Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:39:45.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imazaquin mobility and persistence in a Sharkey clay soil as influenced by tillage systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Simone Seifert ,
David R. Shaw ,
William L. Kingery ,
Charles E. Snipes  and
Richard A. Wesley
Simone Seifert
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
William L. Kingery
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Charles E. Snipes
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
Richard A. Wesley
Affiliation:
USDA/ARS, Application and Production Technology Research, Stoneville, MS 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, in 1996, 1997, and 1998 to assess the effect of tillage systems (conventional tillage and subsoiling) on the environmental fate of imazaquin in a Sharkey clay soil. Imazaquin was applied preemergence at 140 g ai ha−1. Subsoiling in the fall did not affect imazaquin dissipation, total volume of runoff, imazaquin concentration in runoff, or imazaquin concentration in soil, as determined by chemical extraction. A corn root bioassay revealed no differences due to tillage systems in plant-available imazaquin in soil. Imazaquin concentration measured by chemical extraction or bioassay diminished over time, with a half-life ranging from 8 to 25 d. A field bioassay utilizing cotton and corn was conducted in 1997 and 1998 using plots that had received imazaquin the previous year. In 1997, 2 wk after planting, cotton and corn injury ranged from 3 to 15%, whereas no injury was observed in 1998. Injury symptoms declined over time, with no injury 5 wk after planting in either year. Although early-season cotton stunting and slight discoloration of corn was apparent in 1997, imazaquin residues did not affect subsequent vegetative and reproductive growing patterns of cotton or corn. In 1998, corn and cotton height were significantly greater in subsoiled plots compared to conventional tillage.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L. ‘HyPerformer HS 9773’, ‘Pioneer 3167’cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘DPL 50’soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘DPL 3589’Bioassaycarryoverdissipationfield dissipationplant availabilityrunoffsubsoiling
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , August 2001 , pp. 571 - 577
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

Ahrens, W. H., ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 165–166.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1999. Weed Control Guidelines for Mississippi. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University Extension Service Publication 1532. 50 p.Google Scholar
Barnes, C. J. and Lavy, T. L. 1991. Injury and yield response of selected crops to imazaquin and norflurazon residues. Weed Technol. 5:598–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basham, G. W., 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
Baughman, T. A. and Shaw, D. R. 1996. Effect of wetting/drying circles on dissipation patterns of bioavailable imazaquin. Weed Sci. 44:380–382.Google Scholar
Bourland, F. M. and Watson, C. E. Jr. 1990. COTMAP, a technique for evaluating structure and yield of cotton plants. Crop Sci. 30:224–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantwell, R. J., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Biodegradation characteristics of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 37:815–819.Google Scholar
Curran, W. S., Liebl, R. A., and Simmons, F. W. 1992. Effects of tillage and application method on clomazone, imazaquin, and imazethapyr persistence. Weed Sci. 40:482–489.Google Scholar
Flint, J. L. and Witt, W. W. 1997. Microbial degradation of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 45:586–591.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffith, D. R., Moncrief, J. F., Eckert, D. J., Swan, J. B., and Breitbach, D. D. 1992. Crop response to tillage systems. Pages 25–33 In Conservation Tillage Systems and Management. MidWest Plan Service-45. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. H., Talbert, R. E., and Horton, D. R. 1995. Carryover potential of imazaquin to cotton, grain sorghum, wheat, rice, and corn. Weed Sci. 43:454–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. H. and Talbert, R. E. 1996. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to imazaquin and imazethapyr soil residues. Weed Sci. 44:156–161.Google Scholar
Locke, M. A. and Bryson, C. T. 1997. Herbicide-soil interactions in reduced tillage and plant residue management systems. Weed Sci. 45:307–320.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Adsorption of imazaquin and imazethapyr on soils, sediment, and selected adsorbents. Weed Sci. 37:712–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1992. Effect of soil pH on adsorption and persistence of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 40:490–496.Google Scholar
Malefyt, T. and Quakenbush, L. 1991. Influence of environmental factors on the biological activity of the imidazolinone herbicides. Pages 103–127 In Shaner, D. L. and O’Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Mangels, G. 1991. Behavior of the Imidazolinone herbicides in soil—a review of literature. Pages 191–209 In Shaner, D. L. and O’Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1991. Dissipation of imazaquin and imazethapyr under conventional and no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5:586–591.Google Scholar
Regitano, J. B., Bischoff, M., Lee, L. S., Reichert, J. M., and Turco, R. F. 1997. Retention of imazaquin in soil. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 17:397–404.Google Scholar
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
Smith, L. A. 1995. Cotton response to deep tillage with controlled traffic on clay. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 38:45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Banks, P. A., Barrett, M., Brecke, B., Rhodes, N., Santelman, P., Shaw, D., Talbert, R., and Weber, J. B. 1995. Dissipation of imazaquin in Southern soils. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 30:621–635.Google Scholar
Walker, A. 1987. Herbicide persistence in soil. Rev. Weed Sci. 3:1–17.Google Scholar
Wauchope, R. D. 1978. The pesticide content of surface water draining from agricultural fields—a review. J. Environ. Qual. 7:459–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wesley, R. A. and Smith, L. A. 1991. Response of soybean to deep tillage with controlled traffic on clay soil. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 34:113–119.Google Scholar
Wesley, R. A., Smith, L. A., and Spurlock, S. R. 1994. Fall Deep Tillage of Clay: Agronomic and Economic Benefits to Soybeans. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experimental Station Bulletin 1015. 8 p.Google Scholar