Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T10:59:38.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In-field bioassay to investigate the persistence of imazaquin and pyrithiobac

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

M. Cade Smith ,
David R. Shaw  and
Donnie K. Miller
David R. Shaw
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Donnie K. Miller
Affiliation:
Northeast Research Station, Louisiana State University, Northeast Research Station, St. Joseph, LA 71366
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pyrithiobac and imazaquin are persistent herbicides used in the midsouthern region of the United States. Certain rotational crops are extremely sensitive to each herbicide. Field studies were established near Brooksville, MS, and St. Joseph, LA, to examine crop injury from the previous year's application of pyrithiobac and imazaquin. In Mississippi, 690 g ai ha−1 of each herbicide was applied as a preplant-incorporated carryover treatment. The subsequent year, pyrithiobac-treated areas were planted with soybean, corn, and grain sorghum. Imazaquin-treated areas were planted with cotton, corn, and grain sorghum. In plots adjacent to the carryover treatment, pyrithiobac or imazaquin was applied at rates ranging from 0 to 173 g ha−1 as in-field bioassay plots. In Louisiana, pyrithiobac was applied at 70 and 240 g ha−1 as a postdirected broadcast layby treatment in cotton. The subsequent spring, pyrithiobac-treated areas were planted to corn. Assay rates of pyrithiobac ranging from 0 to 140 g ha−1 were established in areas adjacent to the carryover treatment. Grain sorghum was most sensitive to pyrithiobac soil residues, followed by corn and then soybean. Cotton was the most sensitive crop to imazaquin soil residues, followed by corn and then grain sorghum. Residual amounts of pyrithiobac and imazaquin were approximately 15 and 24 g ha−1, respectively. The approximated half-life of pyrithiobac and imazaquin was 61 and 71 d, respectively. Pyrithiobac applied at 280 g ha−1 as a layby treatment the preceding year injured corn and reduced yields in 1 of 2 yr. Pyrithiobac at 70 g ha−1 did not affect corn in either year. The difference in persistence between the 2 yr was attributed to reduced precipitation and lower soil temperatures in the year with observed carryover. Injury and yield reduction observed in the second year of the study correspond to an approximate pyrithiobac half-life of 60 d.

Keywords

Imazaquinpyrithiobaccorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3223’, ‘Pioneer 3222’cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Coker 312X1445’, ‘Stoneville 474’grain sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench ‘Triumph 55’soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Asgrow 4701RR’, ‘Hartz 5088RR’Herbicide degradationherbicide persistenceherbicide carryoverrotational crop sensitivity
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , February 2005 , pp. 121 - 129
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. 163–166.Google Scholar
Alexander, M. 1999. Biodegradation and Bioremediation. 2nd ed. London: Academic. Pp. 269–299.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1993. Staple® Herbicide, Technical Information. Wilmington, DE: Dupont Agricultural Products. Pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001a. Crop Protection Reference. New York: C & P. Pp. 455–461.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001b. Crop Protection Reference. New York: C & P. Pp. 1001–1004.Google Scholar
Barnes, C. J., Goetz, A. J., and Lavy, T. L. 1989. Effects of imazaquin residues on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci 37:820–824.Google Scholar
Barnes, C. J. and Lavy, T. L. 1991. Injury and yield response of selected crops to imazaquin and norflurazon residues. Weed Technol 5:598–606.Google Scholar
Basham, G., Lavy, T. L., Oliver, L. R., and Scott, H. D. 1987. Imazaquin persistence and mobility in three Arkansas soils. Weed Sci 35:576–582.Google Scholar
Basham, G. W. and Lavy, T. L. 1987. Microbial and photolytic dissipation of imazaquin in soil. Weed Sci 35:865–870.Google Scholar
Baughman, T. A. and Shaw, D. R. 1996. Effect of wetting/drying cycles on dissipation patterns of bioavailable imazaquin. Weed Sci 44:380–382.Google Scholar
Blaine, A. 1998. Soybean Planting Guidelines for Mississippi. Mississippi State Extension Publ. 1289. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University.Google Scholar
Curran, W. S., Knake, E. L., and Liebl, R. A. 1991. Corn (Zea mays) injury following use of clomazone, chlorimuron, imazaquin, and imazethapyr. Weed Technol 5:539–544.Google Scholar
Edmund, R. M. and York, A. C. 1987. Effects of rainfall and temperature on postemergence control of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) with imazaquin and DPX-F6025. Weed Sci 35:231–236.Google Scholar
Helms, R. S., Tripp, T. N., Smith, R. J. Jr., Baldwin, F. L., and Hackworth, M. 1989. Rice (Oryza sativa) response to imazaquin residues in a soybean (Glycine max) and rice rotation. Weed Technol 3:513–517.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. H., Jordan, D. L., Johnson, W. G., Talbert, R. E., and Frans, R. E. 1993. Nicosulfuron, primisulfuron, imazethapyr, and DPX-PE350 injury to succeeding crops. Weed Technol 7:641–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. H. and Talbert, R. E. 1996. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to imazaquin and imazethapyr soil residues. Weed Sci 44:156–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. H., Talbert, R. E., and Horton, D. R. 1995. Carryover potential of imazaquin to cotton, grain sorghum, wheat, rice, and corn. Weed Sci 43:454–460.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-PE350 to grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and soybean (Glycine max) on two Arkansas soils. Weed Technol 7:645–649.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, F., and Mathews, J. L. 1994. Soybean (Glycine max) and rotational crop response to PPI chlorimuron, clomazone, imazaquin, and imazethapyr. Weed Technol 8:224–230.Google 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
Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1992. Effect of soil pH on adsorption and persistence of imazaquin. Weed Sci 40:490–496.Google Scholar
Malefyt, T. and Quakenbush, L. 1991. Influence of environmental factors on the biological activity of the imidazolinone herbicides. Pages 103–128 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L. eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1989. Efficacy, phytotoxicity, and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in no-till double-crop soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 37:353–359.Google Scholar
Mills, J. A. and Witt, W. W. 1991. Dissipation of imazaquin and imazethapyr under conventional and no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 5:586–591.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
Paul, E. A. and Clark, F. E. 1988. Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry. London: Academic. Pp. 11–31.Google Scholar
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
Smith, M. C. 2002. A Study of Herbicide Carryover and Soil Interaction Using In-field Bioassay and Non-equilibrium Thin-disc Methods. Ph.D. dissertation. Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS. Pp. 18–36.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
Sunderland, S. L., Burton, J. D., Coble, H. D., and Maness, E. P. 1995. Physiological mechanism for tall morningglory (Ipomoea purpurea) resistance to DPX-PE350. Weed Sci 43:21–27.Google Scholar
Sunderland, S. L. and Coble, H. D. 1994. Differential tolerance of morningglory species (Ipomoea spp.) to DPX-PE350. Weed Sci 42:227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagenet, R. J. and Rao, P. S. C. 1990. Modeling pesticide fate in soil. Pages 351–399 in Cheng, H. H. ed., Pesticides in the Soil Environment: Processes, Impacts, and Modeling. Madison, WI: SSSA.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. and Shaw, D. R. 1996. Carryover potential of pyrithiobac to rotational crops on a Mississippi Black Belt region clay soil. Weed Technol 10:140–144.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. and Shaw, D. R. 1997. Effect of application timing on pyrithiobac persistence. Weed Sci 45:179–182.Google Scholar