Hostname: page-component-669899f699-b58lm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-02T22:21:02.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) to Herbicide Residues in Soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Karen A. Renner  and
Gary E. Powell
Karen A. Renner
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Soil Sci., Mich. State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
Gary E. Powell
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Soil Sci., Mich. State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicides can persist in the soil and injure sensitive crops planted in the years following herbicide application. The response of sugarbeet to clomazone, imazaquin, imazethapyr, and chlorimuron residues in soil was examined. Clomazone at 1.1 or 2.2 kg ai ha-1 did not reduce yield of sugarbeet planted 1 or 2 yr after application. Imazaquin at 0.07 to 0.28 kg ai ha-1, and imazethapyr at 0.09 to 0.14 kg ai ha-1, can reduce yield of sugarbeet planted 1 yr after application. Imazaquin at 0.07 to 0.14 kg ha-1 caused 28 to 47% sugarbeet injury and imazethapyr at 0.09 kg ha-1 caused 54% injury 2 yr after application in soybean. A 25% yield loss occurred from the imazethapyr treatment. Sugarbeet injury 2 yr after application was greatest when sugarbeet also was planted the year following soybean. Chlorimuron at 0.02 to 0.08 kg ai ha-1 plus linuron at 0.4 to 0.9 kg ai ha-1 reduced yield of sugarbeet planted 1 yr after application when compared with linuron alone, regardless of soil pH. Visible sugarbeet injury of 38 to 66% was still evident from chlorimuron plus linuron treatments 2 yr after application. Sugarbeet should not be planted less than 25 mo following imazaquin, imazethapyr, or chlorimuron application.

Keywords

Chlorimuron, 2-[[[[(4-chloro-6-methoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoic acidclomazone, 2-[(2-chlorophenyl)methyl]-4,4-dimethyl-3-isoxazolidinoneimazaquin, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acidimazethapyr, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidlinuron, N′-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N-methoxy-N-methylureasugarbeet, Beta vulgaris L. ‘Mono Hy E4’soybean, Glycine max L. (Merr.)Bioactivitycarryoverdissipationpersistencechlorimuronclomazoneimazaquinimazethapyr
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , September 1991 , pp. 622 - 627
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Cantwell, J. R., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Biodegradation characteristics of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 37:815–819.Google Scholar
2. Cumin, W. S., and Liebl, R. A. 1990. Effect of soil application method and tillage on the persistence of clomazone, imazaquin, and imazethapyr. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 30:76.Google Scholar
3. Dexter, S. T., Frakes, M. G., and Snyder, F. W. 1967. A rapid and practical method of determining extractable white sugar as may be applied to the evaluation of agronomic practices and grower deliveries in the sugarbeet industry. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 14:433–454.Google Scholar
4. Flint, J. L., Witt, W. W., Martin, J. R., and Slack, C. H. 1989. Imazaquin and imazethapyr persistence in three soybean tillage systems. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 44:84.Google Scholar
5. Fuesler, T. P., and Hanafey, M. K. 1990. Effect of moisture on chlorimuron degradation in soil. Weed Sci. 38:256–261.Google Scholar
6. Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. Jr. 1990. Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38:421–428.Google Scholar
7. Goetz, A. J., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G., and Hajek, B. F. 1989. Sorption and mobility of chlorimuron in Alabama soils. Weed Sci. 3:428–433.Google Scholar
8. Kells, J. J., Leep, R. H., Tesar, M. B., Leavitt, R. A., and Cudnohufsky, J. 1990. Effect of atrazine and tillage on alfalfa (Medicago sativa) establishment in corn (Zea mays)–alfalfa rotation. Weed Technol. 4: 360–365.Google Scholar
9. Loux, M. M., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Availability and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in soil. Weed Sci 37:259–267.Google Scholar
10. Miller, S. D., Ball, D. A., and Ogg, P. J. 1989. Imazethapyr persistence under irrigation. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 44:49.Google Scholar
11. Mills, J. A., and Witt, W. W. 1989. Efficacy, phytotoxicity and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in no-till double crop soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 37:353–359.Google Scholar
12. Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36:90–95.Google Scholar
13. Schweizer, E. E. 1970. Aberrations in sugarbeet roots as induced by trifluralin. Weed Sci. 18:131–134.Google Scholar
14. Stouggard, R. N., Shea, P. J., and Martin, A. R. 1990. Effect of soil type and pH on adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38:67–73.Google Scholar