Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:39:02.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition of Late-Emerging Weeds with Sugarbeets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J.H. Dawson
J.H. Dawson*
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric, Irrigated Agric. Res. and Ext. Center, Prosser, WA 99350
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed-free sugarbeets [Beta vulgaris (L.) Beauv.] growing at a spacing of 60 cm (1/2 stand) yielded the same weight of roots as those spaced 30 cm (full stand), and those spaced 90 cm (1/3 stand) yielded about 90% as much. Gross sucrose yield was reduced somewhat more, because the larger roots growing in partial stands contained a lower percentage of sucrose than the roots in full stands. Annual weeds that emerged after July 1 were suppressed and. killed by competition from sugarbeets of normal vigor in a full stand, but became competitive when the sugarbeets were spaced at 1/2 or 1/3 of a full stand. Competition from barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.] and pigweed (mixture of Amaranthus retroflexus L. and A. powellii S. Wats.), which reached a height of 150 cm, reduced root yields 5 to 39% in 1/2 stands and 19 to 49% in 1/3 stands, as compared with weed-free sugarbeets in the same stands. Hairy nightshade (Solarium sarachoides Sendt.) was abundant but never became taller than the sugarbeets. Its competition had no measurable effect on the sugarbeets.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , March 1977 , pp. 168 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 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. Bremmer, P.M., El Saeed, E.A.K., and Scott, R.K. 1967. Some aspects of competition for light in potatoes and sugar beet. J. Agric. Sci. 69:283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Brewbaker, H.E. and Deming, G.W. 1935. Effect of variations in stand on yield and quality of sugar beets grown under irrigation. J. Agric. Res. 50:195–210.Google Scholar
3. Brimhall, P.B., Chamberlain, E.W., and Alley, H.P. 1965. Competition of annual weeds and sugar beets. Weeds 13:33–35.Google Scholar
4. Dawson, J.H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugar beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245–249.Google Scholar
5. Dawson, J.H. 1973. Components of full-season weed control in sugarbeets. Wash. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 780. 11 pp.Google Scholar
6. Schweizer, E.E. 1974. Predicting sugarbeet root losses based on kochia densities. Weed Sci. 21:565–567.Google Scholar
7. Weatherspoon, D.M. and Schweizer, E.E. 1969. Competition between kochia and sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 17:464–467.Google Scholar
8. Weatherspoon, D.M. and Schweizer, E.E. 1971. Competition between sugarbeets and five densities of kochia. Weed Sci. 19:125–128.Google Scholar
9. Zimdahl, R.L. and Fertig, S.N. 1967. Influence of weed competition on sugar beets. Weeds 15:336–339.Google Scholar