Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:51:01.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Selected Rice (Oryza sativa) Lines to Molinate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

E. P. Richard Jr.  and
J. B. Baker
E. P. Richard Jr.
Affiliation:
Plant Path. Dep., Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, LA 70803
J. B. Baker
Affiliation:
Plant Path. Dep., Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Seventy-three rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars and uniform advanced-generation dwarf lines were evaluated for their response to molinate (S-ethyl hexahydro-1H-azepine-1-carbothioate) at concentrations of 0, 1, 2, and 4 ppmw in a 7-day laboratory screening test. These rice entries varied significantly in their response to each molinate concentration when shoot height of each entry was compared to that at the 0 ppmw level. Entries were ranked according to their molinate response at the 2 ppmw concentration and categorized as being either tolerant, intermediate or susceptible. Entries categorized as susceptible at 2 ppmw were further subdivided into highly susceptible and moderately susceptible categories based on their response to the 1 ppmw concentration. Those categorized as tolerant at the 2 ppmw concentration were likewise divided into highly tolerant and moderately tolerant categories on the basis of their response to the 4 ppmw concentration. The results of this bioassay indicates the possible existence of a genetically inherited response to molinate which might be manipulated by plant breeders to develop cultivars which have a high tolerance to molinate.

Keywords

Laboratory screening testred riceintraspecific variationstolerance
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , March 1979 , pp. 219 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 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. Albrecht, H. R. 1947. Strain differences in tolerance to 2,4-D in creeping bent grasses. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 39:163–165.Google Scholar
2. Anderson, R. N. and Kneebone, W. R. 1969. Differential responses of Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. selections to three herbicides. Crop Sci. 9:599–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Arnon, D. I. and Hoagland, D. R. 1940. Crop production in artificial culture solutions and in soils with special reference to factors influencing yield and absorption of inorganic nutrients. Soil Sci. 50:463.Google Scholar
4. Bell, A. R., Nalewaja, J. D., Alam, S., Schooler, A. B., and Hsieh, T. S. 1973. Herbicide response and morphology of interspecific sowthistle crosses. Weed Sci. 21:189–193.Google Scholar
5. Burt, G. W. 1976. Factors affecting thiocarbamate injury to corn II. Soil incorporation, seed palcement, cultivar, leaching and breakdown. Weed Sci. 24:327–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Chem, T. M., Seaman, D. E., and Ashton, F. M. 1968. Herbicidal action of molinate in barnyardgrass and rice. Weed Sci. 15:28–31.Google Scholar
7. Dawson, J. H. 1963. Development of barnyardgrass seedlings and their response to EPTC. Weeds 11:60–67.Google Scholar
8. Derscheid, L. A., Stahler, L. M., and Kratochvil, D. E. 1952. Differential responses of barley varieties to 2,4dichloro-phenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D). Agron. J. 44:182–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Graf, G. T. and Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1976. Differential response of potato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:137–139.Google Scholar
10. Hayes, J. D. 1959. Varietal resistance to spray damage in barley. Nature 183:551–552.Google Scholar
11. Hayes, R. M. and Wax, L. M. 1975. Differential intraspecific responses of soybean cultivars to bentazon. Weed Sci. 23:516–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Jacobsohn, R. and Anderson, R. N. 1968. Differential response of wild oat lines to diallate, triallate, and barban. Weed Sci. 16:491–494.Google Scholar
13. Knake, E. L., Appleby, A. P., and Furtick, W. R. 1967. Soil incorporation and site of uptake of preemergence herbicides. Weeds 15:228–232.Google Scholar
14. Machado, V. S. and Bandeen, J. D. 1978. Atrazine-resistant lambsquarter. Weeds Today 9:11.Google Scholar
15. Matherne, R. J. and Millhollon, R. W. 1973. Tolerance of two sugarcane cultivars to terbacil, fenac, and dalapon. Weed Sci. 21:139–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Millhollon, R. W. and Matherne, R. J. 1968. Tolerances of sugarcane varieties to herbicides. Weed Sci. 16:300–303.Google Scholar
17. Oelke, E. A. and Morse, M. D. 1968. Propanil and molinate for control of barnyardgrass in water-seeded rice. Weed Sci. 15:235–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Osgood, R. V., Romanowski, R. R., and Hilton, H. W. 1972. Differential tolerance of Hawaiian sugarcane cultivars to diuron. Weed Sci. 20:537–539.Google Scholar
19. Parker, C. 1976. Origins of pest, parasite, disease and weed problems. Pages 249–264 in Cherrett, J. M. and Sogar, G. R., eds. The 18th Symposia of the British Ecological Society. Blackwell Sci. Publ., Oxford.Google Scholar
20. Radosevich, S. R. and Appleby, A. P. 1973. Relative susceptibility of two common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris L.) biotypes to six s-triazines. Agron. J. 65:553–555.Google Scholar
21. Roche', B. F. and Muzik, T. J. 1964. Ecological and physiological study of Echinochloa crusgalli (L.) Beauv. and the response of its biotypes to sodium 2,2-dichloro-propionate. Agron. J. 56:155–160.Google Scholar
22. Ryan, G. F. 1970. Resistance of common groundsel to simazine and atrazine. Weed Sci. 18:614–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Santlemann, P. W. and Meade, J. A. 1961. Variation in morphological characteristics and dalapon susceptibility within the species Setaria lutescens and S. faberi . Weeds 9:406–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Scifres, C. J. and Bovey, R. W. 1970. Differential responses of sorghum varieties to picloram. Agron. J. 62:775–777.Google Scholar
25. Sexsmith, J. J. 1964. Morphological and herbicide susceptibility differences among strains of hoary cress. Weeds 12:19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Smith, D. and Buchholtz, K. P. 1964. Oat variety responses to triazine herbicides. Crop Sci. 4:223–225.Google Scholar
27. Smith, R. J. Jr. 1970. Molinate for barnyardgrass control in rice. Weed Sci. 18:467–469.Google Scholar
28. Smith, R. J. Jr. 1971. Molinate and water management for weed control in rice. Weed Sci. 19:196–199.Google Scholar
29. Stephenson, G. R., McLeod, J. E., and Phatak, S. C. 1976. Differential tolerance of tomato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:161–165.Google Scholar
30. Warwick, D. D. 1976. Plant variability in traizine resistance. Residue Rev. 65:56–63.Google Scholar
31. Wax, L. M., Bernard, R. L., and Hayes, R. M. 1974. Response of soybean cultivars to bentazon, bromoxynil, chloroxuron, and 2,4-DB. Weed Sci. 22:35–41.Google Scholar
32. Whitworth, J. W. 1964. The reaction of strains of field bindweed to 2,4-D. Weeds 12:57–58.Google Scholar
33. Whitworth, J. W. and Muzik, T. J. 1967. Differential response of selected clones of bindweed to 2,4-D. Weeds 15:275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Williams, J. H. 1953. Differential varietal response of root tissue to exogenous growth regulators in soybeans, oats, and corn. Agron. J. 45:293–297.Google Scholar
35. Wright, T. H. and Rieck, C. E. 1973. Differential butylate injury to corn hybrids. Weed Sci. 21:194–196.Google Scholar
36. Wright, T. H. and Rieck, C. E. 1974. Factors affecting butylate injury to corn. Weed Sci. 22:83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar