Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T08:20:06.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fall and Early Preplant Application Timing Effects on Persistence and Efficacy of Acetamide Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Daniel C. Parker ,
F. William Simmons  and
Loyd M. Wax
Daniel C. Parker
Affiliation:
Crop Science Department, University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign
F. William Simmons*
Affiliation:
Natural Resource and Environmental Science Department, University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign
Loyd M. Wax
Affiliation:
USDA/ARS, 1102 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The persistence and efficacy of acetamide herbicides at application timings from fall to preemergence (PRE) were studied in 1998 and 1999 on mollisols (1.1 to 2.8% organic carbon). Metolachlor, s-metolachlor, acetochlor (as an emulsifiable concentrate [EC] formulation and two encapsulated formulations, capsule suspension [CS] and microencapsulated [ME]), and the combination of flufenacet + metribuzin were evaluated at five application times including late fall, 60 and 30 d early preplant (EPP), preplant incorporated, and PRE. Soil bioassays 180 d after application indicated flufenacet + metribuzin, metolachlor, s-metolachlor, and the acetochlor CS had 62 to 74% giant foxtail control, whereas acetochlor EC and ME had 43 to 46% control. Applications at 60 EPP of metolachlor, s-metolachlor, and acetochlor CS provided 70 to 75% giant foxtail control in greenhouse bioassays, whereas flufenacet + metribuzin, acetochlor ME, and acetochlor EC provided 38 to 57% control. At the 30 EPP timing, metolachlor and acetochlor CS had 80 to 82% control, whereas acetochlor EC provided 46% control, and acetochlor ME, flufenacet + metribuzin, and s-metolachlor had 65 to 74% control. Quantitative soil analysis (0 to 6 cm) 10 d after planting (DAP) indicated metolachlor, s-metolachlor, and acetochlor CS concentrations ranged from 12 to 16% and 32 to 47% of applied herbicide for the fall and PRE application timings, respectively, whereas acetochlor (ME and EC) were from 1 to 3% and 16 to 21% of applied for the fall and PRE application timings, respectively. Bioassay reduction was correlated (R2 = 0.68) with soil-herbicide concentrations at 10 DAP.

Keywords

Acetochlorflufenacetmetolachlormetribuzins-metolachlorgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFASoil dissipationCS, capsule suspensionDAP, days after plantingEC, emulsifiable concentrateEPP, early preplantME, microencapsulatedOC, organic carbonPPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergenceSETFA, giant foxtail
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 6 - 13
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

Anderson, W. P. 1996. Weed Science: Principles and Applications. St. Paul, MN: West. 34 p.Google Scholar
Beestman, G. B. and Deming, J. M. 1974. Dissipation of acetanilide herbicides from soils. Agron. J 66:308–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, J. A., Simmons, F. W., and Wax, L. M. 2003. Early preplant application timing effects on acetamide efficacy in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 17:291–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C. and Schultz, M. E. 1978. Soil persistence of herbicides for corn, sorghum, and soybeans during the year of application. Weed Sci. 26:108–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J 81:665–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R. F., Wauchope, R. D., Johnson, A. W., Burgoa, B., and Pepperman, A. B. 1996. Release of fenamiphos, atrazine, and alachlor into flowing water from granules and spray deposits of conventional and controlled-release formulations. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44:2900–2907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doub, J. P., Wilson, H. P., and Hatzios, K. K. 1988. Comparative efficacy of two formulations of alachlor and metolachlor. Weed Sci. 36:221–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, G. F., Wax, L. M., and Simmons, F. W. 1992a. Leachability and efficacy of starch-encapsulated atrazine. Weed Technol. 6:297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, G. F., Wax, L. M., Simmons, F. W., and Felsot, A. S. 1992b. Movement of alachlor and metribuzin from controlled release formulations in a sandy soil. Weed Sci. 40:606–613.Google Scholar
Gish, T. J., Shirmohammadi, A., Vyravipillai, R., and Wienhold, B. J. 1995. Herbicide leaching under tilled and no-tillage fields. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59:895–901.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D., Wyse, D. L., and Lueschen, W. E. 1989. The influence of herbicide formulations on weed control in four tillage systems. Weed Sci. 37:239–249.Google Scholar
Kotoula-Syka, E., Hatzios, K. K., Berry, D. F., and Wilson, H. P. 1997. Degradation of acetanilide herbicides in history and nonhistory soils from eastern Virginia. Weed Technol. 11:403–409.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Shaw, D. R., and Witt, W. W. 1999. Relative dissipation of acetochlor, alachlor, metolachlor, and SAN 582 from three surface soils. Weed Technol. 13:341–346.Google Scholar
Petersen, B. B., Shea, P. J., and Wicks, G. A. 1988. Acetanilide activity and dissipation as influenced by formulation and wheat stubble. Weed Sci. 36:243–249.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. SAS User's Guide. Version 8.1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. Pp. 235–237.Google Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Kapusta, G., and Roskamp, G. 1984. Early preplant herbicide applications for no-till soybean (Glycine max) weed control. Weed Sci. 32:293–298.CrossRefGoogle 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
Weber, J. B. and Peter, C. J. 1982. Adsorption, bioactivity, and evaluation of soil tests for alachlor, acetochlor, and metolachlor. Weed Sci. 30:14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[WSSA] Weed Science Society of America. 1994. Herbicide Handbook of the WSSA. 7th ed. Champaigne, IL: WSSA. Pp. 3–5, 9–12, 41–45, 103– 105, 197–200, 250–252, and 264–266.Google Scholar
[WSSA] Weed Science Society of America. 1998. Herbicide Handbook of the WSSA. Supplement. 7th ed. Lawrence, KS: WSSA. Pp. 6–9.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. and Clark, S. K. 1982. Degradation of three acetanilide herbicides in soil. Weed Sci. 30:545–548.Google Scholar