Field experiments on sugar-beet powdery mildew, Erysiphe betae

1978 ◽  
Vol 88 (3) ◽  
pp. 377-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. J. BYFORD
Keyword(s):  
Powdery Mildew ◽  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Erysiphe Betae

scholarly journals First Report of Powdery Mildew Caused by Erysiphe betae on Sugar Beet in Korea

Plant Disease ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 254-254
Author(s):  
J. H. Joa ◽  
K. C. Seong ◽  
I. Y. Choi ◽  
S. E. Cho ◽  
H. D. Shin
Keyword(s):  
Powdery Mildew ◽  
Sugar Beet ◽  
First Report ◽  
Erysiphe Betae

scholarly journals QoI Resistance in Sugar Beet Powdery Mildew (Erysiphe betae) in Scandinavia

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 179-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thies Marten Heick ◽  
Anne Lisbet Hansen ◽  
Annemarie Fejer Justesen ◽  
Lise Nistrup Jørgensen
Keyword(s):  
Powdery Mildew ◽  
Sugar Beet ◽  
The United States ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Active Ingredients ◽  
Management Measures ◽  
Real Risk ◽  
Erysiphe Betae ◽  
European Union Legislation ◽  
Qoi Resistance

Powdery mildew caused by Erysiphe betae is one of the major fungal diseases in sugar beet in Denmark and Sweden. Frequent applications of fungicides mitigate the risk of powdery mildew epidemics and, consequently, reduce yield losses conferred by the disease. So far, mixtures of quinone outside inhibitors (QoIs) and triazoles have provided good efficacy against E. betae in field trials and common farming practice. However, development of fungicide resistance is a real risk, because only a limited number of active ingredients are available for the control of powdery mildew in sugar beet, and several other active ingredients are expected to be banned following reevaluation when the most recent European Union legislation is implemented. The G143A mutation associated with QoI resistance has been previously found in the United States. In this brief, its presence in Europe is reported for the first time. The current finding strongly encourages the adoption of anti-resistance strategies that minimize the spread of QoI resistance in sugar beet powdery mildew. Those strategies should be based on integrated pest management measures, including disease monitoring, the use of resistant cultivars, and the use of biological products. A sole reliance on QoI fungicides for sugar beet powdery mildew control should be avoided.

Erysiphe betae. [Descriptions of Fungi and Bacteria].

1967 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. N. Kapoor
Keyword(s):  
Powdery Mildew ◽  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Succinic Acid ◽  
Geographical Distribution ◽  
Seed Treatment ◽  
Erysiphe Betae ◽  
Lower Infection

Abstract A description is provided for Erysiphe betae. Information is included on the disease caused by the organism, its transmission, geographical distribution, and hosts. HOSTS: On Beta corolliflora, B. intermedia, B. maritima, B. trigyna, B. vulgaris and B. vulgaris var. cycla (Hirata, 1966). DISEASE: Powdery mildew of sugar beet. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION: Africa (Libya); Asia (Iran, Israel, Japan, Lebanon, Turkey); Europe (widely distributed). (Hirata, 1966). TRANSMISSION: Not known. However, seed treatment with 2, 4-D, heterosuxin, gibberellin and succinic acid has been reported to lower infection (44, 1315).

Damping-off of sugar beet in Finland: II. Disease control 

1983 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 431-450
Author(s):  
Mauritz Vestberg ◽  
Risto Tahvonen ◽  
Kyösti Raininko
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Damping Off ◽  
Good Protection ◽  
Great Damage

In pot and field experiments carried out in 1979-1981, the systemic funqicide hymexazol prevented satisfactorily soil borne damping-off of sugar beet caused mainly by the fungus Pythium debaryanum auct. non Hesse. The results with the combination hymexazol + thiram were still better. This treatment gave very good protection against the disease up to about two to three weeks after emergence, increased the yield on the average by 5-10 % and produced considerably thicker and denser stands. Thereafter a large number of beets may have become infected, but no great damage was caused as only few died. Band spraying at emergence using hymexazol with a large amount of water as well as spraying into the seed furrow prevented the outbreak of the disease almost completely. Liming had little effect on damping-off.

scholarly journals Control of Volunteer Glyphosate-Resistant Canola in Glyphosate-Resistant Sugar Beet

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vipan Kumar ◽  
Prashant Jha
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Agricultural Research ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Additional Advantage ◽  
Leaf Stage ◽  
Beet Root ◽  
Control Volunteer ◽  
Sugar Beet Root ◽  
Herbicide Programs

Occurrence of glyphosate-resistant (GR) canola volunteers in GR sugar beet is a management concern for growers in the Northern Great Plains. Field experiments were conducted at the Southern Agricultural Research Center near Huntley, MT, in 2011 and 2012 to evaluate effective herbicide programs to control volunteer GR canola in GR sugar beet. Single POST application of triflusulfuron methyl alone at the two-leaf stage of sugar beet was more effective at 35 compared with 17.5 g ai ha−1. However, rate differences were not evident when triflusulfuron methyl was applied as a sequential POST (two-leaf followed by [fb] six-leaf stage of sugar beet) program (17.5 fb 17.5 or 35 fb 35 g ha−1). Volunteer GR canola plants in the sequential POST triflusulfuron methyl–containing treatments produced little biomass (11 to 15% of nontreated plots) but a significant amount of seeds (160 to 661 seeds m−2). Ethofumesate (4,200 g ai ha−1) PRE followed by sequential POST triflusulfuron methyl (17.5 or 35 g ha−1) provided effective control (94 to 98% at 30 d after treatment [DAT]), biomass reduction (97%), and seed prevention of volunteer GR canola. There was no additional advantage of adding either desmedipham + phenmedipham + ethofumesate premix (44.7 g ha−1) or ethofumesate (140 g ha−1) to the sequential POST triflusulfuron methyl–only treatments. The sequential POST ethofumesate-only (140 fb 140 g ha−1) treatment provided poor volunteer GR canola control at 30 DAT, and the noncontrolled plants produced 6,361 seeds m−2, which was comparable to the nontreated control (7,593 seeds m−2). Sequential POST triflusulfuron methyl–containing treatments reduced GR sugar beet root and sucrose yields to 18 and 20%, respectively. Consistent with GR canola control, sugar beet root and sucrose yields were highest (95 and 91% of hand-weeded plots, respectively) when the sequential POST triflusulfuron methyl–containing treatments were preceded by ethofumesate (4,200 g ha−1) PRE. Growers should utilize these effective herbicide programs to control volunteer GR canola in GR sugar beet. Because of high canola seed production potential, as evident from this research, control efforts should be aimed at preventing seed bank replenishment of the GR canola volunteers.

Weed control in sugar beet with single and split applications of herbicides

1971 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurice Eddowes
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Sandy Loam ◽  
Soil Conditions ◽  
The West ◽  
West Midlands ◽  
Free Environment ◽  
Annual Weeds ◽  
Residual Herbicide

SummaryRecent developments in chemical weed control in sugar beet have been reviewed. Two main approaches to the problem of providing reliable season-long control of annual weeds in sugar beet are, (a) the use of mixtures of herbicides applied pre-planting and incorporated into the soil during seed bed preparation, and (b) the use of split applications with a residual herbicide applied pre-emergence followed by a contact herbicide applied post-emergence.The second approach (b) was examined in a series of field experiments from 1967 to 1969, on light to medium sandy loam soils in the West Midlands. Comparisons were made between pre-emergence application of lenacil and pyrazon, pre-emergence application of lenacil and pyrazon followed by post-emergence application of phenmedipham, and post-emergence application of phenmedipham for weed control in sugar beet.Under dry soil conditions in April 1967, lenacil and pyrazon controlled only about 40% of the annual weeds, but in 1968 and 1969, when moist soil conditions predominated in April and May, lenacil and pyrazon controlled 80–95% of the annual weeds.Phenmedipham applied post-emergence gave about 90% control of annual broadleaved weeds initially, but it seemed unlikely that a single application of this herbicide would provide satisfactory weed control in sugar beet.In each of the 3 years 1967–9, a split application of a soil-acting residual herbicide (pro-emergence) followed by phenmedipham (post-emergence) gave outstanding weed control and enabled sugar beet to be established and grown until mid-June at least, in a near weed-free environment. It was concluded that this technique was the most effective for weed control in sugar beet on light to medium sandy loam soils in the West Midlands.

scholarly journals Effect of residual nitrogen and fertilizer nitrogen on sugar beet production in Finland

1974 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 143-155
Author(s):  
Veikko Brummer ◽  
Erkki Aura
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Soil Nitrogen ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Sugar Content ◽  
Farmyard Manure ◽  
Ammonium Nitrogen ◽  
Early Summer ◽  
Fertilizer N ◽  
Residual Nitrogen ◽  
Residual Fertilizer N

Preliminary determinations for NO3- and NH4-N in topsoil from nitrogen field experiments are discussed. The amounts of residual nitrogen as well as the dates and depth for sampling are considerd in order to investigate the need of fertilizer-N for continuous sugar beet. Tops ploughed down as manure increased the available soil nitrogen by about 50 kg/ha. In practice nitrogen from fertilizer and farmyard manure given to previous beet crops seems to accumulate in the beet soils of Finland. The concentrations of nitrate and ammonium nitrogen in topsoil were low in the spring of 1972 and 1973. NO3-N increased in topsoil during the early summer, and the highest concentrations were found at the beginning of July. Starting from the middle of July the amount of NH4-N began to increase both in topsoil and in subsoil. With increasing amounts of nitrogen in the topsoil the sugar content decreases continuously. Also the α-amio N content of beets correlates with the soil nitrogen. There is experimental evidence that 150 180 kg/ha nitrate nitrogen in topsoil (residual + fertilizer N) in early July gives the best economic result. The effects of fertilizer and accumulated soil nitrogen on the sugar beet quality together with som other experimental data have been statistically analysed. Regression coefficients indicated that both forms of nitrogen affected the suger content, the α-amino N concentration and clear juice purity, in a similar way.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document