Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T20:24:31.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trifloxysulfuron Dissipation at Selected pH Levels and Efficacy on Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus Palmeri)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mark A. Matocha  and
Scott A. Senseman
Mark A. Matocha*
Affiliation:
Texas Cooperative Extension, College Station, TX 77843
Scott A. Senseman
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: ma-matocha@tamu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The dissipation of trifloxysulfuron in solution has not been evaluated. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of spray carrier pH (pH values of 5, 7, and 9) on dissipation of trifloxysulfuron during a 21-d period and to evaluate the resulting effects on efficacy on Palmer amaranth. ANOVA of half-life values indicated that hydrolysis occurred more rapidly under acidic spray carrier pH with no differences between neutral and alkaline pH levels. Trifloxysulfuron solutions that were applied to Palmer amaranth significantly decreased dry weights compared with nontreated at all pH levels and time intervals. These results indicated that trifloxysulfuron dissipation was most rapid when the spray tank pH was more acidic, but trifloxysulfuron efficacy was not adversely affected by chemical degradation on Palmer amaranth. Data suggest that pesticide applicators may reduce trifloxysulfuron degradation in spray tanks by using neutral or alkaline spray carriers.

Keywords

TrifloxysulfuronPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats AMAPApHsulfonylureapKa
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 674 - 677
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

Berger, B. M. and Wolfe, N. L. 1996. Hydrolysis and biodegradation of sulfonylurea herbicides in aqueous buffer systems and anaerobic water-sediment systems: assessing fate pathways using molecular descriptors. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 15:1500–1507.Google Scholar
Braschi, I., Calamai, L., Cremonini, M. A., Fusi, P., Gessa, C., Pantani, O., and Pusino, A. 1997. Kinetics and hydrolysis mechanism of triasulfuron. J. Agric. Food Chem. 45:4495–4499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braschi, I., Pusino, A., Gessa, C., and Bollag, J. M. 2000. Degradation of primisulfuron by a combination of chemical and microbiological processes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 48:2565–2571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burke, I. C. and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Weed management in cotton with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 18:268–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. M. and Cahill, W. R. 2003. Enhancing the biological activity of nicosulfuron with pH adjusters. Weed Sci. 17:338–345.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. and Hale, T. 2005. Increasing and decreasing pH to enhance the biological activity of nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 19:468–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudetz, M., Foery, W., Wells, J., and Soares, J. E. 2000. CGA 362622, a new low rate Novartis post-emergent herbicide for cotton and sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:163–166.Google Scholar
Hultgren, R. P., Hudson, R. J. M., and Sims, G. K. 2002. Effects of soil pH and soil water content on prosulfuron dissipation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:3236–3243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matocha, M. A., Krutz, L. J., Senseman, S. A., Koger, C. H., Reddy, K. N., and Palmer, E. W. 2006. Spray carrier pH effect on absorption and translocation of trifloxysulfuron in Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Texasweed (Caperonia palustris). Weed Sci. 54:969–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrica, P., Barbato, F., Iacovo, R. D., Seccia, S., and Ungaro, F. 2001. Kinetics and mechanism of imazosulfuron hydrolysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 49:3816–3820.Google ScholarPubMed
Nalewaja, J. D., Matysiak, R., and Woznica, Z. 1997. Adjuvants for herbicidal compositions. U.S. patent No. 5,658,855.Google Scholar
Porterfield, D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Peanut (Arachis hypogea L.) response to residual and in-season treatments of CGA-362622. Weed Technol. 17:441–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002. Weed management with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryne in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:642–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saha, S. and Kulshrestha, G. 2002. Degradation of sulfosulfuron, a sulfonylurea herbicide, as influenced by abiotic factors. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:4572–4575.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sarmah, A. K., Kookana, R. S., Duffy, M. J., Alston, A. M., and Hatch, B. D. 2000. Hydrolysis of triasulfuron, metsulfuron-methyl and chlorsulfuron in alkaline soil and aqueous solution. Pest Manag. Sci. 56:463–471.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarmah, A. K. and Sabadie, J. 2002. Hydrolysis of sulfonylurea herbicides in soils and aqueous solutions: a review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:6253–6265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephenson, D. O. IV, Brecke, B. J., and Unruh, J. B. 2006. Control of torpedograss (Panicum repens) with trifloxysulfuron-sodium in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon × Cynodon transvaalensis) turf. Weed Technol. 20:351–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vega, D., Cambon, J. P., and Bastide, J. 2000. Triflusulfuron-methyl dissipation in water and soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 48:3733–3737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vencill, V. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America. 216–217.Google Scholar
Vicari, A., Zimdahl, R. L., Cranmer, B. K., and Dinelli, G. 1996. Primisulfuron and rimsulfuron degradation in aqueous solution and adsorption in six Colorado soils. Weed Sci. 44:672–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whisenant, S. G. and Bovey, R. W. 1993. Water quality effects on stability and phytotoxicity of picloram and clopyralid. J. Range Manag. 46:254–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar