ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Changes in application system - influence on herbicides residue in soil and sugar beet roots
 
More details
Hide details
1
Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation, National Research Institute Orzechowa 61, 50-540 Wrocław, Poland
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Mariusz Kucharski
Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation, National Research Institute Orzechowa 61, 50-540 Wrocław, Poland
 
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2009;49(4):421–425
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
The aim of performed investigation was to evaluate the influence of changes in herbicide application system on herbicide residues in soil and sugar beet roots. Chemical weed control in sugar beet was carried out by herbicides that included substances such as phenmedipham, desmedipham, ethofumesate, metamitron, triflusulfuron and surfactant adjuvant applied in three different systems: two times application at bare soil (preemergence) and postemergence application (weeds in phase of 2–4 leaves) – system “A”, 3 times split, postemergence application (full dose of herbicide mixture) – system “B” and 4 times application at 7 to 10 day intervals starting at the beginning of weed emergence – system “C”. Samples of soil and roots of sugar beet were taken at the day of lifting. Herbicide residues were analysed using HPLC with UV-detection. At lifting time, in soil samples, where herbicides were applied in system “A”, the residues of metamitron amounted from 0.0097 to 0.0132 mg/kg. Sum of all detected residues of applied substances amounted 0.0341–0.0458 mg/kg. In sugar beet root samples, the residues amounted to respectively, 0.0049–0.0064 and 0.0136–0.0247 mg/kg. The application of herbicides in “B” and “C” systems caused a significant decrease of residues by about 50% (system “B”) and 65% (system “C”) on average, in comparison with results obtained for herbicide application in “A” system. Residues of active substances determined in roots of sugar beet did not exceed acceptable limits (MRLs).
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
 
REFERENCES (19)
1.
Bruce J.A., Carey J.B. 1996. Effect of growth stage and environment on foliar absorption, translocation, metabolism and activity of nicosulfuron in quackgrass (Elytrigia repens). Weed Sci. 44: 447–454.
 
2.
Dexter A.G. 1994. History of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) herbicide rate reduction in North Dakota and Minnesota. Weed Technol. 8: 334–337.
 
3.
Dexter A.G., Luecke J.L. 1998. Special survey on micro-rate. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep. 29: 64–70.
 
4.
Dexter A.G., Luecke J.L. 2001. Survey of weed control and production practices on sugarbeet in Estern North Dakota and Minnesota – 2001. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep. 32: 35–63.
 
5.
Dexter A.G., Luecke J.L., Bredehoeft M.W. 1996. Micro rates of postemergence herbicides in sugarbeets. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep. 27: 62–66.
 
6.
Dexter A.G., Zollinger R.K. 2001. Weed control guide for sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep. 32: 3–34.
 
7.
Domaradzki K. 2007. Optymalizacja stosowania herbicydów w systemach chemicznej ochrony buraka cukrowego. Prog. Plant Protection/Post. Ochr. Roślin 47 (3): 64–73.
 
8.
Harris C.I. 1969. Leaching of triazine herbicides to lower layers of the soil profile. J. Agricult. Food Chem. 17: 80–93.
 
9.
Kucharski M., Sadowski J. 2001. Wpływ adiuwantów na poziom pozostałości metamitronu i chlorydazonu w glebie i roślinie buraka cukrowego. Prog. Plant Protection/Post. Ochr. Roślin 41 (2): 885–887.
 
10.
Kucharski M. 2007. Impact of adjuvants on: phenmedipham, desmedipham and ethofumesate residues in soil and plant. Pestycydy/Pesticides 2007 (3–4): 53–59.
 
11.
McMullan P.M., Thomas J.M., Volgas G. 1998. HM9679 – A spray adjuvant for soil-applied herbicides. In: Proc. 5th International Symposium on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals, Memphis, Tennessee USA. 17–21 August 1998: 285–290.
 
12.
Nalewaja J.D., Praczyk T., Matysiak R. 1995. Surfactants and oil adjuvants with nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 9: 689–695.
 
13.
Reddy K.N. 1993. Effect of acrylic polymer adjuvants on leaching of bromacil, diuron, norfurazon and simazine in soil columns. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 50: 449–457.
 
14.
Rozporządzenie Ministra Zdrowia z dnia 16 kwietnia 2004r. w sprawie najwyższych dopuszczalnych poziomów pozostałości chemicznych środków ochrony roślin, które mogą znajdować się w środkach spożywczych lub na ich powierzchni (Dz. U. Nr 85, poz. 801, z późn. zm.).Rozporządzenie Ministra Zdrowia z dnia 16 maja 2007r. w sprawie najwyższych dopuszczalnych poziomów pozostałości pestycydów, które mogą znajdować się w środkach spożywczych lub na ich powierzchni (Dz. U. Nr 171, poz. 1225, z późn. zm.).
 
15.
Sharma S.D., Kirkwood R.C., Whateley T.I. 1996. Effect of nonionic nonylphenol surfactants on surface physicochemical properties, uptake and distribution of asulam and diflufenican. Weed Res. 36: 227–239.
 
16.
Warner J.D., Dexter A.G. 1995. Adjuvant effect on weed control in sugar beet from Upbeet and Upbeet plus other adjuvants. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep. 26: 77–82.
 
17.
Wilson R.G., Smith J.A., Yonts C.D. 2005. Repeated reduced rates of broadleaf herbicides in combination with methylated seed oil for postemergence weed control in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 19: 855–860.
 
18.
Woźnica Z., Adamczewski K., Szeleźniak E. 2004. Stosowanie mikrodawek herbicydów w uprawie buraka cukrowego. Prog. Plant Protection/Post. Ochr. Roślin 44 (1): 523–530.
 
19.
Woźnica Z., Idziak R., Waniorek W. 2007. Mikrodawki herbicydów – nowa opcjaodchwaszczania buraków cukrowych. Prog. Plant Protection/Post. Ochr. Roślin 47 (3): 310–315.
 
eISSN:1899-007X
ISSN:1427-4345