Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:49:46.756Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soil Reception and Activity of Acetochlor, Alachlor, and Metolachlor as Affected by Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Straw and Irrigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Philip A. Banks  and
Edward L. Robinson
Philip A. Banks
Affiliation:
Agron. Dep., Univ. Georgia, Athens, GA 30602
Edward L. Robinson
Affiliation:
South. Piedmont Conserv. Res. Ctr., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Watkinsville, GA 30677
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Acetochlor [2-chloro-N-(ethoxymethyl)-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)acetamide], alachlor [2-chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl)acetamide], and metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide] were applied in 280 L of water/ha to plots covered with 0 to 6720 kg/ha of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) straw. At straw levels of 1120 kg/ha or greater, 50% or less of the applied herbicides were received by the soil surface before irrigation. Sprinkle irrigation (1.3 cm) washed 15 to 20% of the originally applied herbicide into the soil regardless of straw level. More metolachlor was retained on the straw than acetochlor or alachlor. Analysis of the wheat straw indicated that little water-extractable herbicide remained for all herbicides. Initial herbicidal activity on grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench.] was reduced by the presence of wheat straw at the time of application, with acetochlor being least affected and alachlor most affected. Ten days after treatment, less than 10% of the original alachlor and acetochlor remained in the soil. When planted at this time, grain sorghum response was inversely related to the amount of straw mulch that was originally present. Metolachlor residues in the soil on day 10 were 11 to 26% of that on day 0 and there was comparably less reduction in activity on grain sorghum.

Keywords

No-tilldouble-croppingsoybeansconservation tillage
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , July 1986 , pp. 607 - 611
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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. Banks, P. A. and Robinson, E. L. 1982. The influence of straw mulch on the soil reception and persistence of metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30:164–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Banks, P. A. and Kvien, J. S. 1983. Weed control evaluations in no-till soybeans (Glycine max) double-cropped with rye (Secale cereale). Univ. Georgia Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. 431.Google Scholar
3. Banks, P. A. and Robinson, E. L. 1984. The fate of oryzalin applied to straw-mulched and nonmulched soils. Weed Sci. 32:269–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Kapusta, G. 1979. Seedbed tillage and herbicide influence on soybean (Glycine max) weed control and yield. Weed Sci. 27: 520–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Strek, H. J. and Weber, J. B. 1982. Adsorption, mobility and activity comparisons between alachlor and metolachlor. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 35:332–338.Google Scholar
6. Triplett, G. B. Jr. 1978. Weed control for doublecrop soybeans planted with the no-tillage method following small grain harvest. Agron. J. 70:577–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar