Skip to main content

Lanceleaf Sage (Salvia reflexa) Interference in Sugarbeet

  • Dennis C. Odero (a1), Abdel O. Mesbah (a1), Stephen D. Miller (a1) and Andrew R. Kniss (a1)

Field studies were conducted in Powell, WY, in 2006 and 2007 to determine the influence of season-long interference of various lanceleaf sage densities and durations of interference on sugarbeet. The rectangular hyperbola model with the asymptote (A) constrained to 100% maximum yield loss characterized the relationship between lanceleaf sage density and sugarbeet yield loss. The estimated parameter I (yield loss per unit weed density as density approaches zero) was 3% for both root and sucrose yield loss. Increasing duration of lanceleaf sage interference had a negative effect on sugarbeet root yield. The critical timing of weed removal to avoid 5 and 10% root yield loss was 37 and 52 d after sugarbeet emergence, respectively. Lanceleaf sage interference did not affect percentage of sucrose content. These results indicate that lanceleaf sage is not as competitive as other weeds but that appropriate control measures should be undertaken to minimize sugarbeet yield loss from interference.

Se llevaron al cabo estudios de campo en 2006 y 2007 en Powell, WY. para determinar la influencia de la interferencia a lo largo de la temporada de varias densidades de Salvia reflexa y la duración de la interferencia en la remolacha azucarera (Beta vulgaris L.). El modelo de hipérbola rectangular con la asíntota(A) restringida al 100% máximo de pérdida de rendimiento caracterizó la relación entre la densidad de Salvia reflexa y la pérdida del rendimiento de la remolacha azucarera. El parámetro estimado I (pérdida del rendimiento por unidad de densidad de la maleza conforme la densidad se acerca a cero) fue 3% tanto para la pérdida de la raíz como la pérdida de la producción de sucrosa. El incremento en la duración de la interferencia de la Salvia reflexa tuvo un efecto negativo en el rendimiento de la raíz de Beta vulgaris L El tiempo crítico de remoción de maleza para evitar entre el 5 y 10% de pérdida del rendimiento de la raíz fue a los 37 y 52 días después de la emergencia de la remolacha azucarera, respectivamente. La interferencia de Salvia reflexa no afectó el porcentaje del contenido de sucrosa. Estos resultados indican que la Salvia reflexa no es tan competitiva como otras malezas, pero deben realizarse medidas de control apropiadas para minimizar la pérdida del rendimiento de la remolacha azucarera a partir de la interferencia.

Corresponding author
Corresponding author's E-mail:
Hide All
Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Tropic croton interference in cotton. Weed Sci. 49:184189.
Baskin, J. M. and Baskin, C. 1971. Salvia reflexa new to Tennessee. Castanea 36:7779.
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239252.
Freebairn, R. D. and Strang, J. 1974. Mintweed in perspective. Agric. Gaz. New South Wales 85:2628.
Holm, L. C., Pancho, J. V., Herberger, J. P., and Plucknett, D. L. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. New York: J. Wiley. 605 p.
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci. 50:773786.
Lovett, J. V. and Speak, D. 1979. Studies of Salvia reflexa Hornem. II. Examination of specialized leaf structures. Weed Res. 19:359362.
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153155.
Mesbah, A., Miller, S. D., Fornstrom, K. J., and Legg, D. E. 1994. Kochia (Kochia scoparia) and green foxtail (Setaria viridis) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 8:754759.
Mesbah, A., Miller, S. D., Fornstrom, K. J., and Legg, D. E. 1995. Wild mustard (Brassica kaber) and wild oat (Avena fatua) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L.). Weed Technol. 9:4952.
Milford, G. F. J. 1973. The growth and development of the storage root of sugar beet. Ann. Appl. Biol. 75:427438.
Nussbaum, E. S., Wiese, A. F., Crutchfield, D. E., Chenault, E. W., and Lavake, D. 1985. The effects of temperature and rainfall on emergence and growth of eight weeds. Weed Sci. 33:165170.
Odero, D. C., Mesbah, A. O., Miller, S. D., and Kniss, A. R. 2009. Venice mallow (Hibiscus trionum) interference in sugarbeet. Weed Technol. 23:581585.
Odero, D. C., Mesbah, A. O., Miller, S. D., and Kniss, A. R. 2010. Wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus) interference in sugarbeet. Weed Technol. 24:5963.
O'Donovan, J. T. 1991. Quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) interference in canola (Brassica campestris). Weed Sci. 39:397401.
Park, S. E., Benjamin, L. R., and Watkinson, A. R. 2003. The theory and application of plant competition models: an agronomic perspective. Ann. Bot. 92:741748.
Ritz, C. and Streibig, J. C. 2005. Bioassay analysis using R. J. Statist. Software 12:122.
Schweizer, E. E. 1981. Broadleaf weed interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 29:128133.
Schweizer, E. E. 1983. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 31:58.
Schweizer, E. E. and Bridge, L. D. 1982. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 30:514519.
Schweizer, E. E. and Lauridson, T. C. 1985. Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii) interference in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 33:518520.
Schweizer, E. E. and May, M. J. 1993. Weeds and weed control. Pages 485519. In Cooke, D. A. and Scott, R. K. eds. The Sugar Beet Crop: Science into Practice. London: Chapman and Hall.
Scott, R. K. and Wilcockson, S. J. 1976. Weed biology and the growth of sugar beet. Ann. Appl. Biol. 83:331335.
Streibig, J. C., Combellak, T. H., Pritchard, G. H., and Richardson, R. G. 1989. Estimation of thresholds for weed control in Australian cereals. Weed Res. 29:117126.
Stubbendieck, J., Coffin, M. J., and Landholt, L. M. 2003. Weeds of the Great Plains. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Department of Agriculture in cooperation with University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
[WASS]. Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service 2009. Wyoming Agricultural Statistics 2009. Accessed: August 30, 2009.
Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1969. Competition between kochia and sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 17:464467.
Weerakoon, W. L. 1981. Studies on autecology of Salvia reflexa Hornem. (mintweed) with special reference to weed management. J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 47:218.
Weerakoon, W. L. and Lovett, J. V. 1986a. Studies of Salvia reflexa Hornem. III. Factors controlling germination. Weed Res. 26:269276.
Weerakoon, W. L. and Lovett, J. V. 1986b. Studies of Salvia reflexa Hornem. IV. Effects of watering frequency, drought and nutrient supply on growth and development. Weed Res. 26:277282.
Weerakoon, W. L. and Lovett, J. V. 1986c. Studies of Salvia reflexa Hornem. V. Competition from crop and pasture species. Weed Res. 26:283290.
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? *



Full text views

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

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed