Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T16:28:09.265Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methods Related to Herbicide Dissipation or Degradation under Field or Laboratory Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Thomas C. Mueller  and
Scott A. Senseman
Thomas C. Mueller*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996
Scott A. Senseman
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: tmueller@utk.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Herbicide degradation in soil is a major research issue, as evidenced by the number of refereed articles on the subject (Figure 1). The approximate number of total citations per year has increased from about 70 in the mid-1990s to approximately 170 per year in the last few years (Figure 1a). From a weed science perspective, publications in the journals Weed Science and Weed Technology have tended to decline from an average of eight per year in the 1995 to 2005 interval to about three per year in the last 10 yr (Figure 1b). This discrepancy of total citations vs. Weed Science Society of America journals may be due to funding availability and other more immediate research needs in weed science. Other reasons might be a lack of reader interest (indicating low potential impact in this specific topic area) or the perception that Weed Science and Weed Technology are light venues for such papers and therefore not the first choice for publication. The authors believe this research topic to be important and relevant to the discipline of weed science, even more so as herbicide use patterns become more complicated because of glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds.

Keywords

DegradationherbicideLCMSsoils
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 63 , Issue SP1: Special Issue: Research Methods in Weed Science , February 2015 , pp. 133 - 139
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America

Footnotes

No abstract on this paper due to inclusion in special edition of methods paper.

References

Literature Cited

Aldworth, J, Jackson, SH (2008) Statistical tools for determining appropriate selection of regression models for analysis of environmental fate datasets. Pest Manag Sci 64:536–54310.1002/ps.1537Google Scholar
Arthur, EL, Barefoot, AC, Clay, VE (2003) Terrestrial Field Dissipation Studies: Purpose, Design, and Interpretation. ACS Symposium Series 842. Washington, DCAmerican Chemical Society. 343 pGoogle Scholar
Blumhorst, MR, Mueller, TC (1997) Quality control procedures in herbicide field dissipation studies. Weed Technol 11:832–837Google Scholar
Brown, BA, Hayes, RM, Tyler, DD, Mueller, TC (1996) Effect of long-term cover crop and tillage system on fluometuron dissipation from surface soil. Weed Sci 44:171–17510.1017/S0043174500093735Google Scholar
Corbin, M, Eckel, W, Ruhman, M, Spatz, D, Thurman, N, Gangaraju, R, Kuchnicki, T, Mathew, R, Nicholson, I (2006) NAFTA Guidance Document for Conducting Terrestrial Field Dissipation Studies. http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/terrestrial_field_dissipation.htm. Accessed March 5, 2014Google Scholar
Gallaher, K, Mueller, TC (1996) Effect of crop presence on persistence of atrazine, metribuzin, and clomazone in surface soil. Weed Sci 44:698–703Google Scholar
Kruger, EL, Rice, PJ, Anhalt, JC, Anderson, TA, Coats, JR (1997) Comparison fates of atrazine and deethylatrazine in sterile and nonsterile soils. J Environ Qual 26:95–101Google Scholar
Lehotay, SJ, de Kok, A, Hiemstra, M, van Bodegraven, P (2005) Validation of a fast and easy method for the determination of residues from 229 pesticides in fruits and vegetables using gas and liquid chromatography and mass spectrometric detection. J AOAC Int 88:595–614Google Scholar
Leng, ML, Leovey, EM, Zubkoff, PL (1995) Agrochemical environmental fate: state of the art. Boca Raton, FLLewis Publishers. 410 pGoogle Scholar
Locke, MA, Bryson, CT (1997) Herbicide–soil interactions in reduced tillage and plant residue management systems. Weed Sci 45:307–320Google Scholar
Mueller, TC, Steckel, LE (2011) Efficacy and dissipation of pyroxasulfone and three chloroacetamides in a Tennessee field soil. Weed Sci 59:574–579Google Scholar
Penning, H, Altschuck, A (2013) Optimization of sample homogenization for a pesticide residue analysis: soil—an example for a difficult matrix. Picogram Volume 84, Page 127, Abstract 156 in Proceedings of the American Chemical Society. Indianapolis, INAmerican Chemical SocietyGoogle Scholar
Phelps, W, Winton, K, Effland, WR (2002) Pesticide environmental fate: bridging the gap between laboratory and field studies. ACS Symposium Series 813. Washington, DCAmerican Chemical Society. 236 pGoogle Scholar
Sarmahm, AK, Sabadie, J (2002) Hydrolysis of sulfonylurea herbicides in soils and aqueous solutions: a Review. J Agric Food Chem 50:6253–6265Google Scholar
Stone Environmental Inc. (2013) Agrochemical Fate and Exposure Resources. Downloads. http://www.stone-env.com/agchem/agres.php#agdownload. Accessed September 23, 2013Google Scholar
Sunderland, SL, Santelmann, PW, Baughman, TA (1991) A rapid, sensitive soil bioassay for sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Sci 39:296–29810.1017/S0043174500071630Google Scholar
Walker, A, Welch, SJ (1991) Enhanced degradation of some soil-applied herbicides. Weed Res 31:49–5710.1111/j.1365-3180.1991.tb01742.xGoogle Scholar