Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T02:44:45.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Water-Soil-Plant Interactions with Terbacil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

B. A. Kratky  and
G. F. Warren
B. A. Kratky
Affiliation:
Dep. of Hort., Purdue Univ. Lafayette, IN 47907
G. F. Warren
Affiliation:
Dep. of Hort., Purdue Univ. Lafayette, IN 47907
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The phytotoxicity of terbacil (3-tert-butyl-5-chloro-6-methyluracil) is not closely correlated with the amount applied, the amount in available soil solution, or the concentration in available soil solution since soil type has a pronounced effect on the levels necessary for phytotoxicity. About 19 times more terbacil was needed in a Chalmers silty clay loam (24% organic matter) than in a Bloomfield fine sand (0.3% organic matter) to cause a 30% control of sorghum (Sorghum biclor (L.) Moench ‘R.S. 610’). However, the Bloomfield fine sand required twice as great a concentration of terbacil in the soil solution as the Chalmers silty clay loam (0.314 μg/ml versus 0.157 μg/ml). The total adsorption of terbacil in the latter soil decreased 4.5 fold when the water: soil ratio was increased from 0.6:1 (approximately field capacity) to 32:1, but the ratio of the concentration adsorbed: concentration in the soil solution did not vary appreciably.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 21 , Issue 5 , September 1973 , pp. 451 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 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

1. Bailey, G. W. and White, J. L. 1970. Factors influencing the adsorption, desorption and movement of pesticides in soil. Res. Rev. 32:29–92.Google Scholar
2. Geissbuhler, H., Haselbach, C., Aebi, H. and Ebner, L. 1963. The fate of N'-(4-chlorophenoxy)-phenyl-N,N-dimethylurea (C-1983) in soils and plants. Weed Res. 3:181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Green, R. E. and Obien, S. R. 1969. Herbicide equilibrium in soils in relation to soil water content. Weed Sci. 17:514–519.Google Scholar
4. Haque, R. and Coshow, W. R. 1971. Adsorption of isocil and bromacil from aqueous solution onto some mineral surfaces. Environ. Sci. Technol. 5:139.Google Scholar
5. Jenny, H. and Overstreet, R. 1939. Cation interchange between plant roots and soil colloids. Soil Sci. 47:257–272.Google Scholar
6. Kratky, B. A. and Warren, G. F. 1971. A rapid bioassay for photosynthetic and respiratory inhibitors. Weed Sci. 19:658–661.Google Scholar
7. Lavy, T. L. 1970. Diffusion of three ehloro-s-triazines in soil. Weed Sci. 18:53–56.Google Scholar
8. Stickler, R. L., Knake, E. L., and Hinesly, T. D. 1969. Soil moisture and effectiveness of preemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 17:257–259.Google Scholar
9. Upchurch, R. P. 1957. The influence of soil moisture content on the response of cotton to herbicides. Weeds 5:112–120.Google Scholar
10. Upchurch, R. P. 1966. Behavior of herbicides in the soil. Residue Reviews 16:46–85.Google Scholar
11. Weber, J. B. 1972. Model soil systems, herbicide leaching and sorption. Pages 145–160 in Wilkinson, R. E., ed. Research methods in weed science. S. Weed Sci. Soc. Google Scholar