Selim H M
Agronomy Dep., Louisiana State Univ, AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA.
J Environ Qual. 2003 May-Jun;32(3):1058-71. doi: 10.2134/jeq2003.1058.
Minimizing herbicide runoff and mobility in the soil and thus potential contamination of water resources is a national concern. Metribuzin [4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one] and atrazine [2-chloro-4-ethylamino-6-isopropylamino-1,3,5-triazine] dynamics in surface soils and in runoff waters were studied on six 0.2-ha sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) plots of a Commerce silt loam (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquept) during three growing seasons under different best management practices. Metribuzin was applied in the spring as a postemergence herbicide and atrazine was applied following winter harvest. Both herbicides were applied on top of the sugarcane rows as 0.6- or 0.9-m band width application, or broadcast application, where the entire area was treated. Maximum effluent concentrations were measured from the broadcast treatment and ranged from 600 to 1100 microg L(-1) for atrazine and 250 to 450 microg L(-1) for metribuzin. Atrazine runoff losses were highest for the broadcast treatment (2.8-11% of that applied) and lowest for the 0.6-m band treatment (1.9-7.6%), with a similar trend for metribuzin losses. Measured extractable herbicides from the surface soil exhibited a sharp decrease with time and were well described with a simple first-order decay model. For atrazine, estimates for the decay rate (lambda) were higher than for metribuzin. Results based on laboratory adsorption-desorption (kinetic-batch) measurements were consistent with field observations. The distribution coefficients (Kd) for atrazine exhibited stronger retention over time in comparison with metribuzin on the Commerce soil. Moreover, discrepancies between adsorption isotherm and desorption indicated slower release and that hysteresis was more pronounced for atrazine compared with metribuzin.
尽量减少除草剂在土壤中的径流和迁移,从而降低对水资源的潜在污染,这是一个全国性的关注点。在三个生长季节里,于不同最佳管理措施下,对位于商业粉质壤土(细粉质、混合、超活性、非酸性、热性潮泛性内积水土)上的六个0.2公顷甘蔗(甘蔗属)地块的表层土壤和径流水中嗪草酮[4-氨基-6-(1,1-二甲基乙基)-3-(甲硫基)-1,2,4-三嗪-5(4H)-酮]和莠去津[2-氯-4-乙氨基-6-异丙氨基-1,3,5-三嗪]的动态变化进行了研究。嗪草酮在春季作为苗后除草剂施用,莠去津在冬季收获后施用。两种除草剂均以0.6米或0.9米的带状宽度施用于甘蔗行顶部,或进行全田撒施,即对整个区域进行处理。从全田撒施处理中测得的最大流出物浓度范围为:莠去津600至1100微克/升,嗪草酮250至450微克/升。莠去津的径流损失在全田撒施处理中最高(占施用量的2.8 - 11%),在0.6米带状处理中最低(1.9 - 7.6%),嗪草酮损失也有类似趋势。从表层土壤中测得的可提取除草剂随时间急剧下降,并用简单的一级衰减模型能很好地描述。对于莠去津,衰减率(λ)的估计值高于嗪草酮。基于实验室吸附 - 解吸(动力学批量)测量的结果与田间观测结果一致。与嗪草酮相比,莠去津在商业土壤上的分配系数(Kd)随时间表现出更强的保留能力。此外,吸附等温线和解吸之间的差异表明莠去津的释放较慢,且与嗪草酮相比滞后现象更明显。