Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Weeds and weed control

  • Chapter
Book cover The Sugar Beet Crop

Part of the book series: World Crop Series ((WOCS))

Abstract

Weeds have been a major problem in sugar beet since the crop was first grown in the late 1700s. At the end of the eighteenth century, Achard (1799) was already stressing the need to control weeds before the crop was sown. He also noted that once sugar beet was clear of competition from early-emerging weeds it would grow vigorously and smother weeds that germinated later. Modern weed control recommendations are still based on Achard’s observations that sugar-beet plants need to gain an advantage over weeds early in the season. 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 since the early 1950s (Schweizer and Dexter, 1987).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Achard, F.C. (1799). Ausführliche Beschreibung der Methode, nach welcher bei der Kultur der Runkelrübe verfahren werden muss. C.S. Spener, Berlin (reprinted Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1984). 63 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, R.J. (1984). Weed-crop Ecology — Principles in Weed Management. Breton Publishers, North Scituate, Massachusetts. 465 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bethlenfalvay, G. and Norris, R.F. (1977). Desmedipham phytotoxicity to sugar-beets (Beta vulgaris) under constant versus variable light, temperature, and moisture conditions. Weed Science, 25, 407–11.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bevis, A.J. and Jewell, S.N. (1986). Preliminary results from the use of chemicals or cultivations to control potato groundkeepers. Aspects of Applied Biology, 13, Crop Protection of Sugar Beet and Crop Protection and Quality of Potatoes,pp. 201–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bray, W.E. and Hilton, J.G. (1975). Changes over 25 years in the weed population in sugar-beet grown on a Norfolk farm. Troisième Réunion Internationale sur le Desherbage Sélectif en Cultures de Betteraves, 389–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruun Clausen, I. (1989). Breeding for herbicide resistance — seed company considerations. Brighton Crop Protection Conference — Weeds, vol. 1, 279–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charudattan, R. and DeLoach, C.J. (1988). Management of pathogens and insects for weed control in agroecosystems. In Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches (eds M.A. Altieri and M. Liebman), CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 245–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, J.H. and Froud-Williams, R.J. (1989). The management of set-aside and its implications on weeds. Brighton Crop Protection Conference — Weeds, vol. 2, pp. 579–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cousens, R. (1986). Theory and reality of weed control thresholds. Plant Protection Quarterly, 2, 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cousens, R., Wilson, B.J., and Cussans, G.W. (1985). To spray or not to spray: the theory behind the practice. British Crop Protection Conference — Weeds, vol. 2, pp. 671–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, J.E. (1979). A non-mechanical system of herbicide application with a rope wick. PANS, 25, 431–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, J.H. (1965). Competition between irrigated sugar beets and annual weeds. Weeds, 13, 245–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, J.H. (1974). Full-season weed control in sugarbeets. Weed Science, 22, 330–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, J. and Harker, N. (1985). Comparative efficacy of several graminicides in controlling Elymus repens. British Crop Protection Conference — Weeds, vol. 2, pp. 471–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dexter, A.G. (1971). Weed control and crop injury from herbicide combinations used in sugarbeets. Proceedings North Central Weed Control Conference, 26, 60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duke, S.O. (1986). Naturally occurring chemical compounds as herbicides. Reviews of Weed Science, 2, 15–44.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, D.N., Meggitt, W.F., and Penner, D. (1982). Basis for increased activity from herbicide combinations with ethofumesate applied on sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Science, 30, 195–200.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Egley, G.H. (1986). Stimulation of weed seed germination in soil. Reviews of Weed Science, 2, 67–89.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Egley, G.H. and Chandler, J.M. (1983). Longevity of weed seeds after 5.5 years in the Stoneville 50-year buried-seed study. Weed Science, 31, 264–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, W.B., Jr. (1977). Integration of weed control technologies. In Integrated Control of Weeds (eds J. D. Fryer and S. Matsunaka), University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, pp. 227–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, R.R. and Dexter, A.G. (1981). Sugarbeet injury from glyphosate applied to redroot pigweed. North Central Weed Control Conference, 36, 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, J.S. (1982). Breeding herbicide-tolerant crop cultivars by conventional methods. In: Herbicide Resistance in Plants. (eds H.M. Lebaron and J. Gressel), John Wiley, New York, pp. 235–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, D.A. (1989). Applications of plant genetic engineering to crop protection. American Phytopathological Society, 79, 38–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fühling, J.J. (1859). Anleitung zur rationellen Kultur der Zucker- und- Futterrunkelrüben; nebst Erörterungen über die Erschøopfung des Bodens durch anhaltend fortgesetzten Zuckerrübenbau, ihre Ursachen und Vermeidung. M. Cohen, Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gressel, J. and Segel, L.A. (1978). The paucity of plants evolving genetic resistance to herbicides: possible reasons and implications. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 75, 349–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guedon, P. (1928). Essai de nettoyage des betteraves par l’acide sulforique. Bull. Assoc. Chimist. Sucr. Dist., 45, 370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gwynne, D.C. and Murray, R.B. (1985). Weed Biology and Control in Agriculture and Horticulture. Batsford Academic and Educational, London. 253 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatzios, K.K. (1987). Biotechnology applications in weed management: now and in the future. In Advances in Agronomy (ed. N.C. Brady), Academic Press Inc., New York, pp. 325–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, T.A. (1977). The Biology of Weeds. Edward Arnold, London. 64 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holm, L.G., Plucknett, D.L., Pancho, J.V., and Herberger, J.P. (1977). The World’s Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 609 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, J.S. and LeBaron, H.M. (1989). Significance and worldwide distribution of herbicide resistance. Weed Science Society of America Abstracts, 29, 131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, L.L. (1972). Extent and cost of weed control with herbicides and an evaluation of important weeds, 1968. ARS-H-1. Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 227 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jutsum, A.R. (1988). Commercial application of biological control: status and prospects. In Biological Control of Pests, Pathogens and Weeds: Developments and Prospects (eds R.K.S. Wood and M.J. Way), Royal Society, London, pp. 247–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khachaturians, G.G. (1986). Production and use of biological pest control agents. Trends in Biotechnology, 4, 120–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kropff, M.J. (1988). Modelling the effects of weeds on crop production. Weed Research, 28, 465–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeBaron, H.M. and Gressel, J. (1982). Herbicide Resistance in Plants. John Wiley, New York. 401 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longden, P.C. (1987). Weed beet: past, present and future. International Sugar Economic Year Book and Directory 1987. F.O. Licht, pp. F5–F16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longden, P.C. (1989). Effects of increasing weed-beet density on sugar-beet yield and quality. Annals of Applied Biology, 114, 527–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotz, L.A.P., Groeneweld, R.M.W. and de Groot, N.A. (1991). Potential for reducing herbicide inputs in sugar beet by selecting early closing cultivars. Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference — Weeds, vol. 3, pp. 1241–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madge, W.R. (1982). The little and often approach’ for weed control in sugar beet. Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference — Weeds, vol. 1, pp. 73–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, W. (1940). Die Bekämpfung von Unkräutern und Schädlingen mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Düngung mit Kalkstickstoff. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, J., Ayres, R.J., and Bardsley, E.S. (1987). Phenmedipham co-formulations for broadleaved-weed control in sugar beet. Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference — Weeds, vol. 1, pp. 233–40

    Google Scholar 

  • May, M.J. (1982). Repeat low dose herbicide treatments for weed control in sugar beet. Proceedings Brighton Crop Protection Conference — Weeds, vol. 1, pp. 79–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, M.J. and Hilton, J.G. (1985). Reduced rates of pre-emergence herbicides (1982–1984). 77th Report of the Norfolk Agricultural Station, pp. 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClean, S.P. (1982). Developing a strategy for weed control in sugar beet. Proceedings Brighton Crop Protection Conference — Weeds, vol. 1, pp. 91–6

    Google Scholar 

  • McClean, S.P. and May, M.J. (1986). A comparison of overall herbicide application with band-spraying and inter-row cultivation for weed control in sugar beet. Proceedings of the 49th Winter Congress of the International Institute for Sugar Beet Research, pp. 345–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWhorter, C.G. (1970). A recirculating spray system for postemergence weed control in row crops. Weed Science, 18, 285–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWhorter, C.G., Shaw, W.C., and Schweizer, E.E. (1986). Present status and future needs in weed control. In Technology, Public Policy, and the Changing Structure of American Agriculture, vol. 2: Background Papers, Office of Technology Assessment, Paper no. 19.Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, H., Widmer, U. and Ammon, H.U. (1986). Konkurrenz der Unkräuter und Einfluss auf die Unkrautbekämpfungssysteme im Zuckerrübenbau. Proceedings of the 49th Winter Congress of the International Institute for Sugar Beet Research, pp. 263–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikulka, J. (1988). Effect of selected herbicides on various resistant biotypes of fat-hen (Chenopodium album). Sbornik UVTIZ Ochrana Rostiin, 24, 127–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R.T., Wood, R.R., and Oldemeyer, R.K. (1960). Selection of sugar beets for tolerance to endothal herbicide. Journal of the American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists, 11, 155–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neururer, H. (1975). Changes in weed flora within the last 10 years in intensively used beet-growing districts of Austria because of modern agricultural practices. Troisième Réunion Internationale sur le Desherbage Sélectif en Cultures de Betteraves, pp. 309–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neururer, H. (1977). Mechanical weed control with modern harrows. Proceedings of the EWRS Symposium on Different Methods of Weed Control and their Integration, 1, 65–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neururer, H. (1984). Einfluss von ‘Bitumenmulch’ auf den Unkrautaufgang und die Pflanzenverfügbaskeit von Bodenherbiziden. Zeitschrift für die Pflanzenkrankheitenund Pflanzenschutz, 10, 293–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neururer, H. (1985). Warum 1985 mehr Handarbeit in der Zuckerrübe? Pflanzenschütz, 9, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neururer, H. (1986). Methode zur raschen Feststellung der Empfindlichkeit junger Rubenflanzen gegenüber Nachauflaufherbiziden und ihr Einsatz als sognannte ‘Empfindlichkeitsprognose’ in der Praxis. Mitteilungen aus der Biologischen Bundesanstalt für Land und Forstwirtschaft, 232, 321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, P.E. and Biscoe, P.V. (1982). Environmental factors influencing sugar beet tolerance to herbicides. Proceedings of the British Crop Protection Conference — Weeds, vol. 1, pp. 85–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radosevich, S.R. and Holt, J. (1984). Weed Ecology: Implications for Vegetation Management. John Wiley, New York. 265 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, H.A. (1970). Viable weed seed in cultivated soils. National Vegetable Research Station Report for 1969, pp. 25–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, T. (1927). Handbuch des Zuckerrübenbaues. Parey, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands, D.C., Ford, E. and Miller, R.V. (1989). Genetic manipulation of fungi for biological control of weeds. Weed Science Society of America Abstracts, 29, 123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, G. (1899). Zur Vernichtung des Ackersenfs und des Hederichs. Landwirtschaft Zeitung für Westfalen und Lippe, 56, 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, E.E. (1981). Broadleaf weed interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Science, 29, 128–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, E.E. (1983). Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Science, 31, 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, E.E. and Dexter, A.G. (1987). Weed control in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) in North America. Reviews of Weed Science, 3, 113–33.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, E.E. and Fischer, B.B. (1986). Herbicide damage. In Compendium of Beet Diseases and Insects (eds E.D. Whitney and J.E. Duffus), APS Press, St Paul, Minnesota, pp. 54–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, E.E. and Lauridson, T.C. (1985). Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii) interference in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Weed Science, 33, 518–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer, E.E. and Zimdahl, R.L. (1984). Weed seed decline in irrigated soil after rotation of crops and herbicides. Weed Science, 32, 84–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R.K., Wilcockson, S.J., and Moisey, F.R. (1979). The effects of time of weed removal on growth and yield of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 93, 693–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shribbs, J.M., Lybecker, D.W., and Schweizer, E.E. (1990). Bioeconomic weed management models for sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) production. Weed Science, 38, 436–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G.A. and Moser, H.S. (1985). Sporophytic-gametophytic herbicide tolerance to sugarbeet. Theoretical Applied Genetics, 71, 231–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. (1983). Review of the post-emergence low volume, low dose application technique. Aspects of Applied Biology 2, Pests, diseases, weeds and weed beet in sugar beet, pp. 189–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, O.A. (1932). The number and weights of seeds produced by weeds. American Journal of Botany, 19, 784–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, E.F. and Fischer, B.B. (1971). Weed control. In Advances in Sugarbeet Production: Principles and Practices (eds R.T. Johnson, J.T. Alexander, G.E. Rush and G.R. Hawkes), Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, pp. 69–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Templeton, G.E., Smith, R.J., and TeBeest, D.O. (1986). Progress and potential of weed control with mycoherbicides. Reviews of Weed Science, 2, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terpstra, R. (1986). The behavior of weed seed in soil clods. Weed Science, 34, 889–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unwerth, von (1899). Vertilgung von Hederich. Z. d. Landw. Kammer Provinz Schlesien III, 880.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villarias Moradillo, J.L. (1986). Lutte intégrée contre les mauvaises herbes en culture betteravière en régions méditerranéenes. Proceedings of the 49th Winter Congress of the International Institute for Sugar Beet Research, pp. 287–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherspoon, D.M. and Schweizer, E.E. (1969). Competition between kochia and sugarbeets. Weed Science, 17, 464–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, H. (1888). Der praktische Zuckerrübenbauer. Leitfaden zum rationallen Anbau der Zuckerrüben. M. Cohen, Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wevers, J.D.A., Aarts, H.F.M., and Kouwenhoven, J.K. (1986). The effect of pre-drilling cultural practices on weed problems and control methods in sugar beet. Proceedings of the 49th Winter Congress of the International Institute for Sugar Beet Research, pp. 303–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, R.G (1987). Biology of weed seed in the soil. In Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches (eds M.A. Altieri and M. Liebman), CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyse, D.L. and Habstritt, C. (1977). A roller herbicide applicator. Proceedings of the North Central Weed Control Conference, 32,144–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimdahl, R.L. (1980). Weed-Crop Competition: A Review. International Plant Protection Centre, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 195 pp.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. E. E. Schweizer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. J. May
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Broom’s Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, IP28 6NP, UK

    D. A. Cooke

  2. Department of Agriculture & Horticulture, School of Agriculture, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicester, LE12 5RD, UK

    R. K. Scott

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1993 Chapman & Hall

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schweizer, E.E., May, M.J. (1993). Weeds and weed control. In: Cooke, D.A., Scott, R.K. (eds) The Sugar Beet Crop. World Crop Series. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0373-9_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0373-9_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-6654-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-0373-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation