Reduced-Rate Herbicide Sequences in Beetroot Production
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Eleventh Australian Weeds Conference Proceedings REDUCED-RATE HERBICIDE SEQUENCES IN BEETROOT PRODUCTION C.W.L. Henderson Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Gatton Research Station, PO Box 241, Gatton, Queensland 4343, Australia Summary Weed management in beetroot is costly; cur- efficacy and phytotoxicity of low rates of post-emergence rent herbicide strategies are expensive, do not provide herbicides in beetroot production. reliable control and occasionally cause significant crop damage. Sugarbeet producers in the USA and Europe MATERIALS AND METHODS sequentially apply beet herbicides at low rates, with less I conducted the experiment, comprising five replicates of risk of crop damage and at reduced costs. nine weed management treatments, on a black earth soil In a 1995 experiment at Gatton Research Station, at the QDPI Gatton Research Station in south-east we sprayed 4-true-leaf beetroot with a mixture of Queensland. Beetroots (cv. Early Wonder Tall Top) were 0.78 kg ha-1 of phenmedipham and 1.00 kg ha-1 of sown on 30 March 1995, in rows 0.75 m apart, with ethofumesate as the current commercial recommenda- intra-row spacings of 0.05 m. Apart from weed treat- tion. Compared to a hand-weeded control, this reduced ments, beetroot were grown using standard agronomy. beetroot yields by 25%. Spraying 0.31-0.39 kg ha-1 of phenmedipham when beetroots had cotyledons and Weed management treatments I used the registered 2-true-leaves, followed by another 0.31 kg ha-1 one week beet herbicides phenmedipham (Betanal®) and etho- later, yielded 87% of the hand-weeded beetroots. The fumesate (Tramat®) in this experiment. Phenmedipham most effective strategy involved applying 0.39 kg ha-1 is used for broadleaf weed control, and is known to cause phenmedipham mixed with 0.1 kg ha-1 ethofumesate, crop damage where temperatures exceed 32°C (Anon. when the beetroot had two true leaves, followed by 1996). Ethofumesate is used both pre- and post- 0.24 kg ha-1 phenmedipham mixed with 0.1 kg ha-1 emergence. Some producers are concerned ethofumesate ethofumesate one week later. This treatment yielded may occasionally injure beetroots at registered rates, as 97% of the hand-weeded beetroots, while providing con- well as have adverse effects on following crops. trol of fat hen (Chenopodium album), deadnettle I applied the herbicides with a motorized knapsack (Lamium amplexicaule), sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus) sprayer. The 1.5 m wide hand-held boom had 110° flat- and burr medic (Medicago polymorpha) equivalent to fan nozzles spaced 0.30 m apart. It was operated at that achieved with the commercial treatment. 200 kPa and sprayed 250 L ha-1. Weather at each spray- Compared to the commercial standard, sequences of ing time is shown in Table 1. Weed management treat- phenmedipham/ethofumesate mixtures applied at low- ments are detailed below. rates increased profit by about $A485 ha-1, due primarily Beetroot with fully expanded cotyledons, 13 days af- to less phytotoxicity, but also lower herbicide costs. ter sowing (DAS): 1. (BcL) Phenmedipham at 0.24 kg ha-1, followed by INTRODUCTION 0.24 kg ha-1 7 days later. The cost-price squeeze has adversely affected profitabil- 2. (BcM) Phenmedipham at 0.31 kg ha-1, followed by ity of fresh and processing beetroot production. Weed 0.31 kg ha-1 7 days later. management in beetroot is costly; current herbicide strat- 3. (BcH) Phenmedipham at 0.39 kg ha-1, followed by egies are expensive, do not provide reliable control and 0.31 kg ha-1 7 days later. occasionally cause significant crop damage. Beetroot pro- Beetroot with 2-true-leaves, 20 DAS: ducers are concerned about long-term residues from some 4. (B2L) Phenmedipham at 0.39 kg ha-1, followed by herbicides (R. Hawley personal communication). Sugar- 0.24 kg ha-1 7 days later. beet producers in the USA and Europe have successfully 5. (B2H) Phenmedipham at 0.39 kg ha-1, followed by applied low rates of beet herbicides sequentially, with 0.39 kg ha-1 7 days later. less risk of crop damage and at lower costs (Anon. 1990, 6. (BTL) Phenmedipham at 0.39 kg ha-1 mixed with Dexter 1994, Griffiths 1994). ethofumesate at 0.1 kg ha-1, followed by 0.24 kg In previous experiments I found sequential low-rate ha-1 of phenmedipham mixed with 0.1 kg ha-1 of strategies enabled earlier weed control, with less risk of ethofumesate sprayed 7 days later. crop damage, at lower costs (C. Henderson unpublished Beetroot with 4-true-leaves, 27 DAS: data). The experiment reported here investigated the 7. (B5) Phenmedipham at 0.78 kg ha-1. 56 Eleventh Australian Weeds Conference Proceedings 8. (BT5) Phenmedipham at 0.78 kg ha-1 mixed with Table 1. Weather conditions at each spray application. ethofumesate at 1.00 kg ha-1 standard commercial Date Days after Beetroot Temp/RH treatment). sowing growth stage 9. (HW) This treatment was hand weeded once only on 9 May 1995, 40 DAS. 12/4/95 13 Expanded 11°C/70% cotyledons Measurements and data analyses We measured the 19/4/95 20 2 true leaves 18°C/65% heights of five randomly selected beetroot plants from 26/4/95 27 4 true leaves 20°C/85% each plot 56 DAS. Nine metres of beetroot row were hand-harvested for yield from each plot on 21 June 1995, 83 DAS. We graded beetroots into small, medium and Beetroot growth and yield variables were analysed using large classes, counted and weighed them. Weeds re- standard analysis of variance. Owing to the nature of moved by hand weeding on 9 May were separated into their distributions, weed counts and weights were log- species, counted and weighed. Five days before beetroot transformed before analysis. The transformed data were were harvested, we collected weeds from the central 9 × converted back to normal values prior to presentation in 0.75 m of each plot, sorted, counted and weighed them. tables and figures. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 20 Only 59 mm of rain fell during the Large Medium Small a ab experiment; the bulk in a 30 mm ) bcd* abc -1 bcd* event just before harvest. Due to the 15 bcd* bcd* cd* d* prolonged drought, only minimal ir- rigation was available, and was prob- 10 ably sub-optimal. Water stress five weeks after sowing may have re- 5 stricted leaf area and hence biomass Beetroot yield (t ha and yield development. 0 Beetroot growth and yield There BcL BcM BcH B2L B2H BTL B5 BT5 HW were very few weeds in this experi- Weed management treatment ment; differences in beetroot growth or yields were due to phytotoxic ef- Figure 1. Weed management treatments affect yields of beetroot. Treatments fects from the herbicide treatments. with the same lettering are not significantly different; those followed by an Beetroots sprayed with 0.78 kg ha-1 asterisk are significantly less than the hand-weeded yields. of phenmedipham mixed with 1.00 kg ha-1 of ethofumesate were 12 significantly shorter (4 cm) than ) -2 hand-weeded plants 56 DAS. There ) 10 Density Biomass -2 were consistent trends for all other herbicide-treated plots (apart from 8 those sprayed with phenmedipham/ ethofumesate at low rates), to be 6 about 2 cm shorter than hand- 4 weeded beetroots. Hand-weeding gave the highest or weed biomass (g biomass m or weed 2 total beetroot yields of all weed man- Weed density (10 × plantsWeed m agement strategies (Figure 1). Areas 0 sprayed with low-rate phen- BcL BcM BcH B2L B2H BTL B5 BT5 HW medipham/ethofumesate mixtures Weed management treatment (when the beetroots had two true leaves), or 0.78 kg ha-1 of phen- Figure 2. Weed management affects densities and biomass of weeds just be- medipham (when the beetroots had fore harvesting a beetroot experiment. four true leaves), yielded similarly to 57 Eleventh Australian Weeds Conference Proceedings the hand-weeded plots. Treatments sprayed when beet- (BTL). Apart from where phenmedipham was sprayed at roots had expanded cotyledons, as well as the B2L and the lowest rate (BcL), all herbicide treatments gave weed B2H treatments, yielded about 2.5 t ha-1 less. The lowest control equivalent to hand-weeding. yielding plots were those sprayed with the commercial Assume the pre-emergence and early post-emergence standard of 0.78 kg ha-1 phenmedipham + ethofumesate applications are only sprayed over the central third of at 1.00 kg ha-1. These areas produced 4.5 t ha-1 less beet- each beetroot row, and that inter-row weeds are control- root than the hand-weeded plots (Figure 1). Lower yields led by cultivation. Taking into account relative herbicide were due to fewer large and medium size beetroots. costs and beetroot yield differences, an economic analy- sis of this experiment shows: Weed control Weed species present in the experimental a. Removal of ethofumesate from the commercial area included burr medic (Medicago polymorpha), treatment increased profit by $A340 ha-1, sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus), fat hen (Chenopodium b. Low rate herbicide sequences reduced weed control album), deadnettle (Lamium amplexicaule), bittercress costs 5060%, (Coronopus didymus), amaranthus (Amaranthus spp.), c. Spraying phenmedipham sequences at low-rates common pigweed (Portulaca oleracea) and various when beetroot had up to two true leaves increased grasses. Only the first four species consistently occurred profit by $A250420 ha-1, across the experiment. At the time of hand-weeding d. Addition of 0.1 kg ha-1 of ethofumesate to the early (40 DAS), there were few weeds present. Although burr post-emergence sprayings increased profits by medic, sowthistle, deadnettle and fat hen occurred in $A485 ha-1 compared to the commercial standard.