Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:43:34.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Movement of Tebuthiuron Applied to Wet and Dry Rangeland Soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Howard L. Morton ,
Thomas N. Johnsen Jr  and
J. Roger Simanton
Howard L. Morton
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Aridland Watershed Management Res. Unit, 2000 E. Allen Rd., Tucson, AZ 85719
Thomas N. Johnsen Jr
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Aridland Watershed Management Res. Unit, 2000 E. Allen Rd., Tucson, AZ 85719
J. Roger Simanton
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Aridland Watershed Management Res. Unit, 2000 E. Allen Rd., Tucson, AZ 85719
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tebuthiuron was applied at 1 kg ai/ha to wet and dry Hathaway gravelly, sandy loam soil in the spring and fall to determine the amount of tebuthiuron removed in runoff water and the depth to which it would move within the soil profile by simulated rainfall. When pellets containing 20% ai of tebuthiuron were broadcast onto dry soil in the spring, the first simulated rainfall event, 37 mm, removed 5% of the applied tebuthiuron in runoff water and sediment. The second and third simulated rainfall events, 22 and 21 mm, respectively, removed an additional 2%. When tebuthiuron was applied to wet soil in the spring, the initial simulated rainfall events, totaling 42 mm, removed 15% of the tebuthiuron. When tebuthiuron was applied to wet soil in the fall, the initial rainfall events, totaling 40 mm, removed a total of 48% of the tebuthiuron in runoff water and sediment. No significant differences were found in the total amount of tebuthiuron within the soil profile after application to dry and wet soils. More than half of the tebuthiuron had moved into the surface 7 cm 1 day after application. Tebuthiuron was not detected below 90 cm after 165 mm of simulated rainfall and 270 mm of natural rainfall.

Keywords

TebuthiuronN-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N′-dimethylureaRainfall simulationrunoffsedimentherbicide residue
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 117 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Anderson, R. L. 1946. Missing plot techniques. Biom. Bull. 2:41–47.Google Scholar
2. Bovey, R. W., Meyer, R. E., and Hein, H. Jr. 1982. Soil persistence of tebuthiuron in the claypan resource area of Texas. Weed Sci. 30:140–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Chang, S. S. and Stritzke, J. F. 1977. Sorption, movement and dissipation of tebuthiuron in soils. Weed Sci. 25:184–187.Google Scholar
4. Davis, E. A. 1981. Tebuthiuron residues in stream water from a spot treated chaparral watershed in Arizona. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Prog. Rep. Pages 52–53.Google Scholar
5. Eaton, B. J., Magnussen, J. D., and Rainey, D. P. 1976. Metabolism of tebuthiuron in soil and plants. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 199.Google Scholar
6. Emmerich, W. E., Helmer, J. D., Renard, K. G., and Lane, L. J. 1983. Fate and effectiveness of tebuthiuron applied to a rangeland watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 13:382–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Hendricks, D. M. 1985. Arizona soils. College of Agric., Univ. Arizona, Tucson. 244 pp.Google Scholar
8. Hillel, D. 1980. Fundamentals of Soil Physics. Academic Press, New York. 413 pp.Google Scholar
9. Levy, E. B. and Madden, E. A. 1933. The point method of pasture analysis. New Zealand J. Agric. 46:276–279.Google Scholar
10. Loh, A., Frank, R., and Decker, O. D. 1980. Tebuthiuron. Anal. Methods Pestic. Plant Growth Regul. 11:351–361.Google Scholar
11. Osborn, H. B. and Lane, L. J. 1981. Point-area-frequency conversions for summer rainfall in southeastern Arizona. Hydrol. and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. 11:37–46.Google Scholar
12. Richmond, D. L. 1971. General soil map Cochise County, Arizona. Soil Conserv. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
13. Simanton, J. R. and Renard, K. G. 1982. Seasonal change in infiltration and erosion from USLE plots in southeastern Arizona. Hydrol. and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest 12:37–46.Google Scholar
14. Simanton, J. R., Johnson, C. W., Nyhan, J. W., and Romney, E. M. 1986. Rainfall simulation on rangeland erosion plots. Pages 11–17 in Lane, L. J., ed. Erosion on rangelands: emerging technology and data base. Proc. Rainfall Simulator Workshop, Jan. 14–15, 1985, Tucson, AZ. Society for Range Management, Denver.Google Scholar
15. Swanson, J. P. 1965. Rotating-boom rainfall simulator. Trans. ASAE 8:71–72.Google Scholar
16. Weed Science Society of America. 1983. Herbicide Handbook. 5th ed. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL.Google Scholar