Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:17:33.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Red Morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) Control with Sulfentrazone and Azafeniden Applied at Layby in Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Blaine J. Viator ,
James L. Griffin  and
Jeffrey M. Ellis
Blaine J. Viator
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 302 Life Sciences Building, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
James L. Griffin*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 302 Life Sciences Building, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Jeffrey M. Ellis
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 302 Life Sciences Building, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A field study was conducted over 2 yr to evaluate red morningglory control and sugarcane injury with herbicides applied below the sugarcane canopy in late May to early June following the layby cultivation. Rainfall to activate herbicides was received within the first 2 wk after application at the two sites in 1997, but not at the two sites in 1998. Red morningglory control for most herbicides 21 d after treatment (DAT) in both years was at least 90% and was attributed to postemergence activity of the herbicides and limited weed reinfestation following cultivation and herbicide application. At 45 DAT, red morningglory control with sulfentrazone was maximized (87 to 100%) at 0.14 kg ai/ha at three of four sites. Control with azafeniden was less consistent and, to achieve the same level of control as for sulfentrazone, 0.42 kg ai/ha azafeniden was needed in 1997 and 0.84 kg/ha in 1998. The currently registered herbicides atrazine, diuron, metribuzin, and terbacil controlled red morningglory no more than 83%, 45 DAT at three of the four sites. Of these herbicides, terbacil was the least effective. Even in 1997 at one site when the herbicide was rainfall activated early, red morningglory control with sulfentrazone at 0.14 kg/ha and azafeniden at 0.42 kg/ha 45 DAT was still greater than with the currently registered herbicides. Sugarcane injury expressed as foliage discoloration 21 DAT was 7 to 18% for sulfentrazone at 0.14 kg/ha and 15 to 31% for azafeniden at 0.42 kg/ha. Plant recovery was rapid and none of the herbicide treatments evaluated reduced sugarcane stalk height or population in September.

Keywords

Atrazineazafenidendiuronmetribuzinsulfentrazoneterbacilred morningglory, Ipomoea coccinea L. #3 IPOCCsugarcane, Saccharum spp. # SACCH, ‘LCP 85-384’, ‘CP 70-321’Crop tolerancefinal interrow cultivationlaybyDAT, days after treatmentPOST, postemergence; PRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 142 - 148
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

Abbas, H. K. and Boyette, C. D. 1996. Control of morningglory species using Fusarium solani and its extracts. Int. J. Pest Manag. 42: 235–239.Google Scholar
Adams, R. S. and Pritchard, D. J. 1977. Influence of soil pH on the phytotoxicity of three s-triazine herbicides. Agron. J. 69: 820–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 2000. Louisiana Suggested Chemical Weed Control Guide. Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service. Pub. 1565. 120 p.Google Scholar
Bengston, R. L., Selim, H. M., and Ricaud, R. 1998. Water quality from sugarcane production on alluvial soils. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 41: 1,331–1,336.Google Scholar
Blumhorst, M. R., Weber, J. B., and Swain, L. R. 1990. Efficacy of selected herbicides as influenced by soil properties. Weed Technol. 4: 279–283.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Hiltbold, A. E. 1973. Performance and persistence of atrazine. Weed Sci. 21: 413–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchholtz, K. P. 1965. Factors influencing oat injury from triazine residues in soils. Weeds 13: 362–367.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Fenster, C. R., and Wicks, G. A. 1963. Dissipation and leaching of monuron, simazine, and atrazine in Nebraska soils. Weeds 11: 209–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastman, D. G. and Coble, H. D. 1977. Differences in the control of five morningglory species by selected soybean herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 30: 39–45.Google Scholar
Gallaher, K. and Mueller, T. C. 1996. Effect of crop presence on persistence of atrazine, metribuzin, and clomazone in surface soil. Weed Sci. 44: 698–703.Google Scholar
Gomes, L. F., Chandler, J. M., and Vaughan, C. E. 1978. Aspects of germination, emergence, and seed production of three Ipomoea taxa. Weed Sci. 26: 245–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Miller, D. K., Grymes, C. F., Corkern, C. B., and Fairbanks, D. E. 1996. Louisiana State University Weed Science 1995 Annual Research Rep. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University. 157 p.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. L., Hook, B. J., Peregoy, R. S., and Kitchen, L. M. 1990. Emergence and yield of 2,4-D treated seed cane. J. Am. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 10: 56–60.Google Scholar
Jensen, K. I. N. and Kimball, E. R. 1982. The comparative behavior of simazine and terbacil in soils. Weed Res. 22: 7–12.Google Scholar
Mathis, W. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1980. Control of six morningglory (Ipomoea) species in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 28: 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, M. R., Oliver, L. R., Mathis, W. D., and Frans, R. E. 1978. Responses of six morningglory (Ipomoea) species to bentazon. Weed Sci. 26: 459–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milanova, S. and Grigorov, P. 1996. Movement and persistence of imazaquin, oxyfluorfen, flurochloridone, and terbacil in soil. Weed Res. 36: 31–36.Google Scholar
Millhollon, R. W. 1983. Late-season weed control in sugarcane with herbicides applied at lay-by. J. Am. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 2: 17–21.Google Scholar
Millhollon, R. W. 1988. Control of morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) in sugarcane with layby herbicide treatments. J. Am. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 8: 62–66.Google 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: 621–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niekamp, J. W., Johnson, W. G., and Smeda, R. J. 1999. Broadleaf weed control with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 233–238.Google Scholar
Peter, C. J. and Weber, J. B. 1985. Adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of metribuzin as influenced by soil properties. Weed Sci. 33: 868–873.Google Scholar
Risley, M. A. and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of imazaquin in pitted (Ipomoea lacunosa) and entireleaf (Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula) morningglory. Weed Sci. 40: 503–506.Google Scholar
Roeth, F. W., Lavy, T. L., and Burnside, O. C. 1969. Atrazine degradation in two soil profiles. Weed Sci. 17: 202–205.Google Scholar
Rogers, R. L., Sanders, D., Griffin, J. L., Reynolds, D. B., Vidrine, P. R., Burch, T. A., Boudreaux, J. E., Puls, E. E., and Richard, E. P. Jr. 1996. Potential Economic Impact of Loss of Triazine Herbicides in Louisiana. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station Rep. OPP-30000-60. 9 p.Google Scholar
Southwick, L. M., Willis, G. H., Johnson, D. C., and Selim, H. M. 1995. Leaching of nitrate, atrazine, and metribuzin from sugarcane in southern Louisiana. J. Environ. Qual. 24: 684–690.Google Scholar
Splittstoesser, W. E. and Derscheid, L. A. 1962. Effects of environment upon herbicides applied preemergence. Weeds 10: 304–308.Google Scholar
Sunderland, S. L. and Coble, H. D. 1994. Differential tolerance of morningglory species (Ipomoea sp. ) to DPX-PE350. Weed Sci. 42: 227–232.Google Scholar
Thakar, C. and Singh, H. N. 1954. Nilkalamine (Ipomoea hederacea), a menace to sugarcane. Hortic. Abstr. 24:530.Google Scholar
Viator, B. J., Griffin, J. L., Webster, E. P., and Richard, E. P. Jr. 1999. Potential red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) resistance to atrazine. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. Soc. 52: 178–179.Google Scholar
Vidrine, P. R., Griffin, J. L., Jordan, D. L., and Reynolds, D. B. 1996. Broadleaf weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 10: 762–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehtje, G., Walker, R. H., Grey, T. L., and Spratlin, C. E. 1995. Soil effects of sulfentrazone. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48: 225–225.Google Scholar