Document Type : Research Paper


1 M.Sc. Graduate of Agronomy, Department of Plant Production and Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture, Khuzestan Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Mollasani, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Production and Genetic Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Khuzestan Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Mollasani, Iran

3 Professor, Department of Plant Production and Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture, Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan, Mollasani, Iran

4 Research expert, Iranian Sugarcane Research and Training Institue, Department of Weed Science, Khuzestan, Ahvaz, Iran


Weeds are among the most important factors reducing sugarcane yield in Khuzestan province. Sugarcane has a vegetative stage susceptible to weed competition, which is about 3 to 6 weeks from the time of planting in a warm and humid season. Therefore, the control of weeds in the early part of the growing season before the canopy closure of sugarcane and covering more than half the rows of planting is very critical. In order to investigate the effect of combination of mechanized weeding and application of three herbicides including indaziflam, 2,4-D + MCPA + metribuzin, on weed control and sugarcane yield, a field experiment was conducted in Ratoon2 field in 2017-2018 growing season in Dehkhoda Sugarcane Plantation and Industry Company, Khuzestan, Iran.
Materials and Methods
The experimental design was split plot based on randomized complete block design with three replications. Mechanical weeding at three levels (sweep cultivator, rotavator, and no cultivation) was considered as the main plots. Herbicide application was considered as sub plot at three levels [indaziflam (50 ml ai ha-1), 2,4-D + MCPA + metribuzin (675 ml ai ha-1 + 1050 g ai ha-1) and no herbicide application (as weedy control)]. A weed- free check was included for comparison. Herbicide applications were made using backpack sprayer with TeeJet 11004 flat fan nozzle calibrated to deliver 250 L ha-1 at pressure of 2.5 atm. Sugarcane cultivar was CP-614. Weed sampling was carried out 60 days after treatment. Single stem weight, cane yield, final sugar yield, brix, pol, sugar purity and recoverable sugar were measured at the end of growing season and after sugarcane harvest.
Results and Discussion
The results showed that mechanical weeding treatments lead into reduced weed dry weight. As a result, weed control was more effective in rotavator treatment than cultivator. Maximum reduction weed dry weight (52.47%) was observed in integrated rotavator and indaziflam treatment. The results of the quantitative traits of sugarcane showed that using mechanized weeding and herbicide application, caused an increase in weight of single stem and yield of cane compared to the control. The greatest single stem weight was observed in cultivator treatment plus 2,4-D + MCPA + metribuzin (1.65 Kg m-2), rotavator + 2,4-D + MCPA + metribuzin (1.63 Kg m-2) and indaziflam (1.61 Kg m-2). The final sugar yield (9.79 t ha-1) in indaziflam treatment was greater than other treatments (except weed -free treatment). However, the measured values of Brix, pol, sugar purity and recoverable sugar did not differ significantly among treatments. Results showed that the use of mechanized weeding combined with herbicide applications would have an effective role in improving sugarcane yield and inhibition of sugarcane weeds.
The use of herbicides at the beginning of the sugarcane growing season led to more effective weed control; As a result, competition between sugarcane and weeds in access to food resources decreased, which led to the growth and development of sugarcane. However, the indaziflam did better than 2,4-D + MCPA + metribuzin due to its slight superiority in single-stem weight and cane yield. In general, it can be said that the use of mechanical weeding has an important role in controlling sugarcane weeds and the use of rotivator had a significant advantage over cultivator. According to the results of single stem weight, the use of combination weeding with herbicides will play an effective role in improving the weight of sugarcane.


Main Subjects

Abdolahi Lorestani, S. (2015). An introduction to mechanical weed control equipments: with a focus on mechanical weed control in sugarcane fields. Ahvaz: Kerdegar Publication. [In Farsi]
Abdolahi Lorestani, S., Jaefari, S., & Aghamohamadi, H. (2017). Evaluation and comparison of efficacy of the rotavator and the sweep cultivator on annual weed control in sugarcane fields. Presented at the conference 7th Iranian Weed Science Congress, Gorgan, Iran.
Abdolahi Lorestani, S., Jaefari, S., Ahmadpour, S. R., & Aghamohammadi, H. (2014). An evaluation of two sweep cultivar types on annual weeds control in sugarcane fields. Conference 10th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Alnarp, Sweden.
Abedinzadeh, M. (2005). Tebuthioron (tebusan) application in comparison to common atrazine herbicide and mechanical control in ratoon sugarecane fields. M.Sc. Thesis, Islamic Azad University of Shoushtar, Shoushtar. [In Farsi]
Abedinzadeh, M., Makvandi, M. A., & Bahadori, F. (2015). Effect of mechanical control of weeds and nitrogen fertilizer use on the growth and yield of sugar cane. Journal of Plant Production Science, 5(2), 30-34. [In Farsi]
Ahmadpour, S. R., Alizadeh, H., & Majnoon Hoseini, N. (2011). Integrating of hilling up and cultivation with banded spraying in weed management in sugarcane fields. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 41(4), 719-729. [In Farsi]
Barat Shoushtari, M., Asfiya, G., & Ahmadian, S. (2008). Sugarcane in Iran. Tehran: Aeej Publication. [In Farsi]
Bennett, A. C., Ferrel, J. A., & Dusky, J. A. (2004). Weed management in sugarcane. In Gilbert, R. A. (ed), The Sugarcane Handbook (pp. 1-19). University of Florida, USA: Electronic publication.
Buhler, D. D. (2002). Challenges and opportunities for integrated weed management. Weed Science, 50(3), 273-280.
Chen, J. C. P., & Chou, C. C. (1993). Chen-Chou cane sugar handbook: A manual for cane sugar manufactures and their chemists. (12th Eds). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Elahifard, E., Ghanbari, A., Rashed Mohassel, M.H., Zand, E., Mirshamsi Kakhki, A., & Mohkami, A. (2013). Characterization of triazine resistant biotypes of junglerice (Echinochloa colona (L.) Link.) found in Iran. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 7(9), 1302-1308.
El-Shafai, A. M. A. Fakkar, A. A. O., & Bekheet, M. A. (2010). Impact of row spacing and weed control treatments on growth, quality and yield of sugarcane. Journal of Academic Research, 61(2), 124-136.
Gerami, A., Siadat, S.A. Bakhshandeh, A. Fathi, G., & Alami Saeid, K. (2013). Determination of critical weed of corn (Zea mays L.) in Ahvaz region. Plant Productions, 36(1), 39-49. [In Farsi]
Hossein Zadeh, A. (2011). The effect of integrated management methods of weed control on quantitative and qualitative yield of sugarcane. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz.
Hossein Zadeh, E., & Sheikh Davoudi, M. J. (2015). Evaluation of soil compaction of sugarcane fields due to the movement of harvest machines. Presented at the International Conference on Applied Research in Agriculture, Tehran-Malard, Iran.
Khan, M. Z. Bashir, S., & Bajwa, M. A. (2004). Performance of promising sugarcane varieties in response of inter-row spacing towards stripped cane and sugar yield. Pakistan Sugar Journal, 19(5), 15-18.
Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., & Staver, C. P. (2004). Ecological management of agicaltural weeds. United Kingdom: Cambridg University Press.
Musavi, M. R. (2001). Integrated weed management. Tehran: Miaad Publication.
Nikpay, A., Sharafizadeh, P. Pour Mahmoud, M., & Kurd, H. (2015). Efficacy of alion a new herbicide for managing sugarcane weeds: Preliminary results in Iran. 37th Annual Conference of Australian Society Sugar Cane Technology, Bundaberg, Queensland, Australia.
Peng, S. Y. (1984). Development in crop science: The biology and control of weeds in sugarcane (4). Amesterdam: Elsevior Science Publisher.
Pourreza, J. (2017). Evaluating the wheat (Triticum aestivum) yield loss caused by wild oat (Avena fatua) interference at nitrogen different levels. Plant Productions, 40(3), 41-52. [In Farsi]
Zand, E., Baghestani, M. A., Nezamabadi, N., Shimi, P., & Mousavi, S. K. (2017). A guide to chemical control of weeds in Iran. Mashhad: Jahad-e Daneshgahi Mashhad Publication. [In Farsi]
© 2021 Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0 license) (