Evaluation of weed control methods on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) yield at different levels of nitrogen

پژوهش های حفاظت گیاهان ایران

Article 1, Volume 30, Issue 4 - Serial Number 34, December 2017, Pages 664-676   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jpp.v30i4.52258

Authors

AliAsghar Chitband^{* 1}; Seyed Behnam Kalali²; Alireza Ghaemi³; Saeed JahediPoor⁴

¹Lorestan University of Korramabad

²Azad University of Mashhad

³Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center of Khorasan Razavi

⁴Agriculture Collage of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

Abstract

Introduction: Weed competition is one of the major factors which limit sugar beet production in the world. Weed – crop interactions are based on competition for water, nutrients and light and allelopathic effects may also play a small role. In sugar beet weed interference, all these factors are important too, but the light is of prime importance. Due to the fact that a lot of weeds can grow above the sugar beet canopy and reduce the amount of photosynthetic radiation reaching the crop, these weeds are stronger competitors compared to smaller weeds. In much sugar beet growing areas dicot weeds of the families Chenopodiaceae, Asteraceae, Brassicaceae and Polygonaceae are of major importance. The monocots are less important compared to dicot weeds. Competition from uncontrolled annual weeds that emerge within 8 weeks of sowing or within 4 weeks of the crop reaching the two-leaf stage can reduce root yields by 26–100% .Weeds that emerge 8 weeks after sowing, and particularly after the sugar beet plants have eight or more leaves, are less likely to affect yield. Although tractor hoeing and hand labour are still used in many production areas, herbicides have been the primary method of weed control in sugar beet. The effectiveness of pre-emergence residual herbicides decreases with reductions in rainfall or soil wet content. Therefore, less than 10 % of the total sugar beet crop is treated with pre-emergence herbicides. The remaining 90 % depends solely on a selection of post-emergence herbicides to maintain season-long weed control. The major herbicides are phenmedipham, chloridazon, metamitron. Mixtures of post-emergence, broad spectrum herbicides have to be applied to control the wide range of weed species in sugar beet crops.
Materials and Methods: To study the effects of weeds control by hand weeding and herbicides combination with two selective herbicides at different levels of nitrogen application on sugar beet yield and quality characteristics, an experiment carried out in TorbateJam Township as statistical design with split plots in a randomized complete block design with three replications during 2014. Experiment treatments included, the main factor involving four levels of different Nitrogen application (0, 100. 150 and 200 Kg.ha-1), sub factor involving combination of chloridazon + phenmedipham and metamitron + phenmedipham at 5 Kg.ha-1 herbicides. Four weeks after treatments, sampling of weeds and sugar beet carried out in middle of the plots with 0.5 × 0.5 quadrate. Then, samples were dried at oven-dried at 75 °C for 48 h and weighed. At the final harvest, to determine the grade, amino nitrogen, sodium, potassium with Betalyzr at sugar sector of Agricultural Center laboratory, sampling was removed from the middle of each plot.
Results Discussion: The results showed that application of nitrogen fertilizer and herbicide treatments were significantly different from each other at 1% and 5% levels, respectively. Based on experiment results, the highest root yield of sugar beet was obtained hand weeding with 200 kg N.ha-1 treatments. In between treatments of weed chemical control, metamitron + phenmedipham herbicides with 200 kg N.ha-1 was showed the highest root yield of sugar beet. High net sugar beet yield also was obtained at complete weed control with 200 kg N.ha-1, and metamitron + phenmedipham herbicides application with 200 kg N.ha-1 treatments. Also, the highest net and gross sugars were obtained at without weed control + 0 kg N.ha-1 treatments.
Conclusion: In conclusion, According to results of this study root yield and net and gross sugar were increased by increasing 200 kg nitrogen per hectare. Also, the highest net and gross sugar yield related to the using of hand weeding and combination herbicides of metamitron + phenmedipham and chloridazon + phenmedipham and application of 200 kg.ha-1 nitrogen fertilizer with weed control as well. Between weed controls treatments, root yield were increased by hand weeding compared to herbicide application and between herbicide treatments at Nitrogen different levels, by using of metamitron + phenmedipham than chloridazon + phenmedipham. Between chemical treatments, net and gross sugar yield, shoot dry weight and dry matter yield of sugar beet were more in combination of metamitron + phenmedipham than chloridazon + phenmedipham. While, weeds density and biomass were lesser in herbicide combination of metamitron + phenmedipham compared to chloridazon + phenmedipham. On the other hand, among treatments interaction, the highest root yield and percent of sugar and pure sugar were obtained by 200 kg per hectare Nitrogen fertilizer accompanied weeds control and without weeds control with lack of Nitrogen application respectively.

Keywords

Broad leaf; Hand weeding; Herbicide; sugar percent; Weed

References

1- Allison M.F., Armstrong M.J., Jaggard K.W., Todd A.D., and Milford G.F.J. 1996. An analysis of the agronomic, economic and environmental effect of applying N fertilizer to sugar beet (Beta vulgaris). Journal of Agriculture Science, 127:475-486.

2- Anderson F.N., and Peterson G.A. 2010. Effect of incrementing nitrogen application on sucrose yield of suga beet. Agronomy Journal, 80:709-712.

3- Bandeghi M.R., and Armin M. 2014. Effect of weed interference with sugar beet under different nitrogen amounts. Journal of Plant Ecophysiology, 6(19):45-57. (in Persian with English abstract)

4- Blackshaw R.E., Brandt R.N., Janzen H.H., Entz T., Grant C.A., and Derksen D.A. 2003. Differential response of weed species to added nitrogen. Weed Science, 51:532-539.

5- Chitband A.A., Ghorbani R., Rashed Mohassel M.A., Abbaspoor M., and Abbasi R. 2015. Reduced dose of PSII + fatty acid inhibitors herbicides and clopyralid mixtures and their chlorophyll fluorescence evaluation to control important broadleaf weeds in Sugarbeet (Beta vulgarisL.) (Ph.D. Thesis). Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture: Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. (in Persian with English abstract)

6- Cioni F., and Maines G. 2011. Weed Control in Sugar beet. Sugar Technology, 12:243-255.

7- Deveikyte I., and Seibutis V. 2006. Broadleaf weeds and sugar beet response to phenmedipham, desmedipham, ethofumesate and triflusulfuron-methyl. Agronomy Research, 4:159-162.

8- Di Tomaso J.M. 1995. Approach for improving crop competiveness through the manipulation of fertilization stragies. Weed Science, 43:491-497.

9- Drycott A.P., Webb D.J., and Wricht E.M. 1973. The effect if time of sowing and arvesting on growth yield and n fertilizer requirement of sugar beet yield and nitrogen uptake at harvest. Global Agriculture Science Combination, 81:267-275.

10- Dunn G., Lee G.S., and Schmehl W.R. 2009. Effective of planting date and nitrogen fertilization on siluble carbohydrate concentration in sugar beet. Sugar Beet Technology, 27:1-10.

11- Farzane S., Zaefizadeh M., SeyedSharifi R., Dehghanshear M., and Asvadi J. 2006. Determining of suitable N.P.K. fertilizer levels in sugar beet seed production in Ardabil area. Sugar beet Journal, 22(2):79-90. (in Persian with English abstract)

12- Fathy M.F., Motagally A., and Attia K.K. 2009. Response of sugar beet plants to nitrogen and potassium fertilization in sandy calcareous soil. International Journal of Agriculture Biology, 11:695-700.

13- Guhari J., Fazli H., Touhidloo G.h., Talghani F., and Shikholeslami R. 2002. Optimum sample size of sugar beet roots for determination sugar content. Sugar beet Journal, 18(1):67-79. (in Persian with English abstract)

14- Hellal F.A., Taalab A.S., and Safaa A.M. 2009. Influence of nitrogen and boron nutrition on nutrient balance and Sugar beet yield grown in calcareous Soil .Ozean Journal Applied Science, 2(1):1-10.

15- Hellwing K.B., Johnson W.G., and Scharf P.C. 2002. Grass weeds interference and nitrogen accumulation in no-tillage corn. Weed Science, 19:757-762.

16- Houba V.J.G., Van Egmond F., and Wittich E.M. 2005. Changes in production of organic nitrogen and carboxylates in yong sugar beet plants grown in nutrient solutions of different nitrogen composition. Netherland Journal of Agriculture Science, 19:39-47.

17- Jahad-Akbar M.R., Tabatabaii-Nim Avard R., and Ebrahimiyan H.R. 2004. Critical period of weed competition with sugar beet in Kabotarabad-Esfahan. Sugar beet Journal, 20:73-92 (in Persian with English abstract)

18- Kaya R., and Buzluk Ş. 2006. Integrated weed control in sugar beet through combinations of tractor hoeing and reduced dosages of a herbicide mixture. Turkey Journal of Agriulture, 30:137-144.

19- Khayamim S., Mazaheri D., Banayan M., Guhari J., and Jahansuz M.R. 2002. Determination of sugar beet extinction coefficient and radiation use efficiency at different plant density and nitrogen use levels. Sugar beet Journal, 18(1):51-66. (in Persian with English abstract)

20- Lee S.G., and Schmehl W.R. 2001. Effect of chemical control and nitrogen fertilization on growth sucrose accumulation and foliar development of the sugar beet plant. Sugar Beet Technology, 12:309-329.

21- Malnou C.S., Jaggard K.W., and Sparkes D.L. 2006. A canopy approach to nitrogen fertilizer recommendation for the sugar beet crop. European Journal of Agronomy, 25:254-263.

22- Orr J.P., Canevari M., Jackson L., Wenning R., Carner R., and Nishimoto G. 1996. Post-emergence herbicides and application nitrogen in wheat yields. California Agriculture, 50:32-36.

23- Paolini R., Principi M., Froud-William R.J., Del Puglia S., and Binacardi E. 1999. Competition between sugar beet and Sinapis arvensis and Chenopodium album, as affected by timing of nitrogen fertilization. Weed Research, 39:425-440.

24- Partovi M., Zand E., Alizade M.H., and Atri A. 2007. Investigation of herbicide resistance in pigweed (Amaranthus sp.) to chloridazon, desmedipham and mixture of these herbicides in some sugar beet fields of Iran. Journal of Plant Pest and diseases, 75(2):73-88. (in Persian with English abstract)

25- Phillips R.E., Egli D.B., and Thompson L. 2005. Absorotion of herbicides by sugar beet and their influence on emergence and seedling growth. Weed Science, 20:506-510.

26- Reinfeld E., Emmerich A., Baumgarten G., Winner C., and Beiss U. 1974. Zur voraussage des melassezuckers aus rubenanalysen. Zucker, 27:2-15.

27- Scott R.K., Wilcockson S.J., and Moisey F.R. 2003. The effects of time of weed removal on growth and yield of sugar beet. Journal of Agriculture Science, 93:693-709.

28- Sweeney A.E., Renner K.A., Laboski C., and Davis A. 2008. Effect of fertilizer nitrogen on weed emergence and growth. Weed Science, 56:714-721.

29- Thomas A.G. 1985. Weed survey system used in saskatchewan for cereal and oilseed crops. Weed Science. 33: 34-43.

30- Van Zuydam R.P., Sonneveld C., and Naber H. 2007. Weed control in sugar beet by precision guided implements. Crop Protection, 14(4):335-340.

31- Wiltshire J.J., Tillett N.D., and Hague T. 2003. Agronomic evaluation of precise mechanical hoeing and chemical weed control in sugar beet. Weed Research, 43:236-244.

32- Zand E., Rahimian H., Kocheki A., Khalghani J., Mousavi K., and Ramezani K. 2004. The ecology of weeds (Management applications). Mashhad University of Jehad Press P: 544. (In Persian).

33- Ziaeyan A.A., Niromand N., and Noshad H. 2011. Sugar beet response to the application of slow-release nitrogen fertilizers. Sugae beet Journal, 27 (1):85-99. (in Persian with English abstract)

34- Zimdal R.L., and Fertig S.N. 2005. Influence of weed competition on sugar beet. Weed Science, 35:336- 339.