Leaching of Three Imidazolinone Herbicides during Sprinkler Irrigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some imidazolinone herbicides have been shown to be mobile in soil, raising concern about their possible movement to ground water. Three imidazolinone herbicides (imazamethabenz-methyl, 497 g ha(-1); imazethapyr, 14.7 g ha(-1); and imazamox, 14.7 g ha(-1)) commonly used in crop production on the Canadian prairies were applied to a tile-drained field to assess their susceptibility to leach when subjected to sprinkler irrigation using a center pivot. Tile-drain flow began when the water table rose above tile-drain depth, and peak flow rates corresponded to the greatest depths of ground water above the tile drains. Interception of irrigation water by the tile drains in each quadrant of the field varied from ∼11 to 20% of the water applied. Under a worst-case scenario in which irrigation began the day after herbicide application and irrigation water was applied at 25 mm d(-1) for 12 d, there was evidence of preferential flow of all three herbicides and hydrolysis of imazamethabenz-methyl to imazamethabenz in the initial samples of tile-drain effluent. In subsequent samples, concentrations (analysis by LC-MS-MS) of the summation of imazamethabenz-methyl (25-24,000 ng L(-1)) plus its hydrolysis product imazamethabenz (63-26,500 ng L(-1)) greatly exceeded those of imazethapyr (<13-1260 ng L) and imazamox (19-599 ng L(-1)), thus reflecting relative application rates. In contrast, estimates of total transport of each herbicide from the root zone, which varied in each quadrant and ranged from 0.06 to 2.3% for imazamethabenz-methyl plus imazamethabenz, 0.71 to 3.1% for imazethapyr, and 0.61 to 2.8% for imazamox, did not reflect application rates. In shallow ground water (piezometer samples), there was inconsistent and infrequent detection all four compounds. With the frequency and amount of rainfall typically encountered in the prairie region of Canada, contamination of shallow ground water with detectable concentrations of the three imidazolinone herbicides would be unlikely.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".