Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:07:51.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imazamethabenz Persistence in a Wheat (Triticum aestivum)–Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Rotation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jin H. Joo ,
Charlotte V. Eberlein ,
Matthew J. Morra  and
Mary J. Guttieri
Jin H. Joo
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Aberdeen, ID 83210
Charlotte V. Eberlein*
Affiliation:
Twin Falls Research and Extension Center, University of Idaho, Twin Falls, ID 83303
Matthew J. Morra
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soils, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2339
Mary J. Guttieri
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Aberdeen, ID 83210
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: ceberl@uidaho.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Potato crops often are grown in rotation with cereal crops such as wheat and barley. Imazamethabenz is a postemergence herbicide that selectively controls wild oat and certain other weeds in wheat and barley. Experiments were conducted at the University of Idaho Research and Extension Center, Aberdeen, ID, over a 3-yr period to evaluate the effect of irrigation management in an imazamethabenz-treated wheat crop on imazamethabenz persistence and injury in a subsequent potato crop. The experimental design was a split plot arrangement of a randomized complete block; main plots were seasonal irrigation amounts in wheat (20, 30, 40, or 50 cm), and subplots were imazamethabenz rates applied to the wheat crop (0, 0.26, 0.52, or 1.05 kg/ha). Soil analyses for imazamethabenz residues showed that herbicide degradation during the wheat growing season (i.e., 0 to 128 d after treatment [DAT]) followed first-order kinetics at all irrigation levels. Herbicide degradation rate increased with irrigation rate. Soil samples taken 338 or 351 DAT showed no detectable imazamethabenz residues (<10 ng/g) in most plots. However, some foliar injury to potato grown the year following imazamethabenz treatment was noted (<10% average injury), suggesting that potato is sensitive to imazamethabenz or imazamethabenz acid residues below the analytical detection limit. U.S. No. 1 and total potato tuber yield were not reduced by any treatment compared to the nontreated control. Therefore, under good growing conditions, potato can recover from mild imazamethabenz carryover injury without effects on tuber yield or quality.

Keywords

Imazamethabenz-methylwild oat, Avena fatua L.barley, Hordeum vulgare L.potato, Solanum tuberosum L.wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Irrigation managementcarryoverDAT, days after imazamethabenz treatmentOC, organic carbonOM, organic matterPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 208 - 215
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. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 159–161.Google Scholar
Allen, R. and Caseley, J. C. 1987. The persistence and mobility of AC 222,293 in cropped and fallow soils. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. 7A (2): 569–576.Google Scholar
Brown, M. A., Timmy, Y. C., and Miller, P. 1987. Hydrolytic activation versus oxidative degradation of Assert herbicide, an imidazolinone aryl-carboxylate, in susceptible wild oat versus tolerant corn and wheat. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 27: 24–29.Google Scholar
Busse, S. R. and McNeil, W. K. 1983. Weed control with AC-222,293 in cereals. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 38:80.Google Scholar
Cantwell, J. R., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Biodegradation characteristics of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 37: 815–819.Google Scholar
Eberlein, C. V. 1991. Reducing the potential for Assert carryover to potatoes. Proceedings of the University of Idaho Winter Commodity Schools. Twin Falls, ID: University of Idaho Twin Falls R&E Center. pp. 252–254.Google Scholar
Fellows, G. M., Fay, P. K., Carlson, G. R., and Stewart, V. R. 1990. Effect of AC 222,293 soil residues on rotational crops. Weed Technol. 4: 48–51.Google Scholar
Friesen, G. H. 1988. Wild mustard control in sunflower with AC 222,293. Can. J. Plant Sci. 68: 1159–1161.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. Jr. 1990. Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38: 421–428.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. H. and Talbert, R. E. 1993. Imazaquin, chlorimuron, and fomesafen may injure rotational vegetables and sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Weed Technol. 7: 573–577.Google Scholar
Joo, J. H. 1998. Factors affecting imazamethabenz persistence in soil. . University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 93 p.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Johnson, D. H., Johnson, W. G., Kendig, J. A., Frans, R. E., and Talbert, R. E. 1993. Carryover of DPX-PE to grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and soybean (Glycine max) on two Arkansas soils. Weed Technol. 7: 645–649.Google Scholar
Kirkland, K. and Shafer, N. E. 1982. AC 222,293 a new post-emergence herbicide for cereals: field studies. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. 1: 33–38.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1993. Effects of soil type and pH on persistence and carryover of imidazolinone herbicides. Weed Technol. 7: 452–458.CrossRefGoogle 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: 712–718.Google Scholar
Mangels, G. 1985. Photochemical Degradation of AC 222,293 (Assert herbicide) in Aquatic Systems, . Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. 225 p.Google Scholar
Miller, S. D. and Alley, H. P. 1987. Weed control and rotational crop response with AC 222,293. Weed Technol. 1: 29–33.Google Scholar
Miller, S. D. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1982. Wild oat control in wheat with AC-222,293. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 38: 19–22.Google Scholar
Mitich, L. W. and Smith, N. L. 1984. Tolerance of spring wheat to AC 222,293 and other herbicides and their effectiveness in controlling wild oat. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 37:70.Google Scholar
Monks, C. D. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Rotational crop response to chlorimuron, clomazone, and imazaquin applied the previous year. Weed Sci. 39: 629–633.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R. and Esau, R. 1996. Imidazolinone herbicide effects on following rotational crops in southern Alberta. Weed Technol. 10: 100–106.Google Scholar
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: 90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roman, M. 1991. HPLC Methods for the Determination of CL 222,293 and CL 263,840 Residues in Soil. Princeton, NJ: American Cyanamid Company Method M-2159.Google Scholar
Rouchaud, J., Gustin, F., Callens, D., Van Himme, M., Bulcke, R., and Sarrazyn, R. 1993. Soil biodegradation of imazamethabenz-methyl and its acid metabolite in wheat crops and in sugarbeet replacement crops. Weed Res. 33: 469–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1989. SAS/STAT® User's Guide. Version 6, 4th ed., Volume 2. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc. 846 p.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L., Umeda, K., Ciarlante, D. R., and Los, M. 1982a. AC 222,293 a new postemergent herbicide for cereals: greenhouse studies. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. 1: 25–31.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L., Simcox, P. D., Robson, P. A., Mangles, G., Reichert, B., Ciarlante, D. R., and Los, M. 1982b. AC 222,293—translocation and metabolic selectivity. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. 1: 333–339.Google Scholar
Shea, P. J. 1985. Detoxification of herbicide residues in soil. Weed Sci. 33 (Suppl. 2): 33–41.Google 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: 67–73.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983. United States Standards for Grades of Potatoes for Processing. Washington, DC: USDA Marketing Service.Google Scholar
Van Hoogstraten, S. D. 1983. Field performance of AC 222,293 in Europe during 1982. 10th Int. Congr. Plant Prot. 2:583.Google Scholar
William, R. D., Burrill, L. C., Ball, D., and Miller, T. 1994. Agronomic Weed Control. In William, R. D., ed. Pacific Northwest 1994 Weed Control Handbook. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. pp. 36–69.Google Scholar
Xie, H. S., Quick, W. A., and Hsiao, A. I. 1994. Spring cereal response to imazamethabenz and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl as influenced by environment. Weed Technol. 8: 713–716.Google Scholar