بررسی دُزهای مختلف علف‌کش فن مدیفام+دس مدیفام+اتوفومسیت در زمان های مصرف متفاوت در چغندرقند (Beta vulgaris L)

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد زراعت، گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات، واحد سبزوار، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، سبزوار، ایران

2 دانشیار، گروه زراعت و اصلاح نباتات، واحد سبزوار، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، سبزوار، ایران

چکیده

به­ منظور بررسی امکان کاهش دُز علف‌کش فن مدیفام+دس مدیفام+اتوفومسیت در زمان­ های مصرف آنها در مزرعه چغندرقند آزمایشی به­ صورت فاکتوریل در قالب طرح بلوک کامل تصادفی در سه تکرار در سال زراعی 92-91 در شهرستان سبزوار استان خراسان رضوی انجام شد. فاکتورهای آزمایش عبارت از دُزهای مختلف علف‌کش (صفر، 75% و 125% توصیه شده) در زمان­ های مصرف (4-2 برگی، 8-4 برگی و 12-8 برگی چغندرقند) بودند. علف‌کش مورد استفاده در این آزمایش علف‌کش فن مدیفام (9/2%)+دس مدیفام (7/2%)+اتوفومسیت (11/3%)(با نام تجاری بتانال پروگرس اُ اف) به مقدار 877 گرم ماده مؤثره در هکتار از فرمولاسیون امولسیون 27/4% بود. نتایج حاصل از آزمایش نشان داد که تأخیر در زمان مصرف علف‌کش سبب افزایش 55/92 درصدی تراکم علف­ هرز و 33 درصدی وزن خشک علف­ هرز شد. استفاده از علف‌کش در مرحله 8-4 برگی بالاترین عملکرد ریشه و قند را موجب شد. ناخالصی‌های ریشه تحت تأثیر زمان مصرف علف‌کش قرار نگرفت. دُز 125% توصیه شده کمترین تراکم و وزن خشک علف‌های هرز و بالاترین عملکرد قند و ریشه را تولید کرد. درصد قند ناخالص و میـزان پتاسیم تحت تأثیـر دُز مصرفی قرار نگرفت و در مورد سـایر ویژگی­ های کیفی ریشه اختلاف آماری معنی‌داری بین دُز 125% توصیه شده و دُز توصیه شده وجود نداشت. نتایج آزمایش در مجموع نشان داد که در مراحل اولیه رشد (4-2 برگی چغندرقند) استفاده از مقادیر کمتر از دُز توصیه شده و در مراحل 12-8 برگی چغندرقند استفاده از دُز بیشتر علف‌کش سبب حصول مناسب‌ترین عملکرد ریشه در چغندرقند شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Reduction of Phenmedipham + Desmedipham + Ethofumesate Herbicides Dosage Based on Application Timing in Sugar Beet

نویسندگان [English]

  • Valiyolah Anabestani 1
  • Mohammad Armin 2
1 Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Sabzevar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sabzevar, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Sabzevar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sabzevar, Iran
چکیده [English]

An experiment was conducted to study possible reduction of concentration (dose) of phenmedipham + desmedipham + ethofumesate herbicides at different application times to control weeds in sugar beet field. Thus, a factorial experiment based on complete randomized block design with three replications was performed at Sabzevar, Khorasan-e-Razavi in 2013. Factors consisted of herbicide dosages (control, 75% of the recommended dosage, and 125% of recommended dosage and application times at 2-4, 4-8 and 8-12 leaf stages of sugar beet. Herbicide used in the experiment was phenmedipham (9.2%) + desmedipham (7.2%) + ethofumesate (11.3%) (PROGRESS OF BETAMIX) as 877 ga.i ha-1 27.4 EC. The results indicated that the delayed application of herbicide increased weed density by 55.92% and weed dry matter by 33%. Application of herbicide at 4-8 leaf stage produced highest root and sugar yields. Root impurities were not affected by the time of herbicide application. Used of 125% of recommended dosage resulted in lowest weed density and weed dry matter and highest root and sugar yields. Impure sugar percentage and K content was not affected by herbicide dosage. Other root quality characteristics were not statistically significant different between the recommended dose 125% of recommended dosages. Results as a wholes suggested that at early growth stage of sugar beet (2-4 leaf stage) lower herbicide dosage and at later growth stage of sugar beet (8-12 leaf stage) higher herbicide dosage may produce highest root yield of sugar beet.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Herbicides
  • Quantitative and qualitative yield
  • Reduced dosage
  • Sugar beet

Abdillahian-noghabi, M. 2002. New approach to the management of genetically modified herbicide tolerant sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet. 18 (2): 167-168. (In Persian).
Abdollahi, F., and H. Ghadiri. 2004. Effect of separate and combined applications of herbicides on weed control and yield of sugar beet. Weed Technology. 18 (4): 968-976.
Ahmadi, K., H. Gholizadeh, H.R. Badzadh, R. Hossein Pour, F. Hatami, and B. Fazli. 2015. Agricultural statistics. 2014-2015 crop year. First volume: Crops. http://maj.ir/portal/Home/Default.aspx?CategoryID=117564e0-507c-4565-9659-fbabfb4acb9b. (In Persian).
Alizadeh Nobakht Sabzevari, M. 2014. The effect of weeding times on reducing herbicide dose in sugar beet. M.Sc. Thesis. Sabzevar Branch, Islamic Azad University. 120 pp. (In Persian).
Amiri, H. 2013. Efficient management of herbicide at sugar beet fields in Lorestan. International Journal of Agronomy and Plant Production. 4 (8): 1835-1838.
Armin, M., E. Zand, and M.A. Baghestani. 2008. The effect of low herbicide dose of Clodinafop-propargyl on percentage of wild oat (Avena ludoviciana) control, yield and economic return of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Plant Protection. 22 (2): 110-118. (In Persian).
Bandegi, M.R. and M. Armin. 2014. Effect of weed interference with sugar beet under different management system. Plant Echophysiology. 19 (2): 45-57. (In Persian).
Bazoobandi, M., M.A. Baghestani, and E. Zand. 2006. Weeds and their management in sugar beet fields. Plant and Pests and Diseases Research Institute. 85 PP.
Blackshaw, R.E., J.T. O'Donovan, K. Harker, G.W. Clayton, and R.N. Stougaard. 2006. Reduced herbicide doses in field crops: a review. Weed Biology and Management. 6 (1): 10-17.
Dale, T.M., K.A. Renner, and A.N. Kravchenko. 2006. Effect of herbicides on weed control and sugar beet  (Beta vulgaris L.) yield and quality. Weed Technology. 20 (1): 150-156.
Deveikyte, I., and V. Seibutis. 2006. Broadleaf weeds and sugar beet response to phenmedipham, desmedipham, ethofumesate and triflusulfuron-methyl. Agronomy Research. 4: 159-162.
Draycott, A.P. 2008. Sugar beet. John Wiley & Sons. 235 PP.
Ganbari Birgani, D., M. Hosseinpour, P. Shimi, and M.A. Noghabi. 2007. Integrated weed control of sugar beet in Dezful and Boroujerd. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences. 8 (4): 283-299. (In Persian).
Ghanbari Birgani, D., and H. Sharifi. 2000. Investigating betanal progress AM for the control of broad leaf weeds in sugar beet. Final Research Report. Saffiabad Agricultural Research Station, Khuzestan, Iran. (In Persian).
Hansson, D., S. Svensson, D. Cloutier, J. Ascard, J. Netland, and T. Cottis. 2004. Steaming soil in narrow strips for intra-row weed control in sugar beet. European weed research society. Proceedings of the 6th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Lillehammer, Norway, 8-10 March, 2004. European Weed Research Society.
Jahad-Akbar, M.R., R. Tabatabaii-NimAvard, and H.R. Ebrahimiyan. 2004. Critical period of weed competition with sugar beet in Kabotarabad-Esfahan. Journal of Sugar Beet 20: 73-92. (In Persian).
Jahedi, A., A. Norouzi, and M. Saati. 2005. Reduce herbicide use by combined application of cultivator and band spraying in sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet. 21 (1): 77-86. (In Persian).
Kaya, R. 2012. Possibilities of reducing herbicide use in weed control in sugar beet production. Anadolu Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 27 (3): 19-28.
Kaya, R., and Ş. Buzluk. 2006. Integrated weed control in sugar beet through combinations of tractor hoeing and reduced dosages of a herbicide mixture. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 30 (2): 137-144.
Koocheki, A., M. Nassiri, A. Siahmarguee, J. Gherekhloo, M. Rastgoo, and A. Ghaemi. 2008. Effect of different integrated weed management methods on weed density and yield of sugar beet crop. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research. 6 (2): 383-394. (In Persian).
 Longden, P. 1989. Effects of increasing weed beet density on sugar beet yield and quality. Annals of Applied Biology. 114(3): 527-532.
Maleki, G., E. Zand, and S.M.J. Mirhadi. 2008. Using integrated inter- row cultivation and herbicide band application in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) weed management for reducing herbicide use. Iranian Journal of Crop Research. 6: 443-452. (In Persian).
Mansilla Martínez, J., J. Valero, A.D. Padilla, and M.R. Picornell Buendía. 2015. Competition and critical periods in spring sugar beet cultivation. Journal of Plant Protection Research. 55(4): 336-342.
Mesbah, A., S.D. Miller, K.J. Fornstrom, and D.E. Legg. 1994. Sugar beet-weed interactions. Agricultural Experiment Station. Department of Plant, Soil, and Insect Sciences, College of Agriculture, University of Wyoming.
Mobarak, O.M.M.A.E. 2013. Determination of critical period of weed competition with sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) and weed control. Ph.D Thesis. University of Assiut (Egypt). 147 pp. 
Najafi, H., and M. Abdollahian-Noghabi. 2015. Effect of plantingpattern, time of weed removal and herbicide application on weed density and sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) root yield. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences. 17(1): 18-34. (In Persian).
Noroozi, A. 2000. Combined application of cultivator and band spraying for reducing herbicide use in sugar beet weed control. 6th Iranian Congress of Crop Production and Plant Breeding. Babolsar. p. 579-580. (In Persian).

Zargar, M., H. Najafi, E. Zand, and F. Mighani. 2012. Evaluation of the effect of chemical and non-chemicalweed management methods toward reducing herbicide application rate in sugar beet. Journal of Plant Protection. 25(4): 368-377.