Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:03:10.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Soil pH on Adsorption and Persistence of Imazaquin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Mark M. Loux  and
Kirk D. Reese
Mark M. Loux
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Ohio State Univ., Columbus 43210
Kirk D. Reese
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Ohio State Univ., Columbus 43210
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Laboratory and field studies were conducted in 1988 through 1990 to determine the effect of soil pH on imazaquin adsorption and persistence in a Crosby silt loam (1.6% organic matter) and a Hoytville clay (3.3% organic matter). Above a pH of 6, 6 to 7% of the total imazaquin present was adsorbed to both soils. Adsorption increased as pH decreased from about 7 to 4.5, with a maximum of 16.5 and 31% adsorbed on Crosby and Hoytville soils, respectively. Imazaquin was more persistent in the Hoytville clay than in the Crosby silt loam. Herbicide dissipated more slowly in both soils in 1988 than in 1989 due to dry soil conditions immediately prior to and following herbicide application in 1988. In both soils, imazaquin persistence increased as soil pH decreased, over a pH range from 6.5 to 4.5. Increased persistence with decreasing pH was attributed in part to increased adsorption and decreased availability for microbial degradation.

Keywords

Imazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidHerbicide carryoverimidazolinone herbicidesherbicide dissipation
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 490 - 496
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 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, J.P.E. and Domsch, K. H. 1980. Relationship between herbicide concentration and the rates of enzymatic degradation of 14C-diallate and 14C-triallate in soil. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 9:259–268.Google Scholar
2. Anderson, J.P.E. 1981. Soil moisture and the rates of biodegradation of diallate and triallate. Soil Biol. Biochem. 13:155–161.Google Scholar
3. 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.Google Scholar
4. Cantwell, J. R., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Biodegradation characteristics of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 37:815–819.Google Scholar
5. Che, M. D. and Loux, M. M. 1990. The adsorption and desorption of imazaquin and imazethapyr on soil, clay, and humic acid. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:11.Google Scholar
6. Goetz, A. J., Wehjte, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 34:788–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Lo, C. and Merkle, M. G. 1984. Factors affecting the phytotoxicity of norflurazon. Weed Sci. 32:279–283.Google Scholar
8. Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Adsorption of imazaquin and imazethapyr on soils, sediments, and selected adsorbents. Weed Sci. 37:712–718.Google Scholar
9. Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Availability and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in soil. Weed Sci. 37:259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Mersie, W. and Foy, C. L. 1985. Phytotoxicity and adsorption of chlorsulfuron as affected by soil properties. Weed Sci. 33:564–568.Google Scholar
11. Ogram, A. V., Jessup, R. E., Ou, L. T., and Rao, P.S.C. 1985. Effects of sorption on biological degradation rates of (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid in soils. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 49:582–587.Google Scholar
12. 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
13. Rogers, C. B., Talbert, R. E., Mattice, J. D., Lavy, T. L., and Frans, R. E. 1986. Residual fluometuron levels in three Arkansas soils under continuous cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) production. Weed Sci. 34:122–130.Google Scholar
14. Savage, K. E. 1978. Persistence of several dinitroaniline herbicides as affected by soil moisture. Weed Sci. 26:465–471.Google Scholar
15. Schmidt, R. R. and Pestemer, W. 1980. Plant availability and uptake of herbicides from soil. Pages 179–201 in Hance, R. J., ed. Interactions Between Herbicides and the Soil. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
16. Schroeder, J. and Banks, P. A. 1986. Persistence and activity of norflurazon and fluridone in five Georgia soils under controlled conditions. Weed Sci. 34:599–606.Google Scholar
17. Stougaard, R. N., Shea, P. J., and Martin, A. R. 1990. Effect of soil type and pH on adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38:67–73.Google Scholar