Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:09:56.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imidazolinone-Tolerant Rice Response to Imazethapyr Application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ronald J. Levy JR. ,
Jason A. Bond ,
Eric P. Webster ,
James L. Griffin ,
Wei P. Zhang  and
Steven D. Linscombe
Ronald J. Levy JR.
Affiliation:
LSU AgCenter, Cooperative Extension Service, 157 Cherokee Drive, Crowley, LA 70526
Jason A. Bond*
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University (LSU) AgCenter, Rice Research Station, 1373 Caffey Road, Rayne, LA 70578
Eric P. Webster
Affiliation:
LSU AgCenter, Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, LSU AgCenter, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
James L. Griffin
Affiliation:
LSU AgCenter, Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, LSU AgCenter, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Wei P. Zhang
Affiliation:
LSU AgCenter, Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, LSU AgCenter, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Steven D. Linscombe
Affiliation:
LSU AgCenter, Rice Research Station, 1373 Caffey Road, Rayne, LA 70578
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse research was conducted to evaluate shoot and root growth response of imidazolinone-tolerant (IT) rice cultivars to imazethapyr applied postemergence at various rates and application timings. Imazethapyr was applied at 70, 140, and 280 g ai/ha to IT cultivars ‘CL 121’ and ‘CL 161’ in the one- to two-leaf and three- to four-leaf growth stages. Imazethapyr applied to one- to two-leaf or three- to four-leaf rice at 70, 140, and 280 g/ha was more injurious to CL 121 than to CL 161. At 3 wk after treatment (WAT), CL 121 was injured 23 to 38% regardless of application timing. In contrast, CL 161 was injured no more than 11% at 3 WAT. Shoot:root ratio for CL 161 was not affected by imazethapyr application. For CL 121, shoot:root ratio was lower following imazethapyr at 280 g/ha than at 70 or 140 g/ha. Based on shoot fresh weight following imazethapyr at 70 g/ha, CL 161 was 1.8 times more tolerant than CL 121 at 2 WAT and 1.3 times more tolerant at 3 WAT. The IT rice cultivar CL 161 is inherently more tolerant to imazethapyr than is CL 121 based on visual injury and shoot and root growth.

Keywords

Imazethapyrrice, Oryza sativa L. ‘CL 121’, ‘CL 161’Application timingrice injuryshoot:root ratioALS, acetolactate synthaseIT, imidazolinone-tolerantWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 389 - 393
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.)

Footnotes

1 Published with the approval of the Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State University AgCenter, manuscript 05-61-0493.

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 2003. NewPath herbicide product label. Web page: http://www.greenbook.net. Accessed: July 8, 2005.Google Scholar
Bollich, P. K., Salassi, M. E., Webster, E. P., Regan, R. P., Romero, G. R., and Walker, D. M. 2002. An evaluation of Clearfield rice production on a stale seedbed. in van Santen, E. ed. Proceedings of the Southern Conservation Tillage Conference for Sustainable Agriculture. Auburn, AL. June 24–26, 2002. Auburn, AL: Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station and Auburn University. Pp. 184–189.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant difference for combined analysis of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.Google Scholar
Croughan, T. P. 1994. Application of tissue culture techniques to the development of herbicide-resistant rice. Louis. Agric. 37:25–26.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D. 1989. Phloem translocation of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 4:191–225.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D., Bestman, H. D., and Born, W. H. Vanden 1990. Physiological basis for the different phloem mobilities of chlorsulfuron and clopyralid. Weed Sci. 38:1–9.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Bolero, G. A., and Stoller, E. W. 2003. Influence of diphenylether herbicide application rate and timing on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 17:14–20.Google Scholar
Masson, J. A. and Webster, E. P. 2001. Use of imazethapyr in water-seeded imidazolinone-tolerant rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 15:103–106.Google Scholar
Noldin, J. A., Chandler, J. M., and McCauley, G. N. 1999. Red rice (Oryza sativa) biology. I. Characterization of red rice ecotypes. Weed Technol. 13:12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ottis, B. V., Chandler, J. M., and McCauley, G. N. 2003. Imazethapyr application methods and sequences for imidazolinone-tolerant rice. Weed Technol. 17:526–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellerin, K. J., Webster, E. P., Zhang, W., and Blouin, D. C. 2003. Herbicide mixtures in water-seeded imidazolinone-resistant rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 17:836–841.Google Scholar
Pellerin, K. J., Webster, E. P., Zhang, W., and Blouin, D. C. 2004. Potential use of imazethapyr mixtures in drill-seeded imidazolinone-resistant rice (Oryza sativa) production. Weed Technol. 18:1037–1042.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. Pp. 2419–2504.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 1991. Physiological effects of the imidazolinone herbicides. in Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 129–138.Google Scholar
Stidham, M. A. 1991. Herbicides that inhibit acetohydroxyacid synthase. Weed Sci. 39:428–434.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. and Masson, J. A. 2001. Acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides on imidazolinone-tolerant rice. Weed Sci. 49:652–657.Google Scholar
Wenefrida, I., Croughan, T. P., Utomo, H. S., Meche, M. M., Wang, X. H., and Herrington, J. A. 2004. Herbicide resistance profiles in Clearfield rice. Rice Technol. Wrkg. Grp. 30:178.Google Scholar
Zhang, W. and Webster, E. P. 2002. Shoot and root growth of rice (Oryza sativa) in response to V-10029. Weed Technol. 16:768–772.Google Scholar