Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:37:07.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of a Pre-Irrigation Period on the Activity of Ethofumesate Applied to Dry Soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David McAuliffe
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Arnold P. Appleby
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331

Abstract

Applications of ethofumesate [(±)-2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate] at rates from 0.3 to 1.4 kg/ha were made in the field to soils of 2 and 30% (w/w) soil moisture. After 2 to 4 days, all soils were irrigated to establish stands of either sweet corn (Zea mays L. ‘Jubilee’) or winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L. ‘Stephens’) used as bioassay species for ethofumesate activity. Ethofumesate, at most rates, was significantly less effective on both corn and wheat when applied to dry soil than to wet soil. In greenhouse studies, ethofumesate activity was significantly greater when incorporated into soil of 12% than 2% (w/w) moisture 2 or 4 days prior to irrigation. An increase in herbicide activity was apparent as the length of time between herbicide application and wetting increased from 2 to 4 days. Analysis of wet (20%, w/w) and dry (2%, w/w) soils treated with equal levels of ethofumesate revealed no loss of herbicide applied to wet soil over a 12-day period, but in the dry soil, the amount extracted after 12 days was 10% of the amount extracted at 0 days. These data and other considerations suggest that chemical degradation of ethofumesate is the most likely mechanism for the activity loss in dry soil.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 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

1. Armstrong, D. E. and Chesters, G. 1968. Adsorption catalyzed chemical hydrolysis of atrazine. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2:683689.Google Scholar
2. Ashton, F. M. and Sheets, T. J. 1959. The relationship of soil adsorption of EPTC to oat injury in various soil types. Weeds 7:8890.Google Scholar
3. Crosby, D. G. 1976. Nonbiological degradation of herbicides in the soil. Pages 6597 in Audus, L. J., ed. Herbicides – Physiology, Biochemistry, Ecology. Vol. 2. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
4. Dao, T. H. and Lavy, T. L. 1978. Atrazine adsorption on soil as influenced by temperature, moisture content, and electrolyte concentration. Weed Sci. 26:303308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Ekins, W. L. and Day, M. G. 1978. The results of two years testing with ethofumesate under an experimental use permit in grass seed crops. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 31:98.Google Scholar
6. Graham-Bryce, I. J. 1967. Adsorption of disulfoton by soil. J. Sci. Food Agric. 18:7277.Google Scholar
7. Gray, R. A. and Weierich, A. J. 1965. Factors affecting the vapor loss of EPTC from soils. Weeds 13:141147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Grover, R. 1966. Influence of organic matter, texture, and available water on the toxicity of simazine in soil. Weeds 14:148151.Google Scholar
9. Hance, R. J. and Embling, S. J. 1979. Effect of soil water content at the time of application on herbicide content in soil solution extracted in a pressure membrane apparatus. Weed Res. 19:201205.Google Scholar
10. Hargrove, R. S. and Merkle, M. G. 1971. The loss of alachlor from soil. Weed Sci. 19:652654.Google Scholar
11. Hartley, M. J. 1975. Factors affecting herbicide control of barley grass pot trials. Proc. N.Z. Weed Pest Control Conf. 28:1720.Google Scholar
12. Ketchersid, M. L., Bovey, R. W., and Merkle, M. G. 1969. The detection of trifluralin vapors in air. Weed Sci. 17:484485.Google Scholar
13. Lee, W. O. 1977. Winter annual grass weed control in Italian ryegrass with ethofumesate. Weed Sci. 25:252255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Little, T. M. and Hills, F. J. 1978. Agricultural Experimentation: Design and Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 350 pp.Google Scholar
15. Miller, R. W. and Faust, S. D. 1972. Sorption from aqueous solutions by organic clays: I. 2,4-D by bentone 24. Pages 121134 in Gould, R. F., ed. Fate of Organic Pesticides in the Aquatic Environment. Am. Chem. Soc., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
16. Mortland, M. M. and Raman, K. V. 1968. Surface acidity of smectites in relation to hydration, exchangeable cation, and structure. Clays Clay Miner. 16:393398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Ostrowski, J. and Reisler, A. 1976. On the effect of placement and soil moisture upon the herbicidal action of ethofumesate. Rocz. Glebozn. 27:211215.Google Scholar
18. Parochetti, J. V. and Warren, G. F. 1966. Vapor losses of IPC and CIPC. Weeds 14:281285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Pfeiffer, R. K. and Holmes, H. M. 1972. Control of annual grasses and broadleaved weeds in sugarbeets with NC 8438. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 11:487490.Google Scholar
20. Skipper, H. D. and Volk, V. V. 1972. Biological and chemical degradation of atrazine in three Oregon soils. Weed Sci. 20:344347.Google Scholar
21. Stickler, R. L., Knake, E. L., and Hinesly, T. D. 1969. Soil moisture and effectiveness of preemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 17: 257259.Google Scholar
22. Sullivan, E. F. and Fagala, L. T. 1970. Herbicide evaluations on sugarbeets. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 27: 2527.Google Scholar
23. Upchurch, R. P. 1957. The influence of soil-moisture content on the response of cotton to herbicides. Weeds 5:112120.Google Scholar
24. van Hoogstraten, S. D., Baker, C., and Horne, S. D. 1974. Ethofumesate behavior in the soil. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 12:503509.Google Scholar
25. Walker, A. 1978. The degradation of methazole in soil. I. Effect of soil type, soil temperature and soil moisture content. Pestic. Sci. 9:326332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Whiteoak, R. J., Crofts, M., Harris, R. J., and Overton, K. C. 1978. Ethofumesate. Anal. Methods Pestic. Plant Growth Regul. 10:353366.Google Scholar