Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T01:43:03.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Separate and Combined Applications of Herbicides on Weed Control and Yield of Sugar Beet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Farzin Abdollahi  and
Hossein Ghadiri
Farzin Abdollahi
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
Hossein Ghadiri*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: ghadiri@shirazu.ac.ir
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to investigate the effects of different rates of herbicides on weed control, agronomic characteristics, and quality of sugar beet at Shiraz, Iran, in 2000 and 2001. Separate and combined applications of herbicides, including 14 combinations and different rates of grass and broadleaf herbicides, at two rates were used. Herbicides reduced weed biomass compared with the weedy check. In both years, maximum reduction in weed biomass was observed with desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus ethofumesate at 0.23 + 0.23 + 0.23 kg ai/ha and desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus propaquizafop at 0.46 + 0.46 + 0.1 kg ai/ha. Efficacy of grass herbicides was reduced when they were combined with pyrazon. Highest crop injury in both years was observed with desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus ethofumesate at 0.23 + 0.23 + 0.23 kg/ ha. Highest and lowest root yields in both years were produced in weed-free and weedy check plots, respectively. All herbicide treatments produced lower sugar beet yields than the hand-weeded check. Of the herbicide treatments evaluated, the highest sugar beet yields were with desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus propaquizafop at 0.46 + 0.46 + 0.1 kg/ha in 2001 and with desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus ethofumesate at 0.23 + 0.23 + 0.23 kg/ha in 2000. Sucrose content and other sugar beet brei characteristics were not affected by the herbicide treatments.

Keywords

Desmediphamethofumesatephenmediphampropaquizafoppyrazonsugar beet, Beta vulgaris L. ‘IC-1’Competitionweed biomassweed densityDAP, days after plantingDAT, days after treatmentPOST, postemergenceWAP, weeks after planting.
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 968 - 976
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

Anonymous. 1996. Beta User Manual: Operating Program for the Betalyser® System, Version 12.18 T2. Seelz, Germany: Dr. W. Kernchen GMBH. 20 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1997. Betalyser: Instruction for Installation and Operating Betalyser®: Computerized System for Quality Analysis of Sugarbeet. Seelz, Germany: Dr. W. Kernchen GMBH. 14 p.Google Scholar
Burtch, L. M. and Fischer, B. B. 1981. Postemergence weed control with combinations of herbicides in different sugarbeet planting periods. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet. Technol 21:112–129.Google Scholar
Dawson, J. H. 1977. Competition of late-emerging weeds with sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 25:168–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, A. G., Luecke, J. L., and Cattanach, A. 1997. Survey of Weed Control and Production Practices on Sugarbeet in Eastern North Dakota and Minnesota—1997. Sugarbeet Research and Extension Report 28. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University. Pp. 37–65.Google Scholar
Dortenzio, W. A. and Norris, R. F. 1979. Antagonistic effects of desmedipham on diclofop activity. Weed Sci. 27:539–544.Google Scholar
[FAO] Food and Agricultural Organization. 2001. Production Year Book:. Web page: http://www.fao.org. Accessed: May 3, 2004.Google Scholar
Fischer, B. B., Burtch, L. M., and Smith, R. 1975. The Control of Weeds in Beets—A Progress Report. Runcina, Volume 3. Fresno, CA: University of California Cooperative Extension.Google Scholar
Fischer, B. B., Burtch, L. M., and Smith, R. 1977. The Role of Selective Herbicides in Sugarbeet Production—A Progress Report. Runcina, Volume 7. Fresno, CA: University of California Cooperative Extension.Google Scholar
Haagenson, K. A. and Sullivan, E. F. 1983. New grass herbicides weed managements techniques in sugarbeets. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet. Technol 22:10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1985. Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci 1:1–63.Google Scholar
Rao, V. S. 2000. Principles of Weed Science. Enfield, NH: Science Publishers. Pp. 348–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. Statistical Analysis Software, Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. 1980. Herbicides applied sequentially for economical control of annual weeds in sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 28:152–159.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and May, M. J. 1993. Weeds and weeds control. in Cooke, D. A. and Scott, R. K., eds. The Sugar Beet Crop: Science into Practice. London: Chapman & Hall. Pp. 485–519.Google Scholar
Scott, R. K. and Wilcockson, S. J. 1976. Weed biology and the growth of sugarbeet. Ann. Appl. Biol 83:331–335.Google Scholar
Stark, R. J. and Renner, K. A. 1996. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) response to triflusulfuron and desmedipham plus phenmedipham. Weed Technol. 10:121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wicks, G. A. and Wilson, R. G. 1983. Control of weeds in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) with hand hoeing and herbicide. Weed Sci. 31:493–499.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1994. New herbicides for postemergence application in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 8:807–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1999. Response of nine sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) cultivars to postemergence herbicide applications. Weed Technol. 13:25–29.Google Scholar
Winner, C. 1993. History of crops. in Cooke, D. A. and Scott, R. K., eds. The Sugar Beet Crop: Science into Practice. London: Chapman & Hall. Pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
Winter, S. R. and Wiese, A. F. 1976. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet. Technol 19:125–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar