Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T19:04:42.329Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Movement of Metribuzin in a Loamy Sand Soil Under Irrigated Potato Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Daniel J. Burgard ,
Robert H. Dowdy ,
William C. Koskinen  and
H. H. Cheng
Daniel J. Burgard
Affiliation:
Soil Sci. Dep., Univ. Minnesota, Soil Scientists, USDA-ARS, Soil and Water Management Res. Unit
Robert H. Dowdy
Affiliation:
Dep., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
William C. Koskinen
Affiliation:
Dep., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
H. H. Cheng
Affiliation:
Dep., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Movement and persistence of the herbicide metribuzin [4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one] was assessed following two annual applications to a loamy sand soil under irrigated potato production in east-central Minnesota. Russet Burbank potato (Solanum tuberosum) was grown in plots in 1989 and 1990. Metribuzin was applied prior to potato emergence at rates of 0.56 and 1.1 kg ha-1. Water samples were collected weekly from suction samplers 90 and 150 cm deep. Bromide tracer and water balance data confirmed the movement of water to a depth of 150 cm. Metribuzin was not detected in soil samples below 45 cm during either year. Metribuzin was detected (mean concentration, 0.6 μg L-1) during 1990 in 17 of 473 (3.6%) water samples collected at the 90- and 150-cm depths in 8 of 16 plots. Averaged across rates and years, time for 50% dissipation of metribuzin was 30 d. At the end of the cropping seasons, an average of 17% of initial soil metribuzin remained in the 0- to 45-cm soil layer. Surface soil (0 to 15 cm) metribuzin adsorption coefficients, Kd and Koc, were 1.7 and 120, respectively. Metribuzin appeared to remain in the surface 15 cm of soil where it then degrades.

Keywords

Metribuzin, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one)potato, Solanum tuberosum ‘Russet Burbank.’Sorptionleachingdegradation
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 446 - 452
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Boesten, J. J. T. I. and van der Pas, L. J. T. 1983. Test of some aspects of a model for the adsorption/desorption of herbicides in field soil. Aspects Appl. Biol. 4:495–501.Google Scholar
2. Bouchard, D. C., Lavy, T. L., and Marx, D. B. 1982. Fate of metribuzin, metolachlor and fluometuron in soil. Weed Sci., 30:629–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Dahnke, W. C. 1988. Recommended chemical soil test procedures for the North Central Region. North Cent. Reg. Publ. No. 221, revised. North Dakota Agric. Exp. Stn., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND. 37 pp.Google Scholar
4. Gee, G. W. and Bauder, J. W. 1986. Particle-size analysis. Pages 383–411 in Klute, A., ed. Methods of soil analysis: Part 1—Physical and mineralogical methods. 2nd ed. Monogr. No. 9. ASA-SSSA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
5. Green, R. E. and Karickhoff, S. W. 1990. Sorption estimates for modeling. Pages 79–101 in Cheng, H. H., ed Pesticides in the soil environment: Processes, impacts and modeling. SSSA Book Ser. 2, SSSA, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
6. Grimes, M. F. 1968. Soil survey of Sherburne County, Minnesota. U.S. Gov. Printing Off., Washington, DC. 243 pp.Google Scholar
7. Harper, S. S. 1988. Sorption of metribuzin in surface and subsurface soils of the Mississippi Delta region. Weed Sci. 36:84–89.Google Scholar
8. Hyzak, D. L. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1974. Rate of degradation of metribuzin and two analogs in soil. Weed Sci. 22:75–79.Google Scholar
9. Jones, R. E., Banks, P. A., and Radcliffe, D. E. 1990. Alachlor and metribuzin movement and dissipation in a soil profile as influenced by soil surface condition. Weed Sci. 38:589–597.Google Scholar
10. Koskinen, W. C., Jarvis, L. J., Dowdy, R. H., Wyse, D. L., and Buhler, D. D. 1991. Automation of atrazine and alachlor extraction from soil using a laboratory robotic system. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55:561–562.Google Scholar
11. Koskinen, W. C., O'Connor, G. A., and Cheng, H. H. 1979. Characterization of hysteresis in the desorption of 2,4,5-T from soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43:871–874.Google Scholar
12. Ladlie, J. S., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1976. Effect of soil pH on microbial degradation, adsorption and mobility of metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:477–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Lentner, M. and Bishop, T. 1986. Pages 94–95 in Experimental Design and Analysis. Valley Book Co., Blacksburg, VA.Google Scholar
14. Linden, D. R. 1977. Design, installation, and use of porous ceramic samplers for monitoring soil water quality. Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1562. 11 pp.Google Scholar
15. Menne, M. J. and Seeley, M. W. 1991. C.A.W.A.P. 1990. Crop season climatic data University of Minnesota field research locations. Univ. Minnesota Agric. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, MN. 77 pp.Google Scholar
16. Nicholls, P. H., Walker, A., and Baker, R. J. 1982. Measurement and simulation of the movement and degradation of atrazine and metribuzin in a fallow soil. Pestic. Sci. 12:484–494.Google Scholar
17. Ransome, L. S. and Dowdy, R. H. 1987. Soybean growth and boron distribution in a sandy soil amended with scrubber sludge. J. Environ. Qual. 16:171–175.Google Scholar
18. SAS Institute, Inc. 1988. Pages 549–640 in SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 6.03 ed. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
19. Savage, K. E. 1976. Adsorption and mobility of metribuzin in soil. Weed Sci. 24:525–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Schaefer, R. L. and Anderson, R. B. 1989. Pages 107–120 in The Student Edition of Minitab. Addison-Wesley Publ. Co., Inc., Reading, MA.Google Scholar
21. Scott, H. D., Phillips, R. E., and Paetzold, R. F. 1974. Diffusion of herbicides in the adsorbed phase. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 38:558–562.Google Scholar
22. Seeley, M. W., Menne, M. J., and Barrie, I. A. 1990. C.A.W.A.P. 1989 Crop season climatic data University of Minnesota field research locations. Univ. Minnesota Agric. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, MN. 75 pp.Google Scholar
23. Sharom, M. S. and Stephenson, G. R. 1976. Behavior and fate of metribuzm in eight Ontario soils. Weed Sci. 24:153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Smith, A. E. and Walker, A. 1989. Prediction of the persistence of the triazine herbicides atrazine, cyanazine, and metribuzin in Regina heavy clay. Can. J. Soil Sci. 69:587–595.Google Scholar
25. USEPA. 1988. Pesticide Fact Book. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency. U.S. Gov. Printing Off., Washington, DC. Pages 522–529.Google Scholar
26. Walker, A. 1978. Simulation of the persistence of eight soil applied herbicides. Weed Res. 18:305–311.Google Scholar
27. Weber, J. B. 1980. Ionization of buthidazole, VEL3510, tebuthiuron, fluridone, metribuzin, and prometryn. Weed Sci. 28:467–474.Google Scholar
28. Weisberg, S. 1985. Pages 203–221 in Applied Linear Regression. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
29. Weisberg, S. 1986. Multreg User's Manual. Tech. Rep. 298R. Univ. Minnesota School of Statistics, St. Paul, MN. 59 pp.Google Scholar
30. Wright, J. and Bergsrud, F. 1986. Irrigation scheduling: Checkbook method. AG-FO-1322. Univ. Minnesota Ext. Serv., St. Paul, MN. 10 pp.Google Scholar