Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:06:41.994Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

POST Herbicide Combinations for Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) Control in Sugarbeet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Miroslav Jursík ,
Josef Soukup ,
Veronika Venclová  and
Josef Holec
Miroslav Jursík*
Affiliation:
Department of Agroecology and Biometeorology, Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 21, Prague, Czech Republic
Josef Soukup
Affiliation:
Department of Agroecology and Biometeorology, Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 21, Prague, Czech Republic
Veronika Venclová
Affiliation:
Department of Agroecology and Biometeorology, Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 21, Prague, Czech Republic
Josef Holec
Affiliation:
Department of Agroecology and Biometeorology, Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 21, Prague, Czech Republic
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Velvetleaf is one of the most significant and fastest spreading alien weeds in Europe, and it is a difficult weed to control in conventional sugarbeet. Laboratory experiments were carried out in 2007 and 2008 and field experiments were carried out in 2006, 2007, and 2008 with the aim of finding effective herbicide combinations and optimum timing of control. Herbicides containing the active ingredients phenmedipham, desmedipham, ethofumesate, clopyralid, and triflusulfuron were all tested at different timings. Phenmedipham + desmedipham + ethofumesate gave 87% velvetleaf control in pot experiments when applied at the growth stages of velvetleaf cotyledons and one true leaf, but only 27 to 42% control in field trials. Triflusulfuron gave 76% control in pot experiments and 83 to 88% control in field experiments. The timing of the first and second herbicide applications was very important: the first application of herbicides must be at the cotyledon stage of velvetleaf. A 1-wk delay in first application reduced herbicide efficacy by 8%. A 5-d period between the first and second treatments gave 93% control, while a 10-d period between the first and second treatments gave only 77% control. Sugarbeet yield decreased by 60 to 86% due to competition with velvetleaf when a standard herbicide combination (phenmedipham + desmedipham + ethofumesate) was used, and the velvetleaf produced between 6,700 and 14,800 seeds m−2. Inclusion of triflusulfuron in the herbicide treatment significantly reduced velvetleaf seed production to between 200 and 4,700 seeds m−2. In most cases, inclusion of triflusulfuron increased sugarbeet yield. Better velvetleaf control occurred in years when the sugarbeet canopy developed early and the index of leaf area of sugarbeet was higher.

Abutilon theophrasti es una maleza introducida de la mayor importancia y de rápida propagación en Europa, y es una especie difícil de controlar en el cultivo de remolacha (Beta vulgaris). Se llevaron al cabo experimentos de laboratorio en 2007 y 2008 y de campo en 2006, 2007 y 2008 con el fin de encontrar combinaciones efectivas de herbicidas y tiempo óptimo de aplicación. Herbicidas con los ingredientes activos: phenmedipham, desmedipham, ethofumesato, clopyralid, y triflusulfurón fueron evaluados en diferentes tiempos de aplicación. La combinación de phenmedipham + desmedipham + ethofumesato controló A. theophrasti en 87% en los experimentos con maceta, aplicada en las etapas de crecimiento de cotiledones y de una hoja verdadera, pero solamente controló de 27 a 42% en los experimentos de campo. El Triflusulfurón proporcionó 76% de control en los experimentos de maceta y de 83 a 88% en los de campo. El tiempo de la primera y segunda aplicación del herbicida fue muy importante: la primera aplicación en A. theophrasti debe ser en su etapa de cotiledón. Una semana de retraso en la primera aplicación redujo la eficacia del herbicida en 8%. Un período de 5 días entre el primero y el segundo tratamiento proporcionó un control de 93%, mientras que un período de 10 días entre ambos tratamientos solamente controló 77%. El rendimiento de la remolacha disminuyó de 60 a 86% debido a la competencia con A. theophrasti cuando se usó una combinación de herbicida estándar (phenmedipham + desmedipham + ethofumesato), y A. theophrasti produjo entre 6,700 y 14,800 semillas/m2. La inclusión de triflusulfurón en el tratamiento redujo significativamente la producción de semillas de A. theophrasti a cantidades entre 200 y 4,700/m2. En la mayoría de los casos, el uso de triflusulfurón produjo también un aumento en el rendimiento de remolacha. Un mejor control de A. theophrasti ocurrió en los años en los cuales el follaje de remolacha se desarrolló más temprano y el índice de área foliar de este cultivo fue mayor.

Keywords

Clopyraliddesmediphamethofumesatephenmediphamtriflusulfuronvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Mediksugarbeet, Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris var. altissima L.Application timingherbicide efficacycompetitionseed productionyield loss
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 14 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Abdollahi, F. and Gharidi, H. 2004. Effect of separate and combined applications of herbicides on weed control and yield of sugar beet. Weed Technol. 18:968–976.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Askew, S. D., Dorai-Raj, S., and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference and seed production dynamics in cotton. Weed Sci. 51:94–101.Google Scholar
Bordner, E., Gerhards, R., Hamouz, P., and Soukup, J. 2004. Research on Abutilon theophrasti (velvetleaf): competition and control in sugar beet. J. Plant Dis. Prot 19:237–244.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Norquay, H. M. 1997. Seed production and seed bank dynamics in sub threshold velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seeds. Weed Sci. 44:85–90.Google Scholar
Fuchs, M. A., Geiger, D. R., Reynolds, T. L., and Bourque, J. E. 2002. Mechanisms of glyphosate toxicity in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medikus). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 74:27–39.Google Scholar
Jager, E. J. 1991. Biologie und Wuchsform von Abutilon theophrasti Medic. Wiss. Zeitschr. Martin-Luther-Universitat Halle 40:37–48.Google Scholar
Jehlík, V., Hejný, S., Kropáč, Z., Lhotská, M., Kopecký, K., Slavík, B., and Svobodová, Z. 1998. Cizí expanzivní plevele České republiky a Slovenské republiky. Prague Academia Praha.Google Scholar
Jursík, M., Holec, J., Hamouz, P., and Tůmová, P. 2004a. Biologie a regulace významných plevelů cukrové řepy – Mračňák Theophrastův (Abutilon theophrasti Med.). Listy cukrovarnické a řepařské 120:255–259.Google Scholar
Jursík, M., Holec, J., Soukup, J., and Venclová, V. 2007. Herbicide control of Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) in sugar beet. 14th EWRS Symposium. Hamar 54.Google Scholar
Jursík, M., Soukup, J., and Holec, J. 2004b. Herbicide control of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) in sugarbeet. Herbologija 5:13–21.Google Scholar
Kovacs, I., Beres, I., Kazinczi, G., and Torma, M. 2006. Competition between maize and Abutilon theophrasti (Medik.) in additive experiments. J. Plant Dis. Prot 20:767–771.Google Scholar
Meinlschmidt, E., Dittrich, R., and Viehweger, G. 2004. Experiences with control of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). J. Plant Dis. Prot 19:707–715.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1991. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) control in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 5:97–102.Google Scholar
Starke, R. J. and Renner, K. A. 1996. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) response to triflusulfuron and desmedipham plus phenmedipham. Weed Technol. 10:121–126.Google Scholar
Starke, R. J., Renner, K. A., Penner, D., and Roggenbuck, F. C. 1996. Influence of adjuvants and desmedipham plus phenmedipham on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and sugarbeet response to triflusulfuron. Weed Sci. 44:489–495.Google Scholar
Werner, E. L., Curran, W. S., Harper, J. K., Roth, G. W., and Knievel, D. P. 2004. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference and seed production in corn silage and grain. Weed Technol. 18:779–783.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1994. New herbicides for postemergence application in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 8:807–811.Google Scholar