Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:28:59.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids) Tolerance to Clomazone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Edward P. Richard Jr.
Edward P. Richard Jr.*
Affiliation:
, Sugarcane Res. Unit, Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., P.O. Box 470, Houma, LA 70361
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted over four years to determine sugarcane response to clomazone applied POST at 1.1 and 2.2 kg ai/ha. Sugarcane leaves present when clomazone was applied were chlorotic 2 WAT. Injury 4 WAT ranged from 0 to 38% following single applications in March and April. Chlorosis 4 wk after the May application of a March plus May sequential treatment was only greater than for the single March application in 1992. The number of harvestable sugarcane stalks following treatments with clomazone was intermediate between those produced with standard applications of either metribuzin at 2.6 kg ai/ha (least injurious) or terbacil as a single treatment at 1.8 kg ai/ha in March and April or as a 1.8 plus 0.9 kg/ha March plus May sequential treatment. Sugar recovery as an average of all herbicide treatments was lower for the sequential applications than for the single applications. Averaged over single and sequential treatments, theoretically recoverable sugar levels with clomazone at both rates was intermediate between the recoveries obtained with standard applications of metribuzin (highest) and terbacil. Gross cane and sugar yields following all applications of clomazone at 1.1 kg/ha and following single applications of clomazone at 2.2 kg/ha in March and April were similar to the metribuzin standard. Sugar yields following the sequential treatment of clomazone at 2.2 kg/ha, although lower than the metribuzin standard, were similar to the standard terbacil sequential treatment.

Keywords

Clomazone, 2-[(2-chlorophenyl)methyl]-4,4-dimethyl-3-isoxazolidinonemetribuzin, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-oneterbacil, 5-chloro-3-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-6-methyl-2,4-(1H, 3H)-pyrimidinedionesugarcane, a complex hybrid of Saccharum spp. ‘CP 70-321.'Application timingcrop injurymetribuzinterbacilSACOF
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 90 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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. Anonymous. 1994. Controlling weeds in sugarcane. Louisiana State Univ. Agric. Center, Louisiana Coop. Ext. Serv. Pub. 2314(5M), 15 p.Google Scholar
2. Chen, J. C. P. and Chou, C. 1993. Cane Sugar Handbook, 12th ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, p. 852–867.Google Scholar
3. Duke, S. O., Kenyon, W. H., and Paul, R. N. 1985. FMC 57020 effects on chloroplast development in pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) cotyledons. Weed Sci. 33:786–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Griffin, J. L. and Lencse, R. J. 1992. Preemergence control of itchgrass (Rottboellia cochinchinensis) in sugarcane. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 12:65–70.Google Scholar
5. Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., McClelland, M. R., and Frans, R. E. 1993. Clomazone as a component in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) herbicide programs. Weed Technol. 7:202–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Jordan, D. L., Wilcut, J. W., and Former, L. D. 1994. Utility of clomazone for annual grass and broadleaf weed control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 8:23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Legendre, B. L. and Henderson, M. T. 1972. The history and development of sugar yield calculations. Proc. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 2:10–18.Google Scholar
8. Richard, E. P. Jr., 1989. Response of sugarcane (Saccharum sp.) cultivars to preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 3:358–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Richard, E. P. Jr. 1990. Timing effects on johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control with asulam in sugarcane (Saccharum sp.). Weed Technol. 4:81–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Richard, E. P. Jr. 1996. Efforts to control bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) in sugarcane in Louisiana. Proc. Inter. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. (in press).Google Scholar
11. Richard, E. P. Jr. and Griffin, J. L. 1993. Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control in sugarcane with selected preemergence and postemergence herbicides. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 13:60–72.Google Scholar
12. Werling, V. L. and Buhler, D. D. 1988. Influence of application time on clomazone activity in no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 36:629–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Westberg, D. E., Oliver, L. R., and Frans, R. E. 1989. Weed control with clomazone alone and with other herbicides. Weed Technol. 3:678–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar