Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T03:40:51.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ethofumesate applied at greater than labeled rates postemergence to sugarbeet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 July 2023

Alexa L. Lystad Open the ORCID record for Alexa L. Lystad [Opens in a new window]  and
Thomas J. Peters Open the ORCID record for Thomas J. Peters [Opens in a new window]
Alexa L. Lystad*
Affiliation:
Research Specialist, Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA
Thomas J. Peters
Affiliation:
Associate Professor/Sugarbeet Agronomist, Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA; also Extension Sugarbeet Agronomist, Agriculture and Natural Resources Department, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA
*
Corresponding author: Alexa Lystad; Email: alexa.l.lystad@ndsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ethofumesate is a broad-spectrum, soil-applied herbicide used to control broadleaf and grass weeds in sugarbeet crops. Ethofumesate is commonly applied preemergence at rates ranging from 1.25 to 4.2 kg ai ha−1, or applied postemergence (POST), up to 0.38 kg ai ha−1. The Generic Crop Science company has developed a new Ethofumesate 4SC label that has increased ethofumesate POST rates up to 4.48 kg ha−1 in sugarbeet with more than two true leaves per plant. Field and greenhouse experiments were conducted in 2018 and 2019 to evaluate sugarbeet tolerance and herbicide efficacy. Field tolerance experiments indicated sugarbeet stature from ethofumesate applied POST at 0.28, 0.56, and 1.12 kg ha−1 was the same as that of the nontreated control, but ethofumesate at 2.24 kg ha−1 reduced sugarbeet stature, although that rate did not affect yield components. Ethofumesate applied POST at 4.48 kg ha−1 reduced sugarbeet stature and affected sugarbeet yield components. Ethofumesate applied alone POST provided weed control of up to 85%, 76%, and 84% on common lambsquarters, redroot pigweed, and waterhemp, respectively, in field efficacy experiments. Mixing ethofumesate at 1.12 kg ha−1 with glyphosate does not provide a second effective herbicide for POST control of common lambsquarters or redroot pigweed, but it does provide residual control of these weeds when at least one-half inch of penetrating rainfall occurs, following application. In greenhouse experiments, ethofumesate alone or ethofumesate plus glyphosate applied to common lambsquarters, redroot pigweed, or waterhemp at heights of less than 2.5 cm provided the best combination of burndown and soil residual control compared with weeds that were 2.5 to 5 cm tall. Ethofumesate applied POST at 1.12 kg ha−1 plus glyphosate provided the best combination of tolerance and efficacy, especially on waterhemp.

Keywords

Ethofumesateglyphosatecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L.redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L.waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer.sugarbeet, Beta vulgaris L. ssp. vulgaris var. altissimaSoil residual herbicidepreemergencepostemergencesugarbeet tolerance
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , August 2023 , pp. 343 - 351
Check for updates
Creative Commons
This is a work of the US Government and is not subject to copyright protection within the United States. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America.
Copyright
© North Dakota State University, 2023

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

Abulnaja, KO, Tighe, CR, Harwood, JL (1992) Inhibition of fatty acid elongation provides a basis for the action the herbicide, ethofumesate, on surface wax formation. Phytochemistry 31:1155−1159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2014) Warrant® herbicide product label. Monsanto Publication No. 524-591. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto Company. 3 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2017) Ethofumesate 4SC® herbicide product label. Willowood Publication No. 87290. Broomfield, CO: Willowood, LLC. 6 pGoogle Scholar
Bollman, SL, Sprague, CL (2007) Optimizing s-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P in sugarbeet microrate treatments. Weed Technol 21:1054−1063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cioni, F, Maines, G (2011) Weed control in sugarbeet. Sugar Tech 12:243−255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, AG (1975) Preplant incorporated herbicides on sugarbeets in the red river valley. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 6:83–84 Google Scholar
Dexter, AG (1976) Control of wild oats and other weeds with preplant incorporate herbicides in sugarbeets. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 7:44–45 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
Devine, M, Duke, SO, Fedke, C (1993) Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 441 pGoogle Scholar
Edwards, D, Zinn, N, Prieto, R, Wyatt, TJ, Brown, L, Al-Mudallal, A, Morales, J, Hansen, L, McCarroll, N, Travaglini, R, Miller, J, Parsons, L, Mottl, N (2005) Reregistration eligibility decision for ethofumesate. Environmental Protection Agency document number 738-R-05-010. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/red_PC-110601_1-Sep-05.pdf. Accessed: January 28, 2020Google Scholar
Ekins, WL, Cronin, CH (1972) NC 8438, a promising new broad spectrum herbicide for sugarbeet. J Am Soc Sugar Beet Technol 17:134−143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eshel, Y, Zimdahl, RL, Schweizer, EE (1976) Basis for interactions of ethofumesate and desmedipham on sugarbeets and weeds. Weed Sci 24:619−626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eshel, J, Zimdahl, RL, Schweizer, EE (1978) Uptake and translocation of ethofumesate in sugar-beet plants. Pestic Sci 9:301−304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, RG, Buhler, DD, Stoltenberg, DE (1999) Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci 47:578−584 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2023) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. www.weedscience.org. Accessed: February 8, 2023Google Scholar
Jursik, M, Holec, J, Soukup, J, Venclova, V (2008) Competitive relationships between sugar beet and weeds in dependence on time of weed control. Plant Soil Environ 54:108−116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kniss, AR, Odero, DC (2013) Interaction between preemergence ethofumesate and postemergence glyphosate. Weed Sci 27:47−53 Google Scholar
Milford, GFJ (2006) Plant structure and crop physiology. Draycott, AP, ed. Oxford, UK: Chapman & Hall. 30 pGoogle Scholar
Miller, SA, Nalawaja, JD (1973) Effect of additives upon phenmedipham for weed control in sugarbeets. Weed Sci 21:67–70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patzoldt, WL, Tranel, PJ, Hager, AG (2004) A waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) biotype with multiple resistance across three herbicide sites of action. Weed Sci 53:30−36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, TP, Lueck, AB, Carlson, AL (2019) Sugarbeet tolerance when dimethenamid-P follows soil-applied ethofumesate and S-metolachlor. Weed Technol 33:431–440 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, TP, Lueck, A, Mettler, D, Groen, C (2017) Continued refinement of the waterhemp control strategy in sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 47:17−23 Google Scholar
Peters, TP, Lueck, AB, Radermacher, J (2016) A strategy for managing waterhemp in sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 46:22−30 Google Scholar
Peters, TJ, Lystad, A (2017) Weed control from ethofumesate applied postemergence in sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res Ext Rep 47:13−16 Google Scholar
Schweizer, EE (1975) Crop response to soil applications of ethofumesate. Weed Sci 23:409−413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, EE, May, MJ (1993) Weeds and weed control. Pages 485–514 in Cook, DA, Scott, RK eds., The Sugar Beet Crop. Dordrecht: Springer CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, GA, Schweizer, EE (1983) Cultivar × herbicide interaction in sugarbeet. Crop Sci 23:325−328 CrossRefGoogle 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 32:749−753 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, EF, Fagala, LT (1970) Herbicide evaluation on sugarbeets. Res Rep North Cent Weed Control Conf 27:25−27 Google Scholar
Werle, R, Sandell, LD, Buhler, DD, Hartzler, RG, Lindquist, JL (2014) Predicting emergence of 23 summer annual weed species. Weed Sci 62:267−279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wicks, GA, Wilson, RG (1983) Control of weeds in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) with hand hoeing and herbicides. Weed Sci 31:493−499 CrossRefGoogle Scholar