Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T01:54:38.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flumetsulam mobility in two Mississippi soils as influenced by irrigation timing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Chris H. Tingle ,
David R. Shaw  and
Patrick D. Gerard
Chris H. Tingle
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Patrick D. Gerard
Affiliation:
Experimental Statistics Unit, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Laboratory studies were conducted to evaluate 14C-flumetsulam mobility in two Mississippi soils of varied texture and organic matter content following delays in irrigation. Mobility was evaluated using packed soil columns, 25 cm deep, under unsaturated–saturated flow conditions. Irrigation timings included 0, 3, and 5 d after flumetsulam application. Flumetsulam mobility (defined as the amount collected in leachate) decreased from 45% to no more than 20% of the applied in the Prentiss sandy loam soil when irrigation was delayed 3 or 5 d. With the Okolona soil, flumetsulam recovery in the leachate was 21, 14, and 6%, respectively when irrigation occurred 0, 3, and 5 d after application. Flumetsulam proved to be mobile when irrigation immediately followed application, with 6 to 45% recovered in the leachate from all soils evaluated. The Prentiss soil retained 6% of the applied flumetsulam in the upper 5 cm and the Okolona soil retained 22% when irrigation immediately followed flumetsulam application. When the irrigation interval was delayed at least 3 d, the Okolona soil retained 40% in the upper 5 cm, whereas the Prentiss soil retained 10%. Flumetsulam mobility was dependent on irrigation timing and soil type.

Keywords

Flumetsulam.Mobilityleachingunsaturated–saturated flowsoil columnsadsorption
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , June 1999 , pp. 349 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Basham, G., Lavy, T. L., Oliver, L. R., and Scott, H. D. 1987. Imazaquin persistence and mobility in three Arkansas soils. Weed Sci. 35:576–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, H. J. and McKercher, R. B. 1990. Mobility of two sulfonylurea herbicides in soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 38:310–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blacklow, W. A. and Pheloung, P. C. 1992. Sulfonylurea herbicides applied to acidic sandy soils: movement, persistence and activity within the growing season. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 43:1157–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 34:788–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grover, R. 1977. Mobility of dicamba, picloram, and 2,4-D in soil columns. Weed Sci. 25:159–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleschick, W. A., Gerwick, B. C., Carson, C. M., Monte, W. T., and Sanders, S. W. 1992. DE-498, a new acetolactate synthase inhibiting herbicide with multicrop selectivity. J. Agric. Food Chem. 40:1083–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, R. G., Miller, J. R., Fontaine, D. D., Laskowski, D. A., Hunter, J. H., and Cordes, R. C. 1992. Degradation of a sulfonamide herbicide as a function of soil sorption. Weed Res. 32:197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mote, C. R., Tompkins, F. D., and Allison, J. S. 1990. Residue, chemical placement, and metolachlor mobility. Am. Soc. Ag. Eng. 33:1083–1088.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. P. and Shaw, D. R. 1997. Field mobility of flumetsulam in three Mississippi soils. Weed Sci. 45:564–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1996. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 6, 3rd ed. Gary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Murphy, G. P. 1997a. Field persistence of bioavailable flumetsulam. Weed Sci. 45:568–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Murphy, G. P. 1997b. Adsorption and relative mobility of flumetsulam. Weed Sci. 45:573–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, P. J. and Weber, J. B. 1983. Fluridone adsorption on mineral clays, organic matter, and modified Norfolk soil. Weed Sci. 31:528–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockinger, K. R., Belasco, I. J., and Fleming, W. D. 1965. Experimental relations of water movement in unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. 100:124–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, J. B., Swain, L. R., Strek, H. J., and Sartori, J. L. 1986. Herbicide mobility in soil leaching columns. Pages 189–200 in Research Methods in Weed Science, 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B. and Whitacre, D. M. 1982. Mobility of herbicides in soil columns under saturated- and unsaturated-flow conditions. Weed Sci. 30:579–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar