Effect of a Pre-Irrigation Period on the Activity of Ethofumesate Applied to Dry Soil

McAuliffe, David

doi:10.1017/s0043174500040327

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These data support previous work (9) which indicated that chemical degradation was the likely mechanism for loss of ethofumesate activity when ethofumesate was ap plied to dry soils in the field. Some increase in the quantity of tightly adsorbed herbicide also occurred, and this ad sorption likely combined with the degradation process to reduce activity.…”

Section: C-compoundsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The activity of ethofumesate decreased when applied to a dry soil (wetted 2 to 4 days later) compared to a wet soil (9). Preliminary laboratory studies suggested that increased ethofumesate degradation in dry soil was the most likely mechanism for activity loss; however, changes in the manner and extent of adsorption could not be eliminated as a possible mechanism for the activity loss.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Activity Loss of Ethofumesate in Dry Soil by Chemical Degradation and Adsorption

McAuliffe¹,

Appleby²

1984

Weed sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethofumesate [(±)-2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate] was applied to dry soils (2%, w/w moisture content) that were either wetted immediately or remained dry for 1 to 8 days prior to wetting. Two degradation products were isolated with thin-layer and column chromatography from soils that were kept dry for 4 days before wetting. The major product was identified as 2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-2-oxo-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate which accounted for more than 80% of the degradation products. The products were detected 1 day after application to dry soil (between 1 and 3% moisture content), while at moisture contents greater than 3% (w/w) very little ethofumesate was degraded. Radiolabeled ethofumesate and breakdown products were extracted with methanol from dry and wetted soils, and the soil samples were oxidized to quantify nonextractable radioactivity. The percentage of nonextracted ethofumesate was at least 5% greater in dry soil than in wet soil. Activity loss of ethofumesate applied to dry soil probably is due to both chemical degradation and strong adsorption.

show abstract

Section: C-compoundsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Activity Loss of Ethofumesate in Dry Soil by Chemical Degradation and Adsorption

McAuliffe¹,

Appleby²

1984

Weed sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, mechanical incorporation is often required to activate ethofumesate to achieve consistent weed control (Entz 1982). Additionally, McAuliffe and Appleby (1981) reported significant chemical degradation losses when ethofumesate was applied directly to the surface of dry soils without an activating precipitation event or irrigation event within 4 d of application.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sugarbeet tolerance when dimethenamid-P follows soil-applied ethofumesate and S-metolachlor

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sugarbeet growers only recently have combined ethofumesate, S-metolachlor, and dimethenamid-P in a weed control system for waterhemp control. Sugarbeet plant density, visible stature reduction, root yield, percent sucrose content, and recoverable sucrose were measured in field experiments at five environments between 2014 and 2016. Sugarbeet stand density and stature reduction occurred in some but not all environments. Stand density was reduced with PRE application of S-metolachlor at 1.60 kg ai ha–1 and S-metolachlor at 0.80 kg ha–1 + ethofumesate at 1.68 kg ai ha–1 alone or followed by POST applications of dimethenamid-P at 0.95 kg ai ha–1. Sugarbeet visible stature was reduced when dimethenamid-P followed PRE treatments. Stature reduction was greatest with ethofumesate at 1.68 or 4.37 kg ha–1 PRE and S-metolachlor at 0.80 kg ha–1 + ethofumesate at 1.68 kg ha–1 PRE followed by dimethenamid-P at 0.95 kg ha–1 POST. Stature reduction ranged from 0 to 32% 10 d after treatment (DAT), but sugarbeet recovered quickly and visible injury was negligible 23 DAT. Although root yield and recoverable sucrose were similar across herbicide treatments and environments, we caution against the use of S-metolachlor at 0.80 kg ha–1 + ethofumesate at 1.68 kg ai ha–1 PRE followed by dimethenamid-P at 0.95 kg ha–1 in sugarbeet.

show abstract

“…McAuliffe and Appleby ( , ) found greater herbicidal activity on wet soils than on dry soils, suggesting another mode of ethofumesate dissipation. In the present study, faster dissipation was observed in thatch than in the 0−1 cm soil layer of the bare soil plots.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Mobility and Dissipation of Ethofumesate and Halofenozide in Turfgrass and Bare Soil

Gardner¹,

Branham²

2001

J. Agric. Food Chem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of turfgrass cover on the leaching and dissipation of ethofumesate and halofenozide was studied. Sampling cylinders (20 cm diam. x 30 cm long) were placed vertically in plots of creeping bentgrass (Agrostis palustris Huds.), tall fescue (Festuca arundinaceae Schreb.), or bare soil. ethofumesate [(+/-)-2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethylbenzofuran-5-yl methansulfonate] was applied at 840 g ai ha(-)(1) on September 21, 1997. Halofenozide (N-4-chlorobenzoyl-N'-benzoyl-N'-tert-butylhydrazine) was applied at 1680 g ai ha(-)(1) on August 30, 1998. Replicate sampling cylinders were removed 2 h after treatment and 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64 days after treatment. Sampling cylinders were sectioned by depths and soil extracts were assayed by HPLC with a pesticide detection limit of 0.01 mg kg(-)(1). Turfgrass was divided into verdure and thatch and analyzed separately. ethofumesate leaching in turfgrass was reduced by at least 95% compared to leaching in bare soil. The half-life of ethofumesate in bare soil was 51 days compared to 3 days in turfgrass. Halofenozide showed similar leaching with or without turfgrass. Fifty percent dissipation of halofenozide did not occur within 64 days, regardless of organic matter cover.

show abstract

Effect of a Pre-Irrigation Period on the Activity of Ethofumesate Applied to Dry Soil

Cited by 5 publications

References 19 publications

Activity Loss of Ethofumesate in Dry Soil by Chemical Degradation and Adsorption

Activity Loss of Ethofumesate in Dry Soil by Chemical Degradation and Adsorption

Sugarbeet tolerance when dimethenamid-P follows soil-applied ethofumesate and S-metolachlor

Mobility and Dissipation of Ethofumesate and Halofenozide in Turfgrass and Bare Soil

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About