Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:25:43.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Thiazopyr on Soybean Growth and Dissipation in Soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Thomas C. Mueller  and
Robert M. Hayes
Thomas C. Mueller
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant and Soil Sci., Univ. Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37901
Robert M. Hayes
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant and Soil Sci., Univ. Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37901
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies indicated thiazopyr at 220 g ha−1 injured soybeans planted in no-till, and 340 g ha−1 injured soybean in 1 of 2 yr planted into tilled soil. Thiazopyr half-lives in three field studies ranged from 12 to 14 d, indicating minimal potential for carryover injury to sensitive rotational crops. Thiazopyr dissipation under controlled conditions was slower than under field conditions. Half-lives at 15 and 30 C were 133 and 43 d, respectively. This indicates that microbial degradation is an important mechanism in thiazopyr dissipation, but that other loss mechanisms also play a role. A method using methanol extraction of moist soil samples followed by gas chromatography using a nitrogen-phosphorous detector had > 90% recovery of thiazopyr.

Keywords

Soybeans (Glycine max L. Merr. ‘Essex’), thiazopyr (methyl 2-(difluoromethyl)-5-(4,5-dihydro-2-thiazolyl)-4-(2-methylpropyl)-6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxylate)Persistencetillagedegradationbioavailabilityanalytical methodMON 13200
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 694 - 697
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. Armbruster, B. L., Molin, W. T., and Bugg, M. W. 1991. Effects of the herbicide dithiopyr on cell division in wheat root tips. Pest. Biochem. Phys. 39: 110–120.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1994. Herbicide Handbook; 7th edition, Ahrens, W. H., Ed. Pages 280–281. Weed Science Society of America, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
3. Cudney, D. W., Orloff, W. B., and Demoson, D. A. 1993. Effects of thiazopyr and trifluralin on dodder (Cuscuta indecora) in alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Weed Technol. 7: 860–864.Google Scholar
4. Johnson, B. J. 1994. Tank-mixed herbicides on large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) and goosegrass (Eleusine indica) control in common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) turf. Weed Sci. 42: 216–221.Google Scholar
5. Kapusta, G., Krausz, R. F., and Matthews, J. L. 1993. MON 13200 early preplant controls giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) season-long in no-till soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 7: 872–878.Google Scholar
6. Lehnen, L. P. and Vaughn, K. C. 1991. Immunofluorescence and electron microscopic investigations of the effects of dithiopyr on onion root tips. Pest. Biochem. Phys. 40: 58–67.Google Scholar
7. Mueller, T. C. and Willian, W. T. 1994. Weed control and crop tolerance of MON 13211 in conventional till and minimum till Soybean. Abs. Weed Sci. Soc. Amer. 34: 6.Google Scholar
8. Walker, A. 1987. Herbicide persistence in soil. Rev. Weed Sci. 3: 1–17.Google Scholar
9. Zar, J. 1992. Pages 132–133 in Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd edition Prentice Hall, New York, NY.Google Scholar