Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:45:02.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Residual Effect of 2,4-D on Whole-Stalk– and Billet-Planted Sugarcane

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jonathan D. Siebert ,
James L. Griffin  and
Curtis A. Jones
Jonathan D. Siebert
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 M.B. Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
James L. Griffin*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 M.B. Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Curtis A. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 M.B. Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies conducted for two growing seasons evaluated the effect of 2,4-D applied at 1.6 kg ai/ha to ‘LCP 85-384’ sugarcane 7, 5, 3, and 1 wk before planting (WBP). Sugarcane was planted in mid September using both whole stalks and billet (45 cm) stem sections. When 2,4-D was applied 5 wk or closer to planting, sugarcane shoot emergence and population averaged across planting methods and years were reduced up to 28 wk after planting (WAP) relative to the nontreated control. By 52 WAP, sugarcane had compensated and stalk population was equivalent among treatments. Sugarcane height in response to 2,4-D varied between years, and only in 2001 at 52 WAP was a height reduction observed when 2,4-D was applied 1, 3, or 5 WBP. Crop injury in 2001 was further reflected in reduced sugarcane yield (at least 11%) and sugar yield (at least 12%) more than 1 yr after 2,4-D had been applied 5 wk or closer to harvest of sugarcane for seed. Sugarcane and sugar yields were equivalent for the nontreated control and the 7 WBP 2,4-D treatment in 2001, but 2,4-D application in 2002 did not negatively affect yield. Even though sugarcane shoot populations across the growing seasons were consistently higher for the billet planting system, yields averaged across 2,4-D application timings were greater for billets (18%) compared with whole stalks only for the first year. Because 2,4-D can have a residual effect on sugarcane yield more than 1 yr after the initial foliar application, a 7-wk period should be allowed between herbicide application and harvest of LCP 85-384 for billet or whole-stalk planting.

Keywords

2,4-Dsugarcane, Saccharum interspecific hybrids ‘LCP 85-384’Crop toleranceWAP, weeks after plantingWBP, weeks before planting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 304 - 309
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

Ahrens, W. H. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 79–81.Google Scholar
Anderson, D. L. and Dusky, J. A. 1985. Sugarcane bud germination response to temperature and growth regulating substances evaluated using a mathematical model. Belle Glade, FL: EREC Research Rep. EV-1985-2.Google Scholar
Chen, J. C. P. and Chou, C. 1993. Cane Sugar Handbook. 12th ed. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 852–867.Google Scholar
Cline, M. G. 1997. Concepts and terminology of apical dominance. Botany. 84:1064–1069.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gascho, G. J., Ruelke, O. C., and West, S. H. 1973. Residual effects of germination temperature in sugarcane. Crop Sci. 13:274–276.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. L., Hook, B. J., Pegeroy, R. S., and Kitchen, L. M. 1990. Emergence and yield of 2,4-D treated seed cane. J. Am. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 10:56–60.Google Scholar
Hamphill, D. D. 1984. The Effects of Growth Regulating Substances on Flower Bud Development and Fruit Set. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bull. 434. 55 p.Google Scholar
Hanish-ten-Cate, C. H. and Bruinsma, J. 1973. Abscission of flower bud peticles in Begonia. Acta Bot. Neerl. 22:675–680.Google Scholar
Lake, T., Pharis, R., and Reid, D. 1980. Ethylene, gibberellins, auxin and apical control of branch angle in conifer, Cupressus arizonica . Planta. 148:64–68.Google Scholar
Leopold, A. C. 1955. Auxins and Plant Growth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 354 p.Google Scholar
Millhollon, R. W. 1988. Control of morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) in sugarcane with layby herbicide treatments. J. Am. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 8:62–66.Google Scholar
Milligan, S. B., Martin, F. A., Bischoff, K. P., Quebedeaux, J. P., Dufrene, E. O., Quebedeaux, K. L., Hoy, J. W., Reagan, T. E., and Legendre, B. L. 1994. Registration of ‘LCP 85-384’ sugarcane. Crop Sci. 34:819–820.Google Scholar
Nolla, J. A. B. 1950. Injury to sugarcane from 2,4-D. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 10:178–189.Google Scholar
Tromp, J. 1972. Effects of growth-regulating substances and tree orientation on growth and flower-bud formation in apple. J. Hortic. Sci. 47:525–533.Google Scholar
Van Overbeek, J. 1947. Use of synthetic hormones as weed killers in tropical agriculture. Econ. Bot. 1:446–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viator, B. J., Griffin, J. L., and Richard, E. P. Jr. 2002. Evaluation of red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) for potential atrazine resistance. Weed Technol. 16:96–101.Google Scholar