Paper · 2000 · Pest Management Science

Delayed control of weeds in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet and the consequences on aphid infestation and yield

Alan M Dewar; Lisa A Haylock; Kathy M Bean; et al.

8
claims
16
verbatim quotes
57
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

An experiment was set up in 1998 to study the effect of glyphosate on the weeds and pests in glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet, in comparison with a conventional herbicide regime. Glyphosate at 1.08 kg ha−1 was first applied at the two- to four-leaf, 8- to 10-leaf and 12- to 14-leaf stage of the crop, followed by a second application at the same rate two to four weeks later. Weed growth did not affect sugar beet emergence or establishment, but, in untreated controls and the two later glyphosate treatments, weeds almost completely covered the ground, leading to reduction of root weight, sugar concentration and yield at harvest. The number of aphids (mostly Myzus persicae Sulzer) in the beet in June was significantly higher on plots treated with glyphosate at the two- to four-leaf stage than on untreated plots or plots treated later with glyphosate. Large numbers of the leaf curling plum aphid (Brachycaudus helichrysi Kaltenbach) colonised the weeds within untreated or later-treated plots. These were accompanied by predators and parasites which eventually caused substantial mortality in the aphid populations. There was evidence that glyphosate-treated weeds, although not in competition with the crop, were still able to provide sustenance for aphids. Very low levels of virus yellows were observed in the trial, and there were no significant differences between treatments. The results suggest that the latest application of the first glyphosate spray in a two-spray programme should be before the eight-leaf stage of the sugar beet to prevent weed competition reducing yield. Further studies on late control of weeds and insect diversity are being carried out. © 2000 Society of Chemical Industry

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 8

Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weed growth did not affect sugar beet emergence or establishment.

Treatment
Weed growthe1
Outcome
emergence or establishmente1
Direction
did not affecte1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–58 · show in text ↑
e1

“Weed growth did not affect sugar beet emergence or establishment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 375–439 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weeds in untreated and later-glyphosate plots reduced sugar beet root weight, sugar concentration and yield at harvest.

Treatment
untreated controls and the two later glyphosate treatmentse2
Interactor
weedse2weed
Outcome
root weight, sugar concentration and yielde2
Direction
reductione2

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–58 · show in text ↑
e2

“in untreated controls and the two later glyphosate treatments, weeds almost completely covered the ground, leading to reduction of root weight, sugar concentration and yield at harvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 446–630 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Aphid numbers in June were significantly higher on plots given the first glyphosate spray at the two- to four-leaf stage than on untreated or later-treated plots.

Treatment
glyphosate at the two- to four-leaf stagee3
Interactor
Myzus persicae SulzerMyzus persicaee3pest
Outcome
number of aphidse3
Direction
highere3
Comparator
untreated plots or plots treated later with glyphosatee3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Myzus persicae
Myzus persicae · InteractorScott Bauer · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–58 · show in text ↑
e3

“The number of aphids (mostly Myzus persicae Sulzer) in the beet in June was significantly higher on plots treated with glyphosate at the two- to four-leaf stage than on untreated plots or plots treated later with glyphosate”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 632–855 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The leaf curling plum aphid (Brachycaudus helichrysi) colonised weeds in untreated and later-treated plots of sugar beet.

Interactor
Brachycaudus helichrysi KaltenbachBrachycaudus helichrysie4pest
Outcome
colonised the weedse4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Brachycaudus helichrysi
Brachycaudus helichrysi · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryBill Keim Depicted place: Buckingham Township, Pennsylvania, United States ( 40°18′07″N 75°02′08″W  /  40.301817°N 75.035558°W  / 40.301817; -75.035558 ) · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–58 · show in text ↑
e4

“leaf curling plum aphid (Brachycaudus helichrysi Kaltenbach) colonised the weeds within untreated or later-treated plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 878–998 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Predators and parasites accompanying the aphids caused substantial mortality in the aphid populations.

Interactor
aphide5pest
Second interactor
predators and parasitese5biocontrol_agent
Outcome
substantial mortality in the aphid populationse5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–58 · show in text ↑
e5

“These were accompanied by predators and parasites which eventually caused substantial mortality in the aphid populations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1000–1120 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Virus yellows occurred at very low levels in the sugar beet trial.

Outcome
virus yellowse6
Qualifier
very low levelse6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–58 · show in text ↑
e6

“Very low levels of virus yellows were observed in the trial”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1265–1324 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Virus yellows did not differ significantly between the herbicide treatments.

Treatment
treatmentse7
Outcome
virus yellowse6
Direction
no significant differencese7

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 28–58 · show in text ↑
e6

“Very low levels of virus yellows were observed in the trial”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1265–1324 · show in text ↑
e7

“there were no significant differences between treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1330–1386 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The latest application of the first glyphosate spray should be before the eight-leaf stage of sugar beet to prevent weed competition reducing yield.

Organ / stage
eight-leaf stagee7
Outcome
the latest application of the first glyphosate spraye7
Qualifier
to prevent weed competition reducing yielde7

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e7

“The results suggest that the latest application of the first glyphosate spray in a two-spray programme should be before the eight-leaf stage of the sugar beet to prevent weed competition reducing yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1388–1589 · show in text ↑

glyphosate · Myzus persicae · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

glyphosate · quality: sugar starch · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree

4 papers: 0 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect
See all 4 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.