Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:44:56.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herbicide Rate Recommendations: Soil Parameter Equations vs. Registered Rate Recommendations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jane U. Gonese  and
Jerome B. Weber
Jane U. Gonese
Affiliation:
Crop Science and Soil Science Departments, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Jerome B. Weber
Affiliation:
Crop Science and Soil Science Departments, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Chlorimuron, clomazone, imazaquin, imazethapyr, and pendimethalin were each applied at five rates to soils at 10 different sites each year for three years to determine which soil properties influenced their bioactivity. Six soils in the U.S. (NC) and four in Zimbabwe were characterized for their plow-layer contents of organic matter (OM), humic matter (HM), clay mineral (CM), and silt and for pH and cation exchange capacity (CEC). At each site, the rate of each herbicide yielding 80% weed control (I80) was determined by visually evaluating the treated plots. The I80 values were then regressed with the various soil properties to determine which of them contributed to this rate. In the U.S. soils, the I80 was highly correlated with % OM (r 2 = 0.64–0.72) and % HM (r 2 = 0.55–0.69) for chlorimuron, imazaquin, and pendimethalin but was less correlated with % OM (r 2 = 0.30) and pH (r 2 = 0.31) for imazethapyr. Equations relating the herbicide rate for 100% weed control to soil properties were derived for chlorimuron, imazaquin, imazethapyr, and pendimethalin then compared with registered recommended rates for each chemical from the label. Herbicide rate equations based on similar soil parameters were taken from the literature to compare with our rate equations and with registered rate recommendations for comparison purposes and to add validity to the use of soil parameters for making herbicide rate recommendations. The rate equations, based on selected soil parameters, produced rates comparable with registered rates for chlorimuron, pendimethalin, and metribuzin and lower rates of application than registered rates for imazaquin, imazethapyr, alachlor, and metolachlor for soils with OM levels below 3.5%.

Keywords

clomazone, 2-[(2-chlorophenyl)methyl]-4,4-dimethyl-3-isoxazolidinoneHerbicide bioactivityherbicide inactivationbarnyardgrassSida spinosa L. # SIDSP; green foxtailSetaria viridus (L.) Beauv. # SETVI; velvetleafAbutilon theophrasti Medik. # ABUTH; goosegrassEleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. # ELEIN; crowfootgrassAcanthosperum hispidium DC. # ACNHI; Florida pusleyRichardia scabra L. # RCHSC; jimsonweedDatura stramonium L. # DATST; redroot pigweedAmaranthus retroflexus L. # AMARE; large crabgrassDigitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSA; common ragweedAmbrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBEL; common lambsquartersChenopodium album L. # CHEAL; foxtail spp.Setaria spp. # SET; soybeanGlycine max (L.) MerrCEC, cation exchange capacityCM, clay mineralDAT, days after treatmentDTPA, diethylene triamine penta acetic acid (Na salt)HM, humic matterI80, 80% inhibitionOM, organic matterPRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 235 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Ahrens, W. H., ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 352 p.Google Scholar
Ballard, J. L. and Santelmann, P. W. 1973. Influence of selected soil properties on alachlor activity. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 26:385–388.Google Scholar
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.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
Che, M., Loux, M. M., Traina, S. J., and Logan, T. J. 1992. Effect of pH on sorption and desorption of imazaquin and imazethapyr on clays and humic acid. J. Environ. Qual. 21:698–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, D. J. 1988. Recommended pH and lime requirement tests. In Dahnke, W. C., ed. Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures for the North Central Region. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University. North Cent. Reg. Publ. 221. Rev. Stn. Bull. 499:6–8.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. pp. 29–46.Google Scholar
Gee, G. W. and Bauder, J. W. 1986. Particle size analysis. In Klute, A., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America, Inc. pp. 383–411.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G., and Hajek, B. F. 1989. Sorption and mobility of chlorimuron in Alabama soils. Weed Sci. 37:428–433.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. F. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 34:788–793.Google Scholar
Grover, R. 1966. Influence of organic matter, texture and available water on the toxicity of simazine in soil. Weeds 14:148–151.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M. L., Lim, C. H., and Zelazny, L. W. 1986. Oxides, hydroxides, and aluminosilicates. In Klute, A., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America, Inc. pp. 101–150.Google Scholar
Liu, S. L. and Weber, J. B. 1985. Retention and mobility of AC 252214 (imazaquin), chlorsulfuron, prometryn and SD 95481 (cinmethylin) in soils. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 38:465–474.Google Scholar
Lowder, S. W. and Weber, J. B. 1982. Atrazine efficacy and longevity as affected by tillage, liming, and fertilizer type. Weed Sci. 30:273–280.Google Scholar
Mehlich, A. 1984. Photometric determination of humic matter in soils, a proposed method. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 15:1417–1422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parochetti, J. V. 1973. Soil organic matter effect on activity of acetamides, CDAA, and atrazine. Weed Sci. 21:157–160.Google Scholar
Peeper, T. F. and Weber, J. B. 1976. Activity and persistence of atrazine, procyazine, and VEL-5026 (buthidazole) as influenced by soil organic matter and clay. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:387–398.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. 33:874–881.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. 35:78–83.Google Scholar
Schulte, E. E. 1988. Recommended soil organic matter tests. In Dahnke, W. C., ed. Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures for the North Central Region. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University. North Cent. Reg. Publ. No. 221. Rev. Ed. Stn. Bull. 499:29–32.Google Scholar
Sheets, T. J., Crafts, A. S., and Drever, H. R. 1962. Influence of soil properties on the phytotoxicities of the s-triazine herbicides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 10:458–462.Google Scholar
Strek, H. J. and Weber, J. B. 1983. Update on soil testing and herbicide rate recommendations. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 36:398–403.Google Scholar
Upchurch, R. P. and Mason, D. D. 1962. The influence of soil organic matter on the phytotoxicity of herbicides. Weeds 10:9–14.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B. and Best, J. A. 1972. Activity and movement of 13 soil-applied herbicides as influenced by soil reaction. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 25:403–413.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B., Monaco, T. J., Carringer, R. D., and Eaddy, D. W. 1974a. Effect of organic matter and volume weight of North Carolina soils on herbicide performance. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 27:371–377.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B., Tucker, M. R., and Isaac, R. A. 1987. Making herbicide rate recommendations based on soil tests. Weed Technol. 1:41–45.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B., Weed, S. B., and Waldrep, T. W. 1974b. Effect of soil constituents on herbicide activity in modified-soil field plots. Weed Sci. 22:454–459.Google Scholar