Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T07:19:51.498Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sugarcane Response to Flumioxazin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Edward P. Richard JR.  and
Caleb D. Dalley
Edward P. Richard JR.*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service, Southern Regional Research Center, Sugarcane Research Unit, 5883 USDA Road, Houma, LA 70360
Caleb D. Dalley
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service, Southern Regional Research Center, Sugarcane Research Unit, 5883 USDA Road, Houma, LA 70360
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: erichard@srrc.ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The response of the sugarcane cultivars HoCP 91-555, HoCP 85-845, and LCP 85-384 to flumioxazin during the first (plant cane) and second (first ratoon) production years was evaluated within two identical experiments, the first starting in 2000 and the second in 2001. In the plant-cane crop, flumioxazin application timings were PRE immediately following planting, fall postemergence (FPOST) 6 wk after planting, early spring postemergence (ESPOST), postemergence-directed spray (PDS) following layby cultivation, and sequential applications of FPOST followed by ESPOST. During the first-ratoon crop, flumioxazin was applied ESPOST, late-spring (LSPOST), PDS following layby cultivation, and sequentially LSPOST followed by PDS. Flumioxazin injury to sugarcane consisted mainly of stunted growth and reddening and necrosis of treated leaves. In plant cane, injury was 28% 2 wk after treatment (WAT) when applied ESPOST in one experiment but less than 10% in the other, and was no more than 13% in either experiment at 6 WAT. In the first-ratoon crop, injury was around 15% when applied ESPOST in the first experiment, but no injury was observed 6 WAT. However, in the first ratoon, injury to all cultivars was 25 to 30% when following a LSPOST application. When applied as a PDS, injury was no more than 15% 4 WAT in either plant-cane or first-ratoon sugarcane. Stalk height was reduced 15 cm compared to the nontreated control when flumioxazin was applied as a sequential application (FPOST followed by ESPOST) in plant cane and by 23 cm (LSPOST followed by PDS) in first-ratoon sugarcane. In plant cane ESPOST applications of flumioxazin reduced sugar yield (9 to 28%) within all three cultivars used in this study in both experiments with only one exception. Sequential (FPOST followed by ESPOST) applications reduced sugar yield within all cultivars (6 to 37%). PDS applications at layby reduced yields (7 to 12%) in the first experiment, but not in the second experiment. In the first-ratoon crop, LSPOST applications of flumioxazin reduced sugar yield (7 to 11%), sequential flumioxazin applications (LSPOST followed by PDS) reduced sugar yields (8 to 19%), and PDS applications at layby did not reduce yield. It appears that there is little if any difference in tolerance to flumioxazin for the cultivars used in this experiment. To avoid risk of yield loss, flumioxazin should not be applied as an over-top POST treatment to weeds in actively growing sugarcane, and care should be taken to minimize spray contact with sugarcane leaves when applying flumioxazin as a PDS at layby.

Keywords

Flumioxazinsugarcane, Saccharum interspecific hybrids, ‘LCP 85-384’, ‘HoCP 85-845’, and ‘HoCP 91-555’Crop injuryapplication timingEXP1, experiment oneEXP2, experiment twoTRS, theoretically recoverable sugarUSDA-ARS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 695 - 701
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. 1998. Flumioxazin. in Hatzios, K. K., ed. WSSA Herbicide Handbook—Supplement to 7th Edition. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 29–31.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2005. Louisiana's suggested chemical weed control guide for 2005. Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service Pub. 1565. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Agriculture Center. 148 p.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Technol. 13:594–598.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 2002. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and weed response to flumioxazin applied preplant and postemergence directed. Weed Technol. 16:184–190.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Flumioxazin systems for weed management in North Carolina peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 16:743–748.Google Scholar
Chen, J. C. P. and Chou, C. C. 1993. Cane Sugar Handbook: A Manual for Cane Sugar Manufacturers and Their Chemists. 12th ed. New York: J. Wiley & Sons. 1090 p.Google Scholar
Cranmer, J. R., Altom, J. V., Braun, J. C., and Pawlak, J. A. 2000. Valor™ herbicide: a new herbicide for weed control in cotton, peanuts, soybeans, and sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:158.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O., Lydon, J., Becerril, J. M., Sherman, T. D., Lehnen, L. P. Jr, and Matsumoto, H. 1991. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 39:465–473.Google Scholar
Jones, C. A., Griffin, J. L., Etheredge, L. M. Jr., and Judice, W. E. 2005. Red morningglory in sugarcane: biology and management. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 25:112–115.Google Scholar
Jones, C. A., Griffin, J. L., Etheredge, L. M. Jr., Judice, W. E., and Siebert, J. D. 2004. Evaluation of Valor in sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:18.Google 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. Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service Pub. 2859. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Agriculture Center. 52 p.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.Google Scholar
Legendre, B. L., White, W. H., Grisham, M. P., Dufrene, E. O., Garrison, D. D., and Miller, J. D. 2000. Registration of ‘HoCP 91-555’ sugarcane. Crop Sci. 40:1506.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Ducar, J. T., Whitty, E. B., and MacDonald, G. E. 2003. Response of three runner-type peanut cultivars to flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 17:89–93.Google Scholar
Milligan, S. B., Martin, F. A., Bischoff, K. P., Quebedeaux, J. P., Dufrene, E. O., Quebedeaux, K. L., Hoy, J. W., Reagan, T. E., Legendre, B. L., and Miller, J. D. 1994. Registration of “LCP 85-384' sugarcane. Crop Sci. 34:819–820.Google Scholar
Price, A. J., Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Cranmer, J. R., and Danehower, D. 2004. Physiological basis for cotton tolerance to flumioxazin applied postemergence directed. Weed Sci. 52:1–7.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr. 1989. Response of sugarcane (Saccharum sp.) to preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 3:358–363.Google Scholar
Siebert, J. D., Griffin, J. L., and Jones, C. A. 2004. Red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) control with 2,4-D and alternative herbicides. Weed Technol. 18:38–44.Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S., Wax, L. M., and Bollero, G. 2001. Phytotoxic response and yield of soybean (Glycine max) varieties treated with sulfentrazone or flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 15:95–102.Google Scholar
Viator, B. J., Griffin, J. L., Ellis, J. M., and Jeffrey, M. 2002a. Red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) control with sulfentrazone and azafeniden applied at layby in sugarcane (Saccharum spp). Weed Technol. 16:142–148.Google Scholar
Viator, B. J., Griffin, J. L., Ellis, J. M., and Jeffrey, M. 2002b. Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) response to azafenidin applied preemergence and postemergence. Weed Technol. 16:444–451.Google Scholar
Viator, B. J., Griffin, J. L., Ellis, J. M., and Jones, C. A. 2001. New herbicide chemistries for weed control in sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:190–191.Google Scholar
Viator, R. P., Johnson, R. M., and Richard, E. P. Jr. 2005. Challenges of post-harvest residue management in the Louisiana sugarcane industry. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 25:238–244.Google Scholar