Studies to predict pesticide fate often lack measurements of model input parameters. Using independent data sets and understanding how soil properties affect herbicide retention and degradation may result in more accurate prediction of herbicide fate. We conducted laboratory studies to determine the influence of soil properties on atrazine adsorption and degradation. These data will be used in a separate study involving a pesticide fate model. Atrazine adsorption and desorption isotherms were constructed for six soil depths of a Hastings silty clay loam (fine, montmorillonitic, mesic Udic Argiustoll) using batch equilibration. The Freundlich adsorption constants (logKf) ranged from 0.38 (60 to 90 cm) to 2.91 (0 to 30 cm). Adsorption was higher in the low pH, high organic matter-containing surface soil compared to the lower soil depths. Multiple regression of the adsorption constants against selected soil properties indicated that organic matter content was the best single predictor of atrazine adsorption (R2= 0.98) followed by soil pH (R2= 0.82). Combining organic matter and cation exchange capacity in the model produced the lowestCpstatistic (2.33) and highestR2value (0.99). We observed hysteresis in atrazine adsorption–desorption isotherms by higher adsorption slopes (1/n)adscompared to desorption slopes (1/n)des. Soils that adsorbed more atrazine also desorbed less atrazine. Desorption correlated negatively with organic matter content and positively with soil pH. Atrazine degradation after 84 d of incubation generally decreased with increasing depth. The first-order degradation rate was highest 0 to 30 cm deep (0.0187 day−1) and lowest 270 to 300 cm deep (0.0031 day−1). Atrazine degradation was faster in soil treated annually for 12 yr than in soil with no previous atrazine history (p = 0.01).

Pyroxasulfone (KIH-485) is a seedling growth-inhibiting herbicide developed by Kumiai America that has the potential to control weeds in sunflower. However, little is known about how this herbicide will interact with various soil types and environments when combined with sulfentrazone. The objective of this research was to evaluate sunflower injury and weed control with pyroxasulfone applied with and without sulfentrazone across the Great Plains sunflower production area. A multisite study was initiated in spring 2007 to evaluate sunflower response to pyroxasulfone applied PRE at 0, 167, 208, or 333 g ai ha−1. In 2008, pyroxasulfone was applied alone and in tank mixture with sulfentrazone. In 2007, no sunflower injury was observed with any rate of pyroxasulfone at any location except Highmore, SD, where sunflower injury was 17%, 4 wk after treatment (WAT) with 333 g ha−1. In 2008, sunflower injury ranged from 0 to 4% for all treatments. Adding sulfentrazone did not increase injury. Sunflower yield was only reduced in treatments in which weeds were not effectively controlled. These treatments included the untreated control and pyroxasulfone at 167 g ha−1. Sunflower yield did not differ among the other treatments of pyroxasulfone or sulfentrazone applied alone or in combination. The addition of sulfentrazone to pyroxasulfone improved control of foxtail barley, prostrate pigweed, wild buckwheat, Palmer amaranth, and marshelder, but not large crabgrass or green foxtail. The combination of pyroxasulfone and sulfentrazone did not reduce control of any of the weeds evaluated.

Field trials using sublethal doses of glyphosate, dicamba, or mixtures of both herbicides on dry edible pea (Pisum sativum), dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), and potato (Solanum tuberosum) were conducted at six locations to determine the injury potential if spray drift were to occur. All studies used three increasing sublethal doses of glyphosate and dicamba, which were labeled as low, medium, and high. The doses for each herbicide varied for the three crops because of expected sensitivity differences. Herbicide doses were targeted for the reproductive stage 1 with dry edible pea and dry edible bean, and at tuber initiation for potato. Visible injury 20 days after the treatment ranged from 0% to 13% for dry edible pea, 0% to 53% for dry edible bean, and 0% to 50% for potato. Compared with the nontreated, yield was least when doses included dicamba, regardless of the crop. Dry edible bean was the most sensitive crop to sublethal doses of dicamba, followed by dry edible pea and potato. Results from these six studies suggested that drift injury potential to dry edible pea, dry edible bean, and potato will be greater if a dicamba-resistant soybean (Glycine max) crop is adjacent and upwind compared with a glyphosate-resistant crop. Results also reinforce the need for diligence in the application of these herbicides in proximity to susceptible crops and the need to thoroughly clean sprayers before spraying a sensitive crop.

The potential for future commercialization of glyphosate-resistant wheat necessitates evaluation of agronomic merits of this technology. Experiments were established to evaluate glyphosate-resistant wheat and weed responses to glyphosate rate, application timing, and tank mixtures. Glyphosate at 1,680 g/ha did not injure wheat. Wheat response to glyphosate applied to one- to three- or three- to five-leaf wheat was not different from that of untreated wheat. Wheat was injured more from glyphosate plus thifensulfuron or glyphosate plus dicamba than from individual herbicides at one of six locations, but grain yield was not affected by glyphosate tank mixtures. Glyphosate application timing did not affect control of wild oat or common lambsquarters 56 d after treatment. Glyphosate when applied to one- to three-leaf wheat provided better control of wild buckwheat than later glyphosate application, whereas glyphosate applied to three- to five-leaf wheat provided the best control of green and yellow foxtail, redroot pigweed, and Canada thistle. Weed control with glyphosate tended to be better than with conventional herbicides, and wheat treated with glyphosate produced approximately 10% more grain than wheat treated with conventional herbicide tank mixes.

No abstract