Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T14:15:04.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Weed Control Systems for Transplanted Sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
John A. Smith
Affiliation:
Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
C. Dean Yonts
Affiliation:
Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
James G. Robb
Affiliation:
Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Eric D. Kerr
Affiliation:
Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361

Abstract

Management systems for direct-seeded and transplanted sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L. ‘Mono Hy D2′) were compared for weed control and sugarbeet selectivity from 1983 through 1985 in western Nebraska. Broadleaf weed density was similar, but yellow foxtail [Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv. # SETLU] density was lower in transplanted compared to direct-seeded sugarbeets. Preplant soil-incorporated applications of cycloate (S-ethyl cyclohexylethylcarbamothioate) plus trifluralin [2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenamine] at 3.3 plus 0.6 kg ai/ha or ethofumesate [(±)-2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate] plus trifluralin at 2.2 plus 0.6 kg/ha was noninjurious to transplanted sugarbeets but caused severe injury to direct-seeded sugarbeets. The combination of cycloate or ethofumesate with trifluralin improved weed control over that obtained when cycloate or ethofumesate was used alone. By combining the improved weed control obtained from cycloate plus trifluralin or ethofumesate plus trifluralin with the transplanting crop establishment technique, a superior sugarbeet weed control program was developed.

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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. Anderson, D. T., Dubetz, S., and Russell, G. C. 1958. Studies on transplanting sugarbeets in southern Alberta. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 10:150155.Google Scholar
2. Association of Official Agriculture Chemists. 1955. Official Methods of Analysis. 8th ed. Washington, DC. Pages 564568.Google Scholar
3. Dawson, J. H. 1974. Full-season weed control in sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 22:330335.Google Scholar
4. Dillon, M. A., McCaslin, B. D., and Schemhl, W. R. 1972. Effect of transplanting and cover on growth of sugarbeet. Agron. J. 64:183186.Google Scholar
5. Eto, H., Kajimoto, A., Umeke, Y., and Kawagoe, H. 1964. On the transplanting cultivation of sugarbeet using paper pots. Jpn. Bull. Sugar Beet Res. Suppl. 4:714.Google Scholar
6. Gaskill, J. D. 1942. Comparison of field seeding of sugar beet and mangel wurzel with two methods of transplanting. Proc. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 3:377381.Google Scholar
7. Hasegawa, T., Takeda, T., Tutumi, T., and Sekimura, K. 1971. The effects of transplanting on the individual variation and selection by root weight and sugar content of beets. Jpn. Bull. Sugar Beet Res. Suppl. 13:18.Google Scholar
8. Knake, E. L., Appleby, A. P., and Furtick, W. R. 1967. Soil incorporation and site of uptake of preemergence herbicides. Weeds 15:228232.Google Scholar
9. Masuda, A. and Kagawa, K. 1963. Agronomical techniques to develop superior seedlings of sugar beet through the “Paper Tube Transplanting System”, growth responses of seedlings to the concentration of fertilizers. Jpn. Bull. Sugar Beet Res. Suppl. 4:714.Google Scholar
10. Schweizer, E. E. 1970. Abberrations in sugarbeet roots as induced by trifluralin. Weed Sci. 18:131134.Google Scholar