Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:00:30.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imidazolinone Herbicide Effects on Following Rotational Crops in Southern Alberta

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

James R. Moyer  and
Rudy Esau
James R. Moyer
Affiliation:
Agric. and Agri-Food Canada Res. Cent., Lethbridge, AB Canada T1J 4B1
Rudy Esau
Affiliation:
Crop Diversification Cent., South, Brooks, AB, Canada T1R 1E6
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of imazethapyr and imazamethabenz on following crops was tested in southern Alberta, on Dark Brown and Brown Chernozemic soils, to assess the potential restrictions placed on cropping sequences by the use of these herbicides. Imazamethabenz reduced the yield of sugarbeet seeded one year after application. After imazethapyr application there is risk of yield loss with flax, corn, meadow bromegrass, mustard, sunflower, timothy, and wheat seeded one year later; canola seeded up to two years later; and sugarbeet and potato seeded up to three years later. Legume crops and intermediate wheatgrass may be seeded the year after application with little risk of yield loss. The required recropping intervals limit the use of imazethapyr for weed control in pea, alfalfa, or dry bean in cropping sequences that include sugarbeet, canola, or potato.

Keywords

Imazamethabenz, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-4(and 5)-methylbenzoic acid (3:2)imazethapyr, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidcanola, Brassica napus L.corn, Zea mays L.dry bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L.flax, Linum usitatissimum L.intermediate wheatgrass, Agropyron intermedium (Host) Beauv.meadow bromegrass, Bromus erectus Huds.oriental mustard, Brassica juncea L. Czern. & Cosspeas, Pisum sativum L.potato, Solanum tuberosum L.sugarbeet, Beta vulgaris L.sunflower, Helianthus annuus L.timothy, Phleum pratense L.wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Crop injurypersistencepHimazethapyrimazamethabenz
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 100 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 1995. Crop protection with chemicals. AGDEX 606-1. Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Edmonton, Alberta. p. 168.Google Scholar
2. Allen, R. and Casely, J. C. 1987. The persistence and mobility of AC 222,293 in cropped and fallow land. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. p. 569–576.Google Scholar
3. 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 acid. J. Environ. Qual. 21:698–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Curran, W. S., Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Simmons, F. W. 1992. Photolysis of imidazolinone herbicides in aqueous solutions and on soil. Weed Sci. 40:143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Dumanski, J., Newton, R., and Lindsay, J. D. 1970. Geographic zonation in selecting characteristics of surface mineral horizons in Alberta soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 50:131–139.Google Scholar
6. Fellows, G. M., Fay, P. K., Carlson, G. R., and Stewart, V. R. 1990. Effect of AC 222,293 soil residues on rotational crops. Weed Technol. 4:48–51.Google Scholar
7. Gallant, A. R. 1987. Nonlinear Statistical Models. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York. p. 55–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. 1990. Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38:421–428.Google Scholar
9. Grace, B. and Hobbs, E. H. 1986. The climate of the Lethbridge agricultural area: 1902–1985. LRS Mimeo Report 3 (Revised) Research Station Lethbridge, AB. 39 p.Google Scholar
10. 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
11. Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1992. Effect of soil pH on adsorption and persistence of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 40:490–496.Google Scholar
12. Malik, N., Cole, D. E., Darwent, A. L., and Moyer, J. R. 1988. Imazethapyr (Pursuit)—a promising new herbicide for forage legumes. Forage Notes 32:42–45.Google Scholar
13. Mangels, G. 1991. Behavior of the imidazolinone herbicides in soil—A review of the literature. p. 191–209 in Shatter, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. CRC Press, Boca Raton FL.Google Scholar
14. Miller, S.D. and Alley, H. P. 1987. Weed control and rotational crop response with AC 222,293. Weed Technol. 1:29–33.Google Scholar
15. Moyer, J. R. 1994. Persistence and residues in soil. In Report of the Research Appraisal and Planning Committee, Expert Committee on Weeds, Western Section, Regina, SK. p. 397–402.Google Scholar
16. Moyer, J. R. 1995. Sulfonylurea herbicide effects on following crops. Weed Technol. 9:373–379.Google Scholar
17. Rostad, H. P. W., deGouijer, H. C., and Anderson, A. J. 1987. pH of Saskatchewan soils. Publication M84 Saskatchewan Institute of Pedology Univ. Sask., Saskatoon. 4 p.Google Scholar
18. SAS Institute Inc. 1988. SAS/Stat™ User's Guide. Release 6.03, Cary NC p. 675–712.Google Scholar
19. Tickes, B. R. and Umeda, K. 1991. The effect of imazethapyr upon crops grown in rotation with alfalfa. Proc. Soc. West. Weed Sci. 44:97.Google Scholar