Weeds and Weed Control

and, Mike J. May; Wilson, R. G.

doi:10.1002/9780470751114.ch14

Cited by 27 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A second reason for higher weed infestations at DOK in the Russian Federation is the high soil organic matter content, which strongly reduces the availability of soil active herbicides in the soil water (May & Wilson 2006) due to adsorption and enhanced breakdown. A third reason could be the lower competitive ability of the crop due to water deficiency.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sugar beet yield loss predicted by relative weed cover, weed biomass and weed density

Gerhards¹,

Bezhin²,

Santel³

2017

Plant Prot. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gerhards R., Bezhin K., Santel H.-J. (2017): Sugar beet yield loss predicted by relative weed cover, weed biomass and weed density. Plant Protect. Sci., 53: 118-125.Sugar beet yield loss was predicted from early observations of weed density, relative weed cover, and weed biomass using non-linear regression models. Six field experiments were conducted in Germany and in the Russian Federation in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Average weed densities varied from 20 to 131 with typical weed species compositions for sugar beet fields at both locations. Sugar beet yielded higher in Germany and relative yield losses were lower than in Russia. Data of weed density, relative weed cover, weed biomass and relative yield loss fitted well to the non-linear regression models. Competitive weed species such as Chenopodium album and amaranthus retroflexus caused more than 80% yield loss. Relative weed cover regression models provided more accurate predictions of sugar beet yield losses than weed biomass and weed density.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Effective weed control is needed mainly during the critical period of sugar beet development, which is approximately the period during the first 60 days after emergence. Then, sugar beet does not tolerate co-existence with weeds without losing yield (May & Wilson 2006;Jalali & Salehi 2013). Weeds need to be removed until the 8-leaf stage of sugar beet.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sugar beet yield loss predicted by relative weed cover, weed biomass and weed density

Gerhards¹,

Bezhin²,

Santel³

2017

Plant Prot. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For satisfactory weed control, herbicides must be applied four times (once at preemergence and three times at post-emergence) in FAR system and three, four or more times in micro-rate system (May and Wilson, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Possibilities of Reducing Herbicide Use in Weed Control in Sugar Beet Production

Kaya¹

2012

ANAJAS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

: Full mechanized systems are put into practice in weed control of sugar beet in the world. Herbicide usage has a significant role in these systems. Different weed control strategies are needed in order to prevent accumulation of herbicides, applied successively and intensively, to the soil. In this study, effects of combinations of tractor hoeing and band applications of herbicides at low rates on reducing herbicide use per unit area were investigated along with their effects on weed control, sugar beet yield and quality in [2005][2006][2007]. According to the results, hand hoeing twice + thinning (control), tractor hoeing twice + thinning, low-dose post-emergence band herbicide application twice + tractor hoeing twice, low-dose post-emergence overall herbicide application three times, low-dose post-emergence band herbicide application once + thinning + tractor hoeing once, low-dose post-emergence band herbicide application once + tractor hoeing twice, low-dose post-emergence band herbicide application three times + tractor hoeing once and low-dose post-emergence band herbicide application twice + tractor hoeing once resulted in 98.6, 96.7, 89.9, 88.4, 85.7, 78.4, 76 and 68 % weed control respectively. In terms of root and sugar yield, following the control treatment (58.98 and 9.77 t ha -1 ), tractor hoeing twice + thinning (58.07 and 9.63 t ha -1 ), low-dose post-emergence overall herbicide application three times (57.14 and 9.4 t ha -1 ), low-dose post-emergence band herbicide application twice + tractor hoeing twice (56.33 and 9.33 t ha -1 ), respectively, were most effective although there were no significant differences among them. The other treatments produced significantly lower root and sugar yields compared to the control. The results indicated that tractor hoeing twice + thinning and low-dose postemergence band herbicide application twice + tractor hoeing twice (full mechanized system) gave better performance than the treatments with the other band spraying combined with a tractor hoe and this full mechanized treatment saved 70% in the amount of herbicide sprayed per unit area compared to low-dose post-emergence overall herbicide three times in the arid and semi-arid regions. Key words: Sugar beet, weed control, herbicide, low dose, band spraying. ŞEKER PANCARI TARIMINDA YABANCI OT KONTROLÜNDE HERBİSİT KULLANIMINI AZALTMA OLANAKLARIÖZET : Dünyada şeker pancarı tarımında yabancı ot kontrolünde tam mekanize sistemler devreye girmektedir. Bu sistemlerde herbisit kullanımı önemli bir yer tutmaktadır. Üst üste yoğun bir şekilde uygulanan herbisitlerin toprakta birikimini önlemek için farklı yabancıot kontrol stratejilerine ihtiyaç vardır. Bu çalışmada 2005-2007 yıllarında birim alana atılacak herbisit miktarını azaltmak amacıyla, traktör çapası ve herbisitlerin düşük dozlarının çıkış sonrası band usulü uygulama kombinasyonlarının, yabancıot ile şeker pancarının verim ve kalitesi üzerindeki etkisi incelenmiştir. Sonuçlara göre, 2 kez el çapası + seyreltme (kontrol) %98.6, 2 kez traktör çapası + s...

show abstract

“…The most competitive are annual weeds, mostly broadleaved species that emerge with, or shortly after, the crop, grow taller than the crop and produce dense shade. These weeds often grow to a height two to three times that of sugar beet by midsummer, sugar beet herbicides seldom have a wide enough weed control spectrum or sufficient residual activity to control all weeds, and tank mixes and sequences of different herbicides are commonly used in order to provide a broad spectrum of weed control (May and Wilson, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chemical Weed Control in Sugar Beet

Motienko¹

2012

Alexandria Science Exchange Journal: An International Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The highest yield in the first season was found in the case of (Phenmedipham 6.5%+ metametron 28% + ethofumesate 6.5%) 2.5 kg/fed which gave 35.32 ton/fed followed by handweeding twice with a yield 31.82 ton/fed and (Phenmedipham 5.54%+ desmedipham 4.34%+ lenacil 2.5%+ ethofumesate 6.93%) with a yield 29.59 ton/fed with no significant differences between them in the second season the highest feddan production was reported in the case of (Phenmedipham 6.5%+ metametron 28%+ ethofumesate 6.5%) 2.5 kg/fed+ handweeding and handweeding twice (34.23 and 33.18 ton/fed, respectively) with no significant difference between them.The length and diameter of the root were not affected by the tested herbicides, also the percentage of sugar were not affected by all treatments, but in the first season, the highest sugar yield per feddan was found in the case of five treatments which were (Phenmedipham 6.5%+ metametron 28% + ethofumesate 6.5%) 2.5 kg/fed + handweeding, (Phenmedipham 5.54% + desmedipham 4.34%+ lenacil 2.5%+ ethofumesate 6.93%) + handweeding, handweeding twice, (Phenmedipham 6.5%+ metametron 28% + ethofumesate 6.5%) 2 kg/fed+ handweeding and (Phenmedipham 6.5% + metametron 28% + ethofumesate 6.5%) 2.5 kg/fed with sugar yield (5.4, 4.98, 4.73, 4.64 and 4.35 ton/fed, respectively with no significant differences between them while in the second season the four treatments that gave highest yield were (Phenmedipham 6.5% + metametron 28% + ethofumesate 6.5%) 2.5 kg/fed+ handweeding, handweeding twice, acetochlor+ handweeding and (Phenmedipham 7.5%+ desmedipham 1.5% + ethofumesate 11.5%) + handweeding as they gave (5.58, 5.28, 4.93 and 4.64 ton/fed, respectively.

show abstract

Weeds and Weed Control

Cited by 27 publications

References 41 publications

Sugar beet yield loss predicted by relative weed cover, weed biomass and weed density

Sugar beet yield loss predicted by relative weed cover, weed biomass and weed density

Possibilities of Reducing Herbicide Use in Weed Control in Sugar Beet Production

Chemical Weed Control in Sugar Beet

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About