Herbicides used in sugarbeet are commonly adapted from other row crops and may cause injury and yield loss often associated with environmental and edaphic factors. Glyphosate-resistant waterhemp in sugarbeet requires a PRE herbicide, such as S-metolachlor, for its control. The objectives of this research were to evaluate sugarbeet tolerance to PRE S-metolachlor, including air temperature and soil water content interactions with soil series in field and growth chamber experiments. Results from field experiments conducted in 12 environments in 2015, 2016, and 2017 indicated 2.16 or 4.32 kg ai ha−1S-metolachlor applied PRE reduced sugarbeet density and stature but did not reduce root yield, sucrose content, or recoverable sucrose compared with the untreated control in environments with soils with less than 3.5% organic matter (OM) and receiving greater than 40-mm cumulative rainfall within 14 d after planting. In the growth chamber, sugarbeet density and shoot fresh weight following S-metolachlor application was influenced by soil moisture content, air temperature, and soil series but not by S-metolachlor rate. Sugarbeet density and shoot fresh weight were reduced 15% and 106%, respectively, when S-metolachlor was applied to a Glyndon sandy loam (2.6% OM, 9.5% clay) at 100% field capacity (FC) and 14 C compared with S-metolachlor application to a Fargo silty clay (7.7% OM and 54% clay) at 100% FC and 21 C. It is concluded that field selection, rather than herbicide rate, is an important criterion for managing sugarbeet tolerance with S-metolachlor.

Sugarbeet growers only recently have combined ethofumesate, S-metolachlor, and dimethenamid-P in a weed control system for waterhemp control. Sugarbeet plant density, visible stature reduction, root yield, percent sucrose content, and recoverable sucrose were measured in field experiments at five environments between 2014 and 2016. Sugarbeet stand density and stature reduction occurred in some but not all environments. Stand density was reduced with PRE application of S-metolachlor at 1.60 kg ai ha–1 and S-metolachlor at 0.80 kg ha–1 + ethofumesate at 1.68 kg ai ha–1 alone or followed by POST applications of dimethenamid-P at 0.95 kg ai ha–1. Sugarbeet visible stature was reduced when dimethenamid-P followed PRE treatments. Stature reduction was greatest with ethofumesate at 1.68 or 4.37 kg ha–1 PRE and S-metolachlor at 0.80 kg ha–1 + ethofumesate at 1.68 kg ha–1 PRE followed by dimethenamid-P at 0.95 kg ha–1 POST. Stature reduction ranged from 0 to 32% 10 d after treatment (DAT), but sugarbeet recovered quickly and visible injury was negligible 23 DAT. Although root yield and recoverable sucrose were similar across herbicide treatments and environments, we caution against the use of S-metolachlor at 0.80 kg ha–1 + ethofumesate at 1.68 kg ai ha–1 PRE followed by dimethenamid-P at 0.95 kg ha–1 in sugarbeet.

Sugarbeet, grown for biofuel, is being considered as an alternate cool-season crop in the southeastern U.S. coastal plain. Typically, the crop would be seeded in the autumn, then grow through the winter and be harvested the following spring. Labels for herbicides registered for use on sugarbeet grown in the traditional sugarbeet production regions do not list any of the cool-season weeds common in the southeastern United States. Field trials were initiated near Ty Ty, GA, to evaluate all possible combinations of ethofumesate applied PRE, phenmedipham+desmedipham applied POST, clopyralid POST, and triflusulfuron POST for cool-season weed control in sugarbeet. Phenmedipham+desmedipham alone and in combination with clopyralid and/or triflusulfuron effectively controlled cutleaf eveningprimrose, lesser swinecress, henbit, and corn spurry when applied to seedling weeds. Ethofumesate PRE alone was not as effective in controlling cool-season weeds compared to treatments containing phenmedipham+desmedipham POST. However, ethofumesate PRE applied sequentially with phenmedipham+desmedipham POST improved weed control consistency. Clopyralid and/or triflusulfuron alone did not adequately control cutleaf eveningprimrose. Triflusulfuron alone effectively controlled wild radish. In the 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 seasons, December-applied POST herbicides did not injure sugarbeet. However, in the 2015–2016 season POST herbicides were applied in late October. On the day of treatment, the maximum temperature was 25.4 C, which exceeded the established upper temperature limit of 22 C for safe application of phenmedipham+desmedipham, and sugarbeet plants were severely injured. In the southeastern United States, temperatures frequently exceed 22 C in early autumn, which may limit phenmedipham+desmedipham use for controlling troublesome cool-season weeds of sugarbeet in the region. Weed control options need to be expanded to compensate for this limitation.

Chlorsulfuron was applied to wheat at rates of 0, 10, 20, and 40 g ai ha-1 in three locations at Lethbridge and Brooks between 1980 and 1984. The soil pH and organic matter contents at Lethbridge and Brooks were 8.0 and 2.1% and 7.4 and 3.0%, respectively. Rotational crops were seeded for up to 7 yr after chlorsulfuron application. The criteria used to indicate when susceptible crops will grow safely were no significant yield loss at the 40 g ha-1 rate and the magnitude of the upper confidence limit for this difference. The following times after application before crop yields were not affected were required at Lethbridge: barley, 2 yr; canola, 3 yr; peas, beans, 4 yr; flax and potatoes, 5 yr; alfalfa and sugarbeets, 6 yr; and lentils at least 7 yr. The effect of chlorsulfuron residues in the soil on rotational crops appeared to be similar at Brooks and at Lethbridge. Estimated chlorsulfuron concentrations were related to the tolerance of rotational crops.

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.

A survey to determine the frequency and weed control impact of enhanced degradation of butylate or EPTC in field soils receiving repeat applications of these herbicides was conducted in a sugarbeet and three corn growing areas of Nebraska. All seven of the sugarbeet field soils exhibited enhanced EPTC degradation. In the corn areas, none of the 13 north central and southeast field soils displayed accelerated degradation; however, 10 of the 16 south central field soils did. In south central Nebraska, 60% and 45% of the surveyed growers were dissatisfied with weed control from butylate or EPTC in 1983 and 1984, respectively, compared to 24% and none in other survey areas. Enhanced herbicide degradation and the presence of shattercane were the main reasons for the disparity among areas.

A practical expert system is needed to handle POST weed control in herbicide-intensive crops such as wheat, barley, oat, rye, sugarbeet, corn, and sorghum. SELOMA is an expert system having a step-by-step problem-solving procedure closely resembling what a weed management expert would follow. It is based on field surveys of weed density, and crop and weed growth stage and height. SELOMA evaluates weed competitiveness and provides weed management advice. It suggests whether or not to intervene, chemical and mechanical weed control treatments, and selects the best herbicides, including commercial formulations, costs, and optimal dosages.

AC 222,293, a postemergence herbicide for wild oat control in wheat, barley, and sunflower, was applied at five rates at three locations in Montana in the spring of 1985. Twelve and 11 crops were seeded into treated soil in 1985 and 1986, respectively. Sugarbeet, lentil, and rape were injured by residual levels of AC 222,293 14 months after application. Injury was significantly greater at one location, indicating herbicide bioavailability varied by location. Soil pH was correlated negatively with crop injury, indicating the herbicide persists longer on lower pH soils.

Sugarbeet tolerance to and Canada thistle control from tank mixtures of clopyralid plus other postemergence herbicides and/or petroleum oil adjuvant applied at various times were determined. Herbicides were applied to 5 to 20 or 20 to 70-cm tall Canada thistle. Clopyralid at 0.14 and 0.21 kg ai ha-1 alone or with petroleum oil adjuvant did not injure sugarbeet. Tank mixing clopyralid with desmedipham/phenmedipham plus endothall injured sugarbeet 7 d after application in 2 of 3 yr but not when observed 14 d after application. Herbicides applied early postemergence in 1987 and late postemergence in 1988 controlled Canada thistle poorly due to rainfall 1 h after application and drought conditions, respectively. The addition of petroleum oil adjuvant enhanced control of Canada thistle by clopyralid at 0.14 kg ha-1, and control equaled that of clopyralid at 0.21 kg ha-1 alone. Addition of desmedipham/phenmedipham plus endothall to clopyralid did not reduce Canada thistle control. Petroleum oil adjuvant added to clopyralid at 0.14 kg ha-1 increased Canada thistle control to that achieved by clopyralid at 0.21 kg ha-1 plus desmedipham/phenmedipham plus endothall.

Translocation of phloem-mobile herbicides was inhibited by their phytotoxic action on processes that maintain assimilate translocation. Glyphosate lowered import into developing sink leaves soon after it was applied to exporting sugarbeet leaves. Later, photosynthesis slowed down and starch accumulation stopped, but export of both assimilate and glyphosate continued until it was limited by starch availability at night Experiments with field pennycress and Tartary buckwheat indicated that self-limitation of chlorsulfuron translocation probably occurred and that it resulted from lowered assimilate entry into phloem rather than from inhibition of photosynthesis or carbon allocation. Leakage of chlorsulfuron from the phloem when export was slowed down also may have contributed to its reduced translocation.

Five sulfonylurea herbicides were applied to Typic Boroll soil with pH 8.0 and 2% organic matter in the field and growth chamber to assess their residual effects on following crops. Under irrigated conditions, triasulfuron at 22 g/ha reduced the growth of alfalfa, canola, corn, lentil, pea, potato, and sugarbeet the year after application but caused no injury after two years. Alfalfa GR50 (rate required to reduce growth by 50%) values immediately after application of chlorsulfuron, triasulfuron, and metsulfuron were < 2.2 g/ha and similar in the growth chamber and field. Alfalfa and canola GR50 values immediately after thifensulfuron application in the growth chamber were ≥ 90 g/ha. Alfalfa, canola, flax, and sugarbeet GR50 for tribenuron in the growth chamber were < 4 g/ha. Crop response curves developed by growth chamber experiments could replace many of the multiple site and crop field experiments now required to develop recropping guidelines for residual herbicides.

Velvetleaf control in sugarbeet by clomazone and commercially available sugarbeet herbicides was investigated in greenhouse and field studies. In greenhouse studies, clomazone at 0.07 and 0.04 kg ai ha-1 controlled 97 and 69% of velvetleaf, respectively, with little visible sugarbeet injury. Adding clomazone to pyrazon, TCA, ethofumesate, pyrazon plus TCA, or TCA plus ethofumesate increased velvetleaf control but increased visible sugarbeet injury. In field studies, clomazone at 0.07 kg ha-1 did not enhance sugarbeet injury. However, velvetleaf was not controlled by clomazone alone or clomazone plus pyrazon, ethofumesate, combinations of pyrazon plus TCA, pyrazon plus ethofumesate, or pyrazon plus TCA plus ethofumesate. Cycloate preplant incorporated plus pyrazon preemergence followed by postemergence herbicides controlled velvetleaf in all 3 yr of research. Postemergence herbicides increased velvetleaf control from soil-applied herbicides in 1987 and 1988.

The effect of imazethapyr and imazamethabenz on following crops was tested in southern Alberta, on Dark Brown and Brown Chernozemic soils, to assess the potential restrictions placed on cropping sequences by the use of these herbicides. Imazamethabenz reduced the yield of sugarbeet seeded one year after application. After imazethapyr application there is risk of yield loss with flax, corn, meadow bromegrass, mustard, sunflower, timothy, and wheat seeded one year later; canola seeded up to two years later; and sugarbeet and potato seeded up to three years later. Legume crops and intermediate wheatgrass may be seeded the year after application with little risk of yield loss. The required recropping intervals limit the use of imazethapyr for weed control in pea, alfalfa, or dry bean in cropping sequences that include sugarbeet, canola, or potato.

Red beet growers have expressed interest in adopting the microrate herbicide approach originally implemented in sugarbeet to achieve season-long weed management. Several red beet herbicides were first labeled for use in sugarbeet and lack substantial residual weed control. In response, red beet herbicide programs were evaluated that included a PRE application followed by up to three POST applications of various herbicide combinations. This research, however, indicated that herbicide programs that included PRE herbicides followed by as few as one or two POST applications that involve multiple active ingredients can provide season-long weed control. This observation was consistent across a broad spectrum of weeds, between two study locations that varied in soil type, and during two growing seasons. Herbicide programs that included only a PRE and six-leaf red beet growth stage application were successful at two locations in maintaining weed control and crop yield relative to hand-weeded red beet. Furthermore, these herbicide programs reduced the number of applications by 50% compared with the full programs, reducing crop injury risk and grower cost.

Field trials were conducted in East Lansing, MI in 2004 and 2005 and in St. Charles, MI in 2004, 2005, and 2006 to compare weed control and sugarbeet tolerance from microrate herbicide treatments that included s-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P. Treatments included the base microrate treatment alone and with full- and split-application rates of s-metolachlor at 1.4 kg/ha or dimethenamid-P at 0.84 kg/ha at the various microrate application timings. All treatments injured sugarbeet. In 2004 and 2006, full rates of both s-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P applied PRE or in the first microrate application injured sugarbeet more than the base microrate treatment. When s-metolachlor or dimethenamid-P were split-applied between PRE and the third microrate application or between the first and the third microrate applications, injury was still greater than from the base microrate treatment. Furthermore, applying dimethenamid-P at one-fourth the full rate in all four microrate applications injured sugarbeet more than the base microrate treatment. A full rate of s-metolachlor or dimethenamid-P applied in either the third or fourth microrate applications or splitting the applications between the second and fourth microrate treatments did not increase sugarbeet injury compared with the base microrate treatment. Control of common lambsquarters and giant foxtail from all treatments containing s-metolachlor or dimethenamid-P, regardless of the time of application, was greater than from the base microrate treatment at all locations. Pigweed spp. control was 94% or greater from all treatments. In 2004, late-season control of giant foxtail was greater from all treatments that included s-metolachlor or dimethenamid-P compared with the base microrate treatment. In 2005, the only treatments that did not improve late-season giant foxtail control compared with the base microrate treatment were the treatments that included a full rate of s-metolachlor or dimethenamid-P applied in the fourth microrate application. Even though some herbicide treatments that included s-metolachlor or dimethenamid-P injured sugarbeet more than the base microrate treatment, recoverable sucrose per hectare was similar among treatments.

Greenhouse and laboratory experiments were conducted to evaluate the tolerance of four commercial sugarbeet varieties to s-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P, determine the principle site of absorption of these herbicides, and determine the physiological basis for differential tolerance among varieties to these herbicides. ‘Beta 5833R’ was the most tolerant sugarbeet variety, and ‘Hilleshog 7172RZ’ was the most susceptible sugarbeet variety to injury from s-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P. The primary site of s-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P absorption was through the sugarbeet roots; however, some absorption occurred through the sugarbeet hypocotyl. Sugarbeet injury was greater from dimethenamid-P than s-metolachlor when sugarbeet was grown in soil. However, when sugarbeet was grown hydroponically, injury from the herbicides was similar, indicating that the relative availability of these herbicides in the soil greatly influenced sugarbeet injury. Reduced translocation and slower metabolism of 14C-dimethenamid-P in both the roots and shoots of the sugarbeet plants most likely contributed to the greater susceptibility of sugarbeet to dimethenamid-P compared with s-metolachlor. Metabolism of 14C-herbicides in sugarbeet shoots was 0.7 to 2.1 h slower in the more susceptible sugarbeet varieties compared with the more tolerant variety, Beta 5833R. This was the most significant factor contributing to differences in sugarbeet variety tolerance to both s-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P.

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) sugarbeet is commonly grown in rotation with GR corn, but there is limited information relating to volunteer GR corn interference or control in GR sugarbeet. Field studies were conducted near Lingle, WY and Scottsbluff, NE in 2009 and 2010 to quantify sugarbeet yield loss in response to volunteer corn density and duration of interference, and determine appropriate control practices for use in GR sugarbeet. Hybrid corn resulted in a similar competitive effect on sugarbeet sucrose yield as clumps of F2 volunteer corn. Clumps of volunteer corn were controlled 81% compared with 73% for individual plants. Linear regression indicated sucrose yield loss of 19% for each corn plant m−2 up to 1.7 plants m−2 at three of four experimental sites. Pearson correlation coefficients between percentage sucrose yield loss and proportion of sunlight reaching the top of the sugarbeet canopy ranged from −0.42 to −0.92. The duration of corn interference required to cause a 5% sucrose yield loss (Y L5) ranged from 3.5 to 5.9 wk after sugarbeet emergence (WAE) for hand-weeding or herbicide removal, respectively, due to the length of time herbicide-treated volunteer corn continued to shade sugarbeet plants. Differences between herbicide and hand-removal methods were attributed to the time lag between when the treatments were applied and when the corn ceased to block light from the sugarbeet canopy. Sethoxydim generally provided less volunteer corn control compared with either quizalofop or clethodim, and control increased with the addition of an oil adjuvant. If a grower were to implement a volunteer corn control practice 3.5 WAE, economic sugarbeet yield loss would be avoided. In eastern Wyoming and western Nebraska, the sugarbeet crop will typically have between four to eight true leaves at 3.5 WAE, and therefore this would be an optimal time to control volunteer corn. If volunteer corn is being hand weeded, the Y L5 estimate will also increase, and thus the window of time to control volunteer corn would be wider.

Studies quantifying weed seed production as a function of weed density are expensive and difficult, and lack of these data is a common limitation in modeling weed population dynamics over time. Observed empirical and theoretical relationships between crop yield loss curves and weed seed production curves led us to the hypothesis that there should be a strong relationship between the shapes of these two curves. Data from literature sources were evaluated to test this hypothesis for hyperbolic curves and to determine if the data describing the crop yield loss caused by weeds could provide estimates of the shape parameter of a hyperbolic equation for describing density dependence in weed reproduction. For each of 162 data sets, a shape parameter (N50) and a scale parameter (U) were estimated for an increasing hyperbolic model both for absolute crop yield loss as a function of weed density (N50YL, UYL) and for weed yield (either total biomass yield or seed yield) as a function of weed density (N50WY, UWY). N50YL was strongly correlated with N50WY across all data sets, with an apparent 1:1 relationship between the two. This relationship suggests that the shape parameter of the yield loss model may substitute for the shape parameter of a hyperbolic model describing the density-dependence of weed seed production. This substitution will be most useful in weed population modeling situations where data describing crop yield loss as a function of weed density are already available, but data describing weed seed production as a function of weed density are not available.

Field trials were conducted to determine if tillage and soil-applied herbicides had an effect on weed control and sugarbeet growth with a micro-rate herbicide program. Sugarbeet emergence was earlier in the moldboard plowed system compared with the chisel plowed system at three of four sites. Conditions were dry and sugarbeets emerged 5 d later in the moldboard plowed system compared with the chisel plowed system at the fourth site. Even though the rate of sugarbeet emergence differed between tillage systems at all four sites, final sugarbeet populations did not differ at two of the four sites. Sugarbeet injury from PRE treatments of S-metolachlor, ethofumesate, and ethofumesate plus pyrazon, followed by four POST micro-rate applications, ranged from 11 to 27% and 1 to 18% in the chisel and moldboard plowed systems, respectively, 6 wk after planting (WAP). Under wet conditions, sugarbeet stand was reduced and injury was greatest from PRE applications of S-metolachlor. Common lambsquarters, pigweed (redroot pigweed and Powell amaranth), and giant foxtail control in mid-August was consistently higher when a PRE herbicide was applied prior to micro-rate herbicide treatments. Even though there were differences between PRE and no-PRE treatments with respect to sugarbeet injury and weed control, recoverable white sucrose yield did not differ between herbicide treatments. However, recoverable white sucrose yield was greater in the moldboard plowed treatments compared with the chisel plowed treatments at three out of the four sites.

Planting glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet in narrow rows could improve weed control with fewer herbicide applications and cultivations. Field studies were conducted in 2007 and 2008 at multiple locations in Michigan to compare weed management and sugarbeet yield and quality in glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet planted in 38-, 51-, and 76-cm rows. At all locations, weed densities and biomass were less after glyphosate treatments than after conventional herbicide treatments. Weed densities and biomass also were less in 38- and 51-cm rows compared with 76-cm rows following a single glyphosate application when weeds were 10 cm tall. Averaged over row width, sugarbeet treated with glyphosate when weeds first reached 2 cm in height and again as needed thereafter yielded similarly to sugarbeet treated when weeds were 5 to 10 cm tall. However, root yields were reduced when glyphosate application was delayed until weeds averaged 15 cm in height. Sugarbeet root and sugar yields were greater from 38- and 51-cm row widths than from the 76-cm row widths, averaged over all herbicide treatments. Regardless of row width, initial glyphosate applications should be made before weeds reach 10 cm in height to maximize yield and minimize weed competition with sugarbeet.