Canadian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences

PEARL publication, 2015

ISSN 2292-3381
CJBAS Vol. 03(04), 108-117, April 2015

Efficacy of post-emergence herbicide for managing Diplachne fusca in

sugarcane field
Nooshin Ghanbarpour , Eskandar Zand, Noorali Sajedi
Department of Weed science, Faculty of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Arak Branch.

Keywords:

Abstract

herbicide,
post emergence,
Diplachne fusca,
Sugarcane

A study to determine the relative efficiency of chemical weed control was conducted at
the research and education institute of Khuzestan sugarcane industry, Iran, during
2011- 2012. The experiment comprised of nine treatments (Dinamic at 2 kg ha-1,
Gramaxone at 2 L ha-1, Gesapax at 2 kg ha-1, Basta + surfactant at 8 L ha-1, Cruz at 2 kg
ha-1, Sencor+ surfactant at 3 kg ha-1, Sencor + Gesapax at 1.5+ 1.5 kg ha-1 respectively,
Roundup at 8 L ha-1, Krismat at 2.5 kg ha-1 and control) were tested against Diplachne
fusca. The test replicated 3 and 4 times under greenhouse and field conditions,
respectively. The detail of treatment is given at table- 2 and table- 4. ANOVAs were
carried out with SAS. Software and differences in means were detected by using the
Duncan test at p = 0.05. During our study, the least loss dry weight of weed was
observed in Gesapax treatment that were not significantly different with control.
According to our research, it seems that either at field condition with Roundup and
Basta + surfactant or at greenhouse condition with the combination of Sencor +
Gesapax that was not significantly different with Krismat, Roundup, Sencor+
surfactant and Basta + surfactant, left highest impact on D. fusca. This study
demonstrates (under field and greenhouse condition) Gesapax as post emergence spray
proved less effective than other treatments. This study demonstrates that the weed D.
fusca was not effectively controlled by these current herbicides.

1. Introduction
Khuzestan Province, is one of the 31 provinces of Iran. It is located in the southwest of the
country, bordering Iraq's Basra Province and the Persian Gulf. Its capital is Ahvaz and covers an
area of 63,238 km.
Sugarcane growing countries of the world are lying between the latitude 36oN and 31oS of the
equator extending from tropical to subtropical zones. Worldwide in 107 countries, sugarcane
occupies area of 20.42 million ha with a total production of 1333 million tons [1].
Area under sugarcane cultivation in Iran during 2010-2011 was 60146 ha that more than 99
percent located at Khuzestan province.

Corresponding Author :
E-mail, n.ghanbarpour@yahoo.com

Nooshin Ghanbarpour et al. - Can. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Vol. 03(04), 108-117, April 2015

Sugarcane provides sugar, besides biofuel, fiber, organic fertilizer and myriad of byproducts/coproducts with ecological sustainability. Molasses is the cheapest feed stock for the distilleries. The
bagasse has been accepted as a viable alternative raw material to wood in the paper and pulp
industry [2].
Weeds compete with cultivated crops for growth factors (water, light, nutrients, and spaces) and
harbor pests and plant pathogens [3-6]. In addition, weeds exert stress to the cultivated crops
through their allelopathic effects and parasitism [4].
The competition depends upon the crop stand and weed population as well as competition
period. Weed competition in sugarcane is critical in the early stages of crop establishment, from
planting to when the top visible dewlap is 10120 mm high. Recent Bureau of Sugar Experiment
Stations (BSES) weed competition trials have further defined yield loss at different periods in crop
establishment. Trial treatments attempted to simulate different timing of weed control. The period
of weed competition was from crop emergence (spiking) to the time of weed control (4, 8, 12
weeks). After this period, the treatments were kept weed-free until harvest Weeds compete with
sugarcane for growth factors, so reducing crop yields. Because the wide inter-row spacing (at
Iranian field 1.5- 1.8 m), high temperature, rainfall, fertilizer inputs and the perennial nature of
sugarcane favor weed growth, the effect of weed competition in sugarcane is greater than in many
short season row crops. The relatively slow establishment of the crop also makes it more susceptible
to weed competition [7].
A field study was conducted at Sugarcane Research Institute, Faisalabad during 2008-2009 to
evaluate integrated weed management for sugarcane and resulted that Ametryn + atrazine at 3.75 kg
ha1 pre-emergence on cane rows only + inter-row cultivation was the most effective and economical
than hand hoeing or inter row cultivation by tractor [8].
Diplachne fusca ( L.) Beauv. (Syn. Leptochloa fusca L. Kunth) is a tropical grass that has a C4
photosynthetic metabolism [9] and is distributed throughout Asia, Africa and Australia. It is
commonly known as kallar grass (salt grass) in Pakistan, karnal grass in India and brown beetle
grass in Australia. As well as tolerating highly saline conditions it also has the ability to grow in
waterlogged soils. It has become a serious weed of rice crops in southern New South Wales [10]
and sugarcane in Iran.

109

Nooshin Ghanbarpour et al. - Can. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Vol. 03(04), 108-117, April 2015

D. fusca can be easily propagated and established through seed, stem cutting, root stumps or
rhizomes. The grass can grow to a height of 1 1.5 meters with a high leaf production rate and can
be grazed directly or cut for stall feeding [11].
The Monocots weeds, especially perennial ones, were the most important and serious weed on
sugarcane field. For their compatible life cycle with sugarcane, more than their several propagation
methods, these weeds can damage economically [12]. Dezfuli recorded D. fusca for the first time
from Khuzestan (at the Hafttapeh Sugarcane Agro-Industry Company) [13]. Zand et al. determined
the important weeds of sugarcane field which D. fusca is one of the perennial weeds. This study
investigated the chemical control of D. fusca [14].
1.1. Chemical weed control in sugarcane
Shafi et al., studied the comparative effect of herbicides and hand weeding on weed control in
sugarcane. Gesapex Combi 80 WP and hand weeding controlled the weeds up to 75 and 70 percent
and gave an increased cane yield of 65 and 68 tons per hectare, respectively against 41 tons per
hectare of control plot [15].
Aslam et al., concluded from a field trial that manual and chemical control suppressed weed
population up to 76.64 % and 73.00% [16]. McElroy et al., recommended that the compounds such
as Halosulfuron and Trifloxysulfuron for weed control in sugarcane crop are more effective than
others [17]. Luke applied halosulfuron and trifloxysulfuron alone and with a low volatile ester 2,
4-D formulation. Weeds especially nutsedge (both species) were controlled to the extent of 44%
two weeks after treatment with the halosulfuron and trifloxysulfuron treatments. Similarly, nutsedge
control with all halosulfuron treatments was equivalent and averaged 80% four weeks after
treatment and 77% six weeks after treatment. Control with trifloxysulfuron treatments averaged
75% four weeks after treatment and at six weeks after treatment control ranged from 64 to 71%
[18]. Salimi et al., evaluated the efficacy of trifloxysulfuron sodium in weed control in fields. In this
study three experiments were carried out. The effects of Trifloxysulfuron sodium at 7.5, 11.25, and
15 g ha-1, alone or tank mixed with Cytogate at 2% (v/v), was compared with Trifluralin at 0.96 and
1.2 kg ha-1, Ethalfluralin at 0.99 and 1.16 kg ha-1 and Diuron at 2.4 kg ha-1. Trifloxysulfuron sodium
was used at seven-leaf stage of cotton. Diuron was pre-emergence and Trifluralin Ethalfluralin was
pre-plant soil incorporated. All herbicides were compared to weedy check, significantly reduced
number of plants and dry weight of Amaranthus retroflexus, A. blitoides, Chenopodium album,
Portulaca oleracea, Acropliton repense, Alhagi camelorum, Eragrostis poaeoides, Echinochloa crusgalli, E. colonum, Sorghum halepense, and Cyperus rotundus was recorded. Trifloxysulfuron at
110

Nooshin Ghanbarpour et al. - Can. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Vol. 03(04), 108-117, April 2015

11.25 or 15 g ha-1 was in most cases, more effective than its application at 7.5 g ha-1. Addition of
Cytogate enhanced the efficacy of Trifloxysulfuron[19].
The comparative effects of Ametryn, Prometryne and Dismetryne was studied by Verma and it
was found that Ametryn as pre + post emergence spray at 2.24 kg ha-1 also proved more effective
than Prometryne and Dismetryne in enhancing the cane yield over control by 31.2% [20].
An experiment was conducted to evaluate different weed control methods in sugarcane crop.
Ten treatments were: Atrazine, Ametryn and mixture of Hexazinone + Diuron as pre-emergence,
Glyphosate and Some treatment + 2, 4-D at 60 days after pruning or hoeing at 60- 90 days after
pruning or one hand weeding at 60 days after pruning, were compared with hoeing at 30, 60, and 90
days after pruning and weedy check (control). Results revealed that all the weed control methods
significantly reduced weed flora and weed biomass as compared to weedy check. However,
integrated method with pre-emergence application of Metribuzin + 2, 4-D at 60 days after pruning +
hoeing at 90 days after pruning produced maximum number of millable canes [21].
Mathur and Kirtikar reported that Nata at 11.2kg and 16.8 kg ha-1 did not effectively control
the weeds and it led to deleterious effects on the cane crop and reduced the yield whereas postemergence application of Dalapon sodium salt at 56 kg ha-1 did not have any appreciable effect on
weeds [22]. Chattha et al. proposed that cane yield could be increased to 68% with proper weed
control over weedy check. They also found that 43.75% improvement in cane yield was recorded
with integrated weed control over weedy check [23].
A field experiment was conducted Tomar et al. which consisted of 15 treatments (Herbicide
alone, in combination with herbicide (Post-emergence) or Intercultural operation, intercrops, and
trash mulch) along with weedy check and weed free. Among all the fifteen treatments, highest cane
yield (84.6 t ha-1 and 80.6 t ha-1) and CCS, commercial cane sugar, (10.1 ha-1 and 9.3 ha-1) in first
and second year, respectively were recorded from completely weed free treatment during both the
years which were at par with three hoeing (30, 60, and 90 days after pruning) which produced cane
yield (77.0 t ha-1 during 2001-2002 and 75.3 t ha-1 during 2002-2003). Losses in cane yield due to
weeds were recorded 43.4% during 2001-2002 and 43.9% during 2002-2003. Total weed
population and dry matter were higher in weedy check and lowest in weed free and 3 hoeing
treatments. Among herbicide treatments use of Metribuzin along with either one hoeing (60 days
after pruning) or use of 2, 4-D at 1.0 kg ha-1 (Post-emergence 30 days after pruning) gave
significantly lower total weed population and weed dry weight than the rest of treatments[24].

111

Nooshin Ghanbarpour et al. - Can. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Vol. 03(04), 108-117, April 2015

An experiment was conducted to study the effect of herbicide Gesapex combi at 2.5 kg ha-1 at
pre and post-emergence stages, hand weeding, and a control. Results revealed that pre- emergence
application of Gesapex combi recorded significantly higher stripped cane yield (30.14 %), sugar
recovery (20.51 %), and sugar yield (44.48 %) as compared to control [25]. Efficacy of pre
emergence application of herbicides on cane and sugar yield shows Gesapax at 2.5 kg ha-1, Visa
combi 2.5 liter ha-1 or manual weeding are equally good for weed control in sugarcane crop [26]. D.
fusca is currently being assessed for its potential use as a reclamation species for salt-affected soils
[27].
Dezfuli reported D. fusca from Khuzistan region, Iran, (7 tapeh) for the first time [13]. Zand et
al. determined the weeds of sugarcane field which Diplachne fusca is one of the 22 species of its
perennial weeds [14].
Chemical control by pre- emergence herbicide is the most prevalent methods for weed
managing of sugarcane field [28]. The sugarcane has a wide flora of weeds and no one of the
current herbicide cannot control all of its weed, solely. Eight herbicides from 14 current ones
belong to Inhibitors of photosynthesis at photosystem II (site of action) group [14].
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Greenhouse experiments
Plastic container with a diameter of 25 cm and 50 cm deep were used. Containers were filled
with experimental field soil (2/3 of container capacity). These were perforated at bottom. The stem
cutting of collected weed, D. fusca, with 2 nodes located on soil surface and covered with 1 cm of
soil (density of 20 plants per container). All other agronomic treatments like fertilizer application,
irrigation etc. was similar for all treatments.

The experiment comprised of nine treatments

(Dinamic at 2 kg ha-1, Gesapax at 2 kg ha-1, Basta + surfactant at 8 L ha-1, Cruz at 2 kg ha-1,

Sencor+ surfactant at 3 kg ha-1, Sencor + Gesapax at 1.5+ 1.5 kg ha-1 respectively, Roundup at 8 L
ha-1, Krismat at 2.5 kg ha-1 and control were left unsprayed) replicated 4 times. All treatments were
applied on successive days using ULVA-Plus hand held sprayer (Micron Sprayers Ltd., Bromyard,
UK) at a flow rate of 70 ml/min. adjusted by double hollow jet nozzles at a working pressure of 300
kPa. The formulations were sprayed before 11:00 a.m. . During spraying, temperature ranged from
25 1 C and 75 5% relative humidity. When the D. fusca were at the 4-leaf stage, spraying the
treatments was conducted.

112

Nooshin Ghanbarpour et al. - Can. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Vol. 03(04), 108-117, April 2015

Weeds were harvested (21 days after spraying) from ground surface, were dried in an oven for
48 h at 60C and then re-weighed to determine dry weights.
2.2. Field experiments
Characteristic of trial site: hot and dry climate; Altitude (a. s. l.): 7m; Latitude, Longitude: 30
50' N and 48 10' E; date of spraying: 9th of August 2012 ; Mean Annual Temperature : Mean:
24.1 C, Maximum: 36.4 C, Minimum: 3.16 C; Precipitation: 122.8 mm; Predominant wind:
NW; Mean Annual relative humidity (%) : Mean: 41.4, Maximum: 59.2, Minimum: 23; Soil
properties (030cm depth): Textural class: Sandy Clay Loam, Physical properties: Sand (%) 64 ,
Silt (%) 14.9, Clay (%) 21.1; Chemical properties: pH in water: 7.96, EC: 9.96.
Research was carried out in the research and education institute of Khuzestan sugarcane
industry, South Ahvaz County in 2011- 2012. This experimental site was selected because of a high
population density of D. fusca and its accessibility. The sugarcane cultivar IRC99-02 was sown
on 10th of August 2011 in 75 cm apart rows using hand drill and plant to plant distance of 20 cm.
Twenty four 2 m x 1 m plots, each separated by at least 10 m, were selected. All treatments
were applied on successive days using ULVA-Plus hand held sprayer. The formulations were
sprayed before 11:00 a.m. at wind speeds varying between 12 and 15 km/h. During spraying,
temperature ranged from 31 to 44 C and the relative humidity varied between 54 % early in the
morning to 14 % towards mid-day. The experiment comprised of nine treatments Gramaxone at 2 L
ha-1, Gesapax at 2 kg ha-1, Basta + surfactant at 8 L ha-1, Cruz at 2 kg ha-1, Sencor+ surfactant at 3
kg ha-1, Sencor + Gesapax at 1.5+ 1.5 kg ha-1 respectively, Roundup at 8 L ha-1, Krismat at 2.5 kg
ha-1 and control were left unsprayed) replicated 3 times. Dry weight of weed on harvesting time
were used for evaluating the chemical control. Weeds were counted per unit area (plot) and then
harvested from ground surface. Fresh weight of twenty plants, D. fusca, was taken. Weeds were
dried in an oven for 48 h at 60C and then re-weighed to determine dry weights.
2.3. Statistical analysis
An expieriment was conducted at Khuzestan Province, Iran, to study the effect of different
herbicide on D. fusca. The experiments were done by using completely randomized design. The
treatments include post- emergence herbicides and a control. The experiment comprised of nine
treatments replicated 3 and 4 times, at field and laboratory trial, respectively. The detail of treatment
is given at table.2 and table.4. ANOVAs were carried out with SAS(table.1 and table.3). Software
and differences in means were detected by using the Duncan test at p = 0.05 [29].
113

Nooshin Ghanbarpour et al. - Can. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Vol. 03(04), 108-117, April 2015

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Greenhouse experiments
Greenhouse conditions: Effect of herbicide treatments on dry weight of weeds in the
greenhouse revealed that the combination of Sencor + Gesapax at 1.5+ 1.5 kg ha-1 respectively left
highest impact that was not significantly different with Krismat at 2.5 kg ha-1 , Roundup at 8 L ha-1
and Sencor + surfactant at 3 kg ha-1 , Basta + surfactant at 8 L ha-1. These herbicide cause 44.6,
41.9, 36 and 34.8 percent loss dry weight, respectively.
In contrast to most of the studies, i.e. Verma [20] Ametryn as pre + post emergence spray at
2.24 kg ha-1 proved more effective than Prometryne and Dismetryne in enhancing the cane yield;
Shafi et al., [15] Gesapex Combi 80 WP and hand weeding controlled the weeds up to 75 and 70
percent; Afghan [26] Gesapax at 2.5 kg ha-1, Visa combi 2.5 liter ha-1 or manual weeding are
equally good for weed control in sugarcane crop; Bahadar et al. [25] Gesapex combi at 2.5 kg ha-1
at pre and post-emergence stages recorded significantly higher stripped cane yield (30.14 %), sugar
recovery (20.51 %), and sugar yield (44.48 %) as compared to control. Although Gesapex was
appreciable efficacy at control of sugarcane weed, during our study, the least loss dry weight of
weed was observed in Gesapax treatment that were not significantly different with control.
Table 1. Analysis of variance of post emergence herbicide application on D. fusca dry weight.
Sourse
df
Dry weight (g)
Replication
3
8.70 ns
Herbicide
8
99.56
Error
24
7.56
total
35
**
and ns indicate significant at p=0.01 and non-significant statistical difference respectively.

Treatments

Table 2. Weed dry weight after herbicidal application in greenhouse.

Concentrations
dry weight (g)

Dinamic WDG 70
2 kg ha-1
Krismat WDG 75
2.5kg ha-1
Basta SL 20 + surfactant
8 L ha-1
Cruz WDG 75
2 kg ha-1
Sencor WP 70 + surfactant
3 kg ha-1
Sencor WP 70 + Gesapax WP 80
1.5+ 1.5 kg ha-1
Roundup SL 41
8 L ha-1
Gesapax WP 80
2 kg ha-1
Control
-*
Means followed by different letters in the respective column are significantly different at
according to Duncan test

114

27.15 cd
25.38 abc
22.57ab
25.02 bc
23.06 abc
19.92 a
21.21 ab
30.45 de
35.12 e
5 % probability level

Nooshin Ghanbarpour et al. - Can. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Vol. 03(04), 108-117, April 2015

3.2.Field experiments
Field conditions: The means of Roundup at 8 L ha-1 and Basta + surfactant at 8 L ha-1 were not
significantly different and have the most efficacy at loss dry weight of D. fusca. The treatment of
Roundup and Basta + surfactant cause 42% and 38% loss weight of weed respectively.
Tomar et al. found that Among herbicide treatments use of Metribuzin along with either one
hoeing (60 days after pruning) or use of 2, 4-D at 1.0 kg ha-1 (Post-emergence 30 days after
pruning) gave significantly lower total weed population and weed dry weight than the rest of
treatments[24]. While according to our result, the least loss dry weight of weed was observed in
Sencor + surfactant at 3 kg ha-1 that were not significantly different with control.
Table 3. Analysis of variance of post emergence herbicide application on D. fusca dry weight.
Source
DF
dry weight (g)
Replication
2
139.23 ns
Herbicide
8
1101.67
Error
16
63.48
Total
26
**

and ns indicate, respectively, significant and nonsignificant statistical difference, at p=0,01.

Table 4. Weed dry weight after herbicidal application in sugarcane field.

Treatments
Concentrations
dry weight (g)
-1
Gramaxone SL 20
2 L ha
106.21 b
Krismat WDG 75
2.5 kg ha-1
107.07 bc
Basta SL 20 + surfactant
8 kg ha-1
88 a
Cruz WDG 75
2 kg ha-1
116.75 bc
Sencor WP 70 + surfactant
3 kg ha-1
130.09 de
Sencor WP 70 + Gesapax WP 80
1.5+ 1.5 kg ha-1
117.82 bc
Roundup SL 41
8 L ha-1
80.47 a
Gesapax WP 80
2 kg ha-1
122.69 cd
Control
-143.03 e
*
Means followed by different letters in the respective column are significantly different at 5 % probability level
according to Duncan test

Acknowledgement
We thank M. Alikhani for their comments and suggestions on an earlier version of the
manuscript. We are sincerely grateful to Dr. E. Sedaghatfar (Iran) for his help in any respect.
References
[1] Natrajin B.: Sugar and sugarcane international and national scenario and the role of sugarcane breeding
institute in varietal improvement in India. Int. Trg. Oct, 10 (2005).
[2] Anonymous: Sugarcane crop. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), New York, USA (2003).
[3] Qasem J., Foy C.: Weed allelopathy, its ecological impacts and future prospects: a review. Journal of
crop production, 4, 43-119 (2001).

115

Nooshin Ghanbarpour et al. - Can. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Vol. 03(04), 108-117, April 2015
[4] Anderson W. P.: Weed science, in Weed Science PrinciplesWest Publication company: Minnesota USA.
p. 15-33 (1983).
[5] Afzal M., Gill M., Malik K., Bajwa M., Ahmad S.: Efficacy of Gesapax Combi with Surfactant Triton for
the control of weeds in sugarcane. in Fourth All Pakistan Weed Science Conference, Faisalabad
(Pakistan), 26-27 Mar 1994. UAF (1995).
[6] Mohyuddin A. I. H. A., Mohammad A.: Integrated Pest Control of Sugar-cane borers in the NWFP, in
International Institute of Biological Control/Pakistan agricultural Research Council: Islamabad, Pakistan
(1994).
[7] McMahon G., Lawrence P., O'Grady T.: Weed control in sugarcane. Chapter 12. Manual of cane
growing. Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, Indooroopilly, 241-261 (2000).
[8] Cheema M. S., Bashir S., Ahmad F.: Evaluation of integrated weed management practices for sugarcane.
in Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research. Weed Science Society of Pakistan, Department of Weed
Science (2010).
[9] Prendergast H., Hattersley P.: Australian C4 Grasses (Poaceae)-Leaf Blade Anatomical Features in
Relation to C-4 Acid Decarboxylation Types. Australian Journal of Botany, 35
, 355-382 (1987).
[10] McIntyre S., Mitchell D., Ladiges P.: Seedling mortality and submergence in Diplachne fusca: a semiaquatic weed of rice fields. Journal of Applied Ecology, 537-549 (1989).
[11] R. S. G.: Sustainable agriculture: A Pakistan National Conservation Strategy Sector Paper No. 2,
Environment and Urban Affairs Division, Government of Pakistan and IUCN. The World Conservation
Union, Pakistan (1993).
[12] Taherkhani K. N. A., Askarian zadeh A.: Efficacy study of pre emergence herbicide of Tebusan
onsugarcane field, Sugarcane Research Center: Ahwaz, IRAN (2002).
[13] M. D.: grassesweed (monocotyledons) of Iran, University Publishing Center, Tehran, IRAN (1997).
[14] Zand A. B. M. A., Nezam Abadi N., Shimi P.: erbicide and important weed of Iran University
Publishing Center, Tehran, IRAN (2010).
[15] Shafi M., Afgan S., Shah M., Mohmood T.: Screening of herbicides for weeds in sugarcane at postemergence stage. Pakistan Sugar Journal, 8, 9-12 (1995).
[16] Aslam M. J. M. A., Chattha A. A.: Efficiency of weedicides for weed control in sugarcane. Journal of
agriculture research, 38, 76-171 (2000).
[17] McELROY J. S., Yelverton F. H., Troxler S. C., Wilcut J. W.: Selective Exposure of Yellow (Cyperus
esculentus) and Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) to Postemergence Treatments of CGA-362622,
Imazaquin, and MSMA 1. Weed technology, 17, 554-559 (2003).
[18] Luke Jr M.: Summer fallow and in-crop weed management programmes in sugarcane (Saccharum spp.
Hybrids): control of perennial weeds and purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) interference,
Dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University (2007).
[19] Salimi H., Montazeri M., Fereidoonpour M., Akhavan M.: Comparative of the efficacy of
trifloxysulfuron sodium with cotton selective herbicides registered in Iran. Pakistan Journal of Weed
Science Research, 12, 319-329 (2006).
[20] S. V. R.: Weed management in sugarcane technology, Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research (2000).

116

Nooshin Ghanbarpour et al. - Can. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Vol. 03(04), 108-117, April 2015
[21] Singh H., Kumar N., Dwivedi D.: Efficacy of some new herbicides on weed dynamics and yield of
sugarcane. Indian Sugar, 58, 71-74 (2008).
[22] Mathur P. S. K. P. S.: Indian journal of sugarcane technology, 101-104 (1965).
[23] Chattha M. A. A. A., Muhammad I., Akhtar A.: Micropropagation of sugarcane (Saccharum species
hybrid). Pakistan Sugarcane journal, 16, 2-6 (2001).
[24] Tomar P., Prakash O., SINGH D.: Economical methods of weed management to improve the
productivity and sugar recovery in late planted sugarcane. Indian Sugar, 53, 339-342 (2003).
[25] Bahadar K. A. H., Khan A.: Genetic stability and production potential of new sugarcane genotypes on
farmers fields in Bannu (NWFP). Pakistan Sugarcane journal, 19, 12-17 (2004).
[26] S. A.: Studies on biological, cultural and chemical control of sugarcane weeds. Pakistan Sugar Journal,
10, 3-9 (1996).
[27] A. K.: Long-term forage yields of five tropical grasses on an extremely sodic soil and the resultant soil
amelioration. Experimental Agriculture, 24, 89-96 (1988).
[28] Zand A. B. M. J.: Weed resistance to Herbicide, Jahad-E-Daneshgahi Publishers, Mashhad, IRAN (2002
).
[29] Steel R., Torrie J.: Principles and procedures of statistics. International student Ed, Tokyo (Japan):
McGraw Hill (1984).

117