Assessment of Bermudagrass (Cynodon Dactylon) Biotypes and Bermudagrass Interference with Sugarcane (Saccharum Spp
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2014 Assessment of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) biotypes and bermudagrass interference with sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids Dexter Paul Fontenot Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Recommended Citation Fontenot, Dexter Paul, "Assessment of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) biotypes and bermudagrass interference with sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids" (2014). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 2500. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/2500 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. ASSESSMENT OF BERMUDAGRASS (CYNODON DACTYLON) BIOTYPES AND BERMUDAGRASS INTERFERENCE WITH SUGARCANE (SACCHARUM SPP. HYBRIDS) A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy in The School of Plant, Environmental and Soil Sciences by Dexter P. Fontenot B.S. Louisiana State University, 2003 M.S. Louisiana State University, 2007 May 2014 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank my family and friends for the support and encouragement throughout my studies. Most importantly, I want to thank my wife for her time and inspiration. She along with my son, Jacob, has been the motivation that helped me reach these goals. To my parents, J.D. and Dianna Fontenot, thank you for the encouragement and interest that you have shown throughout my studies. I attribute much of my success to being raised on a farm where I learned to work hard and to appreciate what I have. Secondly, I would like to thank my major professor, Dr. Jim Griffin, for his guidance through this process. I truly appreciate the time that you have made for me and the knowledge that you have shared with me. To my committee members, Dr. Kenneth Gravois, Dr. Ben Legendre, Dr. Pat Bollich, Dr. Donnie Miller, and Dr. Phil Stouffer, I thank each of you for your encouragement and friendship. Last, I would like to thank everyone else that helped me, either by offering advice or by giving their time. To everyone at the LSU Sugar Research Station for their interest and willingness to lend a hand and to Chris Roider at Ben Hur farm for helping with equipment requirements. To all the graduate and student workers, especially Matthew Beuerle, Marshall Hardwick, Bennett Schauf, and Allyson Thomas for their time spent helping set up experiments and collecting data. I cannot express how much I appreciated the hard work. To Mrs. Amy Blanchard, thank you for your help in editing my writing, your experience is irreplaceable. This has been a wonderful experience for me and has opened so many doors for myself and my family. Again, thank you to everyone who has been here for me. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................. ii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 SUGARCANE INDUSTRY IN LOUISIANA ........................................................................... 1 CHARACTERISTICS OF BERMUDAGRASS ........................................................................ 2 ALLELOPATHY ........................................................................................................................ 3 CHARACTERISTICS OF SUGARCANE CULTIVARS ......................................................... 4 DIVERSITY OF BERMUDAGRASS ....................................................................................... 6 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................. 7 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 2: GROWTH COMPARISONS AND GENETICS OF BERMUDAGRASS (CYNODON DACTYLON L. PERS.) BIOTYPES IN LOUISIANA ............................................ 10 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 10 MATERIALS AND METHODS .............................................................................................. 12 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 17 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................. 31 CHAPTER 3: BERMUDAGRASS BIOTYPE RESPONSE TO GLYPHOSATE ...................... 34 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 34 MATERIALS AND METHODS .............................................................................................. 36 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 40 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................. 49 CHAPTER 4: BERMUDAGRASS (CYNODON DACTYLON) INTERFERENCE WITH SUGARCANE .............................................................................................................................. 52 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 52 MATERIALS AND METHODS .............................................................................................. 54 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 56 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................. 65 CHAPTER 5: ALLELOPATHIC EFFECT OF BERMUDAGRASS (CYNODON DACTYLON) LEACHATE ON SUGARCANE ................................................................................................. 68 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 68 MATERIALS AND METHODS .............................................................................................. 70 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 73 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................. 80 CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY........................................................................................................... 83 iii APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 87 VITA ............................................................................................................................................. 91 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Bermudagrass biotypes collected in Louisiana for comparison of growth characteristics and genetics ............................................................................................... 13 Table 2.2. RAPD primers used for genetic analysis of the bermudagrass biotypes ..................... 16 Table 2.3. Bermudagrass percent ground cover 54 to 87 days after planting (DAP) for biotypes separated into three groups based on similarity in rate of establishment ........... 18 Table 2.4. Bermudagrass ground cover, internode length, leaf width, and plant height for 19 bermudagrass biotypes presented individually and by grouping of biotypes .............. 19 Table 2.5. Bermudagrass dry weight and seedhead production for 19 bermudagrass biotypes presented individually and by grouping of biotypes .......................................... 22 Table 2.6. Minimum and maximum air and soil temperature from November through March when percent green foliage data for the bermudagrass biotypes were collected ............................................................................................................................ 24 Table 2.7. Initial ratings of 19 biotypes for percent green foliage used to assign grouping of biotypes based on similarity in response for 2011 and 2012 ........................................ 25 Table 2.8. Percent green foliage assessments ............................................................................... 25 Table 2.9. Bermudagrass percent green foliage for 19 bermudagrass biotypes averaged for assessments.................................................................................................................. 27 Table 2.10. Percent green foliage assessments ............................................................................