Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:28:33.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrated Management of Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) in Sugarcane

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Caleb D. Dalley ,
Ryan P. Viator  and
Edward P. Richard Jr.
Caleb D. Dalley*
Affiliation:
USDA–ARS Sugarcane Research Unit, 5883 USDA Road, Houma, LA 70360
Ryan P. Viator
Affiliation:
USDA–ARS Sugarcane Research Unit, 5883 USDA Road, Houma, LA 70360
Edward P. Richard Jr.
Affiliation:
USDA–ARS Sugarcane Research Unit, 5883 USDA Road, Houma, LA 70360
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: caleb.dalley@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bermudagrass is a difficult perennial weed to manage in Louisiana sugarcane. Research was conducted to compare interrow tillage practice, postharvest residue management, and herbicide placement on bermudagrass proliferation and sugarcane yield. Tillage frequencies included conventional (four tillage operations per season), reduced (two tillage operations), and no-till. Residue management practices included removal by burning, sweeping from row top into the wheel furrow, and not removed. Spring herbicide placement treatments included broadcast, banded, or no herbicide application. With conventional tillage, broadcast and banded herbicide applications resulted in similar bermudagrass cover in the first and second ratoon crops, but bermudagrass cover was greater when using banded applications (22%) compared with broadcast application (15%) in the third-ratoon crop. Bermudagrass cover was greatest with no-till. When herbicides were banded, bermudagrass cover was greater in reduced tillage than conventional tillage in all three ratoon crops. Postharvest residue management did not affect bermudagrass ground cover. In plant cane, sugarcane yields were lowest when herbicide was not applied. In ratoon crops, sugarcane and sugar yield were reduced when herbicide was not applied regardless of tillage practice. Cane and sugar yield were generally equal when comparing reduced and conventional tillage. Total sugarcane yield (4 crop yr) for the no-till program was reduced 11, 15, and 25%, respectively, when herbicides were broadcast, banded, and when herbicide was not applied, compared with conventional tillage. Failure to remove residue reduced sugarcane yield by 5, 7, and 10% in first, second, and third ratoons, respectively, compared with burning. Eliminating unnecessary tillage practices can increase profitability of sugarcane through reduced costs, but it will be imperative that herbicide programs be included to provide adequate bermudagrass control and that postharvest residue is removed to promote maximum sugarpostane yield.

Keywords

Metribuzinpendimethalinbermudagrass, Cynodon dactylon (L.) Perssugarcane, Saccharum interspecific hybridBanded herbicide applicationpostharvest crop residuetillage
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 482 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Ali, A. D., Reagan, T. E., Kitchen, L. M., and Flynn, J. L. 1986. Effects of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) density on sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) yield. Weed Sci. 34:381–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball-Coelho, B., Tiessen, H., Stewart, J. W. B., Salcedo, I. H., and Sampaio, E. V. S. B. 1993. Residue management effects on sugarcane yield and soil properties in northeastern Brazil. Agron. J. 85:1004–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, R. L., Smith, M. S., Thomas, G. W., and Frye, W. W. 1983. Influence of conservation tillage on soil properties. J. Soil Water Conserv. 38:301–307.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the Central USA. Crop Sci. 35:1247–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Doll, J. D., Proost, R. T., and Visocky, M. R. 1994. Interrow cultivation to reduce herbicide use in corn following alfalfa without tillage. Agron. J. 86:66–72.Google Scholar
Carbonari, C. A., Velini, E. D., Correa, M. R., Negrisoli, E., Rossi, C. V., and Oliveira, C. P. 2010. Effects of different periods of clomazone + hexazinone permanence in soil and sugarcane mulch before the occurrence of rain on weed control efficacy. Planta Daninha 28:197–205.Google Scholar
Correia, N. M. and Durigan, J. C. 2004. Weed emergence in soil covered with sugarcane harvest straw residue. Planta Daninha 22:11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etheredge, L. M. Jr., Griffin, J. L., and Salassi, M. E. 2009. Efficacy and economics of summer fallow conventional and reduced-tillage programs for sugarcane. Weed Technol. 23:274–279.Google Scholar
Ferreira, E. A., Procópio, S. O., Galon, L., Franca, A. C., Concenço, G., Silva, A. A., Aspiazu, I., Silva, A. F., Tironi, S. P., and Rocha, P. R. R. 2010. Weed management in raw sugarcane. Planta Daninha 28:915–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foloni, L. L., Plese, L. P. M., Silva, C. L., and Filho, J. T. 2011. Evaluation of herbicides applied in post-emergence over and under straw in no-burn sugarcane and their environmental fate. Planta Daninha 29:447–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glanville, T. J., Titmarsh, G., Sallaway, M. M., and Mason, F. 1997. Soil erosion in caneland tillage systems. Pages 254–262 in Proceedings of Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Watson Ferguson and Company.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI University Press of Hawaii. 609 p.Google Scholar
Judice, W. E., Griffin, J. L., Etheredge, L. M. Jr., and Jones, C. A. 2007. Effects of crop residue management and tillage on weed control and sugarcane production. Weed Technol. 21:606–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judice, W. E., Griffin, J. L., Jones, C. A., Etheredge, L. M., and Salassi, M. E. 2006. Weed control and economics using reduced tillage programs in sugarcane. Weed Technol. 20:319–325.Google Scholar
Kingston, G. 2000. Climate and the management of sugarcane. Chapter 2. Pages 7–25 In: Hogarth, M. and Allsopp, P., eds. Manual of cane growing. Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia Bureau of Sugar Experimental Stations.Google Scholar
Legendre, B. L. 1992. The core/press method of predicting the sugar yield from cane for use in payment. Sugar J. 54:2–7.Google Scholar
Legendre, B. L. and Henderson, M. T. 1972. The history and development of sugar yield calculations. Proc. Amer. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 2(NS):10–18.Google Scholar
Lencse, R. J. and Griffin, J. L. 1991. Itchgrass (Rottboellia cochinchinensis) interference in sugarcane (Saccharum sp.). Weed Technol. 5:396–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzi, H. J., Gandini, M. O., and Gazon, A. L. 1989. Trash blankets: the potential to control weeds and the effect on ratoon cane development. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 20:53–56.Google Scholar
Manechini, C. 2000. The impact of cane trash on weed control. Int. Cane Energy News. April 2000. 7–9. http://www.winrock.org/clean_energy/files/icen2000.pdf. Accessed May 23, 2012.Google Scholar
Martins, D., Velini, E. D., Martins, C. C., and de Souza, L. S. 1999. Broadleaf weed emergence in soil covered with sugar cane straw. Planta Daninha 17:151–161.Google Scholar
Miller, D. K., Griffin, J. L., and Richard, E. P. Jr. 1999. Summer fallow and after-planting bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) control programs for sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids). Weed Technol. 13:127–131.Google Scholar
Negrisoli, E., Rossi, C. V. S., Velini, E. D., Cavenaghi, A. L., Costa, E. A. D., and Toledo, R. E. B. 2007. Weed control by amicarbazone applied in the presence of sugar-cane straw. Planta Daninha 25:603–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr. 1993. Preemergence herbicide effects on bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) interference in sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids). Weed Technol. 7:578–584.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr. 1997. Effects of fallow bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) control programs on newly planted sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids). Weed Technol. 11:677–682.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr. 1998. Control of perennated bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) in sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids). Weed Technol. 12:128–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr. 1999. Management of chopper harvester-generated green cane trash blankets: a new concern for Louisiana. Pages 52–60 in Singh, V. and Kumar, V., eds. Proceedings of the XXIII International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists. New Delhi, India, February 22–26, 1999. Volume 2. New Delhi, India Sugar Technologist's Association of India.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr. 2000. At-planting herbicides for bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) control in sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids). J. Amer. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 20:6–14.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr., and Dalley, C. D. 2005. Bermudagrass interference in a three year sugarcane production cycle. Sugar Cane Int. 23:3–7.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr., and Dalley, C. D. 2007. Sugarcane response to bermudagrass interference. Weed Technol. 21:941–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salassi, M. E. and Diliberto, M. A. 2012. Projected costs and returns—sugarcane: Louisiana, 2012. Louisiana State University Agriculture Center A.E.A. Information Series No. 282. Baton Rouge, LA. 34 p. http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/crops_livestock/crops/sugarcane/economics/2012-Projected-Louisiana-Sugarcane-Production-Costs.htm. Accessed May 8, 2012.Google Scholar
Sampietro, D. A., Vattuone, M. A., and Isla, M. I. 2006. Plant growth inhibitors isolated from sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) straw. J. Plant Physiol. 163:837–846.Google Scholar
Saxton, A. M. 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Pages 1243–1246 in Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International, March 1999, Nashville, TN. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Triplett, G. B. Jr., and Lytle, G. D. 1972. Control and ecology of weeds in continuous corn grown without tillage. Weed Sci. 20:453–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viator, R. P., Dalley, C. D., and Richard, E. P. Jr. 2011. Late-season glyphosate ripener application coupled with post-harvest residue retention impacts subsequent ratoon yields. Int. Sugar J. 113:66–71.Google Scholar
Viator, R. P., Johnson, R. M., Boykin, D. L., and Richard, E. P. Jr. 2009. Sugarcane postharvest residue management in a temperate climate. Crop Sci. 49:1023–1028.Google Scholar
Viator, R. P., Johnson, R. M., Grimm, C. C., and Richard, E. P. Jr. 2006. Allelopathic, autotoxic, and hormetic effects of post-harvest sugarcane residue. Agron. J. 98:1526–1531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viator, R. P., Johnson, R. M., Richard, E. P. Jr., Waguespack, H. L., and Jackson, W. 2008. Influence of nonoptimal ripener applications and postharvest residue retention on sugarcane second ratoon yields. Agron. J. 100:1769–1773.Google Scholar
Viator, H. P. and Wang, J. J. 2011. Effects of residue management on yield after three production cycles of a long-term sugarcane field trial in Louisiana. J. Amer. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 31:15–25.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Cardina, J., and Woods, S. J. 2000. Apocynum cannabinum interference in no-till Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:716–719.Google Scholar
Wood, A. W. 1991. Management of crop residues following green harvesting of sugarcane in north Queensland. Soil Tillage Res. 20:69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar