Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T14:26:21.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimizing Diluent Volume Improves Johnsongrass Control in Sugarcane (Saccharum sp.) with Asulam

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 in second-ratoon crops of sugarcane infested with rhizome johnsongrass to determine the effects of aqueous diluent volumes ranging from 47 to 561 L ha-1 on the performance of asulam. Trend analyses of johnsongrass recovery, based on panicle numbers late in the growing season, indicated a quadratic response with panicle numbers being lowest when asulam at 2.8 kg ai ha-1 was applied in a diluent volume approaching 187 L ha-1. The response was similar regardless of whether droplet size or number was altered to obtain these diluent volumes. Differences in late-season johnsongrass control were reflected in harvested sugarcane stalk populations and net cane yields. In greenhouse studies, johnsongrass plants were thoroughly washed with water 24 h after treatment with asulam at 2.8 kg ha-1 at water volumes ranging from 47 to 374 L ha-1. Asulam absorption, as evidenced by reduction in the growth of johnsongrass, was higher when surfactant was included, but was not affected by diluent volumes in the range evaluated.

Keywords

Asulam, methyl [(4-aminophenyl)sulfonyl]carbamatesugarcane, Saccharum interspecific hybrids ‘CP 65-357’ and ‘CP 72-370’johnsongrass, Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. ♯ SORHAHerbicide penetrationherbicide absorptiondroplet effects
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 363 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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. Ambach, R. M., and Ashford, R. 1982. Effects of variations in drop makeup on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 30:221–224.Google Scholar
2. Bode, L. C. 1988. Spray application technology. p. 85–110 in McWhorter, C. G., and Gebhardt, M. R., ed. Methods of Applying Herbicides. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Monograph Series 4, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
3. Buhler, D. D., and Burnside, O. C. 1983. Effect of spray components on glyphosate toxicity to annual grasses. Weed Sci. 31:124–130.Google Scholar
4. Buhler, D. D., and Burnside, O. C. 1983. Effect of water quality, carrier volume, and acid on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 31:163–169.Google Scholar
5. Buhler, D. D., and Burnside, O. C. 1984. Effect of application factors on postemergence phytotoxicity of fluazifop-butyl, haloxyfop-methyl, and sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 32:574–583.Google Scholar
6. Carlson, K. L., and Burnside, O. C. 1984. Comparative phytotoxicity of glyphosate, SC-0224, and HOE-0061. Weed Sci. 32:841–844.Google Scholar
7. Harper, D. R., and Appleby, A. P. 1984. Selectivity factors relative to asulam for Senecio jacobaea L. control in Medicago sativa L. I. Retention, uptake, and translocation. Weed Res. 24:85–92.Google Scholar
8. Irvine, J. E., and Benda, G.T.A. 1980. Sugarcane spacing II. Effects of spacing on the plant. Proc. Int. Nat. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 17: 357–361.Google Scholar
9. 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
10. McKinlay, K. S., Ashford, R., and Ford, R. J. 1974. Effects of drop size, spray volume, and dosage on paraquat toxicity. Weed Sci. 22:31–34.Google Scholar
11. Meade, G. P., and Chen, J.C.P. 1977. Cane Sugar Handbook. 10th ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
12. Millhollon, R. W. 1976. Asulam for johnsongrass control in sugarcane. Weed Sci. 24:496–499.Google Scholar
13. Nalewaja, J. D., and Woznica, Z. 1988. Effect of environment and adjuvants on asulam phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 36:367–372.Google Scholar
14. O'Sullivan, P. A., O'Donovan, J. T., and Hamman, W. M. 1981. Influence of non-ionic surfactants, ammonium sulfate, water quality, and spray volume on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Can. J. Plant Sci 61:391–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Richard, E. P. Jr. 1986. Influence of surfactants on the toxicity of asulam to johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) and sugarcane (Saccharum sp.). Weed Sci. 34:299–303.Google Scholar
16. Richard, E. P. Jr. 1990. Timing effects on johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control with asulam in sugarcane (Saccharum sp.). Weed Technol. 4:81–86.Google Scholar
17. Sandberg, C. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1978. Effect of diluent volume and calcium on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 26: 476–479.Google Scholar
18. Smeda, R. J., and Putnam, A. R. 1989. Effect of adjuvant concentration and carrier volume on large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) control with fluazifop. Weed Technol. 3:105–109.Google Scholar
19. Steele, R.G.D., and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics, p. 463–467. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
20. Veerasekaran, P., Kirkwood, W. C., and Fletcher, W. W. 1977. Studies on the mode of action of asulam in bracken (Pteridium aquilinum L. Kuhn.). I. Absorption and translocation of [14C] asulam. Weed Res. 17: 33–37.Google Scholar