Introduction
Brazil is the largest sugarcane
producer worldwide (FAO 2021), with an estimated production of 628.1 million
tons over an area of about 8.42 million hectares in the 2021/2022 crop season
(CONAB 2021). However, changes in legislation to protect environment have
affected sugarcane production systems during the last two decades (Kuva et al. 2013). (e.g., see: state of São Paulo Art. n° 1 of the Law No. 11,241 of September
19, 2002; Paulo 2002). Prohibiting sugarcane burning generated a production
system known as “green cane,” in which straw remains on the soil surface, thus
affecting weed flora (Kuva et al.
2013) and herbicide dynamics in the soil as a function of its physicochemical
properties (Christoffoleti and López-Ovejero 2005; Monquero et al. 2007; Silva and Monquero 2013;
Carbonari et al. 2016).
Weed interference can adversely affect sugarcane production. Stalk yield
reductions of 33% have been reported in areas with predominance of Panicum maximum, Acanthospermum hispidum, and Alternanthera
tenella (Meirelles et al. 2009).
A sugarcane yield reduction of 40% has been observed in areas infested by U. decumbens and P. maximum (Kuva et al. 2003). In sugarcane fields infested with I. hederifolia, yield reductions can
reach to 46% (Silva et al. 2009). The
absence of weed control measures in sugarcane fields during the critical period
of interference prevention - CPIP (between 20 and 150 days after planting) may
generate yield losses of up to 85% (Filho and Christoffoleti 2004). The CPIP is
a period when weed control measures are important to avoid continuing
interference of weeds with crops (Kozlowski 2002).
Weed control strategies are essential to increase sugarcane yields.
Among the most used, chemical methods stand out (Kuva and Salgado 2014).
Chemical control, both as pre- and post-emergence, has been the most used in
sugarcane fields because of its greater effectiveness, practicality, and low
costs (Santos and Borém 2016).
In green cane production systems, straw composition and amounts may
change, influencing weed initial emergence and altering pre-emergence herbicide
dynamics when applied on straw (Rossi et
al. 2013). As straw exerts a physical barrier, herbicides must have
specific physicochemical characteristics such as: low octanol-water partition
coefficient (Kow), high water solubility, and low vapor pressure
(Christoffoleti et al. 2008; Silva
and Monquero 2013).
Weed species such as Urochloa
decumbens, Digitaria horizontalis,
Cenchrus echinatus, Ipomoea triloba and Merremia aegyptia are predominant in sugarcane fields with
heterogeneous distribution or total removal of straw (Kuva et al. 2013;
Silva et al. 2018). In this context, testing the effectiveness of
herbicides commonly used in mechanized sugarcane farming is relevant for
management of difficult-to-control weeds in the presence of straw (Ferreira et
al. 2020).
Based on the above scenario, this study tested whether herbicides of
different solubility levels (amicarbazone, clomazone, imazapic, indaziflam,
isoxaflutole, sulfentrazone, tebuthiuron, amicarbazone + tebuthiuron,
s-metolachlor + [diuron + hexazinone], [indaziflam + isoxaflutole] and indaziflam
+ metribuzin) applied to soil or on different sugarcane straw amounts (2, 6, 8
and 10 t ha-1) may promote satisfactory control, reducing dry mass
of the various weed species Urochloa
decumbens, Digitaria horizontalis,
Cenchrus echinatus, Ipomoea triloba and Merremia aegyptia.
Materials and Methods
Facilities and experimental design
Weed control experiments were
carried out in a greenhouse at the Center for Agricultural Sciences, Federal
University of São Carlos, Araras-SP, Brazil (22°18'57.3"S
47°23'24.2"W). The area has a Cwa type climate, which stands for
hot and humid summers and dry winters (Köppen 1948).
The experiment was carried out in a fully randomized design and arranged
in a 12 × 5 factorial scheme (factors A and B), with four replications for each
weed species. Five weed species were studied, namely Cenchrus echinatus (CCHEC, southern sandbur, Poaceae family), Digitaria horizontalis (DIGHO, Jamaican
crabgrass, Poaceae family), Ipomoea
triloba (IPOTR, morning glory, Convolvulaceae family), Merremia aegyptia (IPOPE, morning glory, Convolvulaceae family),
and Urochloa decumbens (BRADC,
brachiaria, Poaceae family).
The first factor (A) consisted of 12 treatments, among which there was a
control (without herbicide spraying) and 11 treatments were herbicides:
amicarbazone (1050 g ai ha-1), clomazone (900 g ai ha-1),
imazapic (245 g ai ha-1), indaziflam (75 g ai ha-1),
isoxaflutole (150 g ai ha-1), sulfentrazone (800 g ai ha-1),
tebuthiuron (1000 g ai ha-1), amicarbazone + tebuthiuron (1050 + 750
g ai ha-1), s-metolachlor + [diuron + hexazinone] (1680 + 1500 g ai
ha-1), [indaziflam + isoxaflutole] (45 + 135 g ai ha-1),
and indaziflam + metribuzin (95 + 1125 g ai ha-1).
The second factor (B) comprised five different amounts of sugarcane
straw simulated, which were equivalent to 0, 2, 6, 8 and 10 t ha-1.
Sugarcane straw was collected from sugarcane fields without history of recent
herbicide application. The amounts of straw were dried outdoors, manually
chopped with scissors, and then stored in a dry place until the beginning of
the experiment. The amount of straw to be distributed over the surface of
experimental units was calculated considering the area and simulated amounts.
The experimental units comprised 5-L plastic pots filled with crushed
and sieved soil from topsoil (0–20 cm depth) of a farmland. The soil was
classified as a dystroferric Red Latosol according to the Brazilian soil
classification system - SiBCS (Yoshida and Stolf 2016), with low fertility and
high iron contents. Its chemical properties are as follows:
P (resin) = 12 mg dm-3, organic matter = 37 g dm-3,
pH (CaCl2) = 5.4, K+ = 3.7 mmolc dm-3, Ca2+
= 68 mmolc dm-3, Mg2+ = 10 mmolc dm-3, H+Al =
26 mmolc dm-3, SB = 81.7 mmolc dm-3, CEC = 107.7 mmolc dm-3
and V = 76%.
For all weed species, 15 seeds per pot were sown at 1 cm depth. All the
weed species had an average germination of 70%. Therefore, 10 plants were kept
per pot throughout the experiment, considering the control as well. After
sowing, the pots were irrigated to a 5 mm depth, and different amounts of
sugarcane straw were placed onto the surface of each pot.
Herbicides were sprayed on different days, with applications lasting 30
min. Application conditions were measured using a Kestrel 3000 meteorological
station. Measurements were 82.4°F ± 35.06°C temperature, 67.5 ±5.2% relative
humidity, and 1.36 MPH application speed. Applications were performed using a
costal CO2-pressurized knapsack sprayer at a 2.1 Kgf cm-2
constant pressure. The sprayer was equipped with a 1.5-m long spray bar
containing four Teejet XR 110.02 flat-fan nozzles, spaced 0.5 m apart, and calibrated
to deliver 200 L ha-1 spray solution.
After spraying, the pots were relocated within the greenhouse space to
simulate a 20-mm water depth, aiming to overlap the herbicides on the different
straw amounts. After one day, the straw amounts were carefully removed from the
pots, which remained in the same environment under daily automatic irrigation via micro-sprinkler, to meet
phenological demands until the end of the experiment.
Experimental evaluations
The sample units were evaluated
up to 35 days after emergence (DAE) of plants in control treatment (standard
emergence). Weed control effectiveness was assessed by a visual scale developed
by the Asociación Latinoamericana De Malezas, which is a score percentage
scale; wherein: 0 corresponds to no weed control and 100% to death of all weed
plants (ALAM 1974). Plant dry mass was measured at 35 DAE by cutting plants at
ground level and placing the samples in paper bags, which were taken to a
forced air circulation oven at 60ºC until dried and reached constant weight.
The samples were measured with the aid of an analytical scale.
Shoot dry mass reduction (SDMR) was determined according to the
following formula:
%20431-440_files/image002.png){kind=small}
Wherein: SDMR (%) is the
percentage of shoot dry mass reduction in the treatment, SDMt is the
average shoot dry mass of the treatment and SDMc is the average shoot
dry mass of the control.
Statistical analysis
The data on weed control
efficiency and dry mass were tested for normality and homogeneity before the
analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Scott-Knott mean comparison test (P<0.05). When interaction proved to
be non-significant, a statistical breakdown was performed. Because of
uncontrolled factors, assumptions of data normality were not met by the
Shapiro-Wilk test. Therefore, original data were transformed by arcsine (root[x/100])
to meet basic ANOVA hypothesis (analysis of variances); however, the data shown
in result tables are the original ones (Little and Hills 1972).
Results
For Cenchrus echinatus,
there was an interaction between factors (herbicide and straw amounts) for
visual control (%) and for SDMR according to the statistical breakdown (Table
1). The treatments amicarbazone + tebuthiuron, [indaziflam + isoxaflutole],
s-metolachlor + [diuron + hexazinone], imazapic and indaziflam + metribuzin
reduced effectively shoot dry mass (SDM) reduction of C. echinatus, regardless of the straw amount and conditions studied
(Table 1). Amicarbazone, sulfentrazone, and tebuthiuron had no satisfactory control
of C. echinatus in pots with 2 and 6
t ha-1 straw, with SDMR values below 68 and 46%, respectively.
For the application on 8 t ha-1 straw, sulfentrazone,
clomazone, isoxaflutole, and tebuthiuron had similar control efficiencies
(below 86%), whereas amicarbazone controlled about 44%. On 10 t ha-1
straw, amicarbazone + tebuthiuron, [indaziflam + isoxaflutole], s-metolachlor +
[diuron + hexazinone], imazapic, indaziflam + metribuzin, isoxaflutole and
clomazone reached the highest control efficiency (above 88%), while the others
controlled on average less than 79% and were similar among them.
Regarding the control +of C.
echinatus, SDMR values in pots with 8 and 10 t ha-1 straw were
higher for isoxaflutole, amicarbazone + tebuthiuron, imazapic, s-metolachlor +
[diuron + hexazinone], indaziflam + metribuzin, [indaziflam + isoxaflutole] and
indaziflam. These herbicides were statistically equal and had control
efficiencies above 91%. Amicarbazone and tebuthiuron promoted 67% reductions in
SDMR of C. echinatus when applied on
6, 8 and 10 t ha-1 straw. Regardless of the straw amount,
sulfentrazone promoted a low SDMR on C.
echinatus (~36%), which was unsatisfactorily controlled (< 80%).
For U. decumbens, there was
interaction between factors for visual control, while for SDMR there was
interaction in statistical breakdown (Table 2). At 35 DAE, U. decumbens was controlled by most of the treatments but
amicarbazone, regardless of the presence of straw. This species was
unsatisfactorily controlled (<80%) when spraying imazapic and clomazone on 8
t ha-1 and indaziflam on 6 t ha-1 straw (Table 2).
Except for amicarbazone, all treatments increased the control of U. decumbens on 0 and 2 t ha-1
straw. Imazapic, isoxaflutole, tebuthiuron, amicarbazone + tebuthiuron and
s-metolachlor + [diuron + hexazinone] stood out and reached 90% control. The
control efficiency of amicarbazone decreased as the straw amounts increased.
Amicarbazone, clomazone, imazapic, sulfentrazone, and indaziflam + metribuzin
were statistically similar in results and promoted control efficiency and SDMR
on average below 88 and 95%, respectively.
All treatments showed a low herbicide interception when applied on 10 t
ha-1 straw. For U. decumbens,
all treatments differed statistically from the control, both for control
efficiency and SDMR. Amicarbazone promoted low SDMR values in U. decumbens on 6 and 8 t ha-1 straw.
The use of clomazone, isoxaflutole and s-metolachlor + [diuron +
hexazinone] provided differential susceptibility among the Convolvulaceae
species studied. Although spraying clomazone and isoxaflutole on 6, 8 and 10 t
ha-1 straw reduced M. aegyptia
control efficiency, both herbicides were effective in controlling this species,
just as s-metolachlor + [diuron + hexazinone].
For M. aegyptia, there was
interaction between factors for visual control, while for SDMR there was
interaction in statistical breakdown (Table 3). At 35 DAE, M. aegyptia was sensitive to many of the herbicides tested. On 2,
6, 8 and 10 t ha-1 straw, imazapic proved to be unfeasible for M. aegyptia control. For all straw
amounts and bare soil, the mixtures amicarbazone + tebuthiuron, s-metolachlor +
[diuron + hexazinone] and indaziflam + metribuzin were efficient to control M. aegyptia at 35 DAE. This can be
proved because these treatments remained within a statistical group of greater
control efficiency under all conditions studied. The mixture [indaziflam +
isoxaflutole] was also an efficient option for M. aegyptia control, except on 6 and 8 t ha-1 straw
amounts. The highest sugarcane straw amounts (8 and 10 t ha-1)
intercepted more imazapic, resulting in poor control efficiencies (< 80%).
Table 1: Visual control (%) and shoot
dry mass reduction (SDMR) (%) of Cenchrus
echinatus under increasing sugarcane straw amounts at 35 days after
emergence (DAE) of plants in control treatment
|
Visual
control (%) of Cenchrus echinatus
at 35 DAE |
|||||
|
Treatment |
Amount of straw (t ha-¹) |
||||
|
0 |
2 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
|
|
Control |
0.0 cA |
0.0 cA |
0.0 cA |
0.0 dA |
0.0 cA |
|
Amicarbazone |
55.0 bB |
67.5 bA |
37.5 bB |
43.7 cB |
53.7 bB |
|
Clomazone |
100.0 aA |
99.5 aA |
86.2 aB |
76.2 bB |
98.2 aA |
|
Imazapic |
97.0 aA |
97.0 aA |
95.7 aA |
93.2 aA |
95.2 aA |
|
Indaziflam |
94.5 aA |
93.7 aA |
90.0 aA |
98.5 aA |
78.7 bB |
|
Isoxaflutole |
97.7 aA |
98.2 aA |
96.5 aA |
77.5 bB |
88.7 aA |
|
Sulfentrazone |
72.5 bA |
62.5 bA |
57.5 bA |
61.2 bA |
62.5 bA |
|
Tebuthiuron |
94.5 aA |
61.2 bB |
55.0 bB |
85.7 bA |
63.7 bB |
|
Amicarbazone +
Tebuthiuron |
96.5 aA |
91.2 aA |
91.5 aA |
92.2 aA |
92.0 aA |
|
S-metolachlor +
[Diuron + Hexazinone] |
93.7 aA |
99.5 aA |
97.2 aA |
97.7 aA |
94.0 aA |
|
[Indaziflam +
Isoxaflutole] |
100.0 aA |
99.5 aA |
98.5 aA |
97.5 aA |
93.2 aA |
|
Indaziflam +
Metribuzin |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
98.7 aA |
97.0 aA |
97.7 aA |
|
CV (%) |
13.9 |
||||
|
F |
Factor
A** Factor B** Interaction A×B** |
||||
|
SDMR (%) of Cenchrus echinatus at 35
DAE |
|||||
|
Control |
0.0 dA |
0.0 cA |
0.0 cA |
0.0 dA |
0.0 dA |
|
Amicarbazone |
77.5 bA |
75.9 aA |
43.8 bB |
58.0 bB |
66.2 bB |
|
Clomazone |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
81.2 aB |
64.8 bB |
99.6 aA |
|
Imazapic |
94.0 aA |
95.3 aA |
91.6 aA |
94.9 aA |
86.4 aA |
|
Indaziflam |
97.1 aA |
98.6 aA |
92.9 aA |
99.0 aA |
89.3 aA |
|
Isoxaflutole |
97.6 aA |
93.6 aA |
95.3 aA |
91.5 aA |
82.3 aA |
|
Sulfentrazone |
45.0 cA |
40.2 bA |
40.2 bA |
18.1 cA |
35.7 cA |
|
Tebuthiuron |
86.4 bA |
46.2 bB |
62.4 bB |
67.1 bB |
60.4 bB |
|
Amicarbazone +
Tebuthiuron |
92.4 bA |
96.5 aA |
94.5 aA |
94.9 aA |
94.4 aA |
|
S-metolachlor +
[Diuron + Hexazinone] |
87.8 aA |
100.0 aA |
94.6 aA |
96.0 aA |
80.4 aA |
|
[Indaziflam +
Isoxaflutole] |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
97.1 aA |
88.7 aA |
|
Indaziflam +
Metribuzin |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
99.0 aA |
96.6 aA |
97.8 aA |
|
CV (%) |
17.9 |
||||
|
F |
Factor
A** Factor B** Interaction A×B1 |
||||
CV (%): coefficient of
variation; Factor A: treatments; Factor B: sugarcane straw amounts. **
significant, ¹significant in the statistical breakdown and NS
non-significant at 5% probability by the F-test; For statistical analysis, the
data were transformed into %20431-440_files/image004.png){kind=small}
, but
the data in the table are the original ones. Means followed by the same
letters, lowercase in the column and uppercase in the line, do not differ from
each other by the Scott-Knott test at 5% significance. Source: The authors
Table 2: Visual control (%) and shoot
dry mass reduction (SDMR) (%) of Urochloa
decumbens under increasing sugarcane straw amounts at 35 days after
emergence (DAE) of plants in control treatment
|
Visual
control (%) of Urochloa decumbens
at 35 DAE |
|||||
|
Treatment |
Amount of straw (t ha-¹) |
||||
|
0 |
2 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
|
|
Control |
0.0 cA |
0.0 cA |
0.0 dA |
0.0 cA |
0.0 dA |
|
Amicarbazone |
37.5 bA |
52.5 bA |
32.5 cA |
67.5 bA |
51.2 cA |
|
Clomazone |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
83.8 bB |
77.5 bB |
88.8 bB |
|
Imazapic |
100.0 aA |
98.8 aA |
92.5 aB |
65.0 bC |
83.8 bB |
|
Indaziflam |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
73.8 bB |
96.2 aA |
81.2 bB |
|
Isoxaflutole |
100.0 aA |
96.2 aA |
97.5 aA |
97.5 aA |
98.8 aA |
|
Sulfentrazone |
100.0 aA |
90.0 aB |
81.2 bB |
81.2 bB |
100.0 aA |
|
Tebuthiuron |
95.0 aA |
92.5 aA |
93.8 aA |
96.2 aA |
95.0 aA |
|
Amicarbazone +
Tebuthiuron |
100.0 aA |
97.5 aA |
97.5 aA |
97.5 aA |
98.8 aA |
|
S-metolachlor +
[Diuron + Hexazinone] |
100.0 aA |
95.0 aA |
98.8 aA |
96.2 aA |
90.0 bA |
|
[Indaziflam +
Isoxaflutole] |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
97.5 aA |
92.5 aA |
95.0 aA |
|
Indaziflam +
Metribuzin |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
86.2 bB |
87.5 bB |
96.2 aB |
|
CV (%) |
14.8 |
||||
|
F |
Factor A** Factor
B** Interaction A × B** |
||||
|
SDMR
(%) of Urochloa decumbens at 35 DAE |
|||||
|
Control |
0.0 cA |
0.0 cA |
0.0 cA |
0.0 cA |
0.0 bA |
|
Amicarbazone |
72.6 bA |
91.0 aA |
61.1 bA |
86.8 bA |
70.5 aA |
|
Clomazone |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
91.0 bB |
88.6 bB |
92.7 aB |
|
Imazapic |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
93.5 bA |
87.0 bA |
96.0 aA |
|
Indaziflam |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
94.3 bA |
100.0 aA |
91.87 aA |
|
Isoxaflutole |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
|
Sulfentrazone |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
91.0 bB |
88.6 bB |
92.7 aB |
|
Tebuthiuron |
61.0 bB |
72.4 bB |
87.8 bA |
65.0 bB |
87.8 aA |
|
Amicarbazone +
Tebuthiuron |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
97.6 aA |
|
S-metolachlor +
[Diuron + Hexazinone] |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
93.5 aA |
91.9 aA |
|
[Indaziflam +
Isoxaflutole] |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
96.7 aA |
100.0 aA |
|
Indaziflam +
Metribuzin |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
97.6 aA |
|
CV (%) |
13.6 |
||||
|
F |
Factor
A** Factor BNS Interaction A×B1 |
||||
CV (%): coefficient of
variation; Factor A: treatments; Factor B: sugarcane straw amounts. **
significant, ¹significant in the statistical breakdown and NS
non-significant at 5% probability by the F-test; For statistical analysis, the
data were transformed into , but
the data in the table are the original ones. Means followed by the same
letters, lowercase in the column and uppercase in the line, do not differ from
each other by the Scott-Knott test at 5% significance. Source: The authors
Table 3: Visual control (%) and shoot
dry mass reduction (SDMR) (%) of Merremia
aegyptia (IPOPE) under increasing sugarcane straw amounts at 35 days after
emergence (DAE) of plants in control treatment
|
Visual
control (%) of Merremia aegyptia at
35 DAE |
|||||
|
Treatment |
Amount of straw (t ha-¹) |
||||
|
0 |
2 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
|
|
Control |
0.0 cA |
0.0 Da |
0.0 cA |
0.0 dA |
0.0 dA |
|
Amicarbazone |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
98.7 aA |
100.0 aA |
|
Clomazone |
98.75 aA |
95.0 bA |
92.5 bB |
85.0 bB |
85.0 bB |
|
Imazapic |
81.25 bA |
85.0 cA |
80.0 bA |
76.2 cA |
62.5 cB |
|
Indaziflam |
98.75 aA |
87.5 cC |
92.5 bB |
71.2 cD |
86.2 bC |
|
Isoxaflutole |
98.75 aA |
93.7 bB |
90.0 bB |
88.7 bB |
90.0 bB |
|
Sulfentrazone |
100.0 aA |
98.7 aA |
98.25 aA |
99.5 aA |
98.25 aA |
|
Tebuthiuron |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
|
Amicarbazone +
Tebuthiuron |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
99.5 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
|
S-metolachlor +
[Diuron + Hexazinone] |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
98.75 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
|
[Indaziflam +
Isoxaflutole] |
99.5 aA |
98.25 aA |
89.5 bB |
88.7 bB |
93.75 aA |
|
Indaziflam +
Metribuzin |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
99.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
|
CV (%) |
8.1 |
||||
|
F |
Factor
A** Factor B** Interaction A×B** |
||||
|
SDMR
(%) of Merremia aegyptia at 35 DAE |
|||||
|
Control |
0.0 cA |
0.0 dA |
0.0 dA |
0.0 dA |
0.0 eA |
|
Amicarbazone |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
|
Clomazone |
97.8 aA |
95.1 aA |
81.3 bB |
76.5 cB |
69.3 bB |
|
Imazapic |
33.8 bB |
56.0 cA |
35.89 cB |
63.1 cA |
21.2 dB |
|
Indaziflam |
94.7 aA |
78.7 bB |
87.1 bA |
58.2 cB |
54.7 cB |
|
Isoxaflutole |
99.6 aA |
92.5 aA |
83.6 bA |
88.89 bA |
82.7 bA |
|
Sulfentrazone |
100.0 aA |
94.2 aA |
96.4 aA |
100.0 aA |
93.3 aA |
|
Tebuthiuron |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
|
Amicarbazone +
Tebuthiuron |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
|
S-metolachlor +
[Diuron + Hexazinone] |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
|
[Indaziflam +
Isoxaflutole] |
100.0 aA |
97.3 aA |
85.8 bA |
89.3 bA |
95.5 aA |
|
Indaziflam +
Metribuzin |
100.0 aA |
98.7 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
|
CV (%) |
15.5 |
||||
|
F |
Factor
A** Factor B** Interaction A×B1 |
||||
CV (%): coefficient of
variation; Factor A: treatments; Factor B: sugarcane straw amounts. **
significant, ¹significant in the statistical breakdown and NS
non-significant at 5% probability level by the F-test; For statistical
analysis, the data were transformed into , but
the data in the table are the original ones. Means followed by the same
letters, lowercase in the column and uppercase in the line, do not differ from
each other by the Scott-Knott test at 5% significance. Source: The authors
Regardless of
the sugarcane straw (0–10 t ha-1), amicarbazone, isoxaflutole,
sulfentrazone, tebuthiuron, amicarbazone + tebuthiuron, s-metolachlor + [diuron
+ hexazinone], [indaziflam + isoxaflutole] and indaziflam + metribuzin did not
show significant differences for SDMR in M.
aegyptia at 35 DAE (Table 3). The same was observed in the control
treatment, whose efficiency was satisfactory (> 80%) regardless of the straw
presence.
By
contrast, spraying clomazone on 0 or 2 t ha-1 straw and indaziflam
on 6 t ha-1 straw were more effective to reduce SDM of M. aegyptia than on the other straw
amounts. Imazapic had a poor performance in terms of SDMR, with reductions
below 43%.
For D. horizontalis, there was an
interaction between factors for visual control (%) and SDMR (Table 4).
Sulfentrazone and tebuthiuron were not efficient in controlling D. horizontalis (equal to or greater
than 80%), regardless of the presence of straw (Table 4). Given their high
solubilities (490 mg L-1 sulfentrazone; 2570 mg L-1
tebuthiuron), these herbicides require less water to be released from straw
into the soil and hence control weeds.
Both amicarbazone and imazapic were inefficient in control efficiency and
showed differences among 2, 8 and 10 t ha-1 straw amounts (Table 4).
In turn, some remarks can be made for clomazone and isoxaflutole, which were
efficient against D. horizontalis in
straw absence. However, on 10 t ha-1 straw, the same herbicides
promoted a control of about 65%, yet not efficient.
Regarding the application of molecules in isolation, indaziflam stood out
in controlling D. horizontalis at 35
DAE. Statistical differences were observed between straw absence and presence,
with all straw amounts reducing control efficiency when compared to 0 t ha-1.
Even so, the control of D. horizontalis
by indaziflam was satisfactory (>80%) in all scenarios (Ghirardello et al. 2021).
Amicarbazone + tebuthiuron, s-metolachlor + [diuron + hexazinone],
[indaziflam + isoxaflutole], and indaziflam + metribuzin were effective in
controlling D. horizontalis when
applied directly to the soil or on 2 t ha-1 straw (Table 4). When
sprayed on 6, 8 and 10 t ha-1 straw, s-metolachlor + [diuron +
hexazinone] and indaziflam + metribuzin were satisfactorily efficient (> 80%).
By spraying [indaziflam + isoxaflutole], there was interactions with straw
amounts, with results statistically equal between 0 and 2 t ha-1
(satisfactory), as well as among 6, 8 and 10 t ha-1
(unsatisfactory).
We observed that indaziflam
+ metribuzin was Table 4: Visual control (%) and shoot dry mass reduction (SDMR) (%) of Digitaria horizontalis under
increasing sugarcane straw amounts at 35 days after emergence (DAE) of plants
in control treatment
|
Visual
control (%) of Digitaria horizontalis
at 35 DAE |
|||||
|
Treatment |
Amount of straw (t ha-¹) |
||||
|
0 |
2 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
|
|
Control |
0.0 dA |
0.0 dA |
0.0 cA |
0.0 dA |
0.0 dA |
|
Amicarbazone |
86.2 cA |
68.7 cB |
60.0 bB |
32.5 cC |
46.2 cC |
|
Clomazone |
100.0 aA |
95.0 aA |
78.7 aB |
81.2 aB |
65.0 bB |
|
Imazapic |
91.2 bA |
78.7 bB |
63.7 bB |
67.5 bB |
68.7 bB |
|
Indaziflam |
100.0 aA |
90.0 aB |
85.0 aB |
83.2 aB |
83.7 aB |
|
Isoxaflutole |
92.5 bA |
78.7 bB |
80.0 aA |
84.5 aA |
66.2 bB |
|
Sulfentrazone |
73.7 cA |
63.7 cA |
62.5 bA |
77.5 aA |
71.2 bA |
|
Tebuthiuron |
70.0 cA |
53.7 cA |
55.0 bA |
55.0 bA |
36.2 cA |
|
Amicarbazone +
Tebuthiuron |
100.0 aA |
98.2 aA |
92.5 aA |
78.7 aB |
86.2 aB |
|
S-metolachlor +
[Diuron + Hexazinone] |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aB |
86.2 aB |
85.0 aB |
91.2 aB |
|
[Indaziflam +
Isoxaflutole] |
96.2 bA |
85.0 bA |
71.2 bB |
63.7 bB |
53.7 cB |
|
Indaziflam +
Metribuzin |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
92.5 aB |
85.0 aB |
80.0 aB |
|
CV (%) |
14.7 |
||||
|
F |
Factor A** Factor
B** Interaction A × B** |
||||
|
SDMR
(%) of Digitaria horizontalis at 35 DAE |
|||||
|
Control |
0.0 cA |
0.0 cA |
0.0 dA |
0.0 cA |
0.0 cA |
|
Amicarbazone |
93.4 bA |
68.7 bB |
72.4 bB |
58.5 bB |
68.0 bB |
|
Clomazone |
100.0 aA |
97.4 aA |
47.8 cB |
62.5 bB |
42.5 bB |
|
Imazapic |
92.4 bA |
78.1 bA |
47.2 cB |
69.4 bB |
66.7 bB |
|
Indaziflam |
100.0 aA |
90.5 aA |
87.8 aB |
74.0 aB |
79.6 aB |
|
Isoxaflutole |
94.4 bA |
62.6 bB |
77.8 bA |
83.0 aA |
59.2 bB |
|
Sulfentrazone |
82.6 bA |
64.8 bB |
54.3 cB |
81.7 aA |
54.0 bB |
|
Tebuthiuron |
92.2 bA |
68.5 bB |
71.8 bB |
64.8 bB |
55.4 bB |
|
Amicarbazone +
Tebuthiuron |
100.0 aA |
99.9 aA |
98.1 aA |
86.4 aB |
87.1 aB |
|
S-metolachlor +
[Diuron + Hexazinone] |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
88.9 aB |
83.0 aB |
90.0 aB |
|
[Indaziflam +
Isoxaflutole] |
92.5 bA |
60.7 bB |
48.2 cB |
51.3 bB |
42.6 bB |
|
Indaziflam +
Metribuzin |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
92.5 aB |
91.5 aB |
73.1 aB |
|
CV (%) |
18.6 |
||||
|
F |
Factor
A** Factor B** Interaction A× B** |
||||
CV (%): coefficient of
variation; Factor A: treatments; Factor B: sugarcane straw amounts. **
significant and NS non-significant at 5% probability by the F-test;
For statistical analysis, the data were transformed into , but
the data in the table are the original ones. Means followed by the same
letters, lowercase in the column and uppercase in the line, do not differ from
each other by the Scott-Knott test at 5% significance. Source: The authors
efficient in control and SDMR against D. horizontalis. At 75 + 960 g ai ha-1,
this herbicide was satisfactorily efficient (> 80%) against Chloris polydactyla and Eleusine indica (Poaceae family) as
sugarcane straw amounts increased (0, 1, 2 and 4 t ha-1) and after
rainfall simulations at 1 and 10 DAA (Malardo et al. 2017).
Regardless of the straw amount, the highest SDMR values (above 83%) were observed for amicarbazone
+ tebuthiuron, s-metolachlor + [diuron + hexazinone], and indaziflam +
metribuzin, except for indaziflam + metribuzin on 10 t ha-1. When
compared to 0 t ha-1, amicarbazone, clomazone, imazapic, indaziflam,
tebuthiuron and [indaziflam + isoxaflutole] differed statistically from
application on 2 t ha-1, reducing SDM by less than 80% for D. horizontalis. Such result
demonstrates herbicide retention by straw and consequent reduction in its
control efficiency.
When sprayed on 6, 8 and 10 t ha-1 straw, clomazone had the
lowest SDMR values, which were of 47.8,
62.5, and 42.6%, respectively, when compared to the 100% SDMR on 0 t ha-1. Such a loss in
control efficiency of clomazone (Gamit 360 CS) applied directly to the soil and
sugarcane straw (5 t ha-1) has already been reported against U. decumbens and P. maximum (26.25% and 13.75%, respectively) in a study under
similar conditions (Tropaldi et al.
2018).
For I. triloba, there was an
interaction between factors for visual control (%) and SDMR (Table 5).
Regarding the control of I. triloba,
spraying [indaziflam + isoxaflutole] directly to the soil or on the straw
amounts evaluated did not differ statistically from the control, except for
applications on 8 t ha-1. However, this weed species was unsatisfactorily
controlled (<80%), regardless of the straw cover condition (Table 5).
Spraying
indaziflam, tebuthiuron, amicarbazone + tebuthiuron, sulfentrazone, and
indaziflam + metribuzin on 0 t ha-1 straw showed satisfactory
control efficiencies and SDMR values against I. triloba. This group of herbicides differs statistically from the
other treatments, which, in turn, differed from the control and [indaziflam +
isoxaflutole], promoting control efficiencies below 69%.
Ipomoea triloba was satisfactorily controlled
by amicarbazone sprayed on all straw amounts, but not when applied directly to
the soil (control below 64%). Using the same dose of amicarbazone on 0 or 5 t
ha-1 sugarcane straw, with subsequent simulation of 30 mm rain at 1
DAA, increased the control efficiency of Ipomoea grandifolia at 28 DAA
(Toledo et al. 2009).
The mixture indaziflam + metribuzin applied directly to the soil or on 2
t ha-1 straw showed statistically equal results and high SDMR
against I. triloba (above 91%).
However, on 6, 8, or 10 t ha-1 straw, which were statistically
equal, such reductions were below 81%.
Table 5: Visual control (%) and shoot
dry mass reduction (SDMR) (%) of Ipomoea
triloba under increasing sugarcane straw amounts at 35 days after emergence
(DAE) of plants in control treatment
|
Visual
control (%) of Ipomoea triloba at
35 DAE |
|||||
|
Treatment |
Amount of straw (t ha-1) |
||||
|
0 |
2 |
6 |
8 |
10 |
|
|
Control |
0.0 cA |
0.0 bA |
0.0 cA |
0.0 cA |
0.0 cA |
|
Amicarbazone |
63.7 bB |
95.0 aA |
95.0 aA |
92.5 aA |
97.5 aA |
|
Clomazone |
33.7 bA |
57.5 aA |
35.0 bA |
36.2 bA |
16.2 cA |
|
Imazapic |
68.7 bA |
95.7 aA |
92.5 aA |
95.0 aA |
94.5 aA |
|
Indaziflam |
100.0 aA |
98.7 aA |
73.7 aB |
72.5 bB |
56.2 bB |
|
Isoxaflutole |
50.0 bA |
28.7 bA |
15.0 cA |
43.7 bA |
55.0 bA |
|
Sulfentrazone |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
97.5 aA |
98.2 aA |
96.2 aA |
|
Tebuthiuron |
92.5 aA |
98.7 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
92.7 aA |
|
Amicarbazone +
Tebuthiuron |
97.5 aA |
90.0 aA |
97.5 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
|
S-metolachlor +
[Diuron + Hexazinone] |
26.2 bA |
13.7 bA |
36.2 bA |
36.2 bA |
41.2 bA |
|
[Indaziflam +
Isoxaflutole] |
10.0 cA |
10.0 bA |
10.0 cA |
35.0 bA |
10.0 cA |
|
Indaziflam +
Metribuzin |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
37.5 bB |
55.0 bB |
38.7 bB |
|
CV (%) |
30.2 |
||||
|
F |
Factor A** Factor
BNS Interaction A × B** |
||||
|
SDMR
(%) of Ipomoea triloba at 35 DAE |
|||||
|
Control |
0.0 cA |
0.0 dA |
0.0 eA |
0.0 cA |
0.0 dA |
|
Amicarbazone |
47.7 bB |
91.2 aA |
99.3 aA |
97.2 aA |
97.4 aA |
|
Clomazone |
53.2 bA |
58.6 bA |
61.7 bA |
56.2 bA |
69.1 bA |
|
Imazapic |
92.4 aA |
97.8 aA |
98.7 aA |
98.8 aA |
97.2 aA |
|
Indaziflam |
100.0 aA |
97.8 aA |
84.5 bA |
73.4 bB |
42.9 cB |
|
Isoxaflutole |
86.5 aA |
69.1 bB |
47.7 cB |
67.0 bB |
88.3 bA |
|
Sulfentrazone |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
98.6 aA |
100.0 aA |
98.6 aA |
|
Tebuthiuron |
98.6 aA |
99.9 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
97.4 aA |
|
Amicarbazone +
Tebuthiuron |
99.9 aA |
83.4 aA |
99.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
|
S-metolachlor + [Diuron
+ Hexazinone] |
55.7 bA |
66.4 bA |
64.1 bA |
68.9 bA |
71.0 bA |
|
[Indaziflam +
Isoxaflutole] |
18.0 cB |
26.6 cB |
23.6 dB |
57.1 bA |
37.2 cA |
|
Indaziflam +
Metribuzin |
100.0 aA |
100.0 aA |
73.2 bB |
79.1 bB |
81.0 bB |
|
CV (%) |
21.9 |
||||
|
F |
Factor
A** Factor BNS Interaction A × B** |
||||
CV (%): coefficient of
variation; Factor A: treatments; Factor B: sugarcane straw amounts. **
significant and NS non-significant at 5% probability level by the
F-test; For statistical analysis, the data were transformed into , but
the data in the table are the original ones. Means followed by the same
letters, lowercase in the column and uppercase in the line, do not differ from
each other by the Scott-Knott test at 5% significance. Source: The authors
Discussion
Sulfentrazone could poorly control C. echinatus (< 80%), given its low
SDMR. It has already been noticed (Niz et
al. 2018) despite its registration against that species. Conversely,
imazapic was highly efficient against C.
echinatus control, regardless of the straw presence. This result
corroborates other study using 20 t ha-1 straw and receiving the
same rainfall input as that in our study (10 mm) against Cyperus rotundus (Simoni et
al. 2006). Despite the efficient of imazapic against other Poaceae species
(e.g., U. decumbens, U. plantaginea, D. horizontalis, Eleusine
indica and P. maximum, C. echinatus), it has not been mentioned in the literature yet (Rodrigues
and Almeida 2018).
After 42
days of rain simulation (10-, 20- and 40-mm depths), indaziflam + isoxaflutole
sprayed directly to the soil or on sugarcane straw (10 t ha-1)
provided a high control of P. maximum
(Malardo 2019). Indaziflam and isoxaflutole have already been reported as
efficient against D. horizontalis, in the absence of sugarcane straw
(Tropaldi et al. 2018; Ghirardello et al. 2021). In our study, this
pre-formulated mixture also proved to be efficient in pre-emergence control of C. echinatus under all conditions
evaluated. One reason for that relies on the solubility (0.0028 kg m-3
at 20°C) and log Kow (2.8 at pH 4, 7 and 9) of indaziflam, which is classified
as slightly or moderately soluble in fat. Notably, Poaceae species are highly
sensitive to indaziflam (Silva et al.
2009; Dias et al. 2019; Ghirardello et al. 2021).
According
to the package inserts of the commercial products used in this study (except
Provence Total [indaziflam + isoxaflutole]), spraying on bare soil can
satisfactorily control U. decumbens. This species is known to be sensitive to isoxaflutole and indaziflam when applied
alone (Rodrigues and Almeida 2018). However, in our study, it was also
sensitive to the pre-formulated mixture [indaziflam + isoxaflutole], regardless
of the straw presence at 35 DAE. At this time, control levels were adequate in
our study, which has not been yet registered either in the package inserts or
literature so far (AGROFIT 2021).
We also
observed that amicarbazone had regular to adequate control levels against the
Poaceae family (U. decumbens, D. horizontalis and C. echinatus), regardless of the straw presence. This result was
highlighted by significant SDMR values in these plant species. Amicarbazone has
its control efficiency increased with straw presence, in sprays after rain
events, or applications direct to the soil (Negrisoli et al. 2007). This herbicide is broadleaf-specific for excellence
and can be characterized as effective in controlling species such as I. quamoclit, I. triloba, and M. cissoides; however, other studies have shown a
differential susceptibility among Convolvulaceae species (Campos et al. 2009; Nicolai et al. 2013; Ribeiro et al. 2018). Indeed, we only excellent
control levels against U. decumbens.
The largest
amounts of straw could intercept imazapic significantly, reducing the
efficiency of M. aegypita control
(< 80%). Toledo et al. (2009) observed different results when
spraying 154 g ai ha-1 in pre-emergence onto straw after mechanized
harvesting in a green sugarcane system on a sandy soil during the dry season.
These authors observed an adequate control (> 80%) up to 120 days after
application (DAA). We believe that such a difference with our results is due to
molecule solubility (S = 2200 mg L-1), which, after interacting with
edaphoclimatic conditions under a rainy season, decreased the efficiency of the
herbicide.
The high
solubility (S = 4600 mg L-1), vapor pressure (1.3 × 10-6
Pa at 25°C), and Kow (log Kow 1.23 at pH 7) of amicarbazone, along with the
biology of M. aegyptia, may explain its control efficiency. Toledo et al. (2009) noted that a 30-mm rain
simulation after 24 h application of amicarbazone (at the same dose as ours),
directly to the soil or on 5 t ha-1 sugarcane straw, provided high
control levels of M. cissoides at 28
DAA.
Regarding
the dynamics of metribuzin in sugarcane straw, Rossi et al. (2013) reported that applications on 5 and 7.5 t ha-1
caused retentions of 90 and 100% by straw, respectively. Therefore, when
applied on sugarcane straw, indaziflam and metribuzin tend to have similar poor
performances due to their physicochemical properties. Moreover, large amounts
of rainfall soon after application can improve the breaking of the barrier
imposed by the straw, allowing the product to reach the soil.
The mixture
of the herbicides indaziflam and isoxaflutole has already proved to be
inefficient to control I. triloba (AGROFIT
2021). One study reported a satisfactory control (> 80%) of I. heredifolia by amicarbazone +
tebuthiuron (910 + 900 g ai ha-1) applied in pre-emergence on
sugarcane straw (Bidoia et al. 2018).
Ipomoea and Merremia species have shown a differential susceptibility to
herbicides applied in pre-emergence during different dry periods (Ribeiro et al. 2018).
Reductions
in control efficiency of isoxaflutole with increasing sugarcane straw amounts
have already been reported in the literature. By evaluating the mobility and persistence
of isoxaflutole (187.5 g a.i. ha-1) on different soils and sugarcane
straw amounts, Monquero et al. (2008)
observed that, compared to applications directly to the soil, spraying on 10
and 15 t ha-1 straw amounts reduced the control efficiency against Sorghum bicolor by 15.5 and 17.5%,
respectively, in clayey Latosols (SiBCS), and by 28.0 and 33.0%, respectively,
in medium-texture Latosols (SiBCS), when the bioindicator was sown at 40 DAA.
Conclusion
Under the conditions of this study, the mixtures
s-metolachlor + [diuron + hexazinone] and indaziflam + metribuzin are efficient
in controlling C. echinatus, U. decumbens, M. aegyptia, and D. horizontalis, regardless of the straw cover conditions (0 to 10 t ha-1),
reducing their shoot dry masses by at least 80.4 and 73.1%, respectively. The
species I. triloba and D. horizontalis are more tolerant to the
herbicides tested in this study. Isoxaflutole is efficient against D. horizontalis. Lastly, sulfentrazone, tebuthiuron, and amicarbazone +
tebuthiuron are efficient against I.
triloba, regardless of the
straw condition, reducing their shoot dry masses by at least 83.4%.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Brazilian Coordination
for Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), under financing code
88882.426873/2019-01. The Research Group in Agricultural Sciences (GECA) helped
to conduct the experiment.
Author Contributions
Paulo Henrique Vieira dos Santos: conceptualization,
formal analysis, investigation, methodology development and writing of the
original draft. Bruna Ferrari Schedenffedlt: formal analysis, writing and
proofreading of the original draft. Patricia Andrea Monquero: provision of
resources; writing, proofreading, and editing of the original draft and funding
acquisition.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interests among
institutions.
Data Availability
This work does not involve animals hence.
Ethics Approval
Not applicable to this article.
References
Asociation Latinoamericana De Malezas (ALAM) (1974). Recomendaciones
sobre unificación de los sistemas de evaluación em ensayos de control de
malezas. Bogotá 1:35‒38
Bidoia VS, LC Cirilo, JEB Boneti (2018). Controle de Amaranthus deflexus, Ipomoea hederifolia e Cyperus rotundus com diferentes
associações de herbicidas aplicados sobre palha de cana-de-açúcar Rev Ener Agric 33:374‒384
Campos LHF, MO Francisco, SJP Carvalho, M Nicolai, PJ Christoffoleti (2009).
Suscetibilidade de Ipomoea quamoclit,
I. triloba e Merremia cissoides aos herbicidas sulfentrazone e amicarbazone. Plant Danin
27:831‒840
Carbonari CA, GL Gomes, ML Trindade, JR Silva, ED Velini (2016).
Dynamics of sulfentrazone in sugarcane straw. Weed Sci 64:201‒206
Christoffoleti PJ,
RF López-Ovejero RF (2005). Dinâmica dos herbicidas aplicados ao solo na
cultura da cana-de-açúcar, p:49. São Paulo, Brazil
Christoffoleti PJ, RF López-Ovejero, V Damin, SJP Carvalho, M Nicolai (2008).
Comportamento dos herbicidas aplicados ao solo na cultura da cana-de-açúcar. In: Piracicaba, Vol. 1, pp:1-901.
Avaiable at: https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/3825040/mod_resource/content/1/Livro%20Herbicidas%20no%20Solo.pdf
(Accessed: 22 May 2021)
Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento.
Acompanhamento da Safra Brasileira de Cana-de-Açúcar (CONAB) (2021). Primeiro
Levantamento da safra 2021/22. Available at: https://www.conab.gov.br/ultimas-noticias/3998-safra-de-cana-de-acucar-no-pais-aponta-producao-menor-para-o-ciclo-2021-22
(Accessed: 21 July 2021).
Dias RC, DM Gomes, VM Anunciato, L Bianchi, PS
Simões, CA Carbonari, ED Velini (2019). Seleção de espécies bioindicadoras para
o herbicida indaziflam. Rev Bras Herb
18:1‒11
Ferreira JHS, AS Oliveira, DG Duarte, FJ Almeida,
JS Paes, CM Okino-Delgado (2020). Eficácia do amicarbazone e flumioxazim no
controle de Merremia aegypitia, Mucuna aterrima e Ricinus communis no sistema de cana crua. Rev Bras Herb 19:1‒7
Filho RV, PJ Christoffoleti (2004). Manejo de
plantas daninhas e produtividade da cana. Visão
Agríc 1:32–37 Available at: https://www.esalq.usp.br/visaoagricola/sites/default/files/cana-producao-vegetal03.pdf
(Accessed: 25 April 2021)
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2021). Available at: https://www.fao.org/tc/cplpunccd/paginas-nacionais/brasil/en/
(Accessed: 21 april 2021)
Ghirardello GA, LDS Araújo, LC Baccin, MA Dotta, RO Souza, AFM Silva, GSS
Da, RV Filho (2021). Selectivity index of indaziflam to sugarcane cv.
IACSP95-5000 in two soil textures. Rev
Fac Nac Agron Med 74:9531‒9539
Köppen W (1948). Climatología, p:71. Fondo de Cultura Económica, DF,
México
Kozlowski LA (2002). Período crítico de interferência das plantas
daninhas na cultura do milho baseado na fenologia da cultura. Plant Danin 20:365‒372
Kuva MA, TP Salgado (2014). Manejo de Plantas Daninhas nas Principais
Culturas Perenes do Brasil. Seção I: Manejo de Plantas Daninhas da cultura de
Cana-de-açúcar. In: Manejo de Plantas
Daninhas nas Culturas Agrícolas, 1st edn, pp:82–113. Monquero PA
(Ed.). RIMA, São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil
Kuva MA, TP Salgado, TTO Revoredo, RJD Paula (2013).
Competição árdua. Revista Cultivar: Cader
Técn Cana 1:1‒10
Kuva MA, R Gravena, RA Pitelli, PJ
Christoffoleti, PLCA Alves (2003). Períodos de interferência das plantas
daninhas na cultura da cana-de-açúcar: III - capim-braquiária (Brachiaria decumbens) e capim-colonião (Panicum maximum). Plant Danin
21:37‒44
Little TM, FJ Hills (1972). Statistical Methods in Agricultural
Research, 2nd edn. University of California Extension
Publication, Berkeley, California, USA
Malardo MR (2019). Influência da lâmina de chuva
e do período de seca na eficácia de controle de capim-colonião (Panicum maximum) por herbicidas
aplicados em pré-emergência na cultura da cana-de-açúcar. Dissertation,
University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil
Malardo MR, PA Monquero, PHVD Santos, NM Ribeiro, PVD Silva, ACS Hirata (2017).
Influence of the sowing depth and amount of sugarcane straw on the emergence of
Chloris polydactyla and Eleusine indica and their control by
herbicides applied pre-emergence. Semin
Ciênc Agrár 38:1187‒1200
Meirelles GLS, PLCA Alves, MP Nepomuceno (2009). Determinação dos
períodos de convivência da cana-soca com plantas daninhas. Plant
Danin 27:67‒73
Monquero PA, AC Silva, DP Binha, LR Amaral, PV Silva, EM Inacio (2008).
Mobilidade e persistência de herbicidas aplicados em pré-emergência em
diferentes solos. Plant Danin 26:411‒417
Monquero PA, LR Amaral, AC Silva, PV Silva, DP Binha (2007). Eficácia de
herbicidas em diferentes quantidades de palha de cana-de-açúcar no controle de Euphorbia heterophylla. Plant Danin 25:613‒619
Negrisoli E, CVS Rossi, ED Velini, AL Cavenaghi, EAD Costa, REB Toledo
(2007). Controle de plantas daninhas pelo amicarbazone aplicado na presença de
palha de cana-de-açúcar. Plant Danin
25:603‒611
Nicolai M, FEB Obara, MSC Melo, JAS Júnior, R Cantalice-Souza, PJ Christoffoleti
(2013). Suscetibilidade diferencial de espécies convolvuláceas ao flumioxazin
determinada através de curvas de dose-resposta. Plant Danin 31:157‒163
Paulo S (2002). Lei 11.241, de 19 de setembro de 2002. Assembleia
Legistlativa do Estado de São Paulo. Available at: https://www.al.sp.gov.br/repositorio/legislacao/lei/2002/lei-11241-19.09.2002.html
(Accessed: 25 April 2021)
Ribeiro NM, BA Torres, SK Ramos, PHV Santos, CT Simoes, PA Monquero (2018).
Differential
susceptibility of morning glory (Ipomoea and
Merremia) species to residual
herbicides and the effect of drought periodson efficacy. Aust J Crop Sci 12:1090‒1098
Rodrigues BN, FS Almeida (2018). Guia de Herbicidas, 7th
edn. Author’s edition, Londrina, Paraná, Brazil
Rossi CVS, ED Velini, LC Luchini, E Negrisoli, MR Correa, JP Pivetta,
AGF Costa, FML Silva (2013). Dinâmica do herbicida metribuzin aplicado sobre
palha de cana-de-açúcar (Saccarum
officinarum). Plant Danin 31:223‒230
Santos F, A Borém (2016). Cana-de-açúcar: do plantio à colheita, 1st Edition. UFV,
Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Simoni F, RV Filho, HAMS Martin, FL Salvador, ASR Alves, HB Neto (2006).
Eficácia de imazapic e sulfentrazone sobre Cyperus
rotundus em diferentes condições de chuva e palha de cana-de-açúcar. Plant Danin 24:769‒778
Silva GS, AFM Silva, AL Giraldeli, GA
Ghirardello, RV Filho, REBD Toledo (2018). Manejo de plantas daninhas no
sistema de mudas pré-brotadas de cana-de-açúcar. Rev Bras Herb 17:86‒94
Silva IAB, MA Kuva, PLCA Alves, TP Salgado (2009). Interferência de uma
comunidade de plantas daninhas com predominância de Ipomoea hederifolia na cana-soca. Plant Danin 27:265‒272
Silva PV, PA Monquero (2013). Influência da palha no controle químico de
plantas daninhas no sistema de cana crua. Rev
Bras Herb 12:94‒103
Sistema de agrotóxicos fitossanitários [AGROFIT]
(2021). Consulta de produtos formulados. Available at: http://agrofit.agricultura.
gov.br/agrofit_cons/principal_agrofit_cons (Accessed: 25 July 2021)
Toledo REB, L Perim, E Negrisoli, MR Corrêa, CA Carbonari, CVS Rossi, ED
Velini (2009). Eficácia do herbicida amicarbazone aplicado sobre a palha ou no
solo no controle de plantas daninhas na cultura da cana-de-açúcar. Plant Danin 27:319‒326
Tropaldi L, IPFS Brito, RC Dias, MLB Trindade, CA Carbonari, ED Velini (2018).
Eficácia de herbicidas inibidores da síntese de carotenoides no controle de
espécies de capim-colchão. Rev Ciênc
Agrár 41:443‒453
Yoshida FA, R Stolf (2016). Mapeamento digital de
atributos e classes de solos da UFSCar-Araras/SP. Ciênc Tecnol Amb 3:1‒11