Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:29:28.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Herbicides on Weed Control and Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) Yield and Quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Trevor M. Dale ,
Karen A. Renner  and
Alexandra N. Kravchenko
Trevor M. Dale
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Karen A. Renner*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Alexandra N. Kravchenko
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The “micro-rate” application, a POST combination of desmedipham plus phenmedipham at 0.045 + 0.045 kg ai/ha (desphen) or desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus ethofumesate (1:1: 1 ratio) (desphenetho) at 0.09 kg ai/ha plus triflusulfuron at 0.004 kg ai/ha plus clopyralid at 0.026 kg ae/ha plus 1.5% methylated seed oil received registration in 1998 and 2000 in North Dakota and Michigan, respectively. Herbicide rates are reduced by 80%, compared to standard-split applications, and growers typically apply the micro-rate three to five times to very small weeds that are 1 cm or less in height. In standard-split applications, growers make two sequential applications, the first when weeds are 1.5 cm tall and the sequential application usually 10 to 14 d later. Research was conducted in small plots and large grower plots in 2001 and 2002 to determine the effect of PRE herbicides on weed control and sugarbeet injury from micro-rates compared to standard-split POST herbicide applications. Sugarbeet populations were reduced in the cycloate treatment compared to all other PRE and the no-PRE treatment in 2001 and in the S-metolachlor compared to the ethofumesate treatment in 2002. Sugarbeet injury was 6% or less from POST-only treatments in 2001. Control of common lambsquarters and Amaranthus spp. by desphen and desphenetho treatments was similar. Sugarbeet injury in 2002 was 29 to 43% from POST-only treatments. The standard-split of desphenetho was more injurious than the standard-split of desphen. Common lambsquarters control was greater in both the standard-split and micro-rate of desphenetho compared to the standard-split of desphen in 2002. However, sugarbeet populations and recoverable white sucrose per hectare did not differ among POST herbicide treatments in either year. No herbicide program provided 100% control of all weeds in both years. In the seven large production fields, PRE herbicide treatments did not reduce sugarbeet populations or recoverable sucrose per hectare compared to the no-PRE control. Weed control from four POST micro-rate applications only was similar to weed control in instances in which PRE herbicides were applied prior to the POST micro-rate applications.

Keywords

Cycloate, pyrazon, ethofumesate, desmedipham plus phenmedipham, triflusulfuron, clopyralid, Chenopodium album L. #4 CHEALAmaranthus species # AMASSMicro-ratestandard-splitDAT, days after treatmentdesphen, desmedipham + phenmediphamdesphenetho, desmedipham + phenmedipham + ethofumesatefb, followed byRWSH, recoverable white sucrose per hectare
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 150 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

Dexter, A. G. 1994. History of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) herbicide rate reduction in North Dakota and Minnesota. Weed Technol. 8:334–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 1988. Soil applied and postemergence herbicides at six locations. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep. 19:45–48.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 1998. Special survey on micro-rate, 1998. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep. 29:64–75.Google Scholar
Luecke, J. L. and Dexter, A. G. 2003. Survey of weed control and production practices on sugarbeet in eastern North Dakota and Minnesota. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep. 33:35–38.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1991. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) control in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 5:97–102.Google Scholar
Smith, G. A., Schweizer, E. E., and Martin, S. S. 1982. Differential response of sugarbeet populations to herbicides. Crop Sci. 22:81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starke, R. J. and Renner, K. A. 1996. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) response to triflusulfuron and desmedipham plus phenmedipham. Weed Technol. 10:121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar