Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T20:01:02.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Straw, Ash, and Tillage on Dissipation of Imazaquin and Imazethapyr

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

C. Dale Monks  and
Philip A. Banks
C. Dale Monks
Affiliation:
Dep. Ext. Agron., Univ. Georgia, Athens, GA 30602
Philip A. Banks
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Georgia, Athens, GA 30602
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted on a Cedarbluff silt loam and a Cecil sandy loam to determine dissipation of imazaquin and imazethapyr as influenced by burning small-grain straw and tillage prior to soybean planting. Corn bioassay detection limits for imazaquin and imazethapyr in the Cedarbluff silt loam were 2.5 to 30 and 5 to 40 ppbw, respectively. Bioassay detection limits for imazaquin and imazethapyr in the Cecil sandy loam were 2.5 to 20 and 10 to 40 ppbw, respectively. Imazaquin and imazethapyr activity was not detectable in soil by 110 to 152 d after treatment. Imazethapyr dissipation was not affected by burning or tillage in the Cedarbluff silt loam and dissipated more slowly in 1989 than imazaquin. Imazaquin dissipation in the Cedarbluff silt loam in 1988 was slower in burned plots than in nonburned plots but was not affected by burning in 1989. No differences were observed between imazaquin and imazethapyr dissipation in the Cecil sandy loam and neither burning or tillage influenced their rate of dissipation in either year. No-till-planted cotton was injured at both locations by imazaquin and imazethapyr that had been applied the previous year.

Keywords

Imazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidimazethapyr, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3369A’cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Coker 208’, ‘Stoneville 825’soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Braxton’, ‘Duocrop’Bioassaycottoncrop injurypersistenceHordeum vulgareTriticum aestivum
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 133 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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. Amin, M. K., Rhodes, G. N., Holt, J. D., and Graved, J. G. 1989. Wheat straw influence on soil reception of imazaquin. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:342.Google Scholar
2. Baker, R. C. and Barrentine, W. L. 1989. Cotton response following soybeans treated with chlorimuron and imazaquin. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:97.Google Scholar
3. Banks, P. A. and Robinson, E. L. 1982. The influence of straw mulch on the soil reception and persistence of metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30:164–168.Google Scholar
4. Barnes, C. J., Goetz, A. J., and Lavy, T. L. 1989. Effects of imazaquin residues on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37:820–824.Google Scholar
5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Cantwell, J. R., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Biodegradation characteristics of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 37:815–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. Jr. 1990. Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38:421–428.Google Scholar
8. 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.Google Scholar
9. 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
10. Mills, J. A., Witt, W. W., and Olson, G. L. 1987. Effects of tillage on imazaquin and imazethapyr persistence. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 40:378.Google Scholar
11. Monks, C. D. and Banks, P. A. 1989. Response of rotational crops to soybean herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:47.Google Scholar
12. Moss, S. R. and Cotterill, E. G. 1985. The influence of straw ash on some soil properties that can affect herbicide performance. Soil & Tillage Res. 5:361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36:90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Toth, J. 1973. Burning reduces herbicide effect. Agric. Gaz. New S. Wales. 84:62.Google Scholar
16. Toth, J. and Milham, P. J. 1975. Activated-carbon and ash-carbon effects on the adsorption and phytotoxicity of diuron. Weed Res. 15:171–176.Google Scholar
17. Toth, J., Milham, P. J., and Raison, J. M. 1981. Ash from rice stubble inactivates thiobencarb and molinate. Weed Res. 21:113–117.Google Scholar
18. Williams, W. A., Morse, M. D., and Ruckman, J. E. 1972. Burning vs incorporation of rice crop residues. Agron. J. 64:467–468.Google Scholar
19. Witt, W. W. 1989. Herbicide persistence in reduced tillages for soybean production systems. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:91.Google Scholar
20. Wolt, J. D., Rhodes, G. N. Jr., Graveel, J. G., Glosauer, E. M., Amin, M. K., and Church, P. L. 1989. Activity of imazaquin in soil solution as affected by incorporated wheat (Triticum aestivum) straw. Weed Sci. 37:254–258.Google Scholar