Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:37:51.729Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Straw Levels on Chlorimuron, Imazaquin, and Imazethapyr Dissipation and Interception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gary L. Schmitz ,
William W. Witt  and
Thomas C. Mueller
Gary L. Schmitz
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546
William W. Witt*
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546
Thomas C. Mueller
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wwitt@uky.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dissipation of imidazolinone herbicides imazaquin and imazethapyr under no-till field conditions was not affected by straw mulch level (1,300, 3,600, or 5,900 kg/ha) in either of 2 yr of field data. Half-lives averaged 7 d for imazaquin and 8 d for imazethapyr. Chlorimuron half-lives averaged 5 d. Imazaquin and imazethapyr residues did not injure corn (Zea mays) the growing season following application. Injury from chlorimuron to corn planted the next year was greatest where applications were made to the highest straw level, reducing corn yield 6%. In laboratory experiments, uniformly cut wheat (Triticum aestivum) straw placed over sand intercepted all three herbicides equally. Herbicide interception was 16, 43, 69, and 89% for straw levels of 840, 1,680, 3,360, and 6,720 kg/ha, respectively. In the laboratory, simulated rainfall removed more imazaquin and imazethapyr from straw than chlorimuron, and approximately 10% of the applied imazaquin or imazethapyr and 20% of the applied chlorimuron remained on the straw after application of 1.0 cm of water. Imazaquin and imazethapyr dissipated 59 and 20%, respectively, during a 7-d incubation period in the greenhouse. Imazaquin dissipation was equal between sand and straw, whereas imazethapyr dissipation was primarily from sand. Chlorimuron did not dissipate from either straw or sand. This indicated that chlorimuron, a sulfonylurea, was more stable than either imidazolinone under these conditions.

Keywords

Chlorimuronimazaquinimazethapyrwheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Caldwell’; corn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3369A’, ‘Pioneer 3320’Degradationimidazolinonepersistencephotodegradationphotolysisrotational cropsulfonylureaDAT, days after treatmentHPLC, high-performance liquid chromatographyWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 129 - 136
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

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 non-mulched 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.Google Scholar
Barnes, C. J., Goetz, A. J., and Lavy, T. L. 1989. Effects of imazaquin residues on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37: 820–824.Google Scholar
Basham, G.W. and Lavy, T. L. 1987. Microbial and photolytic dissipation of imazaquin in soil. Weed Sci. 35: 865–870.Google Scholar
Basham, G., Lavy, T. L., Oliver, L. R., and Scott, H. D. 1987. Imazaquin persistence and mobility in three Arkansas soils. Weed Sci. 35: 576–582.Google Scholar
Baughman, T. A. and Shaw, D. R. 1996. Effect of wetting/drying cycles on dissipation patterns of bioavailable imazaquin. Weed Sci. 44: 380–382.Google Scholar
Baughman, T. A., Shaw, D. R., Rhodes, G. N., and Mueller, T. C. 1996. Effects of tillage on chlorimuron persistence. Weed Sci. 44: 162–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, B. A., Hayes, R. M., Tyler, D. D., and Mueller, T. C. 1996. Effect of long-term vetch (Vicia villosa) cover crop and tillage system on fluometuron dissipation from surface soil. Weed Sci. 44: 171–175.Google Scholar
Cantwell, J. R., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Biodegradation characteristics of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 37: 815–819.Google Scholar
Claus, J. S. 1987. Chlorimuron-ethyl (Classic): a new broadleaf postemergence herbicide in soybean. Weed Technol. 1: 114–115.Google Scholar
Crutchfield, D. A., Wicks, G. A., and Burnside, O. C. 1986. Effect of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) straw mulch level on weed control. Weed Sci. 34: 110–114.Google Scholar
Curran, W. S., Liebl, R. A., and Simmons, F. W. 1992a. Effects of tillage and application method on clomazone, imazaquin, and imazethapyr persistence. Weed Sci. 40: 482–489.Google Scholar
Curran, W. S., Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Simmons, F. W. 1992b. Photolysis of imidazolinone herbicides in aqueous-solution and on soil. Weed Sci. 40: 143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flint, J. L. 1990. Dissipation of chlorimuron, imazaquin, and imazethapyr in Kentucky soils. Ph.D. dissertation. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky. 149 p.Google Scholar
Flint, J. L. and Witt, W. W. 1997. Microbial degradation of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 45: 586–591.Google Scholar
Fuesler, T. P. and Hanafey, M. K. 1990. Effect of moisture on chlorimuron degradation in soil. Weed Sci. 38: 256–261.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
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
Johnson, D. H. and Talbert, R. E. 1996. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to imazaquin and imazethapyr soil residues. Weed Sci. 44: 156–161.Google Scholar
Littel, R. C. 1989. Statistical analysis of experiments with repeated measurements. Hortic. Sci. 24: 37–40.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Availability and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in soil. Weed Sci. 37: 259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1989a. Effect of tillage systems on the efficacy and phytotoxicity of imazaquin and imazethapyr in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37: 233–238.Google Scholar
Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1989b. Efficacy, phytotoxicity, and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in no-till double-crop soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37: 353–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1991. Dissipation of imazaquin and imazethapyr in conventional and no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5: 586–591.Google Scholar
Monks, C. D. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Rotational crop response to chlorimuron, clomazone, and imazaquin applied the previous year. Weed Sci. 39: 629–633.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36: 90–95.Google Scholar
Schroeder, J. 1994. Chlorimuron and imazaquin persistence in selected southern soils under controlled conditions. Weed Sci. 42: 635–640.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L., Anderson, P. C., and Stidham, M. A. 1984. Imidazolinones: potent inhibitors of acetohydroxyacid synthase. Plant Physiol. 76: 545–546.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. M. and Harrison, S. K. 1990. Surfactant-altered rates of chlorimuron and metsulfuron photolysis in sunlight. Weed Sci. 38: 602–606.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Banks, P. A., Barrett, M., Brecke, B., Rhodes, N., Santelman, P., Shaw, D., Talbert, R., and Weber, J. B. 1995. Dissipation of imazaquin in southern soils. J. Env. Sci. Health B. 30: 621–635.Google Scholar
Walker, A. and Allen, R. 1984. Influence of soil and environmental factors on pesticide persistence. Weed Res. 24: 89–100.Google Scholar