Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zlgnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T00:56:51.384Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spatial variability of imazethapyr sorption in soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Rubem S. Oliveira Jr. ,
William C. Koskinen ,
Francisco A. Ferreira ,
Bhairav R. Khakural ,
David J. Mulla  and
Pierre J. Robert
Rubem S. Oliveira Jr.
Affiliation:
Departamento de Agronomia, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Maringá, PR 87020–900, Brazil
Francisco A. Ferreira
Affiliation:
Departamento de Fitotecnia, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, MG 36570–000, Brazil
Bhairav R. Khakural
Affiliation:
Department of Soils, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108
David J. Mulla
Affiliation:
Department of Soils, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108
Pierre J. Robert
Affiliation:
Department of Soils, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A significant limitation in using sorption coefficients (Kd ) to predict solute transport through natural soils is the spatial variability of soil properties over large field areas. Spatial variability in Kd for imazethapyr was determined on representative samples from a 31.4-ha field, covering a pH range from 4.9 to 7.6 and an organic carbon (OC) range from 1.45 to 5.80 g kg−-1. Kd varied from 0.18 to 3.78 across the field, with an average value of 1.56. The analysis of Kd variability showed two distinct patterns in spatial distribution: areas in which pH > 6.25 and Kd < 1.5, where Kd variation is based primarily on pH, and areas in which pH < 6.25 and Kd > 1.5, where other soil properties, i.e., OC content, have a significant influence on Kd variation. Based on soil pH distribution, an easily measured property, the field was divided into two potential management areas. This separation allowed identification of portions of the field where herbicide sorption would be minimal, with a relatively higher potential for leaching (i.e., areas with Kd < 1.5), and provided a rationale for site-specific imazethapyr application.

Keywords

ImazethapyratrazinealachlorSorption, spatial variability

Information

Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 1999 , pp. 243 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Alexander, M. and Scow, K. M. 1989. Kinetics of biodegradation in soil. Pages 243–269 in Sawhney, B. L. and Brown, K., eds. Reactions and Movement of Organic Chemicals in Soil, Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Amoozegard-Fard, A., Nielsen, D. R., and Warrick, A. W. 1982. Soil solute concentration distributions for spatially varying pore water velocities and apparent diffusion coefficients. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46: 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, C. J., Lavy, T. L., and Talbert, R. E. 1992. Leaching, dissipation, and efficacy of metolachlor applied by chemigation or conventional methods. J. Environ. Qual. 21: 232–236.Google Scholar
Basham, G., Lavy, T., Oliver, L. R., and Scott, H. D. 1987. Imazaquin persistence and mobility in three Arkansas soils. Weed Sci. 35: 576–582.Google Scholar
Brown, C. D., Baer, U., Günther, P., Trevisan, M., and Walker, A. 1996. Ring test with the models LEACHP, PRZM-2 and VARLEACH: variability between model users in prediction of pesticide leaching using a standard data set. Pestic. Sci. 47: 249–258.Google Scholar
Chammas, G. A., Hutson, J. L., Hart, J. L., and DiTomaso, J. M. 1997. Microscale variability of atrazine and chloride leaching under field conditions. Weed Technol. 11: 98–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chancellor, W. J. and Goronea, M. A. 1994. Effects of spatial variability of nitrogen, moisture, and weeds on the advantages of site-specific applications for wheat. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 37: 717–724.Google Scholar
Che, M., Loux, M. M., Traina, S. J., and Logan, T. J. 1992. Effect of pH on sorption and desorption of imazaquin and imazethapyr on clays and humic acids. J. Environ. Qual. 21: 698–703.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. Z., Creeger, S. M., Carsel, R. F., and Enfield, C. G. 1984. Potential for pesticide contamination of groundwater resulting from agricultural uses. Pages 297–325 in Kruger, R. F. and Seiber, J. N., eds. Treatment and Disposal of Pesticide Wastes. ACS Symposium. Ser. 259. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.Google Scholar
Elabd, H., Jury, W. A., and Cliath, M. M. 1986. Spatial variability of pesticide adsorption coefficients. Environ. Sci. Technol. 20: 256–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finke, P. A. and Stein, A. 1994. Application of disjunctive cokriging to compare fertilizer scenarios on a field scale. Geoderma 62: 247–263.Google Scholar
Flury, M. 1996. Experimental evidence of transport of pesticides through field soils—a review. J. Environ. Qual. 25: 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F. 1993. Value of managing within-field variability. Pages 125–132 in Robert, P. C., Rust, R. H., and Larson, W. E., eds. Soil Specific Crop Management. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Gee, G. W. and Bauder, J. W. 1986. Particle-size analysis. Pages 383–441 in Klute, A., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1, 2nd ed. Agronomy Monogr. 9. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. Jr. 1990. Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38: 421–428.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 34: 788–793.Google Scholar
Golden Software. 1996. Surfer for Windows, Vers. 6. Gordon, CO: Golden Software.Google Scholar
Green, R. E. and Karickhoff, S. W. 1990. Sorption estimates for modeling. Pages 79–101 in Cheng, H. H., ed. Pesticides in the Soil Environment: Processes, Impacts, and Modeling. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Gustafson, D. I. 1989. Groundwater Ubiquity Score: a simple method for assessing pesticide leachibility. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8: 339–357.Google Scholar
Hamaker, J. W. and Thompson, J. M. 1972. Adsorption. Pages 49–143 in Goring, C.A.I. and Hamaker, J. W., eds. Organic Chemicals in the Soil Environment. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Hart, R., Lignowski, E., and Taylor, F. 1991. Imazethapyr herbicide. Pages 247–256 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Jury, W. A., Focht, D. D., and Farmer, W. F. 1987. Evaluation of pesticide groundwater pollution potential from standard indices of soil-chemical adsorption and biodegradation. J. Environ. Qual. 16: 422–428.Google Scholar
Jury, W. A., Stolzy, L. H., and Shouse, P. 1982. A field test of the transfer function model for predicting solute transport. Water Resour. Res. 18: 369–375.Google Scholar
Khakural, B. R., Robert, P. C., and Koskinen, W. C. 1994. Runoff and leaching of alachlor under conventional and soil-specific management. Soil Use Manag. 10: 158–164.Google Scholar
Koskinen, W. C. and Harper, S. S. 1990. The retention process: mechanisms. Pages 51–77 in Cheng, H. H., ed. Pesticides in the Soil Environment: Processes, Impacts, and Modeling. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Lafrance, P. and Banton, O. 1995. Impact of field-scale variation in pesricide adsorption parameter on the reliability of soil pesticide transport simulation. Pages 125–132 in Kovak, K. and Krásný, J., eds. Groundwater Quality: Remediation and Protection (Proceedings of the Prague Conference). IAHS Publ. 225. Wallingford, Great Britain: IAHS Press.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Adsorption of imazaquin and imazethapyr on soils, sediments, and selected adsorbents. Weed Sci. 37: 712–718.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1992. Effect of soil pH on adsorption and persistence of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 40: 490–496.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Mallawatantri, A. P. and Mulla, D. J. 1992. Herbicide adsorption and organic carbon contents on adjacent low-input versus conventional farms. J. Environ. Qual. 21: 546–551.Google Scholar
Mulla, D. J. 1993. Mapping and managing spatial patterns in soil fertility and crop yield. Pages 15–23 in Robert, P. C. et al., eds. Soil Specific Crop Management. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. W. and Sommers, L. E. 1986. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Pages 539–577 in Page, A. L., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2, 2nd ed. Agronomy Monogr. 9. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Novak, J. M., Moorman, T. B., and Cambardella, C. A. 1997. Atrazine sorption at the field scale in relation to soils and landscape position. J. Environ. Qual. 26: 1271–1277.Google Scholar
Rao, P.S.C., Green, R. E., Balasubramanian, V., and Kanehiro, Y. 1974. Field study of solute transport movement in a highly aggregated oxisol with intermittent flooding. II. Picloram. J. Environ. Qual. 3: 197–202.Google Scholar
Rao, P.S.C. and Wagenet, R. J. 1985. Spatial variability of pesticides in field soils: methods for data analysis and consequences. Weed Sci. 33(Suppl. 2): 18–24.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggit, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36: 78–83.Google Scholar
Smith, C. N., Parrish, R. S., and Carsel, R. F. 1987. Estimating sample requirements for field evaluations of pesticide leaching. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 6: 343–357.Google Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Shea, P. J., and Martin, A. R. 1990. Effect of soil type and pH on adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38: 67–73.Google Scholar
Van de Pol, R. M., Wierenga, P. J., and Nielsen, D. R. 1977. Solute movement in a field soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41: 10–13.Google Scholar
Van Ellis, M. R. and Shaner, D. L. 1988. Mechanism of cellular absorption of imidazolinones in soybean (Glycine max) leaf discs. Pestic. Sci. 23: 25–34.Google Scholar
Wagenet, R. J. and Rao, P.S.C. 1985. Basic concepts of modeling of pesticide fate in the crop root zone. Weed Sci. 33(Suppl. 2): 25–32.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G., Dickens, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Hajek, B. F. 1987. Sorption and mobility of sulfometuron and imazethapyr in five Alabama soils. Weed Sci. 35: 858–864.Google Scholar