Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T12:50:22.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application timing impact on runoff losses of atrazine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ryan J. Rector,
David L. Regehr,
Philip L. Barnes,
Thomas M. Loughin and
Marc A. Hoobler
Ryan J. Rector
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Philip L. Barnes
Affiliation:
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Thomas M. Loughin
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506
Marc A. Hoobler
Affiliation:
Aventis CropScience, Loveland, CO 80537
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted from 1996 to 2000 near Manhattan, KS, to determine the effects of application timing on atrazine loss in surface water runoff. In addition, Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems (GLEAMS) was run to compare simulated loss with actual loss in the field. Atrazine treatments were fall plus preemergence (FALL + PRE), early preplant plus PRE (EPP + PRE), PRE at a low rate (PRE-LOW), and PRE at a full (recommended) rate (PRE-FULL). Ridge-till furrows served as mini watersheds for the collection of surface water runoff. Water runoff volumes and herbicide concentrations were determined for each runoff event. Across four sampling years, mean atrazine runoff loss was 1.7, 4.3, and 1.7% of applied for FALL + PRE, EPP + PRE, and the mean of the PRE treatments, respectively. Thus, actual average losses from FALL + PRE and EPP + PRE treatments were somewhat higher than that predicted by GLEAMS. For PRE treatments, actual average losses were significantly lower than that predicted by GLEAMS, with measured losses falling below the bottom of the graph in 3 of 4 yr. These findings suggest that in certain parts of the Great Plains, FALL + PRE split applications of atrazine offer acceptably low atrazine runoff loss potential; EPP + PRE is more vulnerable to loss than FALL + PRE; and the GLEAMS model may overestimate atrazine runoff potential for PRE applications.

Keywords

Grain sorghum, Sorghum bicolor L.field corn, Zea mays L.Water qualityfall applicationearly preplant applicationGLEAMS

Information

Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 5 , October 2003, pp. 817 - 825
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Ahrens, W. H. ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 20–23.Google Scholar
Baker, J. L. and Mickelson, S. K. 1994. Application technology and best management practices for minimizing herbicide runoff. Weed Technol 8:862–869.Google Scholar
Barnes, P. L. 2001. The Role of Application Timing and Vegetative Filters on Reducing Atrazine Runoff. Ph.D. dissertation. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS. 87 p.Google Scholar
Basta, N. T., Huhnke, R. L., and Stiegler, J. H. 1997. Atrazine runoff from conservation tillage systems: a simulated rainfall study. J. Soil Water Conserv 52:44–48.Google Scholar
Devlin, D. L., Regehr, D. L., and Barnes, P. L. 2000. Managing to Minimize Atrazine Runoff. Manhattan, KS: Cooperative Extension Service, Kansas State University. MF2208.Google Scholar
Frankforter, J. D. 1994. Compilation of Atrazine and Selected Herbicide Data from Previous Surface Water Quality Investigations Within the Big Blue River Basin, NE. 1983–1992. Lawrence, KS: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Rep. 94–100.Google Scholar
Franti, T. G., Roeth, F. W., Klein, R. N., Holshouser, D. L., Christiansen, A. P., Schild, J. A., and Zoubek, G. L. 1996. Agricultural Management Practices to Reduce Atrazine in Surface Water. Lincoln, NE: Cooperative Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska–Lincoln. A-20.Google Scholar
Franti, T. G., Roeth, F. W., and Zoubek, G. L. 1997. Best Management Practices to Reduce Atrazine Runoff from Corn Fields in Nebraska. Lincoln, NE: Cooperative Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska–Lincoln. A-21.Google Scholar
Hall, J. K. 1974. Erosional losses of s-triazine herbicides. J. Environ. Qual 12:336–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heydel, L., Benoit, M., and Schiavon, M. 1999. Reducing atrazine leaching by integrating reduced herbicide use with mechanical weeding in corn (Zea mays). Eur. J. Agron 11:217–225.Google Scholar
Hoobler, M. A. 1999. Effects of Atrazine Placement, Application Timing, Application Rate, and Tillage System on Atrazine Runoff Losses. M.S. thesis. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS. p. 15–16.Google Scholar
Kansas Agricultural Statistics. 2001. Available at: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gov/pub/data/coop-precip/kansas.txt.Google Scholar
Knisel, W. G. 1980. CREAMS: A Field Scale Model for Chemicals, Runoff and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Research Rep. 26.Google Scholar
Knisel, W. G., Leonard, R. A., Davis, F. M., and Sheridan, J. M. 1991. Water balance components in the Georgia Coastal Plain: a GLEAMS model validation and simulation. J. Soil Water Conserv. 450–456.Google Scholar
Leonard, R. A., Knisel, W. G., and Still, D. A. 1987. GLEAMS: groundwater loading effects of agricultural management systems. Trans. ASAE 30:(Suppl. 5). 1403–1418.Google Scholar
Leonard, R. A., Truman, C. C., Knisel, W. G., and Davis, F. M. 1992. Pesticide runoff simulations: long-term annual means vs. event extremes. Weed Technol 6:725–730.Google Scholar
[NCDC] National Climate Data Center. 2001. 1961–2001 Climate Data Normals. Ashville, NC: National Climate Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. CD Rom.Google Scholar
Rector, R. J., Regehr, D. L., Barnes, P. L., and Loughin, T. M. 2003. Atrazine, S-metolachlor, and isoxaflutole loss in runoff as affected by rainfall and management. Weed Science 51:810–816.Google Scholar
Regehr, D. L. and Peterson, D. E. 2002. Fall treatments for winter annual weed control in row-crop stubble. NCWSS Proc. 57. p. 189.Google Scholar
Regehr, D. L., Devlin, D. L., Barnes, P. L., and Watson, S. L. 1996. Reducing Atrazine Runoff from Crop Fields. Manhattan, KS: Cooperative Extension Service, Kansas State University. MF 2208.Google Scholar
Regehr, D. L., Rector, R. J., and Peterson, D. E. 2000. Efficacy of fall-applied herbicides for winter weed control ahead of no-till corn planting. Res. Rep. NCWSS 57:391–392.Google Scholar
Ribaudo, M. O. and Bouzaher, A. 1994. Atrazine: Environmental Characteristics and Economics of Management. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Economic Rep. 699.Google Scholar
Schwab, A. P., Splichal, P., and Sarong Sonon, L. 1992. Factors Affecting the Soil Extraction and Preconcentration by C18 Solid-Phase Enrichment of Alachlor, Atrazine, and Atrazine Dealkylation Products. American Society For Testing and Materials. Publication 1162.Google Scholar
Tasli, S., Patty, L., Boetti, H., Ravanel, P., Vachaud, G., Scharff, C., Favre-Bonvin, J., Kaouadji, M., and Tissut, M. 1996. Persistence and leaching of atrazine in corn culture in the experimental site of ‘la Côte St Andrè’ (Isère, France). Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol 30:203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U. S. Department of Agriculture. 2001. Available at: usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/#field.Google Scholar
[USGS] United States Geological Survey. 1998. Herbicides in Ground Water of the Midwest: A Regional Study of Shallow Aquifers, 1991–1994. USGS Fact Sheet 076–98.Google Scholar
Yu, B. 2000. Improvement and evaluation of CLIGEN for storm generation. Trans. ASAE 43/2:301–307.Google Scholar