Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T19:38:10.399Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sugarcane Tolerance and Italian Ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) Control with Paraquat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James L. Griffin ,
Donnie K. Miller ,
Jeffrey M. Ellis  and
Patrick A. Clay
James L. Griffin*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, LSU AgCenter, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Donnie K. Miller
Affiliation:
LSU AgCenter, Northeast Research Station, St. Joseph, LA 71366
Jeffrey M. Ellis
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, LSU AgCenter, 302 Life Sciences Building, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Patrick A. Clay
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, LSU AgCenter, 302 Life Sciences Building, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Paraquat applied from mid-February through early April over 2 yr was evaluated for sugarcane tolerance and Italian ryegrass control. Sugarcane 31 cm tall at application was injured 16 to 25% and 8 to 14% 28 and 56 d, respectively, after mid-March application of paraquat at 0.35 or 0.70 kg ai/ha. Early-April application to 61-cm-tall sugarcane caused 13 to 25% injury. The observed injury was not reflected in reduced sugarcane shoot population or height or sugarcane or sugar yield when compared with diuron, the standard herbicide treatment. Italian ryegrass control 28 d after the mid-February application of paraquat alone at 0.53 or 0.70 kg/ha was variable, ranging from 80% in 1994 to no more than 66% in 1995. For each year, diuron at 3.2 kg/ha in combination with both rates of paraquat increased Italian ryegrass control 28 d after the mid-February application 11 to 17 percentage points. At 56 d after the mid-February application, addition of diuron proved beneficial only in 1994 when the paraquat and diuron combinations controlled ryegrass 93% compared with no more than 62% for paraquat applied alone. In contrast, Italian ryegrass was controlled the second year no more than 80% 56 d after the mid-February application of paraquat alone or with diuron. Paraquat applied at 0.70 kg/ha with diuron in mid-March controlled Italian ryegrass 80 and 86% 28 d after treatment in 1994 and 1995, respectively. For the standard herbicides metribuzin, terbacil, and diuron applied in mid-March, weed control was no greater than 38%. Although differences in Italian ryegrass control among herbicide treatments were observed, efficacy was sufficient to reduce weed competition such that sugarcane growth and yield were not negatively affected.

Keywords

DiuronmetribuzinparaquatterbacilItalian ryegrass, Lolium multiflorum Lam. # LOLMUsugarcane, Saccharum spp. # SACCH ‘CP 70-321’, ‘LHO 83-153’Application timingcrop toleranceweed–crop competitionDAT, days after treatmentPRE, preemergenceTRS, theoretically recoverable sugar
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 555 - 559
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. 2001. Sugarcane Production Handbook–2001. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. Publication No. 2859. 9/01 Rev. Sect. I, Pp. 1–10 and Sect. III, Pp. 1-8.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2003. 2003 Louisiana Suggested Chemical Weed Control Guide. Web page: http://www.Agctr.lsu.edu/weedguide/01weeds.htm Accessed: August 10, 2004.Google Scholar
Baughman, T. A. and Shaw, D. R. 1995. Early preemergence and preemergence herbicide combinations in stale-seedbed soybean. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 48:84.Google Scholar
Chen, J. C. P. and Chou, C. 1993. Cane Sugar Handbook. 12th ed. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 852–867.Google Scholar
Guy, C. B. Jr. 1995. Preplant weed management in Arkansas no-till and stale-seeded cotton. in McClelland, M. R., Valco, T. D., and Frans, R. E., eds. Conservation-Tillage Systems for Cotton: A Review of Research and Demonstration Results Across the Cotton Belt. Special Report. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station. Pp. 86–89.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Warren, L. S., Miller, D. K., Smith, M. C., Reynolds, D. B., Crawford, S. H., and Griffin, J. L. 2001. Italian ryegrass control with preplant herbicides. Cotton Sci 5:268–274.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr. 1989. Response of sugarcane (Saccharum sp.) cultivars to preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 3:358–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr. 1991. Sensitivity of sugarcane (Saccharum sp.) to glyphosate. Weed Sci. 39:73–77.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr. 1995. Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) response to simulated fluazifop-P drift. Weed Sci. 43:660–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stritzke, J. F. 1992. Control of cool-season grasses in seedling alfalfa. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 45:62.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. M. and Coats, G. E. 1994. Control of sulfonylurea resistant Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) in highway rights-of-way. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 47:152–153.Google Scholar
Viator, B. J., Griffin, J. L., and Ellis, J. M. 2002a. Red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) control with sulfentrazone and azafeniden applied at layby in sugarcane (Saccharum spp). Weed Technol. 16:142–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viator, B. J., Griffin, J. L., and Ellis, J. M. 2002b. Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) response to azafeniden applied preemergence and postemergence. Weed Technol. 16:444–451.Google Scholar
Williams, B., Miller, D., and Kelly, S. et al. 2002. Guidelines for Managing Winter Vegetation in Northeast Louisiana. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University AgCenter Research Information Sheet 105. Pp. 1–4.Google Scholar