Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T10:01:02.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sensitivity of Sugarcane (Saccharum sp.) to Glyphosate

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 Louisiana to determine growth and yield effects resulting from the accidental application of the isopropylamine formulation of glyphosate to sugarcane. Glyphosate at 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 kg ae ha–1 was applied in water at 90 L ha–1 in May, June, and August. Sugar yields (kg ha–1) were reduced 44% when glyphosate was applied over the top of sugarcane at 0.2 kg ha–1 in June; similar reductions for the May and August applications required 0.4 kg ha–1. Reductions in sugar yield were primarily attributed to reductions in both cane yield and recoverable sugar in the crushed juice because stalk populations and stalk weights were lowered and immature stalks that survived contained less sugar. The recoverability of the subsequent ratoon crop was also affected, particularly when glyphosate was applied in May and June to the previous crop at rates of 0.4 kg ha–1 and higher.

Keywords

Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl) glycinesugarcane (Saccharum interspecific hybrids)Herbicide drift
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 73 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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. Hurst, H. R. 1982. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Sci. 30:311–315.Google Scholar
2. 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
3. Legendre, B. L. 1989. A review of chemical ripening of sugarcane with glyphosate in Louisiana. Sugar y Azucar 84(6):24.Google Scholar
4. Legendre, B. L. and Finger, C. K. 1987. Response of sugarcane varieties to the chemical ripener glyphosate. Proc. Plant Growth Regulator Soc. 14:479–484.Google Scholar
5. 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
6. Meade, G. P. and Chen, J.C.P. 1977. Cane Sugar Handbook. 10th ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
7. Mesa-Garcia, J., DeHaro, A., and Garcia-Torres, L. 1984. Phytotoxicity and yield response of broad bean (Vicia faba) to glyphosate. Weed Sci. 32:445–450.Google Scholar
8. Richard, E. P. Jr., Hurst, H. R., and Wauchope, R. D. 1981. Effects of simulated MSMA drift on rice (Oryza sativa) growth and yield. Weed Sci. 29:303–308.Google Scholar
9. Schroeder, G. L., Cole, D. F., and Dexter, A. G. 1983. Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) response to simulated herbicide spray drift. Weed Sci. 31:831–836.Google Scholar
10. Steele, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. Pages 99–131, 203, 210. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
11. Yates, W. E., Akesson, N. B., and Bayer, D. E. 1978. Drift of glyphosate sprays applied with aerial and ground equipment. Weed Sci. 26:597–604.Google Scholar