Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:50:09.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Preemergence Herbicide Effects on Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) Interference in Sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

E. P. Richard Jr.*
Affiliation:
Sugarcane Res. Unit, Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric, P.O. Box 470, Houma, LA 70361

Abstract

The effect of annual spring PRE applications of fenac, metribuzin, and terbacil on the competitiveness of sugarcane with bermudagrass during a 3-yr crop cycle was evaluated. For each herbicide treatment, bermudagrass was allowed to interfere with sugarcane during the growing season for 0, 1 (plant-cane crop only), 2 (plant-cane and first-ratoon crops), or 3 (plant-cane through second-ratoon crops) yr. Predicted total yields of cane from the three harvested crops was 3600 kg ha−1 higher on average in plots maintained free of bermudagrass and treated with metribuzin than where fenac and terbacil were applied. Bermudagrass biomass increased with each growing season. Greatest biomass production occurred in the fenac plots and the smallest in terbacil plots. Bermudagrass did not reduce the predicted total yields of cane where metribuzin or terbacil was applied. With fenac, predicted total cane yields were 4, 7, and 11% lower than the weed-free control where bermudagrass interference was allowed for 1, 2, and 3 yr, respectively. Season-long bermudagrass interference in the fenac plots reduced actual cane yields 10% (plant-cane crop), 6% (first-ratoon crop), and 14% (second-ratoon crop) when compared with plots maintained free of bermudagrass for the entire growing season.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 by the 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

1. Chen, J.C.P. 1985. Meade-Chen Cane Sugar Handbook. 11th ed. Wiley Interscience Publications, New York. 113 p.Google Scholar
2. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Univ. Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 609 p.Google Scholar
3. Horowitz, M. 1972. Development of Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Weed Res. 12:207220.Google Scholar
4. Legendre, B. L. and Henderson, M. T. 1973. The history and development of sugar yield calculations. Proc. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 2:1018.Google Scholar
5. Lencse, R. J. and Griffin, J. L. 1991. Itchgrass (Rottboellia cochinchinensis) interference in sugarcane (Saccharum sp.). Weed Technol. 11:396399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Littell, R. C., Freund, R. J., and Spector, P. G. 1991. SAS System for Linear Models. 3rd ed. Chapter 6. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
7. Millhollon, R. W. 1976. Influence of fenac and terbacil on growth and yield of sugarcane. Proc. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 5:104108.Google Scholar
8. Millhollon, R. W. 1991. Effect of itchgrass (Rottboellia cochinchinensis) interference on growth and yield of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids). Weed Sci. 40:4853.Google Scholar
9. Richard, E. P. Jr. 1989. Response of sugarcane (Saccharum sp.) cultivars to preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 3:358363.Google Scholar
10. Richard, E. P. Jr. 1992. Bermudagrass interference during a three-year sugarcane cycle. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 21:(In Press).Google Scholar
11. Richard, E. P. Jr. 1992. Postemergence bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) control in sugarcane (Saccharum sp.) with dalapon. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 12:7181.Google Scholar