Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T16:59:45.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control Programs in Drill-Seeded Imidazolinone-Resistant Rice (Oryza sativa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wei Zhang ,
Eric P. Webster ,
Kristie J. Pellerin  and
David C. Blouin
Wei Zhang
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, 104 Sturgis Hall, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Eric P. Webster*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, 104 Sturgis Hall, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Kristie J. Pellerin
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, 104 Sturgis Hall, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
David C. Blouin
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Statistics, 45 Agriculture Administration Building, 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

A study was conducted to evaluate weed control with imazethapyr applied at different timings or a combination of timings with or without an early POST application of bensulfuron, bentazon plus aciflurofen, bispyribac, carfentrazone, halosulfuron, propanil plus molinate, or triclopyr in drill-seeded imidazolinone-resistant rice. Control of barnyardgrass, red rice, and alligatorweed was insufficient with imazethapyr at 87 g/ha PRE or at 53 g/ha late POST alone. Imazethapyr at 87 g/ha PRE followed by imazethapyr at 53 g/ha late POST controlled red rice 86% or greater but did not control hemp sesbania. The imazethapyr PRE followed by late POST combination was also weak on barnyardgrass and alligatorweed early in the season. The addition of an early POST application of the other herbicides to the imazethapyr combination improved overall weed control, especially hemp sesbania control. Among the early POST herbicides, bispyribac, carfentrazone, or propanil plus molinate were more effective in helping improve the overall weed control, resulting in better rice grain yield.

Keywords

Aciflurofenbensulfuronbentazoncarfentrazonebispyribachalosulfuronimazethapyrmolinatepropaniltriclopyralligatorweed, Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb. #3 ALRPHbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. # ECHCGhemp sesbania, Sesbania exaltata (Raf.) Rydb. ex A.W. Hill # SEBEXred rice, Oryza sativa L. # ORYSArice, Oryza sativa L., imidazolinone-resistant ‘93 AS-3510’ and ‘CL 121’ALSacetolactate synthaseClearfield riceALS, acetolactate synthaseDAT, days after LPOST treatmentEPOST, early postemergencefb, followed byIR, imidazolinone-resistantLPOST, late postemergenceLSU, Louisiana State University
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 956 - 960
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

Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.Google Scholar
Croughan, T. P. 1994. Application of tissue culture techniques to the development of herbicide resistant rice. Louisiana Agriculture 3:25–26.Google Scholar
Croughan, T. P., Utomo, H. S., Sanders, D. E., and Braverman, M. P. 1995. Assessment of imidazolinone-resistant rice. La. Agric. Exp. Stn. Annu. Rep. 87:491–525.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1994. Weed survey—southern states: grass crop subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:289–290.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Bollero, G. A., and Stoller, E. W. 2003. Influence of diphenylether herbicide application rate and timing on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 17:14–20.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. 40:227–232.Google Scholar
Linscombe, S. D., Siachuk, J. K., Seilhan, K. P., Bollich, P. K., and Funderburg, E. R. 1999. General agronomic guidelines. Pages 5–11. in. Louisiana Rice Production Handbook Publication 2321. Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana State University Agricultural Center.Google Scholar
Little, D. L. and Shaner, D. L. 1991. Absorption and translocation of imidazolinone herbicides. in Shaner, D.L., O'Conner, S.L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL CRC. 53–69.Google Scholar
Masson, J. A. and Webster, E. P. 2001. Use of imazethapyr in water-seeded imidazolinone-tolerant rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 15:103–106.CrossRefGoogle 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. 15:315–319.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 2002. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 9. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 2083–2226.Google Scholar
Stidham, M. A. 1991. Herbicides that inhibit acetolactate synthase. Weed Sci. 39:428–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W., Webster, E. P., Lanclos, D. Y., and Geaghan, J. P. 2003. Effect of weed interference duration and weed-free period on glufosinate-resistant rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 17:876–880.Google Scholar
Zhang, W., Webster, E. P., and Selim, H. M. 2001. Effect of soil moisture on efficacy of imazethapyr in greenhouse. Weed Technol. 15:355–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar