Evaluation weed control and sugarcane tolerance to Comitol DG 75 (isoxaflutol) of Comercia, Monaco
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Sugar cane is a tropical crop which needs high requirements; the grass controllers constitute the main method for the control of weeds. Weeds acquire some nutrients needed for sugar cane, increasing the costs and decreasing performance. The capability to produce a lot of seeds, its vitality for many years and the survivance means, aided plague propagation. This work exposes the results of the weeds control in preemergency, Comitol GD 75 (isoxaflutol) from Comercia, Mónaco. The experiments of products test began in UBPC Calderón which belongs to Sugar Cane Enterprise “Dos Ríos”, in Santiago of Cuba province, on a calcid sialitic soil in a shoot, C86-12 variety. Evaluations were done to 30, 60 and 90 days after aplied the product. We used the block design random (5x6), yielding the best treatment of the new grass controler Comitol GD 75 from Comercia, Mónaco. It was applied in weeds and crop preemergency in dry contitions, using a dossage of 230 g/ha of commercial product, whichs shows to have a higher efficiency with respect to evaluated treadments, that’s why we recomended this new product.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Those authors who have publications with this journal accept the following terms of the License Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0):
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
The journal is not responsible for the opinions and concepts expressed in the works, they are the sole responsibility of the authors. The Editor, with the assistance of the Editorial Committee, reserves the right to suggest or request advisable or necessary modifications. They are accepted to publish original scientific papers, research results of interest that have not been published or sent to another journal for the same purpose.
The mention of trademarks of equipment, instruments or specific materials is for identification purposes, and there is no promotional commitment in relation to them, neither by the authors nor by the publisher.
How to Cite
References
Álvarez. A. 2001. Las malas hierbas reducen la zafra 2002 en 1,4 millones de toneladas de azúcar: 54 millones de dólares menos netos. II Encuentro Nac. de Malezología, La Habana, pp. 56-58.
Álvarez, A. 2004. Las malas hierbas nos reducirán la zafra 2003-2004 en 641 225 toneladas de azúcar como mínimo: 10,2 millones de dólares menos de ingresos en el valor de la caña. Memorias del III Congreso Nacional de la Sociedad Cubana de Malezas. C. Habana. Vol. 2. p 162.
CIBA GEIGY. 1981. Manual para Ensayos de Campo. 2da ed., Basilea, 205 p.
De la Cruz, R. y Gómez, J.F. 1971. Caña de azúcar. Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario (ICA). 261 p.
Fischer, F. 1975. Comparación de dos métodos de evaluación para determinar el grado de efectividad herbicida. Rev. Agric., 8 (1): 70-80.
Fletcher W.W. 1983. Introduction. In: W.W. Fletcher (ed.) Recent Advances in Weed Research pp 1-2. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough. R.U.
Hernández, A., J. M. Pérez, D. Bosch, L. Rivero, N. Garcés y L. Fernández. 1999. Nueva versión de clasificación genética de los suelos de Cuba. Instituto de Suelos, AGRINFOR. La Habana, Cuba.
Hernández, D. y J.C. Díaz. 1999. Población de caña y competencia de malezas: efectos sobre el rendimiento agrícola y el contenido de azúcar. Rev. ATAC, 60 (2):11-15.
Johannes, H. y J. Schuh. 1971. Das bonitierungsschema 1-9. European Weed Research Council. (EWRS), Begbroke Hill, Kidlinton, Oxford.
Labrada, R.; J.C. Caseley y C. Parker. 1996. Manejo de Malezas para Países en Desarrollo. Estudio FAOI producción y protección vegetal. Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación. Roma.
Morales, M., H. Muñíz, C.N. Rodríguez y J.C. Díaz. 1986. Efecto de las malas hierbas en el desarrollo de la caña de azúcar sobre suelos Oscuros Plásticos. Bol. INICA, 2:11-23.
Mortimer A. M. 1990. The biology of weeds. En: R.J. Hance y K. Holly (Eds.), Weed control handbook: Principles, pp 1-42. 8va edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Rodríguez, M. y A. Chinea. 2004. Malezas más comunes en los cañaverales de la unidad de producción “Chapeo”, empresa azucarera “Antonio Sánchez” Memorias del III Congreso Nacional de la Sociedad Cubana de Malezas. C. Habana. Vol. 2. p 157 -160.
Rodríguez, L.; J. C. Díaz y E. Zayas. 2004. Eficacia herbicida y tolerancia en caña de azúcar de mezclas de Merlin (isoxaflutol) + Sencor (metribuzin). Memorias del III Congreso Nacional de la Sociedad Cubana de Malezas. C. Habana. Vol. 2. p 27 -31.
Velazco, A. y E. Rodríguez. 1968. Pérdidas económicas por malas hierbas en la caña de azúcar. Acad. Cienc. Cuba, Ser. Caña de azúcar, 14:1-8.