Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:14:00.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Herbicides Applied Sequentially for Economical Control of Annual Weeds in Sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

E. E. Schweizer*
Affiliation:
Plant Physiol., Agric. Res., Sci. Ed. Admin., U.S. Dept. Agric., Crops Res. Lab., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523

Abstract

Twelve sequential herbicide treatments were compared to cycloate (S-ethyl N-ethylthiocyclohexanecarbamate), a standard treatment, for control of annual weeds in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L.) in three field experiments conducted from 1971 through 1977. At harvest, seven sequential treatments had less than 10 annual broadleaf weeds per 30 m of row, whereas there were 40 broadleaf weeds per 30 m of row for the cycloate treatment. Four of these sequential treatments had significantly higher root yields and net returns than the cycloate treatment. Dependent on the sequential treatment and year, tonnage was increased 7.3 to 20.3 t/ha, and net returns $150 to $515/ha above those with cycloate. The most effective sequential treatment for control of weeds was a preplanting mixture of 2.2 kg/ha of ethofumesate [(±)-2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate] plus 1.7 kg/ha of diclofop {2-[4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenoxy] propanoic acid} followed by a postemergence mixture of 0,6 kg/ha each of desmedipham [ethyl m-hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate (ester)] plus phenmedipham (methyl m-hydroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate). This sequential herbicide treatment increased root yields by an average of 20.3 t/ha and net returns by $515/ha above those with cycloate.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 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

1. Brimhall, P. B., Chamberlain, E. W., and Alley, H. P. 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugarbeets. Weeds 13:3335.Google Scholar
2. Burtch, L. B. 1965. Control of late emerging weeds can be profitable. Spreckels Sugar Beet Bull. 29:34.Google Scholar
3. Dale, J. E. 1979. Application equipment for Roundup – the rope wick applicator. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Res. Conf. 138141.Google Scholar
4. Dawson, J. H. 1974. Full-season weed control in sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 22:330335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Dawson, J. H. 1975. Cycloate and phenmedipham as complementary treatments in sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 23:478485.Google Scholar
6. Dawson, J. H. 1977. Competition of late-emerging weeds with sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 25:168170.Google Scholar
7. Hendrick, L. W., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1974. Selective use of phenmedipham and EP-475 in Michigan for weed control in sugarbeets. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Tech. 18:97107.Google Scholar
8. McWhorter, C. G. 1977. Weed control in soybeans with glyphosate applied in the recirculating sprayer. Weed Sci. 25:135141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Schweizer, E. E. 1974. Weed control in sugarbeets with cycloate, phenmedipham and EP 475. Weed Res. 14:3944.Google Scholar
10. Thomas, T. M. and Burke, J. 1975. Sequential application of herbicides for season long weed control in sugar beet. Proc. 3rd Int. Meeting Selective Weed Control in Beet Crops, Paris. pp. 2138.Google Scholar
11. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1978. Crop values (1975–1976–1977) – season and average prices received by farmers and value of production. Crop Prod. 2–1(78). 29 pp.Google Scholar
12. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1979. Crop values (1976–1977–1978) – season and average prices received for farmers and value of production. Crop Prod. 2-1(79). 29 pp.Google Scholar
13. Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1971. Competition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. Weed Sci. 19:125128.Google Scholar