Evaluation of Post-emergence Herbicides in Sugar Beet

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Abstract

The efficacy of Iran produced chloridazon 50% SC (CSC) was compared with its original formulation, 80% WP (CWP), the formulation which has been registered to use in sugar beet fields in Iran. The present study was conducted in three different provinces of Iran, including Tehran, Khorasan and Khuzestan during 2001. The treatments consisted of the application of CWP at 3.2 and 4 kg ai ha-1 , CSC at 2.5 and 3 kg ai ha-1 , tank mixed application of CWP or CSC at above mentioned rates with desmedipham (DMP) at 0.8 kg ai ha-1, phenmedipham 6% + desmedipham 6% + ethofumisate6% (PDE) at 0.7 kg ai ha-1. All herbicides were applied as post-emergence when sugar beet was at 4-leaf stage. Weedy and weed free checks were also included. In Tehran experiment, application of CWP at 3.2kg ai ha-1 plus DMP or PDE resulted in the best control of Amaranthus retroflexus. In Khorasan , CSC,CWP and CSC + DMP controlled this weed better than other treatments. In the recent experiment, CSC and CWP, alone or mixed with DMP, controlled A. albus significantly. The effect of CSC at 2.5kg ai ha-1+ DMP, CWP at 4 kg ai ha-1+ DMP, and PDE at 0.7 kg ai ha-1 on Chenopodium album was better P. Shimi et al. 98 than that of other treatments. The treatments had no significant effect on Malva sylvestris, compared with weedy check. The best control of Carthamus oxyacantha and Fumaria officinalis was achieved by application of CWP at 3.2 kg ai ha-1, and CSC at 3 kg ai ha-1+ DES. Beta maritima was more efficiently controlled using CSC at 3 kg ai ha-1and CSC at 3 kg ai ha-1+ DES. The results indicated that for the control of broad leaf weeds in sugar beet fields, the new formulation of chloridazon, (SC), was similar to the original formulation (WP)

Keywords

References

Anonymous.1998. Ontario guide to weed control. Publication 75. Ministry of Agriculture,
Food and Rural Affairs - Canada.
Anonymous. 2003. Amar nameh keshavarzi. Ministry of Agriculture, Iran.
Bee, P.M.; Hopkinson ST., and Jarvis P.J.1995. Investigation into using crop growthstage
to achieve two stage broad- leaved weed control in sugar beet. Brighton Crop Protction
Conf. Vol. 3,865-870.
Ceglarek, F, and Plaza, A. 1994. Weed control efficacy before and during sugar
beetgrowth. Roczinki Nauk Rolniczych. Seria A, produke Ja Roslinna. 110: 3-4.
Dexter, A.G. 1996. Weed Control Guide for Sugar beet. Research and ExtensionReports,
Vol.27, pp. 3-30.
Ghanbari-Birgani,D; Orazi-Zadeh, M.R. and Ghashghaii, M.1998. Testing herbicides to
control broad leaf weeds in sugar beet. Final research report. Saffiabad Agricultural
Research Station, Khuzestan, Iran.
Ghanbari-Birgani, D.; Sharifi, H. and Mazaheri, M. 2000. Investigating Betanal Progress
AM for the control of broad leaf weeds in sugar beet. Final research report. Saffiabad
Agricultural Research Station, Khuzestan, Iran.
May, M. 1997. Weed control chemicals for 1997. British Sugar beet review. 65: 8-12.
Meister, R.T. 2000. Farm chemicals handbook. Meister Publ. Co.
Norris, R.F. 1996. Sugar beet integrated weed management. In: UC IPM post management
guidelines: Sugar beet, UC ANR, Publication 3469 .
Nowroozian, M. 1999. List of registered pesticides. Plant Protection Organization,Tehran,
Iran.
Proctor, G. 1993. IIRB weed control study group – Italy. British Sugar beet Review. 61: 12
-14.
Rola, J.; Al-rahban, B. and Marczewski, K.1994. Comparison of sugar beet chemical
weeding systems. Materialy sesj; Instytutu ochrony Roslin. 3411: 96-103.
Shaufele, W.R. and Winner, C. 1986. Influence of graded continuous weed infestation
sugar beet and quality. 49th winter congress, Int. Inst. for Sugar beet Res. 277-285,
Brussels, Belgium.
Tomlin, C.D.S. (ed.). 2004. The pesticides manual. B.C.P.C.
Iranian Journal of Weed Science
Volume 2, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
September 2006
Pages 97-105

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics