Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:04:58.117Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Imazamox Soil Persistence on Dryland Rotational Crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Daniel A. Ball ,
Joseph P. Yenish  and
Theodore Alby III
Daniel A. Ball*
Affiliation:
Oregon State University, Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Center, Pendleton, OR 97801
Joseph P. Yenish
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Washington State University, Pullman, WA
Theodore Alby III
Affiliation:
BASF Corp., Vancouver, WA
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Imazamox is an imidazolinone herbicide being developed for weed control in imidazolinone-resistant wheat (IMI-wheat) cultivars and various legume crops. In a series of studies conducted under a range of dryland cropping environments in the Pacific Northwest United States, imazamox applied to IMI-wheat or pea injured barley and canola grown 1 yr after imazamox treatment in low-rainfall, low–soil pH locations of Oregon. Injury was not observed in higher rainfall locations near Pullman, WA. Non–herbicide-resistant wheat planted 1 yr after IMI-wheat treated with imazamox was not injured. Of particular concern for imazamox carryover are low-rainfall areas with low-pH soils. Reduced soil moisture appears to limit imazamox degradation. Imazamox sorption is reduced in low-pH soils, which increases its bioavailability, thereby increasing the potential for injury to rotational crops such as barley, canola, and spring wheat.

Keywords

Imazamoxbarley, Hordeum vulgare L.canola, Brassica napa L.pea, Pisum sativum L.wheat, Triticum aestivum L.BarleycanolacarryoverClearfield™herbicide-resistant wheatpeaIMI-wheat, imidazolinone-resistant wheatPNW, Pacific Northwest
Type
Commentary
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 2003 , pp. 161 - 165
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

Ball, D. A., Young, F. L., and Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1999. Selective control of jointed goatgrass with imazamox in herbicide-resistant wheat. Weed Technol. 13/ 1: 77–82.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. and Walenta, D. L. 1997. Jointed Goatgrass and Downy Brome Control in Imidazolinone Resistant Winter Wheat. Western Society of Weed Science (WSWS) Research Progress Report. p. 89.Google Scholar
Belles, W. S. and Thill, D. C. 1998. Weed Control in Imidazolinone Resistant Winter Wheat. WSWS Research Progress Report. 146 p.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1998. Postemergence weed control in pea (Pisum sativum) with imazamox. Weed Technol. 12: 64–68.Google Scholar
Bresnahan, G., Dexter, A., Koskinen, W., and Lueschen, W. 2002. Influence of soil pH-sorption interactions on the carry-over of fresh and aged soil residues of imazamox. Weed Res. 42: 45–51.Google Scholar
Brewster, B. D., Gamroth, D. M., and Mallory-Smith, C. 1997. Control of Annual Grasses in Imidazolinone-Resistant Winter Wheat with Imazamox. WSWS Research Progress Report. p. 92.Google Scholar
Cobucci, T., Prates, H. T., Falcao, C. L. M., and Rezende, M. M. V. 1998. Effect of imazamox, fomesafen, and acifluorfen soil residue on rotational crops. Weed Sci. 46: 258–263.Google Scholar
Douglas, C. L. Jr., Rickman, R. W., Klepper, B. L., Zuzel, J. F., and Wysocki, D. J. 1992. Agroclimatic zones for dryland winter wheat producing areas of Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. Northwest Sci. 66/ 1: 27–34.Google Scholar
Gamroth, D. M., Brewster, B. D., and Mallory-Smith, C. A. 1997. Screen of Thirteen Herbicides Across Sixteen Grass Species. WSWS Research Progress Report. pp. 39–40.Google Scholar
Harvey, R. G., Albright, J. W., Anthon, T. M., and Kutil, J. L. 1995. Annual weed control in canning peas study. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 16–17.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Availability and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in soil. Weed Sci. 37: 259–267.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1993. Effect of soil type and pH on persistence and carryover of imidazolinone herbicides. Weed Technol. 7: 452–458.Google Scholar
Mangels, G. 1991. Behavior of the imidazolinone herbicides in soil, a review of the literature. In Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 191–210.Google Scholar
Miller, S. D. and Alford, C. M. 2001. Weed control and rotational response to imazamox applications in winter wheat. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 54: 73.Google Scholar
Neider, T. L. and Thill, D. C. 1997. Weed control in imidazolinone resistant winter wheat with AC 299,263. WSWS Research Progress Report. p. 101.Google Scholar
Ogg, P. J., Foster, G., Lyon, D. J., Miller, S. D., and Westra, P. 2001. Imazamox efficacy on different grass species in Clearfield winter wheat in the central great plains. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 54: 73.Google Scholar
Oliveira, R. S. Jr., Koskinen, W. C., Ferreira, F. A., Khakural, B. R., Mulla, D. J., and Robert, P. C. 1999. Spatial variability of sorption/desorption of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 47: 243–248.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J., Thomas, R. J., and Bouw, W. J. 1998. Effect of imazethapyr and imazamox soil residues on several vegetable crops grown in Ontario. Can. J. Plant. Sci. 78: 647–651.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn. Weed Sci. 36: 78–83.Google Scholar
Shinn, S. L., Thill, D. C., Price, W. J., and Ball, D. A. 1998. Response of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and rotational crops to MON 37500. Weed Technol. 12: 690–698.Google Scholar