Adsorption of imazamox in California agricultural soils and implications for branched broomrape (Phelipanche ramosa) management.

IF 1.4 4区 农林科学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Matthew Fatino, Katie Martin, Franck Dayan, Bradley D Hanson
{"title":"Adsorption of imazamox in California agricultural soils and implications for branched broomrape <i>(Phelipanche ramosa)</i> management.","authors":"Matthew Fatino, Katie Martin, Franck Dayan, Bradley D Hanson","doi":"10.1080/03601234.2024.2406123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Results of previous research on chemigated imazamox for control of branched broomrape (<i>Phelipanche ramosa</i>) in processing tomatoes suggested potential soil-type differences in imazamox availability. Over two years, there were differences in crop-injury between two sites less than 30-km apart: imazamox-treated tomatoes in the Davis location had relatively minor early season injury while tomatoes at the Woodland location were severely injured or killed. The following study was conducted to investigate imazamox sorption in four California soils to determine if differences in herbicide adsorption played a role in variable crop-injury observed in the field trials. To determine the sorption capacity of imazamox of each soil, a batch-equilibrium study was conducted. There were significant differences in sorbed imazamox: the clay soil had the highest adsorption (Robert's Island: 742.5 pg µL<sup>-1</sup> sorbed), followed by the sandy loam soil (Ripon: 723.9 pg µL<sup>-1</sup> sorbed), while the loam soils from both trial sites (Davis: 704.2 pg µL<sup>-1</sup> sorbed; Woodland: 699.9 pg µL<sup>-1</sup> sorbed) had the lowest adsorption and were not significantly different from one another. Results from this study illustrate only minor differences in imazamox adsorption among the soils tested which suggests that soil type was likely not a major factor contributing to differences in crop-injury.</p>","PeriodicalId":15720,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part B-pesticides Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part B-pesticides Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2024.2406123","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Results of previous research on chemigated imazamox for control of branched broomrape (Phelipanche ramosa) in processing tomatoes suggested potential soil-type differences in imazamox availability. Over two years, there were differences in crop-injury between two sites less than 30-km apart: imazamox-treated tomatoes in the Davis location had relatively minor early season injury while tomatoes at the Woodland location were severely injured or killed. The following study was conducted to investigate imazamox sorption in four California soils to determine if differences in herbicide adsorption played a role in variable crop-injury observed in the field trials. To determine the sorption capacity of imazamox of each soil, a batch-equilibrium study was conducted. There were significant differences in sorbed imazamox: the clay soil had the highest adsorption (Robert's Island: 742.5 pg µL-1 sorbed), followed by the sandy loam soil (Ripon: 723.9 pg µL-1 sorbed), while the loam soils from both trial sites (Davis: 704.2 pg µL-1 sorbed; Woodland: 699.9 pg µL-1 sorbed) had the lowest adsorption and were not significantly different from one another. Results from this study illustrate only minor differences in imazamox adsorption among the soils tested which suggests that soil type was likely not a major factor contributing to differences in crop-injury.

咪鲜胺在加利福尼亚农业土壤中的吸附作用及其对支链扫帚草(Phelipanche ramosa)管理的影响。
之前对化学灌溉咪鲜胺用于控制加工番茄中的支链扫帚霉(Phelipanche ramosa)的研究结果表明,在咪鲜胺的可用性方面可能存在土壤类型差异。在两年的时间里,相距不到 30 公里的两个地点的作物受害情况存在差异:戴维斯地点的西红柿在早期季节受到的咪鲜胺伤害相对较轻,而伍德兰地点的西红柿则受到严重伤害或死亡。以下研究旨在调查咪草烟在加利福尼亚州四种土壤中的吸附情况,以确定除草剂吸附性的差异是否是造成田间试验中观察到的不同作物受害情况的原因。为了确定每种土壤对咪草烟的吸附能力,进行了一项间歇平衡研究。吸附的咪鲜胺存在明显差异:粘土的吸附量最高(罗伯特岛:742.5 皮克微升/升),其次是沙壤土(里彭:723.9 皮克微升/升),而两个试验点的壤土(戴维斯:704.2 皮克微升/升;伍德兰:699.9 皮克微升/升)的吸附量最低,且相互之间没有明显差异。这项研究的结果表明,所测试的土壤在咪鲜胺吸附性方面只有微小差异,这表明土壤类型可能不是造成作物伤害差异的主要因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.00%
发文量
87
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: 12 issues per year Abstracted/indexed in: Agricola; Analytical Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; BioSciences Information Service of Biological Abstracts (BIOSIS); CAB Abstracts; CAB AGBiotech News and Information; CAB Irrigation & Drainage Abstracts; CAB Soils & Fertilizers Abstracts; Chemical Abstracts Service Plus; CSA Aluminum Industry Abstracts; CSA ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology and Engineering; CSA ASFA 3 Aquatic Pollution and Environmental Quality; CSA ASSIA: Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts; CSA Ecology Abstracts; CSA Entomology Abstracts; CSA Environmental Engineering Abstracts; CSA Health & Safety Science Abstracts; CSA Pollution Abstracts; CSA Toxicology Abstracts; CSA Water Resource Abstracts; EBSCOhost Online Research Databases; Elsevier BIOBASE/Current Awareness in Biological Sciences; Elsevier Engineering Information: EMBASE/Excerpta Medica/ Engineering Index/COMPENDEX PLUS; Environment Abstracts; Environmental Knowledge; Food Science and Technology Abstracts; Geo Abstracts; Geobase; Food Science; Index Medicus/ MEDLINE; INIST-Pascal/ CNRS; NIOSHTIC; ISI BIOSIS Previews; Pesticides; Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes: Analytical Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; PubSCIENCE; Reference Update; Research Alert; Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE); and Water Resources Abstracts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信