Search

Weeds exert a pronounced influence on the sugar beet yield, leading to the potential for substantial reductions in agricultural productivity. In pursuit of addressing this issue, two experiments were conducted at the Faculty of Agriculture in Giza, Egypt, during the winter seasons of 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 to investigate the efficacy of various pre- and post-herbicides applied differently in active ingredient percentages, forms, and on weed target types, and mechanical weed treatments on weed traits and sugar beet crop performance. (1) In this context, five herbicidal treatments, including pre-emergence (S-Metoachlor) and post-emergence applications of Betanal Max Pro (Desmedipham 4.7% + Ethofumesate 7.5% + Lenacil 2.7% + Phenmedipham 6%), Tegrospecial (Desmedipham 20% + Phenmedipham 20%) for total annual weeds, C Factor (Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 7.5% + Fluazifop-p-putyl 15%), and Clictar (Clethodium 24%) for grassy weeds, were assessed alongside mechanical weeding and a weedy check (control). (2) The evaluations encompassed growth parameters, juice quality, and beet yields to comprehensively assess the treatment effects. (3) Notably, weed control measures, especially regarding three total annual weeds herbicides and the cultivation when using both grassy weed herbicides, consistently produced the highest improvements in sugar beet root’s fresh and dry weights, root dimensions, sucrose content, purity, sugar recovery, as well as the root and recoverable sugar yields, across both seasons. (4) However, it is important to note that the application of Clethodium 24% and Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 7.5% + Fluazifop-p-putyl 15% resulted in elevated levels of sodium, potassium, amino nitrogen, impurities, and sucrose loss to molasses. These findings underscore the substantial influence of herbicide use and mechanical weeding on sugar beet’s growth, juice quality, and yield, with S-Metoachlor, Desmedipham 20% + Phenmedipham 20% and Desmedipham 4.7% + Ethofumesate 7.5% + Lenacil 2.7% + Phenmedipham 6%—showing promise as effective weed control options, albeit with certain associated drawbacks.

Weeds exert a pronounced influence on the sugar beet yield, leading to the potential for substantial reductions in agricultural productivity. In pursuit of addressing this issue, two experiments were conducted at the Faculty of Agriculture in Giza, Egypt, during the winter seasons of 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 to investigate the efficacy of various pre- and post-herbicides applied differently in active ingredient percentages, forms, and on weed target types, and mechanical weed treatments on weed traits and sugar beet crop performance. (1) In this context, five herbicidal treatments, including pre-emergence (S-Metoachlor) and post-emergence applications of Betanal Max Pro (Desmedipham 4.7% + Ethofumesate 7.5% + Lenacil 2.7% + Phenmedipham 6%), Tegrospecial (Desmedipham 20% + Phenmedipham 20%) for total annual weeds, C Factor (Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 7.5% + Fluazifop-p-putyl 15%), and Clictar (Clethodium 24%) for grassy weeds, were assessed alongside mechanical weeding and a weedy check (control). (2) The evaluations encompassed growth parameters, juice quality, and beet yields to comprehensively assess the treatment effects. (3) Notably, weed control measures, especially regarding three total annual weeds herbicides and the cultivation when using both grassy weed herbicides, consistently produced the highest improvements in sugar beet root's fresh and dry weights, root dimensions, sucrose content, purity, sugar recovery, as well as the root and recoverable sugar yields, across both seasons. (4) However, it is important to note that the application of Clethodium 24% and Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 7.5% + Fluazifop-p-putyl 15% resulted in elevated levels of sodium, potassium, amino nitrogen, impurities, and sucrose loss to molasses. These findings underscore the substantial influence of herbicide use and mechanical weeding on sugar beet's growth, juice quality, and yield, with S-Metoachlor, Desmedipham 20% + Phenmedipham 20% and Desmedipham 4.7% + Ethofumesate 7.5% + Lenacil 2.7% + Phenmedipham 6%—showing promise as effective weed control options, albeit with certain associated drawbacks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Remarkable interest is associated with the interpretation of the Prodan fluorescent spectrum. A sequential hybrid Quantum Mechanics/Molecular Mechanics method was used to establish that the fluorescent emission occurs from two different excited states, resulting in a broad asymmetric emission spectrum. The absorption spectra in several solvents were measured and calculated using different theoretical models presenting excellent agreement. All theoretical models [semiempirical, time dependent density functional theory and and second-order multiconfigurational perturbation theory] agree that the first observed band at the absorption spectrum in solution is composed of three electronic excitations very close in energy. Then, the electronic excitation around 340 nm–360 nm may populate the first three excited states (π–π*Lb, n–π*, and π–π*La). The ground state S0 and the first three excited states were analyzed using multi-configurational calculations. The corresponding equilibrium geometries are all planar in vacuum. Considering the solvent effects in the electronic structure of the solute and in the solvent relaxation around the solute, it was identified that these three excited states can change the relative order depending on the solvent polarity, and following the minimum path energy, internal conversions may occur. A consistent explanation of the experimental data is obtained with the conclusive interpretation that the two bands observed in the fluorescent spectrum of Prodan, in several solvents, are due to the emission from two independent states. Our results indicate that these are the n–π* S2 state with a small dipole moment at a lower emission energy and the π–π*Lb S1 state with large dipole moment at a higher emission energy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A full photoemission electron microscopy (PEEM) spectral study of localized surface plasmons excited on nanoparticles is reported. The results provided a direct evidence of the physical link existing between nanoparticle localized surface plasmon excitation and its electron photoemission counterpart as measured by (PEEM).