Determination of Optimum Application Time and Dose of Chloridazon (Pyramin, WP 65%) in Sugar Beet

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• H. Najafi ¹
• A.A. Haghighi ²
• M. Shahi Kotiani ³

¹ Associate Professor of Institute of Plant Protection, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran

² Assistant Professor of Agriculture and Natural Resources Research Center of Golestan

³ Researcher of Agriculture and Natural Resources Research Center of Khozestan

10.22067/jpp.2020.37836

Abstract

Introduction: Sugar beet competes with weeds for light, nutrients and water resources and is so sensitive especially at the early stages of growth. Weeds are the most important factors limiting sugar beet production in Iran. Although, about 20 herbicides were registered to control weeds, but their effectiveness would be high only if farmers use them properly. Due to sensitivity of weeds to herbicides at certain times, determination of the best herbicide application time is very important. Cloridazon is one of the selective herbicides registered for broadleaf weeds control of sugar beet. Both pre and post-emergence applications of this herbicide were recommended but the effectiveness of treatment should be evaluated. 
Material and Methods: In order to determine the best application time of Cloridazon (Pyramin, WP 65%) to control broad leaf weeds in sugar beet field, an experiment was conducted in two locations i.e. Golestan province (Gonbad station) and Khozestan province (Safiabad, Dezful station), Iran, during 2018. Experiments were arranged as randomized complete block design with 4 replications. Treatments were: application of Cloridazon at 3, 4 & 5 kg/ha, and two different application times (i.e. pre-emerge and post-emerge at 4 leaf stages), application of Phenmedipham+Desmedipham+ Ethofumesate (Betanal Progress O.F. at 3 lit/ha at 2-4 leaf stages), and weed free as the check. Each experimental plots were divided into two parts including: uncontrolled part (as weedy control) and treatment part. Efficacy of the treatments on weed population and control was evaluated based on the percent of reduction in weeds density and dry weight and EWEC scoring system at 30 days after herbicides application. Root yield of sugar beet was also measured at the end of the growing season. The weed spectrum was not similar in both locations. Polygonum aviculare and Sonchus arvensis were dominant in Gonbad and Malva sylvestris and Sinapis arvensis were dominant in Dezful. Experimental data were analyzed by SAS (version 9.1) program and means were compared with the Duncan's multiple range test.
Results: The results indicated that the effects of treatments on weeds were significant. Application of Cloridazon at 3 kg/ha controlled sinapis arvensis by 95 to 100% and Sonchus arvensis by 86 to 93%. In both locations, the difference between this treatment and Phenmedipham+ desmedipham+ ethofumesate (Betanal Progress OF) was not significant. Chloridazon (as pre-emergence treatment) performed better in controlling broad leaf weeds compared with post treatment. The pre-emergence application of Chloridazon (at 3 , kg/ha) was the best treatment (with more than 85% weed population control) in both studied areas. In addition, this treatment had no significant difference with Phenmedipham+ desmedipham+ ethofumesate (Betanal Progress OF). The results show the low efficacy of Pyramin on weeds when it was applied late (after 2 leaf stages). However, due to different germination time of weeds, single application of Pyramin is not enough to achieve the desired results. Application of post-treatments (like Betanal Progress OF) is necessary as complementary treatments. However, using 3 kg/ha of Pyramin, cannot control Malva sylvestris if this weed is dominant in the field, and the Pyramin dose should be increased to 4 kg/ha. Anyway, application of Chloridazon at more than 4 kg/ha is not recommended as it would have negative effects on sugar beet seed germination. It should be noted that both cultivars (Roza Gold and Silvetta) used in Gonbad and Dezful were monogrm and more sensitive to herbicides with respect to polygerms. The probability of seed damage on monogrm cultivars will be higher by pre emerge herbicide application. Based on our results, application of Chloridazon (at 3 kg/ha as pre-emerge treatment) was the best treatment for sugar beet root yield and showed no significant difference with the application of Phenmedipham+desmedipham+ ethofumesate (Betanal Progress OF).

Keywords

• Broad leaf weed
• Chemical control
• Malva
• Polygonum
• Sinapis

20.1001.1.20084749.1399.34.4.9.3

---

References

1.  

   1. Anonymus. 2018. Industry analytical report: Sugar. Accessed online:  http://tamadonib.com/analytical-report-january-12. (In Persian)
   2. Chitband A.A., Ghorbani R., Nabizade M., and Zaidali A. 2017. Efficacy of mixing common herbicides in control of broadleaf weeds in Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris). Sugar Beet Journal 33(1): 91-102. (In Persian with English abstract)
   3. Chitband A.A., Ghorbani R., Rashed Mohasel M.H., Abbaspoor M., and Abbasi R. 2014. Evaluation of Broadleaf Weeds Control with Selectivity of Post emergente Herbicides in Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Notulae Scientia Biologicae 6(4): 491-497.
   4. Cioni F., and Maines G. 2010. Weed control in Sugar beet. Sugar Technology. 12(3-4): 243-255. 
   5. Cook D.A., and Scott B.K. 1993. The sugar beet crop. First edition. Chapman & Hall p. 675.
   6. Deveikyte I., Sarunaite L., and Seibutis V. 2015. Evaluation of Pre- and Postemergence Herbicide Combinations for Broadleaved Weeds in Sugar Beet. Open Access books. Available on: http:// 10.5772/61437.
   7. Deveikyte I., and Seibutis V. 2006. Broadleaf weeds and sugar beet response to phenmedipham, desmedipham, ethofumesate and triflusulfuron methyl. Agronomy Research 4: 159-162.
   8. Draycott A.P., ed. 2008. Introduction. Pages 1–8 in World Agriculture Series: Sugar Beet. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
   9. Eshel Y., and Sompolinsky D. 1970. Selectivity of Pyrazon and Benzthiazuron in Sugar beet. Weed Research 10: 196-203.
   10. Ghanbari-Birgani D., Hosseinpour M., Shimi P., and Abdollahian M. 2006. Evaluation of Chloridazon and Desmedipham Mixture with and without Surfactant for Weed Control in Sugar Beet. Iranian Journal of Weed Science 2(2): 45-58. (In Persian with English abstract)
   11. Ghanbari-Birgani D., Hosseinpour M., Shimi P., and Abdollahian M. 2007. Integrated weed control in Brojerd and Dezful. Agrobreed journal of Iran 8(4): 283-299. (In Persian with English abstract)
   12. Gupta O.P. 2001. Modern Weed Management. Agrobios Publication. India.
   13. Korres N.E., Burgos N., and Duke S.O. 2019. Weed control, sustainability, hazards and risk in cropping systems worldwide. CRC Press. Pp. 675.
   14. Morishita D.W., and Downard R.W. 1995. Weed Control in Sugar Beets with Triflusulfuron as Influenced by Herbicide Combination, Timing and Rate. Journal of Sugar Beet Research 32(1): 23-35.
   15. Najafi H., Bazoobandi M., and Jafarzadeh N. 2010. Study of effectiveness of different combinations of selective herbicides for control of broadleaf weeds in Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) fields. Weed Research Journal 2(1): 43-53. (In Persian with English abstract)
   16. Nowbakht Alizadeh Sabzevari N.M., and Armin Jami Moeini M. 2017. The Effect of Hand Weeding Times on the Reduce of Herbicide Application in Sugar beet. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology 11, 43(3): 667-684. (In Persian with English abstract)
   17. Panjehkeh N., and Alamshahi L. 2011. Influence of Separate and Tank-mixed Application of Some Broadleaf Herbicides on Sugarbeet Weeds and Their Effects on Crop Productivity. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 5(7): 332-335.
   18. Partoee M., Zand E., Alizadeh H.M., and Atri A. 2007. Investigation of herbicide resistance in pigweed (Amaranthus sp.) to chloridazon, desmedipham and mixture of these herbicides in some sugar beet fields of Iran. Applied entomology and phytopatology 75(2): 73-88. (In Persian with English abstract)
   19. Pourmorad Kaliebar B., Alizadeh H., and Oveisi M. 2019. Effect of herbicide application time on dose efficacy for weed control in maize (Zea mays). Iranian Journal of Weed Science 15(2): 29-41.
   20. Pourrahim R., Najafi H., Farzadfar S., Ardeh M.J., Sheikholeslami M., Fatemy S., Gasemi A., and Arbabi M. 2016. Sugarbeet handbook plant protection. Iranian research institute of plant protection. Pp: 196. (In Persian)
   21. Sánchez-Martín M.J.N., and Sáanchez-Camazano M. 1991. Adsorption of Chloridazon by soil and their components. Weed Science 39(3): 417-422.
   22. Sandral G.A., Dear B.S., Pratley J.E., and Cullis B.R. 1997. Herbicide dose rate response curve in subterranean clover determined by a bioassay. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 37: 67-74.
   23. Schweizer E.E, and Bridge L.D. 1982. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Science 30: 514–19
   24. Schweizer E.E., and Lauridson T.C.1985. Powell Amaranth (Amaranthus powellii) interference in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Science 33: 518–520.
   25. Sheikhi A., Najafi H., Abbasi S., Saber F., Farshid M., and Moradi M. 2017. Chemical and organic pesticide of Iran. Paytakht. Pp: 695.
   26. Shimi P., Ghanbari-Birgani D., Faravani M., and Abdollahian Noqabi M. 2006. Evaluation of Post-emergence Herbicides in Sugar Beet 2(1): 97-105. (In Persian with English abstract)
   27. Soltani, N., Anita Dille J., Robinson D.E., Sprague C.L., Morishita D.W., Lawrence N.C., Kniss A.R., Jha P., Felix J., Nurse R.E., and Sikkema P.H. 2018. Potential yield loss in sugar beet due to weed interference in the United States and Canada. Weed Technology 32: 749-753.
   28. Wicks G.A., and Wilson R.G. 1983. Control of weeds in sugar beets (Beta vulgaris) with hand hoeing and herbicides. Weed Science 31: 493–499.
   29. Zhang J., Zheng L., Jäck O., Yan D., Zhang Z., and Gerhards R. 2013. Efficacy of four post-emergence herbicides applied at reduced doses on weeds in summer corn (Zea mays L.) fields in North China Plain. Crop Protection 52: 26-32.