Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T07:45:03.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Within-field soil heterogeneity effects on herbicide-mediated crop injury and weed biomass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Martin M. Williams II ,
David A. Mortensen ,
Alex R. Martin  and
David B. Marx
David A. Mortensen
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Alex R. Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
David B. Marx
Affiliation:
Department of Biometry, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0712
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Soil organic carbon (OC), clay content, water content, and pH often influence the bioactivity of soil-applied herbicides, and these soil properties can vary greatly within fields. The purpose of this work was to determine the influence of within-field soil heterogeneity on the efficacy of RPA-201772 where corn, shattercane, and velvetleaf were seeded as bioassays. An experimental approach was developed to quantify RPA-201772 dose–response across a range of soil conditions in an agricultural field. Based on a logistic model, crop injury was quantified with the I20 parameter, the dose eliciting 20% greenness reduction, using a series of photographic standards. Weed biomass was quantified with the I80 parameter, the dose eliciting 80% biomass reduction, relative to the untreated control. Crop and weed responses varied by two orders of magnitude. Significant correlation, as high as 0.76, was observed between measures of plant response and soil properties, namely particle size and OC. Furthermore, native velvetleaf spatial distribution at the study site was heterogeneous, and seedlings were observed in plots where seeded velvetleaf biomass was high. Spatial heterogeneity of soil affinity for herbicide results in differential weed fitness and contributes to weed “patchiness.”

Keywords

RPA-201772, 5-cyclopropyl-4-(2-methylsulphonyl-4-trifluoromethyl-benzoyl)isoxazolecorn, Zea mays L.shattercane, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. SORBIvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. ABUTHDose–responsesite-specificspatial
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 6 , December 2001 , pp. 798 - 805
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Anonymous. 1988a. Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures for the North Central Region. North Central Region 13 Publ. 221 (revised). Ft. Collins, CO. pp. 6–8.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1988b. Soil and Plant Analytical Methods. Version 4.00. Columbia, MO: North American Proficiency Testing. pp. 81–82.Google Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C., Kushwaha, S., and Mitra, S. 1999. Response of various weed species and corn (Zea mays) to RPA 201772. Weed Technol. 13:504–509.Google Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C., Vrabel, T. E., Prostak, R., and Cartier, J. 1996. Activity of RPA 201772 in controlling weed species in field corn. Pages 807–812 in Second International Weed Control Congress, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Moyer, J. R., and Kozub, G. C. 1994. Efficacy of downy brome herbicides as influenced by soil properties. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74:177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumhorst, M. R., Weber, J. B., and Swain, L. R. 1990. Efficacy of selected herbicides as influenced by soil properties. Weed Technol. 4:279–283.Google Scholar
Cambardella, C. A., Moorman, T. B., Novak, J. M., Parkin, T. B., Karlen, D. L., Turco, R. F., and Konopka, A. E. 1994. Field-scale variability of soil properties in central Iowa soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 58:1501–1511.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A. and Mortensen, D. A. 1998. Influence of weed biology and ecology on the development of reduced dose strategies for integrated weed management systems. Pages 333–362 In Hatfield, J. L., Buhler, D. D., and Stewart, B. A., eds. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., Buhler, D. D., and Ferguson, R. B. 2000. Identifying associations among site properties and weed species abundance. II. Hypothesis generation. Weed Sci. 48:576–587.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46 In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Khakural, B. R., Robert, P. C., and Huggins, D. R. 1999. Variability of corn/soybean yield and soil/landscape properties across a southwestern Minnesota landscape. Pages 573–579 In Robert, P. C., Rust, R. H., and Larson, W. E., eds. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Precision Agriculture. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy/Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Sikkema, P. H., Tardif, F., Hamill, A. S., Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Biologically effective dose and selectivity of RPA 201772 for preemergence weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 12:670–676.Google Scholar
Leistra, M. and Green, R. E. 1990. Efficacy of soil-applied pesticides. Pages 401–428 In Cheng, H. H., ed. Pesticides in the Soil Environment. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Luscombe, B. M., Pallett, K. E., Loubiere, P., Millet, J. C., Melgarejo, J., and Vrabel, T. E. 1995. RPA 201772: a novel herbicide for broadleaf and grass weed control in maize and sugarcane. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. 2:35–42.Google Scholar
Mitra, S., Bhowmik, P. C., and Xing, B. 1999. Sorption of isoxaflutole by five different soils varying in physical and chemical properties. Pestic. Sci. 55:935–942.Google Scholar
Mitra, S., Bhowmik, P. C., and Xing, B. 2000. Sorption and desorption of the diketonitrile metabolite of isoxaflutole in soils. Environ. Pollut. 107:1–8.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. A. and Dieleman, J. A. 1998. Why weed patches persist: dynamics of edges and density. Pages 14–19 In Medd, R. W. and Pratley, J. E., eds. Precision Weed Management in Crops and Pastures. Adelaide, Australia: CRC for Weed Management Systems.Google Scholar
Novak, J. M., Moorman, T. B., and Cambardella, C. A. 1997. Atrazine sorption at the field scale in relation to soils and landscape position. J. Environ. Qual. 26:1271–1277.Google Scholar
Oliveira, R. S. Jr., Koskinen, W. C., Ferreira, F. A., Khakural, B. R., Mulla, D. J., and Robert, P. J. 1999. Spatial variability of imazethapyr sorption in soil. Weed Sci. 47:243–248.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 6, 3rd ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Shea, P. J. 1989. Role of humified organic matter in herbicide adsorption. Weed Technol. 3:190–197.Google Scholar
Sprague, L. C., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1998. Preemergence weed control and corn tolerance in conventional and no-tillage corn with isoxaflutole. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38:8.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C. 1988. Herbicide bioassay. Weed Res. 28:479–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streibig, J. C., Rudemo, M., and Jensen, J. E. 1993. Dose-response curves and statistical models. Pages 29–55 In Streibig, J. C. and Kudsk, P., eds. Herbicide Bioassays. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S., Sims, G. K., and Wax, L. M. 2000. Effect of moisture and temperature on degradation of isoxaflutole in soil. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 40:339.Google Scholar
Veerasakaran, P., Crudace, A. J., Slater, A. E., and Pallet, K. E. 1999. Isoxaflutole: herbicidal activity and mode of action. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Abstr. 54:117.Google Scholar
Winkle, M. E., Leavitt, J. R. C., and Burnside, O. C. 1981. Effects of weed density on herbicide sorption and bioactivity. Weed Sci. 29:405–409.Google Scholar
Woolcock, J. L. and Cousens, R. 2000. A mathematical analysis of factors affecting the rate of spread of patches of annual weeds in an arable field. Weed Sci. 48:27–34.Google Scholar
Young, G. B., Hart, S. E., and Simmons, F. W. 1998. Performance of preemergence applications of isoxaflutole in corn. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38:8.Google Scholar