Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T17:36:02.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Influence of Straw Mulch on the Soil Reception and Persistence of Metribuzin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Philip A. Banks  and
Edward L. Robinson
Philip A. Banks
Affiliation:
Agron., Dep., Univ. of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602
Edward L. Robinson
Affiliation:
South. Piedmont Conservation Res. Center, Agric. Res. Serv., U.S Dep. Agric., Watkinsville, GA 30677
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The presence of a straw mulch on the soil surface did not significantly affect the persistence of metribuzin [4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-(methylthio)-as-triazin-5 (4H)-one] in the soil. The half-life of metribuzin was 5.3 days in 1979 and 12.5 days in 1980 in the field when the time the herbicide was exposed on the soil and straw surface prior to rainfall or irrigation was 10 and 0 days, respectively. The half-life of metribuzin was 17.1 days in the greenhouse where soil temperature was lower and leaching, volatilization, and photodegradation losses were less than in the field. Increasing the amount of straw on the soil surface greatly decreased the initial soil reception of metribuzin as well as the amount of metribuzin that was subsequently washed off the straw by water. Less than 45% of the applied metribuzin reached the soil surface when 2250 kg/ha of straw was present and 0.3 cm or more of water was applied.

Keywords

Minimum-tillno-tillconservation tillagedoublecrop
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , March 1982 , pp. 164 - 168
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

1. Best, J. A. and Weber, J. B. 1974. Disappearance of s-triazines as affected by soil pH using a balance sheet approach. Weed Sci. 22:364–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Hyzak, D. L. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1974. Rate of degradation of metribuzin and two analogs in soil. Weed Sci. 22:75–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Ladlie, J. S., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1976. Effect of soil pH on microbial degradation, adsorption, and mobility of metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:477–481.Google Scholar
4. Ladlie, J. S., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1976. Role of pH on metribuzin dissipation in field soils. Weed Sci. 24:508–511.Google Scholar
5. McHarry, M. J. and Kapusta, G. 1979. Herbicide applications in tillered winter wheat for doublecrop soybean weed control. Agron. J. 71:1051–1055.Google Scholar
6. Savage, K. E. 1977. Metribuzin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 25:55–59.Google Scholar
7. Savage, K. E. 1980. Metribuzin persistence on the soil surface. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:288.Google Scholar
8. Sharom, M. S. and Stephenson, G. R. 1976. Behavior and fate of metribuzin in eight Ontario soils. Weed Sci. 24:153–160.Google Scholar
9. Steinsick, J. W. and Oliver, L. R. 1979. Effect of wheat straw and ash on field activity of preemergence herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 32:312.Google Scholar