Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:41:14.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Degradation and Field Persistence of Imazethapyr

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Andrew J. Goetz
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Terry L. Lavy
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Edward E. Gbur Jr.
Affiliation:
Agric. Statistics Lab. Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701

Abstract

The volatilization, photolysis, microbial degradation, and field persistence of imazethapyr were studied using formulated and 14C-labeled imazethapyr. Volatilization losses from soil were less than 2%. Photodecomposition losses of up to 8% occurred from soil and up to 52% from a glass slide with no soil. Significantly greater photodecomposition occurred with chain-labeled than ring-labeled 14C-imazethapyr. The amount of 14CO2 evolution from soil treated with either ring- or chain-labeled 14C-imazethapyr was not significantly different. The total 14CO2 evolved from the soils ranged from 2.4 to 3.6% of the total 14C-imazethapyr applied to the soil. However, degradation of imazethapyr from the same soils, as determined by high-pressure liquid chromatography, indicated that 62 to 82% of the applied 14C-imazethapyr had been degraded. The degradation rate increased as soil moisture was increased from −100 to −33 kPa. Imazethapyr was more persistent in soil with the higher clay and organic matter content.

Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. American Cyanamid Corporation. 1985. Technical bulletin on AC263, 499. Agric. Res. Div., Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
2. Basham, G. W., Lavy, T. L., Oliver, L. R., and Scott, H. D. 1987. Imazaquin persistence and mobility in three Arkansas soils. Weed Sci. 35:576582.Google Scholar
3. Basham, G. W. and Lavy, T. L. 1987. Microbial and photolytic dissipation of imazaquin in soil. Weed Sci. 35:865870.Google Scholar
4. Goetz, A. J. and Lavy, T. L. 1990. Imazethapyr and imazaquin soil mobility and adsorption by soil, synthetic adsorbents, and iron minerals. J. Environ. Qual. (submitted).Google Scholar
5. Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Availability and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in soil. Weed Sci. 37:259267.Google Scholar
6. Meikle, R. W., Youngson, C. R., Hedlund, R. T., Goring, C.A.I., Hamaker, J. W., and Addington, W. W. 1973. Measurement and prediction of picloram disappearance rates from soil. Weed Sci. 21:549555.Google Scholar
7. Miller, G. C., Hebert, V. R., and Miller, W. W. 1989. Effect of sunlight on organic contaminants at the atmosphere soil interface. Pages 99110 in Reactions and Movement of Organic Chemicals in Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
8. Parker, L. W. and Doxtader, K. G. 1983. Kinetics of the microbial degradation of 2,4-D in soils: Effects of temperature and moisture. J. Environ. Qual. 12:553557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36:9095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Wolf, D. C. and Legg, J. O. 1984. Soil Microbiology. Pages 100139 in L'Annunziata, M. F. and Legg, J. O., eds. Isotopes and Radiation in Agricultural Sciences. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar