Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T09:13:43.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imazethapyr bioactivity and movement in soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Scott W. Jourdan ,
Bradley A. Majek  and
Albert O. Ayeni
Scott W. Jourdan
Affiliation:
Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Rutgers University, Bridgeton, NJ 08302
Bradley A. Majek
Affiliation:
Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Rutgers University, Bridgeton, NJ 08302
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A bioassay using red beet root length indicated an increase in imazethapyr bioactivity in Berryland sand (BLS) as soil pH increased from 3.7 to 6.5. Increasing pH above 6.5 had no effect on imazethapyr bioactivity. The lowest imazethapyr concentrations detected by the bioassay at pH 6.5 were 0.5, 1, 2.5, and 5 to 10 μg kg−1 in acidwashed quartz sand, BLS, Aura loamy sand, and muck soil, respectively. After application of 0.07 kg ae ha−1 with 12.5 mm of simulated rainfall at 3-d intervals, imazethapyr remained in the 0 to 15 cm soil in BLS soil columns. Under this rainfall regime, the herbicide moved 30 cm deep 5 mo after application, but residues decreased significantly in surface soil. Imazethapyr bioactivity was highest and mobility was lowest at low soil temperature (10 C) and low moisture (4 to 6% w/w). Imazethapyr movement was monitored successfully using the red beet root length bioassay, and an herbicide residue map was developed to show the pattern of imazethapyr bioactivity in soil columns.

Keywords

Red beet, Beta vulgaris L. ‘Asgrow Wonder.'Herbicide residue mapherbicide persistencepetri dish bioassaysoil columns
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 5 , October 1998 , pp. 608 - 613
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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.)

Footnotes

Current address of S. W. Jourdan: 301 Parkview Way, Newtown, PA 18940

Nigerian address: Department of Agronomy, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

References

Literature Cited

Ayeni, A. O. and Yakubu, A. I. 1995. Influence of soil type on the activity of imazethapyr on maize. Niger. J. Weed Sci. 8: 19–25.Google Scholar
Basham, G. W. and Lavy, T. L. 1987. Microbial and photolytic dissipation of imazaquin in soil. Weed Sci. 35: 865–870.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockman, F. E., Duke, W. B., and Hunt, J. F. 1975. A rainfall simulator for pesticide leaching studies. Weed Sci. 23: 533–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckman, H. O. and Brady, N. C. 1969. The Nature and Properties of Soils. 7th ed. London: Macmillan, p. 401.Google Scholar
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
Devine, J. M. 1991. Residue analysis. Pages 173-178 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Eshel, Y. and Warren, G. F. 1967. A simplified method for determining phytotoxicity, leaching, and adsorption of herbicides in soils. Weeds 15: 115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gan, J., Weimer, M. R., Koskinen, W. C., Buhler, D. D., Wyse, D. L., and Becker, R. L. 1994. Sorption and desorption of imazethapyr and 5-hydroxyimazethapyr in Minnesota soils. Weed Sci. 42: 92–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. Jr. 1990. Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38: 421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. H. and Talbert, R. E. 1993. Imazethapyr and imazaquin control puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris) but carry over to spinach (Spinacia oleracea) . Weed Technol. 7: 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. H. and Talbert, R. E. 1996. Cotton response to imazaquin and imazethapyr soil residues. Weed Sci. 44: 156–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1992. Effect of soil pH on adsorption and persistence of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 40: 490–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1993. Effect of soil type and pH on persistence and carryover of imidazolinone herbicides. Weed Technol. 7: 452–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lueschen, W. E., Getting, J. K., and Foland, E. L. 1996. Carryover potential of AC 299,263 and imazethapyr in a soybean/sugarbeet rotation. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 217: 68.Google Scholar
Lueschen, W. E., Getting, J. K., and Foland, E. L. 1997. AC 299,263 and imazethapyr carryover potential in a soybean/sugarbeet rotation. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 243: 97.Google Scholar
Mangels, G. 1991. Behavior of imidazolinone herbicides in soil: a review of literature. Pages 191-209 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Marsh, B. H. and Lloyd, R. W. 1996. Soil pH effect on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Technol. 10: 337–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, C. D. and Banks, P. A. 1993. Effect of straw, ash, and tillage on dissipation of imazaquin and imazethapyt. Weed Sci. 41: 133–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, J. R. and Esau, R. 1996. Imidazolinone herbicide effects on following rotational crops in southern Alberta. Weed Technol. 10: 100–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggit, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr and sorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays) . Weed Sci. 36: 78–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Shea, P. J., and Martin, A. R. 1990. Effect of soil type and pH on adsorption, mobility and efficacy of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 36: 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ticks, B. R. and Umeda, K. 1991. The effect of imazethapyr upon crops grown in rotation with alfalfa. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 44: 97.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. O., and Hatzios, K. K. 1990. Common lambsquarter (Chenopodium album) and rotational crop response to imazethapyr in pea (Pisum sativum) and snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) . Weed Technol. 4: 39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar