Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:53:30.095Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Imazethapyr Use with and without Clomazone for Weed Control in Furrow-Irrigated, Imidazolinone-Tolerant Rice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason K. Norsworthy*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences; 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Griff M. Griffith
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences; 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Robert C. Scott
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences; 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Research on weed management in furrow-irrigated rice is needed as water availability becomes more limited in rice production regions of Arkansas. Research was conducted at Keiser and Pine Tree, AR, with the objectives being to determine (1) whether the addition of clomazone to imazethapyr would improve PRE weed control in furrow-irrigated, imidazolinone-tolerant rice, and (2) whether increasing the imazethapyr rates would improve weed control without injuring rice. Imazethapyr was applied at 70, 87.5, and 105 g ai/ha PRE with and without clomazone followed by imazethapyr POST at the same rate as used PRE. No rice injury was observed during the growing season at either site. Clomazone plus imazethapyr applied PRE did not improve early season control of Palmer amaranth, pitted morningglory, prickly sida, barnyardgrass, or broadleaf signalgrass over imazethapyr alone. Increasing the PRE imazethapyr rate to 105 g/ha did not improve Palmer amaranth or pitted morningglory control. Imazethapyr applied PRE on a clay soil generally provided lower weed control than on the silt loam soil. Increasing the imazethapyr rate did not improve rice yields.

Type
Weed Management — Major Crops
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, , 2006. Newpath Herbicide for Clearfield Rice. Specimen Label. BASF Corporation. http://www.cdms.net/LDat/ld4FL009.pdf. Accessed: October 17, 2007.Google Scholar
Bond, J. A., Oliver, L. R., and Stephenson, D. O. IV. 2006. Response of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions to glyphosate, fomesafen, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol. 20:885892.Google Scholar
Borrell, A., Garside, A., and Fukai, S. 1997. Improving efficiency of water use for irrigated rice in a semi-arid tropical environment. Field Crops Res. 52:231248.Google Scholar
Burgos, N. R., Kuk, Y., and Talbert, R. E. 2001. Amaranthus palmeri resistance and differential tolerance of Amaranthus palmeri and Amaranthus hybridus to ALS-inhibitor herbicides. Pest Manag. Sci. 57:449457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgos, N. R. and Talbert, R. E. 1996. Weed control by spring cover crops and imazethapyr in no-till southern pea (Vigna unguiculata). Weed Technol. 10:893899.Google Scholar
Garvey, P. V. 1999. Goosegrass (Eleusine indica) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in plasticulture tomato. Ph.D Thesis. Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University. 101.Google Scholar
Gealy, D. 1998. Differential response of palmleaf morningglory (Ipomoea wrightii) and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) to flooding. Weed Sci. 46:217224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Sestak, D. C., Brewer, K. D., Belser, B. A., Stichler, C. R., and Smith, D. T. 2001. Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) tolerance and weed control with soil-applied herbicides. Crop Prot. 20:389394.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E., King, C. A., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species, and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity. Weed Sci. 40:227232.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. 20:249254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Reese, K. D. 1993. Effect of soil type and pH on persistence and carryover of imidazolinone herbicides. Weed Technol. 7:452458.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Availability and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in soil. Weed Sci. 37:259267.Google Scholar
Masson, J. A., Webster, E. P., and Williams, B. J. 2001. Flood depth, application timing, and imazethapyr activity in imidazolinone-tolerant rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 15:315319.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. 1972. Flooding for johnsongrass control. Weed Sci. 20:238243.Google Scholar
Noldin, J. A., Chandler, J. M., McCauley, G. M., and Sij, J. W. Jr. 1998. Red rice (Oryza sativa) and Echinochloa spp. control in Texas Gulf Coast soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:677683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Burgos, N. R., Scott, R. C., and Smith, K. L. 2007a. Consultant perspectives on weed management needs in Arkansas rice. Weed Technol. 21:832839.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Griffith, G. M., Scott, R. C., Smith, K. L., and Oliver, L. R. 2008a. Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in Arkansas. Weed Technol. 22:108113.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Oliveira, M. J., Jha, P., Malik, M., Buckelew, J. K., Jennings, K. M., and Monks, D. W. Palmer amaranth and large crabgrass growth with plasticulture-grown bell pepper. Weed Technol. 22:296302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Smith, K. L., Scott, R. C., and Gbur, E. E. 2007b. Consultant perspectives on weed management needs in Arkansas cotton. Weed Technol. 21:825831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1988. Effect of soil pH on imazaquin and imazethapyr absorption to soil and phytotoxicity to corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:7883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richburg, R. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Eastin, E. F. 1995. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with imazethapyr and metolachlor. Weed Technol. 9:807812.Google Scholar
Scott, D. H., Ferguson, J. A., Hanson, L., Fugitt, T., and Smith, E. 1998. Agricultural water management in the Mississippi Delta region of Arkansas. Arkansas Agriculture Experiment Station. Research Bulletin. 959:1462.Google Scholar
Slaton, N. A., editor. 2001. Rice production handbook. Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service Misc. Publ. 192. Little Rock, AR University of Arkansas.Google Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Shea, P. J., and Martin, A. R. 1990. Effect of soil type and pH on absorption, mobility, and efficacy of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38:6773.Google Scholar
Sweat, J. K., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Lloyd, R. W., and Boyer, J. E. 1998. Herbicide efficacy on four Amaranthus species in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:315321.Google Scholar
Tracy, P. W., Sims, B. D., Hefner, S. G., and Cairns, J. P. 1991. Guidelines for Producing Rice Using Furrow Irrigation. http://extension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/crops/g04361.htm. Accessed: October 17, 2007.Google Scholar
Vories, E. D., Counce, P. A., and Keisling, T. 2002. Comparison of flooded and furrow-irrigated rice on clay. Irrig. Sci. 21:139144.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Richburg, J. S. III, Eastin, E. F., Wiley, G. R., Walls, F. R. Jr, and Newell, S. 1994. Imazethapyr and paraquat systems for weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 42:601607.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. E. Jr and Branson, J. W. 2004. Trends in Arkansas rice production. Pages 1524. in Wells, B. R., editor. Rice Research Studies 2004. Fayetteville, AR Arkansas Agriculture Experiment Station. Res. Ser. 529.Google Scholar
Zhang, W., Webster, E. P., and Blouin, D. C. 2005. Response of rice and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) to rates and timings of clomazone. Weed Technol. 19:528531.Google Scholar