Skip to main content Accessibility help

Pronamide Effects on Physiology and Yield of Sugar Beet

  • Kalliopi Kadoglidou (a1), Chrysovalantis Malkoyannidis (a2), Kalliopi Radoglou (a3), Ilias Eleftherohorinos (a2) and Helen-Isis A. Constantinidou (a1)...


Field experiments were conducted in northern Greece during 2001 and repeated in 2002 and 2004 to evaluate the effects of pronamide on sugar beet. Total leaf area, leaf area index (LAI), leaf and root dry weights, photosynthetic yield (quantum yield of photochemical energy conversion in photosystem II), chlorotic index, and yield components of sugar beet were monitored after pronamide application. Three sugar beet cultivars, ‘Avantage’, ‘Dorothea’, and ‘Bianca’, requiring short, intermediate, and long vegetative periods, respectively, were subjected to treatment. Pronamide was applied on sugar beet either as a double application of 0.63 kg ai ha−1 at the two- to four-leaf and 0.63 kg ai ha−1 at the four- to six-leaf stage or as a single application of 1.26 kg ai ha−1 performed at the latter leaf stage. Both application procedures were combined with a split application of phenmedipham at 0.04 kg ai ha−1 plus desmedipham at 0.04 kg ai ha−1 plus metamitron at 0.70 kg ai ha−1 plus ethofumesate at 0.10 kg ai ha−1 plus mineral oil at 0.50 L ha−1 applied POST at the cotyledon–to–two-leaf as well as at the four-leaf growth stages. Pronamide (both single and double application) initially caused chlorosis and reduction of sugar beet growth. LAI and photosynthetic yield were also significantly affected for a 2-mo period following the final application, after which the negative effects caused by pronamide were ameliorated. At harvest, sugar beet root and sugar yield, sucrose, K+, Na+, and N-amino acid concentrations were not affected by the herbicide treatments compared with those produced in weed-free and herbicide-free plots, indicating that all cultivars managed to overcome the transient pronamide stress. Regarding sugar beet cultivars, root and sugar yield of Avantage and Dorothea at harvest were higher than that of Bianca, whereas sucrose concentration of Avantage was the lowest. There was not an apparent relationship between the order of sugar yield per cultivar (Dorothea > Avantage > Bianca) and the length of the vegetative period (Avantage < Dorothea < Bianca).


Corresponding author

Corresponding author's E-mail:


Hide All
Bosemark, N. O. 1993. Genetics and breeding. Pages 67119. in Cooke, D. A. and Scott, R. K. The Sugar Beet Crop. Cambridge, UK Chapman and Hall, University Press.
Carlson, W. C., Lignowski, E. M., and Hopen, H. J. 1975. The mode of action of pronamide. Weed Sci. 23:155161.
Dawson, J. H., Musselman, L. J., Wolswinkel, P., and Dörr, I. 1994. Biology and control of Cuscuta . Rev. Weed Sci. 6:265317.
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Physiology of herbicide action. Upper Saddle River, NJ PTR Prentice-Hall. 441.
Dovas, C. 1975. Control of Cuscuta infection in sugarbeet with herbicide Kerb. Hellenic Sugar Industry Q. Bull. 20:221238.
Duncan, D. N., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1981. Physiological bases of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) tolerance to foliar application of ethofumesate. Weed Sci. 29:648654.
Giannopolitis, C. N. 1979. Inhibition of seed germination and early stem elongation of Cuscuta australis by ethofumesate. Weed Res. 19:95100.
Hoffmann, C. M. and Blomberg, M. 2004. Estimation of leaf area index of Beta vulgaris L. based on optical remote sensing data. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 190:197204.
[ICUMSA] International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis 2005. International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis Methods Book. Berlin Bartens. 341.
Jeschke, W. D., Räth, N., Bäumel, P., Czygan, F. C., and Proksch, P. 1994. Modelling the flow and partitioning of carbon and nitrogen in the holoparasite Cuscuta reflexa Roxb. and its host Lupinus albus L. Methods for estimating net flows. J. Exp. Bot. 45:791800.
Kiermayer, O. 1964. Growth responses to herbicides. Pages 207231. in Audus, L. J. The Physiology and Biochemistry of Herbicide. London and New York Academic.
Merlin, G., Nuret, F., Ravanel, P., Bastide, J., Coste, C., and Tissut, M. 1987. Mitosis inhibition by a N-(1,1-dimethylpropynl) benzamide series. Phytochemistry. 26:15671571.
Peterson, R. L. and Smith, L. W. 1971. Effect of N-(1,1-dimethylpropynyl)-3,5-dichlorobenzamide on the anatomy of Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. Weed Res. 11:8487.
Röver, A. 1994. Lichtabsorption und Ertrag in Abhängigkeit vom Blattflächenindex bei Zuckerrüben. Zuckerindustrie. 119:664670.
Röver, A. 1998. Description of important situation of stress during the vegetative growth of sugar beet. Zuckerindustrie. 123 (9):683687.
Sandler, H. A., Else, M. J., and Sutherland, M. 1997. Application of sand for inhibition of swamp dodder (Cuscuta gronovii) seedling emergence and survival on cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) bogs. Weed Technol. 11:318323.
Scott, R. K. and Jaggard, K. W. 1978. Theoretical criteria for maximum yield. Pages 179198. in Proceedings of the 41st Winter Congress of the International Institute of Sugar Beet Research, Brussels.
Smith, G. A. and Schweizer, E. E. 1983. Cultivar × herbicide interaction in sugarbeet. Crop Sci. 23:325328.
Vaughan, M. A. and Vaughn, K. C. 1987. Pronamide disrupts mitosis in a unique manner. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 28:182193.
Vaughn, K. C. and Lehnen, L. P. 1991. Mitotic disrupter herbicides. Weed Sci. 39:450457.
Wilson, R. G. 1999. Response of nine sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) cultivars to postemergence herbicide applications. Weed Technol. 13:2529.


Pronamide Effects on Physiology and Yield of Sugar Beet

  • Kalliopi Kadoglidou (a1), Chrysovalantis Malkoyannidis (a2), Kalliopi Radoglou (a3), Ilias Eleftherohorinos (a2) and Helen-Isis A. Constantinidou (a1)...


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed