Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T15:47:12.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cycloate and Phenmedipham as Complementary Treatments in Sugarbeets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. H. Dawson
J. H. Dawson*
Affiliation:
Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agr., Irrigated Agr. Res. and Ext. Center, Prosser, WA 99350
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cycloate (S-ethyl N-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate), applied by subsurface injection at 3.4 kg/ha, controlled 98 to 100% of barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.] and 82 to 94% of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) and hairy nightshade (Solarium sarachoides Sendt.). Phenmedipham (methyl m-hydroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate) at 1.1 kg/ha, applied after sugarbeets had emerged but before common lambsquarters had more than three pairs of true leaves or hairy nightshade had more than three or four true leaves, controlled the members of these species that had survived cycloate. Cycloate preconditioned sugarbeets and the surviving broadleaf weeds to injury be phenmedipham. Although applying phenmedipham following cycloate before sugarbeets had two pairs of true leaves sometimes resulted in severe crop injury, and applying it when weeds were too large resulted in incomplete weed control, in all experiments there was a period of at least 2 weeks during which application of phenmedipham killed the surviving lambsquarters and nightshade without injuring sugarbeets.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 23 , Issue 6 , November 1975 , pp. 478 - 485
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. Arndt, F. and Kötter, C. 1968. Zur Selektivität von Phenmedipham als Nachauflaufherbizid in Beta-Rüben. Weed Res. 8:259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Davis, D.G. and Dusbabek, K.E. 1973. Effect of diallate on foliar uptake and translocation of herbicides in pea. Weed Sci. 21:16–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Dawson, J.H. 1973. Components of full-season weed control in sugarbeets. Washington Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 780. 11 pp.Google Scholar
4. Dawson, J.H. 1971. Weed control in sugarbeets with cycloate. U.S. Dep. Agr. Tech. Bull. No. 1436. 24 pp.Google Scholar
5. Gentner, W.A. 1966. The influence of EPTC on external foliage wax deposition. Weeds 14:27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Olson, P.D. and Appleby, A.P. 1970. Factors influencing the selectivity of herbicide combinations in sugarbeets. Proc. Second Intern. Meeting on Selective Weed Contr. in Beetcrops 1:201–208.Google Scholar
7. Schweizer, E.E. 1974. Weed control in sugarbeets with cycloate, phenmedipham and EP-475. Weed Res. 14:39–43.CrossRefGoogle 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. Steele, R.G.D. and Torrie, J.H. 1960. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. New York, N.Y. 481 pp. 10. Still, G.G., Davis, D.G., and Zander, G.L. 1970. Plant epicuticular lipids: alteration by herbicidal carbamates. Plant Physiol. 46:307–314.Google Scholar