Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:28:35.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Tillage Systems on Off-Site Movement of Fluometuron, Norflurazon, and Sediment in Runoff

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Todd A. Baughman ,
David R. Shaw ,
Eric P. Webster  and
Michele Boyette
Todd A. Baughman
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Box 9555, Mississippi State 39762
David R. Shaw*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Box 9555, Mississippi State 39762
Eric P. Webster
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Box 9555, Mississippi State 39762
Michele Boyette
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Box 9555, Mississippi State 39762
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dshaw@weedscience.msstate.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research was conducted to determine the effects of tillage on fluometuron and norflurazon loss in runoff when applied preemergence in cotton. Cumulative water loss and norflurazon and fluometuron concentrations in runoff were not affected by tillage systems. In 1992, the no-till system had less sediment loss in runoff than the conventional tillage system. Tillage systems did not affect sediment loss in 1993. The highest amount of total fluometuron loss occurred with the conventional tillage system in 1992, whereas the reduced tillage system had the lowest amount in 1993. There were no differences in cumulative norflurazon loss between tillage systems in 1992, and as with fluometuron loss, norflurazon loss in runoff was less with the reduced tillage system in 1993. This research indicates that, while conservation tillage may reduce sediment loss, it may not necessarily be the best management tool for decreasing the loss of herbicides in runoff.

Keywords

CottonGossypium hirsutum L. ‘DES 119’Conventional tillageno-tillrainfall simulationreduced tillagestale seedbedsurface runoffCT, conventional tillageDAT, days after herbicide treatmentGC, gas chromatographyHPLC, high-performance liquid chromatographyKoc, soil organic carbon sorption coefficientNT, no-till; RT, reduced tillage
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 184 - 189
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

Ahrens, W. H., ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Science Society of America. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 135–137, 218-220.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. and Magleby, R., eds. 1997. Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 1996-97. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Natural Resources and Environment Division. Agricultural Handbook 712. 334 p.Google Scholar
Baker, J. L., Laflen, J. M., and Johnson, H. P. 1978. Effect of tillage systems on runoff losses of pesticides, a rainfall simulation study. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 21: 886–892.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Banks, P. A. and Robinson, E. L. 1982. The influence of straw mulch on the soil reception and persistence of metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30: 164–168.Google Scholar
Banks, P. A. and Robinson, E. L. 1984. The fate of oryzalin applied to strawmulched and nonmulched soils. Weed Sci. 32: 269–272.Google Scholar
Banks, P. A. and Robinson, E. L. 1986. Soil reception and activity of acetochlor, alachlor, and metolachlor as affected by wheat (Triticum aestivum) straw and irrigation. Weed Sci. 34: 607–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brent, F. V. Jr. 1986. Soil Survey of Noxubee County, Mississippi. Jackson, MS: USDA. Soil Conservation Service. 198 p.Google Scholar
Crosson, P. 1981. Conservation Tillage and Conventional Tillage: A Comparative Assessment. Ankeny, IA: Soil Conservation Society of America. 35 p.Google Scholar
Coupe, R. H., Thurman, E. M., and Zimmerman, L. R. 1998. Relation of usage to the occurrence of cotton and rice herbicides in three streams of the Mississippi Delta. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32: 3673–3680.Google Scholar
Gaynor, J. D., MacTavish, D. C., and Findlay, W. I. 1995. Atrazine and metolachlor loss in surface and subsurface runoff from three tillage treatments in corn. J. Environ. Qual. 24: 246–256.Google Scholar
Griffith, D. R., Mannering, J. V., and Box, J. E. 1986. Soil and moisture management with reduced tillage. In Sprague, M. A. and Triplett, G. B., eds. No-Tillage and Surface-Tillage Agriculture. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 19–57.Google Scholar
Hairston, J. E., Sanford, J. O., Hayes, J. C., and Reinschmiedt, L. L. 1984. Crop yield, soil erosion, and net returns from five tillage systems in the Mississippi Blackland Prairie. J. Soil Water Conserv. 39: 391–395.Google Scholar
Hinkle, M. K. 1983. Problems with conservation tillage. J. Soil Water Conserv. 38: 201–206.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
McDaniel, T. A. and Hajek, B. F. 1985. Soil erosion effect on crop productivity and soil properties in Alabama. In Proceedings of the National Symposium on Erosion and Soil Productivity. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. pp. 48–57.Google Scholar
McDowell, L. L., Willis, G. H., Southwick, L. M., and Smith, S. 1987. Fenvalerate wash-off from cotton plants by rainfall. Pestic. Sci. 21: 83–92.Google Scholar
Mote, C. R., Tompkins, F. D., and Allison, J. S. 1990. Residue, chemical placement, and metolachlor mobility. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 33: 1083–1088.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. P. and Shaw, D. R. 1997. Effects of Vegetative Filter Strip Width on Reducing Fluometuron and Norflurazon Losses in Surface Runoff. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station Technical Bull. 214. 9 p.Google Scholar
Mutchler, C. K., McDowell, L. L., and Greer, J. D. 1985. Soil loss from cotton with conservation tillage. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 28: 160–163.Google Scholar
Peeper, T. F. and Weber, J. B. 1974. Vertical fluometuron movement in runoff studies in the southern region. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 27: 324–331.Google Scholar
Rankins, A. Jr., Shaw, D. R., Boyette, M., and Arnold, J. C. 1998. Effectiveness of perennial grasses for reducing herbicide and sediment losses in surface runoff. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 250–251.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N., Locke, M. A., and Bryson, C. T. 1994. Foliar washoff and runoff losses of lactofen, norflurazon, and fluometuron under simulated rainfall. J. Agric. Food Chem. 42: 2338–2343.Google Scholar
Rohde, W. A., Asmussen, L. E., Hanser, E. W., Wauchope, R. D., and Allison, H. D. 1980. Trifluralin movement in runoff from a small agricultural watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 9: 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, J. D., Smith, S. Jr., and Cullum, R. F. 1992. Ground Water Research, Research Progress Report. Oxford, MS: USDA/ARS, National Sedimentation Laboratory, Technology Applications Project Report 18. 17 p.Google Scholar
Senseman, S. A., Lavy, T. L., Mattice, J. D., Gbur, E. E., and Skulman, B. W. 1997. Trace level pesticide detections in Arkansas surface waters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 31: 395–401.Google Scholar
Shahied, S. and Andrews, H. 1966. Leaching of trifluralin, linuron, prometryn, and fluometuron in soil columns. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 19: 522–534.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R., Smith, C. A., and Hairston, J. E. 1992. Impact of rainfall and tillage systems on off-site herbicide movement. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 23: 1843–1858.Google Scholar
Shelton, C. H., von Bernuth, R. D., and Rajbhandari, S. P. 1985. A continuousapplication rainfall simulator. Trans Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 28: 1115–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipitalo, M. J., Edwards, W. M., and Owens, L. B. 1997. Herbicide losses in runoff from conservation-tilled watersheds in a corn-soybean rotation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 61: 267–272.Google Scholar
Southwick, L. M., Willis, G. H., and Bengtson, R. L. 1993. Runoff losses of norflurazon: effect of runoff timing. J. Agric. Food Chem. 41: 1503–1506.Google Scholar
Sukolapong, W., Whatley, L. L., and Snipes, C. E. 1985. Herbicide runoff with different tillage systems. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 38:443.Google Scholar
Wagger, M. G., Sheets, T. J., and Leidy, R. B. 1993. Runoff potential and chemical transport in agricultural soils. Raleigh, NC: University of North Carolina/North Carolina State University Water Resources Research Institute Report 280. 35 p.Google Scholar
Wauchope, R. D. 1978. The pesticide content of surface water draining from agricultural fields—a review. J. Environ. Qual. 7: 459–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wauchope, R. D., Buttler, T. M., Hornsby, A. G., Augustijn-Beckers, P.W.M., and Burt, J. P. 1992. The SCS/ARS/CES pesticide properties database for environmental decision making. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 123: 1–164.Google Scholar
Whitwell, T. and Santelmann, P. W. 1974. Laboratory soil runoff studies with fluometuron. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 27:63.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, G. H., McDowell, L. L., Parr, J. F., and Murphee, C. E. 1976. Pesticide concentrations and yields and sediment from a Mississippi delta watershed. In Proceedings of the Third Federation of International Agricultural Sediment Conf. Washington, DC: Water Research Council. pp. 3–53.Google Scholar
Willis, G. H., McDowell, L. L., Smith, S., and Southwick, L. M. 1986. Permethrin in washoff from cotton plants by simulated rainfall. J. Environ. Qual. 15: 116–120.Google Scholar
Wu, T. L., Correll, D. L., and Remenapp, H.E.H. 1983. Herbicide runoff from experimental watersheds. J. Environ. Qual. 12: 330–336.Google Scholar
Yoo, K. H. and Touchton, J. T. 1989. Runoff and soil loss by crop growth stage under three cotton tillage systems. J. Soil Water Conserv. 44: 225–228.Google Scholar
Yoo, K. H., Touchton, J. T., and Walker, R. H. 1989. Effect of conservationtillage systems of cotton on surface runoff and its quality. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 44: 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar