JEQ Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published in J Environ Qual 13:382-386 (1984)
© 1984 American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Emmerich, W. E.
Right arrow Articles by Lane, L. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Emmerich, W. E.
Right arrow Articles by Lane, L. J.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Emmerich, W. E.
Right arrow Articles by Lane, L. J.

Fate and Effectiveness of Tebuthiuron Applied to a Rangeland Watershed1

W. E. Emmerich, J. D. Helmer, K. G. Renard and L. J. Lane2

ABSTRACT

Tebuthiuron3 (N-[5-(1,1-Dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-triadiazol-2-yl]-N.N'-dimethylurea), a herbicide, was applied at a rate of 0.84 kg/ha to a rangeland watershed and test plots in pelleted and dissolved forms, respectively. The removal of tebuthinron in the runoff water from the watershed was determined for each runoff event. After 21 months, total tebuthiuron removed in runoff water was 0.47% of that applied. The low removal rate was credited to the timing of the tebuthiuron application. Tebuthiuron applied to test plots moved to a depth of 15 cm in 8 months with 326 mm of precipitation. Total tebuthiuron remaining in the test plots after 21 months was 38% of the amount applied. The time required for the concentration of tebuthiuron in the test plots to reach non-detectable levels was estimated to be from 2.9 to 7.2 years. Tebuthiuron was effective on the dominant species on the watershed 21 months after treatment, producing an apparent 100% kill for tarbush (Flourensia cernua DC.), fourwing saltbush [Atriplex canescens (Pursh) Nutt.], and littleleaf sumac (Rhus microphylla Engelm. ex Gray), and 61, 92, and 0% for creosote-bush [Larrea tridentata (DC.) Cov.], whitethorn (Acacia constricta Benth.) and graythorn (Condalia spathulata Gray), respectively.

Key Words: herbicide • brush control • water quality


NOTES

1 Contribution from the USDA-ARS, Southwest Rangeland Watershed Res. Center, Tucson, AZ 85719, in cooperation with Lilly Res. Lab.

2 Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS; Research Specialist, Lilly Res. Lab., Tucson, AZ 85715; Hydraulic Engineer, USDA-ARS; and Hydrologist, Environ. Sci. Group LS-6, Los Alamos Natl. Lab., Los Alamos, NM, respectively.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Vadose Zone Journal
Soil Science Society of America Journal Journal of Plant Registrations The Plant Genome
Copyright © 1984 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.