Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T00:35:44.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Five Vegetable Crops to Isoxaflutole Soil Residues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joel Felix  and
Douglas J. Doohan
Joel Felix*
Affiliation:
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center/The Ohio State University, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, 1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, OH 44691
Douglas J. Doohan
Affiliation:
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center/The Ohio State University, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, 1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, OH 44691
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 2001 and 2002 at two sites in Ohio to characterize the effect of isoxaflutole herbicide applied the previous year to field corn on processing tomato, bell pepper, cabbage, snapbean, and cucumber. Isoxaflutole was applied preemergence to field corn in 2001 at 0, 53, 70, 105, and 210 g ai/ha. There were no rotational crop cultivar by herbicide rate interactions at either site. Generally, there was a higher level of visible injury on crops at the Fremont site. Isoxaflutole residues at either site did not affect processing tomato yield. Bell pepper yield was reduced 33% when rotated into 210 g ai/ha rate plots only at Fremont. Snapbean marketable yield was reduced by isoxaflutole carryover from 70 and 210 g ai/ha rates resulting in 0.39 and 0.0 t/ha at Fremont. Similarly, isoxaflutole soil residues from 105 and 210 g ai/ha resulted in 14 and 24% visible injury on cucumber but did not reduce marketable yield. Site differences in soil characteristics and precipitation in the application year may have contributed to observed differences in crop response.

Keywords

Isoxaflutolebell pepper, Capsicum annuum L. ‘Aristotle’ and ‘Paladin’cabbage, Brassica oleraceae L. var. capitata ‘Red Dynasty’ and ‘Huron’corn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 34B29 LL’cucumber, Cucumis sativus ‘Vlasset’ and ‘Dasher 2’processing tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. ‘Peto 626’ and ‘Heinz 9437’snapbean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Strike’ and ‘Hialeah’Herbicide carryoverherbicide soil residuesrotational cropsvegetable cropsANOVA, analysis of varianceCEC, cation exchange capacityDAE, days after emergencePRE, preemergenceSOM, soil organic matter
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 391 - 396
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

Anonymous. 2001. Balance PRO herbicide. Research Triangle Park, NC: Bayer Crop Science LP. 10 p.Google Scholar
Beltran, E., Fenet, H., Cooper, J. F., and Coste, C. M. 2000. Kinetics of chemical degradation of isoxaflutole: influence of the nature of aqueous buffers (alkanoic acid/sodium salt vs phosphate). Pest Manag. Sci. 57:366–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beltran, E., Fenet, H., Cooper, J. F., and Coste, C. M. 2002. Influence of the physical and chemical properties of soil on the retention process of isoxaflutole and its two main derivatives. Weed Res. 42:385–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beltran, E., Fenet, H., Cooper, J. F., and Coste, C. M. 2003. Fate of isoxaflutole in soil under controlled conditions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:146–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felix, J., Doohan, D. J., Ditmarsen, S. C., Schultz, M. E., Wright, T. R., Flood, B. R., and Rabaey, T. L. 2002. Sensitivity of sweet corn (Zea mays L.) and potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) to cloransulam-methyl soil residues. Crop Prot. 21:763–772.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenland, R. G. 2003. Injury to vegetable crops from herbicides applied in previous years. Weed Technol. 17:73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitra, S., Bhowmik, P. C., and Xing, B. 2000. Sorption and desorption of the diketonitrile metabolite of isoxaflutole in soils. Environ. Pollut. 108:183–190.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R. and Esau, R. 1996. Imidazolinone herbicide effects on following rotational crops in southern Alberta. Weed Technol. 10:100–106.CrossRefGoogle 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
Precheur, R. J. 2002. Ohio Vegetable Production Guide. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Extension Bull. 672. 261 p.Google Scholar
Rouchaud, J., Neus, O., Callens, D., and Bulcke, R. 1998. Isoxaflutole herbicide persistence and mobility in summer corn and winter wheat crops. Bull. Environ. Toxicol. 60:577–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rouchaud, J., Neus, O., Eelen, H., and Bulcke, R. 2002. Soil metabolism of isoxaflutole in corn. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 42:280–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, 4th ed, Volume 1 & 2, Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 943 p.Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S., Sims, G. K., and Wax, L. M. 2002. Effect of moisture, temperature, and biological activity on the degradation of isoxaflutole in soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:5626–5633.Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S., Sims, G. K., Wax, L. M., and Hassett, J. H. 2000. Hydrolysis and soil adsorption of the labile herbicide isoxaflutole. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:3186–3190.Google Scholar
USDA–National Agricultural Statistics Services. 2004. ‘Agricultural Chemical Usage: Field Crops Summary’: Web page: http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/estindx.htm. Accessed: April 10, 2004.Google Scholar