Bermudagrass Control in Sugarcane in Brazil

Journal of Experimental Agriculture International 43(10): 1-9, 2021; Article no.JEAI.75693 ISSN: 2457-0591 (Past name: American Journal of Experimental Agriculture, Past ISSN: 2231-0606) Bermudagrass Control in Sugarcane in Brazil Lucas Carvalho Cirilo1, Antonio Luiz Cerdeira2, Andrea Aparecida de Padua Mathias Azania1, Lucas Ribeiro Beluci1, João Eduardo Brandão Boneti3, Vitor Simionato Bidóia3 and Carlos Alberto Mathias Azania1* 1Instituto Agronômico, Centro de Cana, Rodovia Prefeito Antonio Duarte Nogueira, km 321, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. 2Embrapa Meio Ambiente, Rodovia SP 340, km 127.5, Jaguariúna, Brazil. 3Departamento de Biologia Aplicada à Agricultura, Via de Acesso Paulo Donato Castellane, no number, Jaboticabal, Brazil. Authors’ contributions This work was carried out in collaboration among all authors. Authors LCC, LRB, JEBB, VSB were responsible for the experimental conduction, author AADPMA for the laboratory analysis and its interpretation, author ALC for the translation and writing of the article and author CAMA for the operational and financial coordination of the team and writing of the article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Article Information DOI: 10.9734/JEAI/2021/v43i1030741 Editor(s): (1) Dr. Hab. Mariusz Cycoń, Medical University of Silesia, Poland. Reviewers: (1) Rajesh Kumar, Himachal Pradesh University, India. (2) F. M. Aminuzzaman, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Bangladesh. Complete Peer review History: https://www.sdiarticle4.com/review-history/75693 Original Research Article Received 13 August 2021 Accepted 26 October 2021 Published 28 October 2021 ABSTRACT Aims: Evaluation of the chemicals in controlling bermudagrass weed and effects on sugarcane selectivity. Study Design: Chamber growth studies: completely randomized design with nine treatments with five replicates. Field studies: Randomized block design with nine treatments with five replicates Place and Duration of Study: Instituto Agronômico, Centro de Cana, São Paulo State, Brazil, between February/2018 and December/2019. Methodology: Bermudagrass chemical control was studied in growth chamber in pots. In the first stage, imazapyr, clomazone, indaziflam, sulfentrazone and the control treatment were studied. In the second stage, imazapyr, clomazone, indaziflam were applied and a treatment with no herbicides _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ *Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected]; Cirilo et al.; JEAI, 43(10): 1-9, 2021; Article no.JEAI.75693 was maintained. After 75 days of imazapyr application and 38 days of clomazone and indaziflam, clomazone + indaziflam and clomazone + sulfentrazone were applied, in addition to the control treatment. Sugar cane selectivity study was carried out in the field. Before sugarcane planting, imazapyr, clomazone, indaziflam were applied. After planting, clomazone + indaziflam and clomazone + sulfentrazone were applied, in addition to the control treatment. Results: Clomazone at 1050.0 g ha-1 applied as pre plant at 38 days before planting followed by clomazone at 1050.0 g ha-1 plus sulfentrazone at 650.0 g ha-1 applied 2 days after sugar cane planting was the best treatment for bermudagrass control and yield of the crop. Other viable options for control involved clomazone plus sulfentrazone used after imazapyr or indaziflam. Keywords: Saccharum spp.; weed, herbicides; α-esterase. 1. INTRODUCTION bermudagrass include imazapyr, clomazone, and sulfentrazone [9]. As these chemicals have a sorption coefficient below 100 mL g-1 [10], they are gradually desorbed from soil colloids to the soil solution and are free to move [11], where plants can absorb them. Sugarcane in Brazil is important for sugar production and ethanol, in addition to generating electricity and weed control is very important for the crop. Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L. Pers.) is a dominant and very important weed species in this crop. Factors such as the spreading of rhizomes and stolons by equipment, sprouting under straw [1], rapid development of rhizomes (40 tons ha-1) and stolons (5 m in 80 days) and different emergence flows [2], as well as herbicide tolerance, make this species abundant in fields. Sugarcane takes up to 120 days after planting to grow and cover the soil [12] and bermudagrass can develop during this period. Therefore, it is necessary to provide herbicide weed control during this phase. Due to herbicides visible symptoms of injury on the leaves, decreased height and stand can occur [13]. It was also observed reactive forms of oxygen as well as the production of the αesterase enzyme [14], which catalyzes such compounds before they interfere with the processes of oxidation, reduction or cellular hydrolysis [15]. The interference of bermudagrass on crop results in yield losses of up to 32% and reduces the ratoons longevity [3]. This interference also reduces the quality of stalks and increases mineral and vegetal impurities in industrial products [4]. To reduce the adverse effects of herbicides on sugarcane development and achieve better control effectiveness, it was hypothesized that herbicides applied at sugarcane preemergence and on sectioned vegetative plant parts of bermudagrass result in effective control and are selective to the sugarcane. To test this hypothesis, this research aimed to assess the chemical control of bermudagrass and an assessment of their effects on sugarcane selectivity, using herbicides sequential applications. Post-emergence chemical control is difficult as showed to be associated with the presence of the Casparian strips in plant tissues blocking herbicide translocation [5]. In contrast, other authors [6] observed that young plants have not yet developed anatomorphological structures that work as barriers to translocation. In this context, herbicides applied during the preemergence period of young bermudagrass plants can move easily through the tissues, which constitutes the foundation for developing control strategies. In further study, herbicides applied in pre-emergence after plowing are absorbed as the sectioned propagules began to sprout [7]. In addition, it was also showed that the herbicides translocated until they reached the site of action [8]. Available application 2. MATERIAL AND METHODS This research was conducted in growth chamber and field. Growth chamber data provided information on bermudagrass control and field studies information on effects of the herbicides on sugarcane. herbicides for pre-emergence and that effectively control 2 Cirilo et al.; JEAI, 43(10): 1-9, 2021; Article no.JEAI.75693 2.1 Growth Chamber Studies – Effects on Cynodon dactylon and incorporated into the soil; herbicide applied and superficially tilled the soil to simulate preincorporated application (PPI) transfering the pots to a growth chamber regulated to simulate spring and summer conditions. A sample of sandy soil was collected (629, 335 and 36 g kg-1 sand, clay and silt, respectively), sieved and treated with dolomitic limestone (1.5 t ha-1), placed into 18-L plastic pots, kept in an open environment (17.3°C +/- 5.9), with irrigation (150 mm month-1). After incubation period with liming (15 days), vegetative parts of bermudagrass, i.e., vigorous stems were planted in pots, sectioned and replanted after 30 days making suitable for herbicide application simulating field environment, with developed rhizomes, stolon and new shoots. Then, study was planned to conducted on twenty five pots to assess the treatments with no mixtures of herbicides (Table 1). After that, pots from both the experiments were arranged inside the plant growth chamber (photoperiod of 12/12 hours (light/dark), temperature of 27°C (+/-2) and 55-65% relative air humidity) according to a completely randomized design, replicated five times. It was provided daily irrigation with 3.32 mm/day/pot (100 mm per month), which is similar to the amount of rainfall under summer conditions in the Awa climate (Köppen classification). We assessed shoots of bermudagrass for injury symptoms (%) visually and obtained the plant dry mass at 60 days after the last application (DALA) by a visual scale, with zero corresponding to the absence of injury and 100 corresponding to total plant death [16]. Dry weight was obtained by weighing the material after harvesting and drying in a forced-air circulation oven at 70°C to constant weight. Data was analyzed by ANOVA, and the means were compared using student’s ttest (p<0.05). Other pots were used to study sequential applications of herbicides in mixture according to the treatments described in Table 2. Both experiments used a CO2 pressurized backpack sprayer equipped with a boom with six nozzles (TT11002) and regulated to provide a spray volume of 200 L ha-1. Before each application, the vegetative plant parts were cut Table 1. Single herbicide treatments used in the screening experiment in pre-emergence in growth chamber with Cynodon dactylon Rate (g i.a ha-1) 0.0 375.0 1050.0 75.0 650.0 Treatments (Herbicides) Check Imazapyr Clomazone Indaziflam Sulfentrazone Table 2. Treatments and timing of herbicide application in pre-emergence in growth chamber on Cynodon dactylon Treatments 0 DAP control 0.0 0.0 imazapyr imazapyr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38 DAP control 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 clomazone clomazone indaziflam indaziflam 75 DAP control clomazone +sulfentrazone clomazone + indaziflam clomazone + sulfentrazone clomazone + indaziflam clomazone + indaziflam clomazone + sulfentrazone clomazone + sulfentrazone clomazone + indaziflam DAP (days after planting), imazapyr (375.0 g ha-1), clomazone (1050.0 g ha-1), indaziflam (75.0 g ha-1), sulfentrazone (650.0 g ha-1) 3 Cirilo et al.; JEAI, 43(10): 1-9, 2021; Article no.JEAI.75693 Table 3. Treatments and timing of herbicide application to evaluate sugarcane selectivity in the field Pre planting 75 DBP control 0.0 0.0 imazapyr imazapyr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38 DBP control 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 clomazone clomazone indaziflam indaziflam treatments Post planting 2 DAP control clomazone +sulfentrazone clomazone + indaziflam clomazone + sulfentrazone clomazone + indaziflam clomazone + indaziflam clomazone + sulfentrazone clomazone + sulfentrazone clomazone + indaziflam DBP (days before planting), DAP (days after planting), imazapyr (375.0 g ha-1), clomazone (1050.0 g ha-1), indaziflam (75.0 g ha-1), sulfentrazone (650.0 g ha-1) 2.2 Field Studies - Effects on Sugarcane stand according to the traditional methodology [17]. The area was prepared by eradicating the sugarcane ratoons using glyphosate (3600 g ha1); followed up by dolomitic limestone (1.5 t ha -1), subsoiling and harrowing of the sandy soil (623, 326 and 51 g kg-1 sand, clay and silt, respectively) using a randomized block design with nine chemical treatments with five replicates in plots with rows spaced 1.50 m apart and 25 m long (Table 3). The variables were submitted to ANOVA by the F-test according to the proposed experimental design, and means were compared by Student´s t-test (p<0,5). At 315 DAP, the profile of the α-esterase isoenzyme was characterized as an indirect measure to assess the oxidative stress caused by the herbicides to the crop, selecting the middle third of three leaves+1, which together composed the sample for each treatment. The samples were put in cassettes and stored on ice when they were still in the field and at -80°C when in the laboratory. The profile was characterized for α-esterase isoenzyme via polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, followed by the staining and drying processes of the gels according to literature [18]. Then, the gels were scanned and analyzed by ImageJ software to obtain the total area occupied by the bands of each isoenzyme profile of each treatment [19]. The variables were submitted to ANOVA by the F-test according to the proposed experimental design and compared the means by Student’s ttest (p < 0.5). The management programs consisted of a weedfree treatment and combinations of herbicides applied before and after planting the sugarcane, using the same herbicide combination from bermudagrass control (Table 3). After the herbicide fallow period applied before planting, sugarcane cultivar CTC4 was mechanically planted and applied mineral fertilizer (500 kg ha-1 of 4-14-08) and fipronil insecticide (270 g ha-1) to the furrows. A tractor sprayed the herbicide at a rate of 200 L ha-1 of spray volume controlled by an onboard computer coupled to a self-propelled sprayer equipped with a spraying boom with ADD08-type nozzles spaced 0.50 m apart. Height; stand and yield at 315 days after planting (DAP). For height, the distance from the ground to the dewlap of ten stalks chosen at random in each plot was used. The stand was determined by counting the stalks in three central rows of each plot and later expressed in stalks m -1. The yield was estimated by the stalk diameter, height and 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Growth chamber studies – Cynodon dactylon control Bermudagrass area covered 61% of the control pots and produced 6.03 g dry mass, 4 Cirilo et al.; JEAI, 43(10): 1-9, 2021; Article no.JEAI.75693 corresponding to 952.86 kg ha-1 of the grass, indicating the adaptation of the species to the tropical climate, with rapid development of rhizomes and stolons [2]. All herbicides affected its growth, except indaziflam (Table 4). movement in the soil [10] affecting the contact of the herbicide resulting in slight injuries (8%) and virtually no control. This prior screening showed the need for chemical management programs using sequential applications of different herbicides to contain the development of bermudagrass. In this high-population density scenario, it was found that the combined treatments of herbicides were more efficient [1]. Clomazone and sulfentrazone most effectively suppressed growth with a control of 74.41 and 59.44% respectively. Both herbicides also reduced the dry weight and caused more injury to the grass (Table 4). This effect was also visible on injury and dry mass reduction. Clomazone caused white spots on the leaves of bermudagrass, while sulfentrazone brown spots that evolved to necrosis. The albinism in plants under the effect of clomazone is due to inhibition in the biosynthesis of carotenoids and the dark spots caused by sulfentrazone to the inhibition of protoporphyrinogen oxidase (Protox) enzyme [20]. When used in combination the best treatments involved clomazone with other herbicides. Clomazone plus sulfentrazone after clomazone or indaziflam caused high injury, decrease on dry weight and control of bermudagrass (Table 5). Single application of clomazone plus sulfentrazone or clomazone plus indaziflam without previous application of another herbicide showed inadequate control efficacy. They caused 68.00% and 60.00% of injury to bermudagrass with accumulation of 3.08 g and 3.12 g of dry mass respectively, and around 50% of control (Table 5), insufficient for control. Other studies obtained similar results in which nonsequential managements resulted in greater reinfestation of bermudagrass [1, 21]. Imazapyr also had limited effect in control (43.19%) and caused injuries to the branches and leaves (Table 4). This herbicide is registered for sugarcane and is effective in suppressing emergency flows of bermudagrass [9]. However, by itself it failed to control the development of the species. Other authors [1, 21] also found similar results with this molecule and proposed sequential applications to obtain less infestation. Other options of control done with imazapyr applied at 75 DBLP followed by clomazone plus sulfentrazone or indaziflam caused symptoms, reduction in dry weight and control between 91% to 96%. Similar results were found with clomazone or indaziflam used 38 days before last application (DBLP) followed by clomazone plus indaziflam (Table 5). Clomazone was involved in most of the options. Indaziflam, the least effective (Table 4), caused fragility by breaking down the bermudagrass’ stocks and roots with less development, certainly because the herbicide inhibited cellulose biosynthesis affecting cell wall formation leading to less vigorous plants [22]. The properties of indaziflam, with low solubility (2.8 ppm) and strong colloid retention (1000 mL g) blocks its Table 4. Effect of herbicide on Cynodon dactylon in pre-emergence in growth chamber at 60 days after planting (DAP) Treatments (Herbicides) control imazapyr clomazone indaziflam sulfentrazone Injury (%) 0.00 a 44.00 c 50.00 bc 8.00 d 62.00 b Dry mass (g) 6.03 a 3.30 b 1.46 c 7.68 a 2.25 bc (%) Control 0.00 c 43.19 b 74.41 a 0.00 c 59.44 ab Means followed by the same letter in the same column do not differ statistically among themselves by Student’s ttest (P <.05), imazapyr (375.0 g ha-1), clomazone (1050.0 g ha-1), indaziflam (75.0 g ha-1), sulfentrazone (650.0 g ha-1). Means followed by the same letter in the same column do not differ statistically among themselves by Student’s t-test (P < .05) 5 Cirilo et al.; JEAI, 43(10): 1-9, 2021; Article no.JEAI.75693 Table 5. Effect of herbicide treatments and mixtures on Cynodon dactylon in growth chamber at 60 days after last application 75 DBLA 0.0 0.0 0.0 imazapyr imazapyr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38 DBLA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 clomazone clomazone indaziflam indaziflam 0 DBLA 0,0 clomazone+sulfentrazone clomazone+ indaziflam clomazone+sulfentrazone clomazone+ indaziflam clomazone+ indaziflam clomazone+sulfentrazone clomazone+sulfentrazone clomazone+ indaziflam Injury (%) 0.00 c 68.00 b 60.00 b 84.00 ab 78.00 ab 74.00 ab 100.00 a 80.00 ab 74.00 ab Dry Weight (g) 6.64 a 3.08 b 3.12 b 0.54 cde 0.24 de 0.88 cd 0.00 e 0.04 e 1.03 c Percent Control 0.00 d 56.73 c 52.30 c 91.02 ab 96.48 ab 85.78 b 99.68 a 99.37 a 84.71 b DBLA (days before last application), imazapyr (375.0 g ha -1), clomazone (1050.0 g ha-1), indaziflam (75.0 g ha-1), sulfentrazone (650.0 g ha-1). Means followed by the same letter in the same column do not differ statistically among themselves by Student’s t-test (P < .05) Table 6. Effect of herbicides treatments on sugarcane in the field during the total life cycle of 315 days after sugarcane planting Pre plant Post plant 75 DBP 38 DBP 2 DAP Total bands Height of α-esterase (pixel cm2)a/ (cm) 0.0 0.0 0.0 imazapyr imazapyr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 clomazone clomazone indaziflam indaziflam 0.0 clomazone+sulfentrazone clomazone+indaziflam clomazone+sulfentrazone clomazone+indaziflam clomazone+indaziflam clomazone+sulfentrazone clomazone+sulfentrazone clomazone + indaziflam 100 103 109 124 135 102 101 116 91 276.53 a 272.13 ab 268.60 bc 269.13 bc 261.53 de 265.10 cd 271.70 ab 264.07 cd 258.40 e Stand Yield Stalk (m-1) 13.20 a 13.20 a 13.20 a 12.80 ab 11.40 c 11.80 c 13.00 a 12.00 bc 11.80 c Tons (ha) 122.90 ab 114.09 ab 112.64 abc 114.07 ab 99.53 c 109.78 bc 124.95 a 108.58 bc 113.36 abc DBP (days before planting), DAP (days after planting), imazapyr (375.0 g ha-1), clomazone (1050.0 g ha-1), indaziflam (75.0 g ha-1), sulfentrazone (650.0 g ha-1), a/obtained from a composite sample and not subjected to statistical analysis. Means followed by the same letter in the same column do not differ statistically among themselves by Student’s t-test (P < .05) 3.2 Field studies – Effects on Sugarcane Various symptoms were observed on the leaves of the bermudagrass due to the herbicides: small yellow spots due to the use of imazapyr, white spots due to clomazone and weak less vigorous leaves due to indaziflam. Indaziflam inhibits cellulose biosynthesis, which in turn hinders the formation of cell walls promoting formation of branches, leaves and roots that are less vigorous [22]. We also observed thin, fasciculate branches in bermudagrass, in addition to the easy plucking of the soil. Imazapyr followed by clomazone plus indaziflam controlled 96.48% of the weed in the green house experiment (Table 5). The same treatments affected the height, stand and yield of sugarcane in the field in addition to increase the level of isoenzymatic profile of α-esterase. We observed a similar effect on the enzyme with imazapyr followed by clomazone plus sulfentrazone, although with less injury to sugarcane (Table 6). Imazapyr inhibits acetolactate synthase (ALS) enzyme and interrupts the formation of amino acids, it interferes with the growth of the plant [11], resulting in yellow leaves. Clomazone interferes with carotene biosynthesis and leaf albinism is the main symptom [23]. Imazapyr is effective in controlling the species but is not selective for sugarcane [24] and should be used before the establishment of the crop and weeds according to the Brazilian Department of Agriculture [9]. Imazapyr inhibits acetolactate 6 Cirilo et al.; JEAI, 43(10): 1-9, 2021; Article no.JEAI.75693 margin of the control (100 +/- 5%). This observation reinforces that in these chemical managements, herbicides no longer produced harmful free radicals to cellular structures [14,15]. synthase (ALS) the enzyme responsible for reducing pyruvate to acetolactate, precursors of amino acids valine and leucine. The interruption in the biosynthesis of amino acids affects the formation of cell membranes and the subsequent growth of plants [11]. The management program consisting of clomazone 38 days before planting (DBP) followed by clomazone plus sulfentrazone 2 days after planting (DAP) did not affect the crop and did not alter the α-esterase profile (Table 6). This treatment also provided better bermudagrass control in green house and did not impair productivity in the field (Table 7). Such treatment, under field conditions, would allow the development of the crop and the control of bermudagrass. The interference with the height and stand of sugarcane in treatments with indaziflam (Table 6), may be related to its mechanism of action that inhibits cellulose biosynthesis and hinders cell wall formation [22], which impairs tissue formation and plant growth. Chemical management consisting of clomazone plus sulfentrazone applied after planting or its association with clomazone 38 days before planting, or last application, were selective; it did not harm sugarcane stand, height and yield. Even when combined with imazapyr or indaziflam before planting it did not reduce height and productivity, with less alteration in the αesterase profile (Table 6). At the end of the experiment, the residual effects of the herbicides in the soil remained. Because they are residual, non-volatile and nonphotodegraded [10], the herbicides used resisted for a long time until rain and became more available to the soil solution [25]. The best treatment for sugarcane selectivity was clomazone followed by clomazone plus sulfentrazone and the worst was imazypyr followed by clomazone plus indaziflam. All other treatments were intermediate in terms of sugarcane yield (Table 6). The management program consisting of clomazone plus sulfentrazone applied after planting followed by clomazone applied at 38 DBP of the crop also provided effective control of bermudagrass promoting a better yield. (Table 7). The best management programs showed a profile of α-esterase within the range of normality Table 7. Effect of herbicides treatments on sugarcane in the field 315 days after sugarcane planting comparing to bermudagrass control in growth chamber Pre plant 75 DBP 38 DBP hoed hoed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 imazapyr 0.0 imazapyr 0.0 0.0 clomazone 0.0 clomazone 0.0 indaziflam 0.0 indaziflam Post plant 2 DAP hoed clomazone+sulfentrazone clomazone+indaziflam clomazone+sulfentrazone clomazone+indaziflam clomazone+indaziflam clomazone+sulfentrazone clomazone+sulfentrazone clomazone + indaziflam Bermudagrass Control (%) 100.00 a 56.73 d 52.30 d 91.02 abc 96.48 ab 85.78 bc 99.68 a 99.37 a 84.71 c Yield (t ha) 122.90 ab 114.09 ab 112.64 abc 114.07 ab 99.53 c 109.78 bc 124.95 a 108.58 bc 113.36 abc DBP (days before planting), DAP (days after planting). Means followed by the same letter in the same column do not differ statistically among themselves by Student’s t-test (P < 0.05), imazapyr (375.0 g ha-1), clomazone (1050.0 g ha-1), indaziflam (75.0 g ha-1), sulfentrazone (650.0 g ha-1), Means followed by the same letter in the same column do not differ statistically among themselves by Student’s t-test (P < .05) 7 Cirilo et al.; JEAI, 43(10): 1-9, 2021; Article no.JEAI.75693 4. CONCLUSION 6. Clomazone treatment followed by clomazone plus sulfentrazone was the best treatment for bermudagrass control and yield of sugarcane. Other options involved clomazone plus sulfentrazone preceded by imazapyr or indaziflam also provided control and selectivity. 7. CONSENT 8. It is not applicable. ETHICAL APPROVAL It is not applicable. COMPETING INTERESTS Authors have interests exist. declared that no competing 9. REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Richard Jr EP. Control of perennated bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) in sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids). Weed Technology. 1998;12(1):128-133. Available:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890037 X00042688. Jakelaitis A, Ferreira LR, Silva AA, Agnes EL, Miranda GV, Machado AFL. Effects of management systems on the purple nutsedge population. Planta Daninha. 2003;21(1):89-95. Available:https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S010083582003000100011. Brazil. Richard Jr EP, Dalley CD. Sugarcane response to bermudagrass interference. Weed Technology. 2007;21(4):941–946. http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT-07-035.1. Salla DA, Furlaneto FPB, Cabello, C, Kanthack RAD. Energy evaluation of ethanol production using sugarcane as a raw material. Ciência Rural. 200;39(8): 2516-2520. Avaialble:https://doi.org/10.1590/S010384782009005000170. Brazil. Machado AFL, Meira RMS, Ferreira LR, Ferreira FA, Tuffi Santos, LD, Teixeira Filho, CM, Machado MS. Anatomical characterization of the leaf, stem and rhizome of Digitaria insularis. Planta Daninha. 2008;26(1):1-8. Avaailable:https://doi.org/10.1590/S010083582008000100001. Brazil. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 8 Barlow PW., Baluška F. Cytoskeletal perspectives on root growth and morphogenesis. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Molecular Biology. 2000; 51(1):289-322. Avaialble:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.a rplant.51.1.289. Azania CAM, Cirilo LC, Boneti JEB, Chaves ARCS, Bidoia VS. Perverse duo: silk grass and sedge. Cultivar Grandes Culturas Magazine. 2018; 1:39–43. Brazil. Satichivi, NM, Wax LM, Stoller EW, Briskin DP. Absorption and translocation of glyphosate isopropylamine and trimethy sulfonium salts in Abutilon theophrasti and Setariafaberi. Weed Science. 2000;48(6): 675-679. Avaialble:https://doi.org/10.1614/00431745(2000)048[0675:AATOGI]2.0.CO;2. MAP Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply: Phytosanitary Pesticides System. Agrofit. 2020. Accessed 06 September 2021. Available:http://extranet.agricultura.gov.br/ agrofit_cons/principal_agrofit_cons. PPDB. Pesticide Properties Data Base. 2021. Accessed 06 September 2021. Available from URL: https://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/ppdb/en/. Kraemer AF, Marchesan E, Avila, LA, Machado SLO, Grohs M. Environmental Fate of Imidazolinone Herbicides – A Review. Planta Daninha. 2009;27(3): 629–639. Avaialble:http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S010083582009000300025. Brazil. Almeida ACS, Souza JL, Teodoro I, Barbosa GVS., Moura Filho GF, Ricardo A. Vegetative development and production of sugarcane varieties in relation to water availability and thermal units. Ciência e Agrotecnologia. 2008;32(5):1441-1448. https://doi.org/10.1590/S141370542008000500013. Brazil. Schiavetto AR, Perecin D, Azania CAM, Zera FS, Azania AAPM, Lorenzato CM. Tolerance of sugarcane to herbicides evaluated by difference in treatments. Planta Daninha. 2019;30(1):173 184. Avaialble:https://doi.org/10.1590/S010083582012000100020. Brazil. Dat J, Vandenabeele S, Vranová E, Van Montagu M, Inzé D, Van Breusegem F. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. 2000;57(6):779-795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s000180050041. Cirilo et al.; JEAI, 43(10): 1-9, 2021; Article no.JEAI.75693 Beluci LR, Vitorino,R, Azania CAM, Azania 21. Shout WJ. Comparison of postemergence herbicides for common bermudagrass APAM, Tortorelli HF. Use of the (Cynodon dactylon) control in peanut isoenzymatic profile as a tool to evaluate (Arachis hypogea). Weed Technology. the selectivity of herbicides in sugarcane. 1995; 9(4):825-828. Nucleus. 2015;12(2):157-166. Avaialble:http://www.jstor.org/stable/39883 Avaialble:https://doi.org/10.3738/1982.227 67. 8.1436. Brazil. 16. SBCPD. Brazilian Society of Weed 22. Amim RT, Freitas SP, Freitas ILJ, Gravina GA, Paes HMF. Weed control by Science: Procedures for installation, indaziflam in soils with different evaluation and analysis of herbicide physicochemical characteristics. Planta experiments. SBCPD: Londrina; 1995. Daninha. 2014;32(4):791-800. Brazil. 17. Landell, MGA, Bressiani, JA. Genetic https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100improvement, characterization and varietal 83582014000400014. Brazil. management. In: Dinardo-Miranda LL, Vasconcelos ACM, Landell MGA, editors. 23. Darwish M; Vidal V, Lopez-Lauri F, Alnaser O, Junglee S, Maataoui ME, Sallanon H. Sugar cane. 1st ed. Campinas: Agronomic Tolerance to clomazone herbicide is linked Institute; 2010. to the state of LHC, PQ-pool and ROS 18. Adriano RC., Azania CAM, Pinto LR, detoxification in tobacco (Nicotiana Azania AAPM, Perecin D. Phenotypic and tabacum L.). Journal of Plant Physiology. biochemical responses of sugarcane 2015;175(1):122-130. cultivars to glyphosate application. Sugar Avaialble:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.201 Tech. 2013; 15(2):127-135. 4.11.009. Avaialble:https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s1235 5-013-0209-x. 24. Campbell PL. Efficacy of glyphosate, 19. Abramoff MD, Magalhães PJ, Ram SJ. alternative post-emergence herbicides and tillage for control of Cynodon dactylon. Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics international. 2004; 11(7): 36-42. South African Journal of Plant and Soil. Avaialable:https://dspace.library.uu.nl/hand 2008;25(4):220-228. le/1874/204900. Avaialable:https://doi.org/10.1080/0257186 20. Grossmann K, Hutzler J, Gaspar G, 2.2008.10639920. Kwiatkowski J, Brommer CL. Saflufenacil 25. Kawamoto EK, Leite SMM, Souza LS. (KixorTM): Biokinetic Properties and Avaliação da seletividade do indaziflam em Mechanism of Selectivity of a New mudas pré brotadas de cana–de– Protoporphyrinogen IX Oxidase Inhibiting açúcar. Revista Unimar Ciências. Herbicide. Weed Science. 2011;59(3):290– 2018;27(1):1-2. 298. Avaialble:http://ojs.unimar.br/index.php/cie Avaialble:https://doi.org/10.1614/WS-D-10ncias/article/view/651/849. Brazil. 00179.1. _________________________________________________________________________________ 15. © 2021 Cirilo et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Peer-review history: The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here: https://www.sdiarticle4.com/review-history/75693 9