Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T05:17:54.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kochia (Kochia scoparia) and Green Foxtail (Setaria viridis) Interference in Sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Abdelouhab Mesbah ,
Stephen D. Miller ,
K. James Fornstrom  and
David E. Legg
Abdelouhab Mesbah
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil and Insect Sci., Univ. Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
Stephen D. Miller
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil and Insect Sci., Univ. Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
K. James Fornstrom
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil and Insect Sci., Univ. Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
David E. Legg
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil and Insect Sci., Univ. Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two field experiments were conducted between 1990 and 1992 under sprinkler irrigation at the Research and Extension Center, Torrington, WY to determine the influence of mixed densities and durations of kochia and green foxtail interference in sugarbeet. Sugarbeet root yield and top weight generally decreased as densities of green foxtail and kochia increased whether alone or in combination. Reductions in sugarbeet root yield and above ground biomass from mixed densities of kochia and green foxtail were additive at the low and intermediate density but less than additive at the high density of either species. Sugarbeet root yield decreased as the duration of interference after sugarbeet emergence from a mixed density of kochia and green foxtail increased. Since sugarbeet plants were irrigated to avoid water stress and adequate nutrients were applied, it appears that kochia and green foxtail interfered with sugarbeet primarily for light, based on light and height measurements. Season-long as well as duration of interference did not show any significant effect on sucrose content. Based on regression analysis the lowest densities of kochia and green foxtail required to reduce root yield were approximately 0.3 and 0.06 plants/m of row, respectively. The minimum duration of time that 0.5 kochia and 3.0 green foxtail plants/m of row can interfere with sugarbeets before root yield is economically reduced was approximately 3.5 wk after sugarbeet emergence.

Keywords

Green foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. ♯ SETVIkochia, Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad. ♯ KCHSCsugarbeet, Beta vulgaris L. ‘Monohikari.’CompetitionKCHSCSETVI
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 754 - 759
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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

1. Brimall, P. B., Chamberlain, E. W., and Alley, H. P. 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds 13:33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Donald, C. M. 1961. Competition for light in crops and pastures. p. 282–313 in Mechanisms in Biological Competition. Soc. Exp. Biol. Symposia 15. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
3. Johnson, R. T., Alexander, J. T., Rush, G. E., and Hawkes, R. H. 1969. Advances in Sugarbeet Production: Principles and Practices. The Iowa State Univ Press, Ames, Iowa. p. 76–80.Google Scholar
4. Schweizer, E. E. 1973. Predicting sugarbeet root losses based on kochia densities. Weed Sci. 21:565–567.Google Scholar
5. Schweizer, E. E. 1981. Broadleaf weed interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 29:128–133.Google Scholar
6. Schweizer, E. E. and Bridge, L. D. 1982. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 30:514–519.Google Scholar
7. Shribbs, J. M., Lybecker, D. W., and Schweizer, E. E. 1990. Bioeconomic weed management models for sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) production. Weed Sci 38:436–444.Google Scholar
8. Stout, M. 1964. Redistribution of nitrate in soils and its effects on sugarbeet nutrition. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 13:68–80.Google Scholar
9. Ulrich, A. 1960. Plant analyses in sugarbeet nutrition. p. 190–211 in Ruther, W., ed, Plant Analysis and Fertilizer Problems. Publ. 8. Am. Inst. Biol. Sci., Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
10. Weisberg, S. 1980. Applied linear regression, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York. p. 162–172.Google Scholar