Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:53:23.195Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interception and Retention of Atrazine by Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Stubble

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Hossein Ghadiri ,
Patrick J. Shea  and
Gail A. Wicks
Hossein Ghadiri
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
Patrick J. Shea
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
Gail A. Wicks
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. of Nebraska, North Platte Station, North Platte, NE 69101
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Atrazine [2-chloro-4-(ethylamino)-6-(isopropylamino)-s-triazine] retention by standing and flat wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) stubble was determined over time. Immediately following an application of 1.7 kg/ha atrazine, approximately 60% of the herbicide had been intercepted by the stubble and 40% was found in the underlying soil. After 3 weeks and 50 mm of rainfall, atrazine on standing and flat stubble had decreased by 90 and 63%, respectively, while atrazine in the soil increased nearly twofold. No atrazine was found in stubble 9 weeks after application, and only 17% of that originally applied remained in the upper 4 cm of the soil. Successive alternate-day applications of 12.5, 25, or 50 mm water on 14C-atrazine retention by stubble was determined. Atrazine loss from stubble was greatest during the first water application, but there was no linear relationship between water application rate and retention of the herbicide. Atrazine loss from stubble decreased significantly following the second water application in all treatments. The amount of water applied did not influence atrazine loss following the third washing. Subsequent loss after the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh washings was not significant at any water application volume. After the seventh washing, atrazine residues were greatest on stubble which had received the least amount of water.

Keywords

Minimum tillcrop residuestubble mulch
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , January 1984 , pp. 24 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Crutchfield, D. A. and Wicks, G. A. 1983. Effect of wheat mulch level on weed control in ecofarming corn production. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am.: page 1.Google Scholar
3. Erbach, D. C. and Lovely, W. G. 1975. Effect of plant residue on herbicide performance in no-tillage corn. Weed Sci. 23:512–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Lowder, S. W. and Weber, J. B. 1979. Atrazine retention by crop residues in reduced-tillage systems. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 32:303–307.Google Scholar
5. Robison, L. R. and Wittmuss, H. D. 1973. Evaluation of herbicides for use in zero and minimized tilled corn and sorghum. Agron. J. 65:283–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Triplett, G. B. and Lytle, G. D. 1972. Control and ecology of weeds in continuous corn growth without tillage. Weed Sci. 20:453–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Walker, A. and Crawford, D. V. 1968. The role of organic matter in adsorption of the triazine herbicides by soils. Proc. Isotopes and Radiation in Soil Organic Matter Studies, Second Symposium, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. Pages 91–108.Google Scholar