Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T06:12:28.671Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combined Effect of Disease and Herbicide Treatment on Yield of Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Rex W. Millhollon  and
Hideo Koike
Rex W. Millhollon
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., U.S. Sugarcane Field Lab., Houma, LA 70361
Hideo Koike
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., U.S. Sugarcane Field Lab., Houma, LA 70361
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) was planted in the fall; the seed cane was healthy or infected either with sugarcane mosaic virus (strain H) or with ratoon stunting disease (RSD) (Clavibacter xyli). Herbicide treatments were applied the following spring and each subsequent spring during the 3-yr crop cycle. Hexazinone [3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione] at 1.1 kg ai/ha was applied as a soil foliage treatment when sugarcane was about 30 cm tall. The methyl ester of diclofop {(±)-2-[4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenoxy] propanoic acid} at 1.1 kg ai/ha and the sodium salt of asulam {methyl [(4-aminophenyl)sulfonyl] carbamate} at 3.4 or 3.8 kg ai/ha were applied as foliage treatments when sugarcane was about 90 cm tall. Both mosaic and RSD reduced yield of sugar/ha by 16% for the 3-yr crop, primarily by causing a decrease in stalk population. Hexazinone reduced yield of sugar/ha by 24% primarily by causing a decrease in both stalk population and sugar content of stalks. Diclofop reduced yield by 7% and asulam caused no significant yield loss. Combinations of disease and herbicide treatment reduced yields in an additive manner, with the combination of hexazinone and either mosaic or RSD causing a 38% reduction.

Keywords

Hexazinonediclofopasulamsugarcane diseasedisease-herbicide interaction
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , January 1986 , pp. 137 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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. Abbott, E. V. 1961. Mosaic. Pages 405–430 in Martin, J. P., Abbott, E. V. and Hughes, C. G., eds. Sugar-Cane Diseases of the World. Vol. I. Elsevier Pub. Co., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
2. Ashton, F. M. and Crafts, A. S. 1981. Mode of action of Herbicides. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
3. Davis, M. J., Gillespie, A. G. Jr., Harris, R. W., and Larson, R. W. 1980. Ratoon stunting disease of sugarcane: Isolation of the causal organism. Sci. 210:1365–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Davis, M. J., Gillaspie, A. G. Jr., Vidaver, A. K., and Harris, R. W. 1984. Clavibacter: a new genus containing some phytopathogenic coryneform bacteria, including Clavibacter xyli subsp. xyli sp. nov., subsp. nov. and Clavibacter xyli subsp. cynodontis subsp. nov., pathogens that cause ratoon stunting disease of sugarcane and bermudagrass stunting disease. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 34:107–117.Google Scholar
5. Duncan, D. R. and Paxton, J. D. 1981. Trifluralin enhancement of Phytophthora root rot of soybean. Plant Dis. 65:435–436.Google Scholar
6. Grau, C. R. and Reiling, T. P. 1977. Effect of trifluralin and dinitramine on Aphanomyces root rot of peas. Phytopathology 76:273–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Hodges, C. F. 1981. Preemergence herbicides and the severity of leaf spot caused by Drechslera serokiniana on Poa pratensis . Phytopathology. 71:720–722.Google Scholar
8. Hodges, C. F. 1984. Development of Drechslera sorokiniana on sequentially senescent leaves of Poa pratensis exposed to postemergence herbicide combinations. Plant Dis. 68:213–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Koike, H. 1974. Interaction between diseases on sugarcane: Sugarcane mosaic and ratoon stunting disease. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 15:258–265.Google Scholar
10. Koike, H. 1977. Disease as a factor influencing sugarcane yields in Louisiana during the last decade. Proc. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 6:178–181.Google Scholar
11. Koike, H. 1981. Mosaic and ratoon stunting disease: Individual and combined effects on yield of two commercial varieties. Sugar Bull. 59:10–14.Google Scholar
12. Koike, H. and Millhollon, R. W. 1980. Influence of diseases and herbicides on sugarcane growth in the greenhouse. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 17:1433–1437.Google Scholar
13. Legendre, B. L. and Henderson, M. T. 1973. The history and development of sugar yield calculations. Proc. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 2:10–18.Google Scholar
14. Matherne, R. J. and Millhollon, R. W. 1973. Tolerance of two sugarcane cultivars to terbacil, fenac, and dalapon. Weed Sci. 21:139–141.Google Scholar
15. Meade, G. P. and Chen, J.C.P. 1977. Cane Sugar Handbook, 10th ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
16. Millhollon, R. W. 1976. Asulam for johnsongrass control in sugarcane. Weed Sci. 24:496–499.Google Scholar
17. Millhollon, R. W. 1976. Influence of fenac and terbacil on growth and yield of sugarcane. Proc. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 5:104–108.Google Scholar
18. Millhollon, R. W. 1980. Johnsongrass control and sugarcane tolerance from preemergence treatments with hexazinone. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 17:63–75.Google Scholar
19. Millhollon, R. W. and Matherne, R. J. 1968. Tolerance of sugarcane varieties to herbicides. Weed Sci. 17:370–373.Google Scholar
20. Steindl, D.R.L. 1961. Ratoon stunting disease. Pages 431–459 in Martin, J. P., Abbott, E. V., and Hughes, C. G., eds. Sugar-Cane Diseases of the World. Vol. I. Elsevier Pub. Co., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
21. Tippett, R. L. 1969. Yields of sugarcane planted with different amounts of mosaic. Sugar Bull. 47(23):4–11.Google Scholar
22. Tippett, R. L. and Koike, H. 1970. Strains of sugarcane mosaic virus in sugarcane varieties: Effects on stands and yields. Plant Dis. Rep. 54:554–557.Google Scholar