Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:14:46.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Soil pH and Cation Exchange Capacity Affects Sunflower Tolerance to Sulfentrazone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Gregory W. Kerr
Affiliation:
Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center–Hays, 1232 240th Avenue, Hays, KS 67601
Phillip W. Stahlman*
Affiliation:
Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center–Hays, 1232 240th Avenue, Hays, KS 67601
J. Anita Dille
Affiliation:
Kansas State University, Department of Agronomy, Throckmorton Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: stahlman@ksu.edu

Abstract

Effects of soil pH and cation exchange capacity (CEC) on sunflower tolerance to sulfentrazone were investigated in a greenhouse study. Variables were soil pH (7.0, 7.3, 7.5, and 7.8), soil CEC (8.2, 13.7, 18.4, and 23.3 cmol/kg), and sulfentrazone rate (0, 105, 158, and 184 g ai/ha). Sulfentrazone-induced leaf chlorosis was affected by soil pH at 12 d after planting (DAP), but plants recovered, and earlier differences were not visible 9 d later. At 12 DAP, leaf chlorosis was 3 or 4% more severe in soils with pH 7.3 or higher compared with soils with pH 7.0 when averaged over both sulfentrazone rate and soil CEC. Leaf chlorosis resulting from sulfentrazone rates of 105, 158, and 184 g/ha was 17, 25, and 35% less at 23 cmol/kg than at 8.2 cmol/kg, respectively. Differences in chlorosis among sulfentrazone rates were greatest in soil with low CEC and lessened as soil CEC increased. Plants regained normal color over time, and newly emerging leaves were not affected. However, plant dry weights were reduced when sulfentrazone rate was ≥158 g/ha. Averaged over sulfentrazone rate and soil pH, sunflower dry weights were less when soil CEC was 8.2 compared with a CEC of 13.7 cmol/kg or higher, indicating a greater response at low CEC. Sunflower plant dry matter was not different in sulfentrazone-treated soil with a CEC above 13.7 cmol/kg. At the ranges tested, soil CEC had a considerably greater effect than did pH on sunflower tolerance to sulfentrazone.

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.)

Footnotes

∗ Publication 03-255-J Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series.

References

Literature Cited

Bailey, G. W. and White, J. L. 1970. Factors influencing the adsorption, desorption, and movement of pesticides in soil. Residue Rev. 32:2992.Google Scholar
Blumhorst, M. R., Weber, J. B., and Swain, L. R. 1990. Efficacy of selected herbicides as influenced by soil properties. Weed Technol. 4:279283.Google Scholar
Calvert, R. 1980. Adsorption-desorption phenomena. in Hance, R. J., ed. Interactions Between Herbicides and the Soil. New York: Academic. Pp. 130.Google Scholar
Colbert, F. O., Volk, V. V., and Appleby, A. P. 1975. Sorption of atrazine, terbutryn, and GS-14254 on natural and lime-amended soils. Weed Sci. 23:390394.Google Scholar
Corbin, R. T., Upchurch, R. P., and Selman, F. L. 1971. Influence of pH on the phytotoxicity of herbicides in the soil. Weed Sci. 19:233239.Google Scholar
Foth, H. D. 1990. Soil chemistry. in Foth, H. D., ed. Fundamentals of Soil Science 8E. 8th ed. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 164185.Google Scholar
Frissel, M. J. and Bolt, G. H. 1962. Interactions between certain ionizable compounds (herbicides) and clay minerals. Soil Sci. 94:284291.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G. R., Adams, J. Jr., Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., Hancock, H. D., and Kwon, O. 2000. Behavior of sulfentrazone in ionic exchange resins, electrophoresis gels, and cation-saturated soils. Weed Sci. 48:239247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, T. L., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G. R., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Sulfentrazone adsorption and mobility as affected by soil and pH. Weed Sci. 45:733738.Google Scholar
Harper, S. S. 1994. Sorption-desorption and herbicide behavior in soil. Rev. Weed Sci. 6:207225.Google Scholar
Lamey, H. A., McMullen, M. P., Glogoza, P. K., Zollinger, R. K., Lueke, J. L., and Berglund, D. R. 1999. 1997. Sunflower grower survey of pest problems and pesticide use in Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. North Dakota State University Cooperative Extension Service Rep. 46. P. 14.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS Systems for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 633 p.Google Scholar
Lyon, D. J. 2000. A new tool for weed management in sunflower. in Martin, A. R., ed. Proceedings of Crop Protection Clinics. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension Service. Pp. 108110.Google Scholar
Miller, S. D. and Alford, C. 2000. Weed control with sulfentrazone in sunflower. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:94.Google Scholar
Parochetti, J. V. 1973. Soil organic matter effect on activity of acetamides, CDAA, and atrazine. Weed Sci. 21:157160.Google Scholar
Peter, C. J. and Weber, J. B. 1985. Adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of alachlor and metolachlor as influenced by soil properties. Weed Sci. 33:874881.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, Volume 2. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1686 p.Google Scholar
Stevenson, F. J. 1972. Organic matter reactions involving herbicides in soil. J. Environ. Qual. 1:333343.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. R., Stahlman, P. W., Schlegel, A. J., and Lyon, D. J. 1998. Sulfentrazone, promising herbicide for weed control in sunflower. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:5960.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B. 1970. Mechanisms of adsorption of s-triazines by clay colloids and factors affecting plant availability. Residue Rev. 32:93130.Google Scholar
Wolcott, A. R. 1970. Retention of pesticides by organic materials in soils. in Pesticides in the Soil: Ecology, Degradation, and Movement. International Symposium on Pesticides in Soil. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Pp. 128138.Google Scholar
[WSSA] Weed Science Society of America. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 493 p.Google Scholar