3.9 Article

RAINFALL EFFECT ON DISSIPATION AND MOVEMENT OF DIURON AND SIMAZINE IN A VINEYARD SOIL

期刊

PLANTA DANINHA
卷 28, 期 -, 页码 1059-1071

出版社

UNIV FEDERAL VICOSA
DOI: 10.1590/S0100-83582010000500014

关键词

agrochemicals; K-oc; K-d; desorption; leaching

资金

  1. FONDECYT (Chilean Fund for Science and Technology) [1030990]
  2. CONICYT (Chilean Commission of Scientific Research and Technology)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

From 2003 to 2007, a field study was performed in a vineyard in Chile to investigate diuron and simazine soil behavior and the effect of additional rainfall. Both herbicides were applied once a year at a rate of 2.0 kg ha(-1) a.i. Herbicide concentrations in soil were measured at 0, 10, 20, 40, 90 and 340 days after application, under two pluviometric conditions, natural rainfall and natural rainfall plus irrigation with 180 mm of simulated rainfall during the first 90 days after application. Soil partition coefficient (K-d) varied in the soil profile (0 to 90 cm deep) from 6.75 to 2.04 mL g(-1) and from 1.4 to 0.66 mL g(-1) and the maximum soil adsorption capacity was approximately 18.3 mg g(-1) and 8.3 mg g(-1) for diuron and simazine, respectively. Diuron and simazine reached up to 90 and 120 cm of soil depth, with an average of 8.3% and 62.4% of herbicide moved below 15 cm in the soil, respectively. Simazine soil half-life (DT50) was 38.1 days and 7.5 days, whereas the half life for diuron varied from 68.0 and 24.6 for natural rainfall and irrigated, respectively. The average of residual simazine remaining in the whole soil profile after 90 DAA was 25.4% and 39.9% for diuron, with no effect of additional rainfall amount. At 340 DAA the amount of simazine in the whole soil profile corresponded to 13.2% of the initial amount applied, being diuron more persistent with 21.5% of the initial herbicide applied. The high movement in soil of both herbicides could be due to a non-equilibrium sorption process explained by preferential flow, low K-d and high desorption.

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

3.9
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