Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:42:43.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Formulation on the Activity and Persistence of Pendimethalin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ageliki S. Hatzinikolaou ,
Ilias G. Eleftherohorinos  and
Ioannis B. Vasilakoglou
Ageliki S. Hatzinikolaou
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Agronomy, Box 233, University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
Ilias G. Eleftherohorinos*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Agronomy, Box 233, University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
Ioannis B. Vasilakoglou
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Agronomy, Box 233, University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The activity of emulsifiable concentrate (EC) formulation of pendimethalin was studied using a petri dish bioassay based on root response of corn, oat, sorghum, and sugar beet grown in soil. Furthermore, the oat bioassay was used to determine the activity of EC, microencapsulated (ME), and water-dispersible granule (WDG) formulations of pendimethalin. Also, field persistence in soil of these pendimethalin formulations was studied with petri dish and pot bioassays, based on root response of oat and sugar beet. All bioassays indicated that activity of all pendimethalin formulations was increased with increasing herbicide concentration. In silty clay loam soil, oat and sugar beet exhibited the highest sensitivity to EC-pendimethalin concentrations and corn the lowest; sorghum showed intermediate herbicide sensitivity. EC of pendimethalin showed the highest activity on oat and ME pendimethalin the lowest; WDG-pendimethalin showed similar activity to that of ME pendimethalin. Field persistence was significantly increased with increasing rate of application, but it was slightly increased by the ME formulation.

Keywords

Pendimethalincorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer Costanza’oat, Avena sativa L. ‘Kassandra’sorghum, Sorghum bicolor L. ‘5515’sugar beet, Beta vulgaris L. ‘Bianca’Microencapsulated formulationpendimethalinDAT, days after treatmentEC, emulsifiable concentrateGI10, days after treatment for 10% oat root growth inhibitionGR50, herbicide concentration required to give 50% inhibition of plant indicator root growthME, microencapsulatedPRE, preemergenceWDG, water-dispersible granule
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 397 - 403
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

Deasy, P. B. 1984. Microencapsulation and Related Drug Processes. New York: Marcel-Dekker. 361 p.Google Scholar
Eleftherohorinos, I. G. and Kotoula-Syka, E. 1990. Field persistence of dinitramine, ethafluralin, trifluralin, and pendimethalin in soils in Greece. Agric. Mediterr. 120:256–261.Google Scholar
Gentner, W. R. and Burk, L. G. 1968. Gross morphological and cytological effects of nitralin on corn roots. Weed Sci. 16:259–260.Google Scholar
Huang, Q. L. and Ahrens, J. F. 1991. Residues of alachlor in soil after application of controlled release and conventional formulations. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 47:362–367.Google Scholar
Lignowski, E. M. and Scot, E. G. 1972. Effect of trifluralin on mitosis. Weed Sci. 20:267–270.Google Scholar
Malefyt, T. and Duke, W. B. 1984. Pendimethalin phytotoxicity to velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii). Weed Sci. 32:520–524.Google Scholar
Negre, M., Gennari, M., Raimondo, E., Celi, L., Trevisan, M., and Capri, E. 1992. Alachlor dissipation in soil as influenced by formulation and soil moisture. J. Agric. Food Chem. 40:1071–1075.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. W. and Sommers, L. E. 1982. Total carbon organic carbon, and organic matter. in Page, A. L., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis Part 2, Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, SSSA. Pp. 539–579.Google Scholar
Parochetti, J. V. and Dec, G. W. Jr. 1978. Photodecomposition of eleven dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 26:153–156.Google Scholar
Singh, B. K., Walker, A., and Wright, D. J. 2002. Persistence of chlorpyrifos, fenamiphos, chlorothalonil, and pendimethalin in soil and their effects on soil microbial characteristics. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 69:181–188.Google Scholar
Vasilakoglou, I. B. and Eleftherohorinos, I. G. 1997. Activity, adsorption, mobility, efficacy, and persistence of alachlor as influenced by formulation. Weed Sci. 45:579–585.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, J. B. 1990. Behavior of dinitroaniline herbicides in soils. Weed Technol. 4:394–406.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L., Catizone, P., and Butcher, A. C. 1984. Degradation of pendimethalin in soil. Weed Sci. 32:408–412.Google Scholar