Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:19:24.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shoot and Root Growth of Rice (Oryza sativa) in Response to V-10029

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wei Zhang  and
Eric P. Webster
Wei Zhang
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Eric P. Webster*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse studies were initiated in 2001 to evaluate the effect of V-10029 applications on shoot and root growth of rice cultivars. V-10029 applications did not affect the shoot and root weight or shoot–root ratio of Cocodrie. Tolerance of Bengal was less than that of Cocodrie and was growth stage dependent. V-10029 treatments at the one- to two-leaf rice growth stage reduced shoot growth but had no effect on root, resulting in a lower shoot–root ratio compared with that of the nontreated 1 wk after treatment (WAT). At 2 and 3 WAT, both shoot and root growth were reduced by V-10029, with shoot–root ratio being greater than that of the nontreated, indicating a greater inhibition of roots than of shoots. V-10029 treatments at the two- to three-leaf rice growth stage reduced both shoot and root growth of Bengal across all three sampling dates. V-10029 treatments at the three- to four-leaf rice growth stage did not affect shoot growth but reduced root growth 2 and 3 WAT with no difference in shoot–root ratio. There was no difference in shoot and root weight or shoot–root ratio between the propanil comparison treatment and the nontreated. These results indicate that rice cultivars may differ in their tolerance to V-10029 and tolerance may be growth stage dependent.

Keywords

V-10029, sodium 2,6-bis[(4,6-dimethoxypyrimidin-2-yl)oxy]benzoatepropanilrice, Oryza sativa L. ‘Cocodrie’, ‘Bengal’Herbicide toleranceshoot–root ratioALS, acetolactate synthaseWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 768 - 772
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

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.Google Scholar
Braverman, M. P. and Jordan, D. L. 1996. Efficacy of KIH-2023 in dry- and water-seeded rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 10: 876–882.Google Scholar
Carey, V. F. III, Hoagland, R. E., and Talbert, R. E. 1995. Verification and distribution of propanil-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in Arkansas. Weed Technol. 9: 366–372.Google Scholar
Carey, V. F., Rich, G. R., Odle, W. C., and Dewitt, T. 2000. A developmental summary of rice weed control with Regiment (V-10029). Proc. Rice Tech. Work. Gp. 28: 140.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D. 1989. Phloem translocation of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 4: 191–213.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D., Bestman, H. D., and Vanden Born, W. H. 1990. Physiological basis for the different phloem mobilities of chlorsulfuron and clopyralid. Weed Sci. 38: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunand, R. T. 2000. Growth and Development of the Rice Plant. Louisiana Rice Production Handbook. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Pub. 2321. pp. 12–20.Google Scholar
Dunand, R. T. and Dilly, R. R. Jr. 1994. KIH-2023 and Safening Effects of Gibberellic Acid in Dry-Seeded Rice. 86th Annual Research Report, Rice Research Station. Crowley, LA: Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station. pp. 242–249.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: 969–974.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 1991. Physiological effects of the imidazolinone herbicides. In Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 129–137.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. 1965. Propanil and mixtures with propanil for weed control in rice. Weeds 13: 236–238.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr., Flinchum, W. T., and Seaman, D. E. 1977. Weed Control in U.S. Rice Production. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 497. 78 p.Google Scholar