Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:28:17.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consultant Perspectives on Weed Management Needs in Arkansas Rice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason K. Norsworthy ,
Nilda R. Burgos ,
Robert C. Scott  and
Kenneth L. Smith
Jason K. Norsworthy*
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas, Department of Crop Soils and Environmental Sciences, 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Nilda R. Burgos
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas, Department of Crop Soils and Environmental Sciences, 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Robert C. Scott
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas, Department of Crop Soils and Environmental Sciences, 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Kenneth L. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas, Department of Crop Soils and Environmental Sciences, 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Certified Crop Advisors of Arkansas and members of the Arkansas Crop Consultants Association were surveyed in Fall 2006 through direct mail to assess current weed management practices and needs in rice from both a research and educational perspective. Consultants reported scouting 228.2 of the possible 567 thousand hectares (40%) of rice grown in Arkansas. Pre-emergence herbicides most often recommended were clomazone (93%) and quinclorac (40%). Propanil (55%) and quinclorac (47%) were the two most commonly recommended postemergence herbicides. Thirty-two percent of the consultants often recommend three or more herbicide applications per field. An average of 37% of the fields were believed to have “serious” or “very serious” weed infestations, and fields were scouted for weeds on average 11 times per growing season. Ninety-two percent of the consultants had “moderate” to “high” concerns with herbicide-resistant weeds. The perceived average additional expense associated with managing a resistant weed in rice was $65.60/ha. Propanil-resistant and quinclorac-resistant barnyardgrass were believed to be infesting 24 and 7% of the scouted rice hectares, respectively. Barnyardgrass was the most problematic weed of rice followed by red rice. Northern jointvetch and smartweeds were the two most problematic broadleaf weeds. The number one research need was improved broadleaf weed control. Respondents indicated that research and educational efforts should continue to focus on herbicide performance and development of economical weed control programs.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGnorthern jointvetch, Aeschynomene virginica (L.) B.S.P. AESVIred rice, Oryza sativa L. ORYSAsmartweeds, Polygonum spprice, Oryza sativa L.Weed management survey
Type
Extention/Outreach
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 832 - 839
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

Anonymous 2005. Clearfied® Rice: Stewardship Guide. Research Triangle Park, NC BASF Corp 2.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2006. Official standards for seed certification in Arkansas. Circular #15 http://www.plantboard.org/seed_pdfs/seed_certification_May202006.pdf. Accessed: November 29, 2006.Google Scholar
Baltazar, A. M. and Smith, R. J. Jr. 1994. Propanil-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 8:576–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, J. A., Griffin, J. L., Ellis, J. M., Linscombe, S. D., and Williams, B. J. 2006. Corn and rice response to simulated drift of imazethapyr plus imazapyr. Weed Technol. 20:113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, V. F. III 1994. Propanil Resistant Barnyardgrass in Arkansas: Competitive Ability, Distribution, and Mechanism of Resistance. Fayetteville, AR University of Arkansas. 113. Ph.D dissertation.Google Scholar
Coble, H. D. 1994. Future directions and needs for weed science research. Weed Technol. 8:410–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, A. G. 1993. Herbicide spray drift. http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/weeds/a657w.htm. Accessed: November 8, 2006.Google Scholar
Fietsam, J. F. W., Young, B. G., and Steffen, R. W. 2004. Differential response of herbicide drift reduction nozzles to drift control agents with glyphosate. Trans. ASAE 47:1405–1411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. A. 2006. International survey of herbicide-resistant weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp. Accessed: November 9, 2006.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Shaner, D. L., Krutz, L. J., Walker, T. W., Buehring, N., Henry, W. B., Thomas, W. E., and Wilcut, J. W. 2005. Rice (Oryza sativa) response to drift rates of glyphosate. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:1161–1167.Google Scholar
Levy, R. J. Jr., Bond, J. A., Webster, E. P., Griffin, J. L., and Linscombe, S. D. 2006. Effect of cultural practices on weed control and crop response in imidazolinone-tolerant rice. Weed Technol. 20:249–254.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, R. S., Lindner, R. K., Pannell, D. J., and Powles, S. B. 2002. Resistance and the herbicide resource: perceptions of Western Australian grain growers. Crop Prot. 21:1067–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Berry, M. A. 1991. Use of a grower survey for estimating weed problems. Weed Technol. 5:460–466.Google Scholar
Lovelace, M. L., Talbert, R. E., Skulman, B. W., and Scherder, E. F. 2002. Evaluation of physiological responses in quinclorac-resistant and -susceptible barnyardgrass. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:114.Google Scholar
Malik, M. S., Talbert, R. E., Scherder, E. F., Lovelace, M. L., and Ottis, B. V. 2003. Alternative herbicides for the control of quinclorac- and propanil-resistant barnyardgrass. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:41.Google Scholar
Mitchell, H. R. and Gage, E. R. 1999. Command 3 ME: weed control in southern rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:186.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Mitchell, P. D., Young, B. G., and Culpepper, A. S. 2005. Proactive versus reactive management of glyphosate-resistant or -tolerant weeds. Weed Technol. 19:924–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service 2006. Rice: State Statistics for 2006. http://www.nass.usda/gov/QuickStats/index2.jsp. Accessed: November 7, 2006.Google Scholar
Pringnitz, B. 1999. Strategies for reducing herbicide drift. http://www.ent.iastate.edu/Ipm/Icm/1999/6-21-1999/stratdrift.html. Accessed: November 8, 2006.Google Scholar
Ramsdale, B. K. and Messersmith, C. G. 2001. Drift-reducing nozzle effects on herbicide performance. Weed Technol. 15:453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
N.A. Slaton, ed. 2001. Rice production handbook. Misc. Publ. 192. Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service. Little Rock, AR University of Arkansas. 126.Google Scholar
Talbert, R. E. and Burgos, N. R. 2007. History and management of herbicide-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in Arkansas rice. Weed Technol. 21:324–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbert, R. E., Ottis, B. V., Malik, M. S., Lovelace, M. L., and Scherder, E. F. 2003. Comparison of stale and conventional seedbed systems using Newpath in Clearfield rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:51.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Coble, H. D. 1997. Changes in the weed species composition of the southern United States: 1974 to 1995. Weed Technol. 11:308–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M. and MacDonald, G. E. 2001. A survey of weeds in various crops in Georgia. Weed Technol. 15:771–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, E. P., Zhang, W., Lanclos, D. Y., Masson, J. A., and Morris, S. N. 1999. Experimental herbicides for weed control in rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:16.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. E. Jr. and Branson, J. W. 2004. Trends in Arkansas rice production. Pages 15–24. 529. Arkansas Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. Ser in B. R. Wells Rice Research Studies 2004.Google Scholar