Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T12:41:11.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of Tillage and Soil-Applied Herbicides with Micro-Rate Herbicide Programs on Weed Control and Sugarbeet Growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

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.

Abstract

Field trials were conducted to determine if tillage and soil-applied herbicides had an effect on weed control and sugarbeet growth with a micro-rate herbicide program. Sugarbeet emergence was earlier in the moldboard plowed system compared with the chisel plowed system at three of four sites. Conditions were dry and sugarbeets emerged 5 d later in the moldboard plowed system compared with the chisel plowed system at the fourth site. Even though the rate of sugarbeet emergence differed between tillage systems at all four sites, final sugarbeet populations did not differ at two of the four sites. Sugarbeet injury from PRE treatments of S-metolachlor, ethofumesate, and ethofumesate plus pyrazon, followed by four POST micro-rate applications, ranged from 11 to 27% and 1 to 18% in the chisel and moldboard plowed systems, respectively, 6 wk after planting (WAP). Under wet conditions, sugarbeet stand was reduced and injury was greatest from PRE applications of S-metolachlor. Common lambsquarters, pigweed (redroot pigweed and Powell amaranth), and giant foxtail control in mid-August was consistently higher when a PRE herbicide was applied prior to micro-rate herbicide treatments. Even though there were differences between PRE and no-PRE treatments with respect to sugarbeet injury and weed control, recoverable white sucrose yield did not differ between herbicide treatments. However, recoverable white sucrose yield was greater in the moldboard plowed treatments compared with the chisel plowed treatments at three out of the four sites.

Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
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

Al-Darby, A. M. and Lowery, B. 1987. Seed zone soil temperature and early corn growth with three conservation tillage systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51:768773.Google Scholar
Beyaert, R. P., Schott, J. W., and White, P. H. 2002. Tillage effects on corn production in a coarse-textured soil in southern Ontario. Agron. J. 94:767774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. D., Dexter, A. R., Chamen, W. T., and Spoor, G. 1996. Effect of soil macroporosity and aggregate size on seed—soil contact. Soil Till. Res 38:203216.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the central USA. Crop Sci 35:12471258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, T. M. and Renner, K. A. 2005. Timing of postemergence micro-rate applications based on growing degree days in sugarbeet. J. Sugarbeet Res 42:87102.Google Scholar
Dale, T. M., Renner, K. A., and Kravchenko, A. N. 2006. Effect of herbicides on weed control and sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) yield and quality. Weed Technol 20:150156.Google Scholar
Dawson, J. H. 1971. Response of sugarbeets and weeds to cycloate, propachlor, and pyrazon. Weed Sci 19:162165.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Blackshaw, R. E., and Boyetchko, S. M. 1996. Sustainability, conservation-tillage and weeds in Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci 76:651659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 1988. Soil applied and postemergence herbicides at six locations. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep 19:4548.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 1998. Special survey on micro-rate, 1998. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep 29:6475.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 2003. Dual and dual magnum on sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep 34:7983.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 2004. Herbicides on sugarbeet at seven locations. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep 35:6471.Google Scholar
Glenn, D. M. and Dotzenko, A. D. 1978. Minimum vs. conventional tillage in commercial sugarbeet production. J. Agron 70:341344.Google Scholar
Griffith, D. R., Mannering, J. V., Gallowy, H. M., Parsons, S. D., and Richery, C. B. 1973. Effect of eight tillage-planting systems on soil temperature, percent stand, plant growth, and yield of corn on five Indiana soils. Agron. J. 65:321326.Google Scholar
Henriksson, L. and Håkansson, I. 1993. Chapter 5: Soil management and crop establishment. Pages 157177. In Cooke, D. A. and Scott, R. K. The Sugar Beet Crop. 1st ed. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lund, M. G., Carter, P. R., and Oplinger, E. S. 1993. Tillage and crop rotation affect corn, soybean and winter wheat yields. J. Prod. Agric 6:207213.Google Scholar
Mannering, J. V., Meyer, L. D., and Johnson, C. B. 1966. Infiltration and erosion as affected by minimum tillage for corn. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc 30:101105.Google Scholar
Mannering, J. V., Schertz, D. L., and Julian, B. A. 1987. Overview of Conservation Tillage. Effects of Conservation Tillage on Groundwater Quality: Nitrates and Pesticides. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publ. 317.Google Scholar
Michel, J. A., Fornstrom, K. J., and Borelli, J. 1983. A Chisel-Based System for Irrigate Row Crops. Paper no. 83-1033. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 11.Google Scholar
Mikha, M. M. and Rice, C. W. 2004. Tillage and manure effects on soil and aggregate-associated carbon and nitrogen. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68:809816.Google Scholar
Miller, S. D. and Dexter, A. G. 1982. No-till crop production in the Red River Valley. North Dakota Farm Res 40:35.Google Scholar
Oryokot, J. O., Murphy, S. D., Thomas, A. G., and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Temperature- and moisture-dependant models of seed germination and shoot elongation in green and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus powellii, A. retroflexus). Weed Sci 45:488496.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A. 2003. Dual Magnum Preemergence on Sugarbeets. Field Crop Team Advisory Alert 18:7. http://www.ipm.msu.edu/CAT03_fld/FC05-29-03.htm#3 Accessed: March 11, 2006.Google Scholar
Sadowska, A. 1973. Application of Alipur and Pyramin to sugar beet crops. 1. The effect of simplified cultivation on seed emergence, plant growth and yield. Roczniki-Nauk-Rolniczych, -A 99:3750.Google Scholar
Smith, G. A., Schweizer, E. E., and Martin, S. S. 1982. Differential response of sugarbeet populations to herbicides. Crop Sci 22:8185.Google Scholar
Smith, J. A., Wilson, R. G., Binford, G. D., and Yonts, C. D. 2002. Tillage systems for improved emergence and yield of sugarbeet. Appl. Eng. Agric 18:667672.Google Scholar
Smith, J. A. and Yonts, C. D. 1986. Emergence of corn, sugarbeets, and beans with conservation tillage. Paper no. 86-1029. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 12.Google Scholar
Vamerali, T., Bertocco, M., and Sartori, L. 2006. Effects of a new wide-sweep opener for no-till planter on seed zone properties and root establishment in maize (Zea mays, L.): a comparison with double-disk opener. Soil Till. Res 89:196209.Google Scholar
Vyn, T. J. and Raimbault, B. A. 1993. Long-term effect of five tillage system on corn response and soil structure. Agron. J. 85:10741079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. G., Smith, J. A., and Yonts, C. D. 1990. Effect of seeding depth, herbicide, and variety on sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) emergence, vigor, and yield. Weed Technol 4:739742.Google Scholar
Yenish, J. P., Doll, J. D., and Buhler, D. D. 1992. Effect of tillage on vertical distribution and viability of weed seed in the soil. Weed Sci 40:429433.Google Scholar