Abstract
Herbicides are widely used to improve weed control in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris var. saccharifera Aleph.) which is poorly competitive against weeds. Nowadays, mostly due to environmental reasons, herbicides are usually used after sugar beet emergence. Mixture of post-emergence, broad spectrum herbicides have to be applied to control the wide range of weed species in sugar beet crops. Increase awareness of the enviromental damage caused by use of herbicide has aroused grate interest in reducing ther rates as much as possible. One of the way to diminish the herbicide input in sugar beet is to apply reduced herbicide doses at early growth (cotyledon) stage of weeds, when the first seed leaves start to appear. In order to low rates to be effective the first herbicide treatments have to be followed by additional application in relatively short intervals (7-15 days) when each new weed flush appear. This paper reports the results of a two year field study designed to determine the influence of different herbicide rates on fresh weed biomass and yield of sugar beet. All herbicide treatments, except standard (full dose) were used in low rates varying from 1/3 to 2/3 of standard rate and repeated three to five times during vegetation. Tank-mixed herbicide treatments consisted of herbicides desmedipham, phenmedipfam, ethofumesate, herbicidal oil and metamitron. Herbicide quizalofop-p was added to control annual grasses in all treatments. To improve Ambrosia artemisiifolia control herbicide clopyralid was added in some treatments. Treatments 1 and 2 were determined by the growth stage of the first emerged weeds and applied 23 days after sowing date in the first year of research and 30 days in the second year when sugar beet was in cotyledon stage. Treatment three was applied at stage of first true leaves of sugar beet with rates reduced by 1/3, and standard treatment (treat. 4) when sugar beet was at 4 leaves stages with full doses. Sprayings were applied at a water volume equivalent to 200 l/ha. Treatments were replicated four times in a randomised complete block design. Plots were 3, 3 m long with 10 rows of sugar beet (15 m2). Weed control was expressed as percent reduction in fresh weed biomass compared to the untreated control. Measuring was done in July when the weeds were in maximum growth stage. Sugar beet was hand harvested from the central six rows in each plot in October each year. The data were anylsed with ANOVA and LSD test. In both years there were similar weed density. The main weeds present in order of average density per m2 for both years were Echinochloa crus-galli (20), Solanum nigrum (10), Ambrosia artemisiifolia (7), Chenopodim album (6) and Ch. polyspermum (6). Compared with herbicide treatments significantly more fresh weed biomass (85%) and the lowest crop yield (93 %), in both years, occured on untreated check. All treatments gave acceptable weed control which ranged from 80-95 % reduction in weed flora. There was no significant difference in fresh weed biomass between herbicide treatments. Crop yield was not significantly different between herbicide treatments. Although there was no statistical difference between herbicide treatments the best average weed control (95 %) and the gratest average sugar beet yield (57 t/ha) were obtainted where herbicide combination desmedipham, phenmedipfam, ethofumesate, herbicide oil, and clopyralid were applied with residual metamitron reduced by half (treat. 2) compare with standard (full doses) treatment. Increasing the herbicide dose did not obtained better results in weed control and crop yield. This clearly indicate the financially benefit of weed control when appling repeated below-labeled herbicides rates after sugar beet emergence. This approuch should have particular positive effect on enviroment, although it was not the aim of our research.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Weed density was similar in both years.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- similar weed densitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In both years there were similar weed density.”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
The untreated check had significantly more fresh weed biomass than herbicide treatments.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- untreated checke0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- fresh weed biomasse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 85%e0
- Comparator
- herbicide treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with herbicide treatments significantly more fresh weed biomass (85%) and the lowest crop yield (93 %), in both years, occured on untreated check.”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
The untreated check had the lowest crop yield in both years.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- untreated checke0
- Outcome
- crop yielde0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- 93 %e0
- Comparator
- herbicide treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with herbicide treatments significantly more fresh weed biomass (85%) and the lowest crop yield (93 %), in both years, occured on untreated check.”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
All herbicide treatments reduced weed flora by 80–95%.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- All treatmentse0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed florae0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 80-95 %e0
- Comparator
- untreated controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All treatments gave acceptable weed control which ranged from 80-95 % reduction in weed flora.”
e1“compared to the untreated control”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Fresh weed biomass did not differ significantly between herbicide treatments.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- herbicide treatmentse0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- fresh weed biomasse0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Comparator
- herbicide treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was no significant difference in fresh weed biomass between herbicide treatments.”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop yield did not differ significantly between herbicide treatments.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- herbicide treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Crop yielde0
- Direction
- not significantly differente0
- Comparator
- herbicide treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Crop yield was not significantly different between herbicide treatments.”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
The reduced-rate treatment 2 had the best average weed control at 95%.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- herbicide combination desmedipham, phenmedipfam, ethofumesate, herbicide oil, and clopyralid were applied with residual metamitron reduced by halfe0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed controle0
- Direction
- beste0
- Value
- 95 %e0
- Comparator
- standard (full doses) treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the best average weed control (95 %) and the gratest average sugar beet yield (57 t/ha) were obtainted where herbicide combination desmedipham, phenmedipfam, ethofumesate, herbicide oil, and clopyralid were applied with residual metamitron reduced by half (treat. 2) compare with standard (full doses) treatment.”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
The reduced-rate treatment 2 had the greatest average sugar beet yield at 57 t/ha.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- herbicide combination desmedipham, phenmedipfam, ethofumesate, herbicide oil, and clopyralid were applied with residual metamitron reduced by halfe0
- Outcome
- sugar beet yielde0
- Direction
- grateste0
- Value
- 57 t/hae0
- Comparator
- standard (full doses) treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the best average weed control (95 %) and the gratest average sugar beet yield (57 t/ha) were obtainted where herbicide combination desmedipham, phenmedipfam, ethofumesate, herbicide oil, and clopyralid were applied with residual metamitron reduced by half (treat. 2) compare with standard (full doses) treatment.”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing herbicide dose did not improve weed control.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Increasing the herbicide dosee0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed controle0
- Direction
- did not obtained bettere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increasing the herbicide dose did not obtained better results in weed control and crop yield.”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing herbicide dose did not improve crop yield.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- Increasing the herbicide dosee0
- Outcome
- crop yielde0
- Direction
- did not obtained bettere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increasing the herbicide dose did not obtained better results in weed control and crop yield.”
t0“sugar beet”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded repeated below-label herbicide rates after emergence offer a financial weed-control benefit.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- repeated below-labeled herbicides ratese0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- financially benefit of weed controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This clearly indicate the financially benefit of weed control when appling repeated below-labeled herbicides rates after sugar beet emergence.”
t0“sugar beet”
The same questions in other papers
ethofumesate · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results differ
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →clopyralid · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
metamitron · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →desmedipham · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →metamitron · 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 →desmedipham · 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 →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 →herbicide · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
38 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.