Enhancing Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Yield and Quality: Evaluating the Efficiency of Chemical and Mechanical Weed Control Strategies

Abstract

Weeds exert a pronounced influence on the sugar beet yield, leading to the potential for substantial reductions in agricultural productivity. In pursuit of addressing this issue, two experiments were conducted at the Faculty of Agriculture in Giza, Egypt, during the winter seasons of 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 to investigate the efficacy of various pre- and post-herbicides applied differently in active ingredient percentages, forms, and on weed target types, and mechanical weed treatments on weed traits and sugar beet crop performance. (1) In this context, five herbicidal treatments, including pre-emergence (S-Metoachlor) and post-emergence applications of Betanal Max Pro (Desmedipham 4.7% + Ethofumesate 7.5% + Lenacil 2.7% + Phenmedipham 6%), Tegrospecial (Desmedipham 20% + Phenmedipham 20%) for total annual weeds, C Factor (Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 7.5% + Fluazifop-p-putyl 15%), and Clictar (Clethodium 24%) for grassy weeds, were assessed alongside mechanical weeding and a weedy check (control). (2) The evaluations encompassed growth parameters, juice quality, and beet yields to comprehensively assess the treatment effects. (3) Notably, weed control measures, especially regarding three total annual weeds herbicides and the cultivation when using both grassy weed herbicides, consistently produced the highest improvements in sugar beet root’s fresh and dry weights, root dimensions, sucrose content, purity, sugar recovery, as well as the root and recoverable sugar yields, across both seasons. (4) However, it is important to note that the application of Clethodium 24% and Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 7.5% + Fluazifop-p-putyl 15% resulted in elevated levels of sodium, potassium, amino nitrogen, impurities, and sucrose loss to molasses. These findings underscore the substantial influence of herbicide use and mechanical weeding on sugar beet’s growth, juice quality, and yield, with S-Metoachlor, Desmedipham 20% + Phenmedipham 20% and Desmedipham 4.7% + Ethofumesate 7.5% + Lenacil 2.7% + Phenmedipham 6%—showing promise as effective weed control options, albeit with certain associated drawbacks.

Mechanical Weed Control: Sensor-Based Inter-Row Hoeing in Sugar Beet (Beta vulgaris L.) in the Transylvanian Depression

“…Weed control efficacy is better for herbicide control at the early stages of the sugar beet undergoing spraying with herbicides, which, in most cases, is performed weekly, and we can lose considerable yield of the sugar beet if it is undertaken after the six-leaf stages of the crop (BBCH 19). Mechanical weed control can be undertaken at the late stages of the crop after BBCH 19 and until the sugar beet leaves cover the soil between the rows [1,35].…”

“…Weeds left in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) cause problems during harvesting the beet roots for sugar production, decrease yield, and increase weed populations in future crops due to the mature weed seeds or rhizomes left in the soil [1]. Therefore, an Integrated Weed Management (IWM) strategy is very important, and practices need to be applied in sugar beet cultivation and in programs of pesticide reduction and environmental protection [2,3], such as the European Green Deal.…”

“…Weed control in sugar beet cultivation is increasingly difficult because the physiological stage of the crop is small and strict, and technical rules are imposed with low and precisely fractionated doses [1,32]. Thus, it is interesting to investigate the differences between chemical and mechanical controls on weeds in the sugar beet crop [18,33].…”