You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Response of Sugarbeets and Weeds to Phenmedipham and Two Analogues
E. E. Schweizer and D. M. Weatherspoon
Vol. 19, No. 6 (Nov., 1971), pp. 635-639
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4042072
Page Count: 5
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Weed control, Herbicides, Millet, Weed competition, Sugar beets, Annual weeds, Seeds, Test ranges, Sugars, Leaves
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Responses of weeds and sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L.) to postemergence treatments of methyl m-hydroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate (phenmedipham) and two analogues were evaluated in six field studies. Phenmedipham at 1.7 kg/ha controlled foxtail millet (Setaria italica (L.) Beauv.) and kochia (Kochia scoparia (L.) Schard.) better than 2.2 kg/ha of methyl m-hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate and ethyl m-hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate. Pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) was controlled better by the analogues at 1.1 kg/ha than by phenmedipham. The foliar growth of sugarbeets was generally suppressed more by the analogues than by phenmedipham, but injury was not considered detrimental at 1.1 kg/ha. Yield of sugarbeet roots and sugar was reduced by 7% or less by phenmedipham at rates of 1.1 to 4.5 kg/ha, but these yield reductions were associated primarily with the failure of phenmedipham to completely control all weeds for 5 to 9 weeks after treatment.
Weed Science © 1971 Weed Science Society of America