Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:08:25.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Soil characteristics and water potential effects on plant-available clomazone in rice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Do-Jin Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Education, Sunchon National University, 315 Maegok-dong, Suncheon 540-742, South Korea
John H. O'Barr
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
James M. Chandler
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
L. Jason Krutz
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
Garry N. McCauley
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Box 717, Eagle Lake, TX 77534
Yong In Kuk
Affiliation:
Biotechnology Research Institute, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 500-757, South Korea

Abstract

Clomazone has been successfully used for weed control in rice, but crop injury is a potential problem on light-textured soils. Experiments were conducted to determine the effect of soil characteristics and water potential on plant-available clomazone and rice injury. A centrifugal double-tube technique was used to determine plant-available concentration in soil solution (ACSS), total amount available in soil solution (TASS), and Kd values for clomazone on four soils at four water potentials. A rice bioassay was conducted parallel to the plant-available study to correlate biological availability to ACSS, TASS, and Kd. TASS was significantly different in all soils. The order of increasing TASS for the soils studied was Morey < Edna < Nada < Crowley, which correlated well with soil characteristics. The order of increasing TASS after equilibrium was − 90 < − 75 < − 33 < 0 kPa. TASS values at 0 kPa were greater than two times the TASS values at − 90 kPa. It appears that severe rice injury from clomazone on these soils could occur if TASS > 110 ng g−1 and Kd < 1.1 ml g−1. We propose that the double-tube technique provides a more accurate estimate of available herbicide because the solution–soil ratios are < 0.33:1 and would be more representative of a plant root–herbicide relationship. This technique or some variation possibly could be further developed such that clomazone rates could be more clearly defined particularly on lighter-textured soils. TASS may be a better predictor of plant-available herbicide than ACSS when evaluating moderately to highly water-soluble herbicides in a nonsaturated soil environment.

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

Arnon, D. I. 1949. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidases in Betta vulgaris . Plant Physiol 24:115.Google Scholar
Brady, N. C. and Weil, R. R. 1996. The Nature and Properties of Soils. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pp. 143175.Google Scholar
Cumming, J. P., Doyle, R. B., and Brown, P. H. 2002. Clomazone dissipation in four Tasmanian topsoils. Weed Sci 50:405409.Google Scholar
Dao, T. H. and Lavy, T. L. 1978. Atrazine adsorption on soils as influenced by temperature, moisture content and electrolyte concentration. Weed Sci 26:303308.Google Scholar
Duke, S. D. and Paul, R. N. 1986. Effect of dimethazone (FMC-57020) on chloroplast development. I. Ultrastructure effects in cowpea (Vigna unguiculuta L.) primary leaves. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol 25:110.Google Scholar
Gaillardon, P., Fauconnet, F., Jamet, P., Soulas, G., and Calvet, R. 1991. Study of diuron in soil solution by means of a novel simple technique using glass microfibre filters. Weed Res 31:357366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci 34:788793.Google Scholar
Green, R. E. and Obien, S. R. 1969. Herbicide equilibrium in soils in relation to soil water content. Weed Sci 17:514519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hance, R. J. and Embling, S. J. 1979. Effect of soil water content at time of application on herbicide content in soil solution extracted in a pressure membrane apparatus. Weed Res 19:201205.Google Scholar
Hiscox, J. D. and Israelstam, G. F. 1979. A method for the extraction of chlorophyll from leaf tissue without maceration. Can. J. Bot 57:13321334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Bollich, P. K., Burns, A. B., and Walker, D. M. 1998. Rice (Oryza sativa) response to clomazone. Weed Sci 46:374380.Google Scholar
Kirksey, K. B., Hayes, R. M., Charger, W. A., Mullions, C. A., and Mueller, T. C. 1996. Clomazone dissipation in two Tennessee soils. Weed Sci 44:959963.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, K., Nakamura, N., and Nagatsuka, S. 1996. Relationship of herbicidal activity of soil-applied mefenacet to its concentration in soil water and adsorption in soil. Weed Res. Jpn 41:98102.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, K., Onoe, M., and Sugiyama, H. 1994. Thenylchlor concentration in soil water and its herbicidal activity. Weed Res. Jpn 39:160164.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, K., Tsukasaki, Y., and Tongma, S. 1999. Phytotoxic activity of clomeprop in soil and concentration of its hydrolysed metabolite DMPA in soil water. Pestic. Sci 55:474478.Google Scholar
Lee, D. J., Kobayashi, K., and Ishizuka, K. 1998. Effect of soil moisture condition on the activity of soil-applied herbicides. Weed Res. Jpn 43:(Suppl.). 162163.Google Scholar
Lee, D. J., Yogo, Y., Kobayashi, K., and Sugiyama, H. 1996. Influence of soil moisture on thiobencarb concentration in soil solution. Weed Res. Jpn 41:350355.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Adsorption of clomazone on soils, sediments and clays. Weed Sci 37:440444.Google Scholar
Mervosh, T. L., Sims, G. K., Stoller, E. W., and Ellsworth, T. R. 1995. Clomazone sorption in soil: incubation time, temperature, and soil moisture effects. J. Agric. Food Chem 43:22952300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, J. R. 1987. Effect of soil moisture on the efficacy and selectivity of soil-applied herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci 3:1934.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R., McKercher, R. B., and Hance, R. J. 1972. Influence of adsorption on the uptake of diuron by barley plants. Can. J. Plant Sci 52:668670.Google Scholar
Romano, N., Hopmans, J. W., and Dane, J. H. 2002. 3.3.2.6 Suction table. Pages 692698 in Daneand, J. H. and Topp, G. C. eds. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4. Physical Methods. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Scott, J. E., Weston, L. A., Chappell, J., and Hanley, K. 1994. Effect of clomazone on IPP isomerase and phenyl transferase activities in cell suspension cultures and cotyledons of solanaceous species. Weed Sci 42:509516.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 493 p.Google Scholar
Walker, A. 1973. Availability of linuron to plants in different soils. Pestic. Sci 4:665675.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B., Wilkerson, G. G., and Linker, H. M. et al. 2000. A proposal to standardize soil/solution herbicide distribution coefficients. Weed Sci 48:7588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, E. P., Baldwin, F. L., and Dillon, T. L. 1999. The potential for clomazone use in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol 13:390393.Google Scholar
Wolt, J. D. 1994. Soil Solution Chemistry: Applications to Environmental Science and Agriculture. New York: Wiley. 345 p.Google Scholar
Wolt, J. D., Rhodes, G. N., 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 straw. Weed Sci 37:254258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar