Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:50:25.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of Kochia in Sugarbeets with 3′-Hydroxypropionanilide Isopropylcarbamate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

E. E. Schweizer
E. E. Schweizer*
Affiliation:
Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., in cooperation with the Bot. and Plant Pathol. Dep., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO. 80521
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When the mixture of 3.4 kg/ha of S-ethyl N-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate (cycloate) plus 1.1 kg/ha of 3′-hydroxypropionanilide isopropylcarbamate (R 11913) was applied to three soils before planting sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L.), the average stand of kochia (Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad.) was reduced by 89% as compared to 9% with the standard rate of 4.5 kg/ha of cycloate. The competition of foxtail millet (Setaria italica (L.) Beauv.), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), and kochia was nearly eliminated throughout the growing season by a combination of 3.4 kg/ha of cycloate plus 1.1 kg/ha of R 11913 applied preplanting and 0.84 kg/ha of methyl m-hydroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate (phenmedipham) applied postemergence. This combination of treatments minimized competition from weeds all season, and the yield of sucrose was within 8% of that of the handweeded plots. Residues of the mixture of cycloate plus R 11913 were not detected biologically in two soils 8 months following application.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , March 1973 , pp. 110 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 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. Brimhall, P. B., Chamberlain, E. W., and Alley, H. P. 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugar beets. Weeds. 13:33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Olson, P. D., Stanger, C. E., and Appleby, A. P. 1969. Weed control in sugarbeets. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Rep. p. 76.Google Scholar
3. Schweizer, E. E. and Weatherspoon, D. M. 1968. Herbicidal control of weeds in sugarbeets. J. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 15:263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Schweizer, E. E. and Dawson, J. H. 1970. Weed control methods, losses and costs due to weeds, and benefits of weed control in sugarbeets. Pages 344–356 in FAO International Conference on Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. Amer., Urbana, Ill. 668 p.Google Scholar
5. Schweizer, E. E. and Weatherspoon, D. M. 1971. Response of sugarbeets and weeds to phenmedipham and two analogues. Weed Sci. 19:635–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Sullivan, E. F., Abrams, R. L., Bernhardt, D. W., and Wood, R. R. 1966. Chemical control of Kochia scoparia in sugar beets. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Contr. Conf. 20:13–14.Google Scholar
7. Sullivan, E. F., Decker, P. J., and Dollarschell, T. L. 1968. Phenmedipham weed control responses in sugarbeets. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Contr. Conf. 23:22–24.Google Scholar
8. Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1970. Control of kochia in sugarbeets with benzadox. Weed Sci. 18:183–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1971. Competition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. Weed Sci. 19:125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar