کُنش پیوسته علف‌کش‌های انتخابی چغندرقند در علف‌های‌هرز خرفه و سلمه‌تره

نوع مقاله: کامل علمی - پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه لرستان، خرم آباد، ایران.

2 کارشناس ارشد علوم علف‌های‌هرز، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد مشهد، ایران.

3 استاد دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه فردوسی، مشهد، ایران.

چکیده

کاربرد موفقیت آمیز علفکشها برای کنترل انتخابی و اقتصادی علفهایهرز بدون آسیب به محیط و گیاه زراعی یکی از موفقیت­های مهم در کشاورزی مدرن محسوب میشود. به­منظور پیشبینی اثرات افزایشی، هم­افزاییویا هم­کاهی اختلاط دو به دو علفکش­های دس­مدیفام+ فن­مدیفام+ اتوفومیست، کلریدازون و کلوپیرالید با استفاده از مدل دُز افزایشی (ADM)، دو آزمایش در قالب طرح کامل تصادفی با 105 تیمار و سه تکرار برای هر یک از علف­های­ هرز خرفه و سلمه­ تره درگلخانه دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد در سال 1392 به اجرا درآمد. تیمارهای آزمایش شامل هفت دُز خالص علف­کش­های فوق برای پنج نسبت اختلاط0:100، 25:75، 50:50، 75:25 و 100:0 و سه تیمار شاهد برای هر یک از نسبتهای علف­­کشی بودند. نتایج آزمایش نشان داد که اختلاط دو به دوی علف­کش­ها وابستگی شدیدی به عوامل مختلفی ازجمله نوع گونۀ علف­هرز دارد. به طوری که هر یک از گونه­ها با داشتن خصوصیات مورفولوژیکی و فیزیولویکی مختلف، اثر متقاوتی را بروز دادند. بر این اساس، اختلاطعلف­کش دس­مدیفام + فن­مدیفام + اتوفومیست و علف­کش کلوپیرالید در علفهای­هرز خرفه و سلمه­تره براساس مدل ADM، هم­افزایی بود. همچنین، علف­کش­های دس­مدیفام + فن­مدیفام + اتوفومیست و کلریدازون نیز دارای اثر هم­افزایی در کنترل علف­های­هرز خرفه و سلمه­تره مطابق با مدل ADMبودند. اختلاط علف­کش کلریدازون با علف­کش کلوپیرالید دارای اثر افزایشی در علف­هرز خرفه و اثر هم­کاهی در علف­هرز سلمه­تره بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Joint action of sugar beet selective herbicides in Portulaca oleracea L. and Chenopodium album L. weeds

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Asghar Chitband 1
  • M. Nabizade 2
  • R. Ghorbani 3
1 Assistant Professor of Weed Science, Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Lorestan University of Iran.
2 MSC. of Weed Science, Department of Agronomy, Mashhad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Mashhad, Iran.
3 Professor of Weed Science, Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran.
چکیده [English]

The successful application of herbicides for selective and economic control of weeds without damage to both the environment and crop is one of the important achievements in modern agriculture. In order to predict the additive, synergistic and orthogonal effects of binary mixtures of desmedipham+ phenmedipham+ ethofumesate, chloridazon and clopyralid herbicides based on Additive Dose Model (ADM), two greenhouse experiments were conducted in completely randomized design with 105 treatments and three replications for Chenopodium album L. and Portulaca oleracea L. weeds in the greenhouse of the Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran in 2013. Experimental treatments consisted of seven herbicides with five mixing ratios of 0:100, 25:75, 50: 50, 75:25, 100:0 and three control treatments for each of the herbicide ratio. Results showed that the binary mixture of herbicides has a strong dependence on various factors such as weed species so that each species showed different response with different morphological and physiological characteristics. Accordingly, the mixture of desmedipham+ phenmedipham+ ethofumesate and clopyralid based on ADM model was synergistic. Also desmedipham+ phenmedipham+ ethofumesate, and chloridazon herbicides mixture had synergistic effect on weed control based on ADM model. In contrast, chloridazon and clopyralid herbicides mixture had additive effect on Portulaca oleracea L. and synergistic effect on Chenopodium album L. control.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Additive dose model
  • Desmedipham+ phenmedipham+ ethofumesate
  • Synergism
Abdollahi F, Ghadiri H. Effect of separate and combined applications of herbicides on weed control and yield of sugar beet. Weed Technol. 2004; 18: 968-976.

Abdollahian- Noghabi M. A review on growth and production of sugar beet crops in Iran during the recent years. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2007; 23: 197-198. (in Persian, abstract in English)

Andersen RN. Germination and establishment of weeds for experimental purposes. Weed Science Society of American, Urbana IL. 1968. 26-27.

Chitband AA, Abbaspoor M, Nabizade M. Utilizing drc package in R software for dose-response studies: The concept and data analysis. Proceeding of the 12th Iranian Crop Sciences Congress; 2012 September 4-6; Islamic Azad University, Karaj. Iran. (in Persian)

Chitband AA, Ghorbani R, Nabizade M, Zaidali E. Evaluation of some broadleaf herbicides mixture doses to important broadleaf weeds control in sugar beet. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2017; 33: 91-101. (in Persian, abstract in English)

Chitband AA, Ghorbani R, Rashed Mohassel MH, Nassiri Mahallati M., Abbasi R. Joint action of photosynthesis + lipid and auxin-inhibiting herbicides in sugar beet. Proceeding of the 6th Iranian Weed Sciences Congress; 2015 September 1-3; Birjand University, Birjand. Iran. (in Persian)

Dale TM, Renner KA, Kravchenko AN. Effect of herbicides on weed control and sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) yield and quality. Weed Technol. 2006; 20: 150–156.

Damalas CA, Dhima KV, Eleftherohorinos IG. Control of early watergrass (Echinochloa oryzoides) and late water grass (Echinochloa phyllopogon) with cyhalofop, clefoxydim, and penoxsulam applied alone and in mixture with broadleaf herbicides. Weed Technol. 2006; 20: 992-998.

Damalas CA. Herbicide Tank mixtures: Common interactions. Rev. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. 2004; 6: 209-212.

De Ruiter H, Uffing AJM, Meinen E, Prins A. Influence of surfactants and plant species on leaf retention of spray solutions. Weed Science. 1990; 38: 567–572.

Devilliers BL, Kudsk P, Smit JJ, Mathiassen SK. Tralkoxydim: adjuvant, MCPA and other effects. Weed Research. 2001; 41: 547-556.

Devine MD, Vanden Born WH. Translocation and foliar activity of clopyralid and cholorsulfuron in Canada thistle and perennial sowthistle. Weed Science. 1985; 33: 524-530.

Gamuev VV, Vilkov V, Repina G. Sugar beet protection based on a Betanal system. Sakharnaya Svekla. 1996; 3: 21-23.

Gessner PK. Isobolographic analysis of interactions: an update on applications and utility. Toxicology. 1995; 105: 161- I79.

Green JM, Jensen JE, Streibig JC. Models to assess joint action of pesticide mixtures. Aspects of Applied Biology.1995; 41: 61-68.

Harr J, Guggenheim R, Schulke RH, Falk RH. Chenopodium album L. The Leaf Surface of Major Weeds. Sandoz Agro Ltd. 1991.

Hatzios KK, Penner D. Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Science. 1985; 1: 1–63.

Kotting K, Zink J. Present requirements for a beet herbicide reflected in betanal progress. Germany, Gesunde Pflanzen. 1992; 44: 60-64.

Kudsk P, Mathiassen SK. Joint action of amino acid biosynthesis inhibiting herbicides. Weed Research. 2004; 44: 313-322.

Mathiassen SK, Kudsk P. Joint action of sulfonylurea herbicides and MCPA. Weed Research. 1993; 33: 441-447.

Mathiassen SK, Ravn HW, Kudsk P. Is dose-splitting of graminicides as effective as a single application? Weed Research. 2007; 47: 252-261.

Mirshekari B. Efficiency of empirical competition models for simulation of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) yield at interference with redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). Journal of Sugar Beet. 2008; 24: 73-91. (in Persian, abstract in English)

Morse PM. Some comments on assessment of joint action in herbicide mixtures. Weed Science. 1978; 26: 58-71.

Najafi H, Bazoobandi M, Jafarzadeh N. Evaluation of efficacy values in herbicide various components on broadleaf weeds control of sugar beet. Weed Research Journal. 2010; 2(1): 43-53. (in Persian, abstract in English)

Ritz C, Streibig JC. Dose response curves and other nonlinear curves in Weed Science and Ecotoxicology with the add-on package drc in R. 2012. pp. 1-51.

Shahbazi HA, Rashed Mohassel MH. Effect of weed competition on the growth and dry matter partitioning in the sugar beet parts. Journal of Sugar Beet. 1999; 15: 1-19. (in Persian, abstract in English)

Sobye KW, Streibig JC, Cedergreen N. Prediction of joint herbicide action by biomass and chlorophyll a fluorescence. Weed Research. 2011; 51: 23–32.

Sørensen H, Cedergreen N, Streibig JC.. A random effects model for binary mixture toxicity experiments. Journal of Agriculture Biology and Environment. Statistics. 2010; 15: 562–577.

Sørensen VM, Meggitt WF, Penner D. The interaction of acifluorfen and bentazon in herbicidal combinations. Weed Science. 1987; 35: 449–56.

Streibig JC, Jensen JE. Actions of herbicides in mixtures. Sheffield Academic Press, Boca Raton, CRC Press of England, 2000; pp. 295.

Streibig JC, Kudsk P, Jensen JE. A general joint action model for herbicide mixture. Pesticide Science. 1998; 53: 21- 28.

Streibig JC, Kudsk P. Intruduction. Sheffield Academic Press, Boca Raton, CRC Press of England, 1993; pp. 1-5.

Tammes PML. Isoboles, a graphic representation of synergism in pesticides. Netherland Journal of Plant Path. 1964; 70: 73-80.

Verbruggen EMJ, Van den Brink PJ. Review of recent literature concerning mixture toxicity of pesticides to aquatic organisms. RIVM, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, the Netherlands. www.rivm.nl. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. 2010; pp. 1-36.

Yukhin IP, Absatrov KHS. Separate post-emergence application of herbicides. Sakharnaya Svekla. 1996; (3): 21-22.

Zafarian M, Nasirpour M, Mir Alavi V, Jahani AR. Study on efficiency of integrated weed management in sugar beet using mulch and herbicide. Journal of Sugar Beet. 2015; 31: 177-187. (in Persian, abstract in English)

Zhang J, Hamill AS, Weaver SE. Antagonism and synergism between herbicides: trends from previous studies. Weed Technol. 1995; 9: 86–90.