Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-pmsz9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T14:17:51.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Study of Soil Bioassay Technique Using Prometryne

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

P. W. Santelmann ,
J. B. Weber  and
A. F. Wiese
P. W. Santelmann
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, Oklahoma
J. B. Weber
Affiliation:
North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, North Carolina
A. F. Wiese
Affiliation:
Texas A&M Univ., Bushland, Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A cooperative study to evaluate the accuracy and precision of bioassays was carried out among investigators at several locations for 3 years. Oats (Avena sativa L., var. Cimarron) seedlings were used as indicator plants for soil-applied 2,4-bis-(isopropylamino)-6-methylthio-s-triazine [prometryne]. Assay results varied a great deal initially, and ranged from 147% below to 234% above the prometryne actually applied. The adoption of uniform conditions and procedures greatly increased the uniformity of the determinations between locations to a range of from 37% low to 0% high in prometryne applied. Chemical analyses of the soils ranged from 13% low to 20% high. Measurements of herbicidal activity included dry and fresh plant weights, plant height, visual injury ratings, and plant water use. The average concentration of prometryne in the soil as estimated with several types of measurements gave a much better measure of prometryne content than any one measurement alone. Prometryne rapidly and greatly affected the utilization of water by oats seedlings and careful measurement of water use showed potential of being a good early indicator of prometryne activity.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , March 1971 , pp. 170 - 174
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Atkins, C. A. and Tchan, Y. A. 1967. Study of soil algae. VI. Bioassay of atrazine and the prediction of its toxicity in soils using an algal growth method. Plant and Soil 27:432–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Burnside, O. C. 1965. Longevity of amiben, atrazine, and 2,3,6-TBA in incubated soils. Weeds 13:274–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Cardenas, J. and Santelmann, P. W. 1966. Influence of irrigation and formulation on activity of NPA, amiben, and DCPA. Weeds 14:309–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Coffey, D. L. and Warren, G. F. 1969. Inactivation of herbicides by activated carbon and other adsorbents. Weed Sci. 17:16–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Crafts, A. S. 1935. The toxicity of sodium arsenite and sodium chlorate in four California soils. Hilgardia 9:461–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Dubey, H. D. and Freeman, J. F. 1963. Bioassay of diphenamid and linuron in soil. Bot. Gaz. 124:388–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Eshel, Y. and Warren, G. F. 1967. A simplified method for determining phototoxicity, leaching, and adsorption of herbicides in soils. Weeds 15:115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Harris, C. I. 1966. Adsorption, movement, and phototoxicity of monuron and s-triazine herbicides in soil. Weeds 14:6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Holstun, J. T. Jr. and Loomis, W. E. 1956. Leaching and decomposition of 2,2-dichloropropionic acid in several Iowa soils. Weeds 4:205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Liu, L. C. and Cibes-Viadé, H. R. 1970. Leaching of atrazine, ametryne, and prometryne in the soil. J. Agr. Univ. Puerto Rico 54:5–18.Google Scholar
11. Lund, Z. F., Pearson, R. W., and Buchanan, G. A. 1970. An implanted soil mass technique to study herbicide effects on root growth. Weed Sci. 18:279–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Nash, R. G. 1968. Plant uptake of 14C-diuron in modified soils. Agron. J. 60:177–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Parker, C. 1966. The importance of shoot entry in the action of herbicides applied to the soil. Weeds 14:117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Rahn, E. M. and Baynard, R. E. Jr. 1958. Persistence and penetration of monuron in asparagus soils. Weeds 6:432–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Reed, J. F. and Sturgis, M. B. 1936. Toxicity from arsenic compounds to rice on flooded soils. Agron. J. 28:432–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Scott, D. C. and Weber, J. B. 1967. Herbicide phytotoxicity as influenced by adsorption. Soil Sci. 104:151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Sheets, T. J. 1958. The comparative toxicities of four phenylurea herbicides in several soil types. Weeds 6:413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Stewart, J. and Smith, E. S. 1922. Some relations of arsenic to plant growth: Part 2. Soil Sci. 14:119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Stickler, R. L., Knake, E. L., and Hinesly, T. D. 1969. Soil moisture and effectiveness of preemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 17:257–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Tompkins, G. A., McIntosh, T. H., and Dunigan, E. P. 1968. Use of Stanford-Dement bioassay to study atrazine-soil reactions. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 32:373–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Upchurch, R. P. 1958. The influence of soil factors on the phytotoxicity and plant selectivity of diuron. Weeds 6:161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Vandecaveye, S. C., Horner, G. M., and Keaton, C. M. 1936. Unproductiveness of certain orchard soils as related to lead arsenate spray accumulations. Soil Sci. 42:203–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Weber, J. B., Perry, P. W., and Ibaraki, K. 1968. Effect of pH on the phytotoxicity of prometryne applied to synthetic soil media. Weed Sci. 16:134–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Wiese, A. F. and Davis, R. G. 1964. Herbicide movement in soil with various amounts of water. Weeds 12:101–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar