Abstract
Field trials were conducted from 2006 through 2008 to determine the influence of ethofumesate applied at planting followed by dimethenamid-p or s -metolachlor applied to emerged sugarbeet for late-season weed control in glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet. The entire plot area was kept weed-free until mid-June by applying glyphosate at the four- and eight-true-leaf sugarbeet growth stages. Glyphosate was not applied from mid-June until late-July to allow weed growth as a measure of the residual benefit from ethofumesate, dimethenamid-p, and s -metolachlor applied earlier in the growing season. Dimethenamid-p was not as effective as s -metolachlor in reducing weed density in mid-July. Late-season weed suppression from both s -metolachlor and dimethenamid-p benefitted from ethofumesate applied at planting. Dimethenamid-p applied when sugarbeet reached the six-true-leaf growth stage reduced weed density and sugarbeet injury more than earlier applications. The lowest weed density in mid-July was achieved when s -metolachlor was applied at the six- to eight-true-leaf sugarbeet growth stage compared to earlier growth stages. A planting time application of ethofumesate followed by two glyphosate applications plus s -metolachlor at the eight-true-leaf sugarbeet growth stage provided 89% more weed control in mid-July than glyphosate alone. Suppressing late-season weed development increased sugarbeet root yield 15% compared with areas not receiving ethofumesate and s -metolachlor.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Dimethenamid-p reduced mid-July weed density less effectively than s -metolachlor.
- Taxon
- Sugarbeet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Treatment
- Dimethenamid-pe0
- Outcome
- weed densitye0
- Direction
- not as effectivee0
- Comparator
- s -metolachlore0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dimethenamid-p was not as effective as s -metolachlor in reducing weed density in mid-July”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Planting-time ethofumesate improved late-season weed suppression by s -metolachlor.
- Taxon
- SugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- ethofumesate applied at plantinge0
- Outcome
- weed suppression from both s -metolachlor and dimethenamid-pe0
- Direction
- benefittede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Late-season weed suppression from both s -metolachlor and dimethenamid-p benefitted from ethofumesate applied at planting”
t0“Sugarbeet”
Claim · model-written summary
Dimethenamid-p at six true leaves reduced weed density more than earlier application.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Dimethenamid-p applied when sugarbeet reached the six-true-leaf growth stagee0
- Outcome
- weed densitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- earlier applicationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dimethenamid-p applied when sugarbeet reached the six-true-leaf growth stage reduced weed density and sugarbeet injury more than earlier applications”
Claim · model-written summary
Dimethenamid-p at six true leaves reduced sugarbeet injury more than earlier application.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Dimethenamid-p applied when sugarbeet reached the six-true-leaf growth stagee0
- Outcome
- sugarbeet injurye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- earlier applicationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dimethenamid-p applied when sugarbeet reached the six-true-leaf growth stage reduced weed density and sugarbeet injury more than earlier applications”
Claim · model-written summary
s -metolachlor at six to eight true leaves yielded the lowest mid-July weed density.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- s -metolachlor was applied at the six- to eight-true-leaf sugarbeet growth stagee0
- Outcome
- weed density in mid-Julye0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Comparator
- earlier growth stagese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The lowest weed density in mid-July was achieved when s -metolachlor was applied at the six- to eight-true-leaf sugarbeet growth stage compared to earlier growth stages”
Claim · model-written summary
Ethofumesate, two glyphosate applications and s -metolachlor provided 89% more mid-July weed control than glyphosate alone.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- ethofumesate followed by two glyphosate applications plus s -metolachlor at the eight-true-leaf sugarbeet growth stagee0
- Outcome
- weed control in mid-Julye0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 89%e0
- Comparator
- glyphosate alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ethofumesate followed by two glyphosate applications plus s -metolachlor at the eight-true-leaf sugarbeet growth stage provided 89% more weed control in mid-July than glyphosate alone”
Claim · model-written summary
Late-season weed suppression increased sugarbeet root yield by 15% against areas without ethofumesate and s -metolachlor.
- Taxon
- sugarbeetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- Suppressing late-season weed developmente0
- Outcome
- sugarbeet root yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 15%e0
- Comparator
- areas not receiving ethofumesate and s -metolachlore0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Suppressing late-season weed development increased sugarbeet root yield 15% compared with areas not receiving ethofumesate and s -metolachlor”
The same questions in other papers
dimethenamid-P · weed · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · crop injury · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
dimethenamid-P · crop injury · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
glyphosate · weed · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →metolachlor · weed · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · weed · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
ethofumesate · weed · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
8 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →stage · weed · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.