Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T17:49:26.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Sugarbeets and Weeds to Phenmedipham and Two Analogues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

E. E. Schweizer  and
D. M. Weatherspoon
E. E. Schweizer
Affiliation:
Plant Sci. Res. Div., Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., in cooperation with the Bot. and Plant Pathol. Dep., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
D. M. Weatherspoon
Affiliation:
Bot. and Plant Pathol. Dep., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins Dyersburg State Community Coll., Dyersburg, Tennessee 38024
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Responses of weeds and sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L.) to postemergence treatments of methyl m-hydroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate (phenmedipham) and two analogues were evaluated in six field studies. Phenmedipham at 1.7 kg/ha controlled foxtail millet (Setaria italica (L.) Beauv.) and kochia (Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad.) better than 2.2 kg/ha of methyl m-hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate and ethyl m-hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate. Pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) was controlled better by the analogues at 1.1 kg/ha than by phenmedipham. The foliar growth of sugarbeets was generally suppressed more by the analogues than by phenmedipham, but injury was not considered detrimental at 1.1 kg/ha. Yield of sugarbeet roots and sugar was reduced by 7% or less by phenmedipham at rates of 1.1 to 4.5 kg/ha, but these yield reductions were associated primarily with the failure of phenmedipham to completely control all weeds for 5 to 9 weeks after treatment.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 19 , Issue 6 , November 1971 , pp. 635 - 639
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Anonymous. 1968. Extent and cost of weed control with herbicides and an evaluation of important weeds. U.S. Dep. Agr. ARS 34-102. 85 p.Google Scholar
2. Arndt, F. and Kötter, C. 1968. Selectivity of phenmedipham as a postemergence herbicide in sugar beet. Weed Res. 8:259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Brimhall, P. B., Chamberlain, E. W., and Alley, H. P. 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugar beets. Weeds 13:33–35.Google Scholar
4. Dawson, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245–249.Google Scholar
5. Dubrovin, K. P., Gull, P. W., Zeisig, H. C., and Latham, A. J. 1966. Topcide, a new post-emergent herbicide for sugar beets. Proc. No. Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. 20:4.Google Scholar
6. Lee, G. A., Alley, H. P., and Gale, A. F. 1970. Postemergence weed control in sugarbeets. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Rept. p. 93–94.Google Scholar
7. Olson, P. D., Stanger, C. E., and Appleby, A. P. 1969. Weed control in sugarbeets. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Rept. p. 76.Google Scholar
8. Olson, P. D., and Appleby, A. P. 1970. Weed control research in sugar beets. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Rept. p. 89–90.Google Scholar
9. 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
10. Sullivan, E. F., Abrams, R. L., Bernhardt, D. W., and Wood, R. R. 1966. Chemical control of Kochia scoparia in sugar beets. Proc. No. Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. 20:13–14.Google Scholar
11. Sullivan, E. F., Decker, P. J., and Dollerschell, T. L. 1968. Phenmedipham weed control responses in sugar beets. Proc. No. Centr. Weed Contr. Conf. 23:22–24.Google Scholar
12. Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1970. Control of kochia in sugarbeets with benzadox. Weed Sci. 18:183–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1971. Competition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. Weed Sci. 19:125–128.Google Scholar