Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T18:33:51.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crop Response to Soil Applications of Ethofumesate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

E. E. Schweizer
E. E. Schweizer*
Affiliation:
Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agr., Crops Res. Lab., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tolerance of sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L. ‘Mono-Hy A1’) to ethofumesate (2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulphonate) was associated with rate of application and soil type. Yield of roots was significantly reduced by preplant-incorporated applications of 3.4, 4.5, or 9.0 kg/ha of ethofumesate to a sandy loam soil, but only the 9.0 kg/ha rate reduced the yield on a loam soil. Pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Idaho #111’) yielded normally when planted on a sandy loam soil within 4 to 6 weeks after ethofumesate was incorporated at rates of 2.2 to 9.0 kg/ha. Corn [Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer brand 3773 MFS(N) hybrid’] yields were reduced in proportion to the rate of herbicide applied 3 weeks before planting. In greenhouse studies, barley (Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Moravian’) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L. ‘Scout’) were about 10 times more susceptible to soil residues of ethofumesate than corn. Concentrations of ethofumesate in the soil as low as 0.1, 0.2, and 1.5 ppmw reduced the height of wheat, barley, and corn, respectively.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 23 , Issue 5 , September 1975 , pp. 409 - 413
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 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. Dawson, J.H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245–249.Google Scholar
2. Dawson, J.H. 1973. Components of full-season weed control in sugarbeets. Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 780. 11 pp.Google Scholar
3. Ekins, W.L. and Cronin, C.H. 1972. NC 8438, a promising new broad spectrum herbicide for sugarbeet. J. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 17:134–143.Google Scholar
4. Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Science Society of America. 1974. 3rd ed. 430 pp.Google Scholar
5. Norris, R.F. 1971. Evaluation of new herbicides for weed control in furrow irrigated sugarbeets. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Prog. Rep. p. 107–110.Google Scholar
6. Pfeiffer, R.K. 1969. The biological properties of 2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulphonate (NC 8438) – a new experimental herbicide. 3rd Symposium on New Herbicides, Versailles, 8 pp.Google Scholar
7. Pfeiffer, R.K. and Holmes, H.M. 1972. Control of annual grasses and broad-leaved weeds in sugarbeets with NC 8438. Proc. Brit. Weed Contr. Conf. 11:487–490.Google Scholar
8. Sullivan, E.F. and Fagala, L.T. 1970. Herbicide evaluations on sugarbeets, 1970. N. Cent. Weed Contr. Conf. Res. Rep. 27:25–27.Google Scholar