4.7 Article

Evidence for cross-adaptation between s-triazine herbicides resulting in reduced efficacy under field conditions

期刊

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
卷 64, 期 10, 页码 1024-1030

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/ps.1601

关键词

enhanced degradation; cross-adaptation; weed control; atrazine; simazine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Enhanced atrazine degradation has been observed in agricultural soils from around the globe. Soils exhibiting enhanced atrazine degradation may be cross-adapted with other s-triazine herbicides, thereby reducing their control of sensitive weed species. The aims of this study were (1) to determine the field persistence of simazine in atrazine-adapted and non-adapted soils, (2) to compare mineralization of ring-labeled C-14-simazine and C-14-atrazine between atrazine-adapted and non-adapted soils and (3) to evaluate prickly sida control with simazine in atrazine-adapted and non-adapted soils. RESULTS: Pooled over two pre-emergent (PRE) application dates, simazine field persistence was 1.4-fold lower in atrazine-adapted than in non-adapted soils. For both simazine and atrazine, the mineralization lag phase was 4.3-fold shorter and the mineralization rate constant was 3.5-fold higher in atrazine-adapted than in non-adapted soils. Collectively, the persistence and mineralization data confirm cross-adaptation between these s-triazine herbicides. In non-adapted soils, simazine PRE at the 15 March and 17 April planting dates reduced prickly sida density at least 5.4-fold compared with the no simazine PRE treatment. Conversely, in atrazine-adapted soils, prickly sida densities were not statistically different between simazine PRE and no simazine PRE at either planting date, thereby indicating reduced simazine efficacy in atrazine-adapted soils. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate the potential for cross-adaptation among s-triazine herbicides and the subsequent reduction in the control of otherwise sensitive weed species. (C) 2008 Society of Chemical Industry.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据