Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:37:28.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economical Control of Weeds in Sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Steven R. Winter  and
Allen F. Wiese
Steven R. Winter
Affiliation:
Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., 6500 Amarillo Blvd. West, Amarillo, TX 79106
Allen F. Wiese
Affiliation:
Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., 6500 Amarillo Blvd. West, Amarillo, TX 79106
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Economical combinations of herbicides and hand labor for weeding sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L.) in high and low weed densities were determined for irrigated production in the southern Great Plains. Ethofumesate [(±)-2-ethoxy-2,3-dihydro-3,3-dimethyl-5-benzofuranyl methanesulfonate] preplant incorporated, a 50:50 mixture of phenmedipham (methyl m-hydroxycarbanilate m-methylcarbanilate) and desmedipham (ethyl m-hydroxycarbanilate carbanilate (ester)] sprayed postemergence on small weeds, and trifluralin (α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-toluidine) incorporated at layby controlled pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) and kochia [Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad.] with acceptable selectivity in sugarbeets. Sucrose yield was identical for all methods of weed control. Using herbicides did not lower, and in some cases doubled, the total cost of weed control in an area with a low weed density. On the other hand, effective herbicide combinations saved $298 to $966/ha compared to total reliance on hand labor in an area with a high weed density. Elaborate combinations of herbicides were not justified even with heavy weed density. The last few weeds remaining in a field can be most economically removed by hand labor.

Keywords

Hand laborweed densitysequential applicationsdesmediphamethofumesatephenmediphamtrifluralin
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 30 , Issue 6 , November 1982 , pp. 620 - 623
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 by the 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

1. Dawson, J. H. 1974. Full-season weed control in sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 22:330–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Dawson, J. H. 1975. Cycloate and phenmedipham as complementary treatments in sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 23:478–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Dawson, J. H. 1977. Competition of late-emerging weeds with sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 25:168–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Ekins, W. L. and Cronin, C. H. 1972. NC8438, a promising new broad spectrum herbicide for sugarbeet. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 17:134–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Hendrick, L. W., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1974. Selective use of phenmedipham and EP-475 in Michigan for weed control in sugarbeets. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 18:97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Lee, G. A. and Alley, H. P. 1972. Economic comparison of herbicides for weed control in sugarbeets. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 17:58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Schweizer, E. E. 1980. Herbicides applied sequentially for economical control of annual weeds in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris . Weed Sci. 28:152–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Sullivan, E. F. and Downing, S. L. 1978. Weed control on sugarbeets: efficacy of preplant Nortron and Hoelon and other mixtures 1975–77. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 20:175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Wiese, A. F., Scott, P. R., Lavake, D. E., Winter, S. R., and Owen, D. F. 1975. Weed control research in sugarbeets. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. B-1158C. 29 pp.Google Scholar