Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5bf98f6d76-gckwl Total loading time: 0.976 Render date: 2021-04-21T22:41:50.492Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Article contents

Spatial variability of imazethapyr sorption in soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Rubem S. Oliveira Jr.
Affiliation:
Departamento de Agronomia, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Maringá, PR 87020–900, Brazil
Francisco A. Ferreira
Affiliation:
Departamento de Fitotecnia, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, MG 36570–000, Brazil
Bhairav R. Khakural
Affiliation:
Department of Soils, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108
David J. Mulla
Affiliation:
Department of Soils, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108
Pierre J. Robert
Affiliation:
Department of Soils, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, St. Paul, MN 55108
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Extract

A significant limitation in using sorption coefficients (Kd ) to predict solute transport through natural soils is the spatial variability of soil properties over large field areas. Spatial variability in Kd for imazethapyr was determined on representative samples from a 31.4-ha field, covering a pH range from 4.9 to 7.6 and an organic carbon (OC) range from 1.45 to 5.80 g kg−-1. Kd varied from 0.18 to 3.78 across the field, with an average value of 1.56. The analysis of Kd variability showed two distinct patterns in spatial distribution: areas in which pH > 6.25 and Kd < 1.5, where Kd variation is based primarily on pH, and areas in which pH < 6.25 and Kd > 1.5, where other soil properties, i.e., OC content, have a significant influence on Kd variation. Based on soil pH distribution, an easily measured property, the field was divided into two potential management areas. This separation allowed identification of portions of the field where herbicide sorption would be minimal, with a relatively higher potential for leaching (i.e., areas with Kd < 1.5), and provided a rationale for site-specific imazethapyr application.

Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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.

References

Alexander, M. and Scow, K. M. 1989. Kinetics of biodegradation in soil. Pages 243269 in Sawhney, B. L. and Brown, K., eds. Reactions and Movement of Organic Chemicals in Soil, Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America and American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Amoozegard-Fard, A., Nielsen, D. R., and Warrick, A. W. 1982. Soil solute concentration distributions for spatially varying pore water velocities and apparent diffusion coefficients. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46: 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, C. J., Lavy, T. L., and Talbert, R. E. 1992. Leaching, dissipation, and efficacy of metolachlor applied by chemigation or conventional methods. J. Environ. Qual. 21: 232236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basham, G., Lavy, T., Oliver, L. R., and Scott, H. D. 1987. Imazaquin persistence and mobility in three Arkansas soils. Weed Sci. 35: 576582.Google Scholar
Brown, C. D., Baer, U., Günther, P., Trevisan, M., and Walker, A. 1996. Ring test with the models LEACHP, PRZM-2 and VARLEACH: variability between model users in prediction of pesticide leaching using a standard data set. Pestic. Sci. 47: 249258.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chammas, G. A., Hutson, J. L., Hart, J. L., and DiTomaso, J. M. 1997. Microscale variability of atrazine and chloride leaching under field conditions. Weed Technol. 11: 98104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chancellor, W. J. and Goronea, M. A. 1994. Effects of spatial variability of nitrogen, moisture, and weeds on the advantages of site-specific applications for wheat. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 37: 717724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Che, M., Loux, M. M., Traina, S. J., and Logan, T. J. 1992. Effect of pH on sorption and desorption of imazaquin and imazethapyr on clays and humic acids. J. Environ. Qual. 21: 698703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. Z., Creeger, S. M., Carsel, R. F., and Enfield, C. G. 1984. Potential for pesticide contamination of groundwater resulting from agricultural uses. Pages 297325 in Kruger, R. F. and Seiber, J. N., eds. Treatment and Disposal of Pesticide Wastes. ACS Symposium. Ser. 259. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elabd, H., Jury, W. A., and Cliath, M. M. 1986. Spatial variability of pesticide adsorption coefficients. Environ. Sci. Technol. 20: 256260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finke, P. A. and Stein, A. 1994. Application of disjunctive cokriging to compare fertilizer scenarios on a field scale. Geoderma 62: 247263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flury, M. 1996. Experimental evidence of transport of pesticides through field soils—a review. J. Environ. Qual. 25: 2545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F. 1993. Value of managing within-field variability. Pages 125132 in Robert, P. C., Rust, R. H., and Larson, W. E., eds. Soil Specific Crop Management. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Gee, G. W. and Bauder, J. W. 1986. Particle-size analysis. Pages 383441 in Klute, A., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1, 2nd ed. Agronomy Monogr. 9. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. Jr. 1990. Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38: 421428.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
Golden Software. 1996. Surfer for Windows, Vers. 6. Gordon, CO: Golden Software.Google Scholar
Green, R. E. and Karickhoff, S. W. 1990. Sorption estimates for modeling. Pages 79101 in Cheng, H. H., ed. Pesticides in the Soil Environment: Processes, Impacts, and Modeling. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Gustafson, D. I. 1989. Groundwater Ubiquity Score: a simple method for assessing pesticide leachibility. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8: 339357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamaker, J. W. and Thompson, J. M. 1972. Adsorption. Pages 49143 in Goring, C.A.I. and Hamaker, J. W., eds. Organic Chemicals in the Soil Environment. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Hart, R., Lignowski, E., and Taylor, F. 1991. Imazethapyr herbicide. Pages 247256 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Jury, W. A., Focht, D. D., and Farmer, W. F. 1987. Evaluation of pesticide groundwater pollution potential from standard indices of soil-chemical adsorption and biodegradation. J. Environ. Qual. 16: 422428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jury, W. A., Stolzy, L. H., and Shouse, P. 1982. A field test of the transfer function model for predicting solute transport. Water Resour. Res. 18: 369375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khakural, B. R., Robert, P. C., and Koskinen, W. C. 1994. Runoff and leaching of alachlor under conventional and soil-specific management. Soil Use Manag. 10: 158164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, W. C. and Harper, S. S. 1990. The retention process: mechanisms. Pages 5177 in Cheng, H. H., ed. Pesticides in the Soil Environment: Processes, Impacts, and Modeling. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Lafrance, P. and Banton, O. 1995. Impact of field-scale variation in pesricide adsorption parameter on the reliability of soil pesticide transport simulation. Pages 125132 in Kovak, K. and Krásný, J., eds. Groundwater Quality: Remediation and Protection (Proceedings of the Prague Conference). IAHS Publ. 225. Wallingford, Great Britain: IAHS Press.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Adsorption of imazaquin and imazethapyr on soils, sediments, and selected adsorbents. Weed Sci. 37: 712718.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1992. Effect of soil pH on adsorption and persistence of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 40: 490496.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: 452458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallawatantri, A. P. and Mulla, D. J. 1992. Herbicide adsorption and organic carbon contents on adjacent low-input versus conventional farms. J. Environ. Qual. 21: 546551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulla, D. J. 1993. Mapping and managing spatial patterns in soil fertility and crop yield. Pages 1523 in Robert, P. C. et al., eds. Soil Specific Crop Management. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. W. and Sommers, L. E. 1986. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Pages 539577 in Page, A. L., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2, 2nd ed. Agronomy Monogr. 9. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Novak, J. M., Moorman, T. B., and Cambardella, C. A. 1997. Atrazine sorption at the field scale in relation to soils and landscape position. J. Environ. Qual. 26: 12711277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, P.S.C., Green, R. E., Balasubramanian, V., and Kanehiro, Y. 1974. Field study of solute transport movement in a highly aggregated oxisol with intermittent flooding. II. Picloram. J. Environ. Qual. 3: 197202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, P.S.C. and Wagenet, R. J. 1985. Spatial variability of pesticides in field soils: methods for data analysis and consequences. Weed Sci. 33(Suppl. 2): 1824.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggit, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36: 7883.Google Scholar
Smith, C. N., Parrish, R. S., and Carsel, R. F. 1987. Estimating sample requirements for field evaluations of pesticide leaching. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 6: 343357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Shea, P. J., and Martin, A. R. 1990. Effect of soil type and pH on adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38: 6773.Google Scholar
Van de Pol, R. M., Wierenga, P. J., and Nielsen, D. R. 1977. Solute movement in a field soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41: 1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Ellis, M. R. and Shaner, D. L. 1988. Mechanism of cellular absorption of imidazolinones in soybean (Glycine max) leaf discs. Pestic. Sci. 23: 2534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagenet, R. J. and Rao, P.S.C. 1985. Basic concepts of modeling of pesticide fate in the crop root zone. Weed Sci. 33(Suppl. 2): 2532.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G., Dickens, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Hajek, B. F. 1987. Sorption and mobility of sulfometuron and imazethapyr in five Alabama soils. Weed Sci. 35: 858864.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 5 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 12th June 2017 - 21st April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Spatial variability of imazethapyr sorption in soil
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Spatial variability of imazethapyr sorption in soil
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Spatial variability of imazethapyr sorption in soil
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *