Optimizing the Efficacy of Some Post Emergence Herbicides of Sugar Beet using Adjuvants and Split Application of Herbicide

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• A. Dorpoor
• M. Rastgoo
• E. Izadi Darbandi
• K Hajmohammadnia Ghalibaf

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

10.22067/jpp.v31i1.50034

Abstract

Introduction: Increasing the environmental concerns emerged from the extensive use of herbicides have caused to work and introduce new approaches for their application by weed scientists. Nonetheless, weeds limit crop production especially when herbicides are removed from the weed management strategies. Optimizing herbicide doses, by increasing farmer’s knowledge about various options of herbicide application, is one of the most important strategies for reducing herbicide application. Tank-mixed herbicides, adjuvants, and split application of herbicide are more interesting, users friendly, and effective to implement this approach. Post-emergence herbicides require adjuvants to be tank-mixed or built into the formulation to enhance their performance. Utilizing these methods is very essential for crops which are very weak competiveness against weed, because of herbicides application is a common method in them. Sugar beet is an important crop grown in the most cultivation areas of Iran under cultivation about 82.5 thousand hectares over average yield 42 ton ha-1. This study was done to increase the performance of some post-emergence herbicides for controlling weeds in sugar beet using adjuvants, tank-mixed herbicide, as well as herbicide split-applied herbicide treatments.
Materials and methods: A factorial experiment based on randomized complete block design with three replications was conducted at the research field of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (985 m altitude, longitude 59˚ 28´ and latitude 36˚ 15´) in 2013. The factors included the method of herbicide application (full and split application), herbicides (chloridazon (5 Kg ha-1) plus desmedipham (6 L ha-1), desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus ethofumesate (3 L ha-1) and chloridazon (5 Kg ha-1) plus desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus ethofumesate (3 L ha-1)), and adjuvants (Non-adjuvant, Adigor (%1.5 v/v), Citogate (%0.2 v/v) and Ammonium sulfate (%0.5 v/v)). Furthermore, two control treatments were considered as weed free and weed infested for each replication. Herbicides were applied with a backpack sprayer equipped with 8002 flat fan nozzles that calibrated to deliver a spray volume of 400 L ha-1 at 275 kPa. Commercial sugar beet seeds, ‘005’ Monogerm provided from Improvement Research Institute of sugar beet, Karaj were planted on April 25 by hand to the depth 2 to 3 cm of the soil. Each plot consisted of four rows of sugar beet spaced 50 cm apart and 5 m long and density of sugar beet was 12 plants per m2. Seedbed preparation operations consisted of moldboard plowing, double disking and application of N at 69 kg.ha-1, P2O5 at 67.5 kg.ha-1 and K2O at 50 kg.ha-1 was done according to the soil test and the fertilizer recommendations. Irrigation was performed once a week. In order to determination of total weed biomass and density, weeds existing in the area 1×1 m2 were collected, counted and weighted. Also sugar beet root yield and biomass was recorded for same area. Data were subjected to ANOVA using the PROC GLM procedure in SAS Version 9.4 and means were compared using Fisher’s protected LSD test at the 0.05 level of significance. Drawing of figures were done by SigmaPlot Version 12.5. The relationship between sugar beet root yield and weed density and biomass were described with hyperbolic decay 2 parameters model.
Results and discussion: In the experimental plots, we observed ten species of broadleaf weeds among which redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), common lambsquarter (Chenopodium album L.), black nightshade (Solanum nigrum L.), purslane (Portulaca oleraceae L.), and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) have higher relative frequency and density than others. The results showed that the highest sugar beet root yield, as value 110.29 ton ha-1, occurred in split application of chloridazon plus desmedipham with Adigor. Furthermore, the highest sugar yield obtained from the plots with split application of chloridazon plus (desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus ethofumesate) with Adigor at 16.10 ton ha-1. In split application of desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus ethofumesate without adjuvant, the lowest sugar beet root yield and sugar yield were recorded 50.07 and 7.57 ton ha-1, respectively. Full application of chloridazon plus (desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus ethofumesate) with Adigor with %17 sugar content, and split application of desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus ethofumesate Adigor with %11.74 sugar content had the highest and lowest, respectively. Split application of chloridazon plus desmedipham with Citogate and full application of chloridazon plus (desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus ethofumesate) with Citogate indicated completely weed control, and full and split application of desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus ethofumesate with ammonium sulfate had the lowest performance of weed control. The results of the regression analysis showed that the highest yield of sugar beet occurred when total weed density or biomass are zero (104.62 and 101.41 tonha-1 were estimated, respectively). Also, when weeds density and biomass increased to 24 plants m-2 or 479.13 g dry matter m-2, the root yield of sugar beet will be decreased by 50%.
Conclusion: The results of this study showed that split application of chloridazon plus desmedipham with Adigor or Citogate, created the highest sugar beet root yield and appropriate weed control among all treatments. In contrast, split application of desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus ethofumesate without any adjuvant had the lowest performance of weeds control. It was concluded that the most important factor among the experiment factors was the type of herbicide or herbicide combination.

Keywords

• Adigor
• Ammonium sulfate
• Chloridazon
• Citogate
• Desmedipham

20.1001.1.20084749.1396.31.1.7.4

---

References

1. Altieri, M., and Liebman, M. 2001. Weed Management in Agro ecosystems Ecological Approaches. Translated by: Koocheki, A., H. Zarif Ketabi., and A. Nakh Foroosh. Jahade Daneshgahi Mashhad Press. 457 pp.

2. Abdollahi, F. and H. Ghadiri. 2004. Effect of separate and combined applications of herbicides on weed control and yield of sugar beet. Weed Technology, 18(4): 968-976.

3. Abdollahian-Noghabi, M., Rahbari, A., Alizadeh, H. and Rahimian, H. 2010. Integrated weed control of sugar beet in the method of complete seedbed preparation in autumn. Iranian Journal of Weed Science, 2(2): 29-42. (in Persian).

4. Baghestani, M. A., Zand, E., Soufizadeh, S., Beheshtian, M., Haghighi, A., Barjasteh, A., and Deihimfard, R. 2008. Study on the efficacy of weed control in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) with tank mixtures of grass herbicides with broadleaved herbicides. Crop protection, 27(1): 104-111.

5. Daneshian, J., Z, Najari., and F, Lotfi Mavi. 2012. Investigating of Integrated Weed Management on Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Yield in Miandoab. Iranian Journal of Weed Science, 8: 41-53. (in Persian with English Summary).

6. Deveikyte, I. B., and V. Seibutis. 2006. Broadleaf weed and sugar beet response to phenmedipham, desmedipham, ethofumesate and triflusulfuron-methyl. Agronomy Research, 4 (special issue):159-162.

7. Dodds, D.M., Reynolds,D.B., Massey,J.H., and Koger,C.H. 2007. Effect of adjuvant and urea ammonium nitrate on bispyribac-sodium efficacy, absorption, and translocation in barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli). Weed Science, 55: 406-411.

8. Fadaei-Shahri, M. R., Najafi, H., Abdollahian Noghabi, M. and Mirhadi, M. J. 2011. Effects of Winter Cereal Cover Crop Mulches on Weeds of Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Iranian Journal of Weed Science, 7: 59-66. (in Persian with English Summary).

9. Fattahi Vanani, M., Montazeri, M., Mirhadi, M. J. and Khodadadi, H. 2010. Comparison of the Efficacy of Sugar Beet Selective Herbicides in Conventional and Minimum Tillage Systems. Iranian Journal of Weed Science, 2(2): 83-93. (in Persian).

10. Foster D.K., Taylor W.A.,and Parsons R.G. 2006. Effects of adjuvants on the deposition retention and efficacy of pesticides. Annals of Applied Biology, 77(1): 127-132.

11. Ghanbari-Birgani, D., Hosseinpour, M., Shimi, P. and Abdollahian-noghabi, M. 2006a. Integrated weed control of sugar beet in Dezful and Boroujerd. Iranian Journal of Crop Science, 8: 283-299. (in Persian with English Summary).

12. Ghanbari-Birgani, D., Hosseinpour, M., Shimi, P. and Abdollahian, M. 2006b. Evaluation of Chloridazon and Desmedipham Mixture with and without Surfactant for Weed Control in Sugar Beet. Iranian Journal of Weed Science, 2(2): 43.

13. Ghorbani, A. A., Zand, E., Baghestani meibodi, M. A., Forozesh, S., Abdollahian-Noghabi, M. and Kazemi Poresfahlan, M.T. 2007. Study on Different Concentrations of Adjuvant and Chloridazon + Phenmedipham on Yield and Yield Components of Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Environmental Sciences, 5: 37-51. (in Persian with English Summary).

14. Jahad-Akbar, M., Tabatabai, R. and Ebrahimian, H. 2004. Critical period of weed competition weed sugar beet in Kabotarabad-Esfahan. Journal of Sugar Beet, 20: 73-92. (in Persian with English Summary).

15. Jahedi, A., A. Noroozi and M. Saati. 2005. Reduce herbicide use by combined application of cultivator and band spraying in sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet, 21 (1): 77-86. (in Persian)

16. Khajeh Poor, M. R., 2006. Industrial Crop. Jahad Daneshgahi Prees. 564 pp.

17. Khalghani, J. and M. Abdolahian Noghabi. 2006. Investigation the effect of time seedbed preparation in sugar beet on weeds population. Iranian Research Institute of plant protection. (in Persian).

18. Koocheki, A., Nassiri, M., Siahmarguee, A., Gherekhloo, J., Rastgoo, M. and Ghaemi, A. 2008. Effect of different integrated weed management methods on weed density and yield of sugar beet crop. Iranian Journal of Crop Research, 6 (2): 383- 394. (in Persian with English Summary).

19. Kucharski, M., Sadowski, J., and Kieloch, R. 2012 Adjuvants in pre emergence application–influence on diflufenican efficacy and quality of winter wheat grain. Progress in Plant Protection/postępy w ochronie roslin, 52 (1): 51-54.

20. Kudsk, P., and Mathiassen, S. K. 2007. Analysis of adjuvant effects and their interactions with variable application parameters. Crop Protection, 26: 328-334.

21. Ma, X., Wu, H., Jiang, W., Ma, Y., and Ma, Y. 2015. Interference between Redroot Pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.): Growth Analysis. Plos one, 10(6), e0130475.

22. Maleki, Gh., Zand, E. and Mirhadi, S.M.J. 2008. Using integrated inter- row cultivation and herbicide band application in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) weed management for reducing herbicide use. Iranian Journal of Crop Research, 6: 443-452. (In Persian with English Summary).

23. Moosavi, K., E. Zand and H. Saremi. 2005. Physiological effectiveness and application of herbicides. Zanjan University Press. pp. 286. (in Persian).

24. 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. Iranian Journal of Weed Science, 2(1): 43-53. (in Persian with English Summary).

25. Nassiri Mahallati, M., Koocheki, A., Mondani, F., Amirmoradi, S., and Feizi, H. 2015. Evaluation of Maize (Zea mays L.) and Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Growth Indices in Strip Intercropping. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research, 13(1): 14 23. (in Persian with English Summary).

26. Nouroozian, M. 1999. List of permitted pesticides of the country. Plant protection organization of the agricultural ministry. Iran.

27. Pearson, B.A., Scott,R.C., CareyIII,V.F. 2008. Urea ammonium nitrate affects on bispyribac and penoxsulam efficacy. Weed Technology, 22, 597-601.

28. Pedreros, A. and Tay, J. 2003. Split Application of Broadleaf Herbicides in Dry Bean. Bean Improvement Cooperative.

29. Radosevich, S., Holt, J. and Ghersa, C. 2010. Weed Ecology (Implications for Management). Translated by: Zand. E., H. Rahimian mashhadi., A. Koucheki., J. Khalghani., K. Moosavi., and K. Ramazani. Jahade Daneshgahi Mashhad Press. 558 pp.

30. Rahbari, A., M. Abdollahian-Noghabi, H. Alizadeh, J. Khalaghani and H. Rahimian. 2007. Effect of integrated weed control on the yield and quality of sugar beet in the method of complete seedbed preparation in autumn. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 38 (1): 15- 23.

31. Shaban, S. A., El-Henawi, H., Yehia, Z. and El-Hassan, R. 2009. Improving the efficiency of some herbicides in weed control in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) by some adjuvants. Egyptian Journal of Agronomy, 31(2): 149-160.

32. Stephenson GR, Ferris IG, Holland PT, Nordberg M. 2006. Glossary of terms relating to pesticides (IUPAC Recommendations 2006). Pure and Applied Chemistry, 78:2075–2154.

33. The first volume of agricultural statistics cereals crop year 2013. Tehran, Ministry of Agriculture, Planning and Economic Affairs, the Centre for Information and Communication Technology.

34. Trajdos, J., Kucharski, M., and Sadowski, J. 2014. Influence of metamitron dose and surfactant on weed control and yield of sugar beet.Progress in Plant Protection, 54 (1). 51-55.

35. Wilson, G. R., G. A. Smith, and C. D. Yonts. 2005. Repeated reduced rates broadleaf herbicides in combination with methylated seed oil for post emergence weed control in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.).Weed Technology, 19:855-860.

36. Zand, E., K. Moosavi and A. Heidari. 2015. Herbicides and their application methods. Mashhad Jahad Press. pp.567. (in Persian).

37. Zargar, M., Najafi, H,.Zand, E. and Meighani, F. 2012. Evaluate the effects of chemical and non-chemical methods of weed management in order to reduce the consumption of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Journal of Plant Protection, 25(4): 368-377. (in Persian).