Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-17T04:06:45.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rice (Oryza sativa) and Corn (Zea mays) Response to Simulated Drift of Glyphosate and Glufosinate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeffrey M. Ellis ,
James L. Griffin ,
Steven D. Linscombe  and
Eric P. Webster
Jeffrey M. Ellis
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Louisiana State University, 104 Madison B. Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
James L. Griffin*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Louisiana State University, 104 Madison B. Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Steven D. Linscombe
Affiliation:
Rice Research Station, P.O. Box 1429, Crowley, LA 70527
Eric P. Webster
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Louisiana State University, 104 Madison B. Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jgriffin@agcenter.lsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field research was conducted during 3 yr to evaluate response of rice and corn to simulated drift rates representing 12.5, 6.3, 3.2, 1.6, and 0.8% of the usage rates of 1,120 g ai/ha glyphosate (140, 70, 35, 18, and 9 g/ha, respectively) and 420 g ai/ha glufosinate (53, 26, 13, and 4 g/ha, respectively). Early-postemergence applications were made to two- to three-leaf rice and six-leaf corn, and late-postemergence applications to rice at panicle differentiation and to corn at nine-leaf stage (1 wk before tasseling). Crop injury was generally greater for the two highest rates of both herbicides when applied early. Little to no reduction in rice or corn height was observed with glufosinate. Glyphosate consistently reduced rice plant height when the two highest rates were applied early, and heading was delayed 2 to 5 d. In 2 of 3 yr, the highest rate of glyphosate reduced rice yield 99 and 67% when applied early and 54 and 29% when applied late. Germination of rice seeds from glyphosate-treated plants was reduced in 1 of 2 yr and for only the highest rate. For glufosinate, rice yield was reduced 30% and in only one year when applied late at the highest rate. Early application of glyphosate reduced corn yield an average of 22 to 78% for the three highest rates, but only for the highest rate at the late timing (33%). Corn yield was reduced an average of 13 and 11% for the highest rate of glufosinate at the early and late timings, respectively. In greenhouse studies, five rice varieties were equally sensitive, as were five corn varieties, to reduced rates of glyphosate and glufosinate.

Keywords

Glufosinateglyphosatecorn, Zea mays L. ‘Asgrow 897’, ‘Dekalb 687’, ‘Mycogen 8460’, ‘Pioneer 3223’, ‘Terral 2930’; rice, Oryza sativa L. ‘Bengal’, ‘Cocodrie’, ‘Cypress’, ‘Drew’, ‘Jefferson’Crop injuryherbicide driftoff-target movementrice germinationrice vigorDAP, days after platingDAT, days after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 2003 , pp. 452 - 460
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Bayer CropScience, 206 Kennedy Flat Road, Leland, MS 38746.

References

Literature Cited

Ahrens, W. H. ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 147–152.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Parker, R., and Fuerst, E. P. 1992a. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) response to simulated herbicide spray drift. Weed Technol. 6:956–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Parker, R., and Fuerst, E. P. 1992b. Sweet cherry (Prunus avium) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Technol. 6:975–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 1993. Herbicide Application Management. Des Plaines, IL: Sandoz Crop Protection. 27 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002. Louisiana Suggested Chemical Weed Control Guide. Louisiana Cooperative Extension Services Publ. 1565. 63 p.Google Scholar
[AOSA] Association of Official Seed Analysts. 1985. Rules for testing seeds. J. Seed Technol. 6:111–114.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. A. and Kapusta, G. 1993. Soybean (Glycine max) tolerance to simulated drift of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 7:740–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouse, L. F., Carlton, J. B., and Merkle, M. G. 1976. Spray recovery from nozzles designed to reduce drift. Weed Sci. 24:361–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clay, P. A. and Griffin, J. L. 2000. Weed seed production and seedling responses to late-season glyphosate applications. Weed Sci. 48:481–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberlein, C. V. and Guttieri, M. J. 1994. Potato (Solanum tuberosum) response to simulated drift of imidazolinone herbicides. Weed Sci. 42:70–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edje, O. T. and Burris, T. S. 1971. Effect of soybean vigor on field performance. Agron. J. 63:536–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. M. and Griffin, J. L. 2002. Soybean (Glycine max) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 16:580–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosheh, H. Z., Chandler, J. M., and Bierman, R. H. 1994. Impact of DPX-PE350 drift on corn and grain sorghum. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:24.Google Scholar
Hanks, J. E. 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
Hanks, J. E. 1997. Droplet size of glyphosate spray mixtures. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:207.Google Scholar
Hatterman-Valenti, H., Owen, M. D. K., and Christians, N. E. 1995. Comparison of spray drift during postemergence herbicide applications to turfgrass. Weed Technol. 9:321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, H. R. 1982. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Sci. 30:311–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, D. L., York, A. C., Griffin, J. L., Clay, P. A., Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. 1997. Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol. 11:354–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. and Green, J. D. 1995. Herbicide drift—a growing concern in Kentucky. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:204.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr. 1995. Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) response to simulated fluazifop-p drift. Weed Sci. 43:660–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr., Hurst, H. R., and Wauchope, R. D. 1981. Effects of simulated MSMA drift on rice (Oryza sativa) growth and yield. Weed Sci. 3:303–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuma, J. M. and Raju, M. V. S. 1993. A histological study of the effect of glyphosate on seed development in wild oat (Avena fatua L). Weed Res. 33:43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuma, J. M., Quick, W. A., Raju, M. V. S., and Hsiao, A. I. 1995. Germination of seeds from plants of Avena fatua L. treated with glyphosate. Weed Res. 35:249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1991. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated triclopyr drift. Weed Technol. 5:493–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) injury from simulated quinclorac drift. Weed Sci. 40:106–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1994. Potato (Solanum tuberosum) response to simulated drift of dicamba, clopyralid, and tribenuron. Weed Sci. 42:110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wanamarta, G. and Penner, D. 1989. Foliar absorption of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 4:215–231.Google Scholar
Wauchope, R. D., Richard, E. P., and Hurst, H. R. 1982. Effects of simulated MSMA drift on rice (Oryza sativa). II. Arsenic residues in foliage and grain and relationships between arsenic residues, rice toxicity symptoms, and yields. Weed Sci. 30:405–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, T. M., Grover, R., Wallace, K., Shewchuk, S. R., and Maybank, J. 1992. Effect of protective shields on drift and deposition characteristics of field sprayers. in The Role of Application Factors in the Effectiveness and Drift of Herbicides. Regina, SK: Agric. Canada. Pp. 29–52.Google Scholar