Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Impact of Nitrogen and Weeds on Glyphosate-Resistant Sugarbeet Yield and Quality

  • Alicia J. Spangler (a1), Christy L. Sprague (a1) and Kurt Steinke (a1)
Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 2010 and 2011 at two locations in Michigan to determine the effects of nitrogen and weed removal on glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet yield and quality. Nitrogen rates were 0, 67, 100, 134, and 67 : 67 kg N ha−1, and weeds were removed when they were < 2, 8, 15, and 30 cm tall. At the beginning of the growing season, weeds responded to N sooner than sugarbeet. Nitrogen assimilation by weeds was three times greater than sugarbeet at 0, 67, 100, and 134 kg N ha−1 and four times greater than sugarbeet with the split application of N (67 : 67 kg N ha−1) averaged over the weed removal timings. Higher N rates increased N sufficiency index values and sugarbeet canopy closure; weeds 30 cm tall had lower N sufficiency index values and a smaller sugarbeet canopy. The effect of N on root yields varied, but the highest N rates (134 kg N ha−1 or 67 : 67 kg N ha−1) were among the highest sugarbeet yields at all locations. Highest yields were achieved when weeds were controlled before reaching 2 cm tall at three of the four site-years. Delaying weed control until weeds were 8 or 15 cm tall reduced yield by 15%, whereas 30-cm-tall weeds reduced yield up to 21%. Recoverable white sucrose ha−1 (RWSH) also was reduced by 8 to 16% if weeds were 8 cm tall. These results indicate that weeds are highly competitive with sugarbeet and can assimilate large quantities of N early in the growing season, especially at larger growth stages. However, it appears that sugarbeets were able to scavenge sufficient N at the N rates used in this study to overcome N removal effects from larger weeds, resulting in no interaction between N rate and weed removal timing for sugarbeet root yield, quality, or RWSH.

En 2010 y 2011, se realizaron experimentos de campo en dos localidades en Michigan para determinar los efectos de aplicaciones de nitrógeno y la remoción de malezas en el rendimiento y la calidad de la remolacha azucarera resistente a glyphosate. Las dosis de nitrógeno fueron 0, 67, 100, 134, y 67:67 kg N ha−1, y las malezas fueron removidas cuando tuvieron una altura <2, 8, 15, y 30 cm. Al inicio de la temporada de crecimiento, las malezas respondieron al N antes que la remolacha. Al promediarse todos los momentos de remoción de malezas, la asimilación de N por las malezas fue tres veces mayor que la de la remolacha a 0, 67, 100, y 134 kg N ha−1 y cuatro veces mayor que la remolacha con la aplicación dividida de N (67:67 kg N ha−1). Las dosis más altas de N incrementaron los valores del índice de suficiencia de N y el cierre del dosel de la remolacha. Las malezas de 30 cm de altura tuvieron valores del índice de suficiencia de N más bajos y un dosel de la remolacha más pequeño. El efecto de N en los rendimientos de raíces variaron, pero las dosis más altas de N (134 kg N ha−1 ó 67:67 kg N ha−1) tuvieron los rendimientos de remolacha más altos en todas las localidades. Los rendimientos más altos fueron alcanzados cuando se controló las malezas antes de que alcanzaran 2 cm de altura, en tres de los cuatro sitios-año. El retrasar el control de malezas hasta que estas tuvieron 8 ó 15 cm de altura, redujo el rendimiento en 15%, mientras que malezas de 30 cm de altura redujeron el rendimiento en hasta 21%. Sucrose blanca recuperable ha−1 (RWSH) también se redujo entre 8 y 16% si las malezas tuvieron 8 cm de altura. Estos resultados indican que las malezas son altamente competitivas con la remolacha y pueden asimilar grandes cantidades de N temprano en la temporada de crecimiento, especialmente en estados de crecimiento más grandes. Sin embargo, parece que las remolachas fueron capaces de buscar y absorber suficiente N a las dosis de N usadas en este estudio, para compensar los efectos de la remoción de N por las malezas más grandes, lo que resultó en la ausencia de interacciones entre la dosis de N y el momento de remoción de malezas en el rendimiento, calidad y RWSH de la remolacha.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Corresponding author's E-mail: sprague1@msu.edu.
References
Hide All
Anderson, FN, Peterson, GA (1988) Effect of incrementing nitrogen application on sucrose yield of sugarbeet. Agron J 5:709–117
Armstrong, JJQ, Sprague, CL (2010) Weed management in wide- and narrow-row glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet. Weed Technol 24:523528
Bast, LE (2012) Influence of Weeds on Nitrogen Cycling in Corn Agro-Ecosystems. Ph.D Dissertation. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. 8 p
Blackshaw, RE, Brandt, RN (2008) Nitrogen fertilizer rate effects on weed competitiveness is species dependent. Weed Sci 56:743747
Blackshaw, RE, Brandt, RN, Janzen, HH, Entz, T, Grant, CA, Derksen, DA (2003) Differential response of weed species to added nitrogen. Weed Sci 51:532539
Bremner, JM (1996) Nitrogen—total. Pages 10851121 in Sparks, DL, ed. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3, Chemical Methods. Book Series 5. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.
Briscoe, P, Draycott, P, Jaggard, K (1980) Weather and the growth of sugar beet. Brit Sugar Beet Rev 48:4749
Cariolle, M, Duval, R (2006) Nutrition—nitrogen. Pages 169184 in Draycott, AP, ed. Sugar Beet. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing Professional.
Carter, JM, Traveller, DJ (1981) Effect of time and amount of nitrogen uptake on sugarbeet growth and yield. Agron J 73:655671
Carter, JN, Westermann, DT, Jensen, DE (1976) Sugarbeet yield and quality as affected by nitrogen level. Agron J 68:4955
Dale, TM, Renner, KA (2005) Timing of postemergence micro-rate applications based on growing degree days in sugarbeet. J Sugar Beet Res 42:87101
Draycott, AP (1993) Nutrition. Pages 239250 in Cooke, DA, Scott, RK, eds. The Sugar Beet Crop: Science into Practice. New York: Chapman & Hall.
Evans, SP, Knezevic, SZ, Lindquist, JL, Shapiro, CA, Blankenship, EE (2003). Nitrogen application influences the critical period for weed control in corn. Weed Sci 51:408417
Everman, WJ, Clewis, SB, Thomas, WE, Burke, IC, Wilcut, JW (2008) Critical period of weed interference in peanut. Weed Technol 22:6367
Guza, CJ, Ransom, CV, Mallory-Smith, C (2002) Weed control in glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.). J Sugar Beet Res 39:109123
Jung, S, Rickert, DA, Deak, NA, Aldin, ED, Recknor, J, Johnson, LA, Murphy, PA (2003) Comparison of Kjeldahl and Dumas methods for determining protein contents of soybean products. J Am Oil Chem Soc 80:11691173
Kemp, NJ, Taylor, EC, Renner, KA (2009) Weed management in glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant sugar beet. Weed Technol 23:416424
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Blankenship, EE, Van Acker, RC, Lindquist, JL (2002) Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50:773786
Kniss, AR, Wilson, RG, Martin, AR, Burgener, PA, Feuz, DM (2004) Economic evaluation of glyphosate-resistant and conventional sugar beet. 2004. Weed Technol 18:388396
Schepers, JS, Francis, DD, Vigil, M, Below, FE (1992) Comparison of corn leaf nitrogen concentration and chlorophyll meter readings. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 23:21732187
Schweizer, EE, May, MJ (1993) Weeds and weed control. Pages 485519 in Cooke, DA, Scott, RK, eds. The Sugar Beet Crop: Science into Practice. New York: Chapman & Hall
Scott, RK, Jaggard, KW (1993) Crop physiology and agronomy. Pages 179237 in Cooke, DA, Scott, RK, eds. The Sugar Beet Crop: Science into Practice. New York: Chapman & Hall.
Shapiro, CA, Schepers, JS, Francis, DD, Shanahan, JF (2006) Using a chlorophyll meter to improve N management. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension Bulletin G1632, Institution of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Wilson, RG, Yonts, CD, Smith, JA (2002) Influence of glyphosate and glufosinate on weed control and sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) yield in herbicide-tolerant sugarbeet. Weed Technol 16:6673
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Weed Technology
  • ISSN: 0890-037X
  • EISSN: 1550-2740
  • URL: /core/journals/weed-technology
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 10 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 55 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 12th June 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.