Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-pfhbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T11:33:25.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Basis for Interactions of Ethofumesate1 and Desmedipham on Sugarbeets and Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Y. Eshel ,
R.L. Zimdahl  and
E.E. Schweizer
Y. Eshel
Affiliation:
Weed Res. Lab., Dep. Bot. and Plant Path., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523
R.L. Zimdahl
Affiliation:
Weed Res. Lab., Dep. Bot. and Plant Path., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523
E.E. Schweizer
Affiliation:
Western Region, Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agr., Crops Res. Lab., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A synergistic interaction occurred when sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L. ‘Mono-Hy Al’) were treated with mixtures of ethofumesate (2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulphonate) and desmedipham [ethyl m-hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate (ester)]. Depending on the stage of weed growth synergistic interactions were also observed on two weed species: wild mustard [Brassica kaber (DC.) L.C. Wheeler ‘pinnatifida’ (Stokes) L.C. Wheeler] and wild oat (Avena fatua L.). Desmedipham penetrated the foliage more slowly than did ethofumesate. The rate of desmedipham penetration was positively correlated with the concentration of its formulants (solvents and adjuvants) in the spraying emulsion, and to a lesser extent with the formulants of ethofumesate. Increasing the spray volume also increased desmedipham penetration. None of these factors affected penetration by ethofumesate. 14C-labeled ethofumesate and desmedipham did not translocate out of treated leaves regardless of the concentration of formulants or active ingredients. These data suggest that the synergistic interaction is mainly due to the increased penetration by desmedipham when applied with ethofumesate.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 24 , Issue 6 , November 1976 , pp. 619 - 626
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Akobundu, I.O., Duke, W.B., Sweet, R.D., and Minotti, P.L. 1975. Basis for synergism of atrazine and alachlor combinations on Japanese millet. Weed Sci. 23:43–48.Google Scholar
2. Colby, S.R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 15:20–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Ekins, W.L. and Cronin, C.H. 1972. NC 8438, a promising new broad spectrum herbicide for sugarbeet. J. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 17:134–143.Google Scholar
4. Eshel, Y., Schweizer, E.E., and Zimdahl, R.L. 1976. Sugarbeet tolerance of post-emergence applications of desmedipham and ethofumesate. Weed Res. 16: 249–254.Google Scholar
5. Hendrick, L.W., Meggitt, W.F., and Penner, D. 1974. Basis for selectivity of phenmedipham and desmedipham on wild mustard, redroot pigweed, and sugar beet. Weed Sci. 22:179–184.Google Scholar
6. Knowles, C.O. and Sonawane, B. 1972. Ethyl m-hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate (EP-475) metabolism in sugar beets. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 8: 73–76.Google Scholar
7. Laufersweiler, H. and Gates, C.M. 1972. Response of weeds and sugarbeets to EP-475, a phenmedipham analog. J. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 17:53–57.Google Scholar
8. Putnam, A.R. and Penner, D. 1974. Pesticide interactions in higher plants. Residue Rev. 50:73–110.Google Scholar
9. Schweizer, E.E. 1974. Weed control in sugarbeets with cycloate, phenmedipham, and EP 475. Weed Res. 14:39–44.Google Scholar