Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T22:57:52.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rainfall influence on imazethapyr bioactivity in New Jersey soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Albert O. Ayeni,
Bradley A. Majek and
Jeff Hammerstedt
Bradley A. Majek
Affiliation:
Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Rutgers University, Bridgeton, NJ 08302
Jeff Hammerstedt
Affiliation:
Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Rutgers University, Bridgeton, NJ 08302
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse studies were conducted with soil columns to determine the influence of rainfall amount, intensity, and time of application on the bioactivity of 0.07 kg ae ha−1 imazethapyr in three soils of New Jersey: the Berryland sand (BLS) (sandy, siliceous, mesic Typic Haplaquod), Aura sandy loam (ASL) (mixed, mesic Typic Hapludult), and Quakertown silt loam (QSIL) (mixed, mesic Typic Hapludult). The Brockman-Duke simulated rainfall machine was used for rainfall application and smooth pigweed as an imazethapyr bioactivity indicator. As rainfall amount increased from low to high (75 to 300 mm mo−1 equivalent) imazethapyr bioactivity declined significantly in BLS and ASL but was unaffected in QSIL. Rainfall intensity from 6 to 25 mm h−1 had no effect on imazethapyr bioactivity in the three soils. A delay in rainfall application up to 14 d after herbicide application significantly reduced the bioactivity of imazethapyr in BLS but had no effect in ASL and QSIL.

Keywords

Smooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. AMACHsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Rainfall amountrainfall intensitytime of rainAMACH

Information

Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 5 , October 1998, pp. 581 - 586
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Nigerian address of A. O. Ayeni: Department of Agronomy, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

References

Literature Cited

Ahrens, W. H., ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America, pp. 166, 287.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. L. 1988. Factors affecting preemergence bioactivity of diclofop: rainfall, straw retention, and plant growth stage. Agron. J. 80: 952–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 1991. Pursuit Herbicide. Princeton, NJ: American Cyanamid Company, p. 20.Google Scholar
Ayeni, A. O. 1990. Herbicide Screening in Arable Crops (Soybean, Rice, Cowpea). Weed Science Technical Report Ser. 1 (1983–1989). Ibadan, Nigeria: University of Ibadan. 34 p.Google Scholar
Ayeni, A. O. 1991. Herbicide Screening in Arable Crops (Maize/Cassava, Maize, Soybean, Cowpea). Weed Science Technical Report Ser. 2 (1990). Ibadan, Nigeria: University of Ibadan. 39 p.Google Scholar
Ayeni, A. O. 1992. Herbicide Screening in Arable Crops (Maize, Rice, Soybean, Groundnut, Crop Mixtures). Weed Science Technical Report Ser. 3 (1991). Ibadan, Nigeria: University of Ibadan. 58 p.Google Scholar
Ayeni, A. O. and Oyekan, P. O. 1992. Weed control in soybeans in Nigeria. Trop. Oilseeds J. 1: 43–52.Google Scholar
Basham, G. W. and Lavy, T. L. 1987. Microbial and photolytic dissipation of imazaquin in soil. Weed Sci. 35: 865–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockman, F. E., Duke, W. B., and Hunt, J. F. 1975. A rainfall simulator for pesticide leaching studies. Weed Sci. 23: 533–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, H. D. 1965. Cation-exchange capacity. Pages 891-901 in Black, C. A., et al., eds. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Ghodrati, M. and Jury, W. A. 1990. A field study using dyes to characterize preferential flow of water. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54: 1558–1563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. Jr. 1990. Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38: 421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, R. G., Lignowski, E. M., and Taylor, F. R. 1991. Imazethapyr herbicide. Pages 247-256 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Isensee, A. R. and Sadeghi, A. M. 1994. Effects of tillage and rainfall on atrazine residue levels in soil. Weed Sci. 42: 462–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. H. and Talbert, R. E. 1996. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to imazaquin and imazethapyr soil residues. Weed Sci. 44: 156–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, M. A. and Bryson, C. T. 1997. Herbicide–soil interactions in reduced tillage and plant residue management systems. Weed Sci. 45: 307–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1993. Effect of soil type and pH on persistence and carryover of imidazolinone herbicides. Weed Technol. 7: 452–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malefyt, T. and Quakenbush, L. S. 1991. Influences of environmental factors on the biological activity of the imidazolinone herbicides. Pages 103-128 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Mangels, G. 1991. Behavior of the imidazolinone herbicides in soil—a review of the literature. Pages 191-209 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R. and Esau, R. 1996. Imidazolinone herbicide effects on following rotational crops in southern Alberta. Weed Technol. 10: 100–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oppong, F. K. and Sagar, G. R. 1992. The activity of triasulfuron in soil as influenced by organic matter, duration, amount and frequency of rain. Weed Res. 32: 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipitalo, M. J., Edwards, W. M., Dick, W. A., and Owens, L. B. 1990. Initial storm effects on macropore transport of surface-applied chemicals in no-till soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54: 1530–1536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigua, G. C., Isensee, A. R., and Sadeghi, A. M. 1993. Influence of rainfall intensity and crop residue on leaching of atrazine in intact no-till soil cores. Soil Sci. 156: 225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Shea, P. J., and Martin, A. R. 1990. Effect of soil type and pH on adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38: 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tedrow, J.C.F. 1986. Soils of New Jersey. Malabar, FL: R. E. Krieger, pp. 52–110.Google Scholar
Walkley, A. and Black, I. A. 1934. An examination of Degjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 37: 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, J. B. 1994. Properties and behavior of pesticides in soil. Pages 15-41 in Honeycut, R. C. and Schabacker, D. J., eds. Mechanisms or Pesticide Movement into Ground Water. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google ScholarPubMed