Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T02:02:12.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inter-row cultivation timing effects on waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) control and sugarbeet yield and quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2021

Nathan H. Haugrud Open the ORCID record for Nathan H. Haugrud [Opens in a new window]  and
Thomas J. Peters
Nathan H. Haugrud*
Affiliation:
Research Specialist, Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA
Thomas J. Peters
Affiliation:
Associate Professor and Extension Sugarbeet Agronomist, Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Nathan H. Haugrud, Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND58108. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The invasion of waterhemp into northern sugarbeet growing regions has prompted producers to re-integrate inter-row cultivation into weed management programs, as no currently registered herbicides can control glyphosate-resistant waterhemp POST in crop. Inter-row cultivation was a common weed control practice in sugarbeet until the release of glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet cultivars in 2008 made the use of inter-row cultivation unnecessary. In the late 2010s, producers began again to use inter-row cultivation to remove weeds that glyphosate did not control, but producers need information on the effectiveness and safety of inter-row cultivation when used with soil-residual herbicide programs. Efficacy and tolerance field experiments were conducted in Minnesota and North Dakota from 2017 to 2019. Results from the efficacy experiment demonstrated that cultivation improved waterhemp control 11% and 12%, 14 and 28 d after treatment, respectively. Waterhemp response to cultivation was dependent on crop canopy and precipitation after cultivation. Cultivation had minimal effect on waterhemp density in three environments, but at one environment, near Galchutt, ND in 2019, waterhemp density increased 600% and 196%, 14 and 28 d after treatment, respectively. Climate data indicated that in 2019 Galchutt, ND received 105 mm of precipitation in the 14 d following cultivation and had an open crop canopy that probably contributed to further weed emergence. Results from the tolerance experiment demonstrated that root yield and recoverable sucrose were not affected by cultivation timing or number of cultivations. In one environment, cultivating reduced sucrose content by 0.8% regardless of date or cultivation number, but no differences were found in four environments. Damage/destruction of leaf tissue from in-season cultivation is probably responsible for the reduction in sucrose content. Results indicate that cultivation can be a valuable tool to control weeds that herbicide cannot, but excessive rainfall and open crop canopy following cultivation can create an environment conducive to further weed emergence.

Keywords

Cultivationweed controlchloroacetamidecultivation timingsucroseGlyphosatewaterhempAmaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J.D. SauersugarbeetBeta vulgaris L
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , June 2021 , pp. 394 - 403
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Prashant Jha, Iowa State University

References

Alm, DM, Stoller, EW, Wax, LM (1993) An index model for predicting seed germination and emergence rates. Weed Technol 7:560–569 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2014) Warrant® herbicide product label. St Louis, MO: Monsanto CompanyGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2017) Outlook® herbicide product label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corp.Google Scholar
Baskin, JM, Baskin, CC (1990) The role of light and alternating temperatures on germination of Polygonum aviculare seeds exhumed on various dates. Weed Res 30:397–402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollman, SL, Sprague, CL (2007) Optimizing S-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P in sugarbeet microrate treatments. Weed Technol 21:1054–1063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, DD (1997) Effects of tillage and light environment on emergence of 13 annual weeds. Weed Technol 11:496–501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, AL, Luecke, JL, Khan, MFR, Dexter, AG (2008) Survey of weed control and production practices on sugarbeet in Minnesota and eastern North Dakota, 2007. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 38:40–63 Google Scholar
Carlson, AL, Peters, TJ, Khan, MFR, Boetel, MA (2015) Survey of weed control and production practices on sugarbeet in Minnesota and eastern North Dakota in 2014. Sugarbeet Res and Ext Rep 45:6–19 Google Scholar
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- or three- factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665–672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, TM, Renner, KA, Kravchenko, AN (2006) Effect of herbicides on weed control and sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) yield and quality. Weed Technol 20:150–156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, AG (1977) Weed control with postemergence herbicides on sugarbeets in west central Minnesota. Sugarbeet Res and Ext Rep 8:61–63 Google Scholar
Dexter, AG (1983) Influence of cultivation and weed control treatment on sugarbeet yield. Sugarbeet Res and Ext Rep 14:81–85 Google Scholar
Dexter, AG (1994) History of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) herbicide rate reduction in North Dakota and Minnesota. Weed Technol 8:334–337 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, AG, Luecke, JL (2000) Weed control in Liberty Link and Roundup Ready sugarbeet, 1999. Sugarbeet Res and Ext Rep 30:84–89 Google Scholar
Dexter, AG, Luecke, JL, Smith, LJ (2000) Influence of cultivation on yield of Roundup Ready and Liberty Link sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res and Ext Rep 30:100–101 Google Scholar
Egley, GH, Williams, RD (1990) Decline of weed seeds and seedling emergence over five years as affected by soil disturbance. Weed Sci 38:504–510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency (2014) Federal Register Vol. 79, No. 49. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, p 14247–14250Google Scholar
Giles, JF, Cattanach, AW, Cattanach, NR (1987) Effect of postemergence tillage on yield and root development of sugarbeets. Sugarbeet Res and Ext Rep 18:161–163 Google Scholar
Giles, JF, Cattanach, AW, Cattanach, NR (1990) Effect of postemergence tillage on yield of sugarbeets. Sugarbeet Res and Ext Rep 21:218–219 Google Scholar
Guza, CJ, Ransom, CV, Mallory-Smith, C (2002) Weed control in glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.). J Sugarbeet Res 39:109–123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, NJ (2000) Weed management programs for use in herbicide resistant sugarbeet. Master’s thesis. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State UniversityGoogle Scholar
Mohler, CL, Iqbal, J, Shen, J, DiTommaso, A (2016) Effects of water on recovery of weed seedlings following burial. Weed Sci 64:285–293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oryokot, JOE, Murphy, SD, Swanton, CJ (1997) Effect of tillage and corn on pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) seedling emergence and density. Weed Sci 45:120–126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, TJ, Khan, MFR, Boetel, MA (2018) Turning point survey of weed control and production practices in sugarbeet in Minnesota and eastern North Dakota in 2016. Sugarbeet Res and Ext Rep 48:6–12 Google Scholar
Peters, TJ, Khan, MFR, Boetel, MA (2020) Turning point survey of weed control and production practices in sugarbeet in Minnesota and Eastern North Dakota in 2018. Sugarbeet Res and Ext Rep 50:7–12 Google Scholar
Peters, TJ, Lueck, AB, Groen, C (2017) Continued evaluation of the strategy for managing waterhemp in sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res and Ext Rep 47:30–38 Google Scholar
Schneider, CL, Ruppel, EG, Hecker, RJ, Hogaboam, GJ (1982) Effect of soil deposition in crowns on development of rhizoctonia root rot in sugarbeet. Plant Dis 66:408–410 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, EE, May, MJ (1993) Weeds and weed control. Pages 485–519 in Cooke, DA, Scott, RK, eds. The Sugar Beet Crop. London, UK: Chapman & Hall CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stachler, JM, Carlson, AL, Khan, MFR, Boetel, MA (2011) Survey of weed control and production practices on sugarbeet in Minnesota and eastern North Dakota in 2011. Sugarbeet Res and Ext Rep 42:46–69 Google Scholar
VanGessel, MJ, Schweizer, EE, Wilson, RG, Wiles, LJ, Westra, P (1998) Impact of timing and frequency of in-row cultivation for weed control in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol 12:548–553 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Windels, CE, Brantner, JR (2008) Rhizoctonia on sugarbeet following rotation crops. Sugarbeet Res and Ext Rep 38:272–280 Google Scholar
Windels, CE, Lamey, HA (1998) Identification and control of seeding diseases, root rot, and rhizomania on sugarbeet. University of Minnesota, Crookston. North Dakota State University, Fargo. February 1998. https://library.ndsu.edu/ir/bitstream/handle/10365/9188/PP1142_1998.pdf?sequence=1 Google Scholar