Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:25:26.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Residual Herbicide Dissipation from Soil Covered with Low-Density Polyethylene Mulch or Left Bare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy L. Grey*
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Sciences Department, The University of Georgia, 115 Coastal Way, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31794
William K. Vencill
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Sciences Department, The University of Georgia, 4105 Plant Science, Athens, GA 30602
Nehru Mantripagada
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Sciences Department, The University of Georgia, 4105 Plant Science, Athens, GA 30602
A. Stanley Culpepper
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Sciences Department, The University of Georgia, 115 Coastal Way, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31794
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to examine the dissipation of three soil-applied residual herbicides for bare soil compared with soil under low-density polyethylene (LDPE) mulch in 2003 and 2004. Studies indicated that halosulfuron and S-metolachlor dissipation was more rapid for bare soil than soil under LDPE mulch. Sulfentrazone dissipation from bare soil was equal to soil under LDPE mulch in 2003. However, sulfentrazone dissipation in 2004 was more rapid for soil under LDPE mulch than for bare soil. The order for half-life, defined as time for 50% dissipation (DT50), varied by herbicide and soil exposure. Averaged across 2003 and 2004, metolachlor DT50 was 2 d, halosulfuron 7 d, and sulfentrazone 16 d for bare soil. S-metolachlor DT50 was 4 d, halosulfuron 10 d, and sulfentrazone 13 d for soil under LDPE mulch. Correlation between quantified herbicide dissipation and bioassay for bare soil compared with soil under LDPE mulch in 2004 indicated that assay species root dry weights were negatively correlated with herbicide concentration. Data indicated that S-metolachlor and sulfentrazone bioassays, with oat and cotton, respectively, could be used to assess the level of dissipation for each herbicide.

Type
Soil, Air, and Water
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

Bond, W. and Walker, A. 1989. Aspects of herbicide activity and persistence under low level polyethylene covers. Ann. Appl. Biol. 114:133140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, D. C., Lavy, T. L., and Marx, D. B. 1982. Fate of metribuzin, metolachlor, and fluometuron in soil. Weed Sci. 30:629632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braverman, M. P., Lavy, T. L., and Barnes, C. J. 1986. The degradation and bioactivity of metolachlor in the soil. Weed Sci. 34:479484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, A. C., Senseman, S. A., and Cralle, H. T. 1999. Adsorption–desorption of halosulfuron on selected Texas soils. in. 52nd Proceedings of Southern Weed Science Society. Greensboro, NC. 211.Google Scholar
Cornelius, A. J., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1985. Activity of acetanilide herbicides on yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Weed Sci. 33:721723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, K. B., Weston, L. A., and Witt, W. W. 1999. Influence of formulation and methods of application on sulfentrazone dissipation. in 52nd Proceedings of Southern Weed Science Society. Greensboro, NC 194197.Google Scholar
Csinos, A. S., Webster, T. M., Sumner, D. R., Johnson, A. W., Dowler, C. C., and Seebold, K. W. 2002. Application and crop safety parameters for soil fumigants. Crop Prot. 21:973982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dermiyati, S. K. and Yamamoto, I. 1997a. Degradation of the herbicide halosulfuron-methyl in two soils under different environmental conditions. J. Pestic. Sci. 22:282287.Google Scholar
Dermiyati, S. K. and Yamamoto, I. 1997b. Relationships between soil properties and sorption behavior of the herbicide halosulfuron-methyl in selected Japanese soils. J. Pestic. Sci. 22:288292.Google Scholar
Ferrell, J. A., Witt, W. W., and Vencill, W. K. 2003. Sulfentrazone absorption by plant roots increases as soil or solution pH decreases. Weed Sci. 51:826830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvey, P. V. and Monks, D. W. 1998. Response of vegetable crops grown in rotation to sulfentrazone treated soybeans. Pages 9192. in. 51st Proceedings of Southern Weed Science Society. Birmingham, AL Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Gaynor, J. D., Hamill, A. S., and MacTavish, D. C. 1993. Efficacy, fruit residues, and soil dissipation of the herbicide metolachlor in processing tomato. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 118:6872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilreath, J. P., Noling, J. W., and Santos, B. M. 2004. Methyl bromide alternatives for bell pepper (Capsicum annuum) and cucumber (Cucumis sativus) rotations. Crop Prot. 23:347351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. C., and NeSmith, D. S. 2002. Transplanted pepper (Capsicum annum) tolerance to selected herbicides and method of application. J. Veg. Crop Prod. 8:2739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, T. L., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G. R., Adams, J. Jr., Kwon, O., Weete, J. D., Dayan, F. E., and Hancock, H. G. 2000. Behavior of sulfentrazone with ionic exchange resins, electrophoresis gels, and cation-saturated soils. Weed Sci. 48:239247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, T. L., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G. R., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Sulfentrazone adsorption and mobility as affected by soil and pH. Weed Sci. 45:733738.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Besler, B. A., and Brewer, K. D. 2003. Purple nutsedge control and potato (Solanum tuberosum) tolerance to sulfentrazone and halosulfuron. Weed Technol. 17:485490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuwatsuka, S. S. and Yamamoto, I. 1997a. Degradation of the herbicide halosulfuron-methyl in two soils under different environmental conditions. J. Pestic. Sci. 22:282287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuwatsuka, S. S. and Yamamoto, I. 1997b. Relationships between soil properties and sorption behavior of the herbicide halosulfuron-methyl in selected Japanese soils. J. Pestic. Sci. 22:287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, C. L., Mueller, T. C., Hayes, R. M., Wilcut, J. W., Peeper, T. F., Talbert, R. E., and Witt, W. W. 2004. Sulfentrazone persistence in southern soils: bioavailable concentration and effect on a rotational cotton crop. Weed Technol. 18:346352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Shaw, D. R., and Witt, W. W. 1999. Relative dissipation of acetochlor, alachlor, metolachlor and SAN 582 from three surface soils. Weed Technol. 13:341346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 2002. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control and tuber production with glyphosate and ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol. 16:512519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obrigawitch, T., Abernathy, J. R., and Gipson, J. R. 1980. Response of yellow (Cyperus esculentus) and purple (Cyperus rotundus) nutsedge to metolachlor. Weed Sci. 28:708715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obrigawitch, T., Hons, F. M., Abernathy, J. R., and Gipson, J. R. 1981. Adsorption, desorption, and mobility of metolachlor in soils. Weed Sci. 29:332336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohmes, G. A., Mueller, T. C., and Hayes, R. M. 2000. Sulfentrazone dissipation in a Tennessee soil. Weed Technol. 14:100105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, D. C., Simmons, F. W., and Wax, L. M. 2005. Fall and early preplant application timing effects on persistance and efficacy of acetamide herbicides. Weed Technol. 19:613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patakioutas, G. and Albanis, T. A. 2002. Adsorption–desorption studies of alachlor, metolachlor, EPTC, chlorothalonil and pirimiphos-methyl in contrasting soils. Pest Manag. Sci. 58:352362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peachey, R. E., Pinkerton, J. N., Ivors, K. L., Miller, M. L., and Moore, L. W. 2001. Effect of soil solarization, cover crops, and metham on field emergence and survival of buried annual bluegrass (Poa annua) seeds. Weed Technol. 15:8188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peter, C. J. and Weber, J. B. 1985. Adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of alachlor, and metolachlor as influenced by soil properties. Weed Sci. 33:874881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Locke, M. A. 1998. Sulfentrazone sorption, desorption, and mineralization in soils from two tillage systems. Weed Sci. 46:494500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 3884.Google Scholar
Vencill, W.K., ed. 2002a. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America. 299300.Google Scholar
Vencill, W.K., ed. 2002b. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America. 405406.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Hawf, L. R. 1995. Effect of MON-12037 on purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow (Cyperus esculentus) nutsedge. Weed Technol. 9:148152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, J. B., McKinnon, E. J., and Swain, L. R. 2003. Sorption and mobility of 14C-labeled imazaquin and metolachlor in four soils as influenced by soil properites. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:57525759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2006. Weed survey—southern states: vegetable, fruit and nut crops subsection. in. 59th Proceedings of Southern Weed Science Society. San Antonio, TX. 260277.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Csinos, A. S., Johnson, A. W., Dowler, C. C., Sumner, D. R., and Fery, R. L. 2001. Methyl bromide alternatives in a bell pepper–squash rotation. Crop Prot. 20:605614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M., Culpepper, A. S., and Johnson, W. C. III. 2003. Response of squash and cucumber cultivars to halosulfuron. Weed Technol. 17:173176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M. and MacDonald, G. E. 2001. A survey of weeds in various crops in Georgia. Weed Technol. 15:771790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Walker, R. H., Grey, T. L., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Response of purple and yellow nutsedges to selective placement of sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 45:382387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar