Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:21:43.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rice response to sublethal rates of paraquat, metribuzin, fomesafen, and cloransulam-methyl at different application timings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2021

Benjamin H. Lawrence Open the ORCID record for Benjamin H. Lawrence [Opens in a new window] ,
Jason A. Bond ,
Bobby R. Golden ,
Tom W. Allen ,
Daniel B. Reynolds  and
Taghi M. Bararpour
Benjamin H. Lawrence
Affiliation:
Research Associate II, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Jason A. Bond*
Affiliation:
Extension/Research Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Bobby R. Golden
Affiliation:
Extension/Research Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Tom W. Allen
Affiliation:
Associate Extension/Research Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Daniel B. Reynolds
Affiliation:
Professor and Endowed Chair, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Taghi M. Bararpour
Affiliation:
Assistant Extension/Research Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Jason Bond, Extension/Research Professor, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, P.O. Box 197, Stoneville, MS 38776. Jason Bond, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The application of paraquat mixtures with residual herbicides before planting rice is a common treatment in Mississippi, and rice in proximity is susceptible to off-target movement of these applications. Four concurrent studies were conducted in Stoneville, MS, to characterize rice performance following exposure to a sublethal rate of paraquat, metribuzin, fomesafen, and cloransulam-methyl at different application timings. Herbicides were applied to rice at the growth stages of spiking to one-leaf (VEPOST), two- to three-leaf (EPOST), three- to four-leaf (MPOST), 7 d postflood (PFLD), and panicle differentiation (PD). Regardless of application timing, rice injury following exposure to paraquat was ≥45%. Delays in maturity were increased by 0.3 d d−1 following paraquat from emergence through PD. Dry weight, rough rice yield, panicle density, and germination were reduced by 18.7 g, 131.5 kg ha−1, 5.6 m−2, and 0.3%, respectively, per day from application of paraquat at emergence through PD. By 28 d after treatment (DAT), metribuzin injured rice 3% to 6%, and that injury did not translate into a yield reduction. Regardless of application timing, rice injury following fomesafen application ranged from 2% to 5% 28 DAT. Rice exposed to cloransulam-methyl EPOST exhibited the greatest root and foliar injury 21 DAT and 28 DAT, respectively. Additionally, when rice was exposed to cloransulam-methyl EPOST, yield was reduced to 6,540 kg ha−1 compared with a yield of 7,850 kg ha−1 from nontreated rice. Rice yield was negatively affected after paraquat was applied any time after rice emergence. However, applications of paraquat to rice at early reproductive growth stages reduced rough rice yield and seed germination the greatest. Application timing is crucial in determining severity of rice injury. Early-season injury to rice following paraquat application had less effect on yield compared with injury at later stages. Additionally, fields devoted to seed rice production are at risk for reduced seed germination if they are exposed to paraquat during early reproductive growth stages.

Keywords

Cloransulam-methylfomesafenparaquatmetribuzinriceOryza sativa LApplication timingoff-target
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , October 2021 , pp. 681 - 689
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Prashant Jha, Iowa State University

References

Adair, CR, Bollich, CN, Bowman, DH, Jordon, NE, Johnson, TH, Webb, BD, Atkins, JG (1972) Rice breeding and testing methods in the United States. Pages 25–75 in Rice in the United States: Varieties and Production. Handbook 289. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research ServiceGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K, Claassen, MM, Stahlman, W, Geier, PW, Regehr, DL, Duncan, SR, Heer, WF (2003) Grain sorghum response to simulated drift from glufosinate, glyphosate, imazethapyr, and sethoxydim. Weed Technol 17:261–265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (1999) Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 7:97–102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, SM, Clay, SA, Wrage, LJ, Matthees, D (2004) Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4-D and correlation to application rates and yield. Agron J. 96:750–760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2019) Gramoxone SL herbicide label. http://www.syngenta-us.com/current-label/gramoxone-sl-2.0. Accessed: May 4, 2019Google Scholar
Bond, JA, ed (2020) Weed Management Suggestions for Mississippi Row Crops. MS Publication 3171. Mississippi State: Mississippi State University Extension Service. Pp 24–28Google Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165–169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, JA, Griffin, JL, Ellis, JM, Linscombe, SD, Williams, BJ (2006) Corn and rice response to simulated drift of imazethapyr plus imazapyr. Weed Technol 20:113–117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buehring, N (2008) Rice growth and development. Pages 9–15 in Mississippi Rice Growers Guide. Publication 2255. Starkville: Mississippi State University Extension ServiceGoogle Scholar
Carlsen, SC, Spliid, NH, Svensmark, B (2006) Drift of 10 herbicides after tractor spray application 2. Primary drift (droplet drift). Chemosphere 64:778–786 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, B, Scott, RC, Norsworthy, JK, Gbur, E (2011) Response of rice (Oryza sativa) to low rates of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 25:198–203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, AG (1995) Herbicide spray drift. Publication A-687. Fargo: North Dakota State University Extension Service Google Scholar
Dunand, R, Saichuk, J (2014) Rice growth and development. Pages 41–53 in Saichuk J ed. Louisiana Rice Production Handbook. Publication 2321. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service Google Scholar
Egan, JF, Barlow, KM, Mortensen, DA (2014) A meta-analysis on the effects of 2,4-D and dicamba drift to soybean and cotton. Weed Sci 62:193–206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishel, FM, Ferrell, JA (2016) Managing pesticide drift. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pi232. Accessed: November 29, 2017Google Scholar
Golden, BR, Slaton, NA, Norman, RJ, Gbur, EE Jr, Brye, KR, Delong, RE (2006) Recovery of nitrogen in fresh and pelletized poultry litter by rice. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1359–1369 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, JE (1995) Effect of drift retardant adjuvants on spray droplet size of water and paraffinic oil applied at ultralow volume. Weed Technol 9:380–384 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanna, HM, Schaefer, KJ (2008) Factors affecting pesticide drift. Publication 175. Ames: Iowa State University Agriculture and Environmental Extension Google Scholar
Henry, WB, Shaw, DR, Reddy, KR, Bruce, KM, Tamhankar, HD (2004) Remote sensing to detect herbicide drift of crops. Weed Technol 18:358–368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensley, JB, Webster, EP, Blouin, DC, Harrell, DL, Bond, JA (2012) Impact of drift rates of imazethapyr and low carrier volume on non-Clearfield rice. Weed Technol 26:236–242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, VA, Fisher, LR, Jordan, DL, Edmisten, KE, Stewart, AM, York, AC (2012) Cotton, peanut, and soybean response to sub-lethal rates of dicamba, glufosinate and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 26:195–206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, T, Nice, G, Johnson, B, Bauman, T (2009) Reducing spray drift from glyphosate and growth regulator herbicide drift caution. https://ag.purdue.edu/btny/weedscience/documents/reducingdrift09.pdf. Accessed: March 29, 2018Google Scholar
Lawrence, BH, Bond, JA, Golden, BR, Edwards, HM, Peeples, JD, McCoy, JM (2018) Effect of a sub-lethal rate of paraquat applied to rice at different growth stages. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 71:242 Google Scholar
Marple, ME, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (2008) Cotton injury and yield as affected by simulated drift of 2,4-D and dicamba. Weed Technol 21:954–960 Google Scholar
McCloskey, W, Sanchez, PA, Brown, L (2012) Nozzles and droplets: what do they mean? University of Arizona Extension. http://cals.arizona.edu/crop/cotton/filesColorsofNozzles_Droplets.pdf. Accessed: November 29, 2016Google Scholar
McCoy, JM, Bond, JA, Golden, BR, Lawrence, BH (2017) Rice cultivar response to late-season exposure to glyphosate or paraquat. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 71:257 Google Scholar
Moldenhauer, KA, Gibbons, JH (2003) Rice morphology and development. Pages 103–125 in Smith CW, Dilday RH, eds. Rice Origin, History, Technology, and Production. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc Google Scholar
Moldenhauer, K, Wilson, CE Jr, Counce, P, Hardke, J (2013) Rice growth and development. Pages 9–20 in Hardke TJ, ed. Rice Production Handbook MP192. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service Google Scholar
Roider, CA, Griffin, JL, Harrison, SA, Jones, CA (2007) Wheat response to simulated glyphosate drift. Weed Technol 21:1010–1015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxton, AM (1998) A macro for converting mean separation output into letter grouping in ProcMixed. Pages 1243–1246 in Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Google Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed. (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 109 p Google Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, SA, Braxton, LB, Richburg, JS (2015) Evaluating the volatility of three formulations of 2,4-D when applied in the field. Weed Technol 29:177–184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperry, BP, Lawrence, BH, Bond, JA, Reynolds, DB (2019) Corn response to sub-lethal rates of paraquat and fomesafen at vegetative growth stages. Weed Technol 33:595–600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USEPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015) Introduction to pesticide drift. http://www.epa.gov/reducing-pesticide-drift/introduction-pesticide-drift. Accessed: October 3, 2015Google Scholar
Webster, EP, Hensley, JB, Blouin, DC, Harrell, DL, Bond, JA (2015) Impact of off-site deposition of glufosinate to non-Clearfield rice. Weed Technol 29:207–216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, EP, Hensley, JB, Blouin, DC, Harrell, DL, Bond, JA (2016) Rice crop response to simulated drift of imazamox. Weed Technol 30:99–105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar