Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T01:08:09.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance of 12 Sugarbeet Varieties to Applications of s-Metolachlor and Dimethenamid-P

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Scott L. Bollman  and
Christy L. Sprague
Scott L. Bollman
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Christy L. Sprague*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: sprague1@msu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sugarbeet varieties vary in their response to herbicides. s-Metolachlor and dimethenamid-P were recently registered for use in sugarbeet. Field trials were conducted in Michigan in 2004, 2005, and 2006 to evaluate the response of 12 sugarbeet varieties to s-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P applied PRE and POST to two-leaf and four-leaf stage sugarbeet. s-Metolachlor and dimethenamid-P reduced sugarbeet density when rainfall occurred within 7 d of the PRE applications. Dimethenamid-P PRE caused the most injury across all varieties followed by s-metolachlor PRE. Applying dimethenamid-P POST to two-leaf sugarbeet injured plants more than s-metolachlor applied POST to two- and four-leaf stage sugarbeet. The least amount of sugarbeet injury from dimethenamid-P was from POST applications at the four-leaf stage. Sugarbeet varietal differences were most pronounced from PRE applications of both herbicides and from the POST two-leaf application of dimethenamid-P. Of the 12 sugarbeet varieties evaluated, Hilleshog 2771RZ and Beta 5833R were the most tolerant, whereas Hilleshog 7172RZ was typically the most sensitive variety to these herbicides. Growers will probably not choose varieties based on herbicide tolerance alone, but instead base variety selection on sugar yield and disease resistance. However, if a grower has chosen a particular variety, this information could assist in assessing the risk of using s-metolachlor or dimethenamid-P for weed control.

Keywords

Dimethenamid-Ps-metolachlorsugarbeet, Beta vularis L.Application timingchloroacetamidesvarietal tolerance
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 699 - 706
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

Bernards, M. L., Simmons, J. T., Guza, C. J., Schulz, C. R., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 2006. Inbred corn response to acetamide herbicides as affected by safeners and microencapsulation. Weed Technol 20:458–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottingham, C. K., Hatzios, K. K., and Meredith, S. A. 1993. Comparative responses of selected corn (Zea mays) hybrids to EPTC and metolachlor. Weed Res 33:161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, T. M., McGrath, J. M., and Renner, K. A. 2005. Response of sugarbeet varieties and populations to postemergence herbicides. J. Sugarbeet Res 42:119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Kern, J. J. 1977. Response of several sugarbeet varieties to EPTC. Proc. North. Cent. Weed Control Conf 32:35–36.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 1997. Interaction of sugarbeet varieties and postemergence herbicides, 1996–1997. 1997 Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep., Coop. Ext. Serv., North Dakota State University 28:88–102.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 2003. Dual and Dual Magnum on sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep 34:79–83.Google Scholar
Le Baron, H. M., McFarland, J. E., Simoneaux, B. J., and Ebert, E. 1988. Metolachlor. Pages 335–373. in Kerney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., editors. Herbicides: Chemisty, Degradation, and Mode of Action. Vol. 3. New York: Dekker.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. 633.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, B. T., Shaw, D. R., and Ratliff, R. L. 1995a. Response of selected soybean (Glycine max) cultivars to dimethenamid and metolachlor in hydroponic conditions. Weed Technol 9:178–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, B. T., Shaw, D. R., and Ratliff, R. L. 1995b. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar tolerance to SAN 582H and metolachlor as influenced by soil moisture. Weed Sci 43:288–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, K. A. 2003. Dual Magnum preemergence on sugarbeets. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Field Crop Advisory Team Alert. 18:7, May 29, 2003. http://www.ipm.msu.edu/CAT03_fld/FC05-29-03. Accessed: December 12, 2006.Google Scholar
Rice, C. A., Ransom, C. V., and Ishida, J. K. 2002. Efficacy and sugarbeet tolerance with postemergence dimethenamid-P. J. Sugarbeet Res 39:89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, L. and Penner, D. 1990. Factors affecting chloroacetanilide injury to corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 4:904–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. A. and Schweizer, E. E. 1983. Cultivar × herbicide interaction in sugarbeet. Crop Sci 23:325–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. A., Schweizer, E. E., and Martin, S. S. 1982. Differential response of sugarbeet to herbicides. Crop Sci 22:81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vencill, W. K., editor. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 493.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1999. Response of nine sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) cultivars to postemergence herbicide applications. Weed Technol 13:25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar