Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:11:00.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sugarcane response and fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum) control with topramezone and triazine herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2019

Raphael M. Negrisoli
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, University of Florida, Agronomy Department, Gainesville, FL, USA
D. Calvin Odero*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, University of Florida, Everglades Research and Education Center, Belle Glade, FL, USA
Gregory E. MacDonald
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Florida, Agronomy Department, Gainesville, FL, USA
Brent A. Sellers
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Florida, Rangeland Cattle Research and Education Center, Ona, FL, USA
H. Dail Laughinghouse IV
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, University of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA
*
Author for correspondence: D. Calvin Odero, University of Florida, Everglades Research and Education Center, 3200 E Palm Beach Road, Belle Glade, FL 33430 Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted on organic soils in Belle Glade, FL, in 2016 to 2017 to evaluate sugarcane tolerance and fall panicum control with topramezone applied alone or in combination with triazine herbicides (atrazine, metribuzin, ametryn). Treatments included topramezone (25 and 50 g ai ha−1) applied alone or in combination with atrazine (2,240 g ai ha−1), metribuzin (2,240 g ai ha−1), and ametryn (440 g ha−1) on four plant cane varieties to evaluate tolerance, and on second ratoon fields to determine efficacy on fall panicum control. Topramezone applied alone had no effect on sugarcane chlorophyll fluorescence (i.e., the ratio of variable fluorescence to maximum fluorescence), total chlorophyll, and carotenoid 7 to 28 d after treatment (DAT), suggesting sugarcane tolerance. Significant reduction of these parameters occured 7 to 14 DAT when topramezone (50 g ai ha−1) was applied with ametryn or metribuzin; however, reductions were not detected thereafter, indicating recovery. Sugarcane yield was not affected by topramezone applied alone or in combination with the triazine herbicides. Topramezone (50 g ai ha−1) plus metribuzin resulted in acceptable control of fall panicum (84%) with limited to no regrowth of meristematic tissue at sugarcane canopy closure, equivalent to 56 to 70 DAT. These results indicate that when sequential applications of topramezone, applied alone or in combination with these triazine herbicides, are required for efficacious weed control, topramezone applications alone can be made after 7 d, whereas the combinations can be made after 14 or 21 d, depending on sugarcane sensitivity.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019

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

Abendroth, JA, Martin, AR, Roeth, FW (2006) Plant response to combinations of mesotrione and photosystem II inhibitors. Weed Technol 20:267274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2011) Armezon™ Herbicide Technical Information Brochure. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Agricultural Products. 12 pGoogle Scholar
Azania, CAM, Rolim, JC, Casagrande, AA, Lavorenti, NA, Azania, AAPM (2006) Herbicide selectivity. III - herbicide application at initial and late postemergence of sugarcane in dry season. Planta Daninha 24:489495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baucum, LE, Rice, RW (2009) An Overview of Florida Sugarcane. Gainesville, FL: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, Electronic Data Information Source SS-AGR-232Google Scholar
Bhandari, HS, Ebina, M, Saha, MC, Bouton, JH, Rudrabhatla, SV, Goldman, SL (2011) Panicum. Pages 175195in Kole, C, ed. Wild Crop Relatives: Genomic and Breeding Resources, Millets and Grasses. Berlin, Germany: Springer-VerlagCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brosnan, JT, Kopsell, DA, Elmore, MT, Breeden, GK, Armel, GR (2011) Changes in ‘Riviera’ bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.] carotenoid pigments after treatment with three p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase-inhibiting herbicides. HortScience 46:493498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cauwer, BDB, Geeroms, T, Claerhout, S, Bulcke, R, Reheul, D (2014) Differential sensitivity of locally naturalized Panicum species to HPPD- and ALS-inhibiting herbicides. J Plant Dis Protect 121:3240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmore, MT, Brosnan, JT, Breeden, GK, Patton, AJ (2013) Mesotrione, topramezone, and amicarbazone combinations for postemergence annual blue grass (Poa annua) control. Weed Technol 27:596603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmore, MT, Brosnan, JT, Kopsell, DA, Breeden, GK (2011a) Methods of assessing bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L.) responses to HPPD inhibiting herbicides. Crop Sci 51:28402845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmore, MT, Brosnan, JT, Kopsell, DA, Breeden, GK, Mueller, TC (2011b) Response of hybrid bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon × C. transvaalensis) to three HPPD-inhibitors. Weed Sci 59:458463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, JV, Odero, DC, MacDonald, GE, Ferrell, JA, Sellers, BA, Wilson, PC (2018) Differential response of fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum) populations in Florida sugarcane to asulam. Weed Technol 32:762767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, MJR, Willis, JB, Askew, SD (2010) Application placement and relative humidity affects smooth crabgrass and tall fescue response to mesotrione. Weed Sci 58:6772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Govinthasamy, K, Cavers, PB (1995) The effects of smut (Ustilago destruens) on seed production, dormancy, and viability in fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum). Can J Bot 73:16281634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, K, Ehrhardt, T (2007) On the mechanism of action and selectivity of the corn herbicide topramezone: a new inhibitor of 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase. Pest Manag Sci 63:429439CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hydrick, DE, Shaw, DR (1994) Effects of tank-mix combinations of non-selective foliar and selective soil-applied herbicides on three weed species. Weed Technol 8:129133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, BL (1992) The core/press method for predicting the sugar yield from cane for use in cane payment. Sugar J February:27Google Scholar
Martins, D, Costa, NV, Cardoso, LA, Rodrigues, ACP, Silva, JIC (2010) Herbicide selectivity in sugarcane varieties. Planta Daninha 28:11251134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martins, D, Velini, ED, Martins, CC, de Souza, LS (1999) Broadleaf weed emergence in soil covered with sugar cane straw. Planta Daninha 17:151161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCray, JM, Rice, RW, Wright, AL (2015) Phosphorus Fertilizer Recommendations for Sugarcane Production on Organic Soils. Gainesville, FL: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, Electronic Data Information Source SS-AGR-348Google Scholar
McCurdy, JD, McElroy, JS, Kopsell, DA, Sams, CE (2009) Mesotrione control and pigment concentration of large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) under varying environmental conditions. Pest Manag Sci 65:640644CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McElroy, JS, Walker, RH (2009) Effect of atrazine and mesotrione on centipedegrass growth, photochemical efficiency, and establishment. Weed Technol 23:6772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odero, DC, Duchrow, M, Havranek, N (2016) Critical timing of fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum) removal in sugarcane. Weed Technol 30:1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odero, DC, Dusky, JA (2014) Weed Management in Sugarcane. Gainesville, FL: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, Electronic Data Information Source SS-AGR-09Google Scholar
Odero, DC, Shaner, DL (2014) Dissipation of pendimethalin in organic soils in Florida. Weed Technol 28:8288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odero, DC, Sellers, B, Baucum, L, Curtis, R (2014) Fall Panicum: Biology and Control in Sugarcane. Gainesville, FL: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, Electronic Data Information Source SS-AGR-132Google Scholar
Parochetti, JV (1974) Yellow nutsedge, giant green foxtail and fall panicum in corn. Weed Sci 22:8082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2017) R: A language an environmnt for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed: October 2, 2019.Google Scholar
Sandhu, HS, Singh, MP, Gilbert, RA, Odero, DC (2016) Sugarcane Botany: A Brief View. Gainesville, FL: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, Electronic Data Information Source SS-AGR-234Google Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp 449450Google Scholar
Silva, AC, Jr, Martins, CC, Martins, D (2016) Effects of sugarcane straw on grass weeds emergence under field conditions. Biosci J 32:863872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Kaastra, AC, Swanton, CJ, Sikkema, PH (2012) Efficacy of topramezone and mesotrione for the control of annual grasses. Int Res J Agric Sci Soil Sci 2:046050Google Scholar
[USDA NASS] US Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (2018) 2018 State Agriculture Overview - Florida. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=FLORIDA. Accessed: August 20, 2018Google Scholar
VanWeelden, M, Swanson, S, Davidson, W, Rice, R (2018) Sugarcane variety census: Florida 2017. Sugar J July:1019Google Scholar
Velini, ED, Martins, D, Manoel, LA, Matsuoka, S, Travain, JC, Carvalho, JC (2000) Selectivity of oxyfluorfen and ametryn in sugarcane varieties. Planta Daninha 18:123134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wellburn, AR (1994) The spectral determination of chlorophylls a and b, as well as total carotenoids, using various solvents with spectrophotometers of different resolution. J Plant Physiol 144:307313CrossRefGoogle Scholar