Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:26:38.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predicting and Mapping Herbicide–Soil Partition Coefficients for EPTC, Metribuzin, and Metolachlor on Three Colorado Fields

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dale L. Shaner ,
Hamid J. Farahani  and
Gerald W. Buchleiter
Dale L. Shaner*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, (USDA–ARS), Water Management Research Unit, 2150 Centre Ave, Building D, Suite 320, Fort Collins, CO 80526
Hamid J. Farahani
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, (USDA–ARS), Water Management Research Unit, 2150 Centre Ave, Building D, Suite 320, Fort Collins, CO 80526
Gerald W. Buchleiter
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, (USDA–ARS), Water Management Research Unit, 2150 Centre Ave, Building D, Suite 320, Fort Collins, CO 80526
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dale.shaner@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding the spatial variability of herbicide sorption to soil is important in determining the bioavailability as well as leaching potential of the chemical across a field. Multiple methods have been used to estimate herbicide sorption variability at the macroscale, but it has been difficult to measure soil heterogeneity or herbicide sorption at the individual field level. One method to determine soil heterogeneity is to create zones within a field based on maps of the apparent bulk soil electrical conductivity (ECa). These zones can be used to direct soil sampling to determine the fraction of organic carbon (foc) of each zone. The foc, in turn, can be used to predict the variability of herbicide binding among zones. Surface (0 to 30 cm) bulk-soil electrical conductivity (ECs) maps were made for three sandy fields in eastern Colorado, and soil samples were taken from the ECs zones within each field. The foc, and the soil–water partition coefficient (Kd) for EPTC, metribuzin, and metolachlor were determined for each sample. There were significant correlations between ECs and foc (R = 0.75) and between foc and Kd for EPTC, metribuzin, and metolachlor (R = 0.66, 0.61, and 0.71, respectively) across all three fields. Additional soil samples taken from the ECs zones located in previously unsampled areas of the three fields showed that one could reasonably predict Kd values for metribuzin, metolachlor, and possibly, EPTC based on the foc zones derived from ECs maps.

Keywords

EPTCmetolachlormetribuzinPrecision agricultureelectrical conductivityherbicide–soil partition coefficientsoil
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 133 - 139
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

Anderson-Cook, C. M., Alley, M. M., Boygard, J. K. F., Khosla, R., Nobel, R. B., and Doolittle, J. A. 2002. Differentiating soil types using electromagnetic conductivity and crop yield maps. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:1562–1570.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Moyer, J. R., and Kozub, G. C. 1994. Efficacy of downy brome herbicides as influenced by soil properties. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74:177–183.Google Scholar
Blumhorst, M. R., Weber, J. B., and Swain, L. R. 1990. Efficacy of selected herbicides as influenced by soil properties. Weed Technol. 4:279–283.Google Scholar
Bronson, K., Keeling, W., Lascano, R., and Boman, R. 2006. Management zone soil sampling on the Texas high plains. Texas Cooperative Extension. http://www.precisionagriculture.tamu.edu/brochures/zonemanage.pdf. Accessed: October 18, 2006.Google Scholar
Cheng, H. H. 1990. Pesticides in the Soil Environment: Processes, Impacts and Modeling. Madison, WI Soil Science Society of America (SSSA). 530.Google Scholar
Corwin, D. L. and Lesch, S. M. 2003. Application of soil electrical conductivity to precision agriculture: theory, principles and guidelines. Agron. J. 95:455–471.Google Scholar
Corwin, D. L. and Lesch, S. M. 2005. Characterizing soil spatial variability with apparent soil electrical conductivity I. Survey protocols. Comput. Electron. Agric. 46:103–133.Google Scholar
Daniel, P. E., Bedmar, F., Costa, J. L., and Aparicio, V. C. 2002. Atrazine and metribuzin sorption in soils of the Argentinean humid Pampas. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 21:2567–2572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doerge, T., Kitchen, N. R., and Lund, E. D. 2006. Soil Electrical Conductivity Mapping: Site-specific Management Guidelines. Brookings, SD Potash and Phosphate Institute SSMG-30. 4.Google Scholar
Domsch, H. and Giebel, A. 2004. Estimation of soil textural features from soil electrical conductivity recorded using the EM38. Precision Agric. 5:389–409.Google Scholar
Farahani, H. J. and Buchleiter, G. W. 2004. Temporal stability of bulk soil electrical conductivity in irrigated sandy soil. Trans. ASAE. 47:79–90.Google Scholar
Farenhorst, A., Monreal, C. M., Florinsky, I. V., and Muc, D. 2003. Evaluating the use of digital terrain modelling for quantifying the spatial variability of 2,4-D sorption by soil within agricultural landscapes. Can. J. Soil Sci. 83:557–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, R. J. and Miller, P. C. H. 2003. A review of the technologies for mapping within-field variability. Biosys. Eng. 84:393–407.Google Scholar
Heerman, D., Hoeting, J., Thompson, S., Duke, H. R., Westfall, D. G., Buchleiter, G. W., Westra, P., Peairs, F. B., and Fleming, K. 2002. Interdisciplinary irrigated precision farming research. Precision Agric. 3:47–61.Google Scholar
Jaynes, D. B., Novak, J. M., Moorman, T. B., and Cambardella, C. A. 1995b. Estimating herbicide partition coefficients from electromagnetic induction measurements. J. Environ. Qual. 24:36–41.Google Scholar
Jaynes, D. B., Colvin, T. S., and Ambuel, J. 1995a. Yield mapping by electromagnetic induction. in. Proceedings of the Second International Conference. Madison, WI American Society of Agronomy, Crops Science Society of America, and Soils Science Society of America. 383–394.Google Scholar
Kitchen, N. R., Drummond, S. T., Lunc, E. D., Sudduth, K. A., and Buchleiter, G. W. 2003. Soil electrical conductivity and topography related to yield for three contrasting soil–crop systems. Agron. J. 95:483–495.Google Scholar
Lesch, S. M., Rhoades, J. D., and Corwin, D. L. 2000. ESAP-95 Version 2.01R: user manual and tutorial guide: research measurements. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56:540–548.Google Scholar
Liu, Z., Clay, S. A., and Clay, D. E. 2002. Spatial variability of atrazine and alachlor efficacy and mineralization in an eastern South Dakota field. Weed Sci. 50:662–671.Google Scholar
Locke, M. A., Harper, S. S., and Gaston, L. A. 1994. Metribuzin mobility and degradation in undisturbed soil columns. Soil Sci. 157:279–288.Google Scholar
Lund, E. D., Christy, C. D., and Drummond, P. E. 2000. Using yield and soil electrical conductivity (EC) maps to derive crop production performance information. in Robert, P.C., Rust, R.H. and Larson, W.E., eds. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Site-Specific Management for Agricultural Systems. Minneapolis, MN American Society of Agronomy, Crops Science Society of America, and Soils Science Society of America. 10.Google Scholar
Macur, R. E., Gaber, H. M., Wraith, J. M., and Inskeep, W. P. 2000. Predicting solute transport using mapping-unit data: model simulations vs. observed data at four field sites. J. Environ. Qual. 29:1939–1946.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service 2006. Agricultural chemical usage: 2005 field crop usage. http://www.usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agcs0504.pdf. Accessed: March 24, 2007.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. W. and Somers, L. E. 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. in Page, A.L., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2: 2nd ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. Madison, WI American Soil Association. 539–579.Google Scholar
Novak, J. M., Moorman, T. B., and Cambardella, C. A. 1997. Atrazine sorption at the field scale in relation to soils and landscape position. J. Environ. Qual. 26:1271–1277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patakioutas, G. and Albanis, T. A. 2002. Adsorption-desorption studies of alachlor, metolachlor, EPTC, chlorothalonil and pirimiphos-methyl in contrasting soils. Pest Manag. Sci. 58:352–362.Google Scholar
Rhoades, J. D. 1993. Electrical conductivity methods for measuring and mapping soil salinity. Advances Agron. 49:201–251.Google Scholar
SAS 2001. SAS/STAT User's guide. Release 8.00. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Sherrod, L. A., Dunn, G., Peterson, G. A., and Kolberg, R. L. 2002. Inorganic carbon analysis by modified pressure-calcimeter method. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:299–305.Google Scholar
Singh, N. 2006. Reduced downward mobility of metolachlor and metribuzin from surfactant-modified clays. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B. 41:17–29.Google Scholar
Sudduth, K. A., Kitchen, N. R., Hughes, D. F., and Drummond, S. T. 1995. Electromagnetic induction sensing as an indicator of productivity on claypan soils. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Site-Specific Management for Agricultural Systems. Minneapolis, MN American Society of Agronomy, Crops Science Society of America, and Soils Science Society of America. 671–681.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B., Wilkerson, G. G., and Linker, H. M. et al. 2000. A proposal to standardize soil/solution herbicide distribution coefficients. Weed Sci. 48:75–88.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M., Mortensen, D. A., Waltman, W. J., and Martin, A. R. 2002. Spatial inference of herbicide bioavailability using a geographic information system. Weed Technol. 16:603–611.Google Scholar
Wood, L. S., Scott, H. D., Marx, D. B., and Lavy, T. L. 1987. Variability in sorption coefficients of metolachlor on a captina silt loam. J. Environ. Qual. 16:251–255.Google Scholar
Zhang, N. and Taylor, R. 2001. Applications of a field-level geographic information system (GIS) in precision agriculture. Appl. Eng. Agric. 17:885–892.Google Scholar