Abstract
Summary: Sugarbeet and weeds were treated with phenmedipham plus desmedipham either as single applications or as split applications in which 50% of the equivalent single application rate was applied at each application. Split application did not alter the phytotoxicity to the crop when environmental conditions did not predispose the Sugarbeet to injury by the herbicide. Split applications at 1‐1 or 1‐4 kg ha −1 spaced from 0‐5 to c. 5 days apart caused more injury to the crop than the respective single applications when environmental conditions were such that injury to the crop resulted from the single applications. Injury to Sugarbeet following application of 0‐72 kg ha −1 of phenmedipham plus desmedipham was always low, regardless of the type of application. Susceptible weeds were controlled by single applications of 1 1‐1 −4 kg ha −1 , but 0‐72 kg ha −1 did not reliably provide adequate control. Split applications c. 3‐8 days apart gave improved control. Control achieved by 0‐72 kg ha −1 of the herbicide applied as split treatments equalled or exceeded that produced by single applications of 1‐4 kg ha −1 . Improvement in the control of tolerant weed species by split applications of phenmedipham plus desmedipham was species dependent. Use of low‐rate split applications of phenmedipham plus desmedipham thus resulted in reduced injury to the Sugarbeet, and the introduction of less herbicide into the ecosystem, while maintaining or improving the control of susceptible weeds.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 11
Claim · model-written summary
Split applications caused more injury to sugarbeet than single applications when environmental conditions made the single applications injurious.
- Taxon
- Sugarbeet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Treatment
- Split applicationse2
- Outcome
- injury to the crope2
- Direction
- moree2
- Comparator
- single applicationse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarbeet tolerance”
e2“Split applications at 1‐1 or 1‐4 kg ha −1 spaced from 0‐5 to c. 5 days apart caused more injury to the crop than the respective single applications”
Claim · model-written summary
Split application did not alter phytotoxicity to sugarbeet when environmental conditions did not predispose the crop to herbicide injury.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Split applicatione1
- Outcome
- phytotoxicity to the crope1
- Direction
- did not altere1
- Qualifier
- when environmental conditions did not predispose the Sugarbeet to injury by the herbicidee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarbeet tolerance”
e1“Split application did not alter the phytotoxicity to the crop when environmental conditions did not predispose the Sugarbeet to injury by the herbicide”
Claim · model-written summary
Injury to sugarbeet from 0-72 kg ha-1 of phenmedipham plus desmedipham was always low, whatever the type of application.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- 0‐72 kg ha −1 of phenmedipham plus desmediphame3
- Outcome
- Injury to Sugarbeete3
- Qualifier
- regardless of the type of applicatione3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarbeet tolerance”
e3“Injury to Sugarbeet following application of 0‐72 kg ha −1 of phenmedipham plus desmedipham was always low, regardless of the type of application”
Claim · model-written summary
Single applications of 1 to 4 kg ha-1 controlled susceptible weeds, whereas 0-72 kg ha-1 did not reliably control them.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- single applications of 1 1‐1 −4 kg ha −1e4
- Interactor
- Susceptible weedse4weed
- Outcome
- controle4
- Direction
- controllede4
- Comparator
- 0‐72 kg ha −1e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarbeet tolerance”
e4“Susceptible weeds were controlled by single applications of 1 1‐1 −4 kg ha −1 , but 0‐72 kg ha −1 did not reliably provide adequate control”
Claim · model-written summary
Applying 0-72 kg ha-1 of phenmedipham plus desmedipham in a single application did not reliably give adequate control of susceptible weeds.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- 0‐72 kg ha −1e4
- Interactor
- Susceptible weedse4weed
- Outcome
- adequate controle4
- Direction
- did not reliably providee4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarbeet tolerance”
e4“Susceptible weeds were controlled by single applications of 1 1‐1 −4 kg ha −1 , but 0‐72 kg ha −1 did not reliably provide adequate control”
Claim · model-written summary
Split applications 3 to 8 days apart improved weed control.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Split applications c. 3‐8 days aparte5
- Outcome
- controle5
- Direction
- improvede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarbeet tolerance”
e5“Split applications c. 3‐8 days apart gave improved control”
Claim · model-written summary
Split applications of 0-72 kg ha-1 equalled or exceeded the weed control of single applications of 1-4 kg ha-1.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- 0‐72 kg ha −1 of the herbicide applied as split treatmentse6
- Outcome
- Controle6
- Direction
- equalled or exceedede6
- Comparator
- single applications of 1‐4 kg ha −1e6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarbeet tolerance”
e6“Control achieved by 0‐72 kg ha −1 of the herbicide applied as split treatments equalled or exceeded that produced by single applications of 1‐4 kg ha −1”
Claim · model-written summary
Improvement in weed control by split applications was species dependent for tolerant weed species.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- split applications of phenmedipham plus desmediphame7
- Interactor
- tolerant weed speciese7weed
- Outcome
- control of tolerant weed speciese7
- Qualifier
- species dependente7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarbeet tolerance”
e7“Improvement in the control of tolerant weed species by split applications of phenmedipham plus desmedipham was species dependent”
Claim · model-written summary
Low-rate split applications of phenmedipham plus desmedipham reduced injury to sugarbeet.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- low‐rate split applications of phenmedipham plus desmediphame1
- Outcome
- injury to the Sugarbeete1
- Direction
- reducede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarbeet tolerance”
e1“Use of low‐rate split applications of phenmedipham plus desmedipham thus resulted in reduced injury to the Sugarbeet, and the introduction of less herbicide into the ecosystem, while maintaining or improving the control of susceptible weeds”
Claim · model-written summary
Low-rate split applications of phenmedipham plus desmedipham introduced less herbicide into the ecosystem.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- low‐rate split applications of phenmedipham plus desmediphame1
- Outcome
- the introduction of less herbicide into the ecosysteme1
- Direction
- lesse1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarbeet tolerance”
e1“Use of low‐rate split applications of phenmedipham plus desmedipham thus resulted in reduced injury to the Sugarbeet, and the introduction of less herbicide into the ecosystem, while maintaining or improving the control of susceptible weeds”
Claim · model-written summary
Low-rate split applications of phenmedipham plus desmedipham maintained or improved control of susceptible weeds.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- low‐rate split applications of phenmedipham plus desmediphame1
- Interactor
- susceptible weedse1weed
- Outcome
- the control of susceptible weedse1
- Direction
- maintaining or improvinge1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sugarbeet tolerance”
e1“Use of low‐rate split applications of phenmedipham plus desmedipham thus resulted in reduced injury to the Sugarbeet, and the introduction of less herbicide into the ecosystem, while maintaining or improving the control of susceptible weeds”
The same questions in other papers
desmedipham · molecular: metabolites · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
phenmedipham · molecular: metabolites · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
desmedipham · crop injury · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →phenmedipham · crop injury · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →herbicide · control · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.