Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T11:19:26.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Duration of Soil Activity of Foramsulfuron Plus Thiencarbazone-methyl Applied to Weed Species Typical of Sugar Beet Cultivation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Moritz J. Wendt ,
Christine Kenter ,
Erwin Ladewig ,
Martin Wegener  and
Bernward Märländer
Moritz J. Wendt
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Research Associate, Head of Department, Director, Institute of Sugar Beet Research at the Georg-August-University Göttingen, Holtenser Landstr. 7, 37079 Göttingen, Germany
Christine Kenter*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Research Associate, Head of Department, Director, Institute of Sugar Beet Research at the Georg-August-University Göttingen, Holtenser Landstr. 7, 37079 Göttingen, Germany
Erwin Ladewig
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Research Associate, Head of Department, Director, Institute of Sugar Beet Research at the Georg-August-University Göttingen, Holtenser Landstr. 7, 37079 Göttingen, Germany
Martin Wegener
Affiliation:
Head of Weed Management, Bayer Crop Science AG, Alfred-Nobel-Str.50, 40789 Monheim, Germany
Bernward Märländer
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Research Associate, Head of Department, Director, Institute of Sugar Beet Research at the Georg-August-University Göttingen, Holtenser Landstr. 7, 37079 Göttingen, Germany
*
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The duration of the soil activity of an acetolactate synthase-(ALS) inhibiting herbicide which is currently under approval for sugar beet cultivation was determined in a field trial series in Germany in 2013 and 2014. The herbicide containing foramsulfuron (FSN; 50 g L−1) and thiencarbazone-methyl (TCM; 30 g L−1) was applied in different dosages (25+15, 37.5+22.5 and 50+30 g FSN+TCM ha−1) to the bare soil. Five weed species (rapeseed, common lambsquarters, wild chamomile, blackgrass, barnyardgrass) were sown at 5, 10, 15 and 20d after application. The duration of the soil activity was assessed by determining percent weed control in the treated plots. The longest duration was observed after applying 50+30 g FSN+TCM ha−1, but the influence of environment was much stronger than the dosage effect. The mean duration of soil activity was 10 to 15 d in 2013 and longer than 20 d in 2014. Differences among weed species in their response to the herbicide treatments were small.

Se realizaron una serie de ensayos de campo en Alemania en 2013 y 2014, para determinar la duración de la actividad en el suelo de un herbicida inhibidor de acetolactate synthase (ALS), el cual está actualmente siendo considerado para aprobación de su uso en remolacha azucarera. Se aplicó un herbicida que contenía foramsulfuron (FSN; 50 g L−1) y thiencarbazone-methyl (TCM; 30 g L−1) en diferentes dosis (25+15, 37.5+22.5 y 50+30 g FSN+TCM ha−1) a suelo desnudo. Cinco especies de malezas (Brassica napus; Chenopodium album; Matricaria recutita; Alopecurus myosuroides; Echinochloa crus-galli) fueron sembradas a 5, 10, 15, y 20 d después de la aplicación. La duración de la actividad del suelo fue evaluada determinando el porcentaje de control de malezas en las parcelas tratadas. La mayor duración se observó después de aplicar 50+30 g FSN+TCM ha−1, pero la influencia en el ambiente fue mucho más fuerte que el efecto de la dosis. La duración promedio de la actividad en el suelo fue 10 a 15 d en 2013 y más de 20 d en 2014. Las diferencias entre las especies de malezas en su respuesta a los tratamientos de herbicidas fue pequeña.

Keywords

foramsulfuronthiencarbazonebarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.blackgrass, Alopecurus myosuroides Huds.common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L.rapeseed, Brassica napus L.wild chamomile, Matricaria recutita L.sugar beet, Beta vulgaris L.percent weed controlherbicide dosagesowing time
Type
Weed Management-Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , March 2017 , pp. 291 - 300
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor for this paper: F. William Simmons, University of Illinois

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, JJ, Dulka, JJ (1985) Environmental fate of sulfometuron methyl in aerobic soils. J Agric Food Chem 33:596–602 Google Scholar
Andr, J, Hejnák, V, Jursík, M, Fendrychová, V (2014) Effects of application terms of three soil active herbicides on herbicide efficacy and reproductive ability for weeds in maize. Plant Soil Environ 60:452–458 Google Scholar
Barriuso, E, Calvet, R (1992) Soil type and herbicides adsorption. Intern J Environ Anal Chem 46(1–3), 117–128, doi: 10.1080/03067319208027003 Google Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Hall, LM (2014) Genetically-modified herbicide-resistant (GMHR) crops a two-edged sword? An Americas perspective on development and effect on weed management. Crop Prot 66:40–45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[BVL] Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (2009) PSM-Zulassungsreport [Registration Report] Monsoon Lfd. Nr.:25. http://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/04_Pflanzenschutzmittel/01_zulassungsberichte/005806-00-00.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3. Accessed February 10, 2017Google Scholar
[BVL] Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (2010) PSM-Zulassungsreport [Registration Report] Adengo Lfd. Nr.:56. http://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/04_Pflanzenschutzmittel/01_zulassungsberichte/006525-00-00.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. Accessed February 10, 2017Google Scholar
Christ, DS, Märländer, B, Varrelmann, M (2011) Characterization and mycotoxigenic potential of Fusarium species in freshly harvested and stored sugar beet in Europe. Phytopathology 101:1330–1337 Google Scholar
Cioni, F, Maines, G (2011) Weed control in sugarbeet. Sugar Technol Rev 12:243–255 Google Scholar
Cupples, AM, Sims, GK, Hultgren, RP, Hart, SE (2000) Effect of soil conditions on the degradation of cloransulam-methyl. J Environ Qual 29:786–794 Google Scholar
de Mol, F, von Redwitz, C, Gerowitt, B (2015) Weed species composition of maize fields in Germany is influenced by site and crop sequence. Weed Res 55:574–585 Google Scholar
Eleftherohorinos, I, Dhima, K, Vasilakoglou, I (2004) Activity, adsorption, mobility and field persistence of sulfosulfuron in soil. Phytoparasitica 32:274–285 Google Scholar
[EPPO] European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (2007) Efficacy evaluation of herbicides – Weeds in sugar and fodder beet and industrial chicory. EPPO Bulletin 37:48–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2338.2007.01075.x Google Scholar
[EPPO] European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (2013) Design and analysis of efficacy evaluation trials. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 42:367–381, doi: 10.1111/epp.2610 Google Scholar
[EFSA] European Food Safety Authority (2013) Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance thiencarbazone-methyl. EFSA Journal 2013:11–3270 Google Scholar
Greabing, P, Frank, MP, Chib, JS (2003) Soil photolysis of herbicides in a moisture- and temperature-controlled environment. J Agric Food Chem 51:4331–4337 Google Scholar
Grey, TL, McCullough, PE (2012) Sulfonylurea herbicides’ fate in soil: dissipation, mobility, and other processes. Weed Technol 26:579–581.Google Scholar
Haas, P (2001). Foramsulfuron – comments on the white monograph dated 1 April 2001, Volume 1–3. http://www.bvl.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/04_Pflanzenschutzmittel/02_eu_berichte/Foramsulfuron-DAR.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. Accessed December 14, 2015Google Scholar
Heap, I (2013) Global perspective of herbicide-resistant weeds. Pest Manag Sci 70:1306–1315 Google Scholar
Hultgren, RP, Hudson, RJM, Sims, GK (2002) Effects of soil pH and soil water content on prosulfuron dissipation. J Agric Food Chem 50:3236–3243 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janaki, P, Rathika, S, Chinnusamy, C, Prabhakaran, NK (2013) Field dissipation of metamitron in soil and sugar beet crop. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 90:116–119, doi: 10.1007/s00128-012-0878-2 Google Scholar
Jursik, M, Holec, J, Soukup, J, Venclová, V (2008) Competitive relationships between sugar beet and weeds in dependence on time of weed control. Plant Soil Environ 54:108–116 Google Scholar
Kucharski, M, Sadowski, J (2009) Degradation of ethofumesate in soil under laboratory conditions. Pol J Environ Stud 18:243–247 Google Scholar
Kudsk, P, Kristensen, JL (1992) Effect of environmental factors on herbicide performance. Pages 173–186 in Combellack, JH, Levick, KJ, Parsons, J and Richardson, RG ed., Proceedings of the First International Weed Control Congress. Melbourne, Australia: Weed Science Society of VictoriaGoogle Scholar
KWS SAAT SE. (2015). ALS Herbicide-Tolerant Sugarbeet Gets a Name - CONVISO SMART® Technology. http://www.kws.com/aw/KWS/company-info/Company/investor-relations/News/News/~gwlt/ALS-Herbicide-tolerant-sugarbeet-gets-a/?hi=conviso. Accessed April 14, 2016Google Scholar
Lamichhane, JR, Devos, Y, Beckie, HJ, Owen, MDK, Tillie, P, Messéan, A, Kudsk, P (2016) Integrated weed management systems with herbicide-tolerant crops in the European Union: lessons learnt from home and abroad, Crit Rev Biotechnol, doi: 10.1080/07388551.2016.1180588 Google Scholar
May, MJ, Wilson, RG (2006) Weeds and weed control. Pages 359–386 in Draycott AP ed., Sugar Beet. Oxford, UK: Blackwell CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, V, Verhulst, N, Cox, R, Govaerts, B (2015) Weed dynamics and conversation agriculture principles: a review. Field Crops Res 183:56–68. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2015.07.012 Google Scholar
Pannacci, E, Onofri, A (2016) Alternatives to terbuthylazine for chemical weed control in maize. Commun Biometry Crop Sci 11:51–63 Google Scholar
Petersen, J (2004) A review on weed control in sugarbeet - from tolerance zero to period threshold. Pages 467–483 in Inderjit ed., Weed Biology and Management. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raimondi, MA, Oliveira, JR, Constantin, J, Rios, FA, Gemelli, A, Raimondi, RT (2015) Dose-response curve to soil applied herbicide and susceptibility evaluation of different Amaranthus species using model identity. Planta Daninha, Viçosa-MG 33:137–146 Google Scholar
Saha, S, Kulshrestha, G (2002) Degradation of sulfosulfuron, a sulfonylurea herbicide, as influenced by abiotic factors. J Agric Food Chem 50:4572–4575 Google Scholar
Sarmah, AK, Sabadie, J (2002) Hydrolysis of sulfonylurea herbicides in soils and aqueous solutions: a review. J Agric Food Chem 50:6253–6265 Google Scholar
Schuster, CL, Shoup, DE, Al-Khatib, K (2007) Response of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) to glyphosate as affected by growth stage. Weed Sci 55:147–151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, EE (1981) Broadleaf weed interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci 29:128–133 Google Scholar
Schweizer, EE (1983) Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci 31:5–8 Google Scholar
Sondhia, S (2009) Leaching behavior of metsulfuron in two texturally different soils. Environ Monit Assess 154:111–115, doi: 10.1007/s10661-008-0381-8 Google Scholar
Stewart, CL, Nurse, ER, Hamill, AS, Sikkema, PH (2010) Environment and soil conditions influence pre- and postemergence herbicide efficacy in soybean. Weed Technol 24:234–243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, CL, Soltani, N, Nurse, RE, Hamill, AS, Sikkema, PH (2012) Precipitation influences pre- and post-emergence herbicide efficacy in corn. Amer J Plant Sci 3:1193–1204 Google Scholar
Sulewska, H, Koziara, W, Smiatacz, K, Szymanska, G, Panasiewicz, K (2012) Efficacy of selected herbicides in weed control of maize. Fragmenta Agronomica 29:144–151 Google Scholar
Szmigielski, AM, Schoenau, JJ, Johnson, EN, Holm, FA, Sapsford, KL (2012) Determination of thiencarbazone in soil by oriental mustard root length bioassay. Weed Sci 60:468–473 Google Scholar
Talgre, L, Lauringson, E, Koppel, M (2008) Effect of reduced herbicide dosages on weed infestation in spring barley. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture 95:194–201 Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S, Sims, GK, Wax, LM (2002) Effects of moisture, temperature, and biological activity on the degradation of isoxaflutole in soil. J Agric Food Chem 50:5626–5633 Google Scholar
Tencalla, F (2006) Science, politics, and the GM debate in Europe. Regul Toxicol Pharm 44:43–48 Google Scholar
Vasel, EH, Ladewig, E, Märländer, B (2012) Weed composition and herbicide use strategies in sugar beet cultivation in Germany. J für Kulturpflanzen 64:112–125 Google Scholar
Villaverde, J, Kah, M, Brown, CD (2008) Adsorption and degradation of four acidic herbicides in soils from southern Spain. Pest Manag Sci 6:703–710 Google Scholar
Wendt, MJ, Wegener, M, Ladewig, E, Märländer, B (2016) Efficacy of foramsulfuron+thiencarbazone-methyl towards different development stages of weed species in sugar beet cultivation. Sugar Industry 141:436–445 Google Scholar
Wittenbach, VA, Koeppe, MK, Lichtner, FT, Zimmermann, WT, Reiser, RW (1994) Basis of selectivity of triflusulfuron methyl in sugar beets (Beta vulgaris). Pestic Biochem Physiol 49:72–81 Google Scholar