Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:51:08.448Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control in Sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) by Mixtures of Cycloate and Ethofumesate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

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

Abstract

Response of weeds and sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L. ‘Mono Hy D2′) to preplanting treatments of mixtures of cycloate (S-ethyl N-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate) and ethofumesate [(±)-2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate] was evaluated in five field studies. A mixture containing 1.7 kg/ha of each herbicide reduced the stand of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) 90%, green foxtail [Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.] and yellow foxtail [Setaria lutescens (Weigel) Hubb.] 97 to 99%, kochia [Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad.] 64 to 77%, and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) 82 to 99%. The response of weeds to preplanting applications of mixtures of cycloate and ethofumesate was independent of soil texture, whereas response of sugarbeets was dependent on soil texture. The herbicide mixtures significantly reduced the pre-thinning stand of sugarbeets and root and sucrose yields on two sandy loams, but not on a clay loam.

Keywords

Preplanting sprayherbicide mixturessynergism
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 27 , Issue 5 , September 1979 , pp. 516 - 519
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 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. Bray, W. E. and Hilton, J. G. 1970. Weed control in sugar beet using diallate followed by pyrazone or lenacil. Proc. Brit. Weed Control Conf. 10:586–592.Google Scholar
2. Bray, W. E. 1975. The use of pre- and post-emergence herbicides for prolonged weed control in sugar beet grown with minimal hand labour in the United Kingdom. Third Int. Meet. on Selective Weed Control in Beet Crops, Paris. pp. 49–63.Google Scholar
3. Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 15:20–22.Google Scholar
4. Dawson, J. H. 1969. Evaluation of herbicides applied to the soil for weed control in irrigated sugarbeets. Washington Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 708:1–11.Google Scholar
5. Evans, J. O. and Rosier, G. 1972. Combinatons of preplant and post-emergence herbicide applications for sugar beets. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Prog. Rep. pp. 87–89.Google Scholar
6. Schweizer, E. E. and Weatherspoon, D. M. 1968. Herbicidal control of weeds in sugarbeets. J. Am. Soc. Sug. Beet Technol. 15:263–276.Google Scholar
7. Short, J. L. 1972. The use of sugar beet herbicides on sandy soils. Proc. Brit. Weed Control Conf. 11:499–504.Google Scholar
8. Sullivan, E. F., Abrams, R. L., and Wood, R. R. 1963. Weed control in sugar beets by combinations of thiolcarbamate herbicides. Weeds 11:258–260.Google Scholar
9. Sullivan, E. F., Fagala, L. K., and Ross, C. G. 1972. Herbicide evaluations on sugarbeet, 1972. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 29:130–132.Google Scholar