Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:26:09.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Seeding Depth, Herbicide, and Variety on Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) Emergence, Vigor, and Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert G. Wilson ,
John A. Smith  and
C. Dean Yonts
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Univ. Nebr., Scottsbluff, NE 69361
John A. Smith
Affiliation:
Univ. Nebr., Scottsbluff, NE 69361
C. Dean Yonts
Affiliation:
Univ. Nebr., Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Preplant applied herbicides were compared for their effect on three varieties of sugarbeets when seeds were planted at six depths during 1987 through 1989. More sugarbeet seedlings emerged and at a faster rate as the depth of seeding decreased from 4.5 to 1.6 cm. Herbicide injury to sugarbeet seedlings increased as depth of seeding increased from less than to greater than 2.5 cm. Herbicide treatments reduced sugarbeet stand and decreased early season sugarbeet height but had little effect on root yield or sucrose content.

Keywords

Sugarbeet, Beta vulgaris L.Cycloatediethatylethofumesate
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , December 1990 , pp. 739 - 742
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Ashton, F. M., and Crafts, A. S. 1981. Thiocarbamates. p. 314 in Crafts, A. S., Mode of Action of Herbicides. A Wiley-Interscience Publication, New York.Google Scholar
2. Association of Official Agriculture Chemists. 1955. Official Methods of Analysis. 8th ed. Washington, DC. p. 564–568.Google Scholar
3. Eshel, J., Zimdahl, R. L., and Schweizer, E. E. 1978. Uptake and translocation of ethofumesate in sugarbeet plants. Pestic. Sci. 9:301–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Ririe, D., and Hills, F. J. 1970. Effects of row covering materials and depth of planting on sugarbeet emergence. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 16:168–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Schweizer, E. E. 1979. Weed control in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) with mixtures of cycloate and ethofumesate. Weed Sci. 27:516–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Smith, G. A., and Schweizer, E. E. 1983. Cultivar x herbicide interaction in sugarbeet. Crop Sci. 22:325–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Wilson, R. G. 1979. Survey of pesticide use in irrigated regions of the Nebraska Panhandle. Nebr. Agric. Stn. Bull. 544. 19 p.Google Scholar
8. Wright, T. H., and Rieck, C. E. 1974. Factors affecting butylate injury to corn. Weed Sci. 22:83–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Wyse, D. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1976. Factors affecting EPTC injury to navy bean. Weed Sci. 24:1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar