Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:16:20.947Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Flood Interval and Cultivar on Rice (Oryza sativa) Tolerance to Fenoxaprop

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Charles E. Snipes ,
Joe E. Street  and
Deborah L. Boykin
Charles E. Snipes
Affiliation:
Delta Branch, Mississippi Agric. and For. Exp. Stn., Stoneville, MS 38776
Joe E. Street
Affiliation:
Delta Branch, Mississippi Agric. and For. Exp. Stn., Stoneville, MS 38776
Deborah L. Boykin
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Stoneville, MS 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Five rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars were evaluated in the greenhouse for tolerance to fenoxaprop {(±)-2-[4-[(6-chloro-2-benzoxazolyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acid}. Rice was more tolerant to fenoxaprop when flooded at 7 days after spraying, based on trends in reduction of weight of seedling topgrowth. ‘Lebonnet’ was the only cultivar that responded differently when five cultivars were compared. In the field, rice yield was not adversely affected by fenoxaprop applied at 168 g ai/ha and flooded 1 to 10 days after treatment, but yield increased as the time interval between application of 336 g ai/ha and flooding increased. Yield data suggested that flooding should be delayed at least 5 days when rice is treated with the high rate. The cultivar ‘Newbonnet’ was slightly less tolerant than 'Starbonnet’ in the field.

Keywords

StarbonnetNewbonnetLebonnetLabelleLemont
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technolgy
Information
Weed Science , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , November 1987 , pp. 842 - 845
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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

1. Barrentine, W. L., Edwards, C. J. Jr., Hartwig, E. E., and Kilen, T. C. 1982. Tolerance of three soybean (Glycine max) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30:344–348.Google Scholar
2. Freund, R. S. and Littell, C. 1981. SAS for Linear Models. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC. 231 pp.Google Scholar
3. Miller, D. S., Nalewaja, J. D., Pudelko, J., and Adamczewski, K. A. 1978. Difenzoquat for wild oat (Avena fatua) control. Weed Sci. 26:571–576.Google Scholar
4. Reick, C. E. and Wright, T. H. 1973. Differential butylate injury to corn hybrids. Weed Sci. 21:194–196.Google Scholar
5. Richard, E. P. Jr. and Baker, J. B. 1979. Response of selected rice (Oryza sativa) lines to molinate. Weed Sci. 27:219–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Richard, E. P. Jr. and Street, J. E. 1984. Herbicide performance in rice (Oryza sativa) under three flooding conditions. Weed Sci. 32:157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Smith, R. J. Jr. 1970. Molinate for barnyardgrass control in rice. Weed Sci. 18:467–469.Google Scholar
8. Smith, R. J. Jr., Flinchum, W. J., and Seaman, D. E. 1977. Weed control in U.S. rice production. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv. Handb. No. 497. Washington, DC. 78 pp.Google Scholar
9. Snipes, C. E. and Street, J. E. 1987. Rice (Oryza sativa) tolerance to fenoxaprop. Weed Sci. 35:401–406.Google Scholar
10. Thomas, J. M. III. 1984. Floodwater management for HOE-33171 in rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 37:41.Google Scholar
11. Wax, L. M., Bernard, R. L., and Hayes, K. M. 1974. Response of soybean cultivars to bentazon, bromoxynil, chloroxuron and 2,4-DB. Weed Sci. 22:35–41.Google Scholar