Optimizing<i>s</i>-Metolachlor and Dimethenamid-P in Sugarbeet Microrate Treatments

Bollman, Scott L.; Sprague, Christy L.

doi:10.1614/wt-07-068.1

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Smith and Schweizer (1983) reported that sugarbeet can recover from stature reduction caused by herbicides applied PRE and POST in spring and early summer and yield similarly to weed-free treatments. Likewise, Bollman and Sprague (2007) reported that sugarbeet overcame injury caused by PRE herbicides applied under different tillage regimes and closed canopy and produced recoverable sucrose the same as untreated control comparisons. Sugarbeet also compensate for stand loss.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Sugarbeet tolerance when dimethenamid-P follows soil-applied ethofumesate and S-metolachlor

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 92%

Sugarbeet tolerance when dimethenamid-P follows soil-applied ethofumesate and S-metolachlor

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, S-metolachlor is applied PRE for weed control in various vegetable crops. Bollman and Sprague (2007) reported 94% control of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) species with S-metolachlor applied at 1.4 kg ai ha À1 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and Economics of Herbicide Programs Compared to Methyl Bromide for Weed Control in Polyethylene-Mulched Bell Pepper

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the absence of an effective alternative to methyl bromide (MeBr), weeds cause a significant economic loss in bell pepper production. A study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and economics of PRE followed by (fb) POST-directed (POST-DIR) herbicide programs compared with MeBr for weed control in low-density polyethylene (LDPE) mulched bell pepper production. Imazosulfuron at 0.112, 0.224, and 0.336 kg ai ha−1andS-metolachlor at 1.6 kg ai ha−1were PRE-applied fb POST-DIR applied mixture of trifloxysulfuron + halosulfuron at 0.008 and 0.027 kg ai ha−1, respectively, at 4 wk after transplanting (WATP). The standard MeBr treatment (67 and 33% mixture of MeBr + chloropicrin) was applied at 390 kg ai ha−1. In addition, a weed-free (hand weeding) and a non-treated control were used for comparison.S-metolachlor-containing herbicide program controlled Palmer amaranth ≥ 90%, large crabgrass ≥ 78%, and yellow nutsedge ≥ 90%, which were comparable to MeBr. After POST-DIR herbicide application, bell pepper was injured ≥ 17% with theS-metolachlor-containing herbicide program at 6 WATP; however, the crop later recovered. Marketable bell pepper yield in plots treated withS-metolachlor (≥ 29.9 ton ha−1) was comparable to those treated with MeBr. Economic evaluation of the imazosulfuron herbicide programs demonstrated the loss of ≥ $7,300 ha−1. Conversely, theS-metolachlor-containing herbicide program was profitable with a net return of $9,912 ha−1. In addition, theS-metolachlor herbicide program generated a net profit of $173 ha−1compared to the MeBr application. Therefore, PRE-appliedS-metolachlor fb POST-DIR applied trifloxysulfuron + halosulfuron is a potential alternative to MeBr for weed management in LDPE-mulched bell pepper production given the weed spectrum evaluated in this study.

show abstract

“…Sugarbeet density, stature reduction, root yield, sucrose content, and recoverable sucrose in response to S-metolachlor application, averaged across environments with less than and greater than 3.5% organic matter content and greater than 40-mm cumulative rainfall through 14 d after application in 2015, 2016, and 2017. and early summer, and yield was similar to that of weed-free, untreated checks. Likewise, Bollman and Sprague (2007) reported sugarbeet overcoming injury caused by PRE herbicides applied under different tillage regimes and closed canopy and producing recoverable sucrose the same as untreated control comparisons. Sugarbeet also compensates for stand loss.…”

Section: Rainfall Om Soil Series and S-metolachlor Ratementioning

confidence: 91%

Environment influences sugarbeet tolerance to S-metolachlor

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Optimizings-Metolachlor and Dimethenamid-P in Sugarbeet Microrate Treatments

Cited by 12 publications

References 13 publications

Sugarbeet tolerance when dimethenamid-P follows soil-applied ethofumesate and S-metolachlor

Sugarbeet tolerance when dimethenamid-P follows soil-applied ethofumesate and S-metolachlor

Efficacy and Economics of Herbicide Programs Compared to Methyl Bromide for Weed Control in Polyethylene-Mulched Bell Pepper

Environment influences sugarbeet tolerance to S-metolachlor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About