Skip to main content Accessibility help

Movement of Tebuthiuron Applied to Wet and Dry Rangeland Soils

  • Howard L. Morton (a1), Thomas N. Johnsen (a1) and J. Roger Simanton (a1)


Tebuthiuron was applied at 1 kg ai/ha to wet and dry Hathaway gravelly, sandy loam soil in the spring and fall to determine the amount of tebuthiuron removed in runoff water and the depth to which it would move within the soil profile by simulated rainfall. When pellets containing 20% ai of tebuthiuron were broadcast onto dry soil in the spring, the first simulated rainfall event, 37 mm, removed 5% of the applied tebuthiuron in runoff water and sediment. The second and third simulated rainfall events, 22 and 21 mm, respectively, removed an additional 2%. When tebuthiuron was applied to wet soil in the spring, the initial simulated rainfall events, totaling 42 mm, removed 15% of the tebuthiuron. When tebuthiuron was applied to wet soil in the fall, the initial rainfall events, totaling 40 mm, removed a total of 48% of the tebuthiuron in runoff water and sediment. No significant differences were found in the total amount of tebuthiuron within the soil profile after application to dry and wet soils. More than half of the tebuthiuron had moved into the surface 7 cm 1 day after application. Tebuthiuron was not detected below 90 cm after 165 mm of simulated rainfall and 270 mm of natural rainfall.



Hide All
1. Anderson, R. L. 1946. Missing plot techniques. Biom. Bull. 2:4147.
2. Bovey, R. W., Meyer, R. E., and Hein, H. Jr. 1982. Soil persistence of tebuthiuron in the claypan resource area of Texas. Weed Sci. 30:140144.
3. Chang, S. S. and Stritzke, J. F. 1977. Sorption, movement and dissipation of tebuthiuron in soils. Weed Sci. 25:184187.
4. Davis, E. A. 1981. Tebuthiuron residues in stream water from a spot treated chaparral watershed in Arizona. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Prog. Rep. Pages 5253.
5. Eaton, B. J., Magnussen, J. D., and Rainey, D. P. 1976. Metabolism of tebuthiuron in soil and plants. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 199.
6. Emmerich, W. E., Helmer, J. D., Renard, K. G., and Lane, L. J. 1983. Fate and effectiveness of tebuthiuron applied to a rangeland watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 13:382386.
7. Hendricks, D. M. 1985. Arizona soils. College of Agric., Univ. Arizona, Tucson. 244 pp.
8. Hillel, D. 1980. Fundamentals of Soil Physics. Academic Press, New York. 413 pp.
9. Levy, E. B. and Madden, E. A. 1933. The point method of pasture analysis. New Zealand J. Agric. 46:276279.
10. Loh, A., Frank, R., and Decker, O. D. 1980. Tebuthiuron. Anal. Methods Pestic. Plant Growth Regul. 11:351361.
11. Osborn, H. B. and Lane, L. J. 1981. Point-area-frequency conversions for summer rainfall in southeastern Arizona. Hydrol. and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest. 11:3746.
12. Richmond, D. L. 1971. General soil map Cochise County, Arizona. Soil Conserv. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Washington, DC.
13. Simanton, J. R. and Renard, K. G. 1982. Seasonal change in infiltration and erosion from USLE plots in southeastern Arizona. Hydrol. and Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest 12:3746.
14. Simanton, J. R., Johnson, C. W., Nyhan, J. W., and Romney, E. M. 1986. Rainfall simulation on rangeland erosion plots. Pages 1117 in Lane, L. J., ed. Erosion on rangelands: emerging technology and data base. Proc. Rainfall Simulator Workshop, Jan. 14–15, 1985, Tucson, AZ. Society for Range Management, Denver.
15. Swanson, J. P. 1965. Rotating-boom rainfall simulator. Trans. ASAE 8:7172.
16. Weed Science Society of America. 1983. Herbicide Handbook. 5th ed. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL.



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed