Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:54:28.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chemical Control of Giant Burreed (Sparganium eurycarpum) in Wild Rice (Zizania palustris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Sharon A. Clay  and
Ervin A. Oelke
Sharon A. Clay
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. Plant Genet., Univ. Minn., St. Paul, MN 55108
Ervin A. Oelke
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. Plant Genet., Univ. Minn., St. Paul, MN 55108
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The response of giant burreed to bentazon, propanil, 2,4-D (amine salt), and 2,4-D plus crop oil (0.5% v/v) was evaluated at the 2-aerial-leaf stage of wild rice. Bentazon, 2,4-D, and 2,4-D plus crop oil at 1.1 kg/ha or more in 1984, and propanil and 2,4-D plus crop oil at 4.5 kg/ha in 1985 reduced giant burreed dry weight. Generally, herbicide rates above 1.1 kg/ha injured wild rice and reduced yields compared to weed-free controls. None of the study treatments resulted in effective giant burreed control without unacceptable injury to wild rice.

Keywords

Bentazon, 3-(1-methylethyl)-1H-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one 2,2-dioxide, 2,4-D, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acidpropanil, N-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)propanamidegiant burreed, Sparganium eurycarpum Engelm. ♯3 SPGEUwild rice, Zizania palustris L.Bentazonpropanil2,4-D
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 294 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Brandes, G. A. 1963. A progress report of STAM F-34 for grass and weed control in rice. Rice J. 66:6.Google Scholar
2. Clay, S. A., and Oelke, E. A. 1987. Effects of giant burreed (Sparganium eurycarpum) and shade on wild rice (Zizania palustris). Weed Sci. 35:640–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Clay, S. A., and Oelke, E. A. 1988. Basis for differential susceptibility of rice (Oryza sativa), wild rice (Zizania palustris), and giant burreed (Sparganium eurycarpum) to bentazon. Weed Sci. 36:301–304.Google Scholar
4. Conies, R. D., and Morrow, L. A. 1971. Control of waterlilies with dichlobenil. Weed Sci. 19:402–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Cousens, R. 1988. Misinterpretations of results in weed research through inappropriate use of statistics. Weed Res. 28:281–289.Google Scholar
6. Mine, A., and Matsunaka, S. 1975. Mode of action of bentazon: effect on photosynthesis. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 5:444–450.Google Scholar
7. Oelke, E. A., Grava, J., Noetzel, D. M., Barron, D. D., Percich, J. A., Schertz, C. E., Strait, J., and Stucker, R. E. 1982. Wild rice production in Minnesota. Minn. Agric. Ext. Ser. Bull. No. 464.Google Scholar
8. Patterson, D. T. 1982. Shading responses of purple and yellow nutsedges (Cyperus rotundas and C. esculentus). Weed Sci. 30:25–30.Google Scholar
9. Ransom, J. K., Oelke, E. A., and Wyse, D. L. 1983. Behavior of 2,4-D in common water plantain (Alisma triviale). Weed Sci. 31:766–770.Google Scholar
10. Ray, B., and Wilcox, M. 1969. Chemical fallow control of nutsedge. Weed Res. 9:86–94.Google Scholar
11. Smith, R. J. Jr. 1961. 3′,4′-dichloropropionanilide for control of barnyardgrass in rice. Weeds 9:318–322.Google Scholar
12. Spencer, D. F., Ksander, G. G., and Whiteand, L. C. 1989. Sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus) tuber size influences its response to fluridone treatment. Weed Sci. 37:250–253.Google Scholar
13. U.S. Agric. Res. Serv. 1977. Weed control in U.S. rice production. U.S. Dep. Agric. Handb. 497.Google Scholar