Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T13:15:54.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environment influences sugarbeet tolerance to S-metolachlor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2020

Andrew B. Lueck ,
Thomas J. Peters Open the ORCID record for Thomas J. Peters [Opens in a new window]  and
Alexa L. Lystad
Andrew B. Lueck
Affiliation:
Research Specialist, Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA
Thomas J. Peters*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA
Alexa L. Lystad
Affiliation:
Research Specialist, Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Thomas J. Peters, Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA; University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicides used in sugarbeet are commonly adapted from other row crops and may cause injury and yield loss often associated with environmental and edaphic factors. Glyphosate-resistant waterhemp in sugarbeet requires a PRE herbicide, such as S-metolachlor, for its control. The objectives of this research were to evaluate sugarbeet tolerance to PRE S-metolachlor, including air temperature and soil water content interactions with soil series in field and growth chamber experiments. Results from field experiments conducted in 12 environments in 2015, 2016, and 2017 indicated 2.16 or 4.32 kg ai ha−1S-metolachlor applied PRE reduced sugarbeet density and stature but did not reduce root yield, sucrose content, or recoverable sucrose compared with the untreated control in environments with soils with less than 3.5% organic matter (OM) and receiving greater than 40-mm cumulative rainfall within 14 d after planting. In the growth chamber, sugarbeet density and shoot fresh weight following S-metolachlor application was influenced by soil moisture content, air temperature, and soil series but not by S-metolachlor rate. Sugarbeet density and shoot fresh weight were reduced 15% and 106%, respectively, when S-metolachlor was applied to a Glyndon sandy loam (2.6% OM, 9.5% clay) at 100% field capacity (FC) and 14 C compared with S-metolachlor application to a Fargo silty clay (7.7% OM and 54% clay) at 100% FC and 21 C. It is concluded that field selection, rather than herbicide rate, is an important criterion for managing sugarbeet tolerance with S-metolachlor.

Keywords

Resistance managementsoil residual herbicidesugarbeet toleranceGlyphosateS-metolachlorsugarbeet, Beta vulgaris L.waterhempAmaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J.D. Sauer
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , August 2020 , pp. 597 - 606
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Amit Jhala, University of Nebraska, Lincoln

References

Anonymous (2015) Dual Magnum® herbicide label. Greensboro NC: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC. 50 pGoogle Scholar
Bollman, SL, Sprague, CL (2007) Optimizing s-metolachlor and dimethanamid-P in sugarbeet microrate treatments. Weed Technol 21:1054–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollman, SL, Sprague, CL (2008) Tolerance of 12 sugarbeet varieties to applications of s-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P. Weed Technol 22:699–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollman, SL, Sprague, CL (2009) Effect of tillage and soil-applied herbicides with micro-rate herbicide programs on weed control and sugarbeet growth. Weed Technol 23:264–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollman, SL, Sprague, CL, Penner, D (2008) Physiological basis for tolerance of sugarbeet varieties to s-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P. Weed Sci 56:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, DD, Hartzler, RG (2001) Emergence and persistence of seed of velvetleaf, common waterhemp, woolly cupgrass, and giant foxtail. Weed Sci 49:230–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, P, Wang, X, Liu, F, Zhao, E, Han, L (2008) Dissipation and residue of S-metolachlor in maize and soil. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 80:391–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassel, DK, Nielsen, DR (1986) Field capacity and available water capacity. Pages 901–926in Klute, A, ed. Methods of Soil Analyses, 2nd ed. Madison, WI: American Society of AgronomyGoogle Scholar
Cioni, F, Maines, G (2010) Weed control in sugarbeet. Sugar Tech 12:243–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, KA, Lym, RG (2013) Effect of temperature and moisture on aminocyclopyrachlor soil half-life. Weed Technol 27:552–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordes, JC, Johnson, WG, Scharf, P, Smeda, RJ (2004) Late-emerging common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in conventional tillage corn. Weed Technol 18:999–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, AG, Luecke, JL (2004) Dual and Dual Magnum on sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 34:79–83Google Scholar
Franca, LX (2015) Emergence patterns of common waterhemp and Palmer amaranth in southern Illinois. MS thesis. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. 114 pGoogle Scholar
Giles, JF, Cattanach, NR (2004) Effect of plant population and planting date on sugar production—2 year summary. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 34:159–165Google Scholar
Hartzler, RG, Buhler, DD, Stoltenberg, DE (1999) Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci 47:578–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2019) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: October 17, 2019Google Scholar
Hinz, JRR, Owen, MDK (1997) Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp (Amarantus rudis) population. Weed Technol 11:13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, MJ, Peterson, DE (1995) Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol 9:192–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lueck, AB, Peters, TJ, Khan, MF, Boetel, MA (2017) Survey of weed control and production practices on sugarbeet in Minnesota and eastern North Dakota in 2016. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 47:7–17Google Scholar
Khan, MFR, Hakk, P (2016) Comparing yield and quality of sugarbeet at different plant populations. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 46:77–78Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Monks, DW (2010) Evaluation of flumioxazin and S-metolachlor rate and timing for palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 24:495–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, KJ, Dixon, PM (2014) Analysis of combined experiments revisited. Agron J 107:763–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obrigawitch, T, Hons, FM, Abernathy, JR, Gipson, JR (1981) Adsorption, desorption, and mobility of metolachlor in soils. Weed Sci 29:332–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connell, PJ, Harms, CT, Allen, JRF (1998) Metolachlor, S-metolachlor and their role within sustainable weed-management. Crop Prot 17:207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, TJ, Lueck, AB, Carlson, AL (2019) Sugarbeet tolerance when dimethenamid-P follows soil-applied ethofumesate and S-metolachlor. Weed Technol 33:431–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, TJ, Lueck, AB, Groen, C (2017) Continued evaluation for the strategy for managing waterhemp in sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 47:30–38Google Scholar
Pusino, A, Liu, W, Gessa, C (1992) Influence of organic matter and its clay complexes on metolachlor adsorption on soil. Pestic Sci 36:283–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, L, Rossman, E, Penner, D (1990) Differential response of corn hybrids and inbreds to metolachlor. Weed Technol 38:563–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, EE, Dexter, AG (1987) Weed control in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) in North America. Rev Weed Sci 3:113–134Google Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp 405–408Google Scholar
Shaner, DL, Brunk, G, Belles, D, Westra, P, Nissen, S (2006) Soil dissipation and biological activity of metolachlor and S-metolachlor in five soils. Pest Manag Sci 62:617–623CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, GA, Schweizer, EE (1983) Cultivar × herbicide interaction in sugarbeet. Crop Sci 23:325–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, LJ (2003) Plant population and date of planting effects on sugarbeet yield and quality. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 33:124–127Google Scholar
Soltani, N, Dille, A, Robinson, DE, Sprague, CL, Morishita, DW, Lawrence, NC, Kniss, AR, Jha, P, Felix, J, Nurse, RE, Sikkema, PH (2018) Potential yield loss in sugar beet due to weed interference in the United States and Canada. Weed Technol 32:749–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, LE, Sprague, CL, Hager, AG (2002) Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in corn (Zea mays) with single preemergence and sequential applications of residual herbicides. Weed Technol 16:755–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werle, R, Sandell, LD, Buhler, DD, Hartzler, RG, Lindquist, JL (2014) Predicting emergence of 23 summer annual weed species. Weed Sci 62:267–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westra, EP, Shaner, DL, Barbarick, KA, Khosla, R (2015) Evaluation of sorption coefficients for pyroxasulfone, S-metolachlor, and dimethenamid-p. Air Soil. Water Res 8:9–15Google Scholar
Wicks, GA, Wilson, RG (1983) Control of weeds in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) with hand hoeing and herbicides. Weed Sci 31:493–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar