Abstract
<p>Field studies were carried out in 1989–1995 and 2006–2012 on plantations of sugar beet (<em>Beta vulgaris</em> L. subsp. <em>vulgaris</em>). During this period, 542 phytosociological relevés were made using the Braun-Blanquet method. In total, 46 weed species were found. In 1989–1995, the occurrence of 36 segetal species was reported. The highest cover indices were determined for <em>Chenopodium album</em> and <em>Amaranthus retroflexus</em>. <em>Galium aparine</em>, <em>Echinochloa crus-galli</em>, and <em>Elymus repens</em> were the dominant species, as well. Analysis of the frequency of occurrence revealed one constant species (<em>Chenopodium album</em>), two frequent species (<em>Amaranthus retroflexus</em> and <em>Galium aparine</em>), and two medium-frequent species (<em>Echinochloa crus-galli</em> and <em>Matricaria maritima</em> ssp. <em>inodora</em>).</p><p>In 2006–2012, the occurrence of 40 weed species on the sugar beet plantations was recorded. The plantations were clearly dominated by <em>Chenopodium album</em>, accompanied by <em>Polygonum persicaria</em> and <em>Polygonum lapathifolium</em> ssp. <em>lapathifolium</em>. Other dominant species comprised <em>Setaria viridis</em>, <em>Galinsoga parviflora</em>, <em>Brassica napus</em> ssp. <em>napus</em>, and <em>Fallopia convolvulus</em>. The <em>Chenopodium album</em> was a constant component of the sugar beet plantations. In turn, no frequent species were observed and six medium-frequent species were found (<em>Setaria viridis</em>, <em>Galinsoga parviflora</em>, <em>Brassica napus</em> ssp. <em>napus</em>, <em>Echinochloa crus-galli</em>, <em>Amaranthus retroflexus</em>, and <em>Capsella bursa-pastoris</em>).</p><p>Noteworthy, the presence of previously unreported species, e.g., <em>Abutilon theophrasti</em>, <em>Hyoscyamus niger</em>, or <em>Artemisia vulgaris</em>, was revealed. These species are rare components in sugar beet crops. A reverse phenomenon, i.e., the disappearance of some species such as <em>Euphorbia helioscopia</em>, <em>Malva neglecta</em>, <em>Rumex acetosella</em>, <em>Sinapis arvensis</em>, or <em>Sisymbrium officinale</em>, was also observed.</p>
Highlights
The sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. subsp. vulgaris) is highly susceptible to weed infestation, which is related to the cultivation of this species with wide row spacing and a low growth rate in the initial growth period
The successive changes consisted in the penetration of segetal communities by ruderal species, mainly Aethusa cynapium, Descurainia sophia, and Artemisia vulgaris [13,14]
There was a slight increase in the number of weed species from 36 to 40
Summary
The sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. subsp. vulgaris) is highly susceptible to weed infestation, which is related to the cultivation of this species with wide row spacing and a low growth rate in the initial growth period. Weed species Chenopodium album Amaranthus retroflexus Galium aparine Echinochloa crus-galli Elymus repens Polygonum persicaria Matricaria maritima ssp. From the mid-1980’s, herbicide treatments with lower doses in very early growth stages of weeds were introduced into farming practice [2,3,4]. Besides the changes occurring over the recent years in the technology of sugar beet cultivation, changes in weed infestation of this plant have become evident [9,10,11]. In the last several years thermophilic weed species such as Hyoscyamus niger and Solanum nigrum have occurred more frequently in sugar beet fields or new alien species, like Abutilon theophrasti, have been observed [15]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
