Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:54:47.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mefluidide-Bentazon Interactions on Soybeans (Glycine max) and Red Rice (Oryza sativa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

S. R. Rao  and
T. R. Harger
S. R. Rao
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Path. & Crop Physiol., Louisiana Agric. Exp. Stn., Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, LA 70803
T. R. Harger
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Path. & Crop Physiol., Louisiana Agric. Exp. Stn., Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Responses of soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Bragg’] and red rice (Oryza sativa L.) to postemergence applications of mefluidide {N-[2,4-dimethyl-5-[[(trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl] amino] phenyl] acetamide} and bentazon [3-isopropyl-1H-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one 2,2-dioxide] alone and in combinations were evaluated in greenhouse studies. Soybeans were tolerant to bentazon up to the highest tested rate of 2.0 kg/ha, but their height was reduced by mefluidide at 1.0 kg/ha. Soybeans were not injured by any tested combination of the two herbicides. Bentazon applied alone at rates of 5.0 kg/ha and above had a significant effect on red rice injury. Mefluidide applied at rates above 0.25 kg/ha severely reduced height and fresh weight of red rice. When these two herbicides were combined, a synergistic reaction occurred, and the combination was much more effective in controlling red rice than was either herbicide applied alone. The addition of a surfactant significantly increased the activity of the combination on red rice up to 0.25 kg/ha of mefluidide and at all rates of bentazon.

Keywords

Herbicide combinationpostemergencesynergism
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , March 1981 , pp. 208 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © 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. Baldwin, F. L., Huey, B. A., and Morris, G. L. 1977. Distribution of three weed species in Arkansas rice fields. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 30:398.Google Scholar
2. Duke, W. B., Hagin, R. D., Hunt, J. F., and Linscott, D. L. 1975. Metal halide lamps for supplemental lighting in greenhouses: Crop response and spectral distribution. Agron. J. 67:49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Eastin, E. F. and Helpert, C. W. 1979. Weeds in agronomic crops – soybeans. Practices showing promise for two or more years. Res. Report, South. Weed Sci. Soc. 32:45.Google Scholar
4. Eastin, E. F. and Helpert, C. W. 1979. Weeds in agronomic crops – soybeans. Preliminary evaluations of herbicides. Res. Report, South. Weed Sci. Soc. 32:49.Google Scholar
5. Fontenot, H. A. 1973. Wild ducks fight red rice. Rice J. 76:14.Google Scholar
6. Gates, D. W. 1976. Sesbania control in soybeans with MBR-12325 and in combination with other herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:108.Google Scholar
7. Glenn, S. and Rieck, C. E. 1977. The activity of mefluidide on johnsongrass and shattercane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 30:54.Google Scholar
8. Goss, W. L. and Brown, E. 1939. Buried red rice. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 31:633–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Hargroder, T., Selman, F. L., Gates, D. W., and Yonce, H. D. 1977. Postemergence weed control with mefluidide in soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 30:81.Google Scholar
10. Harrison, H. F. Jr., Gossett, B. J., and Munsen, H. L. 1976. Response of soybeans and weeds to MBR-12325 alone and with bentazon and chloroxuron. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:103.Google Scholar
11. Helpert, C. W. and Eastin, E. F. 1979. Emergence of red rice from various soil depths. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc., Am., p. 32.Google Scholar
12. Hussain, H. B. and Harger, T. R. 1979. Efficacy of several preemergence herbicides applied postemergence to soybeans and seedling grasses in the greenhouse. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., pp. 16–17.Google Scholar
13. Mathis, W. D., Oliver, L. R., and Bell, D. 1976. Early postemergence susceptibility of gramineae species to HOE 23408. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:84.Google Scholar
14. McWhorter, C. G. and Barrentine, W. L. 1979. Weed control in soybeans with mefluidide applied postemergence. Weed Sci. 27:42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Mine, A., Miyakado, M., and Matsunaka, S. 1975. The mechanism of bentazon selectivity. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 5:566–574.Google Scholar
16. Price, J. B. IV and Merkle, M. G. 1977. Safeners and extenders for controlling red rice in rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 30:68.Google Scholar
17. Rogers, R. L. and Crawford, S. H. 1977. Performance of selected soybean postemergence herbicides applied as early season overtop sprays. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 30:87.Google Scholar
18. Smith, R. J. Jr. 1976. Crop and herbicide systems for red rice control in rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:164.Google Scholar
19. Smith, R. J. Jr. 1979. How to control the hard-to-kill weeds in rice. Weeds Today 10(1):12–14.Google Scholar
20. Truelove, B., Davis, D. E., and Pillai, C. G. P. 1977. Mefluidide effects on growth of corn and the synthesis of protein by cucumber cotyledon tissue. Weed Sci. 25:360–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Wills, G. D. 1976. Translocation of bentazon in soybeans and common cocklebur. Weed Sci. 24:536–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar