Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:14:04.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pendimethalin Movement Through Pine Bark Compared to Field Soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lori Duis Simmons  and
Jeffrey F. Derr
Lori Duis Simmons
Affiliation:
Virginia Tech, Hampton Roads Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 1444 Diamond Springs Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23455-3363
Jeffrey F. Derr*
Affiliation:
Virginia Tech, Hampton Roads Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 1444 Diamond Springs Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23455-3363
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jderr@vt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Preemergence herbicides are commonly applied to nursery containers for control of annual weeds in the production of ornamental plants. Pine bark is a popular container growing medium because it is inexpensive, drains well, is easy to transport, and supports acceptable nursery crop growth. However, little is understood about leaching of herbicides through pine bark. The downward movement of these herbicides through container media may inhibit root growth in sensitive nursery crops and also reduce herbicidal efficacy. Four experiments were conducted at two different irrigation volumes to evaluate depth of pendimethalin movement in packed columns of pine bark and field soil. After 17.5 cm of water was applied over 7 d, pendimethalin moved downward into the 6 to 9-cm depth in 100% pine bark, whereas no movement was detected below the 0 to 3-cm depth in a Tetotum loam soil, as determined by a large crabgrass bioassay. Doubling the irrigation volume to 35 cm of water applied over 14 d did not significantly increase pendimethalin movement in pine bark or field soil. However, it did decrease pendimethalin persistence in the top 0 to 3-cm depth in pine bark. The pine bark had a higher cation exchange capacity than did the field soil. However, the physical characteristics of pine bark, a large volume of void space and low bulk density, resulted in higher hydraulic conductivity rates than in field soil. These factors may be the principal reasons that pendimethalin leached to a greater extent through pine bark than the field soil.

Keywords

Pendimethalinlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) ScopHerbicide leachinghydraulic conductivitycontainer medianursery containersornamentalsvolume of voidscation exchange capacity (CEC)
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 873 - 876
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

Briggs, J. and Whitwell, T. 2002. Effect of prodiamine formulation on injury to ornamentals. Pages 384–388. in. Southern Nursery Association (SNA) Research Conference Proceedings, Volume 47. Atlanta, GA SNA.Google Scholar
Brown, E. F. and Pokorny, F. A. 1975. Physical and chemical properties of milled pine bark and sand. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 100:119–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, W. L. and Wright, R. W. 1988. Cation exchange properties of pine bark growing media as influenced by pH, particle size, and cation species. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 113:557–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derr, J. F. and Salihu, S. 1996. Preemergence herbicide effects on nursery crop root and shoot growth. J. Environ. Hortic. 14:210–213.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. A., Cessna, A. J., Nicholaichuk, W., and Tollefson, L. C. 2000. Leaching rates and preferential flow of selected herbicides through tilled and untilled soil. J. Environ. Qual. 29:1650–1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeze, R. A. and Cherry, J. A. 1979. Physical properties and principles. Pages 15–30. in. Groundwater. Englewood, NJ Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Futch, S. H. and Singh, M. 1998. Use of soil columns as a method to simulate herbicide movement in soil at various rainfall rates. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:96–97.Google Scholar
GilliamH, C., Fare, D., and Lecompe, D. 1993. Herbicide movement in container media. Pages 312–313. in. Southern Nursery Association (SNA) Research Conference Proceedings, Volume 38. Atlanta, GA SNA.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Wehtje, G. R., Hajek, B. F., Gilliam, C. H., Kever, G. J., and Pace, P. 1996. Adsorption, mobility, and filtration of metolachlor in container media. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 121:478–482.Google Scholar
Hatch, D. R., Belshan, J. E., Lantz, S. M., Swecker, G. R., and Starner, D. E. 1985. Soil survey of Virginia Beach, Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Series, in cooperation with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg, VA. 131.Google Scholar
Hayes, C. K., Gilliam, C. H., Keever, G. J., and Eakes, D. J. 1999. Effects of herbicide and time of application on pampas grass grown in containers. J. Environ. Hortic. 17:185–189.Google Scholar
Mervosh, T. L. 2003. Sorption of the herbicides isoxaben and oryzalin to soils and container media. J. Environ. Hort. 21:11–15.Google Scholar
Mullins, G. L. and Heckendorn, S. E. 2005. Laboratory Procedures: Virginia Tech Soil Testing Laboratory. Blacksburg, VA Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 452-881 http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/cses/452-881/452-881.html#L9 Accessed March 19, 2007.Google Scholar
Nissen, S. J., Sterling, T. M., and Momuth, D. 2005. Root absorption and xylem translocation. Lincoln, NE Plant and Soil Science eLibrary, University of Nebraska at Lincoln http://plantandsoil.unl.edu/croptechnology2005/pages/index.jsp?what=topicsD&topicOrder=1&informationModuleId=1057703469. Accessed April 4, 2007.Google Scholar
Peter, C. J. and Weber, J. B. 1985. Adsorption and efficacy of trifluralin and butralin as influenced by soil properties. Weed Sci. 33:861–867.Google Scholar
Prevete, K. J., Legnani, G., Whitwell, T., and Fernandez, R. T. 1999. Prodiamine tolerance of newly planted ornamentals. Pages 366–369. in. Southern Nursery Association (SNA) Research Conference Proceedings, Volume 44. Atlanta, GA SNA.Google Scholar
Singh, M., Glaze, N. C., and Phatak, S. C. 1981. Herbicide response of container-grown Rhododendron species. HortScience. 16:213–215.Google Scholar
Singh, M., Phatak, S. C., and Glaze, N. C. 1984. Response of two container-grown Ilex species to preemergence herbicides. HortScience. 19:117–119.Google Scholar
Thetford, M. and Gilliam, C. H. 1991. Herbicide use in propagation: effects on rooting and root growth of stem cuttings. J. Environ. Hort. 9:21–23.Google Scholar
Topp, G.C., ed. 2002. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4. Physical Methods. Madison, WI Soil Science Society of America. 916.Google Scholar
Vencill, W.K., ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 493.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B. 1990. Behavior of dinitroaniline herbicides in soils. Weed Technol. 4:394–406.Google Scholar