Control of Morningglories (Ipomoea spp.) in Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.)
Abstract Morningglories are summer annual or perennial dicots, and are troublesome weeds in sugarcane cultivated in northern India. If not controlled, they may compete with sugarcane, interfere in the harvest operation, and reduce yields. Managing morningglories in sugarcane continues to be a serious challenge for sugarcane growers. Field experiments were conducted during the 3-yr period from 2007 to 2009 to evaluate herbicides applied PRE and POST for control of morningglories in sugarcane. The herbicides applied PRE included diuron, metribuzin, and atrazine at 1.6, 1.4, and 1.0 kg ai ha−1, respectively, applied alone or followed by 2,4-D amine salt (0.58 or 1.16 kg ae ha−1) or 2,4-D sodium salt (0.8 or 1.6 kg ae ha−1) applied POST. Herbicides applied PRE controlled morningglories ≤ 87% at 15 d after treatment (DAT); however, control reduced to ≤ 56% at 90 DAT. Control improved when herbicides applied PRE were followed by POST application of 2,4-D amine or sodium salt. For example, diuron applied PRE followed by 2,4-D amine salt applied POST at any rate provided 100% control of morningglories at 15 and 30 DAT. At 90 d after POST application, control ranged from 68 to 82% with the PRE followed by POST herbicides, compared to 0% control when metribuzin or atrazine were applied PRE alone. The density and biomass of morningglories was also reduced to zero in treatments that included 2,4-D amine salt. The number of millable canes, cane height, and single cane weight was superior in PRE followed by POST herbicide treatments compared to herbicides applied PRE alone. Maximum cane yield was recorded for the treatments that included 2,4-D amine or sodium salt compared to only PRE treatments, and it was usually comparable with the nontreated weed-free control. It is concluded that a combination of PRE and POST herbicides were effective for control of morningglories; however, more research is required to evaluate other herbicides and their tank mix partners for control of morningglories in sugarcane. Nomenclature: Japanese morningglory, Ipomoea nil (L.) Roth.; obscure morningglory, Ipomoea obscura L. Ker Gawl.; sugarcane, Saccharum spp.
Residual Effect of 2,4-D on Whole-Stalk– and Billet-Planted Sugarcane1
Field studies conducted for two growing seasons evaluated the effect of 2,4-D applied at 1.6 kg ai/ha to ‘LCP 85-384’ sugarcane 7, 5, 3, and 1 wk before planting (WBP). Sugarcane was planted in mid September using both whole stalks and billet (45 cm) stem sections. When 2,4-D was applied 5 wk or closer to planting, sugarcane shoot emergence and population averaged across planting methods and years were reduced up to 28 wk after planting (WAP) relative to the nontreated control. By 52 WAP, sugarcane had compensated and stalk population was equivalent among treatments. Sugarcane height in response to 2,4-D varied between years, and only in 2001 at 52 WAP was a height reduction observed when 2,4-D was applied 1, 3, or 5 WBP. Crop injury in 2001 was further reflected in reduced sugarcane yield (at least 11%) and sugar yield (at least 12%) more than 1 yr after 2,4-D had been applied 5 wk or closer to harvest of sugarcane for seed. Sugarcane and sugar yields were equivalent for the nontreated control and the 7 WBP 2,4-D treatment in 2001, but 2,4-D application in 2002 did not negatively affect yield. Even though sugarcane shoot populations across the growing seasons were consistently higher for the billet planting system, yields averaged across 2,4-D application timings were greater for billets (18%) compared with whole stalks only for the first year. Because 2,4-D can have a residual effect on sugarcane yield more than 1 yr after the initial foliar application, a 7-wk period should be allowed between herbicide application and harvest of LCP 85-384 for billet or whole-stalk planting. Nomenclature: 2,4-D; sugarcane, Saccharum interspecific hybrids ‘LCP 85-384’. Additional index words: Crop tolerance. Abbreviations: WAP, weeks after planting; WBP, weeks before planting.
LAND DEGRADATION IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD: ISSUES AND POLICY OPTIONS FOR 2020
Land degradation takes a number of forms, including depletion of soil nutrients, salinization, agrochemical pollution, soil erosion, vegetative degradation as a result of overgrazing, and the cutting of forests for farmland. All of these types of degradation cause a decline in the productive capacity of the land, reducing potential yields. Farmers may need to use more inputs such as fertilizer or manure in order to maintain yields, or they may temporarily or permanently abandon some plots. Degradation may also induce farmers to convert land to lower-value uses. For example, farmers may plant cassava, which demands few nutrients, instead of maize, or convert cropland to grazing land.