Bioone.org will be down for maintenance on 16 May, 2022 from 18:00-22:00 Pacific US. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Translator Disclaimer
1 January 2006 Effect of Herbicides on Weed Control and Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) Yield and Quality
TREVOR M. DALE, KAREN A. RENNER, ALEXANDRA N. KRAVCHENKO
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The “micro-rate” application, a POST combination of desmedipham plus phenmedipham at 0.045 0.045 kg ai/ha (desphen) or desmedipham plus phenmedipham plus ethofumesate3 (1:1: 1 ratio) (desphenetho) at 0.09 kg ai/ha plus triflusulfuron at 0.004 kg ai/ha plus clopyralid at 0.026 kg ae/ha plus 1.5% methylated seed oil received registration in 1998 and 2000 in North Dakota and Michigan, respectively. Herbicide rates are reduced by 80%, compared to standard-split applications, and growers typically apply the micro-rate three to five times to very small weeds that are 1 cm or less in height. In standard-split applications, growers make two sequential applications, the first when weeds are 1.5 cm tall and the sequential application usually 10 to 14 d later. Research was conducted in small plots and large grower plots in 2001 and 2002 to determine the effect of PRE herbicides on weed control and sugarbeet injury from micro-rates compared to standard-split POST herbicide applications. Sugarbeet populations were reduced in the cycloate treatment compared to all other PRE and the no-PRE treatment in 2001 and in the S-metolachlor compared to the ethofumesate treatment in 2002. Sugarbeet injury was 6% or less from POST-only treatments in 2001. Control of common lambsquarters and Amaranthus spp. by desphen and desphenetho treatments was similar. Sugarbeet injury in 2002 was 29 to 43% from POST-only treatments. The standard-split of desphenetho was more injurious than the standard-split of desphen. Common lambsquarters control was greater in both the standard-split and micro-rate of desphenetho compared to the standard-split of desphen in 2002. However, sugarbeet populations and recoverable white sucrose per hectare did not differ among POST herbicide treatments in either year. No herbicide program provided 100% control of all weeds in both years. In the seven large production fields, PRE herbicide treatments did not reduce sugarbeet populations or recoverable sucrose per hectare compared to the no-PRE control. Weed control from four POST micro-rate applications only was similar to weed control in instances in which PRE herbicides were applied prior to the POST micro-rate applications.

Nomenclature: Cycloate, pyrazon, ethofumesate, desmedipham plus phenmedipham, triflusulfuron, clopyralid, Chenopodium album L. #4 CHEAL; Amaranthus species # AMASS.

Additional index words: Micro-rate, standard-split.

Abbreviations: DAT, days after treatment; desphen, desmedipham phenmedipham; desphenetho, desmedipham phenmedipham ethofumesate; fb, followed by; RWSH, recoverable white sucrose per hectare.

TREVOR M. DALE, KAREN A. RENNER, and ALEXANDRA N. KRAVCHENKO "Effect of Herbicides on Weed Control and Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) Yield and Quality," Weed Technology 20(1), 150-156, (1 January 2006). https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-04-278R1.1
Published: 1 January 2006
JOURNAL ARTICLE
7 PAGES


Share
SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top