Plant Soil Environ., 2008, 54(3):108-116 | DOI: 10.17221/2687-PSE

Competitive relationships between sugar beet and weeds in dependence on time of weed control

M. Jursík, J. Holec, J. Soukup, V. Venclová
Department of Agroecology and Biometeorology, Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic

Small plot trials were carried out in years 2001-2003 with sugar beet. In the treatment without weed control, dry weight of sugar beet top and LAI of sugar beet were very low (approx. 50 g/m2 and 0.5 m2/m2, respectively). Yield loss of sugar beet was 80-93%. Dominant weeds were Chenopodium album, Fumaria officinalis and Galium aparine. In the treatments where weeds were removed (by hand) until 4 leaf stage of sugar beet, dry weight of sugar beet top and LAI of sugar beet at first increased normally, but were markedly decreased from the half of the vegetation period. Yield loss of sugar beet was 54-28%. Dominant weed in this treatment was Amaranthus retroflexus. The development of sugar beet top dry weight and LAI of sugar beet was practically identical in the treatments where weeds were removed until 8-10 leaf stage of the crop and in those where weeds were removed during the whole vegetation period (500-900 g/m2, or 4-7 m2/m2, respectively). No yield loss of sugar beet was recorded. Dry weight of weeds did not exceed 30 g/m2 and LAI 0.1 m2/m2. A. retroflexus and Mercurialis annua were the most frequent weeds in this treatment.

Keywords: sugar beet; weed competition; yield loss; annual weeds; seed production; reproductive ability; time of emergence; competition

Published: March 31, 2008  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Jursík M, Holec J, Soukup J, Venclová V. Competitive relationships between sugar beet and weeds in dependence on time of weed control. Plant Soil Environ.. 2008;54(3):108-116. doi: 10.17221/2687-PSE.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Abdollahi F., Ghadiri H. (2004): Effect of separate and combined applications of herbicides on weed control and yield of sugar beet. Weed Technol., 18: 968-976. Go to original source...
    2. Chikoye D., Weise S.F., Swanton C.J. (1995): Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phasealus vulgaris). Weed Sci., 43: 375-380. Go to original source...
    3. Dunan C.N., Westra P., Moore F., Chapman P. (1996): Modelling the effect of duration of weed competition, weed density and weed competitiveness on seeded, irrigated onion. Weed Res., 36: 256-269. Go to original source...
    4. Ferrero A., Scanzio M., Acutis M. (1996): Critical period of weed interference in maize. In: 2 nd Inter. Weed Control Congr., Copenhagen, Denmark: 171-176.
    5. Jursík M., Holec J., Soukup J. (2004): Biology and control of sugar beet significant weeds - barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli L.). Listy Cukrov. Řep., 120: 47-51.
    6. Jursík M., Soukup J., Venclová V., Holec J. (2003): Seed dormancy and germination of Shaggy soldier (Galinsoga ciliata Blake) and Common lambsquarter (Chenopodium album L.). Plant Soil Environ., 49: 511-518. Go to original source...
    7. Keeley P.E., Thullen R.J. (1991): Growth and interaction of barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci., 39: 369-375. Go to original source...
    8. Kropff M.J., Spitters C.J.T., Schnieders B.J., Joenje W., De Groot W. (1992): An eco-physiological model for interspecific competition, applied to the influence of Chenopodium album L. on sugar beet. II. Model evaluation. Weed Res., 32: 451-463. Go to original source...
    9. Martinková Z., Honěk A. (2001): The effect of time of weed removal on maize yield. Rostl. Výr., 47: 211-217.
    10. Mesbah A. (1993): Interference of broadleaf and grassy weeds in sugar beet. [Ph.D. Thesis.] University of Wyoming, USA.
    11. Norris R.F. (1996): Weed population dynamics: seed production. In: 2nd Inter. Weed Control Congr., Copenhagen, Denmark: 15-20.
    12. Storkey J. (2004): Modelling seedling growth rates of 18 temperate arable weed species as a function of the environment and plant traits. Ann. Bot., 93: 681-689. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    13. Wellmann A. (1999): Comparative study on the competition of Chenopodium album (L.) and Chamomilla recutita (L.) Rauschert with sugar beet. Zuckerindustrie, 124: 227-228.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content