3.9 Article

ADJUVANTS TO IMPROVE PHENMEDIPHAM plus DESMEDIPHAM plus ETHOFUMESATE EFFICACY AGAINST WEEDS IN SUGAR -BEET (Beta vulgaris)

期刊

PLANTA DANINHA
卷 37, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

UNIV FEDERAL VICOSA
DOI: 10.1590/S0100-83582019370100021

关键词

activator adjuvant; herbicide mixture; surfactant

资金

  1. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran through the RESEARCH program [2/37698]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The efficacy of reduced (411.5 and 617.2 a.i. ha(-1)) and reconunended (823.0 g a.i. ha(-1)) rates of phenmedipham + desmedipham + ethofumesate on the control of Amaranthus retroflexus, Amaranthus blitoides, Chenopodium album, and Tribulus terrestris in sugar beet field was investigated when they were tankmixed with and without Adigor (0.5% v/v), Anunonium sulphate (2% v/v), Citogate (0.2% v/v), D-Octil (0.3% v/v), Hydro-Max (0.5% v/v), and Volck (0.5% v/v). When the herbicide was applied alone, there was no significant difference between the rates of 617.2 and 823.0 g a.i. ha(-1)for reduction of total weed density and biomass. Significantly, the adjuvants decreased total weed density and biomass. However, there was no significant difference among the performance of adjuvants. The sugar beet root and sucrose yields were increased significantly by increasing herbicide rate as a result of an improvement in weed control. Although herbicide efficacy was influenced in a similar manner by all the adjuvants, the best results were found as follows: root yield was increased up to 9.66% (71.31 Mg ha(-1)) by applying the recommended rate of phenmedipham + desmedipham + ethofumesate plus Adigor compared to weed-free check (64.68 Mg ha(-1)) whereas sucrose yield was increased up to 26.48% (13.21 t ha(-1)) by applying the recommended rate of phenmedipham + desmedipham + ethofumesate plus HydroMax compared to weed-free check (10.45 t ha(-1)). From an economic and ecological standpoint, these two adjuvants can be suggested to optimize the recommended rate of phenmedipham + desmedipham + ethoftunesate in weed management.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据