Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:46:04.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determination of Thiencarbazone in Soil by Oriental Mustard Root Length Bioassay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anna M. Szmigielski ,
Jeff J. Schoenau ,
Eric N. Johnson ,
Frederick A. Holm  and
Ken L. Sapsford
Anna M. Szmigielski*
Affiliation:
Soil Science Department, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A8, Canada
Jeff J. Schoenau
Affiliation:
Soil Science Department, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A8, Canada
Eric N. Johnson
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Farm, Scott, Saskatchewan S0K 4A0, Canada
Frederick A. Holm
Affiliation:
Plant Sciences Department, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A8, Canada
Ken L. Sapsford
Affiliation:
Plant Sciences Department, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A8, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using an oriental mustard root length bioassay, thiencarbazone bioavailability and dissipation in five Saskatchewan soils was investigated under laboratory conditions. Thiencarbazone bioavailability was assessed at 0 to 3.9 µg ai kg−1. Thiencarbazone concentrations corresponding to 50% inhibition (I50 values) obtained from dose-response curves varied from 0.56 to 1.71 µg kg−1. Multiple regression analysis indicated that organic carbon content (P = 0.018) and soil pH (P = 0.017) predicted thiencarbazone bioavailability. Thiencarbazone dissipation was examined in soils incubated at 23 C and moisture content of 85% field capacity. Thiencarbazone half-lives estimated from dissipation curves were 9 to 50 d, and organic carbon content (P = 0.002) and soil pH (P = 0.008) were significant factors affecting thiencarbazone dissipation. Thiencarbazone bioavailability decreases and dissipation rate is slower in Canadian prairie soils of high organic matter content and low soil pH. Because root length of oriental mustard plants also was reduced by ammonium, therefore ammonium-containing or -producing fertilizers can cause false positive results for thiencarbazone soil residues. Canaryseed roots had the same sensitivity to ammonium as oriental mustard roots but were not inhibited by thiencarbazone. Therefore canaryseed root length bioassay was effective in identifying inhibition caused by ammonium toxicity. Use of oriental mustard root and canaryseed root bioassays together can aid in interpreting bioassay results for detection of thiencarbazone residues.

Keywords

Thiencarbazone, oriental mustard, Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. ‘Cutlass’canaryseed, Phalaris canariensis L. ‘CDC Togo’Thiencarbazoneoriental mustard root length bioassaybioavailabilitydissipationammonium toxicitycanaryseed root length bioassay
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 468 - 473
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Anderson, R. L. and Barrett, M. R. 1985. Residual phytotoxicity of chlorsulfuron in two soils. J. Environ. Qual. 14:111–114.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. L. and Humburg, N. E. 1987. Field duration of chlorsulfuron bioactivity in the central Great Plains. J. Environ. Qual. 16:263–266.Google Scholar
Bayer CropScience. 2011. Crop Compendium. http://compendium.bayercropscience.com/BAYER/CropScience/CropCompendium/BCSCropComp.nsf/id/Thiencarbazone-methyl.htm. Accessed: March 25, 2011.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J. and McKercher, R. B. 1989. Soil residual properties of DPX-A7881 under laboratory conditions. Weed Sci. 37:412–418.Google Scholar
Britto, D. T. and Kronzucker, H. J. 2002. NH4 + toxicity in higher plants: a critical review. J. Plant Physiol. 159:567–584.Google Scholar
Brown, H. M. 1990. Mode of action, crop selectivity and soil relations of the sulfonylurea herbicides. Pestic. Sci. 29:263–281.Google Scholar
Che, M., Loux, M. M., Traina, S. J., and Logan, T. J. 1992. Effect of pH on sorption and desorption of imazaquin and imazethapyr on clays and humic acid. J. Environ. Qual. 21:698–703.Google Scholar
Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds. 15:20–22.Google Scholar
Eliason, R., Schoenau, J. J., Szmigielski, A. M., and Laverty, W. M. 2004. Phytotoxicity and persistence of flucarbazone-sodium in soil. Weed Sci. 52:857–862.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Thiencarbazone-methyl Chemical Documents. http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/thiencarbazone-methyl.html. Accessed: March 25, 2011.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. 1990. Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38:421–428.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G., and Hajek, B. F. 1989. Sorption and mobility of chlorimuron in Alabama soils. Weed Sci. 37:428–433.Google 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.Google Scholar
Groves, K. E. M. and Foster, R. K. 1985. A corn (Zea mays L.) bioassay technique for measuring chlorsulfuron levels in three Saskatchewan soils. Weed Sci. 33:825–828.Google Scholar
Health Canada. 2010. Pest Management Regulatory Agency. Thiencarbazone-methyl. Evaluation Report ERC2010-03. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/arla-pmra/H113-26-2010-3-eng.pdf. Accessed: March 25, 2011.Google Scholar
Hernández-Sevillano, E., Villarroya, M., Alonso-Prados, J. L., and García-Baudín, J. M. 2001. Bioassay to detect sulfosulfuron and triasulfuron residues in soil. Weed Technol. 15:447–452.Google Scholar
Hsiao, A. I. and Simth, A. E. 1983. A root bioassay procedure for the determination of chlorsulfuron, diclofop acid and sethoxydim residues in soils. Weed Res. 23:231–236.Google Scholar
Hultgren, R. P., Hudson, R. J. M., and Sims, G. K. 2002. Effects of soil pH and soil water content on prosulfuron dissipation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:3236–3243.Google Scholar
Joshi, M. M., Brown, H. M., and Romesser, J. A. 1985. Degradation of chlorsulfuron by soil microorganisms. Weed Sci. 33:888–893.Google Scholar
Jourdan, S. W., Majek, B. A., and Ayeni, A. O. 1998. Imazethapyr bioactivity and movement in soil. Weed Sci. 46:608–613.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1992. Effect of soil pH on adsoprtion and persistence of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 40:490–496.Google Scholar
Mersie, W. and Foy, C. L. 1985. Phytotoxicity and adsorption of chlorsulfuron as affected by soil properties. Weed Sci. 33:564–568.Google Scholar
Morishita, D. W., Thill, D. C., Flom, D. G., Campbell, T. C., and Lee, G. A. 1985. Method for bioassaying chlorsulfuron in soil and water. Weed Sci. 33:420–425.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R., Coen, G., Dunn, R., and Smith, A. M. 2010. Effects of landscape position, rainfall, and tillage on residual herbicides. Weed Technol. 24:361–368.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R. and Esau, R. 1996. Imidazolinone herbicide effects on following rotational crops in southern Alberta. Weed Technol. 10:100–106.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R., Esau, R., and Kozub, G. C. 1990. Chlorsulfuron persistence and response of nine rotational crops in alkaline soils of southern Alberta. Weed Technol. 4:543–548.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R. and Hamman, W. H. 2001. Factors affecting the toxicity of MON 37500 residues to following crops. Weed Technol. 15:42–47.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:78–83.Google Scholar
Schoenau, J. J., Szmigielski, A. M., and Eliason, R. C. 2005. The effect of landscape position on residual herbicide activity in prairie soils. Pages 45–52 in Van Acker, R. C., ed. Soil Residual Herbicides: Science and Management. Topics in Canadian Weed Science. Volume 3 Sainte-Anne-de Bellevue, Québec Canadian Weed Science Society—Société canadienne de malherbologie.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Senesi, N., La Cava, P., and Miano, T. M. 1997. Adsorption of imazethapyr to amended and nonamended soils and humic acids. J. Eniviron. Qual. 26:1264–1270.Google Scholar
Smith, A. E. and Aubin, A. J. 1992. Degradation of the sulfonylurea herbicide [14C]amidosulfuron (HOE075032) in Saskatchewan soils under laboratory conditions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 40:2500–2504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmigielski, A. M., Schoenau, J. J., Geisel, B. G. L., Holm, F. A., and Johnson, E. N. 2011. Application of a laboratory bioassay for assessment of bioactivity of ALS-inhibiting herbicides in soil. Pages 217–228 in Kortekamp, A., ed. Herbicides and Environment. Rijeka, Croatia In Tech, http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/application-of-a-laboratory-bioassay-for-assessment-of-bioactivity-of-als-inhibiting-herbicides-in-s.Google Scholar
Szmigielski, A. M., Schoenau, J. J., Irvine, A., and Schilling, B. 2008. Evaluating a mustard root-length bioassay for predicting crop injury from soil residual flucarbazone. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 39:413–420.Google Scholar
Thirunarayanan, K., Zimdahl, R. L., and Smika, S. E. 1985. Chlorsulfuron adsorption and degradation in soil. Weed Sci. 33:558–563.Google Scholar
Walker, A. and Brown, P. A. 1983. Measurement and prediction of chlorsulfuron persistence in soil. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 30:365–372.Google Scholar
Wang, D. and Anderson, D. W. 1998. Direct measurement of organic carbon content in soils by the Leco CR-12 carbon analyzer. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 29:15–21.Google Scholar
Wang, Q. and Liu, W. 1999. Correlation of imazapyr adsorption and desorption with soil properties. Soil Sci. 164:411–416.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G., Dickens, R., Wilcut, J. W., and Hajek, B. F. 1987. Sorption and mobility of sulfometuron and imazapyr in five Alabama soils. Weed Sci. 35:858–864.Google Scholar