Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:08:44.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Temperature effects on imazaquin soil bioavailability, uptake, and metabolism in corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Nicholas D. Polge  and
Michael Barrett
Nicholas D. Polge
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Kentucky, Lexingron, KY 40546-0091
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Growth chamber experiments were conducted to determine the effects of soil temperature on the response of corn to imazaquin soil residues. In a silt loam soil, 24/30 C (night/day) or 18/24 C soil temperatures caused greater inhibition of shoot growth than 12/18 C soil temperature. However, in a sandy loam soil, inhibition of corn shoot growth was maximal at 18/24 C, and there was no difference in shoot-growth inhibition between the lowest and highest temperatures. Higher soil temperatures caused greater root-growth inhibition in the sandy loam soil but not in silt loam soil. Soil temperature did not affect 14C-imazaquin uptake from either soil. Higher soil temperatures increased the translocation of imazaquin from root to shoot tissue in both soils. In the sandy loam soil, imazaquin metabolism in root tissue decreased as soil temperature increased, with twice as much parent herbicide recovered from roots of plants grown under the highest compared with the lowest temperature treatments. Soil temperature had no effect on imazaquin metabolism in shoot tissue. Longer-term experiments (22 d) were conducted with the sandy loam soil to determine the effect of changes in air temperature on corn response to imazaquin soil residues. Plants exposed to 24/30 C for 7 or 14 d of the final 14-d growing period showed greater inhibition of shoot growth compared with plants maintained at 12/18 C. Uptake and translocation of 14C-imazaquin to shoots was greater in plants maintained at 24/30 C throughout the final 14-d period than in plants maintained at 12/18 C. Plants grown for 7 d at 24/30 C during the final 14-d period either preceding or following 7 d growth at 12/18 C showed increased translocation of imazaquin to shoots but no difference in imazaquin uptake compared with plants maintained at 12/18 C. Neither air nor soil temperature treatments had any effect on imazaquin concentration in soil water.

Keywords

Imazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-y l]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3475’Carryovercrop injuryenvironmental conditionstranslocation
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , April 1997 , pp. 198 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

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.Google Scholar
Basham, G. W. and Lavy, T. L. 1987. Microbial and photolytic dissipation of imazaquin in soil. Weed Sci. 35: 865–870.Google 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.Google Scholar
Blair, A. M., Richardson, W. G., and West, T. W. 1983. The influence of climatic factors on metoxuron activity on Bromus sterilis L. Weed Res. 23: 259–265.Google Scholar
Che, M., Loux, M. M., Traina, S. J., and Logan, T. J. 1992. Effect of pH on sorption and desorption of imazaquin and imazethapyt on clays and humic acid. J. Environ. Qual. 21: 698–703.Google Scholar
Curran, W. S., Knake, E. L., and Liebl, R. A. 1991. Corn (Zea mays) injury following use of clomazone, chlorimuron, imazaquin, and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5: 539–544.Google 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.Google Scholar
[KASS] Kentucky Agricultural Statistics Service. 1994. Kentucky Agricultural Statistics 1993–1994. Louisville, KY: U.S. Department of Agriculture, p. 101.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989a. Availability and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomozone in soil. Weed Sci. 37: 259–267.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989b. Adsorption of imazaquin and imazethapyr on soils, sediments and selected adsorbents. Weed Sci. 37: 712–718.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1992. Effect of pH on adsorption and persistence of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 40: 490–496.Google Scholar
Malefyt, T. and Quakenbush, L. 1991. Influences of environmental factors on the biological activity of the imidazolinone herbicides. in Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 104–127.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
Monks, C. D. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Rotational crop response to chlorimuron, clomazone, and imazaquin applied the previous year. Weed Sci. 39: 629–633.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R. 1987. Effect of soil moisture on the efficacy and selectivity of soil-applied herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 3: 19–34.Google Scholar
O'Bryan, K. A., Brecke, B. J., Shilling, D. G., and Colvin, D. L. 1994. Comparison of bioassay techniques for detecting imazaquin in soil. Weed Technol. 8: 203–206.Google Scholar
Pillmoor, J. B. 1985. Influence of temperature on the activity of AC 222,293 against Avena fatua L. and Alopecurus myosuroides Huds. Weed Res. 25: 433–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988a. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36: 90–95.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988b. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36: 78–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, R. P. and Putnam, A. R. 1980. Environmental influences on the selectivity of diphenamid in seeded tomato (Lycospersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 28: 176–180.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1992. The mixed procedure. SAS Technical Report, SASISTAT Software: Changes and Enhancements, Release 6.07. Carey, NC: SAS Institute, pp. 289–366.Google Scholar