Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:03:59.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phytotoxicity and Yield Response of Sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) to a Mixture of Phenmedipham and Desmedipham

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

S. R. Winter  and
A. F. Wiese
S. R. Winter
Affiliation:
Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., U. S. Dep. Agric. Southwest. Great Plains Res. Center, Bushland, TX 79012
A. F. Wiese
Affiliation:
Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., U. S. Dep. Agric. Southwest. Great Plains Res. Center, Bushland, TX 79012
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A 50:50 mixture of phenmedipham (methyl m-hydroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate) and desmedipham [ethyl m-hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate (ester)] was applied at 1.1, 2.2, and 4.4 kg/ha to weed-free sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L. ‘Mono-HyD2’) at three growth stages in the morning and afternoon to evaluate factors associated with phytotoxicity. Sugarbeet stand loss from herbicide application had a much greater effect on yield than temporary vigor loss. Increasing herbicide rate always increased stand loss. Spraying in the afternoon was much less injurious than spraying in the morning when maximum temperature during the day exceeded 22 C. Excessive stand loss occurred, even with the 1.1 kg/ha rate and 4 to 6 leaf sugarbeets, when sprayed on the morning of a day with maximum temperature of 30 C or greater. Yield loss was determined by percent stand loss and by sugarbeet stand density prior to herbicide application. Significant sucrose yield loss occurred with all rates when applied in the morning to a marginal sugarbeet stand.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , January 1978 , pp. 1 - 4
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 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. Arndt, F., Rusch, R., Benzner, H., and Gierke, K. V. 1970. Die Beeinflussung der Selektivitat von Phenmedipham durch verschiedene Faktoren. Z. Pflanzenkr. Sonderh. V:89–93.Google Scholar
2. Bethlenfalvay, Gabor and Norris, R. F. 1975. Phytotoxic action of desmedipham: Influence of temperature and light intensity. Weed Sci. 23:499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Dawson, J. H. 1975. Cycloate and phenmedipham as complementary treatments in sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 23:478–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Edwards, C. J. 1968. Experiments on the field performance of phenmedipham. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 575–579.Google Scholar
5. Hendrick, L. W., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, Donald. 1974. Basis for selectivity of phenmedipham and desmedipham on wild must rd, red-root pigweed, and sugarbeet. Weed Sci. 22:179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hendrick, L. W., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, Donald. 1974. Selective use of phenmedipham and EP-475 in Michigan for weed control in sugarbeets. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 18:97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Holmes, H. M. 1968. Phenmedipham-activity and selectivity under U.K. conditions. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 580–585.Google Scholar
8. 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
9. Schweizer, E. E. 1974. Weed control in sugarbeets with cycloate, phenmedipham and EP475. Weed Res. 14:39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Wiese, A. F., Scott, P. R., Lavake, D. E., Winter, S. R. and Owen, D. F. 1975. Weed control research in sugarbeets. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 1158C. 29 pp.Google Scholar