Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:16:22.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Glufosinate-Resistant, BAR-Transformed Rice (Oryza sativa) and Red Rice (Oryza sativa) Response to Glufosinate Alone and in Mixtures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Sujatha Sankula
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, 302 Life Sciences Building, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Michael P. Braverman
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, 302 Life Sciences Building, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Steven D. Linscombe
Affiliation:
Rice Research Station, Crowley, LA 70527

Abstract

Glufosinate applied postemergence alone and in mixture with pendimethalin, thiobencarb, quinclorac, propanil, bensulfuron, bentazon, acifluorfen, or triclopyr was evaluated on bialaphosresistant (BAR) rice and red rice in field studies. Glufosinate at 2.2 kg ai/ha alone was less phytotoxic (6%) to BAR-transformed rice than when it was applied in combination with 0.4 kg ai/ha triclopyr (59%) or 0.6 kg ai/ha acifluorfen (22%). Rice yield with glufosinate alone was similar to the weed-free check the first year, but 13% less than the weed-free check the second year. For the glufosinate plus triclopyr mixture, rice yield was reduced by 39 and 76% compared with glufosinate alone in 1994 and 1995, respectively. Red rice control was 92% with either 3.4 kg ai/ha propanil or 0.6 kg/ha acifluorfen mixed with 0.6 kg/ha glufosinate, which was greater than for glufosinate alone and the other combinations. Propanil or acifluorfen mixed with glufosinate reduced red rice plant height, panicle maturity, and 100-seed weight 16, 31, and 24%, respectively, compared to glufosinate alone and 30, 48, and 43%, respectively, compared to the nontreated weedy check.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Ahrens, W. H., ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. Champaign. IL: Weed Science Society of America. 5,252 p.Google Scholar
Baltazar, A. M. and Smith, R. J. Jr. 1994. Propanil resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crusgalli) control in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 8:576581.Google Scholar
Braverman, M. P. and Linscombe, S. D. 1994. Field evaluation of transgenic glufosinate resistant rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:22.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. A. and Kells, J. J. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no tillage soybeans (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:642647.Google Scholar
Bruff, S. A. and Shaw, D. R. 1992a. Early season herbicide applications for weed control in stale seedbed soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6:3644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruff, S. A. and Shaw, D. R. 1992b. Tank-mix combinations for weed control in stale seedbed soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6:4551.Google Scholar
Christou, P. 1991. Agracetus, Inc. Institutional Biosafety Reports. Construction and Use of Dominant Selectable Markers for Use in Transformation of Plant Cells. Updated appendum. Middleton, WI: Agracetus. pp. 19.Google Scholar
Droge, W., Broer, I., and Puhler, A. 1992. Transgenic plants containing the phosphinothricin-N-acetyl transferase gene metabolize the herbicide L-phosphinothricin (glufosinate) differently from untransformed plants. Planta 18:142151.Google Scholar
Haas, P. and Muller, F. 1987. Behavior of glufosinate ammonium in weeds. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 10:10751082.Google Scholar
Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1985. Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1:164.Google Scholar
Lanie, A. J., Griffin, J. L., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1994. Herbicide combinations for soybean (Glycine max) planted in stale seedbed. Weed Technol. 8:1722.Google Scholar
Pantone, D. J. and Baker, J. B. 1992. Varietal tolerance of rice (Oryza sativa) to bromoxynil and triclopyr at different growth stages. Weed Technol. 6:969974.Google Scholar
Sankula, S. and Braverman, M. P. 1996. Differential response to Ignite (glufosinate) between Hooding regime and rice cultivars. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 49:24.Google Scholar
Sankula, S., Braverman, M. P., and Linscombe, S. D. 1997. Response of BAR-transformed rice (Oryza sativa L.) and red rice (Oryza sativa L.) to glufosinate application timing. Weed Technol. 11:303307.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. and Hill, J. E. 1990. Weed control technology in U.S. rice. In Grayson, B. T., Green, H. B., and Copping, L. G., eds. Pest Management in Rice. London: Society of Chemical Industry, Cambridge. 536 p.Google Scholar
Street, J. E. and Snipes, C. E. 1989. Propanil plus tridiphane for barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crusgalli) control in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 3:632635.Google Scholar
Thomson, W. T., ed. 1993. Agricultural Chemicals. Book II Herbicides. Fresno, CA: Thomson Publications. pp. 237238.Google Scholar