Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-15T15:23:54.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultivation and Reduced-Rate Herbicides Weed Control in Sugarbeet Grown for Biofuel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2018

W. Carroll Johnson III ,
Theodore M. Webster ,
Timothy L. Grey Open the ORCID record for Timothy L. Grey [Opens in a new window]  and
Xuelin Luo
W. Carroll Johnson III*
Affiliation:
Research Agronomist, USDA-ARS, Tifton, GA, USA
Theodore M. Webster
Affiliation:
Supervisory Research Agronomist, USDA-ARS, Tifton, GA, USA
Timothy L. Grey
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Tifton Campus, Tifton, GA, USA
Xuelin Luo
Affiliation:
Research Statistician, University of Georgia, Tifton Campus, Tifton, GA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: W. Carroll Johnson III, USDA-ARS, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31793-0748. (Email: Carroll.Johnson@ars.usda.gov)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sugarbeet, grown for biofuel, is being considered as an alternate cool-season crop in the southeastern United States. Previous research identified ethofumesate PRE and phenmedipham + desmedipham POST as herbicides that controlled troublesome cool-season weeds in the region, specifically cutleaf evening-primrose. Research trials were conducted from 2014 through 2016 to evaluate an integrated system of sweep cultivation and reduced rates of ethofumesate PRE and/or phenmedipham+desmedipham POST for weed control in sugarbeet grown for biofuel. There were no interactions between the main effects of cultivation and herbicides for control of cutleaf evening-primrose and other cool-season species in two out of three years. Cultivation improved control of cool-season weeds, but the effect was largely independent of control provided by herbicides. Of the herbicide combinations evaluated, the best overall cool-season weed control was from systems that included either a 1/2X or 1X rate of phenmedipham+desmedipham POST. Either rate of ethofumesate PRE was less effective than phenmedipham+desmedipham POST. Despite improved cool-season weed control, sugarbeet yield was not affected by cultivation each year of the study. Sugarbeet yields were greater when treated with any herbicide combination that included either a 1/2X or 1X rate of phenmedipham+desmedipham POST compared with either rate of ethofumesate PRE alone or the nontreated control. These results indicate that cultivation has a very limited role in sugarbeet grown for biofuel. The premise of effective weed control based on an integration of cultivation and reduced herbicide rates does not appear to be viable for sugarbeet grown for biofuel.

Keywords

Andrew Kniss, University of WyomingEthofumesatedesmediphamphenmediphamcutleaf evening-primrose, Oenothera laciniata Hillsugarbeet, Beta vulgaris LAlternative cropsbiofuelenergy beet
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 32 , Issue 6 , December 2018 , pp. 726 - 732
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018. 

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

Anonymous (2017a) Betamix® herbicide specimen label. Research Triangle Park, NC: Bayer CropScience. http://fs1.agrian.com/pdfs/Betamix_Herbicide_Label2.pdf. Accessed: November 3, 2017Google Scholar
Anonymous (2017b) North Dakota Herbicide Compendium. https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/weeds/weed-control-guides/nd-weed-control-guide-1/wcg-files/18.1-Herb%20Comp.pdf. Accessed: October 24, 2017Google Scholar
Anonymous (2017c) Nortron SC® herbicide specimen label. Research Triangle Park, NC: Bayer CropScience. https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.agrian.com/pdfs/Nortron_SC1_Herbicide_Label.pdf. Accessed: November 3, 2017Google Scholar
Armstrong, JQ, Sprague, CL (2010) Weed management in wide- and narrow-row glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet. Weed Sci 24:523–528 Google Scholar
Bollman, SL, Sprague, CL (2009) Effect of tillage and soil-applied herbicides with micro-rate herbicide programs on weed control and sugarbeet growth. Weed Technol 23:264–269 Google Scholar
Carlson, AL, Luecke, JL, Khan, MFR, Dexter, AG (2007) Survey of Weed Control and Production Practices on Sugarbeet in Minnesota and Eastern North Dakota. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University and University of Minnesota. http://www.sbreb.org/research/weed/weed07/NDMNSurveyHerbicide.pdf. Accessed: November 28, 2017Google Scholar
Dale, TM, Renner, KA, Kravchenko, AN (2006) Effect of herbicides on weed control and sugarbeet yield (Beta vulgaris) yield and quality. Weed Technol 20:150–156.Google Scholar
Dexter, AG, Luecke, JL, Smith, LJ (1999) Influence of Cultivation on Yield of Roundup Ready and Liberty Link Sugarbeet. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University Sugarbeet Research and Extension Reports. http://www.sbreb.org/research/weed/weed99/99p100.htm. Accessed: November 3, 2017Google Scholar
Finkenstadt, VL (2014) A review on the complete utilization of the sugarbeet. Sugar Tech 16:339–346 Google Scholar
Hembree, KJ (2016) UC IPM Guidelines: Sugarbeet. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 3469. http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/r735700111.html. Accessed: November 3, 2017Google Scholar
Johnson, WC III, Webster, TM, Grey, TL, Luo, X (2018) Managing cool-season weeds in sugarbeet grown for biofuel in the southeastern U.S. Weed Technol 32:385–391 Google Scholar
Kaffka, S, Tharp, R (2013) Sugarbeet Production in the Imperial Valley. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. http://ucanr.edu/sites/sugarbeets/files/224142.pdf. Accessed: December 13, 2017Google Scholar
Kemp, NJ, Taylor, EC, Renner, KA (2009) Weed management in glyphosate- and glufosinate-resistant sugarbeet. Weed Technol 23:416–424 Google Scholar
Khan, MFR (2015) Update on adoption of glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet in the United States. Outlooks on Pest Management 26:61–65 Google Scholar
Kniss, AR, Wilson, RG, Martin, AR, Burgener, PA, Feuz, DM (2004) Economic evaluation of glyphosate-resistant and conventional sugar beet. Weed Technol 18:388–396 Google Scholar
Kroetz, ME, Schmidt, WH, Russell, FB, Brimhall, P (1973) Survey of sugar beet production practices in Ohio and their effect on sugar beet quality and yield. J Am Soc Sugar Beet Technol 17:254–259 Google Scholar
McMinimy, MA (2016) U.S. Sugar Fundamentals. Congressional Research Service, R43998. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43998.pdf. Accessed: August 18, 2017Google Scholar
Melander, B, Rasmussen, IA, Barberi, P (2005) Integrating physical and cultural methods of weed control—examples from European research. Weed Sci 53:369–381 Google Scholar
Morishita, DW (2018) Impact of glyphosate-resistant sugar beet. Pest Manag Sci 74:1050–1053 Google Scholar
Owen, MDK (2016) Diverse approaches to herbicide-resistant weed management. Weed Sci 64(suppl):570–584 Google Scholar
Panella, L (2010) Sugar beet as an energy crop. Sugar Tech 12:288–293 Google Scholar
Shaner, DL (2014) Lessons learned from the history of herbicide resistance. Weed Sci 62:427–431 Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (2014) Table 37. Specified crops by acres harvested. In 2012 Census of Agriculture—State Data: Georgia. https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/Georgia/st13_1_037_037.pdf . Accessed: December 21, 2017Google Scholar
Webster, TM, Grey, TL, Scully, BT, Johnson, WC III, Davis, RF, Brenneman, TB (2016) Yield potential of spring-harvested sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) depends on autumn planting date. Ind Crop Prod 83:55–60 Google Scholar
Wiltshire, JJJ, Tillett, ND, Hague, T (2003) Agronomic evaluation of precise mechanical hoeing and chemical weed control in sugar beet. Weed Res 43:236–244 Google Scholar
Wilson, RG, Sbatella, GM (2011) Late-season weed control in glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet. Weed Technol 25:350–355 Google Scholar
Winter, SR, Weise, AF (1978) Phytotoxicity and yield response of sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) to a mixture of phenmedipham and desmedipham. Weed Sci 26:1–4 Google Scholar