Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T23:55:18.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) and Four Weed Species to Dinitramine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

E. E. Schweizer
E. E. Schweizer*
Affiliation:
Plant Physiol., Sci. Ed. Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., Crops Res. Lab., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dinitramine (N4,N4-diethyl-α,α,α-trifluoro-3,5-dinitrotoluene-2,4-diamine) applied at 0.37 kg/ha controlled black nightshade (Solanum nigrum L.) better than did trifluralin (α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine) at 0.56 kg/ha. Dinitramine applied at 0.37 kg/ha was equal to 0.56 kg/ha of trifluralin for control of green foxtail [Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.], yellow foxtail [Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv.], and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). Dinitramine produced more root aberrations in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L. ‘Mono Hy D2′) than did trifluralin when sprayed on nonexposed or exposed hypotcotyledonary tissues of seedlings. When soil surrounded most of the hypocotyls at the time of application, 0.56 kg/ha of dinitramine affected 57 to 87% of the roots, whereas the same rate of trifluralin affected 1 to 8% of the roots. When the hypocotyls were exposed at the time of application, 100% of the roots were affected by dinitramine compared to 25% of all roots treated with trifluralin. Dinitramine applied at 0.37, 0.42, and 0.56 kg/ha lowered the quality and yield of sugarbeet roots, with the highest rate significantly reducing percentage purity, percentage sucrose, and recoverable sucrose. Trifluralin did not affect these parameters.

Keywords

Solanum nigrumroot aberrationssugarbeet qualitytrifluralin
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 1979 , pp. 28 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 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. Brewbaker, H. E. and Deming, G. W. 1935. Effect of variations in stand on yield and quality of sugarbeets grown under irrigation. J. Agric. Res. 50:195–210.Google Scholar
2. Dawson, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugarbeets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Dawson, J. H. 1974. Full-season weed control in sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 22:330–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Dawson, J. H. 1975. Cycloate and phenmedipham as complementary treatments in sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 23:478–485.Google Scholar
5. Dawson, J. H. 1977. Competition of late-emerging weeds with sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 25:168–170.Google Scholar
6. Harris, G. K. and Stone, J. D. 1974. Cobex - A new herbicide in beans. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 27:47.Google Scholar
7. Nichol, G. E., Burtch, L. M., and Traveller, D. J. 1971. Seedbed preparation, planting, and thinning. Pages 49–67 in Johnson, R. T., Alexander, J. T., Rush, G. E., and Hawkes, G. R., eds. Advances in Sugarbeet Production: Principles and Practices. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar
8. Roberts, H. A. and Bond, W. 1975. Combined treatments of propachlor and trifluralin for weed control in cabbage. Weed Res. 15:195–198.Google Scholar
9. Schweizer, E. E. 1970. Aberrations in sugarbeet roots as induced by trifluralin. Weed Sci. 18:131–134.Google Scholar
10. Schweizer, E. E. 1974. Weed control in sugarbeets with cycloate, phenmedipham and EP 475. Weed Res. 14:39–44.Google Scholar
11. Warner, L. C., Lange, A., and Carmean, W. E. 1966. An evaluation of sugarbeet responses to trifluralin when applied post-blocking. Res. Prog. Rep., West. Weed Control Conf. pp. 76–77.Google Scholar