Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T08:36:42.456Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Repeated Reduced Rates of Broadleaf Herbicides in Combination with Methylated Seed Oil for Postemergence Weed Control in Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert G. Wilson ,
John A. Smith  and
C. Dean Yonts
Robert G. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture
John A. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska, 4502 Avenue I, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
C. Dean Yonts
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Nebraska, 4502 Avenue I, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: rwilson1@unl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field trials were conducted at five sites from 2001 through 2003 to determine the influence on sugarbeet and weeds of repeated broadcast and banded reduced rates of desmedipham plus phenmedipham, triflusulfuron, and clopyralid in combination with either 1.5 or 3% v/v methylated seed oil (MSO). Desmedipham plus phenmedipham, triflusulfuron, and clopyralid were applied POST three times at 5 to 7 d intervals at either 25, 50, 75, or 100% of a 180 plus 180 plus 18 plus 100 g ai/ha dosage (full rate). When averaged over all herbicide rates, crop injury was 6% greater, but common lambsquarters control was 5% higher, and crop yield was 15% greater with broadcast compared with banded herbicide application. In most situations, adding MSO at 3% rather than 1.5% did not improve weed control. Sugarbeet injury was lowest (11%) and the average weed control was 86% when herbicide rates (with 1.5% MSO) were 25% of the full rate (microrate). Applying an herbicide rate (with 1.5% MSO) that was 50% of the full rate (half rate) increased crop injury from 11% with the microrate to 18% with the half rate and elevated average weed control from 86% with the microrate to 92% with the half rate. Common lambsquarters control increased from 81% with the microrate to 89% with the half rate. Sugarbeet root yield was 23 t/ha when no herbicide was used, 48 t/ha with the microrate, and 49 t/ha with the half rate compared with 54 t/ha when the full rate was applied without MSO. Increasing herbicide rates to 75% of the full rate (three-quarter rate) (with 1.5% MSO) increased crop injury to 27% and average weed control to 96%. Applying 1.5% MSO to the full rate increased crop injury to 35% with no improvement in average weed control over that achieved with the full rate without MSO.

Keywords

Clopyraliddesmediphamphenmediphamtriflusulfuroncommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALsugarbeet, Beta vulgaris L. ‘Beta 1775’, ‘Beta 4546’, ‘HM1639RZ’Adjuvantscrop tolerancecrop yieldDAT, days after treatmentfull rate, desmedipham plus phenmedipham, triflusulfuron, and clopyralid at 180 plus 180 plus 18 plus 100 g/hahalf rate, desmedipham plus phenmedipham, triflusulfuron, and clopyralid at 90 plus 90 plus 9 plus 50 g/hamicrorate, desmedipham plus phenmedipham, triflusulfuron, and clopyralid at 45 plus 45 plus 4.5 plus 25 g/haMSO, methylated seed oilthree-quarters rate, desmedipham plus phenmedipham, triflusulfuron, and clopyralid at 135 plus 135 plus 13.5 plus 75 g/ha
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 855 - 860
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Association of Official Agriculture Chemists. 1955. Official Methods of Analysis. 8th ed. Washington, DC: AOAC. Pp. 564–568.Google Scholar
Bethlenfalvay, G. and Norris, R. F. 1977. Desmedipham phytotoxicity to sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) under constant vs. variable light, temperature, and moisture conditions. Weed Sci. 25:407–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, A. G. 1994. History of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) herbicide rate reduction in North Dakota and Minnesota. Weed Technol. 8:334–337.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 2002. Control of kochia with registered herbicides. in 2001 Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University and USDA. Pp. 77–83. Available at www.sbreb.org.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 2003. Influence of adjuvant on weed control and sugarbeet injury from herbicide combinations. in 2002 Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University and USDA. Pp. 83–85. Available at www.sbreb.org.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 2004. New and generic formulations of old sugarbeet herbicides. in 2003 Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University and USDA. Pp. 87–90. Available at www.sbreb.org.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G., Luecke, J. L., and Bredehoeft, M. W. 1997. Microrates of postemergence herbicides for sugarbeet. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:139.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G., Luecke, J. L., and Cattanach, A. 1998. Survey of weed control and production practices on sugarbeet in eastern North Dakota and Minnesota—1997. in 1997 Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University and USDA. Pp. 37–81. Available at www.sbreb.org.Google Scholar
Fore, Z. Q. and Dexter, A. G. 1989. The influence of application factors on the phytotoxicity of several postemergence herbicides. J. Sugar Beet Res. 26:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agriculture Research. New York: J. Wiley. 680 p.Google Scholar
Luecke, J. L. and Dexter, A. G. 2004. Survey of weed control and production practices on sugarbeet in eastern North Dakota and Minnesota—2003. in 2003 Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University and USDA. Pp. 36–65. Available at www.sbreb.org.Google Scholar
McClean, S. P. and May, M. J. 1986. A comparison of overall herbicide application with band-spraying and inter-row cultivation for weed control in sugar beet. Proc. 49th Winter Congress of the Int. Inst. for Sugar Beet Research. Pp. 345–354.Google Scholar
Starke, R. J., Renner, K. A., Penner, D., and Roggenbuck, F. C. 1996. Influence of adjuvants and desmedipham plus phenmedipham on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and sugarbeet response to triflusulfuron. Weed Sci. 44:489–495.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1994. New herbicides for postemergence application in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 8:807–811.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 2003. Improving weed control with a new microrate formula. J. Sugar Beet Res. 40:113.Google Scholar