Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:33:46.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of a Laboratory Bioassay and Effect of Soil Properties on Sulfentrazone Phytotoxicity in Soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anna M. Szmigielski ,
Jeff J. Schoenau ,
Eric N. Johnson ,
Frederick A. Holm ,
Ken L. Sapsford  and
Juxin Liu
Anna M. Szmigielski*
Affiliation:
Soil Science Department, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5A8
Jeff J. Schoenau
Affiliation:
Soil Science Department, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5A8
Eric N. Johnson
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Farm, Scott, SK, Canada S0K 4A0
Frederick A. Holm
Affiliation:
Plant Sciences Department, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5A8
Ken L. Sapsford
Affiliation:
Plant Sciences Department, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5A8
Juxin Liu
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Saskatchewan, 106 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5E6
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sulfentrazone is a phenyl triazolinone herbicide used for control of certain broadleaf and grass weed species. Sulfentrazone persists in soil and has residual activity beyond the season of application. A laboratory bioassay was developed for the detection of sulfentrazone in soil using root and shoot response of several crops. Shoot length inhibition of sugar beet was found to be the most sensitive and reproducible parameter for measurement of soil-incorporated sulfentrazone. The sugar beet bioassay was then used to examine the effect of soil properties on sulfentrazone phytotoxicity using 10 different Canadian prairie soils. Concentrations corresponding to 50% inhibition (I 50 values) were obtained from the dose–response curves constructed for the soils. Sulfentrazone phytotoxicity was strongly correlated to the percentage organic carbon (P = 0.01) and also to percentage clay content (P = 0.05), whereas correlation with soil pH was nonsignificant (P = 0.21). Because sulfentrazone phytotoxicity was found to be soil dependent, the efficacy of sulfentrazone for weed control and sulfentrazone potential carryover injury will vary with soil type in the Canadian prairies.

Keywords

Sulfentrazone, N-[2,4-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamidesugar beet, Beta vulgaris L. ‘Beta 1385’Bioassaydose-response curvesherbicidephytotoxicitysulfentrazone
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 486 - 491
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

Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., Duke, S. O., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar differences in response to sulfentrazone. Weed Sci 45:634–641.Google Scholar
Dirks, J. T., Johnson, W. G., Smeda, R. J., Wiebold, W. J., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Use of preplant sulfentrazone in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant Glycine max . Weed Sci 48:628–639.Google Scholar
Eliason, R., Schoenau, J. J., Szmigielski, A. M., and Laverty, W. M. 2004. Phytotoxicity and persistence of flucarbazone-sodium in soil. Weed Sci 52:857–862.Google Scholar
Falk, J. S., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 2006. Rapid assay evaluation of plant response to protoporphyrinogen oxidase (protox)-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol 20:104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, L. R., Burke, I. C., Price, A. J., Smith, W. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2006. Uptake, translocation, and metabolism of root absorbed sulfentrazone and sulfentrazone plus clomazone in flue-curd tobacco transplants. Weed Technol 20:898–902.Google Scholar
FMC Corporation 1999. Sulfentrazone. Product Profile. Philadelphia: Agricultural Product Group.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. D., and Brecke, B. J. 2000. Response of seven peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol 14:51–56.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Vencill, W. K., Mantripagada, N., and Culpepper, A. S. 2007. Residual herbicide dissipation from soil covered with low-density polyethylene mulch or left bare. Weed Sci 55:638–643.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G. R., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Sulfentrazone adsorption and mobility as affected by soil and pH. Weed Sci 45:733–738.Google Scholar
Groves, K. E. M. and Foster, R. K. 1985. A corn (Zea mays L.) bioassay technique for measuring chlorsulfuron levels in three Saskatchewan soils. Weed Sci 33:825–828.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Fawcett, R. S., and Owen, M. D. K. 1989. Effects of tillage on trifluralin residue carryover injury to corn. Weed Sci 37:609–615.Google Scholar
Hatzios, K. K. 1998. Supplement to Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 67–69.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Reynolds, D. B., and Crawford, S. H. 1997. Rice (Oryza sativa) response to soil residues of selected herbicides. Weed Technol 11:379–383.Google Scholar
Li, Z., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G., and Hancock, H. G. 2000. Using electrolyte leakage to detect soybean (Glycine max) cultivars sensitive to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol 14:699–704.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Mueller, T. C., Hayes, R. M., Wilcut, J. W., Peeper, T. F., Talbert, R. E., and Witt, W. W. 2004. Sulfentrazone persistence in southern soils: bioavailable concentration and effect on a rotational cotton crop. Weed Technol 18:346–352.Google Scholar
Martinez, C. O., Silva, C. M. M. S., Fay, E. F., Maia, A. H. N., Abakerli, R. B., and Durrant, L. R. 2008. Degradation of the herbicide sulfentrazone in a Brazilian Typic Hapludox soil. Soil Biol. Biochem 40:879–886.Google Scholar
Ohmes, G. A., Hayes, R. M., and Mueller, T. C. 2000. Sulfentrazone dissipation in a Tennessee soil. Weed Technol 14:100–105.Google Scholar
Ohmes, G. A. and Mueller, T. C. 2007. Sulfentrazone adsorption and mobility in surface soil of the southern United States. Weed Technol 21:796–800.Google Scholar
Reiling, K. L., Simmons, F. W., Riechers, D. E., and Steckel, L. E. 2006. Application timing and soil factors affect sulfentrazone phytotoxicity to two soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) cultivars. Crop Prot 25:230–234.Google Scholar
Schoenau, J. J., Szmigielski, A. M., and Eliason, R. C. 2005. The effect of landscape position on residual herbicide activity in prairie soils. Pages 45–52. In Van Acker, R. C. Soil Residual Herbicides: Science and Management. Topics in Canadian Weed Science. Volume 3. Sainte-Anne-de Bellevue, Québec: Canadian Weed Science Society–Société canadienne de malherbologie.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
Szmigielski, A. M., Schoenau, J. J., Irvine, A., and Schilling, B. 2008. Evaluating a mustard root length bioassay for predicting crop injury from soil residual flucarbazone. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal 39:413–420.Google Scholar
Vangessel, M. J., Monks, D. W., and Johnson, Q. R. 2000. Herbicides for potential use in lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus) production. Weed Technol 14:279–286.Google Scholar
Wang, D. and Anderson, D. W. 1998. Direct measurement of organic carbon content in soils by the Leco CR-12 carbon analyzer. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal 29:15–21.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. E., Nissen, S. J., and Thompson, A. 2002. Potato (Solanum tuberosum) variety and weed response to sulfentrazone and fumioxazin. Weed Technol 16:567–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yogev, E., Berson, M., and Benyamini, Y. 1996. Sulfentrazone—a new herbicide. Phytoparasitica 20:199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar