全 文 ：Control Effect Evaluation of Herbicides for
Malignant Weed Nut Grass in Sugarcane Field
Wenfeng LI, Rongyue ZHANG, Yingkun HUANG*, Jiong YIN, Zhiming LUO, Xiaoyan WANG,
Hongli SHAN
Sugarcane Research Institute, Yunnan Academy of Agricultural Sciences/Yunnan Provincial Key Laboratory of Sugarcane Genetic
Improvement, Kaiyuan 661699, China
Supported by Earmarked Fund for China Agriculture Research System (CARS-20-2-2);
Project for Yunnan Provincial Modern Agricultural Industry Technology System
(YNGZTX-4-92).
*Corresponding author. E-mail: huangyk64@163.com
Received: March 24, 2016 Accepted: April 29, 2016A
Agricultural Science & Technology, 2016, 17(6): 1391-1394
Copyright訫 2016, Information Institute of HAAS. All rights reserved Plant Protection
C hinese sugarcane fields most-ly locate in the tropical andsubtropical region with high
temperature, abundant rainfall, and
weed infestation throughout the year.
Weeds have become one of the impor-
tant factors restricting the develop-
ment of modern sugarcane industry[1-4].
Chemical herbicides have been widely
used in the world for controlling weeds
in sugarcane field and replacing man-
ual and chemical weeding[5-6]. Through
years of scientific guidance and
demonstrations, the application of
chemical herbicides has become a
conventional technique in sugarcane
field of Yunnan Province. It is popular
in sugarcane farmers, and has been
widely applied in recent years [7-9]. For
controlling weeds in sugarcane field,
atrazine, diuron, ametryne and their
mixed formulations have been applied
for a long time. However, they have
bad control effect on nut grass and re-
newable root [10 -11]. In the absence of
other weeds, nut grass has become a
dominant weed year after year in sug-
arcane field due to the lack of effective
herbicides, resulting in serious infes-
tation of nut grass and serious effect
on sugarcane production. Therefore,
sugarcane farmers eager to have an
ideal and safe herbicide to effectively
control the nut grass in sugarcane
field. For this end, a field efficacy trial
between 20% thifensulfuron methyl
WP and 65% MCPA·ametryne·diuron
WP was conducted in this study so as
to screen a ideal and safe herbicide for
nut grass in sugarcane field of Yunnan
Province. This study will provide cer-
tain basis for the weed control in sug-
arcane field.
Materials and Methods
Reagents
The used herbicides included
20% thifensulfuron methyl WP
(Shanghai Vegcides Biochemistry
(Nanchang) Co., Ltd.) and 65% MC-
PA·ametryne·diuron WP (Shenyang
Hetian Chemistry Co., Ltd.).
Abstract In order to screen herbicides with ideal safety characteristics to control
malignant weed nut grass in sugarcane field, 20% thifensulfuron methyl WP and
65% MCPA·ametryne·diuron WP were selected for the field efficacy trial. The re-
sults showed that 20% thifensulfuron methyl WP and 65% MCPA·ametryne·diuron
WP had good control effect on nut grass. The optimum dosage of 20% thifensul-
furon methyl WP and 65% MCPA·ametryne·diuron WP was 1 125 g/hm2 (effective
ingredients 225 g) and 3 150 g/hm2 (effective ingredients 2 047.5 g), respectively.
These two herbicides should be dissolved in 675 kg water per hectare and applied
in the vigorous growth period of nut grass (height 10-15 cm) with oriented stem
leaf spraying. The control effect after 15 days could be above 87.9%.
Key words Sugarcane field; Malignant weed; Nut grass; Herbicide control
蔗园恶性杂草香附子药剂防除
效果评价
李文凤，张荣跃，黄应昆*，尹炯，罗志明，王晓
燕，单红丽 （云南省农业科学院甘蔗研究所/
云南省甘蔗遗传改良重点实验室 ， 云南开远
661699）
摘 要 为筛选蔗园恶性杂草香附子的理想
安全性除草剂，选用 20%噻吩磺隆 WP 和 65%
甲·灭·敌草隆 WP 进行田间药效试验。 田间试
验结果表明：20%噻吩磺隆 WP 和 65%甲·灭·
敌草隆 WP 对蔗园恶性杂草香附子均具有良好
的防除效果，是防除蔗园恶性杂草香附子的理
想除草剂。 20%噻吩磺隆 WP 最适宜用量为 1
125 g/hm2 （有效成分 225 g）、65%甲·灭·敌草
隆 WP 为 3 150 g/hm2（有效成分 2 047.5 g）。 2
种药剂均可在香附子生长旺盛期 （株高 10~15
cm），按每公顷用药量兑水 675 kg 进行定向茎
叶喷雾，药后 15 天防除效果可达 87.9%以上。
关键词 蔗园；恶性杂草；香附子；药剂防除
基金项目 现代农业产业技术体系建设专项
资金国家甘蔗产业技术体系病害防控岗位科
学家（CARS-20-2-2）； 云南省现代农业产业技
术体系建设项目云南省甘蔗产业技术体系植
物保护与病害研究岗位科学家 （YNGZTX-4-
92）。
作者简介 李文凤（1964-），女，云南石屏人 ，
研究员 ， 主要从事甘蔗病虫害研究 ，E-mail:
ynlwf@163.com。*通讯作者，研究员，主要从事
甘蔗病虫害防治研究，E-mail: huangyk64@163.
com。
收稿日期 2016-03-24
修回日期 2016-04-29
DOI:10.16175/j.cnki.1009-4229.2016.06.026
Agricultural Science & Technology 2016
Fig.1 Control effect of 20% thifensulfuron methyl WP on nut grass under the application
amount of 1 125 g/hm2 (on day 15)
Fig.2 Control effect of 65% MCPA o ametryne o diuron WP on nut grass under the appli-
cation amount of 3 150 g/hm2 (on day 15)
Overview of experimental field
The experiment was conducted in
the experimental base of Sugarcane
Research Institute in Kaiyuan, Yun-
nan. The experimental field was irrigat-
ed field with facilitated drainage and ir-
rigation, flat terrain, and medium fertil-
ity. The soil was clay loam with pH
value of 6.2 and organic matter con-
tent of 2.05%. The selected sugarcane
cultivars included ROC 22 and Yue-
tang 93 -159. The sugarcane plants
with uniform growth were all newly
planted with spacing of 1 m. Their wa-
ter and fertilizer management was the
same. In the experimental field, the
last-season crop was also sugarcane.
During that time, nut grass (Cyperus
rotundus L.) infestation occurred seri-
ously, and its degree of dominance
reached 95% with even distribution.
When the herbicides were applied, the
growth of nut grass and sugarcane
was all robust with height of 10-15 cm
and 40-50 cm, respectively.
Experimental design
The application amounts of 20%
thifensulfuron methyl WP were de-
signed as 1 125 and 2 250 g/hm2, and
those of 65% MCPA·ametryne·diuron
WP were designed as 3 150 and 4 725
g/hm2. At the same time, the blank
control (water) was designed. Thus, a
total of five treatments, with four plots
for each treatment, were arranged.
The area of each plot was 30 m2, and
all the plots were arranged randomly.
Application time and method of
herbicides
On June 8, 2015, each of the
herbicides was dissolved in 675 kg
water per hectare, and then sprayed to
the sugarcane stems and leaves till
the herbicide did not drip off.
Investigation and analysis of con-
trol effect
The control effect was observed
10 -15 days after the spraying. Total
five sampling points (0.2 m2 for each)
were arranged for each plot. The plant
number and total fresh weight (after 15
days) of nut grass was investigated,
and then the control efficacy at the
plant and fresh weight levels was cal-
culated [Formula (1), Formula (2)]. At
the same time, total 10 nut grass tu-
bers were dug out randomly from each
sampling point 15 days after the
spraying, and the control effect of her-
bicide on nut grass tubers were ob-
served and recorded. After the spray-
ing of herbicide, the phytotoxicity of
herbicides and growth of sugarcane
plants were observed occasionally.
The investigation data were analyzed
using SAS 9.0, and the difference sig-
nificance test was conducted with the
Duncan’s new multiple range method.
Control efficacy at the plant level
=(1-Weed plant number in the treat-
ment group/Weed plant number in the
control group)×100% (1)
Control efficacy at the fresh
weight level=(1-Weed fresh weight in
the treatment group/Weed fresh
weight in the control group)×100% (2)
Results and Analysis
Control effect of different herbi-
cides for nut grass in sugarcane
field
As shown in Table 1, different
herbicides all showed good control ef-
fect on nut grass in sugarcane field.
After 10 days, the two treatments of
65% MCPA ·ametryne ·diuron WP
showed stronger control effect com-
pared with the two treatments of 20%
thifensulfuron methyl WP. Under the
application amounts of 1 125 and 2
250 g/hm2, the control efficacy of 20%
thifensulfuron methyl WP reached
80.3% and 81.0% , respectively (P >
0.05); under the application amounts
of 3 150 and 4 725 g/hm2, the control
efficacy of 65% MCPA·ametryne·di-
uron WP was 86.8% and 87.6% , re-
spectively (P>0.05).
After 15 days, the control effi-
cacy of 20% thifensulfuron methyl
WP was significantly improved , and
it was significantly better than that
of 65% MCPA ·ametryne ·diuron
WP. Under the application amounts
of 1 125 and 2 250 g/hm2, the control
efficacy at the plant level of 20%
thifensulfuron methyl WP was 99.3%
and 100.0% respectively, and that at
the fresh weight level was 99.4% and
100.0% respectively. In both the two
treatment groups of 20% thifensul-
furon methyl WP, the tubers all turned
brown and rotten, and no new roots or
new sprouts generated (Fig.1). Under
the application amounts of 3 150 and
4 725 g/hm2, the control efficacy at the
plant level of 65% MCPA·ametryne·
diuron WP was 87.9% and 88.6% re-
spectively, and that at the fresh weight
level reached 89.2% and 89.9% re-
spectively. In both the two treatment
1392
Agricultural Science & Technology2016
Table 1 Control effect of 20% thifensulfuron methyl WP and 65% MCPA·ametryne·diuron WP on malignant weed nut grass in sugarcane
field
Treatment//g/hm2
10 days after spraying 15 days after spraying
Plant
number//n/m2
Control
efficacy//%
Plant number
n/m2
Control efficacy
%
Fresh
weight//g/m2
Control
efficacy//% Control effect on tubers
20% thifensulfuron
methyl WP, 1 125 81.8 80.3 b 3 99.3 a 8.5 99.4 a
Brown, rotten, no new
roots or new sprouts
20% thifensulfuron
methyl WP, 2 250 78.8 81.0 b 0 100.0 a 0 100.0 a
Brown, rotten, no new
roots or new sprouts
65% MCPA o ametryne
o diuron WP, 3 150 54.5 86.8 a 51.5 87.9 b 159.7 89.2 b
Brown, rotten, no new
roots or new sprouts
65% MCPA o ametryne
o diuron WP, 4 725 51.5 87.6 a 48.5 88.6 b 149.2 89.9 b
Brown, rotten, no new
roots or new sprouts
Blank control (CK) 414.4 - 424.2 - 1 480.3 - White, new roots, newsprouts
Different lowercase letters in the same column indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level.
groups of 65% MCPA·ametryne·di-
uron WP, the tubers also turned brown
and rotten, and no new roots or new
sprouts generated (Fig.2).
Safety of different herbicides to
sugarcane
After the spraying of herbicides,
the growth of the sugarcane in each
plot was observed occasionally. The
sugarcane plants of ROC 22 in the
20% thifensulfuron methyl WP and
65% MCPA ·ametryne ·diuron WP
treatment groups and those of Yue-
tang 93-159 in the 20% thifensulfuron
methyl WP treatment groups all grew
normally, and no chlorotic, yellow and
malformed leaves were observed. The
growth of Yuetang 93-159 in the 65%
MCPA·ametryne·diuron WP treat-
ment groups was inhibited, and its
leaves turned chlorotic and yellow.
Conclusions
The analysis results showed that
20% thifensulfuron methyl WP has
good control effect on nut grass in sug-
arcane field, and it is an ideal and safe
herbicide for malignant weed nut grass.
The optimum application amount of
20% thifensulfuron methyl WP in the
sugarcane field is 1 125 g/hm2 (active
ingredients 225 g). The 65% MCPA·
ametryne·diuron WP also has good
control effect on nut grass in the sugar-
cane field, and it is an excellent herbi-
cide for malignant weed nut grass. The
application amount of 65% MCPA·
ametryne·diuron WP is advised as 3
150 g/hm2 (active ingredients 2 047.5
g) in sugarcane field. These two herbi-
cides all could be used to control nut
grass at its vigorous growth period
(height 10-15 cm). In order to obtain
better effect, the two herbicides should
be dissolved in 675 kg water per
hectare and sprayed oriented to sug-
arcane stems and leaves.
Discussion
According to the experimental ob-
servation, 20% thifensulfuron methyl
WP showed no adverse effects on the
growth of ROC 22 or Yuetang 93-159,
so it is suitable to be used in sugar-
cane field. However, this herbicide has
a narrow spectrum. It has only good
control effect on nut grass instead of
other weeds. Thus, it can be mixed with
MCPA·ametryne·diuron WP, meto-
lachlor or ametryn[12-14], which could not
only control weeds but also seal the
soil. In addition, this expands the spec-
trum of 20% thifensulfuron methyl WP.
After the application of 65% MC-
PA·ametryne·diuron WP, the sugar-
cane plants of ROC 22 grew normally;
the growth of Yuetang 93-159 was in-
hibited, and its leaves turned chlorotic
and yellow. Therefore, the use of 65%
MCPA·ametryne·diuron WP should
be forbidden in Yuetang 93-159, Yue-
tang 00-236 and other sugarcane cul-
tivars containing CP blood; if 65%
MCPA·ametryne·diuron WP must be
used, it should be sprayed to stems
and leaves oriented. The 65% MCPA·
ametryne·diuron WP is harmless to
other sugarcane fields. It is a kind of
mixed herbicide with broad spectrum.
In addition to nut grass, 65% MCPA·
ametryne·diuron WP also has good
control effect on other monocots and
dicotyledons[11-12].
Nut grass (Cyperaceae) is a
perennial malignant weed, and it often
reproduces with seeds, rhizomes and
tubers with strong reproductive capac-
ity and high reproductive speed[15-16]. In
the sugarcane field with severe nut
grass infestation, 20% thifensulfuron
methyl WP or 65% MCPA·ametryne·
diuron WP should be sprayed 2 -3
times to obtained better control effect.
References
[1] XUE YH (许跃辉), YANG QY (杨琼英).
Investigation and chemical control of
weed in sugarcane-producing areas of
Yunnan Province (云南蔗区杂草调查及
化学防除) [J]. Sugarcane and Canesug-
ar (甘蔗糖业), 1988(3): 21-24.
[2] XUE YH (许跃辉), YANG QY (杨琼英).
Investigation and chemical control of
weed in sugarcane fields of Yunnan
Province (云南省甘蔗产区杂草调查及
其化学防除) [J]. Weed Science (杂草学
报), 1990, 4(2): 9-11.
[3] HUANG YK (黄应昆), LI WF (李文凤).
Distribution and occurrence patterns of
main insect pests and weeds in cane
districts of Yunnan Province (云南蔗区
主要害虫、杂草分布发生规律) [J]. Pesti-
cides (农药), 1995, 34(12): 25-27.
[4] WANG BH (王 伯 辉 ). Catalogue of
weeds in sugarcane grown region in the
south of Guangxi (广西南部蔗区杂草名
录) [J]. Weed Science (杂草科学), 2001
(2): 12-14.
[5] ETHEREDGE LM, JR, GRIFFIN J L, et
al. Efficacy and economics of summer
fallow conventional and reduced-tillage
programs for sugarcane [J]. Weed
Technology, 2009, 23(2): 274-279.
[6] GRIFFIN JL, JUDICE WA. Winter weed
control in sugarcane [J]. Journal of the
American Society of Sugar Cane Tech-
nologists, 2009(29): 128-136.
[7] HUANG YK (黄应昆), LI WF (李文凤).
Coloured atlas of modern diseases and
pests in sugarcane (现代甘蔗病虫草害
原色图谱) [M]. Beijing: China Agriculture
Press (北京:中国农业出版社), 2011.
[8] FU Y (傅扬 ). Present weed situations
and chemical wed control techniques in
1393
Agricultural Science & Technology 2016
Responsible editor: Yingzhi GUANG Responsible proofreader: Xiaoyan WU
Due to the incidence of the tatter leaf
disease, the vessels and sieve tubes
at the graft union are blocked by col-
loidal materials, water and nutrients
could not supplied to tips of branches
for growth, resulting in yellowing. The
countermeasure is to remove dis-
eased trees, smear herbicides on
stumps and cover them with black film,
and seedlings free of disease could be
planted then.
Yellowing caused by decline dis-
ease
The seedling yellowing type
symptom refers to the yellowing of
seedling leaves. The stem pitting dis-
ease type symptoms are dwarf plants
and declined tree vigor; and further-
more, obvious pits or concave strips
could be observed on the xylem by
stripping off the cortical layer of the tip
of a branch, which could be broken
easily, the leaves show yellow main
veins, and the fruit becomes smaller.
The countermeasures include cutting
seriously-diseased trees followed by
planting of seedling free of diseases,
applying disease-resistant rootstalks,
and enhancing the control of virus-
spreading insects and aphids. As to
the tips of branches slightly diseased,
it is necessary to cut them timely and
smear a wound-healing rot-preventing
film agent to facilitate would healing.
Yellowing caused pests
The yellowing caused by pests is
very common, and the pests include
longicorn, Icerya purchasi maskell,
root-knot nematode, scarab (its larvae
are also known as grub), mole cricket
and so on. The damage by longicorn is
reflected by dead and rotten root neck
parts of plants, and the dead parts
have hole and black particular sub-
stance thereon. If clustered Icerya
purchasi maskell is found on branches
with yellow leaves, the yellowing is due
to nutritional deficiency of branches
caused by such pests who suck the
juice of trees. The countermeasure is
to kill pests[7-9].
Conclusions
There are various reasons for
yellowing of Orah, and there are also
various countermeasures. It is neces-
sary to insist “prevention first, com-
prehensive control” in the prevention
of yellowing, and losses could be
avoided only when yellowing is well
controlled. In a word, successful pre-
vention of yellowing in Orah cultivation
is half success.
References
[1] HUANG QC (黄其椿), LIU JM (刘吉敏),
HE XH (何新华), et al. Preliminary study
of performance of late-maturing hybrid
citrus “Orah” during the cultivation in
Wuming of Guangxi (晚熟杂柑 “沃柑 ”
在广西武鸣的栽培表现初报)[J]. South
China Fruits (中国南方果树), 2014, 43
(3): 86-88．
[2] JIANG D (江东), CAO L (曹立). Perfor-
mance of late-maturing hybrid citrus
“Orah” after introduction to Chongqing
(晚熟高糖杂柑品种“沃柑”在重庆的引
种表现)[J]. South China Fruits (中国南
方果树), 2011, 40(5): 33-34．
[3] HUANG QC (黄其椿). Planting of pop-
ular Orah with particular tips (沃柑虽火,
种植有讲究)[J]. 农家之友 2015(11): 62．
[4] DENG L (邓烈). Causes and measures
of Fe-deficiency yellowing of citrus (柑
桔缺铁黄化症发生原因及矫治 ) [J].
South China Fruit (中国南方果 树 ),
1997, 26(1): 48．
[5] CHEN HM (陈洪明), ZHOU Y (周彦),
WANG XF (王雪峰), et al. Detection of
vein clearing virus-caused citrus yellow-
ing by real-time fluorescence RT-PCR
(应用实时荧光 RT-PCR检测柑橘黄化脉
明病毒)[J]. Acta Horticulturae Sinica (园
艺学报), 2016, 43 (1)：168–174．
[6] HUANG HM (黄宏明), WANG Q (王茜),
XU N (徐宁), et al. Nested-PCR detec-
tion for Candidatus Liberibacter asiati-
cus of Shatangju in Guangxi (广西砂糖
橘黄龙病亚洲种的 Nested-PCR 检测 )
[J]. Journal of Southern Agriculture (南
方农业学报), 2013, 44(12): 1997-2000.
[7] YU ZP (于钟平). Field yellowing symp-
tom of orange in south China and coun-
termeasures (华南柑橘黄化的田间症状
及其防治对策)[J]. Guangxi Horticulture
(广西园艺), 2004, 15(3): 24-26．
[8] JIANG CC (姜存仓 ). Cause analysis
and prevention measures of leaf yel-
lowing of citrus (柑橘叶片黄化成因分析
及防治措施)[J]. Fruit growers friend (果
农之友), 2008(11): 39-40．
[9] PAN YX (潘有祥). Occurrence and pre-
vention of yellowing symptom of citrus
(柑桔黄化症状的发生与防治技术 ) [J].
Fujian Agricultural Science and Technol-
ogy (福建农业科技), 2006(1): 65-66．
(Continued from page 1390)
Responsible editor: Tingting XU Responsible proofreader: Xiaoyan WU
sugarcane fields of Yunnan (云南省甘
蔗田杂草发生危害状况及化学防除技
术) [D]. Beijing: China Agricultural Uni-
versity (北京: 中国农业大学), 2005.
[9] HUANG YK (黄应昆), LI WF (李文凤),
LUO ZM (罗志明 ), et al. The effect of
cyanazine FW on the control of weeds
in cane fields (40%氰草津胶悬剂防除蔗
田杂草田间药效试验 ) [J]. Sugarcane
(甘蔗), 2002, 9(4): 23-25.
[10] WANG L (王磊 ), ZHANG Y (张宇 ),
TANG J (唐静). Herbicide interaction of
diuron and atrazine on grass control (敌
草隆与莠去津复配对杂草的防除效应)
[J]. Guangdong Agricultural Sciences
(广东农业科学), 2007(9): 69-71.
[11] FANG F (方 ), ZHOU JC (周洁成 ),
LIANG YY (梁元耀 ), et al. Effects of
73% mixed MCPA-Na, ametryn and
diuron WP on controlling weeds in sug-
arcane field (73% 2甲 4氯钠·莠灭净·
敌草隆WP防除蔗田杂草药效试验) [J].
Guangxi Agricultural Sciences (南方农
业学报), 2011(10): 1225-1228.
[12] SHENK (申科), HUANGYK (黄应昆), LI
WF (李文凤 ), et al. Effect of MCPA·
ametryne·diuron 65%WPonweedcon-
trol insugarcane field (65%甲·灭·敌草隆
防除蔗田杂草的效果) [J].WeedScience
(杂草科学),2012,30(4):55-57.
[13] YIN J (尹炯), LI WF (李文凤), HUANG
YK (黄应昆 ), et al. Control effect of
metolachlor 72% EC on weeds in sug-
arcane fields (72%异丙甲草胺乳油对
蔗田杂草的防除效果) [J]. Chinese Ag-
ricultural Science Bulletin (中国农学通
报), 2013, 29(21): 175-178.
[14] ZUO HL (左洪亮 ), ZENG Y (曾勇 ),
GAO L (高璐 ), et al. Effect of MCPA
sodium and ametryn mixture on con-
trolling weeds in sugarcane fields (二
甲四氯钠与莠灭净混用防除甘蔗田杂
草的田间效果) [J]. Hubei Agricultural
Sciences (湖北农业科学 ), 2010, 49
(11): 2798-2801.
[15] WANG H (王鸿), SU WH (苏卫华). E-
cological characteristics and control
measures of nut grass (香附子生态学
特性和防除措施研究 ) [J]. Journal of
Anhui Agricultural Sciences (安徽农业
科学), 1991(4): 371-374.
[16] QIN JL (覃建林), LONG LP (龙丽萍),
LIANG WZ (梁卫忠), et al. Evaluation
of control effect of 13 herbicides on
Cyperus rotundus L. in sugarcane field
(13 种除草剂对甘蔗田恶性杂草香附子
的防除效果试验及评价) [J]. Guangxi
Agricultural Sciences (广西农业科学),
2005(36): 359-362.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1394