Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:37:02.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of Empirical Equations to Describe Dissipation of Metribuzin and Pendimethalin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert L. Zimdahl ,
Brian K. Cranmer  and
Walter W. Stroup
Robert L. Zimdahl
Affiliation:
Weed Res. Lab, Dep. Plant Pathol, and Weed Sci., Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Brian K. Cranmer
Affiliation:
Weed Res. Lab, Dep. Plant Pathol, and Weed Sci., Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Walter W. Stroup
Affiliation:
Dep. Biometry, Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four equations were evaluated as predictors of the rate of herbicide dissipation in soil. A biexponential equation was superior to the first-order equation for metribuzin and pendimethalin dissipation under five moisture levels and three temperatures in laboratory and field studies. The Hoerl function, adapted in the course of this work, is also a good descriptor. The first-order equation predicts slower initial and more rapid later dissipation than actually occurs and these deficiencies are not shared by the biexponential or Hoerl equations. The first-order equation ignores small residues remaining late in the dissipation process. These residues are important from an environmental point of view and the Hoerl and biexponential equations are more capable of dealing with them.

Keywords

Metribuzin, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-onependimethalin, N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamineBiexponential equationfirst-order equationHoerl functionsoil moisturesoil temperature
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 241 - 248
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. Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Pages 157–161 in Applied Regression Analysis. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
2. Hamaker, J. W. 1972. Decomposition: Quantitative aspects. Pages 253–340 in Goring, C. A. I. and Hamaker, J. W., eds. Organic Chemicals in the Soil Environment. Marcel-Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
3. Hamaker, J. W. 1966. Mathematical prediction of cumulative levels of pesticides in soil. Pages 122–131 in Gould, R. F., ed. Organic Pesticides in the Environment. Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. 60. Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Hamaker, J. W. and Goring, C. A. I. 1976. Turnover of pesticide residues in soil. Pages 219–243 in Kaufmann, D. D., Still, G. G., Paulson, G. P., and Bandal, S. K., eds. Bound and Conjugated Pesticide Residues. Am. Chem. Soc. Symp. Ser. 29. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
5. Hance, R. J. 1983. Herbicide persistence—It is a problem? Pages 195–200 in Greenhalgh, R. and Drescher, N., eds. Pesticide Residues and Formulation Chemistry. Vol. 4 of Pesticide Chemistry: Human welfare and the environment. Proc. Int. Union of Pure and Appl. Chem., Kyoto, Japan. Pergamon Press, Oxford, U.K. Google Scholar
6. Hance, R. J. and McKone, C. E. 1971. Effect of concentration on the decomposition rates in soil of atrazine, linuron and picloram. Pestic. Sci. 3:31–34.Google Scholar
7. Hill, G. P., McGahen, J. W., Baker, H. M., Finnerty, D. W., and Bingeman, C. W. 1955. The fate of substituted urea herbicides in agricultural soils. Agron. J. 47:93–104.Google Scholar
8. Hoerl, A. E. 1954. Fitting curves to data. Pages 55–57 in Perry, J. H., ed. Chemical Business Handbook. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
9. Hyzak, D. L. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1974. Rate of dissipation of metribuzin and three analogs in soil. Weed Sci. 22:75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Kempson-Jones, G. F. and Hance, R. J. 1979. Kinetics of linuron and metribuzin degradation in soil. Pestic. Sci. 10:449–454.Google Scholar
11. LaFleur, K. S. 1980. Loss of pesticides from Congaree sandy loam with time: characterization. Soil Sci. 130:83–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. LaFleur, K. S., McCaskill, W. R., and Gale, G. T. 1978. Trifluralin persistence in Congaree soil. Soil Sci. 126:285–289.Google Scholar
13. Parker, L. W. and Doxtader, K. G. 1982. Kinetics of microbial decomposition of 2,4-D in soil: Effects of herbicide concentration. J. Environ. Qual. 11:679–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Parker, L. W. and Doxtader, K. G. 1983. Kinetics of the microbial degradation of 2,4-D in soil: Effects of temperature and moisture. J. Environ. Qual. 12:553–558.Google Scholar
15. Peters, D. B. 1965. Water availability. Pages 279–285 in Black, C. A., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
16. Poku, J. A. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Soil persistence of dinitramine. Weed Sci. 28:650–654.Google Scholar
17. Rahn, P. R. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1973. Soil degradation of two phenyl pyridazinones. Weed Sci. 21:314–317.Google Scholar
18. Reyes, C. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1988. Mathematical description of trifluralin degradation in soil. Weed Sci. 37:314–318.Google Scholar
19. Walker, A. 1987. Herbicide persistence in soil. Rev. Weed Sci. 3:1–17.Google Scholar
20. Walker, A. and Bond, W. 1977. Persistence of the herbicide AC92,553, N-(1-ethylpropyl)-2,6-dinitro-3,4-xylidine, in soils. Pestic. Sci. 8:359–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Zimdahl, R. L., Catizone, P., and Butcher, A. C. 1984. Degradation of pendimethalin in soil. Weed Sci. 32:408–412.Google Scholar
22. Zimdahl, R. L. and Gwynn, S. M. 1977. Soil degradation of three dinitroanilines. Weed Sci. 25:247–251.Google Scholar
23. Zimdahl, R. L., Freed, V. H., Montgomery, M. L., and Furtick, W. R. 1970. The degradation of triazine and uracil herbicides in soil. Weed Res. 10:18–26.Google Scholar