Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T19:08:54.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of fluometuron sorption to soil from a filter strip and cropped field

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Alfred Rankins Jr. ,
David R. Shaw  and
William L. Kingery
David R. Shaw
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
William L. Kingery
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A laboratory experiment was conducted to compare the adsorption and desorption of fluometuron between two soils, one collected from an eastern gamagrass filter strip and the other from a cropped field. Fluometuron adsorption to soil collected from the filter strip was higher than to soil collected from the cropped field. Kd values for fluometuron ranged from 1.9 to 3.6 for soil from a cropped area, compared with 2.9 to 5.3 for soil from the filter strip, indicating a weak to moderate binding affinity for fluometuron. The total fluometuron desorbed ranged from 48 to 79% of that adsorbed, most of which (50 to 59% of the total amount desorbed) occurred during the first desorption cycle with both soils. Approximately 11% less fluometuron desorbed when a filter strip was present. Results indicate that eastern gamagrass filter strips can influence adsorption–desorption processes between fluometuron and a Brooksville silty clay soil by altering the soil properties, specifically soil organic matter.

Keywords

Fluometuroneastern gamagrass, Tripsacum dactyloides L.Filter stripdesorptionorganic matter contentKd valuesbinding affinity
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 6 , December 2002 , pp. 820 - 823
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

Ahrens, W. H. 1994. Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Science Society of America. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 135–137.Google Scholar
Arora, K., Mickelson, S. K., Baker, J. L., Tierney, D. P., and Peters, C. J. 1996. Herbicide retention by vegetative buffer strips from runoff under natural rainfall. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 39:2155–2162.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D. C., Lavy, T. L., and Marx, D. B. 1982. Fate of metribuzin, metolachlor and fluometuron in soil. Weed Sci. 30:629–632.Google Scholar
Dillaha, T. A., Reneau, R. B., Mostaghimi, S., and Lee, D. 1989. Vegetative filter strips for agricultural nonpoint source pollution control. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 32:513–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, W. C. and Harper, S. S. 1990. The retention process: mechanisms. Pages 51–77 In Cheng, H. H., ed. Pesticides in the Soil Environment. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Leonard, R. A. 1990. Movement of pesticides into surface water. Pages 303–349 In Cheng, H. H., ed. Pesticides in the Soil Environment. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Misra, A. K., Baker, J. L., Mickelson, S. K., and Shang, H. 1996. Contributing area and concentration effects on herbicide removal by vegetated buffer strips. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 39:2105–2111.Google 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.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. P. and Shaw, D. R. 1997. Effects of Vegetative Filter Strip Width on Reducing Fluometuron and Norflurazon Losses in Surface Runoff. Mississippi Agricultural Forest Experimental Station Technical Bulletin 214. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University.Google Scholar
Peck, D. E., Corwin, D. L., and Farmer, W. J. 1980. Adsorption-desorption of diuron by freshwater sediments. J. Environ. Qual. 9:101–106.Google Scholar
Pereira, W. E. and Hostettler, F. D. 1993. Nonpoint source contamination of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27:1542–1522.Google Scholar
Rankins, A. Jr., Shaw, D. R., and Boyette, M. 2001. Perennial grass filter strips for reducing herbicide losses in runoff. Weed Sci. 49:647–651.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N., Singh, M., and Alva, A. K. 1992. Sorption and desorption of diuron and norflurazon in Florida citrus soils. Water Air Soil Pollut. 64:487–494.Google Scholar
Savage, K. E. and Wauchope, R. D. 1974. Fluometuron adsorption-desorption equilibria in soil. Weed Sci. 22:106–110.Google Scholar
Seybold, C. A. and Mersie, W. 1996. Adsorption and desorption of atrazine, deethylatrazine, deisopropylatrazine, hydroxyatrazine, and metolachlor to two soils from Virginia. J. Environ. Qual. 25:1179–1185.Google Scholar
Shankle, M. W., Shaw, D. R., Kingery, W. L., Boyette, M., and Rankins, A. Jr. 1998. Influence of best management practices on fluometuron degradation. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:229–230.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Walker, R. H., Whitwell, T., Buchanan, G. A., and McGwire, J. A. 1984. Efficacy and economics of weed control methods in cotton. Weed Sci. 32:95–100.Google Scholar
Sparks, D. L. 1995. Sorption phenomena in soil. Pages 99–139 In Environmental Soil Chemistry. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Srivastava, P., Costello, T. A., Edwards, D. R., and Ferguson, J. A. 1998. Validating a vegetative filter strip performance model. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 14:89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willian, W. T., Mueller, T. C., Hayes, R. M., Snipes, C. E., and Bridges, D. C. 1997. Adsorption, dissipation, and movement of fluometuron in three southeastern United States soils. Weed Sci. 45:183–189.Google Scholar