Sugar beet yield loss predicted by relative weed cover, weed biomass and weed density
Roland Gerhards, Kostyantyn Bezhin, Hans‐Joachim Santel
Abstract
Open-access reader
Roland Gerhards, Kostyantyn Bezhin, Hans‐Joachim Santel
Abstract
Open-access reader
Sugar beet yield loss was predicted from early observations of weed density, relative weed cover, and weed biomass using non-linear regression models. Six field experiments were conducted in Germany and in the Russian Federation in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Average weed densities varied from 20 to 131 with typical weed species compositions for sugar beet fields at both locations. Sugar beet yielded higher in Germany and relative yield losses were lower than in Russia. Data of weed density, relative weed cover, weed biomass and relative yield loss fitted well to the non-linear regression models. Competitive weed species such as Chenopodium album and Amaranthus retroflexus caused more than 80% yield loss. Relative weed cover regression models provided more accurate predictions of sugar beet yield losses than weed biomass and weed density.
OpenAlex reports 34 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Sugar beet yield loss was predicted from early observations of weed density, relative weed cover, and weed biomass using non-linear regression models. Six field experiments were conducted in Germany and in the Russian Federation in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Average weed densities varied from 20 to 131 with typical weed species compositions for sugar beet fields at both locations. Sugar beet yielded higher in Germany and relative yield losses were lower than in Russia. Data of weed density, relative weed cover, weed biomass and relative yield loss fitted well to the non-linear regression models. Competitive weed species such as Chenopodium album and Amaranthus retroflexus caused more than 80% yield loss. Relative weed cover regression models provided more accurate predictions of sugar beet yield losses than weed biomass and weed density.
Key concepts: Weed, Sugar beet, Agronomy, Yield (engineering), Biomass (ecology), Biology, Chenopodium, Physics