Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T07:18:58.859Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimizing s-Metolachlor and Dimethenamid-P in Sugarbeet Microrate Treatments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Scott L. Bollman  and
Christy L. Sprague
Scott L. Bollman
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Christy L. Sprague*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: sprague1@msu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Dimethenamid-Ps-metolachlorcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALpigweed species, Amaranthus retroflexus L. and Amaranthus powellii S. Wats. AMASSgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAsugarbeet, Beta vulgaris L.Application timingsugarbeet injuryreduced rateresidual controlsugarbeet tolerance
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 1054 - 1063
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Anderson, W. P. 1996. Weed Science: Principles and Applications. St. Paul, MN West. 34.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005a. Outlook® herbicide label. Research Triangle Park, NC BASF Corporation. 8.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005b. Dual Magnum® herbicide label. Greensboro, NC Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 16.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2006. Nortron® SC herbicide label. Research Triangle Park, NC Bayer CropScience. 6.Google Scholar
Brimhall, P. B., Chamberlain, E. W., and Alley, H. P. 1965. Competition of annual weeds in sugarbeets. Weeds 13:33–35.Google Scholar
Chesters, G., Simsiman, G. V., Levy, J., Alhajjar, B. J., Fathulla, R. N., and Harkin, J. M. 1989. Environmental fate of alachlor and metolachlor. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 110:1–75.Google Scholar
Dale, T. M. and Renner, K. A. 2005. Timing of postemergence microrate applications based on growing degree days in sugarbeet. J. Sugar Beet Res. 42:3/4. 119–126.Google Scholar
Dale, T. M., Renner, K. A., and Kravchenko, A. N. 2006. Effect of herbicides on weed control and sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) yield and quality. Weed Technol. 20:150–156.Google Scholar
Dawson, J. H. 1973. Components of full-season weed control in sugarbeets. Wash Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 780. 11.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. 2004. Weed control guide for sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep. 35:3–35.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 1998. Special survey on microrate, 1998. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep. 29:64–75.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 2003. Dual and Dual Magnum on sugarbeet. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep. 34:79–83.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 2004. Herbicides on sugarbeet at seven locations. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep. 35:64–71.Google Scholar
Guza, C. J., Ransom, C. V., and Mallory-Smith, C. 2002. Weed control in glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.). J. Sugarbeet Res. 39:109–123.Google Scholar
Hamill, A. S., Sikkema, P. H., and Robinson, D. 2001. Weed control using microrates of herbicide in sugarbeets. Proc. Exp. Comm. on Weeds. 61–62.Google Scholar
Luecke, J. L. and Dexter, A. G. 2004. Survey of weed control and production practices on sugarbeet in eastern North Dakota and Minnesota. Sugarbeet Res. Ext. Rep. 35:36.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Shaw, D. R., and Witt, W. W. 1999. Relative dissipation of acetochlor, alachlor, metolachlor, and SAN 582 from three surface soils. Weed Technol. 13:341–346.Google Scholar
W.R. Mullison, ed. 1979. Herbicide Handbook. 4th ed. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America. 479.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A. 2003. Dual Magnum preemergence on sugarbeets. Field crop team advisory alert. 18:7. Web page: http://www.ipm.msu.edu/CAT03_fld/FC05-29-03.htm#3 Accessed March 11, 2006.Google Scholar
Rice, C. A., Ransom, C. V., and Ishida, J. K. 2002. Efficacy and sugarbeet tolerance with postemergence dimethenamid-P. J. Sugarbeet Res. 39:89–107.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and May, M. J. 1993. Chapter 12: Weeds and weed control. Pages 485–514. in Cooke, D.A., Scott, R.K. eds. The Sugar Beet Crop. 1st ed. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Skipper, H. D., Gossett, B. J., and Smith, G. W. 1976. Field evaluation and soil residual characteristics of CGA-24 705 and alachlor. Proc. Southern Weed Sci. Soc. 29:418–422.Google Scholar
Smith, G. A. and Schweizer, E. E. 1983. Cultivar × herbicide interaction in sugarbeet. Crop Sci. 23:325–328.Google Scholar
W.K. Vencill, ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 493.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1994. New herbicides for postemergence application in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 8:807–811.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G., Miller, S. D., and Nissen, S. J. 2001. Chapter 10: Weed Control. Pages 117–130. in Wilson, R.G., Smith, J.A., Miller, S.D. eds. Sugarbeet Production Guide. Lincoln, NE University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC01-156.Google Scholar
Winter, S. R. and Wiese, A. F. 1978. Phytotoxicity and yield response of sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) to a mixture of phenmedipham and desmedipham. Weed Sci. 26:1–4.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. and Clark, S. K. 1982. Degradation of three acetanilide herbicides in soil. Weed Sci. 30:545–548.Google Scholar