Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:16:24.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of Exserohilum monoceras for the control of Echinochloa species in rice (Oryza sativa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Wenming Zhang  and
Alan K. Watson
Wenming Zhang
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, McGill University Macdonald Campus, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec, Canada, H9X 3V9
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Efficacy of an indigenous fungus, Exserohilum monoceras, for the control of 3 Echinochloa species was evaluated and compared under both regulated greenhouse and screenhouse (field plots netted with 2 layers of metal mesh screening to exclude vertebrate pests) conditions. Under greenhouse conditions, an inoculum dose of 2.5 × 107 conidia m−2 killed all seedlings of both barnyardgrass and E. glabrescens, whereas an inoculum dose of 5.0 × 107 conidia m−2 was required to obtain 100% mortality of junglerice seedlings. The 1.5-leaf stage of all 3 Echinochloa species was the most susceptible. Increasing inoculum density increased weed control efficacy on younger or older Echinochloa seedlings. The highest level of control was observed for E. glabrescens, less for barnyardgrass, and least for junglerice. Under screenhouse conditions, Exserohilum monoceras caused more than 90% mortality of Echinochloa species when the inoculum was formulated as an oil emulsion or when applied as a dry powder.

Keywords

Biological controlbioherbicideformulationECHCGECHCOECHGLExserohilum monoceras (Drechs.) K. J. Leonard & E. G. Suggsbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCG, junglerice, Echinochloa colona (L.) Link. ECHCOEchinochloa glabrescens Munro ex Hook. f. ECHGLrice, Oryza sativa L. ‘IR 72’
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , February 1997 , pp. 144 - 150
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Baker, C. A. and Henis, J. M. S. 1990. Commercial production and formulation of microbial biocontrol agents. in Baker, R. R. and Dunn, P. E., eds. New Directions in Biological Control: Alternatives for Suppressing Agricultural Pests and Diseases. New York: Alan R. Liss, pp. 333–344.Google Scholar
Boyette, C. D. and Walker, H. L. 1985. Factors influencing biocontrol of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa) with Fusarium lateritium . Weed Sci. 33: 209–211.Google Scholar
Charudattan, R. 1990. Assessment of efficacy of mycoherbicide candidates. in Delfosse, E. S., ed. Proceedings of the VII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds. March 6–11 1988, Rome, Italy—Istituto Sperimentale per la Patologia Vegetale (MAF), Rome, pp. 455–464.Google Scholar
Charudattan, R. 1991. The mycoherbicide approach with plant pathogens. in TeBeest, D. O., ed. Microbial Control of Weeds. New York: Chapman & Hall, pp. 24–57.Google Scholar
Couch, T. L. and Ignoffo, C. M. 1981. Formulation of insect pathogens. in Burges, H. D., ed. Microbial Control of Pests and Plant Diseases. 1970–1980. London: Academic Press, pp. 621–634.Google Scholar
De Datta, S. K. 1981. Weeds and weed control in rice. in De Datta, S. K., ed. Principles and Practices of Rice Production. New York: J. Wiley, pp. 460–512.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd edition. New York: J. Wiley, 680 p.Google Scholar
Holcomb, G. E. 1982. Constraints on disease development. in Charudattan, R. and Walker, H. L., eds. Biological Control of Weeds with Plant Pathogens. New York: J. Wiley, pp. 61–71.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI: The University Press of Hawaii, pp. 32–46.Google Scholar
Jiang, R. 1989. Field weeds chemical control series and systematic management. In 12th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, Seoul, South Korea, pp. 731–739.Google Scholar
Jiang, R., Sun, Y., and Zhang, W. 1990. Weed occurrence pattern and control in direct seeded rice. J. Jiangsu Agric. Sci. 4: 24–30 [In Chinese, with English summary].Google Scholar
Makowski, R.M.D. 1993. Effect of inoculum concentration, temperature, dew period, and plant growth stage on disease of round-leaved mallow and velvetleaf by Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f.sp. malvae . Phytopathology 83: 1229–1234.Google Scholar
Matsunaka, S. 1983. Evolution of rice weed control practices and research: world perspective. in Weed Control in Rice. Manila, Philippines. International Rice Research Institute, pp. 5–17.Google Scholar
Michael, P. W. 1983. Taxonomy and distribution of Echinochloa species with special reference to their occurrence as weeds of rice. in Weed Control in Rice. Manila, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute, pp. 291–306.Google Scholar
Moody, K. 1991. Weed control in upland rice with emphasis on grassy weeds. in Baker, F.W.G. and Terry, P. J., eds. Tropical Grassy Weeds. Wallingford, UK: CAB International for CASAFA, pp. 164–178.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. L., Russell, R. M., and Savin, N. E. 1980. POLO: a user's guide to probit or logit analysis. Berkeley, CA: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report PSW-38. 15 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. 1983. Weeds of major economic importance in rice and yield losses due to weed competition. in Weed Control in Rice. Manila, Philippines. International Rice Research Institute, pp. 19–36.Google Scholar
TeBeest, D. O. 1991. Ecology and epidemiology of fungal plant pathogens studied as biological control agents of weeds. in TeBeest, D. O., ed. Microbial Control of Weeds. New York: Chapman & Hall, pp. 97–114.Google Scholar
TeBeest, D. O., Templeton, G. E., and Smith, R. J. Jr. 1978. Temperature and moisture requirements for development of anthracnose on northern jointvetch. Phytopathology 68: 389–383.Google Scholar
TeBeest, D. O., Yang, X. B., and Cisar, C. R. 1992. The status of biological control of weeds with fungal pathogens. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 30: 637–657.Google Scholar
Tuite, J. 1969. Plant Pathological Methods: Fungi and Bacteria. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess, p. 41.Google Scholar
Watson, A. K. 1994. Current status of bioherbicide development and prospects for rice in Asia. in Shibayama, H., Kiritani, K. and Bay-Peterson, J., eds. Integrated Management of Paddy and Aquatic Weeds in Asia. FFTC Book Series No. 45. Taipei: Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for Asian and Pacific Regions, pp. 195–201.Google Scholar
Watson, A. K. and Wymore, L. A. 1990. Identifying limiting factors in the biocontrol of weeds. in Baker, R. R. and Dunn, P. E., eds. New Directions in Biological Control: Alternatives for Suppressing Agricultural Pests and Diseases. New York: Alan R. Liss, pp. 305–316.Google Scholar
Yeh, W. H. and Bonman, J. M. 1986. Assessment of potential resistance to Pyricularia oryzae in six rice cultivars. Plant Pathol. 35: 319–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W. M. 1996. Biological control of Echinochloa species with pathogenic fungi. Ph.D. thesis. McGill University, Montreal, Canada. 167 p.Google Scholar
Zhang, W. M., Moody, K. and Watson, A. K. 1996. Responses of Echinochloa species and rice (Oryza sativa) to indigenous pathogenic fungi. Plant Dis. 80: 1053–1058.Google Scholar