Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:36:32.096Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Activity, adsorption, mobility, efficacy, and persistence of alachlor as influenced by formulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ioannis B. Vasilakoglou  and
Ilias G. Eleftherohorinos
Ioannis B. Vasilakoglou
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Agronomy, University of Thessaloniki, 54006 Thessaloniki, Greece
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Activity, adsorption, mobility, and field persistence of one emulsifiable concentrate (EC) and three microencapsulated (ME) formulations of alachlor were studied with petri dish bioassay, based on root response of oats grown in sand or soil. Both bioassays indicated that activity of all formulations was increased with increasing herbicide concentration. EC-alachlor in sand showed the highest activity, while ME-alachlorL and ME-alachlorA, the lowest; the activity of ME-alachlorC was intermediate. In silty clay loam soil, EC-alachlor had the highest activity, while ME-alachlorL had the lowest; and ME-alachlorA showed intermediate activity and was similar to that of ME-alachlorC More alachlor was adsorbed on the soil or remained encapsulated (not biologically available) after ME-alachlorL and ME-alachorA application compared to EC-alachlor. An intermediate amount of alachlor was adsorbed or remained inside the capsules when the ME-alachlorC formulation was applied. Greater amounts of alachlor were leached through a silty clay loam after EC-alachlor application compared to the three ME-alachlor formulations. Biologically available alachlor was not detected below 15 or 10 cm after application of EC- and ME-alachlor formulations, respectively. All alachlor formulations applied alone or in mixture with atrazine showed similar field persistence. Biologically available alachlor was not detected in the 0- to 10-cm soil depth 30 d after their application. All alachlor formulations applied alone gave excellent control of redroot pigweed and black nightshade, but only partial control of jimsonweed. None of the herbicide treatments showed any detrimental effect on corn, and all of them increased corn yield to the level of weed-free control.

Keywords

Alachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl) acetamideredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREjimsonweed, Datura stramonium L. DATSTblack nightshade, Solanum nigrum L. SOLNIoat Avena sativa L. ‘Kassandra.’Microencapsulated formulationsoat bioassayresidual activityleachingAMAREDATSTSOLNI
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , August 1997 , pp. 579 - 585
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Beestman, G. B. and Deming, J. M. 1990. Commercial development of microencapsulated pesticides. in Wilkins, R. M., ed. Controlled Delivery of Crop-Protection Agents. London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 91–97.Google Scholar
Deasy, P. B. 1984. Microencapsulation and Related Drug Processes. New York: Marcel-Dekker, 361 p.Google Scholar
Doub, J. P., Wilson, H. P., and Hatzios, K. K. 1988. Comparative efficacy of two formulations of alachlor and metolachlor. Weed Sci. 36: 221–226.Google Scholar
Huang, Q. L. and Ahrens, J. F. 1991. Residues of alachlor in soil after application of controlled release and conventional formulations. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 47: 362–367.Google Scholar
Marrs, G. J. and Scher, H. B. 1990. Development of microencapsulation. in Wikins, R. M., ed. Controlled Delivery of Crop-Protection Agents. London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 65–89.Google Scholar
Marrs, G. J. and Seaman, D. 1978. Practical consideration in the control of bioavailability. Pestic. Sci. 9: 402–410.Google Scholar
McFarlane, N. R. and Pedley, J. B. 1978. Some fundamental considerations of controlled release. Pestic. Sci. 9: 411–424.Google Scholar
Meghir, S. 1984. Microencapsulation of insecticides by interfacial polycondensation: the benefits and problems. Pestic. Sci. 15: 265–267.Google Scholar
Negre, M., Gennari, M., Raimondo, E., Celi, L., Trevisan, M., and Capri, E. 1992. Alachlor dissipation in soil as influenced by formulation and soil moisture. J. Agric. Food Chem. 40: 1071–1075.Google Scholar
Patruno, A., Cavazza, L., Catizone, P., Flori, P., Vitali, G., and Vicari, A. 1990. Use of microencapsulated herbicides. Inf. Agrar. 17: 47–50.Google Scholar
Peter, C. J. and Weber, J. B. 1985. Adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of alachlor and metolachlor as influenced by soil properties. Weed Sci. 33: 874–881.Google Scholar
Petersen, B. B. and Shea, P. J. 1989. Microencapsulated alachlor and its behavior on wheat (Triticum aestivum) straw. Weed Sci. 37: 719–723.Google Scholar
Petersen, B. B., Shea, P. J., and Wicks, G. A. 1988. Acetanilide activity and dissipation as influenced by formulation and wheat stubble. Weed Sci. 36: 243–249.Google Scholar
Rahman, A. and James, T. K. 1994. Field persistence of some maize herbicides in two soils. Proc. 47th N. Z. Plant Protection Conf. 6–10.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., Hatzios, K. K., and Doub, J. P. 1988. Efficacy comparisons of alachlor and metolachlor formulations in the field. Weed Technol. 2: 24–27.Google Scholar