Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:38:24.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Soil Type and pH on Adsorption, Mobility, and Efficacy of Imazaquin and Imazethapyr

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R. N. Stougaard ,
P. J. Shea  and
A. R. Martin
R. N. Stougaard
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
P. J. Shea
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
A. R. Martin
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Laboratory and greenhouse studies were conducted to determine imazaquin and imazethapyr adsorption, mobility, and efficacy in Sharpsburg silty clay loam, Holdrege silt loam, and Tripp sandy loam soils after adjusting pH to 5, 6, and 7. Both herbicides were more strongly absorbed, less mobile, and less efficacious at a lower pH. Observations were attributed to ionic bonding resulting from protonation of basic functional groups on the herbicide molecules as pH decreased. Adsorption was greatest in the silty clay loam and least in the sandy loam soil. Conversely, the herbicides were more efficacious and mobile in the more coarse-textured soils. Imazethapyr was less mobile, more highly adsorbed, and more phytotoxic than imazaquin. Greater adsorption of imazethapyr was attributed to a stronger basic pKa and steric factors.

Keywords

Imazethapyr, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidimazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidSorptionleachingphytotoxicityAC-252,214AC-263,499
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 38 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 67 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the 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. Anderson, P. C. and Hibberd, K. A. 1985. Evidence for the interaction of an imidazolinone herbicide with leucine, valine, and isoleucine metabolism. Weed Sci. 33:479–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Appleby, A. P. 1985. Factors in examining fate of herbicides in soil with bioassays. Weed Sci. 33(Suppl. 2):2–6.Google Scholar
3. Basham, G., Lavy, T. L., Oliver, L. R., and Don Scott, H. 1987. Imazaquin persistence and mobility in three Arkansas soils. Weed Sci. 35:576–582.Google Scholar
4. 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.Google Scholar
5. Best, J.A., Weber, J. B., and Monaco, T. J. 1975. Influence of soil pH on s-triazine availability to plants. Weed Sci. 23:378–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Bonn, H. L., McNcal, B. L., and O'Conner, G. A. 1985. Soil Chemistry. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Page 219.Google Scholar
7. Briggs, G. G., Bromilow, R. H., and Evans, A. A. 1982. Relationships between lipophilicity and root uptake and translocation of non-ionised chemicals by barley. Pestic. Sci. 13:495–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. 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. 23:390–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Corbin, F. T., Upchurch, R. P., and Selman, F. L. 1971. Influence of pH on the phytotoxicity of herbicides in soil. Weed Sci. 19:233–239.Google Scholar
10. Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
11. Federer, W. T. 1967. Experimental Design. Indian, ed. The Macmillan Co., New York.Google Scholar
12. Fredrickson, D. R. and Shea, P. J. 1986. Effect of soil pH on degradation, movement, and plant uptake of chlorsulfuron. Weed Sci. 34:328–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 34: 788–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Harrison, G. W., Weber, J. B., and Baird, J. V. 1976. Herbicide phytotoxicity as affected by selected properties of North Carolina soils. Weed Sci. 24:120–126.Google Scholar
15. Helmy, A. K., De Bussetti, S. G., and Ferreiro, E. A. 1983. Adsorption of quinoline from aqueous solutions by some clays and oxides. Clays Clay Miner. 31:29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Kells, J. J., Rieck, C. E., Blevins, R. L., and Muir, W. M. 1980. Atrazine dissipation as affected by surface pH and tillage. Weed Sci. 28: 101–104.Google Scholar
17. Ladlie, J., 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
18. Ladlie, J., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1976. Effect of pH on metribuzin activity in the soil. Weed Sci. 24:505–507.Google Scholar
19. Ladlie, J., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1976. Role of pH on metribuzin dissipation in field soils. Weed Sci. 24:508–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Malefyt, T., Marc, P. A., Umeda, K., Los, M., and Orwick, P. L. 1984. AC-263,499 – A new broad spectrum herbicide for soybeans and other leguminous crops. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 24:18–19.Google Scholar
21. Martin, P. K. 1983. AC-252,214, a new broad spectrum herbicide for soybeans: Field studies. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 23:19.Google Scholar
22. Obrigawitch, T., Hons, F. M., Abernathy, J. R., and Gipson, J. R. 1981. Adsorption, desorption, and mobility of metolachlor in soils. Weed Sci. 29:332–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:78–83.Google Scholar
24. Shaner, D. L. 1989. Factors affecting soil and foliar bioavailability of imidazolinones. American Cyanamid Co., Princeton, NJ. 23 pp.Google Scholar
25. Shaner, D. L., Anderson, P. C., and Stidham, M. A. 1984. Imidazolinones – potent inhibitors of acetohydroxyacid synthase. Plant Physiol. 76:545–546.Google Scholar
26. Shea, P. J. 1986. Chlorsulfuron dissociation and adsorption on selected adsorbents and soils. Weed Sci. 34:474–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Shea, P. J. and Weber, J. B. 1983. Effect of soil pH on fluridone activity and persistence as determined by chlorophyll measurements. Weed Sci. 31:347–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Soil Conservation Service. 1966. Soil survey laboratory data and laboratory descriptions for some soils of Nebraska. Soil Survey Investigations Rep. No. 5. Soil Conserv. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric. and Conserv. and Survey Div., Univ. Nebraska. U.S. Gov. Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
29. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
30. Van Ellis, M. R. and Shaner, D. L. 1988. Mechanism of absorption of imidazolinones in soybean (Glycine max) leaf discs. Pestic. Sci. 23: 25–34.Google Scholar
31. Weber, J. B., Weed, S. B., and Ward, T. M. 1969. Adsorption of s-triazines on soil organic matter. Weed Sci. 17:417–421.Google Scholar
32. Zachara, J. M., Ainsworth, C. C., Felice, L. J., and Resch, G. T. 1986. Quinoline sorption to subsurface materials: Role of pH and retention of the organic cation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 20:620–627.Google Scholar