Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T21:19:06.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Loss of Metribuzin and Ethyl-metribuzin from Glass and Soil Surfaces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Daniel C. Peek  and
Arnold P. Appleby
Daniel C. Peek
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Oreg. State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Arnold P. Appleby
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Oreg. State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The loss of metribuzin and ethyl-metribuzin from soil and glass surfaces was studied to determine if volatilization and/or photodegradation could explain inconsistent weed control with these herbicides. In growth chamber experiments, phytotoxicity of ethyl-metribuzin decreased as the time between surface application and initial watering increased. Approximately 50% of the applied metribuzin and ethyl-metribuzin volatilized from soil within 24 h, with an additional 15 to 20% lost during the next 11 days, except about 5% additional ethyl-metribuzin was lost from Chehalis sandy loam. Both herbicides volatilized more rapidly from glass than from soil, with 75 to 90% of the loss occurring within 24 h and as great as 99% loss after 12 days. Loss by photodecomposition from soil or glass surfaces was minimal.

Keywords

Metribuzin, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-l,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-oneethyl-metribuzin, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethyl-ethyl)-3-(ethylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-onePhotodecompositionvolatilizationbioassayirrigation timing
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 173 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Fortino, J. Jr., and Splittstoesser, W. E. 1974. The use of metribuzin for weed control in tomato. Weed Sci. 22:615–619.Google Scholar
2. Freitag, D., Ballhorn, L., Geyer, H., and Korte, F. 1985. Environmental hazard profile of organic chemicals. Chemosphere 14:1589–1616.Google Scholar
3. Gleichsner, J. A., Brewster, B. D., Spinney, R. L., and Appleby, A. P. 1987. Annual brome control in winter wheat. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Prog. Rep., p. 321–322.Google Scholar
4. Hack, H., and Eue, L. 1985. SMY 1500 - A new selective herbicide for weed control in winter cereals. 1985 Br. Crop Prot. Conf.-Weeds. 2:35–42.Google Scholar
5. Kearney, P. C. 1970. Summary and conclusions. p. 35–42 in Gunther, F. A., ed. 1970. The Triazine Herbicides. Residue Rev., Vol. 32.Google Scholar
6. Pape, B. E., and Zabik, M. J. 1972. Photochemistry of bioactive compounds. Solution-phase photochemistry of asymmetric triazin-5(4H)-ones. J. Agric. Food Chem. 20:72–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Rydrych, D. G. 1985. Ethyl metribuzin for downy brome control in small grains. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Prog. Rep., p. 315.Google Scholar
8. Savage, K. E. 1980. Metrizubin persistence on the soil surface. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:288.Google Scholar
9. Wax, L. M. 1977. Incorporation depth and rainfall on weed control in soybeans with metribuzin. Agron. J. 69:107–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Webster, G.R.B., and Reimer, G. J. 1976. Field degradation of the herbicide metribuzin and its degradation products in a Manitoba sandy loam soil. Weed Res. 16:191–196.Google Scholar
11. Weed Science Society of America. 1983. Herbicide Handbook, 5th ed. Champaign, IL., p. 317–321.Google Scholar