Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:50:38.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of time of weed removal on growth and yield of sugar beet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. K. Scott ,
S. J. Wilcockson  and
F. R. Moisey
R. K. Scott
Affiliation:
University Of Nottingham, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE12 5BD
S. J. Wilcockson
Affiliation:
University Of Nottingham, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE12 5BD
F. R. Moisey
Affiliation:
University Of Nottingham, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE12 5BD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Field experiments at Sutton Bonington between 1970 and 1974 tested how crop yields were affected by hand weeding at different stages in the life of early- and latesown crops. Losses where weeds were never controlled ranged from 95% where tallgrowing Chenopodium album L. predominated to 50% when Stellaria media (L.) Vill. and Tripleurospermum maritimum L.) Koch ssp. inodorum Hyl ex. Vaarama (T. inodorum) were most involved.

In five of the seven crops examined the latest date (X) at which weeding had to commence to prevent irreversible effects on growth and yield and the earliest date at which weeding could cease without yield loss (Y) coincided. For late March/early April sowings this occurred 6 weeks after crop emergence, while for late April/early May sowings in which events were more rapid the same stage was reached 4 weeks after emergence. For an early-sown crop in 1973, when rainfall was frequent and heavy and C. album prolific, X preceded Y with an interval of 4 weeks between the two dates (4–8 weeks after crop emergence, mid-May to mid-June). In complete contrast for a late-sown crop in 1974, when the weather was exceptionally dry and C. album virtually absent, Y preceded X and a single weeding at any time between 2 and 8 weeks after emergence would have prevented yield loss.

Sugar beet had generally reached the late singling stage (4–6 true leaves) by the time weeding must have commenced. During the next 6 weeks, final yield was depressed by 120–150kg/ha (1·;5%) with each day that weeds were allowed to remain. However, leaf production continued throughout the season and the crop was capable of recovering from early checks caused by weed competition. It proved possible for crops whose weights were depressed by 25–30% when first weeded to recover completely by harvest.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 93 , Issue 3 , December 1979 , pp. 693 - 709
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brimhall, P. B., Chamberlain, E. W. & Alley, H. P. (1965). Competition of annual weeds and sugar beets. Weeds 13, 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British Crop Protection Council (1972). Weed Control Handbook, vol. II, Recommendations (ed. Fryer, J. D. and Makepeace, R. J.), 7th edition. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
British Crop Protection Council (1977). Weed Control Handbook, vol. I, Principles (ed. Fryer, J. D. and Makepeace, R. J.), 6th edition. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Courtney, A. D. (1968). Seed dormancy and field emergence in Polygonum aviculare L. Journal of Applied Ecology 5, 675–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, J. H. (1965). Competition between irrigated sugar beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13, 245–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dotzenko, A. D. & Arp, A. L. (1971). Yield response of sugar beets under various light intensities as influenced by Kochia density. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists 16, 479–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewson, R. T. (1971). Studies of weed competition in some vegetable crops. Ph.D. thesis, Brunei University.Google Scholar
Hewson, R. T. & Roberts, H. A. (1973). Effects of weed competition for different periods on the growth and yield of red beet. Journal of Horticultural Science 48, 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, M. G. & Smith, H. (1975). The function of phytochrome in plants growing in the natural environment. Nature, London 254, 512–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, H. M. & Wiseman, J. S. (1975). Weed control in red beet grown in beds. Experimental Horticulture 27, 75–87.Google Scholar
Leith, K. (1968). The measurement of calorific values of biological material and the determination of ecological efficiency. In Functioning of Terrestrial Ecosystems at the Primary Production Level (ed. Edcardt, F. E.), pp. 233–242. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Longden, P. C., Scott, R. K. & Wood, D. W. (1974). Grading monogerm sugar-beet seed and its influence on performance. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 83, 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1977). Climate and the efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 281, 277–294.Google Scholar
Nieto, H. J., Brondo, M. A. & Gonzalez, J. T. (1968). Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for competition from weeds. Pest Articles and News Summaries (C) 14, 159–166.Google Scholar
Peters, N. C. B. (1972). Methods for evaluating weed competition using systems of handweeding or hoeing. Proceedings of the 11th British Weed Control Conference, pp. 116–118.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. (1976). Weed competition in vegetable crops. Annals of Applied Biology 83, 321–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, H. A. & Feast, P. M. (1970). Seasonal distribution of emergence in some annual weeds. Experimental Horticulture 21, 36–41.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. & Feast, P. M. (1974). Observations on the time of flowering in mayweeds. Journal of Applied Ecology 11, 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R. K. (1964). The relationship between leaf growth and yield of sugar beet. Ph.D. thesis, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Scott, R. K., English, S. D., Wood, D. W. & Unsworth, M. H. (1973). The yield of sugar beet in relation to weather and length of growing season. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 81, 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R. K., Harper, F., Wood, D. W. & Jagoard, K. W. (1974). Effects of seed size on growth, development and yield of monogerm sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 82, 517–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shadbolt, C. A. & Holm, L. G. (1956). Some quantitative aspects of weed competition in arable crops. Weeds 4, 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J., Motomatsu, T., Loach, K. & Milford, G. F. J. (1972). Effects of shading and of seasonal differences in weather on the growth, sugar content and sugar yield of sugar-beet crops. Annals of Applied Biology 71, 159–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherspoon, D. M. & Schweizer, E. E. (1969). Competition between Kochia and sugar beets. Weed Science 17, 464–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherspoon, D. M. & Schweizeb, E. E. (1971). Competition between sugar beets and five densities of Kochia. Weed Science 19, 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wesson, G. & Wareing, P. F. (1967). Light requirements of buried seed. Nature, London 213, 600–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, S. R. & Wiese, A. F. (1976). Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists 19 (2), 125–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. & Fertig, S. N. (1967). Influence of weed competition on sugarbeets. Weeds 15, 336–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar