Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:18:15.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adsorption, dissipation, and movement of fluometuron in three southeastern United States soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

William T. Willian ,
Thomas C. Mueller ,
Robert M. Hayes ,
Charles E. Snipes  and
David C. Bridges
William T. Willian
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37901
Robert M. Hayes
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37901
Charles E. Snipes
Affiliation:
Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS
David C. Bridges
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Griffin, GA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fluometuron adsorption and dissipation under field and laboratory conditions, and distribution within the soil profile was determined in 3 soils from Tennessee, Mississippi, and Georgia that are representative of the cotton-growing regions of the southeastern United States. Fluometuron adsorption was correlated with organic matter, but not with clay content or soil pH. First-order kinetics explained fluometuron dissipation under field and controlled conditions (r 2 ≥ 0.82). Field dissipation of fluometuron was slower under dry conditions. Fluometuron was not detected below 15 cm in the soil profile in any soil, and concentrations in the 8- to 15-cm soil zone were < 15 ppbw 112 d after treatment. Fluometuron dissipation was more rapid in soil from the 0- to 8-cm depth in Tennessee soil than in Mississippi soil under controlled conditions. Dissipation was more rapid under field conditions than under laboratory conditions at 2 of 3 locations. Fluometuron half-lives in soils from the 0- to 8-cm depth ranged from 9 to 28 d under field conditions and from 11 to 43 d in the laboratory. Fluometuron dissipation in soils from 30- to 45- and 60- to 90-cm depths was not different among soils, with half-lives ranging from 58 to 99 d under laboratory conditions. Fluometuron half-life was positively correlated with soil depth and inversely correlated with organic matter. These data indicate that organic matter, soil depth, and environmental conditions affect fluometuron dissipation.

Keywords

DegradationadsorptiondepthleachingFluometuron, N,N-dimethyl-N′-[3-(trifluoromethyl)pheny l]ureacotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , February 1997 , pp. 183 - 189
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

Allison, L. E., Bollen, W. B., and Moodie, C. D. 1965. Particle size analysis. in Black, C. A., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, pp 1353–1364.Google Scholar
Bouchard, D. C., Lavy, T. L., and Marx, D. B. 1982. Fate of metribuzin, metolachlor and fluometuron in soil. Weed Sci. 30: 629–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozarth, G. A. and Funderburk, H. H. 1971. Degradation of fluometuron in sandy loam soil. Weed Sci. 19: 691–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, B. A., Hayes, R. M., Tyler, D. D., and Mueller, T. C. 1994. Effect of tillage and cover crop on fluometuron adsorption and degradation under controlled conditions. Weed Sci. 42: 629–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carringer, R. D., Weber, J. B., and Monaco, T. J. 1975. Adsorption-desorption of selected pesticides by organic matter and montmorillonite. J. Agric. Food Chem. 23: 568–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, H. D. 1965. Determination of cation exchange capacity. in Black, C. A., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, pp. 891–901.Google Scholar
Darding, R. L. and Freeman, J. F. 1968. Residual phytoxicity of fluometuron in soils. Weed Sci. 16: 226–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Essington, M. E., Tyler, D. D., and Wilson, G. V. 1995. Fluometuron behavior in long-term tillage plots. Soil Sci. 160: 405–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilmer, V. J. and Alexander, L. T. 1949. Methods of making mechanical analysis of soils. Soil Sci. 68: 1.Google Scholar
Liu, L. C. and Cibes-Viade, H. R. 1973. Adsorption of fluometuron, prometryn, metribuzin, and 2,4-D by soils. J. Agric. Univ. Puerto Rico 57: 286–293.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C. and Moorman, T. B. 1991. Liquid chromatographic determination of fluometuron and metabolites in soil. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 74: 671–673.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Moorman, T. B., and Snipes, C. E. 1992. Effect of concentration, sorption, and microbial biomass on degradation of the herbicide fluometuron in surface and subsurface soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 40: 2517–2522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, C. B., Talbert, R. E., Mattice, J. D., Lavy, T. L., and Frans, R. E. 1986. Residual fluometuron levels in three Arkansas soils under continuous cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) production. Weed Sci. 34: 122–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, K. E. and Wauchope, R. D. 1974. Fluometuron adsorption-desorption equilibria in soil. Weed Sci. 22: 106–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Walker, R. H., Whitwell, T., Buchanan, G. A., and McGuire, J. A. 1984. Efficacy and economics of weed control methods in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 32: 95–100.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 6, 3rd ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, pp. 47–54.Google Scholar
Talbert, R. E. and Fletchall, O. H. 1965. The adsorption of some s-triazines in soils. Weeds 13: 46–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar