Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T03:18:03.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sugarcane Response to Bermudagrass Interference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Edward P. Richard Jr.  and
Caleb D. Dalley
Edward P. Richard Jr.*
Affiliation:
USDA–ARS, Southern Regional Research Center, Sugarcane Research Unit, 5883 USDA Rd., Houma, LA 70360
Caleb D. Dalley
Affiliation:
USDA–ARS, Southern Regional Research Center, Sugarcane Research Unit, 5883 USDA Rd., Houma, LA 70360
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The competitiveness of three phenotypically different sugarcane cultivars with bermudagrass was determined in field trials. In trial one, bermudagrass biomass was 22% less in CP 70-321 than in HoCP 85-845 in the plant-cane crop, but biomass was 130 to 170% greater in CP 70-321 than in the other two cultivars during the second-ratoon crop. CP 70-321 emerges quickly following planting, which might have reduced bermudagrass growth in the plant-cane crop, but the lower stalk population of CP 70-321 might have promoted bermudagrass survival and growth during the second-ratoon crop. In trial two, there were no differences in bermudagrass biomass when comparing its establishment in the different cultivars. Sugarcane, averaged across cultivar, produced fewer stalks and was shorter when competing with bermudagrass. In the plant-cane crop, stalk populations were reduced 13 to 23%. In the first-ratoon crop, stalk population was reduced 8 to 15%. In the second-ratoon crop, stalk population was reduced 8 to 10%. Bermudagrass interference reduced sugar yields by 8 to 32% in the plant-cane crop, with reductions of no more than 9% in the first- and second-ratoon crops. The greater yield loss in the plant-cane crop in the first production year shows the importance of controlling bermudagrass in the summer fallow period prior to planting and during establishment of the plant-cane crop.

Keywords

Bermudagrass, Cynodon dactylon L. Pers. CYNDAsugarcane, Saccharum interspecific hybrids ‘CP 70-321’, ‘LCP 85-384’, ‘HoCP 85-845’Weed competitionweed interference
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 941 - 946
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

Anonymous 2006. Louisiana's suggested chemical weed control guide for 2006. Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana State University Agriculture Center, Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service Publication 1565 http://www.lsuagcenter.com. Accessed: March 13, 2006.Google Scholar
Brown, S. M., Whitwell, T., and Street, J. E. 1985. Common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) competition in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 33:503–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, M. and Pierdominici, M. G. 1995. Morphology and growth of stolons and rhizomes in three clonal grasses, as affected by different light supply. Vegetatio 116:25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanguy, H. P., Dunckelman, P. H., and Breaux, R. D. 1979. Registration of ‘CP 70-321’ sugarcane cultivar. Crop Sci. 19:413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, O. N. 2002. Establishment of Cynodon dactylon from stolon and rhizome fragments. Weed Res. 43:130–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, O. N., Vignolio, O. R., and Requesens, E. C. 2002. Competition between corn (Zea mays) and bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) in relation to the crop plant arrangement. Agronomie 22:293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, M. 1972a. Development of Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Weed Res. 12:207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, M. 1972b. Spatial growth of Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Weed Res. 12:373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, B. L. 1992. The core/press method of predicting the sugar yield from cane for use in payment. Sugar J. 54/9:2–7.Google Scholar
Legendre, B. L. 2001. Sugarcane Production Handbook–2001. Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana State University Agriculture Center, LCES Publication 2859. 52.Google Scholar
Legendre, B. L., Grisham, M. P., White, W. H., Garrison, D. D., Dufrene, E. O., and Miller, J. D. 1994. Registration of ‘HoCP 85-845’ sugarcane. Crop Sci. 34:820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legendre, B. L. and Henderson, M. T. 1972. The history and development of sugar yield calculations. Proc. Am. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 2:NS. 10–18.Google Scholar
Milligan, S. B., Martin, F. A., and Bischoff, K. P. et al. 1994. Registration of ‘LCP 85-384’ sugarcane. Crop Sci. 34:819–820.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr 2000. At planting herbicides for bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) control in sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids). J. Am. Soc. Sugarcane 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
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
Vasilakoglou, I., Dhima, K., and Eleftherohorinos, I. 2005. Allelopathic potential of bermudagrass and johnsongrass and their interference with cotton and corn. Agron. J. 97:303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, S. C., Skroch, W. A., and Monaco, T. J. 1985. Common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) interference in newly planted peach (Prunus persica) trees. Weed Sci. 33:50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar