Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:06:50.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dissipation of Fomesafen in New York State Soils and Potential to Cause Carryover Injury to Sweet Corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bradley J. Rauch ,
Robin R. Bellinder ,
Daniel C. Brainard ,
Mike Lane  and
Janice E. Thies
Bradley J. Rauch
Affiliation:
Quality Milk Production Services, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850
Robin R. Bellinder*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Daniel C. Brainard
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Mike Lane
Affiliation:
Syngenta Crop Protection, Jealott's Hill Research Station, Bracknell, Berkshire, U.K
Janice E. Thies
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science, Cornell University, Ithaca 14853
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The manufacturer's recommended rate for fomesafen in snap beans, dry beans, and soybeans may cause carryover injury in sweet corn. A field experiment, a survey, and multiple greenhouse experiments were conducted to (1) estimate the fomesafen residue concentrations in the soil that might result from use of lower than registered rates, (2) estimate fomesafen residue concentrations in growers' fields and evaluate grower practices for their effects on carryover potential, and (3) investigate the effects of soil type and sweet corn variety on the potential for fomesafen to cause injury to sweet corn. Results of the dissipation study predicted average soil concentrations to be approximately 0.019 mg fomesafen/kg soil at the start of the sweet corn planting season. Half-life values ranged between 28 and 66 d, with an average of 50 d. Residues in grower fields were slightly less than those found in the dissipation study. Injury from fomesafen varied significantly by sweet corn variety and by soil type. Sweet corn grown in soils with high organic matter and low pH were most susceptible to injury from fomesafen. At high rates of fomesafen (0.12 mg/kg), reductions in dry weight of sweet corn varieties ranged from 5 to 60%. At rates of fomesafen slightly higher than those detected in field soils at the time of sweet corn planting (0.03 mg/kg), dry weight either increased slightly (variety trial) or decreased by 6 to 12% (soil-effect trial) depending on soil type. The risk of sweet corn yield losses because of fomesafen carryover appear relatively low. Growers can reduce the risk of carryover injury by planting tolerant varieties in fields where fomesafen was applied the preceding year.

Keywords

Fomesafenbean, Phaseolus vulgaris L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merrsweet corn, Zea mays L.Carryoverherbicide degradationdissipationhalf-lifereduced rates
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 206 - 212
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

Alexander, M. 1999. Biodegradation and Bioremediation. 2nd ed. San Diego Academic. 453.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2006. Reflex herbicide product label. Greensboro, NC Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2003. Weed control and snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) response to reduced rates of fomesafen. Weed Technol. 17:269–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellinder, R. R., Arsenovic, M. A., Shah, D., and Rauch, B. J. 2003. Effect of weed growth stage and adjuvant on reducing post-emergence herbicide rates. Weed Sci. 51:1016–1021.Google Scholar
Cobucci, T., Prates, H. T., Falcao, D. L. M., and Rezende, M. M. V. 1998. Effect of imazamox, fomesafen and acifluorfen soil residue on rotational crops. Weed Sci. 46:258–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafson, D. I. and Holden, L. R. 1990. Nonlinear pesticide dissipation in soil: A new model based on spatial variability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 24:1032–1038.Google Scholar
Guo, J., Zhu, G., Shi, J., and Sun, J. 2003. Adsorption, desorption and mobility of fomesafen in Chinese soils. Air, Water, and Soil Pollution 148:77–85.Google Scholar
Leung, S. C. 1997. Fomesafen: Determination of fomesafen in soil and water (WRC-97-110). Zeneca Report TMR0741B. Richmond, CA: Zeneca Ag Products. 21 p.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 2002. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 633.Google Scholar
Lu, Y. and Zhu, Y. 1996. Studies on residues and degradation of two diphenyloxide herbicides in soil and crops. Journal of Zhejiang Agricultural University 22:485–488.Google Scholar
McBride, M. B. 1994. Environmental Chemistry of Soils. New York Oxford University Press. 406.Google Scholar
Mills, M. S. and Simmons, N. D. 1998. Assessing the ground-water contamination potential of agricultural chemicals: a flexible approach to mobility and degradation studies. Pesticide Sci. 54:418–434.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service 2004. New York Agriculture Statistics. Annual Bulletin 2003–2004. Web page: http://www.nass.usda.gov/ny/. Accessed: September 6, 2006.Google Scholar
Northeast Regional Climate Center 2006. The Ithaca Climate Page. Web page: http://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/climate/ithaca/. Accessed: September 6. 2006.Google Scholar
Paul, E. A. and Clark, F. E. 1996. Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry. 2nd ed. San Diego Academic. 340.Google Scholar
Rex, A. W., Bozsa, R., Talbert, R. E., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Temperature and relative humidity effects on diphenylether herbicides. Weed Technol. 9:19–24.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 1999. SAS User's Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 493.Google Scholar
Weber, J. B. 1993. Ionization and sorption of fomesafen and atrazine by soils and soil constituents. Pesticide Sci. 39:31–38.Google Scholar
Wiedman, S. J. and Appleby, A. P. 1972. Plant growth stimulation by sublethal concentrations of herbicides. Weed Res. 12:65–74.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 2005. Response of dry bean and weeds to fomesafen tank mixtures. Weed Technol. 19:201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar