Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:06:39.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mobility of Herbicides in Soil Columns Under Saturated- and Unsaturated-Flow Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jerome B. Weber  and
David M. Whitacre
Jerome B. Weber
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27650
David M. Whitacre
Affiliation:
Environ. Sci., Velsicol Chem. Corp Chicago, IL 60641
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Under unsaturated-flow conditions, bromacil (5-bromo-3-sec-butyl-6-methyluracil) was considerably more mobile than buthidazole {3-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-4-hydroxyl-1-methyl-2-imidazolidinone}. Because of their high water solubilities, both herbicides were much more mobile than atrazine (2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-s-triazine), prometon [2,4-bis (isopropylamino)-6-methoxy-s-triazine], or diuron [3-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-1,1-dimethylurea]. Under saturated-flow conditions, buthidazole was leached through Lakeland loamy sand in slightly greater amounts than tebuthiuron {N-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N′-dimethylurea} or CN-10-3510 (formerly VEL 3510) {1-β,β-dimethoxyl-1-methyl-3-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3, 4-thiadiazol-2-yl] urea}. Distribution of the three herbicides in the leached soil was similar and relatively uniform. In Lakeland loamy sand, 30 times as much tebuthiuron was leached under saturated-flow conditions as under unsaturated-flow conditions. Intermittent saturated-unsaturated-flow conditions resulted in four times as much leaching of tebuthiuron as unsaturated flow alone. Only one-tenth as much tebuthiuron leached under intermittent saturated-unsaturated-flow conditions as under saturated-flow conditions. Tebuthiuron added to Lakeland soil and oven-dried was retained in significantly greater amounts than when added to moist Lakeland soil. Low amounts of tebuthiuron leached through Lakeland loamy sand, Portsmouth sandy loam, and Rains silt loam, but high amounts leached through Davidson clay. Greater amounts of the herbicide were retained in the surface zones of the three former soils, but the inverse was the case for the Davidson soil.

Keywords

Leachingmass flowbuthidazoletebuthiuronCN-10-3510atrazinebromacildiuronprometon
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 30 , Issue 6 , November 1982 , pp. 579 - 584
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 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. Chang, S. S. and Stritzke, J. F. 1977. Sorption, movement, and dissipation of tebuthiuron in soils. Weed Sci. 25:184–187.Google Scholar
2. Davidson, J. M., Rieck, C. E., and Santelmann, P. W. 1968. Influence of water flux and porous material on the movement of selected herbicides. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 32:629–633.Google Scholar
3. Dawson, J. H., Bruns, V. F., and Clore, W. J. 1968. Residual monuron, diuron, and simazine in a vineyard soil. Weed Sci. 16:63–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Dowler, C. C., Forestier, W., and Tschirley, F. H. 1968. Effect and persistence of herbicides applied to soil in Puerto Rico forests. Weed Sci. 16:45–50.Google Scholar
5. Eastin, E. F. and Basler, E. 1977. Adsorption, translocation, and degradation of herbicides by plants. Pages 90–96 in Truelove, B., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science, 2nd Ed., South. Weed Sci. Soc., Auburn, AL.Google Scholar
6. Furness, W. and Halawi, M. H. 1976. Properties of some imidazolidinones and trials with buthidazole and its derivatives. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf.-Weeds. pp. 731–738.Google Scholar
7. Gardner, W. R. and Brooks, R. H. 1957. A descriptive theory of leaching. Soil Sci. 83:295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Gerber, H. R., Ziegler, P., and Dubach, P. 1970. Leaching as a tool in the evaluation of herbicides. Proc. 10th Br. Weed Conf. 10:118–125.Google Scholar
9. Harris, C. I. 1966. Adsorption, movement, and phytotoxicity of monuron and s-triazine herbicides. Weeds 14:6–10.Google Scholar
10. Harris, C. I. 1969. Movement of pesticides in soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 17:80–82.Google Scholar
11. Helling, C. S. 1971. Pesticide mobility in soils, II. Application of soil thin-layer chromatography. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35:737–743.Google Scholar
12. Helling, C. S. and Turner, B. C. 1968. Pesticide mobility: Determination by soil thin-layer chromatography. Science 162:562–563.Google Scholar
13. Helling, C. S., Kaufman, D. D., and Dieter, C. T. 1971. Algae bioassay detection of pesticide mobility in soils. Weed Sci. 19:685–690.Google Scholar
14. Ivey, M. J. and Andrews, H. 1965. Leaching of simazine, atrazine, diuron, and DCPA in soil columns. Proc. South. Weed Conf. 18:670–684.Google Scholar
15. Kohnke, H. 1968. Soil Physics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 224 pp.Google Scholar
16. Legg, W. T. 1963. An improved form of leaching apparatus. Soil Sci. 95:214–215.Google Scholar
17. MacDiarmid, B. N. 1975. VEL-5026 – A new herbicide for nonselective weed control. Proc. N.Z. Weed and Pest Control Conf. 28:154–159.Google Scholar
18. Majka, J. T. and Lavy, T. L. 1977. Adsorption, mobility, and degradation of cyanazine and diuron in soils. Weed Sci. 25:401–406.Google Scholar
19. McNeal, B. L. and Reeve, R. C. 1964. Elimination of boundary-flow errors in laboratory hydraulic conductivity measurements. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 28:713–714.Google Scholar
20. Mumford, S. A. and Phillips, J.W.C. 1929. The evaluation and interpretation of parachors. J. Chem. Soc. pp. 2112–2133.Google Scholar
21. Rhodes, R. C., Belasco, I. J., and Pease, H. L. 1970. Determination of mobility and adsorption of agrochemicals on soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 18:524–528.Google Scholar
22. Stockinger, K. R., Perrier, E. R., and Fleming, W. D. 1965. Experimental relations of water movement in unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. 100:124–129.Google Scholar
23. Weber, J. B. 1967. Spectrophotometrically determined ionization constants of 13 alkylamino-s-triazines and the relationships of molecular structure and basicity. Spectrochimica Acta 23A:458–461.Google Scholar
24. Weber, J. B. 1980. Ionization of buthidazole, VEL 3510, tebuthiuron, fluridone, metribuzin, and prometryn. Weed Sci. 28:467–474.Google Scholar
25. Weber, J. B. 1980. Adsorption of buthidazole, VEL 3510, tebuthiuron, and fluridone by organic matter, montmorillonite clay, exchange resins, and a sandy loam soil. Weed Sci. 28:478–483.Google Scholar
26. Weber, J. B. and Peeper, T. F. 1977. Herbicide mobility in soils. Pages 73–78 in Truelove, B., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science, 2nd Ed. South. Weed Sci. Soc., Auburn, AL.Google Scholar
27. Williams, B. G. 1968. An apparatus for leaching soil samples. Soil Sci. 105:376–377.Google Scholar
28. Wu, C. and Santelmann, P. W. 1975. Comparisons of different soil leaching techniques with four herbicides. Weed Sci. 23:508–511.Google Scholar
29. Yaalon, D. H. 1965. Downward movement and distribution of anions in soil profiles with limited wetting. Pages 157–164 in Hallsworth, E. D. and Crawford, D. V., eds. Experimental Pedology, Butterworths Publ. Co., London.Google Scholar