Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:16:55.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sulfentrazone Adsorption and Mobility in Surface Soil of The Southern United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

G. Anthony Ohmes  and
Thomas C. Mueller
G. Anthony Ohmes
Affiliation:
Missouri Extension Service, 109 N. First Street, Charleston, MO 63834
Thomas C. Mueller*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sulfentrazone adsorption and mobility in six soils with varying soil properties were evaluated under laboratory conditions. Adsorption was evaluated using a modified slurry technique. Mobility was evaluated using packed-soil columns under saturated flow conditions. The order of adsorption to soil was Sequatchie loam > Dothan loamy sand = Bosket fine sandy loam > Malden loamy sand > Commerce silty clay loam > Harkey clay loam. Greater sulfentrazone adsorption occurred in soils with lower pH. Sulfentrazone movement under saturated flow conditions in 27-cm soil-packed columns was greater in soils with low adsorption, high pH, and coarse texture. Sulfentrazone movement was limited in the Sequatchie loam but was greater in the other soils examined. No clear relationship was evident between sulfentrazone mobility and adsorption in these soils.

Keywords

SulfentrazoneLeachingKdsoil columnHPLC
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 796 - 800
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

Brady, N. C. 1990. Physical properties of mineral soils. The Nature and Properties of Soils. New York McMillan. 91–122. in.Google Scholar
Calvert, R. 1980. Adsorption–desorption phenomena. Pages 1–30. in Hance, R.J. ed. Interactions Between Herbicides and the Soil. New York Academic.Google Scholar
Carringer, R. D., Weber, J. B., and Monaco, T. J. 1975. Adsorption–desorption of selected pesticides by organic matter and montmorillonite. J. Agric. Food Chem. 23:568–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, H. D. 1965. Cation exchange capacity. Pages 891–901. in Black, C.A. ed. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1. 1st ed. Madison, WI American Society of Agronomy Agronomy Monogr. 9.Google Scholar
Fleming, G. F., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Felsot, A. S. 1992. Movement of alachlor and metribuzin from controlled release formulations in a sandy soil. Weed Sci. 40:606–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gee, G. W. and Bauder, J. W. 1986. Particle-size analysis. Pages 383–411. in Klute, A. ed. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd ed. Madison, WI American Society of Agronomy.Google 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. 45:733–738.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G. R., Adams, J., and Dayan, F. E. 2000. Behavior of sulfentrazone in ionic exchange resins, electrophoresis gels, and cation-saturated soils. Weed Sci. 48:239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, N. J. and Messing, I. 1995. Near-saturated hydraulic conductivity in soils of contrasting texture measured by tension infiltrometers. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. E. Jr., Banks, P. A., and Radcliffe, D. E. 1990. Alachlor and metribuzin movement and dissipation in a soil profile as influenced by soil surface conditions. Weed Sci. 38:589–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, G. W., Stahlman, P. W., and Dille, J. A. 2004. Soil pH and cation exchange affects sunflower tolerance to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 18:243–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1992. Effect of soil pH on adsorption and persistence of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 40:490–496.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. 18:346–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, E. O. 1982. Soil pH and lime requirements. Pages 199–224. in Page, A.L. ed. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2: Chemical and Microbial Properties. 2nd ed. Madison, WI American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Flurtamone adsorption and mobility in three Georgia soils. Weed Sci. 39:275–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Moorman, T. B., and Snipes, C. E. 1992. Effect of concentration, sorption, and microbial biomass on degradation of the herbicide fluometuron in surface and subsurface soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 40:2517–2522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, D. W. and Sommers, L. E. 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Pages 539–579. in Page, A.L. ed. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2: Chemical and Microbial Properties. 2nd ed. Madison, WI American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Ohmes, G. A. and Mueller, T. C. 1999. Liquid chromatographic determination of sulfentrazone in soil. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 82:1214–1216.Google Scholar
Peter, C. J. and Weber, J. B. 1985. Adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of alachlor and metolachlor as influenced by soil properties. Weed Sci. 33:874–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Locke, M. A. 1998. Sulfentrazone sorption, desorption, and mineralization in soils from two tillage systems. Weed Sci. 46:494–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reilling, K. L., Simmons, F. W., Reichers, D. E., and Steckel, L. E. 2006. Application timing and soil factors affect sulfentrazone phytotoxicity to two soybean [Glycine max L. Merr.] cultivars. Crop Prot. 25:230–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, R. L., Menbere, H., and Momen, B. 2005. Tolerance of Maryland-type tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 19:885–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneiders, G. E., Koeppe, M. K., Naidu, M. V., Horne, P., Brown, A. M., and Mucha, C. F. 1993. Fate of rimsulfuron in the environment. J. Agric. Food Chem. 41:2404–2410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbert, R. E. and Fletchall, O. H. 1965. The adsorption of some s-triazines in soils. Weeds 13:46–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook, 8th ed. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America. 405–406.Google Scholar
Vidrine, P. R., Griffin, J. L., Jordan, D. L., and Reynolds, D. B. 1996. Broadleaf weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 10:762–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, A. 1980. Activity and selectivity in the field. Pages 203–222. in Hance, R.J. ed. Interactions Between Herbicides and the Soil. New York Academic.Google Scholar