JEQ Grow Your Career With ASA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published in J Environ Qual 19:119-125 (1990)
© 1990 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 Wauchope, R. D.
Right arrow Articles by Marti, Luz. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Wauchope, R. D.
Right arrow Articles by Marti, Luz. R.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Wauchope, R. D.
Right arrow Articles by Marti, Luz. R.

Runoff of Sulfometuron-Methyl and Cyanazine from Small Plots: Effects of Formulation and Grass Cover

R. Don Wauchope*, Randall G. Williams and Luz. R. Marti

USDA-ARS Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 946, Tifton, GA 31793.

* Corresponding author.

ABSTRACT

To determine the effects of application rates, grass cover, and formulation type on herbicide losses in runoff, we applied 4.5 kg/ha cyanazine (2-[(4-chloro-6-(ethylamino)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)] amino]-2-methylpropanenitrile) with 0.4 kg/ha sulfometuron-methyl (methyl-2[[[[(4,6-dimethyl-2-pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonyl] amino] sulfonyl] benzoate) to 1.2 by 2.4 m plots, using suspension concentrate (SC) and dispersible granule (DG) formulations of cyanazine, and SC and emulsifiable concentrate (EC) formulations of sulfometuron-methyl. The plots were established on a Tifton loamy sand soil (fine-loamy, siliceous, thermic Plinthic Paleudults) and had 3% slope. The plots were bare or covered with a mixed stand of common Bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.] and Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flugge var. suarae Parodi). On the day after the herbicides were applied, we simulated rainfall events of 69 mm/h intensity until 2 mm of runoff occurred. The runoff was analyzed for sediment and herbicides. The bare plots required one-third less rain to produce the same amount of runoff and yielded twice as much sediment as the grassy plots. However, losses of all formulations were 1 to 2% of the amounts applied regardless of grass cover and even though cyanazine rates were 11 times that of sulfometuronmethyl. Total losses of all formulations were sensitive to the length of time between rainfall initiation and runoff initiation, indicating that leaching made herbicide unavailable for runoff. These results suggest that, for these formulations under conditions of similar runoff volumes, losses of pesticides are a fairly constant fraction of the amounts applied, with or without grass cover. For intense storms where the amount of rainfall is similar, chemical runoff from the grassed plots was predicted by computer simulation to be less than half of that from bare soil.


NOTES

Contribution from the USDA-ARS Southwest Watershed Research Laboratory, Tifton, GA.

Received for publication November 15, 1988.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Vadose Zone Journal Journal of Plant Registrations
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Copyright © 1990 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.