Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:13:20.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Control of Rhizome Johnsongrass (Sorghum Halepense) in Sugarcane with Trifloxysulfuron and Asulam

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Caleb D. Dalley*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS-SRRC, Sugarcane Research Laboratory, 5883 USDA Road, Houma, LA 70360
Edward P. Richard Jr
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS-SRRC, Sugarcane Research Laboratory, 5883 USDA Road, Houma, LA 70360
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: caleb.dalley@ars.usda.gov

Abstract

It has been suggested that trifloxysulfuron might increase the efficacy of asulam for control of johnsongrass. Container and field studies were conducted to determine the efficacy of POST applications of trifloxysulfuron and asulam for johnsongrass control in sugarcane. Asulam was applied at 460 and 920 g ai/ha to container-grown johnsongrass plants, with and without 8 g ai/ha of trifloxysulfuron. Combinations of asulam and trifloxysulfuron generally reduced johnsongrass height, rhizome length, and biomass more than when either was applied alone. Results suggested that combinations of asulam and trifloxysulfuron were synergistic in their control of johnsongrass biomass 8 wk after treatment. In a sugarcane field heavily infested with rhizome johnsongrass, asulam was applied at 1,800, 2,800, and 3,700 g/ha with and without trifloxysulfuron at 16 g/ha. Asulam plus trifloxysulfuron generally controlled johnsongrass more effectively than either herbicide alone. The control of johnsongrass with asulam at 1,800 g/ha resulted in an increase in sugar yield of more than twice that in the nontreated control. Sugar yield increased further when asulam was applied at 2,800 g/ha or combined with trifloxysulfuron, but application of trifloxysulfuron alone did not increase yield. Combinations of asulam and trifloxysulfuron might slow the spread of rhizome johnsongrass enough to allow an increased number of ratoon crops before sugarcane fields need to be replanted.

Type
Weed Management — Major Crops
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, , 1983. Weed survey—southern states. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 36:148184.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2008. Louisiana's Suggested Chemical Weed Control Guide for 2008. Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana State University Agriculture Center, Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service Publ. 1565. http://www.lsuagcenter.com. Accessed February 22, 2008.Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J. and Stephenson, D. O. 2006. Weed control in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with postemergence applications of trifloxysulfuron-sodium. Weed Technol. 20:377383.Google Scholar
Bruff, S. A., Griffin, J. L., and Richard, E. P. Jr. 1995. Influence of rainfree period after asulam application on johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control. Weed Technol. 9:316320.Google Scholar
Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds. 15:2022.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Minton, B. W. 2007. Using trifloxysulfuron with glyphosate for cotton weed control. Weed Technol. 21:431436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamill, A. S. and Penner, D. 1973. Interaction of alachlor and carbofuran. Weed Sci. 21:330335.Google Scholar
Jones, C. A., Griffin, J. L., and Siebert, J. D. 2002. Alternatives for johnsongrass control in sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:21.Google Scholar
LaRossa, R. A. and Schloss, J. V. 1984. The herbicide sulfometuron methyl is bacteriostatic due to inhibition of acetolactate synthase. J. Biol. Chem. 259:87538757.Google Scholar
Legendre, B. L. 1992. The core/press method of predicting the sugar yield from cane for use in payment. Sugar J. 54:27.Google Scholar
Legendre, B. L. and Henderson, M. T. 1972. The history and development of sugar yield calculations. Proc. Am. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 2(NS):1018.Google Scholar
Lencse, R. J., Griffin, J. L., and Richard, E. P. Jr. 1992. Itchgrass (Rottboellia cochinchinensis) control in sugarcane with postemergence herbicides. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 12:915.Google Scholar
Millhollon, R. W. 1976. Asulam for johnsongrass control in sugarcane. Weed Sci. 24:496499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millhollon, R. W. 1993. Preemergence control of itchgrass (Rottboellia cochinchinensis) and johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) in sugarcane (Saccharum spp hybrids) with pendimethalin and prodiamine. Weed Sci. 41:621626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porterfield, D., Wilcut, J. W., and Askew, S. D. 2002. Weed management with CGA-362622, fluometuron, and prometryn in cotton. Weed Sci. 50:642647.Google Scholar
Rawls, E. K., Wells, J. W., Hudetz, M., Jain, R., and Ulloa, M. F. 2000. CGA-362622: a new herbicide for weed control in sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:163.Google Scholar
Ray, T. B. 1984. Inhibition of valine and isoleucine biosynthesis in plants. Plant Physiol. 75:827831.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr 1986. Influence of surfactants on the toxicity of asulam to johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) and sugarcane (Saccharumsp.). Weed Sci. 34:299303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr 1990. Timing effects on johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control with asulam in sugarcane (Saccharum sp.). Weed Technol. 4:8186.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr 2000. Evaluation of CGA 362622 in Louisiana sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:14.Google Scholar
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. 13:6072.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Wilson, H. P., Armel, G. R., and Hines, T. E. 2004. Mixtures of glyphosate with CGA 362622 for weed control in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 18:1622.Google Scholar
Salassi, M. E. and Deliberto, M. 2008. Sugarcane Production in Louisiana: 2008 Projected Commodity Costs and Returns. A.E.A. Information Services 245 Louisiana State University Agriculture Center. 41. http://www.lsuagcenter.edu.Google Scholar
Saxton, A. M. 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Pages 12431246. in. Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International, March 1999. NashvilleCary, TN, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Singh, S. and Singh, M. 2004. Effect of growth stage on trifloxysulfuron and glyphosate efficacy in twelve weed species of citrus groves. Weed Technol. 18:10311036.Google Scholar
Stephen, N. H., Cook, G. T., and Duncan, H. J. 1980. A possible mechanism of action of asulam involving folic acid biosynthesis. Ann. App. Biol. 96:227234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teuton, T. C., Unruh, J. B., Brecke, B. J., MacDonald, G. E., Miller, G. L., and Ducar, J. T. 2004. Tropical signalgrass (Urochloa subquadripara) control with preemergence- and postemergence-applied herbicides. Weed Technol. 18:419425.Google Scholar
Veerasekaran, P., Kerkwood, R. C., and Parnell, E. W. 1981a. Studies of the mechanism of action of asulam in plants. Part I: antagonistic interaction of asulam and 4-amino-benzoic acid. Pestic. Sci. 12:325329.Google Scholar
Veerasekaran, P., Kerkwood, R. C., and Parnell, E. W. 1981b. Studies of the mechanism of action of asulam in plants. Part II: effect of asulam on the biosynthesis of folic acid. Pestic. Sci. 12:330338.Google Scholar