with low organic matter and low clay content. Both temperature and soil moisture had an effect on persistence of tebuthiuron. Greater dissipation occurred at 15% soil moisture and 30 C than at lower moisture and temperature levels.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , March 1977 , pp. 184 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Abernathy, J.R. and Davidson, J.M. 1971. Effect of calcium chloride on prometryn and fluometuron adsorption in soils. Weed Sci. 19:517–520.Google Scholar
2. Bailey, G.W. and White, J.L. 1964. Review of adsorption and desorption of organic pesticides by soil colloids, with implication concerning pesticide bioactivity. J. Agric. Food Chem. 12:324–332.Google Scholar
3. Dubey, H.D. and Freeman, J.F. 1969. Bioassay of diphenamid and linuron in soils. Bot. Gaz. 124:338–392.Google Scholar
4. Grover, R. 1975. Adsorption and desorption of urea herbicides on soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 55:127–155.Google Scholar
5. Harris, C.I. and Warren, C.F. 1964. Adsorption and desorption of herbicides by soil. Weeds. 12:120–126.Google Scholar
6. Helling, C.S. 1971. Pesticide mobility in soil. II. Application of soil thin-layer chromatography. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35: 737–743.Google Scholar
7. McCormick, L.L. and Hiltbold, A.E. 1966. Microbiological decomposition of atrazine and diuron in soils. Weeds. 14:77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Stritzke, J.F. 1976. Use of tebuthiuron for control of undesirable vegetation in pastures and range. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Page 38.Google Scholar
9. Weber, J.B. and Scott, D.C. 1966. Availability of a cationic herbicide absorbed on clay materials to cucumber seedings. Science. 152:1400–1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar