Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:22:23.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of Weeds in Sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) with Handhoeing and Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Gail A. Wicks  and
Robert G. Wilson
Gail A. Wicks
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. of Nebraska, North Platte, NE 69101 and Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. of Nebraska, North Platte, NE 69101 and Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Handweeding sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L. ‘Mono Hy D2’) for 8 weeks after planting prevented sugarbeet yield losses. Weeds invading sugarbeet plots at the two-leaf stage (4 weeks after planting) reduced sugarbeet yields 26%. Cycloate (S-ethyl N-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate) caused more visual sugarbeet injury and stand reduction than did ethofumesate [(±)-2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate]. Broadleaf and grass weeds differed in their response to cycloate and ethofumesate, but overall, total weed yields were lower in plots treated with cycloate. Ethofumesate injured sugarbeets more when applied before planting and incorporated into the soil than when applied preemergence. Herbicides applied when sugarbeets had four to six leaves generally injured sugarbeets less, but controlled weeds less effectively, than when sugarbeets had two to four leaves. None of these herbicide treatments were as effective as handweeding in providing season-long weed control. Every 1120 kg/ha of oven dry weeds present in sugarbeet fields corresponded to a decrease in sugarbeet root yields of 10 000 to 11 500 kg/ha.

Keywords

Herbicide incorporationpreplant, preemergence, and postemergence applicationinterferencecompetition
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , July 1983 , pp. 493 - 499
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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. Brimhall, P. B., Chamberlain, E. W., and Alley, H. P. 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds 13:33–35.Google Scholar
2. Dawson, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugarbeets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245–249.Google Scholar
3. Dawson, J. H. 1977. Competition of late-emerging weeds with sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 25:168–170.Google Scholar
4. Eshel, Y., Schweizer, E. E., and Zimdahl, R. L. Sugarbeet tolerance of post-emergence applications of desmedipham and ethofumesate. Weed Res. 16:249–254.Google Scholar
5. Schweizer, E. E. 1980. Herbicides applied sequentially for economical control of annual weeds in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 28:152–159.Google Scholar
6. Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1969. Competition between kochia and sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 17:464–467.Google Scholar
7. Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1971. Competition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. Weed Sci. 19:125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Wicks, G. A. and Anderson, F. N. 1969. Weed control in sugarbeets with herbicides and cultivation. Weed Sci. 17:456–459.Google Scholar
9. Wilson, G. W. and Anderson, F. N. 1981. Control of three weed species in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) with an electrical discharge system. Weed Sci. 29:93–98.Google Scholar
10. Wilson, R. G. 1979. Survey of pesticide use in irrigated regions of the Nebraska Panhandle. Nebr. Agric. Stn. Bull. 544. 19 p.Google Scholar
11. Zimdahl, R. L. and Fertig, S. N. 1967. Influence of weed competition on sugarbeets. Weeds 15:336–339.Google Scholar