Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T04:44:31.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Leaching of Isoxaflutole and the Herbicide Safeners R-29148 and Furilazole

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Eric A. Nelson
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Donald Penner*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: pennerd@msu.edu

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the leaching of isoxaflutole and the safeners R-29148 and furilazole to test the hypothesis that safeners and isoxaflutole were moving at different rates through the soil profile. The isoxaflutole movement down soil columns was measured by evaluating the visible injury on crop and weed bioassay species seeded into columns split longitudinally. The movement of the safeners was measured by evaluating the isoxaflutole injury to the crop assay species compared to the injury observed without a safener present. The results indicated that a heavy rainfall event could move isoxaflutole through the soil profile in a pulse pattern. If the herbicide pulse moved into the rooting zone of corn, injury resulted. The herbicide safeners leached more slowly than isoxaflutole. For the safeners to be effective, their movement needed to be similar to that of isoxaflutole. Applying a polymeric carrier with the WDG formulation of isoxaflutole reduced leaching compared to two commercial isoxaflutole formulations.

Type
Research
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

Fleming, G. F., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Felsot, A. S. 1992. Movement of alachlor and metribuzin from controlled release formulations in a sandy soil. Weed Sci. 40:606613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, T. L. and Nissen, S. J. 1994. Influence of crop safeners on the interaction of primisulfuron and terbofos in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42:168171.Google Scholar
Leavitt, J. R. C. and Penner, D. 1979. In vitro conjugation of glutathione and other thiols with acetanilide herbicides and EPTC sulfoxide and the action of the herbicide antidote R-25788. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27:533536.Google Scholar
McGuffog, D. R. and Anderson, T. P. 1984. Polymer based granule and microcapsule formulation for the controlled release of pesticides. Pestic. Sci. 15:259260.Google Scholar
Pallett, K. E., Little, J. P., Sheekey, M., and Veerasekaran, P. 1998. The mode of action of isoxaflutole: I. Physiological effects, metabolism, and selectivity. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 62:113124.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1999a. Controlled release formulations to reduce isoxaflutole movement in soil. Proc. North Cent. Weed Soc. 54:83.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1999b. Enhancing the margin of selectivity of RPA 201772 in Zea mays with antidotes. Weed Sci. 47:492497.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1999c. Important consideration for RPA 201772 utility. Weed Technol. 13:814820.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1999d. Weed control and corn tolerance from soil-applied RPA 201772. Weed Technol. 13:713725.Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S., Sims, G. K., Wax, L. M., and Hassett, J. J. 2000. Hydrolysis and soil adsorption of the labile herbicide isoxaflutole. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34:31863190.Google Scholar