Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T22:00:49.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of application timing on pyrithiobac persistence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Eric P. Webster and
David R. Shaw
Eric P. Webster
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted in 1993 and 1994 to determine persistence of pyrithiobac as determined by bioavailability following different application times in a silty clay. Pyrithiobac was applied at PPI, PRE, pinhead square (PHS), and first bloom (FB) application timings. Greenhouse studies were also conducted in 1993 and 1994 to determine pyrithiobac persistence under controlled conditions on a sandy loam soil. Slope comparison indicated no difference in degradation patterns in the field for any application timing of pyrithiobac within years; thus, application timings were combined for 1993 and 1994. Slope comparison also indicated no difference in slope between 1993 and 1994; thus, years were combined to determine pyrithiobac persistence. The initial concentration was 30 ηg g−1. The half-life of pyrithiobac was 62 d in the field. Analysis of covariance indicated no difference in slope for the 1993 and 1994 greenhouse studies, and years were combined to determine the half-life. The initial concentration was 43 η g−1. The half-life was 43 d in the greenhouse study.

Keywords

Herbicide degradationherbicide persistencePyrithiobac2-chloro-6-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl) thio]benzoic acid

Information

Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , February 1997, pp. 179 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, R. L. 1985. Environmental effects on metsulfuron and chlorsulfuron bioactivity in soil. J. Environ. Qual. 14: 517–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. L. and Barrett, M. R. 1985. Residual phytotoxicity of chlorsulfuron bioactivity in two soils. J. Environ. Qual. 14: 111–114.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1993. Staple® herbicide, technical information. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington, DE.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basham, G. W. and Lavy, T. L. 1987. Microbial photolytic dissipation of imazaquin in soil. Weed Sci. 35: 865–870.Google Scholar
Baughman, T. A. 1994. Effects of soybean (Glycine max) tillage systems on imazaquin persistence. Ph.D. dissertation, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS.Google Scholar
Brewster, B. D. and Appleby, A. P. 1983. Response of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and rotation crops to chlorsulfuron. Weed Sci. 31: 861–865.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C. and Wicks, G. A. 1980. Atrazine carryover in soil in a reduced tillage crop production system. Weed Sci. 28: 661–666.Google Scholar
Cantwell, J. R., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Biodegradation characteristics of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 37: 815–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, W. S., Liebl, R. A., and Simmons, F. W. 1992. Effects of tillage and application method on clomazone, imazaquin, and imazethapyr persistence. Weed Sci. 40: 482–489.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., and Hajek, B. 1986. Soil solution and mobility characterization of imazaquin. Weed Sci. 34: 788–793.Google Scholar
Helms, R. S., Tripp, T. N., Smith, R. J. Jr., Baldwin, F. L., and Hack-worth, M. 1989. Rice (Oryza sativa) response to imazaquin residues in a soybean (Glycine max) and rice rotation. Weed Technol. 3: 513–517.Google Scholar
Hiltbold, A. E. and Buchanan, G. A. 1977. Influence of soil pH on persistence of atrazine in the field. Weed Sci. 25: 515–520.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
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausz, R. F., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, 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. 1989a. Adsorption of imazaquin and imazethapyr on soils, sediments, and selected adsorbents. Weed Sci. 37: 712–718.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989b. Availability and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in soil. Weed Sci. 37: 259–267.Google Scholar
Majka, J. T. and Lavy, T. L. 1977. Adsorption, mobility, and degradation of cyanazine and diuron in soils. Weed Sci. 25: 401–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, W. H. 1991. Cotton weed control with DPX-PE350. “A Southern Perspective.” Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44: 383.Google Scholar
Monks, C. D. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Rotational crops response to chlorimuron, clomazone, and imazaquin applied the previous year. Weed Sci. 39: 629–633.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. P., Shaw, D. R., and Rankins, A. Jr. 1995. Flumetsulam dissipation in three Mississippi soils. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48. In press.Google Scholar
Myers, R. H. 1989. The multiple linear regression model. in Classical and Modern Regression with Applications. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent Publishing, pp. 82–163.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. A. and Arnold, W. E. 1985. Response of rotational crops to soil residues of chlorsulfuron. Weed Sci. 34: 131–136.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988a. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36: 90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988b. Effect of soil on imazaquin and imazethapyr adsorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36: 78–83.Google Scholar
Ritter, R. L., Harris, T. C., and Kaufman, L. M. 1988. Chlorsulfuron and metsulfuron residues on double-cropped soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 2: 49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeth, F. W., Lavy, T. L., and Burnside, O. C. 1968. Atrazine degradation in two soil profiles. Weed Sci. 17: 202–205.Google Scholar
Savage, K. E. 1977. Metribuzin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 25: 55–59.Google Scholar
Sims, B. D., Guethle, D. R., House, J. L., and Muyonga, C. K. 1991. Effects of DPX-PE350 on weed control, cotton yield, and lint quality. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 44: 75.Google Scholar
Thirunarayanan, K., Zimdahl, R. L., and Smika, D. E. 1985. Chlorsulfuron adsorption and degradation in soil. Weed Sci. 33: 558–563.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. and Shaw, D. R. 1995. Carryover potential of pyrithiobac to wheat, soybean, and grain sorghum on a heavy clay black belt soil. Weed Technol. 10: 140–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, A. F., Wood, M. L., and Chenault, E. W. 1988. Persistence of sulfonylureas in Pullman clay loam. Weed Technol. 2: 251–256.Google Scholar
Wixson, M. B. and Shaw, D. R. 1992. Effects of soil-applied AC 263,222 on crops rotated with soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6: 276–279.Google Scholar