Velvetleaf control and sugarbeet response to POST triflusulfuron applied alone and in combination with desmedipham plus phenmedipham, nonionic surfactant, and urea ammonium nitrate (50:50) were evaluated in the greenhouse (velvetleaf only) and field. In a second field study, the effect of POST applications of triflusulfuron, desmedipham plus phenmedipham, ethofumesate, endothall, or combinations of these herbicides on sugarbeet root yield and quality was determined in the absence of weeds. Triflusulfuron controlled velvetleaf only when nonionic surfactant (NIS) was added to the spray solution. Desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus triflusulfuron gave greater velvetleaf control than triflusulfuron in the absence of NIS in the field. However, adding desmedipham plus phenmedipham to triflusulfuron plus NIS decreased velvetleaf control in the greenhouse. Adding desmedipham plus phenmedipham to triflusulfuron plus NIS increased visible sugarbeet response compared to triflusulfuron plus nonionic surfactant or desmedipham plus phenmedipham 14 d after the last POST application in 1994. In the absence of weeds, POST herbicide applications that included triflusulfuron did not reduce sugarbeet root yield more than other POST herbicides.

Differences in susceptibility of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) to preemergence application of ethofumesate [(±)-2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate], pyrazon [5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone], and TCA (trichloroacetic acid) were evaluated in several combination treatments. Exposure of plants to ethofumesate severely decreased epicuticular wax deposition on leaf surfaces. Separation of epicuticular wax into major components by gas-liquid chromatography indicated that ethofumesate decreased deposition of alkanes and sec-ketones, but increased the percentage of long-chain waxy esters. TCA also decreased deposition of alkane and ketone components, but not of waxy esters. Waxes were unaffected by pyrazon. Greater foliar absorption of 14C-ethofumesate, 14C-desmedipham [ethyl m-hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate (ester)], and 14C-ethofumesate + 14C-desmedipham was observed in plants that received preemergence treatments of ethofumesate plus TCA compared to pyrazon or a control.

The effect of soil composition on adsorption of chloridazon by 18 samples of natural soils, with different chemical and textural characteristics, obtained from west-central Spain, was investigated. The effect of removal of organic matter on adsorption and adsorption of the herbicide by the active components of the soils (montmorillonite and humic acid) was also studied. A highly significant correlation was found between the distribution coefficient (Kd) and organic matter content when all the soils or the soils with organic matter content >2% were considered. According to the determination coefficients (r2), organic matter content accounted for 72% of the variance in adsorption in the former case and 92% in the latter. In soils with an organic matter content <2%, there was no correlation between Kd and organic matter content. A significant correlation was observed between Kd and smectite content for soils containing smectite in their clay fraction. Both simple and multiple correlations showed that clay content, excluding the smectite fraction, had a relatively small effect on adsorption of the herbicide. Adsorption of chloridazon by oxidized soils, montmorillonite, and humic acid confirms the effect of organic matter and smectite on adsorption in natural soils.

Velvetleaf control in sugarbeet by clomazone and commercially available sugarbeet herbicides was investigated in greenhouse and field studies. In greenhouse studies, clomazone at 0.07 and 0.04 kg ai ha-1 controlled 97 and 69% of velvetleaf, respectively, with little visible sugarbeet injury. Adding clomazone to pyrazon, TCA, ethofumesate, pyrazon plus TCA, or TCA plus ethofumesate increased velvetleaf control but increased visible sugarbeet injury. In field studies, clomazone at 0.07 kg ha-1 did not enhance sugarbeet injury. However, velvetleaf was not controlled by clomazone alone or clomazone plus pyrazon, ethofumesate, combinations of pyrazon plus TCA, pyrazon plus ethofumesate, or pyrazon plus TCA plus ethofumesate. Cycloate preplant incorporated plus pyrazon preemergence followed by postemergence herbicides controlled velvetleaf in all 3 yr of research. Postemergence herbicides increased velvetleaf control from soil-applied herbicides in 1987 and 1988.

The applicability of fluorescence measurements for the detection of herbicide effects in whole leaves was analyzed. Based on the results known for isolated chloroplasts, normalized variable fluorescence of the initial rise was shown to be an appropriate tool for monitoring effects of photosystem II (PS II) herbicides. Equipment is described for monitoring the degree of inhibition by fluorescence induction measurements and microcomputer data analysis. The method is used to study the effect of pyrazon [5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenyl-3(2H)-pyridazinone], BAY DRW 1139 [4-amino-3-methyl-6-phenyl-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one], and phenmedipham {3-[(methoxycarbonyl)amino] phenyl (3-methyl-phenyl)carbamate} after foliar application to different species. A rapid decrease of normalized variable fluorescence indicates penetration into leaf cells of all species tested. During a 5- to 7-day experiment, the apparent variable fluorescence decreased continuously in herbicide-susceptible plants, while it recovered in resistant plants due to an internal detoxification mechanism. The described method provides a rapid, simple, and nondestructive tool for analyzing the kinetics of penetration and detoxification of PS II herbicides in whole leaves.

Field trials were conducted to determine if tillage and soil-applied herbicides had an effect on weed control and sugarbeet growth with a micro-rate herbicide program. Sugarbeet emergence was earlier in the moldboard plowed system compared with the chisel plowed system at three of four sites. Conditions were dry and sugarbeets emerged 5 d later in the moldboard plowed system compared with the chisel plowed system at the fourth site. Even though the rate of sugarbeet emergence differed between tillage systems at all four sites, final sugarbeet populations did not differ at two of the four sites. Sugarbeet injury from PRE treatments of S-metolachlor, ethofumesate, and ethofumesate plus pyrazon, followed by four POST micro-rate applications, ranged from 11 to 27% and 1 to 18% in the chisel and moldboard plowed systems, respectively, 6 wk after planting (WAP). Under wet conditions, sugarbeet stand was reduced and injury was greatest from PRE applications of S-metolachlor. Common lambsquarters, pigweed (redroot pigweed and Powell amaranth), and giant foxtail control in mid-August was consistently higher when a PRE herbicide was applied prior to micro-rate herbicide treatments. Even though there were differences between PRE and no-PRE treatments with respect to sugarbeet injury and weed control, recoverable white sucrose yield did not differ between herbicide treatments. However, recoverable white sucrose yield was greater in the moldboard plowed treatments compared with the chisel plowed treatments at three out of the four sites.

Field studies were conducted to investigate the effects of different rates of herbicides on weed control, agronomic characteristics, and quality of sugar beet at Shiraz, Iran, in 2000 and 2001. Separate and combined applications of herbicides, including 14 combinations and different rates of grass and broadleaf herbicides, at two rates were used. Herbicides reduced weed biomass compared with the weedy check. In both years, maximum reduction in weed biomass was observed with desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus ethofumesate at 0.23 + 0.23 + 0.23 kg ai/ha and desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus propaquizafop at 0.46 + 0.46 + 0.1 kg ai/ha. Efficacy of grass herbicides was reduced when they were combined with pyrazon. Highest crop injury in both years was observed with desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus ethofumesate at 0.23 + 0.23 + 0.23 kg/ ha. Highest and lowest root yields in both years were produced in weed-free and weedy check plots, respectively. All herbicide treatments produced lower sugar beet yields than the hand-weeded check. Of the herbicide treatments evaluated, the highest sugar beet yields were with desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus propaquizafop at 0.46 + 0.46 + 0.1 kg/ha in 2001 and with desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus ethofumesate at 0.23 + 0.23 + 0.23 kg/ha in 2000. Sucrose content and other sugar beet brei characteristics were not affected by the herbicide treatments.

Field experiments were conducted to determine the critical period of weed interference in glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant sugar beet, and to determine if PRE herbicides increased weed control or sugar beet root yield when glufosinate, glyphosate, or conventional POST herbicides were applied. Glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant sugar beet root yields were reduced by up to 66 and 67%, respectively, when weeds remained all season in the weedy control treatment compared with yields when weed removal occurred as soon as the weeds were 2.5 cm tall, approximately 2 to 3 wk after planting (WAP). A critical period of weed interference did not occur in this research. The critical time of weed removal was approximately 8 WAP in 1998 and beyond 11 WAP in 1999. Weeds averaged 20 cm in height at 8 WAP and weed densities were greater in 1998 compared with 1999. The critical weed-free period for glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant sugar beet was 4.5 to 5 WAP in 1998. In 1999, the critical weed-free period at the Michigan Sugar location was 1.5 WAP in glyphosate-resistant sugar beet, and 6.5 WAP in glufosinate-resistant sugar beet for the Michigan Sugar site. Glyphosate or glufosinate POST provided better weed control and resulted in greater sugar beet root yield compared with conventional POST herbicides when data were combined over PRE herbicide treatments. PRE herbicides improved the control of common lambsquarters and Amaranthus species in some of the site-years when data were combined over POST treatments, but sugar beet yield did not increase. Our research suggests that PRE herbicides will not be necessary in glyphosate- or glufosinate-resistant sugar beet. To avoid sugar beet yield loss, multiple POST applications of glyphosate or glufosinate will be needed until 6 to 9 WAP to prohibit yield loss from weeds emerging after the last POST application.