Premium
Evaluation of the bioefficacy and leaching of a controlled–release formulation of chlorsulfuron
Author(s) -
Stork P. R.
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
weed research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.693
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1365-3180
pISSN - 0043-1737
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-3180.1997.tb01818.x
Subject(s) - leaching (pedology) , active ingredient , soil water , chemistry , agronomy , environmental science , lolium rigidum , lessivage , ingredient , metribuzin , weed , soil science , weed control , biology , bioinformatics , food science , herbicide resistance
Summary A controlled–release formulation of chlorsulfuron (DT26B) and a conventional granular formulation were compared for their initial bioefficacy and leaching in laboratory and field experiments. Three alkaline soil types, representative of farm soils in SE Australia, were used for these experiments. Laboratory tests of initial bioefficacy using a Mallee sand (pH 7.2) were able to detect, within ED 05–95 limits, that approximately 50% of active ingredient remained as a non–available reserve in DT26B immediately after spraying, when compared with the granular formation. There was also an indication that the bioavailable component of active ingredient in DT26B would be sufficient for weed control. This was confirmed at field sites on a Kattyoong sand (pH 7.9) and a Wimmera Grey clay (pH 8.4), after using recommended application rates of chlorsulfuron during the 1994 winter growing season. The formulations produced only marginal differences in control of Lolium rigidum Gaud. The field leaching trials at these sites showed that there can be rapid leaching of chlorsulfuron with only small amounts of rainfall. Under these conditions, there was an overall trend of reduced leaching by DT26B at both trial sites, although these reductions were not significant when compared with the granular formation, A laboratory system designed to measure the mobility of herbicides is described. It was used to impose upon each formulation a greater level of leaching than in the field trials, using Mallee sand columns irrigated with 50 mm day –1 under –50 kPa suction. This test revealed a negligible reduction in leaching of chlorsulfuron by DT26B as compared with the granular formulation. Therefore, although the controlled–release formulation DT26B demonstrated that it could provide a viable alternative for weed control under conventional spraying conditions in arable farming, the agricultural usage of DT26B for the purpose of reducing leaching could not be warranted at its current stage of development.