Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Tomo 56(1). ISSN (en línea) 1853-8665. Año 2024.

Original article

 

Weed control in different germination fluxes with preemergent herbicides on sugarcane straw under dry periods

Control de malezas en diferentes flujos de germinación a través de herbicidas preemergentes en aplicaciones sobre paja de caña de azúcar y períodos de seco

 

Paulo Vinicius da Silva1*,

Paulo Henrique Vieira dos Santos2,

Patricia Andrea Monquero3,

Elias Silva de Medeiros1,

Bruna Ferrari Schedenffeldt4,

Roque De Carvalho Dias5,

Estela Maris Inácio6,

Daniela Maria Barros1,

Pedro Antonio Vougoudo Salmazo1,

Pedro Jacob Christoffoleti7,

Munir Mauad1

 

1Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados. Faculdade de Ciências Agrarias. Caixa Postal 79.804-970. Dourados. MS. Brasil.

2Ourofino Agrociência. Fazenda Experimental Ouro Fino. Caixa Postal 14115-000. Guatapará. SP. Brasil.

3Universidade Federal de São Carlos. Centro de Ciências Agrarias. Departamento de Recursos Naturais e Proteção Ambienta - DRNPA. Caixa Postal 13600-970. Araras. SP. Brasil.

4Universidade Estadual Paulista. Faculda de de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias - Câmpus de Jaboticabal. Caixa Postal 14884-900. Jaboticabal. SP. Brasil.

5Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro. Campus Universitário de Iturama. Caixa Postal 38280-000. Iturama. MG. Brasil.

6Instituto Master de Ensino Presidente Antônio Carlos. Caixa Postal 38444-128. Araguari. MG. Brasil.

7Universidade de São Paulo. Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz, ESALQ ESALQ. Caixa Postal 13418-900. Piracicaba. SP. Brasil.

 

*paulovsilva@ufgd.edu.br

 

Abstract

Preemergent herbicides are a frequent weed control strategy. Considering different crop germinative fluxes, these products must present long-lasting weed control. This study evaluated preemergent herbicides in different germination fluxes of Merremia aegyptia, Mucuna aterrima and Ricinus communis when applied to different quantities of straw and different simulated dry periods. The experiment was conducted in a 4 × 2 × 2 factorial design with four replications. The treatments included four dry periods (0, 30, 60, and 90 days), two straw quantities (0 and 10 t ha-1), and two germination fluxes. The herbicides amicarbazone (1225 g ha-1), imazapic (147 g ha-1), sulfentrazone (800 g ha-1), and tebuthiuron (900 g ha-1) were applied for preemergence weed control, and germination flush fluxes were evaluated at 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35 days after emergence (DAE) while verifying plant dry mass. Amicarbazone controlled less than 80% of the studied species at the 90-day dry period in the presence of straw. Imazapic did not present control residue for any of the species analyzed. Sulfentrazone showed the same control pattern at all germination fluxes, regardless of the amount of straw. Tebuthiuron successfully controlled all species in the first germination flush, exceeding 80% regardless of the amount of straw. Herbicides associated with straw quantities and dry periods have a significant impact on M. aegyptiaca, M. aterrima and R. communis.

Keywords: amicarbazone, flush, germination, imazapic, precipitation, residue, straw, sulfentrazone, tebuthiuron

 

Resumen

La aplicación de herbicidas preemergentes es una estrategia de control de malezas, sin embargo, estos productos deben presentar residualidad para el control de diferentes flujos germinativos. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar la eficacia de herbicidas preemergentes en diferentes flujos de germinación de Merremia aegyptia, Mucuna aterrima y Ricinus communis, cuando se aplican sobre diferentes cantidades de paja y diferentes períodos secos simulados. El experimento se realizó en un diseño factorial 4 × 2 × 2 con cuatro repeticiones, el tratamiento incluye cuatro períodos secos (0, 30, 60 y 90), dos cantidades de paja (0 y 10 t ha-1) y dos flujos de germinación. Los herbicidas amicarbazona (1225 g ha-1); imazapic (147 g ha-1), sulfentrazona (800 g ha-1) y tebuthiuron (900 g ha-1), se aplicaron para el control de malezas antes de la emergencia, y los flujos de flujo de germinación se evaluaron a los 7, 14, 21, 28 y 35 días después de la emergencia de especies (DAE), mientras se verifica la masa seca. La amicarbazona presentó una reducción del control para todas las especies en los periodos secos más prolongados y presencia de paja. La amicarbazona mostró menos del 80% de control para todas las especies a los 90 días del período seco en presencia de paja. Imazapic no presentó residuo control para ninguna de las especies analizadas. Para sulfentrazona, la cantidad de paja no afectó el control de las malezas en diferentes flujos de germinación, mostrando el mismo patrón de control independientemente de la cantidad de paja, porcentajes de control superiores al 80% independientemente de la cantidad de paja. Los herbicidas asociados a cantidades de paja y periodos secos tienen impacto sobre las especies de malezas M.aegyptia, M.aterrima y R. communis.

Palabras claves: amicarbazone, flush, germinación, imazapic, precipitación, residuo, paja, sulfentrazone, tebuthiuron

 

Originales: Recepción: 29/07/2021 - Aceptación: 12/03/2024

 

 

Introduction

 

 

Raw sugarcane straw (without preburning) on the soil surface promotes a favorable environment for seed germination and weed development, such as Merremia aegyptia (L.) Urb., Mucuna aterrima Piper & Tracy, and Ricinus communis L. (12, 13). In these productive systems in Brazil, these three weed species are popularly known as “the three M’s” (MMM-castor bean, morning glory, and mucuna). These species are adapted to sugarcane production systems with straw deposition on the soil surface. These systems hinder weed control with herbicides, causing serious damage to sugarcane production (2, 5, 18, 28, 33).

In addition to favoring the establishment of these species, the straw that remains on the soil surface represents a physical barrier to the action of preemergent herbicides (29), that once intercepted by the straw, becomes vulnerable to volatilization and/or photodegradation (7, 17) before reaching the soil (9). Another important aspect is the permanence period of a product on the straw. In Brazilian sugarcane plantations, products are applied during the winter season, characterized by low rainfall, especially in the southeast region (23). In addition, the longer the herbicide stays in the straw, the more susceptible it will be to degradation, consequently decreasing its transport and bioavailability for weed control (9, 27, 29, 30).

Some specific physical-chemical characteristics of the herbicides may facilitate an efficient straw-soil transport of these products. This, in addition to high solubility in water, absence of photodegradation (being preferentially degraded by microorganisms), and low Kow (octanol/water partition coefficient, i.e. not having lipophilic character), (10) constitute key features for a successful product. Some herbicides have these physical-chemical characteristics. Among these herbicides, amicarbazone, presents high water solubility of 4.6 g L-1 at pH 4-9 and a low Kow (1.23); sulfentrazone, has medium water solubility of 780 mg L-1 at pH 7 and medium Kow (9.8 at pH 7); imazapic, has high water solubility of 2.200 mg L-1 at 25°C and a low Kow of 0.16; and tebuthiuron, high solubility in water of 2.500 ml L-1 at 25°C and a high Kow of 67.1 (26).

Several studies have reported effective control results in dry periods with the use of amicarbazone, imazapic, sulfentrazone and tebuthiuron herbicides (6, 11, 20, 22, 23, 30). Based on the above, this study evaluated the efficacy of preemergent herbicides in different germination flushes of M. aegyptia, M. aterrima, and R. communis when applied on different quantities of straw and with different simulated dry periods.

 

 

Materials and methods

 

 

The study was conducted under a greenhouse in the Department of Natural Resources of the Federal University of Sao Carlos at the agricultural science campus. The experiment was replicated twice, June/July 2016 and June/July 2017.

The herbicides were applied in preemergence in a completely randomized design following a 4 × 2 × 2 factorial scheme with four replications. The variables were four dry periods, two quantities of straw, and two germination fluxes. These factors were adopted for each of the three weed species (M. aegyptia, M. aterrima, and R. communis L.) and the four herbicide treatments (amicarbazone, imazapic, sulfentrazone, and tebuthiuron), individually. The experimental units were composed of 25 L polyethylene pots filled with soil from the arable layer of an Eutrophic Red Latosol (table 1).

 

Table 1. Soil chemical analysis (0 to 20 cm).

Tabla 1. Análisis químico del suelo (0 a 20 cm).

Unit: Al, H+Al, K, Ca, Mg, SB and CTC (mmolc dm-3); P (resina) (mg dm-3); V, clay, silt, sand (%).

Unidad: Al, H + Al, K, Ca, Mg, SB y CTC (mmolc dm-3); P (resina) (mg dm-3); V, arcilla, limo, arena (%).

 

After filling the pots, 0 and 10 t ha-1 of sugar cane straw (‘RB966928’ variety) were allocated on the pot surface. Then, the herbicides amicarbazone (1225 g ha-1), imazapic (147 g ha-1), sulfentrazone (800 g ha-1), or tebuthiuron (900 g ha-1) were applied using a CO2 pressurized, constant-pressure spray with fan-type tips (XR 110.02) at a pressure of 2.0 x 105 Pa with a syrup volume of 200 L ha-1. During applications, the temperature was 17.1°C, the relative air humidity was 85%, and the wind velocity was 0.2 m s-1.

After treatment application, the pots were submitted to four different periods without rain (0, 30, 60, and 90 days after herbicide treatment). After these periods, the pots received a rainfall simulation of 30 mm (flow rate of 1 L min-1). Finally, the pots stood for 72 hours, enough time for the straw to dry and be carefully removed.

After removing the straw, the weed species M. aegyptia, M. aterrima, and R. communis were individually and carefully planted in the pots at 5 cm depth, aiming for mínimum soil turnover and five plants per pot. Concerning M. aterrima, mechanical scarification broke dormancy.

The germination flux factor consisted of two different weed sowing times in the same experimental unit (pot). The first flux occurred immediately after rainfall simulation for each of the four dry periods (0, 30, 60, and 90 DAT with no water). At 35 days after emergence, for each dry period and first germination flow, the weeds were cut and removed for dry mass analysis. At this moment, a new germination flow began. For this purpose, in the same experimental units, the weed species M. aegyptia, M. aterrima, and R. communis were re-sown. Thus, for each dry period and experimental unit, two germination fluxes were simulated. The first one was related to weed sowing immediately after a 30 mm rain simulation (for each dry period: 0, 30, 60, and 90 days), and the second germination flux was sown after the first flush of germination.

Weed control percentage at each germination flux and within each dry period was evaluated at 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35 days after emergence (DAE) where 0 (zero) corresponded to no injury and 100 corresponded to plant death (1).

At 35 DAE for each germination flux and within each dry period, weeds were cut, packed in cardboard bags, taken to a greenhouse, and stored at 60°C for 72 hours. After those periods, the samples were weighed. For data analysis, dry mass values were expressed as reduction percentages in relation to the control without herbicide.

Statistics consisted of the reparametrized version of the logistic model with three parameters (3, 26) (Eq. 1):

 

 

where:

Y = Control and Biomass Reduction percentages

X = dry period

D = maximum estimate of the response variable

Parameter E = dry days estimates at 50% response

B = slope of the curve fitting at the inflexion point.

 

All statistical analyses were performed in R software (2022). The ggplot2 (33) and drc (25) packages were used for graphical presentation and for fitting the Equation 1 model, respectively.

 

 

Results

 

 

According to ALAM (1974) and Vanhala et al. (2004), weed control percentages of 81-90% are classified as very good and 91-100% as excellent. For flow 1, control and biomass reduction of M. aegypta with amicarbazone were below 80% at 90 days of drought and on straw (figure 1).

 

Figure 1. Control and biomass reduction of Merremia aegyptia, Mucuna aterrima and Ricinus communis at 35 DAE with amicarbazone; imazapic; sulfentrazone and tebuthiuron.

Figure 1. Control y reducción de biomasa de Merremia aegyptia, Mucuna aterrima and Ricinus communis a los 35 DAE a través de la amicarbazona; imazapic; sulfentrazona y tebutiuron.

 

The other treatments controlled more than 90%, regardless of the amount of straw. For amicarbazone, in flow 2 with straw, control of M. aegypta was superior to 80% at 0 and 30 dry periods, but at 60 and 90, it was under 80% (ineffective). In the application without straw, control and reduction of M. aegypta biomass for the same germination flow was lower than 40% only at 90 dry periods.

In flow 1, control and biomass reduction of M. aterrima with amicarbazone was less than 80%, only at 90 days of dry periods, regardless of the amount of straw. At 60 days of dry period biomass reduction was lower than 80%, while for flow 2, control and biomass reduction were greater than 80% at 0 dry periods with and without straw (figure 1).

At flow 1, control and biomass reduction of R. communis with amicarbazone was below 80% at 90 DAT of drought, with or without straw (figure 1). Control of R. communis at flow 2 with amicarbazone was greater than 80% in the 0 dry periods without straw. In flow 2, biomass reduction of R. communis with amicarbazone was inadequate, with percentages below 80% in all dry periods and amounts of straw. Control of M. aegyptia with imazapic at flow 1 was over 80% in all dry periods with straw in the biomass reduction was inadequate with percentages below 80% at 60 and 90 days. Flow 2 without straw showed control over 80% at the 0 dry period, while not exceeding 60% with straw. For flow 2, biomass reduction was less than 60% in all dry periods and amounts of straw (figure 1).

In flow 1, control and biomass reduction of M. aterrima with imazapic was greater than 80% at 0 dry period, while control of R. communis was greater than 80% in the dry period with and without straw, and biomass reduction was over 80% at 0, 30 and 60 days regardless of straw. Flow 2 showed biomass reduction under 80% in all dry periods and amounts of straw (figure 1).

Control of M. aegyptia for flow 1 was greater than 80% in all dry periods, regardless of the amount of straw. The reduction of biomass in flow 1 was greater than 80% at 0 and 30 dry periods with straw and 0, 30 and 60 dry periods without straw (figure 1). In flow 2, control was over 80% at 0 dry periods without straw, and biomass reduction was greater than 80% at 0 and 30 dry periods with and without straw.

Flow 1 with and without straw, and flow 2 without straw, showed control and biomass reduction of M. aterrima with sufentrazone over 80% at 0, 30 and 60 dry periods, regardless of the amount of straw. Flow 2 with straw, resulted in control and biomass reduction of M. aterrima over 80% at 0 and 30 dry periods, regardless of the amount of straw (figure 1). Flow 1, had control and biomass reduction of R. communis under 80% at the 90 dry period with and without straw. Control of R. communis in flow 2, achieved over 80% at 0 dry periods with straw, while without straw, control was superior to 80% at 0 and 30 dry periods. In flow 2, biomass reduction was greater than 80% at 0 and 30 dry periods, with and without straw (figure 1).

Control and biomass reduction of tebuthiuron at flow 1 was greater than 80% in all dry periods regardless of straw, while at flow 2, control and biomass reduction of thebuthiuron were greater than 80% at 0, 30 and 60 dry periods with or without straw (figure 1).

In flow 1, control and biomass reduction of M. aterrima was greater than 80% at 0 and 30 dry periods with straw, and 0, 30 and 60 dry periods without straw. For flow 1, biomass reduction of M. aterrima without straw exceeded 80% at all dry periods while at flow 2, this species control exceeded 80% at 0 and 30 dry periods, regardless of straw. Biomass reduction exceeded 80% at dry periods 0 and 30 without straw and dry period 0 with straw (figure 1). For flow 1, control of R. communis was over 80% in all dry periods with and without straw, while biomass reduction was less than 80% at 90 dry periods. In flow 2, control exceeded 80% at 0 and 30 dry periods, while biomass reduction was greater than 80% at the 0 dry period (figure 1).

 

 

Discussion

 

 

Weed control efficiency of amicarbazone was gradually reduced with longer dry periods and increasing amounts of straw. This reduction was higher at the 90 dry period and 10 t ha-1 sugarcane straw. Thus, it can be noted that longer dry periods and the presence of straw on the soil surface at the time of application, reduced the efficacy of amicarbazone. Contrasting results showed how 90 days after application resulted in over 90% control of M. aterrima (14).

Efficacy of pre-emergent amicarbazone over I. grandifolia, B. plantaginea, B. decumbens, and C. rotundus was reduced when applied on sugarcane straw, compared to bare soil applications (19). However, this herbide showed higher efficiencies when leached from the straw by simulated rain after application (19). These results are in agreement with our study, where longer dry periods associated with amicarbazone on straw resulted in reduced weed control efficiency, probably explained by amicarbazone having higher water solubility (4.6 g L-1, pH 4-9) and low Kow (Log Kow of 1.23) (26). This contributes to low absorption and/or retention on straw and easier recovery of herbicide action by rain simulation. Thus, the higher control percentages during the first germination flux when the herbicide was directly applied to soil can be given by lower retention by straw and the consequent higher soil solution availability.

Studies on amicarbazone dynamics in sugarcane straw through HPLC/MS/MS showed that straw quantities equal to or greater than 5 t ha-1 retained almost all of the herbicide at the time of application, while increasing straw quantity (mainly at 15 and 20 t ha-1 sugarcane straw) reduced herbicide transport from straw to soil (9). The longer the period between herbicide application and the first rain, the lower the transport from straw to soil. However, 20 mm of rainfall at 7 and 14 days after application allowed enough recovery of the intercepted product.

Due to its high solubility, amicarbazone is easily washed from straw to soil. However, longer periods between product application on straw and the first rain may reduce product mobility, reducing weed control effectiveness. Amicarbazone´s solubility can also explain the lower control percentages obtained in the second germination flux, where greater leaching in the soil solution reduced herbicide quantity in the root zone. A second eventual factor related to the lower efficiency in the second germination flux is microbial degradation of amicarbazone influenced by soil humidity and higher temperatures.

The absent residual activity of imazapyr over a second weed emergence flux, regardless of species, dry periods, and/or straw quantities, constitutes a disadvantage considering the critical period of weed infestation in sugarcane exceeding 150 days after planting (21). Therefore, herbicides with prolonged residual activity within this period are more appropriate.

Long dry periods after application of preemergent herbicides resulted in the control efficient control of different species of morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea) (23). Control effectiveness of imazapic diminished by 40% between 30 and 60 days of dry periods after application on M. aegyptia, presumably due to the high solubility (2.200 mg L-1 at 25°C). In addition, this herbicide presents weak acid behavior, and low dissociation in the soil pH range between 5.0 and 7.0 (4, 15, 16). Since soil pH in this experiment was 5.2, dissociation and bioavailability of imazapic would be practically null (16). Additionally, the experimental units received simulations of daily and constant rainfall in the greenhouse solubilizing Imazapic. Other studies showed Imazapic applied to columns with clay soil and pH of 4.7 resulting in an average of approximately 46 and 23% phytotoxicity in cucumber plants at depths of 30 and 40 cm, respectively, through an 80 mm rainfall simulation, showing the high mobility of this herbicide in acidic soils (11). Therefore, interactions between dissociation and solubility of imazapic may have resulted in greater leaching and/or degradation of this herbicide, decreasing weed absorption in the sowing period. Finally, we must also consider the quantity of herbicide absorbed in the first germination flux. This reinforces the possible high mobility of the herbicide beyond the weed seeding zone, a possible reason for the absence of residual herbicide in a second weed germination flush.

Sugarcane straw did not influence sulfentrazone effects in the first and second weed germination fluxes (for all the plants), meaning control was similar in both quantities of straw (0 and 10 t ha-1), regardless of the simulated dry period. This product efficiently controls levels in both the first and second germination fluxes. However, drought influenced weed control efficiency, since in general, control percentages decreased as dry periods increased. Difference abscence between applications may be related to the high solubility (490 mg L-1) and low Kow (1.48) of sulfentrazone, inducing low interception and/or absorption of this herbicide in sugarcane straw, in addition to favoring a good recovery of sulfentrazone initially retained by straw. This behavior results in higher soil solution availability. These results are in agreement with those of Carbonari et al. (2016), who found that 20 mm of water released the maximum percentage of sulfentrazone, regardless of straw quantities. For the simulated dry period after sulfentrazone application, the authors obtained recoveries of 76.5, 61.7, and 42.3% for periods of 30 and 60 days after sulfentrazone application and rain simulation.

Tebuthiuron showed excellent control of the three evaluated weeds, M. aegyptia, R. communis and M. aterrima, in the first germination flux. However, a noticeable reduction in control efficiency was observed in the second weed germination flux when the product was positioned on sugarcane straw. The good tebuthiuron performance in the first and second weed germination fluxes may be related to its long half-life (up to 480 days), providing soil herbicide availability for proper control of a first germination flux and residual control of a second weed emergence flux. However, when tebuthiuron is applied on sugarcane straw during dry periods, higher amounts of rain are required for an adequate release from Straw to soil.

Tebuthiuron applied at 5 or more t ha-1 straw resulted in almost 100% interception (29). The authors also found that lower quantities of straw resulted in higher output of the initially intercepted product. They also observed that for rainfall exceeding 20 mm, there is a tendency for the data to be similar, regardless of the quantity of straw. That is, máximum recovery capacity of the herbicide occurs with 20 mm of rain. Longer dry periods between tebuthiuron application on sugarcane straw and rainfall simulation result in less transport from straw to soil solution. The larger quantities of straw present on the soil surface at the moment of application resulted in greater interception of tebuthiuron. Additionally, longer dry periods between applications and rainfall simulation resulted in less herbicide recovery.

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

Amicarbazone herbicide presented effective control over the first weed germination flush. Straw quantity had an influence when associated with longer dry periods, while in the second germination flush, residual effects were affected by longer dry periods and the presence of straw. For Imazapic, the species presented variable control over the first germination flush, with residual effect. For Sulfentrazone, straw quantity did not have a significant influence on weed control. For Tebuthiuron, straw associated with longer dry periods reduced control percentages. However, in general, this herbicide presented enough weed control efficacy.

 

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) for the financing and support of this research (Process: 2015/14833-0).

 

References

1. ALAM. 1974. Recomendaciones sobre unificación de los sistemas de evaluación en ensayos de control de malezas. Asociación Latinoamericana de Malezas. 35-38.

2. Azania, C. A. M.; Azania, A. A. P. M. 2009. Plantio da cana-de-açúcar e o manejo de plantas daninhas de difícil controle. PROTEC: Proteção de Plantas. 01: 30-33.

3. Barnes, E. R.; Lawrence, N. C.; Knezevic, S. Z.; Irmak, S.; Rodriguez, O.; Jhala, A. J. 2020. Dose response of yellow and white popcorn hybrids to glyphosate, a premix of 2, 4‐D choline and glyphosate, or dicamba. Agronomy Journal. 112(4): 2956-2967. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20190

4. Burin, F.; Alves de Souza, C. M.; Ramires, I.; da Silva, P. V. 2022. Physical-chemical properties of spray syrup in tank-mixing multiple pesticides and water sources used in grain farming. Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Mendoza. Argentina. 54(1): 132-144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48162/rev.39.072

5. Campos, L. H. F.; Carvalho, S. J. P.; Nicolai, M.; Christoffoleti, P. J. 2016. Susceptibility of Merremia cissoides, Neonotonia wightii and Stizolobium aterrimum to the amicarbazone, imazapic and sulfentrazone herbicides. Revista Brasileira de Herbicidas. 15(2): 129-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.7824/rbh.v15i2.444

6. Carbonari, C. A.; Toledo, R. E. B.; Velini, E. D.; Negrisoli, E.; Correa, M. R.; Carbonari, C. V. S. R. 2009. Effects of different soil humidity conditions and germination depths of Brachiaria plantaginea and Digitaria spp. over amicarbazone herbicide efficacy. Revista Brasileira de Herbicidas. 8(3): 68-74. https://doi.org/10.7824/rbh.v8i3.70

7. Carbonari, C. A.; Velini, E. D.; Correa, M. R.; Negrisoli, E.; Rossi, C. V.; Oliveira, C. P. 2010. Efeitos de períodos de permanência de clomazone + hexazinona no solo e na palha de cana-deaçúcar antes da ocorrência de chuvas na eficácia de controle de plantas daninhas. Planta Daninha. 28(1): 197-205. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582010000100023

8. Carbonari, C. A.; Gomes, G. L. G. C.; Trindade, M. L. B.; Silva, J. R. M.; Velini, E. D. 2016. Dynamics of Sulfentrazone Applied to Sugarcane Crop Residues. Weed Science. 64: 201-206. https://doi.org/10.1614/WS-D-14-00171.1

9. Cavenaghi, A. L.; Rossi, C. V. S.; Negrisoli, E.; Costa, E. A. D.; Velini, E. D.; Toledo, R. E. B. 2007. Dinâmica do herbicida amicarbazone (Dinamic) aplicado sobre palha de cana-de-açúcar (Saccarum officinarum). Planta Daninha. 25(4): 831-837. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582007000400020

10. Christoffoleti, P. J.; López-Ovejero, R. F.; Damin, V.; Carvalho, S. J. P.; Nicolai, M. 2009. Comportamento dos herbicidas aplicados ao solo na cultura da cana-de-açúcar. Piracicaba. CP 2. 72p.

11. Correia, N. M.; Braz, B. A.; Fuzita, W. E. 2010. Eficácia de herbicidas aplicados nas épocas seca e úmida para o controle de Merremia aegyptia na cultura da cana-de-açúcar. Planta Daninha. 28(3): 631-642. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582010000300021

12. Da Silva, P. V.; Monquero, P. A.; Silva, F. B.; Bevilaqua, N. C.; Malardo, M. R. 2015a. Influence of sugar cane straw and sowing depth on the emergence of weed species. Planta Daninha. 33: 405-412. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582015000300003

13. Da Silva, P. V.; Monquero, P. A.; Munhoz, W. S. 2015b. Controle em pós-emergência de plantas daninhas por herbicidas utilizados na cultura da cana de açúcar. Revista Caatinga. 28(4): 21-32. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21252015v28n403rc

14. Da Silva, P. V.; Rodrigues Milagres Viana, H.; Andrea Monquero, P.; Moraes Ribeiro, N.; Pereira Neto, W.; Inacio, E. M.; Christoffoleti, P. J.; de Carvalho Dias, R. 2021. Influence of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) straw on weed germination control. Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Mendoza. Argentina. 53(1): 220-233. https://doi.org/10.48162/rev.39.021

15. Inoue, M. H.; Oliveira Jr., R. S.; Constantin, J.; Alonso, D. G. 2007. Potencial de lixiviação de imazapic e isoxaflutole em colunas de solo. Planta Daninha. 25(3): 547-555. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582007000300014

16. Kraemer, A. F.; Marchesan, E.; Avila, L. A.; Machado, S. L. O.; Grohs, M. 2009. Destino ambiental dos herbicidas do grupo das imidazolinonas: revisão. Planta Daninha. 27(3): 629-639. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582009000300025

17. Maciel, C. D. G.; Velini, E. D. 2005. Simulação do caminhamento da água da chuva e herbicidas em palhadas utilizadas em sistemas de plantio direto. Planta Daninha. 23(3): 471-481. https:// doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582005000300011

18. Monquero, P. A.; Da Silva, P. V.; Hirata, A. C. S.; Martins, F. R. A. 2011. Monitoramento do banco de sementes de plantas daninhas em áreas com cana-de-açúcar colhida mecanicamente. Planta Daninha. 29(1): 107-119. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582011000100013

19. Negrisoli, E.; Rossi, C. V. S.; Velini, E. D.; Cavenaghi, A. L.; Costa, E. A.D.; Toledo, R. E. B. 2007. Weed control by amicarbazone applied in the presence of sugar-cane straw. Planta Daninha 25: 603-611. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582007000300021

20. Negrisoli, E.; Carbonari, C. A.; Corrêa, M. R.; Perim, L.; Velini, E. D.; Toledo R. E. B.; Victoria Filho, R.; Rossi, C. V. S. 2011. Efeitos de Diferentes condições de umidade do solo e profundidades de germinação de Brachiaria plantaginea e Digitaria spp. sobre a eficácia do herbicida tebuthiuron. Planta Daninha. 29: 1061-1068. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582011000500013

21. Pitelli, R. A.; Durigan, J. C. 1985. Interferência de plantas daninhas em culturas agrícolas. Informe Agropecuário. 11(129): 16-27.

22. Prado, A. B. C. A.; Obara, F. E. B.; Brunharo, C. A. G.; Melo, M. S. C.; Christoffoleti, P. J.; Alves, M. C. 2013. Dinâmica de herbicidas aplicados em pré-emergência sobre palha de cana-de-açúcar em diferentes regimes hídricos. Revista Brasileira de Herbicidas. 12(2): 179-187. https://doi.org/10.7824/rbh.v12i2.211

23. Ribeiro, N. M.; Torres, B. A.; Ramos, S. K.; Dos Santos, P. H. V.; Simões, C. T.; Monquero, P. A. 2018. Differential susceptibility of morning glory (Ipomoea and Merremia) species to residual herbicides and the effect of drought periods on efficacy. Australian Journal of Crop Science.4: 1090-1098. http://10.21475/ajcs.18.12.07.PNE1013

24. R Core Team. 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/

25. Ritz, C.; Baty, F.; Streibig, J. C.; Gerhard D. 2015. Dose-Response Analysis Using R. PLoS ONE. 10(12): e0146021. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146021

26. Rodrigues, B. N.; Almeida, F. S. 2018. 7ª ed. Guia de Herbicidas. Londrina. Edição dos autores. 764 p.

27. Rossi, C. V. S.; Velini, E. D.; Luchini, L. C.; Negrisoli, E.; Correa, M. R.; Pivetta, J. P.; Costa, A. G. F.; Silva, F. M. L. 2013. Dinâmica do herbicida metribuzin aplicado sobre palha de cana-de-açúcar (Saccarum officinarum). Planta Daninha. 31(1): 223-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582013000100024

28. Silva, G. B. F.; Azania, C. A. M.; Novo, M. C. S. S.; Wutke, E. B.; Zera, F. S.; Azania, A. A. P. M. 2012. Tolerância de espécies de Mucuna a herbicidas utilizados na cultura da cana-deaçúcar. Planta Daninha. 30(3): 589-597. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582012000300015

29. Tofoli, G. R.; Velini, E. D.; Negrisoli, E.; Cavenaghi, A. L.; Martins, D. 2009. Dinâmica do tebuthiuron em palha de cana-deaçúcar. Planta Daninha. 27(4): 815-821. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582009000400020

30. Toledo, R. E. B.; Perim, L.; Negrisoli, E.; Corrêa, M. R.; Carbonari, C. A.; Rossi, C. V. S.; Velini, E. D. 2009. Eficácia do herbicida amicarbazone aplicado sobre a palha ou no solo no controle de plantas daninhas na cultura da cana-de-açúcar. Planta Daninha. 27(2): 319-326. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582009000200015

31. Vanhala, P.; Kurstjens, D.; Ascard, J.; Bertram, A.; Cloutier, D. C.; Mead, A.; Rafaelli, M.; Rasmussen, J. 2004. Guidelines for physical weed control research: Flame weeding, weed harrowing and intrarow cultivation. In Proceedings of the 6th EWRS-Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control. Lillehammer. Norway. 8-10 March. p. 208-239.

32. Wickham, H. 2016. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer-Verlag New York.

33. Zera, F. S.; Dias Júnior, A. B.; Azania, C. A. M.; Azania, A. A. P. M. 2012. Tolerância de Luffa aegyptiaca a herbicidas utilizados em cana-deaçúcar. STAB. 30: 50-52.