HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Related articles in JEQ Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Selim, H. M. Articles by Zhu, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Selim, H. M. Articles by Zhu, H. Agricola Articles by Selim, H. M. Articles by Zhu, H. Related Collections Agricultural Pesticides Surface Water Quality

Herbicide Retention in Soil as Affected by Sugarcane Mulch Residue

Agronomy Dep., Louisiana State Univ. AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Amount of mulch residue remaining on the soil surface versus time during the 2000 growing season.

View larger version (32K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Measured and simulated atrazine concentration versus time in the top 25 mm of Commerce soil for the no-mulch treatment (top figure) and the no-till (mulch not removed) treatment (bottom figure). Two atrazine applications were made during 1999: spring application on Day 0 (26 March) and layby (preemergence) on Day 73 (7 June). Simulations are based on best fit using the first-order decay model (Eq. [1]).

View larger version (30K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Measured and predicted atrazine retained by sugarcane mulch versus time from the no-till treatment. Two applications were made during 1999: spring application on Day 0 (26 March) and layby (preemergence) on Day 73 (7 June). Simulations are based on best fit using the first-order decay model (Eq. [1]).

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Measured and predicted extractable atrazine concentration versus time from the top 25 mm of surface soil (top figure) and the mulch residue (bottom figure). Two applications were made during 2000: spring and layby applications on Day 0 and Day 59 (7 April and 5 June, respectively). Simulations are based on best fit using the first-order decay model (Eq. [1]).

View larger version (34K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Measured and predicted pendimethalin concentration versus time in the top 25 mm of surface soil for the no-mulch (top figure) and no-till (bottom figure) treatments. Two applications were made during 1999: spring application on Day 0 (26 March) and layby (preemergence) on Day 73 (7 June). Simulations are based on best fit using the first-order decay model (Eq. [1]).

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Measured and predicted pendimethalin retained by sugarcane mulch versus time from the no-till treatment. Two applications were made during 1999: spring application on Day 0 (26 March) and layby (preemergence) on Day 73 (7 June).

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Metribuzin concentration versus time in the top 25 mm of surface soil from the mulch and off-barred treatment (top figure) and the no-mulch treatment (bottom figure) during the 1999 growing season.

View larger version (33K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Extractable metribuzin concentration versus time from the mulch residue (top figure) and the 25-mm surface soil (bottom figure) in the no-mulch and off-barred plot treatment during 2000.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Rainfall distribution and atrazine concentration in runoff water during 1999.

View larger version (29K): [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Pendimethalin concentration in runoff water during 1999.