EFFICACY OF CERTAIN HERBICIDES FOR CONTROLLING WEEDS, IMPROVEMENT YIELD AND QUALITY OF SUGARCANE VARIETIES.

EFFICACY OF  CERTAIN HERBICIDES FOR  CONTROLLING WEEDS, IMPROVEMENT YIELD AND QUALITY OF SUGARCANE VARIETIES.

Hanan Y. Mohamed¹ and Emad M.A. Marzouk²

¹ Sugar crops Res. Inst., Agric. Res.Center (ARC), Giza, Egypt

²Plant Protection Depart., Faculty of Agric. , Al-Azhar Univ.,Cairo, Egypt

Key Words: Herbicides, Hand hoeing, Weeds, Yield and Quality, Sugarcane varieties.

ABSTRACT

Field experiments were carried out at El-Mattana Research Station (latitude of 25.25°N and longitude of 32.31°E), Agricultural Research Center, Luxor Governorate, Egypt, in plant can and 1st ratoon crops grown during 2016/2017 and   2017/2018 seasons to study the effect of different herbicides and hand hoeing on weeds in sugarcane varieties (G.T.54-9, G.2003-47 and G.2003-49) .The treatments were Starane (fluroxypyr 20 % EC)and Lumax (s-metalachlor +atrazine + mesotorine 53.75 % WP) applied as pre-emergence ,whereas Garlon (triclopyr 20 % EC) and Clomedy (clomazone 50 % EC)applied as post-emergence and hand hoeing twice at 30 and 45 days after planting in comparison with untreated control. Obtained results showed that the predominant broad-leaved weeds wereAtropa belladonna, convolvulus arvensis, Corichorius olitorius, Euphorbia astiqourumand and portulaca oliricea,  in sugarcane field during the two studied seasons. Results also indicated that all the tested herbicides and hand hoeing significantly gave high weed control efficiency of weeds as well as highest increase in cane growth, yield and quality of sugarcane over untreated control. Among the tested herbicidal treatments , Lumax, Garlon and Starane showed maximum herbicidal activity against broad-leaved weeds, improve cane growth, and increase yield and quality of sugarcane varieties in sugarcane field than the other treatments compared to weedy check.

INTRODUCTION

In Egypt, the total area of sugarcane in 2016 was estimated as 250028 fed. produced about 9.06 million tons of canes with an average of 36.24 tons/fed. It represents about 42.4 % of 931279 tons approximately of the local sugar productionS.C.C. (2017). The main product of sugarcane is sucrose, which accumulates in the stalk internodes. Sucrose, extracted and purified in specialized mill factories, is used as raw material in human food industries or is fermented to produce ethanol.

Weeds can reduce sugarcane yields by competing for moisture, nutrients, and light during the growing season (Qasem and Foy, 2001). Several weed species also serve as alternate hosts for disease and insect-pests. Heavy weed infestations can also interfere with sugarcane harvest by adding unnecessary harvesting expenses. Yield loss from weed competition, combined with the cost of weed control in sugarcane in Australia, was estimated to exceed $70 million annually in 2000 (McMahon et al. 2000). Sugarcane is most susceptible to weed competition during the first eight to ten weeks after cane emergence  (Kanchan, 2009). To minimize the weeds losses several methods are available such as mechanical, cultural, biological and chemical control methods. Exhausted by cultural method, farmers are moving towards other alternative methods of weeds control. In this scenario, chemical weed control is the best option. Chemical control method is quick, more effective, time and labour saving method than others. Chemical weeds control method is suggested by many researchers (Johnson et al., 1997, Khan and ul-Haq, 2004, Juhl, 2004 andTolorayaet al., 2001). Success of weeds control methods depends upon several factors; however, the weed emergence pattern, application timing and stage of crop are important in chemical control (Hoverstadet al., 2004). Similarly, time of application of herbicides is very important for proper controlling of weeds and the effectiveness of herbicides can be increased (Vandiniet al. 2005)and (Fakkaret al. 2017). Herbicides to control weeds are essential to prevent weed competition and losses in sugarcane production. There are many compounds used for weed control in sugarcane crop. Results revealed that all the weed control methods significantly reduced weed flora and weed biomass as compared to weedy check (Singh et al., 2008), Begum and  Bordoloi (2016) revealed that all the weed management practices had a significant effect on growth and yield of sugarcaneover control. Out of all treatments, pre-emergence spraying of metribuzine @1 kg a.i./ha followed 2, 4-D @1kg a.i/ha at 45 days after ratoon initiation recorded lesser number of weeds and weed dry weight with higher weed controlefficiency (80.38%).Gad etal. (2018) indicated thatweed control by hand hoeing twice and Stomp reduced fresh weight of total weeds at 75 days after planting by 81 to 85% and 69 to 72%,respectively, compared to unweeded check, and increased stalks and top yield (ton/fed.) of sugarcane than unweeded check.

Many studies were carried out to find the differences among varieties in yield and its components, as well as, juice quality traits, Ferweezetal (2011) who mentioned thatsugarcane G.2000 – 176 variety exhibited general superiority over the other varities in respect to TSS%, sucrose%, purity%, pol%,sugar recovery% and quality index.El-Geddawy,et al. (2015) reported that commercial variety (G.T.54-9) is still over passed the other two promising varieties in stalk length and thickness. The promising varieties i.e. G.2003-47 and G.2003-49 surpassed the commercial variety in brix and sucrose percentages. The two promising sugar cane varieties significantly sure passed on the commercial one in sugar recovery %, cane and sugar yield/fed. Yousifet al. (2015) ) found that GT.54-9 variety was superior over the two other varieties in stalk length , diameter and cane yield. Ahmed et al.(2016) revealed that, sugarcane varieties differed significantly in stalk length, stalk diameter, millable cane and recoverable sugar yields. Moreover, the tested varieties differed in quality parameters (brix%, purity% and sugar recovery%). In addition, Endriset. al. (2016) found significant differences among the evaluated cane varieties for cane and sugar yield, as well as Brix % and recovery sugar.Mehareb, et al. (2016) indicated that significant differences among evaluated cane varieties in quality parameters (brix%, purity% and sugar recovery %) and millable cane yield. Ahmed (2017) demonstrated that sugarcane varieties were completely different in their performance, quality and yields.Mohamed,etal.(2017)indicate that the studied varieties of sugarcane differed significantly inbrix%, sucrose%, pol%, sugar recovery%, and reducing sugars%as well as millable cane yield and recoverable sugar yield ton\ fed. It could be noticed that G.2003-47 variety scored the highest value of millable cane yield,moreoverG.2003-49 varietywas superior over the two other varieties inbrix%, sucrose%, pol%, sugar recoveryand recoverable sugar yield.

The present work was carried out to evaluate the efficacy of herbicides and hand hoeing for controlling weeds, improvement growth, sugar yield and quality of sugarcane grown at El-Mattaanna Research Station, Luxor, Egypt.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The present work was carried out at El-Mattana Research Station (latitude of 25.25°N and longitude of 32.31°E), Agricultural Research Center, Luxor Governorate, Egypt, in plant cane and the 1^st ratoon crops grown during   2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasons to evaluate herbicidal activity of pre- and post-emergence herbicides and hand hoeing in comparison weedy check in sugarcane varieties )G.T.54-9, G.2003-47 and G.2003-49   ) on growth, yield and quality of sugarcane crop under Luxor  governorate conditions. A split plot design with four replicates was used where the  Six different weed control treatments viz. T1- triclopyr (Garlon), T2 - fluroxypyr (Starane 20 % EC), T3- s-metalachlor+atrazine + mesotrione (Lumax), T4 - clomazone (Clomedy 50 % EC), T5-Hand hoeing and T6 – Control,  were applied in the main plots of the three sugarcane varieties namely G.T.54-9 (the commercial variety), G.2003-47 and G. 2003-49. Plot area was 42 m²  (including six ridges of one meter apart and seven meters in length).Planting dates were on the 22^th  March, while harvest was carried out on 8^th and 4^th April during 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasons, respectively. All plots received the usual agronomic practices as recommended for sugarcane.

The chemical and physical properties of the experimental soil before soil preparation were estimated according to the procedures outlined by Jackson (1967) are shown in (Table 1).

Table (1): Physical and chemical properties of the experimental soil sites before planting dateduring the two successive seasons.

Pre-emergence herbicides were applied 3 days after planting (DAP), while, post-emergence were applied 20 DAP. Calculated quantity for pre and post emergence herbicides for the respective treatment plot was diluted in water at the rate of 200 L fed.-1 and sprayed with a knapsack sprayer fitted with fan type nozzle at 3 and 20 days after planting (DAP), respectively, maintain optimum soil moisture in the field. Hand hoeing treatment was done at 30 and 45 DAP. Control treatment was kept undisturbed during the entire cropping period. Herbicidal treatments and their used rates in sugarcane crop are shown in(Table 2).

Table (2):  Herbicidal treatments and their used rates of sugarcane in 2016/2017 and   2017/2018 seasons 

A quadrant sized 1.0 m X 1.0 m was thrown in each experimental plots four times randomly and green weed plants were classified, counted, weighed and average fresh weight were determined . Thus, Percent reduction in fresh weight of weeds and weed control efficiency were estimated according to the following equation:

Weed control efficiency (WCE) =  mean fresh weight in untreated plot– mean fresh weight in treated plot / mean fresh weight in untreated plot x 100.

At harvest (beginningof April), four guarded rows of each treatment were harvested, topped and cleaned to estimate the following traits, which were calculated as a mean of the values measured from a stalk sample taken from one-meter portion of plot:

2.1.Vegetative characteristics :

2.1.1. Millable stalk length (cm),which was measured from land level to the top visible dewlap.

2.1.2. Millable stalk diameter (cm), which was measured at the middle part of stalk.

2.2. Quality parameters :

A representative sample of 20 millable canes from each plot was taken randomly, stripped, cleaned and squeezed by an electric mill and the extracted juice was screened to determine the following traits:

2.2.1. Total soluble solids (Brix percentage), which was determined using “Brix Hydrometer”standardized at 20 ⁰C.

2.2.2. Sucrose percentage, which was determined using “Sacharemeter” according to A.O.A.C. (1995).

2.2.3. Juice purity percentage: it was calculated using the following formula

2.2.4.Pol percentage: It was calculated according to the formula:

          Pol percentage = [brix % - 0.4 (brix % - sucrose %) × 0.73].   according   the method of Satisha et al. (1996).

2.2.5. Sugar recovery percentage: it was calculated according to the  formula   described byYadav and Sharma (1980):

        Sugar recovery % = [sucrose % -0.4 (brix % - sucrose %) × 0.73].

2.3.   Productivity traits:

2.3.1. Cane yield (tons/fed.), which was determined from the weight of the four middle guarded rows of each plot converted into value per fad.

2.3.2. Sugar yield (tons/fed.) was estimated as follows:

Sugar yield (tons/fed.) = cane yield (tons/fed.) x sugar recovery %.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Our results illustrate the effect of herbicides and hand hoeing on growing weeds in sugarcane crop during 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasons. Results showed that the highest fresh weight of weeds (gm^-2) was recorded in weedy check, while, the lowest was found in herbicidal treated plots during the experimental seasons. Obtained results also indicated that Atropa belladona, Convulvulus arvensis, Corichorous olitorius, Euphorbia antiquorum and Portulaca oliricea were found as broadleaved weeds in sugarcane field in the two studied seasons. Among the broad-leaved weeds observed, Atropa belladonna and Portuleca oliricea recorded the highest fresh weights during 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasonsSimilar results are reported by Raskar (2004) andWaghmare et al. (2018). Anonymous (2009) they reported that broadleaf weeds were predominant and particularly cause troublesome to sugarcane crop, which can grow very tall and form dense mats over the sugarcane stubble.

1- Effect of herbicides ,hand hoeing and sugar cane varieties on Individual weeds:

Analysis of weed control efficiency is important because it is positively correlated with yield. Obtained results showed that all herbicidal treatments significantly (p-0.05) affected weed fresh weight of weeds\ m²(g) in all planted varieties of sugarcane crop during the two experimental seasons compared to untreated plots. Lumax treated plots achieved maximum reduction of weeds and gave high weed control efficiency (WCE) in sugarcane followed by Garlon and Starane during the two tested seasons Tables ( 3,4).

Concerning Atropa belladona weed. Lumax gave 90.55 and 87.80 % WCE of this weed,. Also, Garlon gave 86.66 and 81.30% WCE , moreovere, Starane recorded 84.81 and 80.05 % WCE in the both seasons, respectively compared to untreated plots . Moderate reduction in fresh weight of Atropa belladona was noted with Clomedy and hand hoeing treatments when compared with control . In addition, there were no significant differences between sugarcane varieties and herbicidal activity against this weed during this study. Similar results were found in 1^st and 2^nd seasons Tables ( 3,4).

Fresh weight of Convulvulus arvensis effectively inhibited by Lumax, Garlon and Starane, they suppressed fresh weight of this weed by 87.04, 85.09 and 84.02 % in the first season, respectively, and 85.14, 83.08 and 76.96%, respectively, in the second season compared to unweeded check Tables ( 3, 4). Clomedy and hand hoeing showed moderate effect against this weed during the experimental seasons.

For Corchorus olitorius, our results presented in Tables (3, 4) indicated that all herbicidal treatments significant (p=0.05) showed herbicidal activity against this weed than untreated control . Lumax, Garlon and Starane gave maximum control of Corchorus olitorious. In addition, Clomedy gave 74.36 and 70.11 % WCE ,while handhoeing registered 67.37 and 67.77 % WCE in the both tested seasons respectively  in comparison with control.

Euphorbia antiquorum effectively controlled by all herbicidal treatments during this studyTables (3, 4), Garlon treated plots gave 86.82  and 84.48 % WCE, while Lumax decreased fresh weight of this weed by 91.21 and 87.80 %, likewise Starane treatment achieved 84.49 and 83.16 % of this weed in 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasons respectively, however, Clomedy and handweeding treated area registered the lowest herbicidal activity against Euphorbia antiquorum.

Results in Tables(3, 4) indicated that fresh weight of Portulaca oleracea significantly decreased by all tested herbicides and hand hoeing treatments when compared to untreated control during 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasons. Moreover, Lumax, Garlon and Starane achieved maximum reduction in fresh weight of this weed in the two tested seasons. Clomedy gave moderate effect against this weed. While, handhoeing recorded the least effect against this weed during the two experimental seasons. Hidayat-ur-Rahman et al. (1989) evaluated the effect of Gizapex combi, Stomp, Lumax, Garlonand handweeding against weeds in sugarcane fields at NWFP Agricultural University, Peshawar, results showed that herbicides application significantly gave higher control of weeds than handweeding and control. Fakkar et al. (2017)showed that the most effective treatment in eliminating both grassy and broad-leaved weeds was hand hoeing three times, the application of Lomax , Stellar star and Garlone .   The interaction between sugarcane varieties and weed control treatments had non significant effect on individual weeds in the 1^st and 2^nd seasons.

2-Effect of herbicides,hand hoeing and sugar cane varieties on total broad-leaved weeds:

Obtained data listed in Tables (3, 4) demonstrate the effect of herbicides and handhoeing on total broad-leaved weeds in comparison with unweeded check in three sugarcane varaities (G.T-54-9, G.2003-47 and G.2003-49) during 2016/2017and 2017/2018seasons.  Results clearly indicated that all tested herbicides and handhoeing had significant herbicidal activity against total broad-leaved weeds  than unweed check. Lumax achieved maximum control of broad-leaved weeds followed by Garlon and Starane, they gave 88.40, 85.84 and 81.21 % WCE in 2016/2017 season respectively and 87.75, 82.86  and 79.90 % WCE respectively in 2017/2018 season compared to untreared check. Clomedy and handhoeing recorded satisfactory control of these weeds during the two experimental seasons .

Concerning the effect of sugarcane varieties used in this work obtained results in Tables 3 and 4 indicate that  used sugarcane varietis didn’t show any significant effect  in controlling predominant broadleaved weeds observed in the experimental treated area during the two studied seasons.It has been concluded that effective control of weeds which resulted in good soil aeration. It enhanced the uptake of nutrients by crop coupled with growth characters and yield favouring attributes. According to Chauhan and Srivastava (2002), the increase in cane yield in herbicidal treatments is might be due to the effective control of weeds, which produced favorable environment to the crop. These results are supported by Shafi et al. (1995)who studied the comparative effect of herbicides and hand weeding on weed control in sugarcane. They found that Gesapex Combi 80 WP and handweeding effectively controlled the weeds up to 75 and 70 percent. The increase in percentage inhibition of weeds by herbicide may be due to control of most types of weeds because of its use in the early stages of crop growth as well as late emergence of other types of weeds makes them weak in growth and lower accumulation of dry matter due to low efficiency of photosynthesis because of the shading effect of sugarcane on the weeds (Almubarak and Al-Chalabi, 2014).  Singh and Singh (2003)  observed that atrazine at 2000 g ha-1 provided efficient weed control, gave the lowest weed fresh weight.El-Shafai et al. (2010) reported that pre-emergence application of atrazine provided effective control of weeds at the early stages so that it increased the cane yield.  Kalaiyarasi (2012) also reported that weed index was lower in herbicide applied plots when compared to unweeded control. This might be due to effective control of weeds which enhanced the yield of the crop in combi and chlorimuron ethyl treated plots.

Table 3: Reduction percent in fresh weight of individual and total broadleaved weeds /m²(g) as influenced by various treatments in sugar cane varieties during the 1^st season (2016\2017). 

Table 4: Reduction percent in fresh weight of individual and total broadleaved weeds /m²(g) as influenced by various treatments in sugar cane varieties during the 2^nd season (2017\2018). 

3- Effect of herbicides ,hand hoeing and sugar cane varieties on yield and its components.

Data in Tables(5, 6)indicated that Lumax treated plots produced the highest stalk length, stalk diameters, recoverable sugar andmillable can yields followed by Garlon and Starane inthe both studied seasons, when compared to unweeded check. These results due to minimizingsugarcane/weed competition due to applied ofweed control treatments which killed weeds. These results are in agreement with those stated by Bahadaret al. (2004).G.2003-49 variety caused 7.36 and 2.07 % increase in millable yield ton/fed as well as 22.05 and 14.55 % increase in recoverable sugar yield ( ton\fed)  in 1^st and 2^nd seasons respectively.

 The integrated weed management technologies involving the time tested cultural practices, planting geometry, efficient nutrient, water management, etc. along with limited and site-specific herbicide application, that helps in managing weeds through retention of crop, (Singh et al., 2014). Concern data in Table 10 show that the effect of weed control treatments under study was significantly effect in cane and sugar yield (ton/fed), compared to unweeded check in the both seasons. Lumaxherbicide gave the highest cane and sugar yields (ton/fed)followed by Garlon and Starane, but the lowest was resulted from unweeded check. This increase in these parameters is due to decreased sugarcane/weed competition by killed weeds and improve growth characteristics of sugarcane. These results were agreed with that obtained by (Bahadaret al., 2004).

Furthermore, the illustrated data in (Table 6) showed that the G.2003-49varietywith Lumax herbicide caused increase in cane and sugar yield (ton/fed) than control treatment.These results are due to decreased weeds biomass, which conflicted on improved sugarcane plant growth characteristics and increased sugarcane yields. These results are in harmony with that obtained by (Singh et al.2014, Begum and  Bordoloi 2016and Gad etal.2018).

The interaction between sugarcane varieties and weed control had a significant effect millable can yield in the 1^st season only, (Table6 ). The greatest millable yield was resulted from G.2003-49 variety with Lumax at the rate 750 cm³/fed, but G.T.54-9 variety and without weed control treatment was the lowest .

Data in (Table6)pointed out that the effect of sugar cane varieties and weed control treatments on yields of sugarcane,the results reported that G.2003-49 increased significantly millable cane yield (ton/fed) in the 1^st season only, but this increase was did not significant on stalk height and diameter (cm) as well as sugar yield (ton/fed) in the both seasons.

Table (5 ): Effect of weed control  on stalk height and diameter (cm) of  some sugarcane varieties during the two successive seasons 2016/2017and 2017/2018.

Table (6): Effect of weed control  onmillable andsugar yield (ton\fed) of  some sugarcane varieties duringthe two successive seasons 2016/2017 and 2017/2018.

3- Effect of herbicides,handhoeing and sugar cane varieties on quality parameters :

Results in Tables(7, 8and 9) indicated that weed control had a significant effect on sucrose%, brix%, purity%, sugar recovery%, pol% and reducing sugars% of sugarcane in the two growing seasons. It could be noticed  that Lumax significantly increase  sucrose by (32.52, 27.72)%, sugar recovery by (49.81,36.75)% ,pol by (45.73,37.29)% and purity by (19.00,17.77 )%, in the  two growing  seasons respectively, while the lowest values were scored with the control treatemnt. These findings are in agreement with that reported byFakkar, etal (2017).(Almubarak and Al-Chalabi, 2014)indicated that the use of all herbicides achieved increase in weed control, improvement of sugar yield and quality of sugarcane.

Concerning, the evaluated sugarcane varieties, data in Tables (7, 8 and 9) indicated that the studied varieties of sugarcane differed significantly effect on all quality traits in the 2^nd season only. It could be noticed that  G.2003-49 variety scored the highest value  of sucrose by 1.94%, sugar recovery by 12.54%, pol by 8.11% and purity by  2.06% , while the lowest values recorded for G.T.54-9 variety. This result might be due to the action of gene make-up, which plays an important role in plant structure and morphology. These findings are in the same line with that reported byEl-Geddawy,et al. (2015)andEndris et al. (2016) .A significant interaction was found between weed control and sugarcane varieties (AB) with regard to sugar recovery %in the 2^nd season. The highest values of sugar recovery% (50.95%) obtained by Lumax  and G.2003-49 variety .

CONCLUSION

It can be concluded that application of pre and post emergence herbicides provided better weed control and resulted in increaseyield attributes and yield of sugarcane. Herbicide treatments increased the yield significantly compared to unweeded control. Tested herbicides were also comparable with recommended weed control methods like two hand hoeing and standard herbicides in controlling weeds and improvement sugarcane varieties attributes, quality and cane yield.

Table 7): Effect of weed control  on sucrose and sugar recovery percentage of  some sugarcane varieties during the two successive seasons 2016/2017 and 2017/2018.

Table (8): Effect of weed control on Poland purity percentage of some sugarcane varieties during the two successive seasons 2016/2017 and 2017/2018.

Table (9): Effect of weed control on Brix and reducing sugars percentage of some sugarcane varieties during the two successive seasons 2016/2017 and 2017/2018.