Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-08T15:14:28.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rice (Oryza sativa) Response to Rotational Crop and Rice Herbicide Combinations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wei Zhang ,
Eric P. Webster  and
Michael P. Braverman
Wei Zhang
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Eric P. Webster*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Michael P. Braverman
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: ewebster@agctr.lsu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A 2-yr field study was conducted to evaluate the response of rice to rotational crop herbicides in combination with rice herbicides in water-seeded culture. Fluometuron, imazethapyr, metolachlor, and norflurazon were applied at 0.5, 0.25, 0.125, and 0.063 times the recommended use rates preplant incorporated (PPI) to simulate herbicide carryover from previous crops. Molinate and thiobencarb at 4.5 kg ai/ha were applied PPI, and quinclorac at 0.43 kg ai/ha postemergence. No interaction between rice herbicides and rotational crop herbicides was observed for rice injury at 4 wk after planting (WAP), plant dry weight, stand, and height at 8 WAP, or rice grain yield. However, rice heading was delayed with some rotational crop herbicide and rice herbicide combinations. Fluometuron at the 0.5 and 0.25× rates injured rice 64 and 21% at 4 WAP, and reduced rice yield 96 and 20%, respectively. At 4 WAP, metolachlor at the 0.5 and 0.25× rates injured rice 93 to 29%, and reduced rice yield 85 to 20%, respectively. An 84 to 100% rice injury at 4 WAP and a 81 to 100% rice yield reduction were observed with norflurazon at the 0.5 and 0.25× rates, respectively. Imazethapyr caused 15 to 26% rice injury 4 WAT and 22 to 41% yield reduction.

Keywords

Fluometuronimazethapyrmetolachlormolinatenorflurazonquincloracthiobencarbrice, Oryza sativa L. ‘Maybelle’Herbicide interactionsimulated herbicide carryoverwater-seeded ricePOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergenceWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 340 - 345
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

Ahrens, W. H., ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. Champaign, IL37, 166, 167, 199, 219.Google Scholar
Barnes, C. J. and Lavy, T. L. 1991. Injury and yield responses of selected crops to imazaquin and norflurazon residues. Weed Technol. 5: 598–606.Google Scholar
Braverman, M. P. and Lavy, T. L. 1982. The effects of metolachlor residues in rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 35: 340–341.Google Scholar
Braverman, M. P., Lavy, T. L., and Talbert, R. E. 1985. Effects of metolachlor residues on rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci. 33: 819–824.Google Scholar
Curran, W. S., Knake, E. L., and Liebl, R. A. 1991. Corn (Zea mays) injury following use of clomazone, chlorimuron, imazaquin, and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5: 539–544.Google Scholar
Curran, W. S., Liebl, R. A., and Simmons, F. W. 1992. Effects of tillage and application method on clomazone, imazaquin, and imazethapyr persistence. Weed Sci. 40: 482–489.Google Scholar
Delorit, R. J., Greub, L. J., and Ahlgren, H. L. 1974. Crop Production. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. pp. 609–619.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. F., Peek, J. W., Boehle, J. Jr., and Müller, G. 1980. Effectiveness of a new safener for protecting sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) from metolachlor injury. Weed Sci. 28: 1–5.Google Scholar
Gerber, H. R., Muller, G., and Ebner, L. 1974. CGA-24705, anew grass-killer herbicide. Proc. 12th Br. Weed Conf. 3: 787–794.Google Scholar
Green, R. E. and Obien, S. R. 1969. Herbicide equilibrium in soils in relation to soil water content. Weed Sci. 17: 514–519.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. L., Baker, J. B., Dunand, R. T., and Sonnier, E. A. 1986. Red rice control in rice and soybeans in southwest Louisiana. LA Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 776:37.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. L. and Robinson, J. F. 1989. Metolachlor and alachlor persistence in rice (Oryza sativa) following soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 3: 82–85.Google Scholar
Hardcastle, W. S. and Wilkinson, R. E. 1970. Bioassay of herbicide combinations with rice. Weed Sci. 18: 336–337.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. H., Beaty, J. D., Horton, D. K., Talbert, R. E., Guy, C. B., Mattice, J. D., Lavy, T. L., and Smith, R. J. Jr. 1995. Effects of rotational crop herbicides on rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci. 43: 648–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. H., Jordan, D. L., Johnson, W. G., Talbert, R. E., and Frans, R. E. 1993. Nicolsulfuron, primusulfuron, imazethapyr, and DPX-PE350 injury to succeeding crops. Weed Technol. 7: 641–644.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. H., Talbert, R. E., Beaty, J. D., Guy, C. B., and Smith, R. J. 1992. Rice response following imazaquin, imazethapyr, chlorimuron, and clomazone use. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:371.Google Scholar
Keeling, J. W., Lloyd, R. W., and Abernathy, J. R. 1989. Rotational crop response to repeated applications of norflurazon. Weed Technol. 3: 122–125.Google Scholar
Kendig, J. A. and Talbert, R. E. 1989. Wheat response to carryover from herbicides used on cotton, grain sorghum, and soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:61.Google Scholar
Kurtz, M. E. and Snipes, C. E. 1987. Effects of several soybean herbicides on subsequent rice production. Miss. Agric. For. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. 12: 10.Google Scholar
Ladlie, J. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1977. Effect of trifluralin and metribuzin combinations on soybean tolerance to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 25: 88–93.Google Scholar
Leistra, M. 1980. Transport in solution. In Hance, R. J., ed. Interaction Between Herbicide and the Soil. London: Academic Press. pp. 31–58.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T. and Prendeville, G. N. 1976. Interaction between soil-applied herbicides in the roots of some legume species. Weed Res. 16: 331–336.Google Scholar
Rogers, C. B., Talbert, R., and Frans, R. 1986. Effect of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) herbicide carryover on subsequent crops. Weed Sci. 34: 756–760.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. H., Hatzios, K. K., and Doub, J. P. 1988. Efficacy comparisons of alachlor and metolachlor formulations in the field. Weed Technol. 2: 24–27.Google Scholar