Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-29T03:08:04.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tillage systems affect trifluralin bioavailability in soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bhagirath S. Chauhan ,
Gurjeet Gill  and
Christopher Preston
Gurjeet Gill
Affiliation:
Discipline of Agricultural and Animal Science, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy Campus, South Australia, Australia 5371
Christopher Preston
Affiliation:
Discipline of Plant and Food Science, The University of Adelaide, Waite Campus, South Australia, Australia 5064
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Trifluralin is widely used for control of rigid ryegrass in no-till grain crops in southern Australia. Trifluralin must be incorporated into soil to be effective. Several field studies were conducted to evaluate the effect of different tillage systems on vertical seed distribution and efficacy and rate of loss of bioavailable trifluralin. Experiments were conducted during the growing seasons of 2004 and 2005 at two sites in South Australia: on the Roseworthy Campus farm of the University of Adelaide and near Minlaton on the Yorke Peninsula. The tillage systems at the Roseworthy Campus were minimum tillage (MinTill) and no-till using narrow points, whereas four direct-drill-seeding systems were used at Minlaton. Plastic beads were spread on the soil surface to simulate weed seeds. MinTill sowing buried more plastic beads than no-till, indicating that greater soil disturbance was caused by the MinTill system. Trifluralin efficacy was lower under no-till as compared to MinTill. A bioassay, based on response of oat roots, was used to quantify the concentrations of bioavailable trifluralin under different tillage systems. In both years at the Roseworthy Campus, loss of bioavailable trifluralin was greater under no-till than under MinTill; however, the rate of loss under both systems was much faster in 2004 than in 2005. In 2004, bioavailable trifluralin at 12 d after sowing under MinTill and no-till was 55 and 33% of the initial concentration, respectively. In 2005, bioavailable trifluralin remaining at 23 d after sowing was 86% under MinTill and 54% under no-till. At Minlaton in both years, bioavailable trifluralin was greater under tillage systems that provided the highest level of soil disturbance. These results demonstrate that reduced bioavailability of trifluralin occurs in no-till seeding systems, which could result in reduced weed control.

Keywords

Rigid ryegrass, Lolium rigidum Gaud., LOLRIoat, Avena sativa L. ‘Swan’Minimum tillageno-tilldisctine
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 5 , October 2006 , pp. 941 - 947
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

Bardsley, C., Savage, K., and Walker, J. 1968. Trifluralin behaviour in soils II. Volatilization as influenced by concentration, time, soil moisture content, and placement. Agron. J. 60:89–92.Google Scholar
Basham, G. W. and Lavy, T. L. 1987. Microbial and photolytic dissipation of imazaquin in soil. Weed Sci. 35:865–870.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Daniel, T. C. 1988. Influence of tillage systems on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) density and control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:642–647.Google Scholar
Cabras, P. and Melis, M. 1991. High performance liquid chromatograhic determination of dinitroaniline herbicides in soil and water. J. Chromatogr. 585:164–167.Google Scholar
Chauhan, B. S., Gill, G. S., Preston, C., and McDonald, G. 2004. Tillage system effects on seedling recruitment pattern and persistence of Lolium rigidum Gaudin (annual ryegrass) seed-bank. Page 175 in Fischer, T. ed. Fourth International Crop Science Conference. Brisbane, Australia: Regional Institute.Google Scholar
D'Emden, F. H. and Llewellyn, R. S. 2004. No-till adoption and cropping issues for Australian grain growers. Page 108 in Fischer, T. ed. Fourth International Crop Science Conference. Brisbane, Australia: Regional Institute.Google Scholar
Doran, J. W. and Linn, D. M. 1994. Microbial ecology of conservation management systems. Pages 1–28 in Hatfield, J. L. and Stewart, B. A. eds. Soil Biology: Effects on Soil Quality. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.Google Scholar
Frye, W. W. 1984. Energy requirements in no-tillage. Pages 127–151 in Phillips, R. E. and Phillips, S. H. eds. No-Tillage Agriculture: Principles and Practices. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garimella, U. I., Stearman, G. K., and Wells, M. J. 2000. Comparison among soil series and extraction methods for the analysis of trifluralin. J. Agric. Food Chem. 48:5874–5880.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genstat 5 Committee. 1993. Genstat 5, Release 3 Reference Manual. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Golab, T., Althaus, W. A., and Wooten, H. L. 1979. Fate of [14C]trifluralin in soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 27:163–179.Google Scholar
Griffith, D. R., Mannering, J. V., and Box, J. E. 1986. Soil and moisture management with reduced tillage. Pages 19–57 in Sprague, M. A. and Triplett, G. B. eds. No-Tillage and Surface Tillage Agriculture. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Grover, R., Wolt, J., Cessna, A., and Schiefer, H. 1997. Environmental fate of trifluralin. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 153:1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horowitz, M., Hulin, N., and Blumenfield, T. 1974. Behaviour and persistence of trifluralin in soil. Weed Res. 14:213–220.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D., Wyse, D. L., and Lueschen, W. E. 1989. The influence of herbicide formulation on weed control in four tillage systems. Weed Sci. 37:239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, P. K., Jolley, A. V., Code, G. R., Moerkerk, M. R., and Corbett, A. 1998. Degradation of trifluralin in three Victorian soils—long-term field trials. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 38:363–374.Google Scholar
Kenaga, E. E. 1980. Predicted bioconcentration factors and soil sorption coefficients of pesticides and other chemicals. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 4:26–38.Google Scholar
Kennedy, J. M. and Talbert, R. E. 1977. Comparative persistence of dinitroaniline type herbicides on the soil surface. Weed Sci. 25:371–381.Google Scholar
Krause, A. A. and Niemczyk, H. D. 1992. Simultaneous gas-liquid-chromatographic analysis of trifluralin and benfluralin residues in turfgrass thatch and soil by solid-phase extraction technique. J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part B. 27:39–51.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, R. S. and Powles, S. B. 2001. High levels of herbicide resistance in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in the wheat belt of Western Australia. Weed Technol. 15:242–248.Google Scholar
McAlister, F. M., Holtum, J. A. M., and Powles, S. B. 1995. Dinitroaniline herbicide resistance in rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum). Weed Sci. 43:55–62.Google Scholar
Messersmith, C. G., Burnside, O. C., and Lavy, T. L. 1971. Biological and non-biological dissipation of trifluralin from soil. Weed Sci. 19:285–290.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Galford, A. E. 1997. Weed seedling emergence and seed survival: separating the effects of seed position and soil modification by tillage. Weed Res. 37:147–155.Google Scholar
Parka, S. J. and Tepe, J. B. 1969. The disappearance of trifluralin from field soils. Weed Sci. 17:119–122.Google Scholar
Parochetti, J., Dec, G. Jr., and Burt, G. 1975. Volatility of 11 dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 24:529–532.Google Scholar
Parochetti, J. and Hein, E. 1973. Volatility and photodecomposition of trifluralin, benefin, and nitralin. Weed Sci. 21:469–473.Google Scholar
Probst, G., Golab, T., Herberg, R., Holzer, F., Parka, S., Schans, C., and Tepe, J. 1967. Fate of trifluralin in soils and plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 15:592–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainbow, R. W. 2000. Spear soil opener effects on soil physical properties and impact on wheat production. . University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. 222 p.Google Scholar
Savage, K. E. 1978. Persistence of several dinitroaniline herbicides as affected by soil moisture. Weed Sci. 26:465–471.Google Scholar
Savage, K. and Barrentine, W. 1969. Trifluralin persistence as affected by depth of soil incorporation. Weed Sci. 17:349–352.Google Scholar
Triplett, G. B. Jr. and VanDoren, D. M. Jr. 1977. Agriculture without tillage. Sci. Am. 236:28–33.Google Scholar
Walker, A. and Bond, W. 1977. Persistence of the herbicide AC 92,553 [N-(1-ethylpropyl)-2,6-dinitro-3,4-xylidine] in soils. Pestic. Sci. 8:359–365.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B. 1990. Behaviour of dinitroaniline herbicides in soils. Weed Technol. 4:394–406.Google Scholar
Yenish, J. P., Fry, T. A., Durgan, B. R., and Wyse, D. L. 1996. Tillage effects on seed distribution and common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) establishment. Weed Sci. 44:815–820.Google Scholar