Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:59:47.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sugarbeet tolerance when dimethenamid-P follows soil-applied ethofumesate and S-metolachlor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2019

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

Abstract

Sugarbeet growers only recently have combined ethofumesate, S-metolachlor, and dimethenamid-P in a weed control system for waterhemp control. Sugarbeet plant density, visible stature reduction, root yield, percent sucrose content, and recoverable sucrose were measured in field experiments at five environments between 2014 and 2016. Sugarbeet stand density and stature reduction occurred in some but not all environments. Stand density was reduced with PRE application of S-metolachlor at 1.60 kg ai ha–1 and S-metolachlor at 0.80 kg ha–1 + ethofumesate at 1.68 kg ai ha–1 alone or followed by POST applications of dimethenamid-P at 0.95 kg ai ha–1. Sugarbeet visible stature was reduced when dimethenamid-P followed PRE treatments. Stature reduction was greatest with ethofumesate at 1.68 or 4.37 kg ha–1 PRE and S-metolachlor at 0.80 kg ha–1 + ethofumesate at 1.68 kg ha–1 PRE followed by dimethenamid-P at 0.95 kg ha–1 POST. Stature reduction ranged from 0 to 32% 10 d after treatment (DAT), but sugarbeet recovered quickly and visible injury was negligible 23 DAT. Although root yield and recoverable sucrose were similar across herbicide treatments and environments, we caution against the use of S-metolachlor at 0.80 kg ha–1 + ethofumesate at 1.68 kg ai ha–1 PRE followed by dimethenamid-P at 0.95 kg ha–1 in sugarbeet.

Keywords

Jha Prashant, Montana State UniversityDimethenamid-PethofumesateS-metolachlorsugarbeet, Beta vulgaris L.waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J.D. SauerHerbicide application timingherbicide layeredsequential applications
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , June 2019 , pp. 431 - 440
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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

Abulnaja, KO, Tighe, CR, Harwood, JL (1992) Inhibition of fatty acid elongation provides a basis for the action of the herbicide, ethofumesate, on surface wax formation. Phytochemistry 31:1155–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2014) Dual Magnum® herbicide product label. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection LLCGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2017) Outlook® herbicide product label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corp.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2018) Warrant® herbicide supplemental product label. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto CompanyGoogle Scholar
Aulakh, JS, Jhala, AJ (2015) Comparison of glufosinate-based herbicide programs for broad-spectrum weed control in glufosinate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol 29:419–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blouin, D, Webster, E, Bond, J (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollman, SL, Sprague, CL (2007) Optimizing S-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P in sugarbeet microrate treatments. Weed Technol 21:1054–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollman, SL, Sprague, CL (2008) Tolerance of 12 sugarbeet varieties to applications of metolachlor and dimethenamid-P. Weed Technol 22:699–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, P, Harwood, JL (1976) Effect of thiocarbamate herbicides on fatty acid synthesis by potato. Phytochemistry 31:1155–1159Google Scholar
Campbell, LG, Enz, JL (1991) Temperature effects on sugarbeet seedling emergence. J Sugar Beet Res 28:129–140CrossRefGoogle 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 45:6–19Google Scholar
Cattanach, AW (1995) Factors affecting stand establishment in the Red River Valley. J Sugar Beet Res 32:132Google Scholar
Devine, M, Duke, SO, Fedke, C (1993) Herbicide effects on lipid synthesis. Pages 225–242 in Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Dexter, AG (1975) Preplant incorporated herbicides on sugarbeet in the Red River Valley. North Cent Weed Control Conf Res Rep 32:146–147Google Scholar
Dexter, AG (1994) History of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) herbicide rate reduction in North Dakota and Minnesota. Weed Technol 8:334–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, AG, Luecke, JL (2004) Dual and Dual Magnum on sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res and Ext Rep 34:79–83Google Scholar
Duncan, DN, Meggitt, WF, Penner, D (1982a) The basis for selectivity of root-applied ethofumesate in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) and three weed species. Weed Sci 30:191–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, DN, Meggitt, WF, Penner, D (1982b) Basis for increased activity from herbicide combinations with ethofumesate applied on sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci 30:195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekins, WL, Cronin, CH (1972) NC 8438, a promising new broad spectrum herbicide for sugar beet. J Amer Soc Sugar Beet Technol 17:134–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Entz, MH (1982) Ethofumesate (Norton) layering—a comparison of different application times. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 13:76–79Google Scholar
Eshel, J, Zimdahl, RL, Schweizer, EE (1976) Basis for interaction of ethofumesate and desmedipham on sugarbeets and weeds. Weed Sci 24:619–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eshel, J, Zimdahl, RL, Schweizer, EE (1978) Uptake and translocation of ethofumesate in sugar-beet plants. Pesticide Sci 9:301–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, RG, Buhler, DD, Stoltenberg, DE (1999) Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci 47:578–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2018) The international survey of herbicide resistant weeds. http://www.weedscience.com. Accessed: March 4, 2018Google Scholar
Hinz, JRR, Owen, MDK (1997) Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) population. Weed Technol 11:13–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, MJ, Peterson, DE (1995) Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranth rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol 9:192–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, MFR, Hakk, P (2016) Comparing yield and quality of sugarbeet at different plant populations. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 46:77–78Google Scholar
Kniss, AR, Odero, DC (2013) Interaction between preemergence ethofumesate and postemergence glyphosate. Weed Technol 27:47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leavitt, JRC, Duncan, DN, Penner, D, Meggitt, WF (1979) Inhibition of epicuticular wax deposition on cabbage by ethofumesate. Plant Physiol 61:1034–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lueck, AB (2017) Environmental conditions, variety, and application timing influence on S-metolachlor sugarbeet crop safety. Master’s thesis. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University. 55 pGoogle Scholar
McAuliffe, D, Appleby, AP (1981) Effect of pre-irrigation period on the activity of ethofumesate applied to dry soil. Weed Sci 29:712–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, MS (1983) Analysis of combined experiments. Agron J 75:153–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, TJ (2016) Estimating time of waterhemp emergence using a growing degree day calculator. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 46:31–33Google Scholar
Peters, TJ, Lueck, AB, Radermacher, J (2016a) A strategy for managing waterhemp in sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 46:22–30Google Scholar
Peters, TJ, Lueck, AB, Metzger, M, Radermacher, J (2016b) Spring-seeded cereals as cover crops in sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 46:34–40Google Scholar
Peters, TJ, Lueck, AB, Groen, C (2017) Continued evaluation of the strategy for managing waterhemp in sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 47:30–38Google Scholar
Peters, TJ, Lueck, AB, Mettler, D, Groen, C (2018) Continued refinement of the waterhemp control strategy in sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 48:17–23Google Scholar
Pusino, A, Liu, W, Gessa, C (1992) Influence of organic matter and its clay complexes on metolachlor adsorption on soil. Pesticide Sci 36:283–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radosevich, SR, Holt, JS, Ghersa, C (1997) Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Pp 3–33Google Scholar
Rice, CA, Ransom, CV, Ishida, JK (2002) Efficacy and sugarbeet tolerance with postemergence dimethenamid-P. J Sugar Beet Res 39:89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, B, Adler, U, Varsano, R, Rabinowitch, HD (1986) Effect of ethofumesate on the epicuticular waxes of onion leaves, and the response of plants to foliage-applied herbicides. Ann Appl Biol 108:365–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauer, JD (1957) Recent migration and evolution of dioecious amaranths. Evolution 11:11–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, EE (1975) Crop response to soil application of ethofumesate. Weed Sci 23:409–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, EE (1979) Weed control in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) with mixtures of cycloate and ethofumesate. Weed Sci 27:516–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 513 pGoogle 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 Manage Sci 62:617–623CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, GA, Schweizer, EE (1983) Cultivar × herbicide interaction in sugarbeet. Crop Sci 23:325–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, LJ, Cattanach, AW, Lamb, JA (1990) Uniform vs variable in-row spacing of sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res and Ext Rep 20:151–156Google Scholar
Stachler, JM, Luecke, JL (2011) Control of waterhemp in glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet. Proc North Cent Weed Sci Soc 66:136Google Scholar
Steckel, LE, Sprague, CL, Hager, AG (2002) Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in corn (Zea mays) with single preemergence and sequential application of residual herbicides. Weed Technol 16:755–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, EF (1973) Efficacy of preplant/postemergence weeding system on sugarbeet, 1968–72. J Am Soc Sug Beet Technol 17:345–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, EF, Fagala, LT (1970) Herbicide evaluations on sugar beets, 1970. Res Rep North Cent Weed Control Conf 27:25–27Google 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
Wilson, RG (1999) Response of nine sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) cultivars to postemergence herbicide applications. Weed Technol 13:25–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar