Integrated Weed Control in Sugar Beet through Combinations of Tractor Hoeing and Reduced Dosages of a Herbicide Mixture

Weed control is performed by hand in 83% of the sugar beet growing area in Turkey. Due to the movement of the labour force to industry recently, the lack of labour has led to a huge problem. Therefore, the completely mechanised alternative methods must be introduced into the weed control of sugar beet. In this study, the effects of alternative control methods, based on the use of a tractor hoe combined with post-emergence reduced herbicide dosages, on weeds and on the yield and quality of sugar beet were investigated. Our data indicated that tractor hoeing twice + thinning (96.2%) resulted in very good weed control, as good as the control treatment (i.e. hand hoeing twice + thinning) (98%). The other combinations differed significantly from the control. However, weed control via combinations of i) herbicide once + thinning + tractor hoeing once (86.6%), ii) herbicide 3 times + tractor hoeing once (86%), iii) herbicide 3 times (83.1%) and iv) herbicide twice + tractor hoeing once (76.8%) were satisfactory. In terms of root and sugar yields, following the control treatment (67.9 and 10.1 t ha-1), these combinations were most effective: i) tractor hoeing twice + thinning (67 and 10 t ha-1), ii) herbicide application 3 times (67 and 10 t ha-1), iii) herbicide application 3 times + tractor hoeing once (64.3 and 9.7 t ha-1), iv) herbicide application twice + tractor hoeing once (63.7 and 9.7 t ha-1) and v) herbicide application once + thinning + tractor hoeing once (65 and 9.6 t ha-1), although there was no significant difference among them. The other treatments produced significantly lower root and sugar yields compared to the control. One of the following alternatives, tractor hoeing twice + thinning, herbicide application 3 times, herbicide application twice + tractor hoeing once and herbicide application once + thinning + tractor hoeing once, may be applied to control weeds in a large proportion of land in which hand hoeing twice plus thinning is used.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Sugar beet weed control, low-dose herbicide application, tractor hoeing

Integrated Weed Control in Sugar Beet through Combinations of Tractor Hoeing and Reduced Dosages of a Herbicide Mixture

Keywords:

Sugar beet weed control, low-dose herbicide application, tractor hoeing,

PDF

___

Brandes, A., W.R. Schäufele and W. Benz. 1998. Einfluss Unterschiedlicher Unkrautdeckungsgrade auf den Ertrag von Zuckkerrüben, in: Proceedings of the 61st IIRB Congress, Brussels: pp. 419-421.
Buzluk, fi. and A.‹. Acar. 2002. fieker pancarında de¤iflik çapalama sistemleri ve yabancı ot mücadelesinin verim ve kalite üzerindeki etkileri. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 8: 171-179.
Campagna, G., M. Zavanella, P. Vecchi and F. Magri. 2000. Sugar beet weed control: Yield in relation with herbicide selectivity and action, in: Proceedings of the 63rd IIRB Congress, Interlaken, pp. 541-545.
Davis, P.H. 1965-1988. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, University of Edinburgh, Vol: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, Edinburgh.
Eronen, L. and R. Mutanen. 2000. Ethofumesate Residues in Monoculture Soils of Sugar Beet in Finland, in: Proceedings of the 63rd IIRB Congress, February 2000, Interlaken: pp. 511-514.
Gürsoy, O.V. 1982. Yabancı Ot Kontrolünün Temel Esasları ve fieker Pancarı Tarımındaki Tatbikatı. T.fi.F.A.fi. fieker Enstitüsü Yayınları, Ankara.
May, M. 1996. Low dose systems of weed control. British Sugar Beet Rev. 64: 10-11.
Miller, S.D. and K.J. Fornstrom. 1989. Weed control and labour requirements in sugarbeet. J. Sugar Beet Res. 26: 1-9.
Ollson, R. 1996. Some results from trials with mechanical weed control in sugar beet in Sweden. IIRB Study Group on Weed Control, Spain.
Özgür, O.E. 1980. Türkiye fieker Pancarı Tarımında Optimum Çapalama Sayısının Belirlenmesi. T.fi.F.A.fi. fieker Enstitüsü Yayınları Çalıflma Yıllı¤ı, 1977-1980, No: 4: 26-28.
Özgür, O.E. and R. Kaya. 2000. fieker Pancarında Yabancı Ot Kontrolü. fieker Enstitüsü Raporu, Ankara.
Özgür, O.E. and R. Kaya. 2003. fieker Pancarında Yabancı Ot Kontrolü. fieker Enstitüsü, Tarımsal Arafltırma Müdürlü¤ü, Fitopatoloji fiubesi seminer notları, Ankara
Schäufele, W.R. 2000. Chemishe Unkrautbekämpfung in Zuckerrüben im Wandel - Ergebnisse einer Befragung in der IIRBArbeitsgruppe “Unkrautregulierung”-, in: Proceedings of the 63rd IIRB Congress, Interlaken, pp. 93-109.
Schweizer, E.E. 1981. Broadleaf weed interference in sugar beets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Science 29: 128-133.
Schweizer, E.E. and A.G. Dexter. 1987. Weed control in sugar beets (Beta vulgaris) in North America. Review of Weed Science 3: 113- 133.
Schweizer, E.E. and M.J. May. 1993. The Sugar Beet Crop: Science into practice, (Ed. D.A. Cooke and R.K. Scott), Chapman & Hill, London, pp. 485-519.
Scott, R.K., S.J. Wilcockson and F.R. Moisey. 1979. The effects of time of weed removal on growth and yield of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93: 693-709.
TKB. 1996. Zirai Mücadele Standart ‹laç Deneme Metotları, Yabancı Ot. Tarım ve Köyiflleri Bakanlı¤ı Tarımsal Arafltırmalar Genel Müdürlü¤ü, Cilt.3, Ankara, pp. 94-98.
Tugnoli, V., F. Cioni, A. Vacchi, R. Martelli, F. Pezzi and E. Baraldi. 2002. Integrated Mechanical Weed Control with Reduced Herbicide Dosages on Sugar Beet, in: Proceedings of the 65th IIRB Congress, Brussels, pp. 277-283.