Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T06:52:03.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pronamide Effects on Physiology and Yield of Sugar Beet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kalliopi Kadoglidou ,
Chrysovalantis Malkoyannidis ,
Kalliopi Radoglou ,
Ilias Eleftherohorinos  and
Helen-Isis A. Constantinidou
Kalliopi Kadoglidou
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Agricultural Chemistry, School of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 54 124 Thessaloniki, Greece
Chrysovalantis Malkoyannidis
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Agronomy, School of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 54 124 Thessaloniki, Greece
Kalliopi Radoglou
Affiliation:
National Agricultural Research Foundation, Forest Research Institute, Thessaloniki 570 06, Greece
Ilias Eleftherohorinos*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Agronomy, School of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 54 124 Thessaloniki, Greece
Helen-Isis A. Constantinidou
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Agricultural Chemistry, School of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 54 124 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: eleftero@agro.auth.gr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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).

Keywords

Desmediphamethofumesatemetamitronphenmediphampronamidesugar beet, Beta vulgaris L. ‘Avantage’, ‘Dorothea’, and ‘Bianca’.Leaf area indexpronamide phytotoxicityyield
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 3 , June 2008 , pp. 457 - 463
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Bosemark, N. O. 1993. Genetics and breeding. Pages 67–119. in Cooke, D. A. and Scott, R. K. The Sugar Beet Crop. Cambridge, UK Chapman and Hall, University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, W. C., Lignowski, E. M., and Hopen, H. J. 1975. The mode of action of pronamide. Weed Sci. 23:155–161.Google Scholar
Dawson, J. H., Musselman, L. J., Wolswinkel, P., and Dörr, I. 1994. Biology and control of Cuscuta . Rev. Weed Sci. 6:265–317.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Physiology of herbicide action. Upper Saddle River, NJ PTR Prentice-Hall. 441.Google Scholar
Dovas, C. 1975. Control of Cuscuta infection in sugarbeet with herbicide Kerb. Hellenic Sugar Industry Q. Bull. 20:221–238.Google Scholar
Duncan, D. N., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1981. Physiological bases of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) tolerance to foliar application of ethofumesate. Weed Sci. 29:648–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannopolitis, C. N. 1979. Inhibition of seed germination and early stem elongation of Cuscuta australis by ethofumesate. Weed Res. 19:95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 190:197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[ICUMSA] International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis 2005. International Commission for Uniform Methods of Sugar Analysis Methods Book. Berlin Bartens. 341.Google Scholar
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. 45:791–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiermayer, O. 1964. Growth responses to herbicides. Pages 207–231. in Audus, L. J. The Physiology and Biochemistry of Herbicide. London and New York Academic.Google Scholar
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. 26:1567–1571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 11:84–87.Google Scholar
Röver, A. 1994. Lichtabsorption und Ertrag in Abhängigkeit vom Blattflächenindex bei Zuckerrüben. Zuckerindustrie. 119:664–670.Google Scholar
Röver, A. 1998. Description of important situation of stress during the vegetative growth of sugar beet. Zuckerindustrie. 123 (9):683–687.Google Scholar
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. 11:318–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R. K. and Jaggard, K. W. 1978. Theoretical criteria for maximum yield. Pages 179–198. in Proceedings of the 41st Winter Congress of the International Institute of Sugar Beet Research, Brussels.Google Scholar
Smith, G. A. and Schweizer, E. E. 1983. Cultivar × herbicide interaction in sugarbeet. Crop Sci. 23:325–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan, M. A. and Vaughn, K. C. 1987. Pronamide disrupts mitosis in a unique manner. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 28:182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughn, K. C. and Lehnen, L. P. 1991. Mitotic disrupter herbicides. Weed Sci. 39:450–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1999. Response of nine sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) cultivars to postemergence herbicide applications. Weed Technol. 13:25–29.Google Scholar