Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:54:21.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Nine Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) Cultivars to Postemergence Herbicide Applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert G. Wilson
Robert G. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361; E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted for 2 yr near Scottsbluff, NE, to evaluate the growth and yield response of nine commercial sugarbeet cultivars to five postemergence herbicide mixtures applied two times. Sugarbeet cultivars varied in their response to herbicides. Three of the five postemergence herbicide mixtures reduced sugarbeet leaf area at 9 wk after planting (WAP), while two treatments had no significant effect. Root yield reductions from herbicide treatments ranged from 3 to 11% averaged over the nine cultivars. Two applications of desmedipham plus phenmedipham at 180 plus 180 g/ha reduced root yield 3% compared to untreated plots. Two applications of clopyralid at 100 g/ha, triflusulfuron at 18 g/ha, or ethofumesate at 160 g/ha plus desmedipham plus phenmedipham resulted in a 17, 29, and 22% reduction in leaf area at 9 WAR respectively, and a 6, 8, and 6% reduction in root yield, respectively, compared to untreated plots. Sethoxydim at 280 g/ha plus desmedipham plus phenmedipham did not cause additional sugarbeet injury.

Keywords

Clopyralid, 3,6-dichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic aciddesmedipham, ethyl [3-[[(phenylamino) carbonyl]oxy]phenyl]carbamateethofumesate, (±)-2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonatephenmedipham, 3-[(methoxycarbonyl)amino]phenyl (3-methyl-phenyl)carbamatesethoxydim, 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-onetriflusulfuron, methyl 2-[[[[[4-((dimethylamino-6-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy))-1,3,5 triazin-2-yl]amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-3-methylben zoatesugarbeet, Beta vulgaris (L)ClopyraliddesmediphamethofumesatephenmediphamtriflusulfuronDAT, days after treatmentLAI, leaf area indexWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 25 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the 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

Association of Official Agriculture Chemists. 1955. Official methods of analysis. 8th ed. Washington, D.C. pp. 564–568.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 1997. Weed control in transgenic sugarbeet in North Dakota and Minnesota. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:142–143.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G., Luecke, J. L., and Cattanach, A. 1997. Survey of weed control and production practices on sugarbeet in eastern North Dakota and Minnesota—1997. 1997 Sugarbeet research and extension reports. NDSU, Fargo, ND; 28:37–65.Google Scholar
Smith, G. A. and Schweizer, E. E. 1983. Cultivar x herbicide interaction in sugarbeet. Crop Sci. 23:325–328.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.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1994. New herbicides for postemergence application in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 8:307–811.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1995. Response of sugarbeet, common sunflower, and common cocklebur to clopyralid or desmedipham plus phenmedipham. J. Sugar Beet Res. 32:89–97.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1998. Glyphosate and glufosinate for weed control in herbicide tolerant sugarbeet. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 51:68.Google Scholar