Impact of Plant Population and Weed Control Methods on the Growth, Yield and Economic Potential of Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) Cultivation

TAKIM, F.O.; SULEIMAN, M.A.

doi:10.1590/S0100-83582017350100081

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Article • Planta daninha 35 • 2017 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582017350100081 copy

Impact of Plant Population and Weed Control Methods on the Growth, Yield and Economic Potential of Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) Cultivation

Impacto da População de Plantas e Métodos de Controle de Plantas Daninhas sobre o Crescimento, a Produção e o Potencial Econômico do Cultivo de Cana-de-Açúcar (Saccharum officinarum L.)

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT:

Sugarcane industries are faced with the challenges of reduced cane yield due to inability to ascertain an appropriate sugarcane planting density. Field trials were conducted at Bacita, southern Guinea savanna of Nigeria to examine appropriate planting density and weed control method that can minimize weed infestation in sugarcane field and give an optimum cane yield to improve the economic status of the sugarcane farming community. The experiment was established as a randomized complete block design in a split-plot arrangement with three replications. The main plot constituted four planting populations (43,200, 64,800, 86,400 and 108,800) plants ha-1 while the sub-plot consisted of six weed control practices (weedy check, pre-emergence application of terbuthylazine at 2.0 kg a.i. ha-1 + three supplementary hoe weeding (SHW), post emergence application of ametryn at 3.0 kg a.i. ha-1 + two SHW., post emergence application of dicamba at 0.5 kg a.i. ha-1 + two SHW., pre emergence application of terbuthylazine at 2.0 kg a.i. ha-1 + post emergence application of 2.4-D at 3.0 kg a.e. ha-1 and monthly hoe weeding). The study revealed that fifteen weed species were encountered as the most prevalent weed species in sugarcane ecology. Plant population of 108,800 plants ha-1 had the lowest weed seedlings population with highest cane yield (216.03 tons ha-1), production efficiency of 9.20% and benefit cost ratio of US$ 9.86 on every US$ 1 spent. This study concludes that, the adoption of 86,400-108,800 plants ha-1 of sugarcane and pre emergence application of terbuthylazine at 2.0 kg a.i. ha-1 + three SHW (for small scale growers) or pre emergence application of Terbuthylazine at 2.0 kg a.i. ha-1 + post emergence application of 2.4-D at 3.0 kg a.e. ha-1 for the commercial estates will minimize weed infestation and make sugarcane cultivation a profitable venture.

Keywords:
terbuthylazine; dicamba; ametryn; weeds

Sociedade Brasileira da Ciência das Plantas Daninhas Departamento de Fitotecnia - DFT, Universidade Federal de Viçosa - UFV, 36570-000 - Viçosa-MG - Brasil, Tel./Fax::(+55 31) 3899-2611 - Viçosa - MG - Brazil
E-mail: rpdaninha@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * Corresponding author: <felixtakim@yahoo.co.uk>

Family	Weed species	MG	LC	Weeds population dynamics(n^om^-2)				Total		Rel. Abd (%)
Family	Weed species	MG	LC	1MAP	2MAP	4MAP	6MAP	8MAP	12MAP
Asteraceae	Tridax procumbens L.	B	A	8	5	8	5	3	5	35	4.39
	Vernonia cinerea L Less.	B	A	2	0	0	0	0	0	2	0.25
	Vernonia perrottetti Sch. Bip.	B	A	0	0	0	2	0	2	4	0.49
	Eclipta alba (L.) Hassk.	B	A	4	0	2	2	2	3	12	1.49
	Malenthera scandens Roberty.	B	P	0	0	0	4	0	0	4	0.49
Combretaceae	Combretum zenkeri Engl. & Diels.	B	P	0	0	1	0	1	0	3	0.37
Commelinaceae	Commelina diffusa Burm. F.	B	P	0	2	1	1	0	1	5	0.62
Convolvulaceae	Evolvulus alsinoides L.	B	A	5	3	4	1	1	2	17	2.12
Cleomaceae	Cloeme viscose L.	B	A	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.00
Cyperaceae	Cyperus haspan. L.	S	P	19	1	5	1	1	2	29	3.62
	Cyperus iria. L.	S	A	9	5	11	4	4	6	39	4.87
	Cyperus rotundus L.	S	P	11	0	2	0	0	1	14	1.75
	Fimbristylis littorilis Gaudet.	S	A	1	1	0	4	1	4	10	1.25
Euphorbiaceae	Euphorbia hyssopifolia L.	B	A	7	0	1	0	1	0	10	1.25
Fabaceae	Anthonotha macrophylla L.	B	P	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0.12
	Indigofera hirsute Beauv.	B	A	2	0	1	1	0	2	5	0.62
	Chamaecrista minosolides L.	B	A/P	0	0	0	2	0	0	2	0.25
	Senna occidentalis L.	B	P	13	5	2	4	2	1	27	3.37
	Tephrosia linearis Willd. Pers.	B	A	5	0	3	2	2	2	14	1.75
Lamiaceae	Salenostemon monostrochyus Pers. Beauv.	B	A	2	0	0	4	2	3	11	1.37
Malvaceae	Corchorus aestuans L.	B	A	0	0	0	1	0	0	2	0.25
	Malvastrum coromandelianum (L) Garcke.	B	A/P	0	0	0	2	2	1	5	0.62
	Sida acuta Burm. F.	B	P	4	4	8	4	2	7	29	3.62
Onagraceae	Ludwigia decurrens Walt.	B	A	15	9	7	3	3	8	45	5.62
Onagraceae	Lugwigia abyssinica A. Rich.	B	A/P	1	2	2	3	2	1	11	1.37
Poaceae	Andropogon tectorum Schumach & Thonn.	G	P	2	0	0	2	0	1	6	0.75
	Andropogon gayanus Kunth. Var.	G	P	12	4	8	3	0	1	28	3.49
	Brachiaria falcifera (Trin) Stapf.	G	A	0	3	3	1	2	4	15	1.87
	Chroris pilosa Schumach.	G	A	18	8	8	2	4	6	46	5.74
	Cynodon dactylon L. Pers. Var.	G	P	13	9	7	5	4	11	49	6.12
	Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L) Willd.	G	A	23	18	15	9	5	8	77	9.61
	Digitaria horizontalis Willd.	G	A	20	11	10	12	7	15	75	9.36
	Echinochloa obstusiflora Stapf.	G	A	4	2	1	2	1	1	13	1.62
	Echinochloa stagnina Beauv.	G	A/P	20	12	5	4	3	4	47	5.87
	Oryza barthii A. Chev.	G	A	3	5	1	1	0	1	10	1.25
	Rottbeollia cochinchinensis (Lour.) Clayton.	G	A	0	5	12	2	1	2	22	2.76
	Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. & Bergius.	G	A	0	1	1	0	0	0	2	0.25
	Paspalum conjugatum Berg.	G	P	3	0	0	0	0	0	3	0.37
	Paspalum scrobiculatum L.	G	A	14	6	9	3	6	4	42	5.24
	Sorghum arundinaceum (Desv.) Stapf.	G	A	2	9	6	3	0	1	21	2.62
Rubiaceae	Mitracorpus villosus(Sw.) Cham & Schtol.	B	A	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	2.62
Solanaceae	Physalis angulate L.	B	A	1	2	1	0	0	0	4	0.49
Sterculiaceae	Melochia corchorifolia L.	B	A	2	0	0	2	0	0	2	0.25

Treatment	Weed dry matter (g m^-2)				Weed density (seedling m^-2)
Treatment	1 MAP	2 MAP	4 MAP	6 MAP	8 MAP	12 MAP	1 MAP	2 MAP	4 MAP	6 MAP	8 MAP	12 MAP
Site (S)					8 MAP	12 MAP	1 MAP	2 MAP	4 MAP	6 MAP	8 MAP	12 MAP
North Field	21	39	23	17	66	34	43	24	26	20	11	19
South Field	14	26	33	21	21	25	13	11	22	20	23	27
Sed	3.76	8.86	6.99	5.05	3.08*	1.26*	6.09^*	3.55	1.94	3.13	1.38	2.34
Plant density (P)					3.08*	1.26*	6.09^*	3.55	1.94	3.13	1.38	2.34
43,200 plants ha^-1	18	38	43	36	38	40	32	17	30	28	18	25
64,800 plants ha^-1	18	31	30	19	54	29	23	15	26	19	18	24
86,400 plants ha^-1	20	34	23	19	45	29	37	21	22	17	16	24
108,800 plants ha^-1	14	27	16	14	35	20	21	16	19	15	16	20
Sed	4.19	7.51	4.45**	4.53*	7.07	3.70*	9.61	4.36	1.66**	0.94**	1.34*	2.30
Weed control (W)					7.07	3.70*	9.61	4.36	1.66**	0.94**	1.34*	2.30
No weeding	22	46	38	39	50	30	46	21	29	26	19	26
Pre-T + 3SHW	11	28	29	20	35	30	16	16	23	19	18	22
Post-A+ 2SHW	17	32	27	20	41	27	28	16	26	21	13	21
Post-D+ 2SHW	25	26	25	22	43	28	41	15	24	20	18	23
Pre-T + Post 2,4-D	19	36	31	17	45	35	19	15	26	19	18	22
MHW	12	26	17	13	44	25	19	15	18	15	14	25
Sed	3.52**	10.41	6.99**	3.92**	7.31	2.79*	8.17^**	4.47	1.59**	1.59**	1.74*	1.95
Interaction					7.31	2.79*	8.17^**	4.47	1.59**	1.59**	1.74*	1.95
S x P	NS	NS	NS	NS	*	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	*	NS
S x W	NS	NS	NS	NS	*	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	*	NS
P x W	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
S x P x W	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	*	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

Treatment	Germination count per plot			Tiller count per plot
Treatment	14DAP	42DAP	2MAP	3MAP	6MAP	9MAP	12MAP
Site (S)					6MAP	9MAP	12MAP
North Field	51	75	88	98	112	121	144
South Field	53	56	55	67	78	87	98
Sed	1.41*	1.93*	7.25	6.89*	6.66*	7.30*	8.56*
Plant density (P)					6.66*	7.30*	8.56*
43,200 plants ha^-1	58	63	70	68	80	89	99
64,800 plants ha^-1	55	61	69	75	87	98	127
86,400 plants ha^-1	57	68	82	87	99	106	120
108,800 plants ha^-1	57	70	86	99	113	124	186
Sed	1.96	3.63*	6.28*	10.60*	11.18	10.26*	8.81*
Weed control (W)					11.18	10.26*	8.81*
No weeding	62	71	83	74	83	90	103
Pre-T + 3SHW	58	70	94	98	112	123	137
Post-A + 2SHW	55	61	67	73	88	97	116
Post-D + 2SHW	54	61	66	77	90	102	122
Pre-T + Post 2,4-D	57	64	74	90	101	108	122
MHW	57	65	77	81	96	107	127
Sed	1.52**	2.66*	6.00**	4.49**	4.95**	5.20**	6.75**
Interaction					4.95**	5.20**	6.75**
S x P	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
S x W	**	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
P x W	*	NS	NS	**	**	**	NS
S x W x P	*	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

Treatment	Brix percent per plot					% pol	Purity
Treatment	8 MAP	9 MAP	10 MAP	11 MAP	12 MAP	% pol	Purity
Site (S)
North Field	18	19	20	21	22	19	86
South Field	18	19	19	20	21	18	82
Sed	0.10	0.20	0.56	0.30*	0.21*	0.35*	1.91
Plant density (P)
43,200 plants ha^-1	18	19	19	20	20	18	84
64,800 plants ha^-1	18	19	20	21	21	18	84
86,400 plants ha^-1	18	19	20	21	21	18	82
108,800 plants ha^-1	18	19	20	22	22	19	86
Sed	0.22	0.51	0.87	0.94	1.00	0.78	3.16
Weed control (W)
No weeding	18	19	20	19	21	17	78
Pre-T + 3SHW	18	19	20	21	22	19	87
Post-A+ 2SHW	18	19	20	20	22	18	84
Post-D+ 2SHW	18	19	21	21	22	19	86
Pre-T + Post 2,4-D	18	19	20	21	22	18	83
MHW	18	19	20	22	23	19	85
Sed	0.20	0.51	0.83	1.03	1.04	0.90	4.47
Interaction
S x P	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
S x W	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
P x W	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	*	*
S x P X W	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

Treatment	Yield and yield components
Treatment	Plant height (m)	Stalk per stool	Internodes/stalk	Stalk girth (mm)	Single stalk weight (kg)	Millable cane plot^-1	Cane yield (ton ha^-1)
Site (S)
North Field	1.19	9	9	0.03	0.54	101	79
South Field	1.30	6	11	0.96	1.15	79	89
Sed	0.035	0.284*	0.407*	0.010*	0.163	8.91	14.6
Plant density (P)
43,200 plants ha^-1	1.31	6	10	1.02	0.89	78	76
64,800 plants ha^-1	1.31	9	10	1.06	0.86	84	87
86,400 plants ha^-1	1.24	7	9	1.00	0.79	93	81
108,800 plants ha^-1	1.14	8	11	0.91	0.84	104	95
Sed	0.092	1.200	0.707	0.053	0.121	4.74^**	2.71
Weed control (W)
No weeding	1.15	7	9	0.85	0.71	24	22
Pre-T + 3SHW	1.35	8	11	1.06	0.91	113	112
Post-A+ 2SHW	1.19	7	10	1.03	0.91	80	86
Post-D+ 2SHW	1.23	8	10	1.05	0.87	85	84
Pre-T + Post 2,4-D	1.29	7	10	0.98	0.77	106	104
MHW	1.28	7	10	1.00	0.89	97	98
Sed	0.133	0.743	0.872	0.067*	0.112	7.23**	5.89^*
Interaction
S x P	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
S x W	NS	NS	NS	NS	*	NS	NS
P x W	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
S x P X W	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

Treatment	Cane yield⁽¹⁾ (ton ha^-1)	⁽²⁾ United States Dollar ($)				Benefit-cost ratio	Production Efficiency (%)
Treatment	Cane yield⁽¹⁾ (ton ha^-1)	Cane Price	TC	TR	Profit	Benefit-cost ratio	Production Efficiency (%)
43,200 plant ha^-1
No weeding	7.75	16.80	201.48	130.24	-71.25	-0.35	154.70
Pre-T + 3SHW	44.06	16.80	311.50	740.41	428.91	1.37	42.07
Post-A+ 2SHW	39	16.80	298.36	655.38	357.02	1.19	45.52
Post-D+ 2SHW	59.66	16.80	270.78	1002.56	731.79	2.70	27.00
Pre-T + Post 2,4-D	61.30	16.80	252.38	1042.20	789.82	3.12	24.21
MHW	63.81	16.80	319.71	1072.30	752.59	2.35	29.81
64,800 plant ha^-1
No weeding	11.81	16.80	218.29	198.46	-19.82	-0.09	109.98
Pre-T + 3SHW	146.25	16.80	328.30	2457.67	2129.37	6.48	13.35
Post-A+ 2SHW	106.38	16.80	315.17	1787.67	1472.51	4.67	17.62
Post-D+ 2SHW	149.50	16.80	287.58	2512.29	2224.71	7.73	11.44
Pre-T + Post 2,4-D	119	16.80	269.19	1999.75	1730.56	6.42	13.46
MHW	121.94	16.80	336.51	2049.15	1712.64	5.08	16.42
86,400 plant ha^-1
No weeding	12.81	16.80	251.89	215.27	-36.63	-0.14	117.01
Pre-T + 3SHW	85.13	16.80	361.91	1430.58	1068.66	2.95	25.29
Post-A+ 2SHW	171.88	16.80	348.78	2888.37	2539.60	7.28	12.07
Post-D+ 2SHW	90	16.80	321.19	1512.41	1191.22	3.70	21.23
Pre-T + Post 2,4-D	108.63	16.80	302.80	1825.48	1522.69	5.02	16.58
MHW	136.25	16.80	370.12	2289.63	1919.50	5.18	16.16
108,800 plant ha^-1
No weeding	18	16.80	268.70	302.48	33.78	0.12	88.83
Pre-T + 3SHW	133.88	16.80	378.72	2249.80	1871.08	4.94	16.83
Post-A+ 2SHW	179.31	16.80	365.58	3013.23	2647.65	7.24	12.13
Post-D+ 2SHW	189.50	16.80	337.99	3184.47	2846.48	8.42	10.61
Pre-T + Post 2,4-D	206.69	16.80	319.60	3473.34	3153.74	9.86	9.20
MHW	216.03	16.80	386.93	3630.30	3243.37	8.38	10.65