Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-frp75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T12:40:47.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imazethapyr at Different Rates and Timings in Drill- and Water-Seeded Imidazolinone-Tolerant Rice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kristie J. Pellerin  and
Eric P. Webster
Kristie J. Pellerin
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: ewebster@agcenter.lsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Imazethapyr applied to the soil at 0, 35, 53, 70, 87, 105, and 140 g ai/ha followed by (fb) early-postemergence (EPOST) or late-postemergence (LPOST) applications at 140, 105, 87, 70, 53, 35, and 0 g ai/ha, respectively, was evaluated for weed control, crop tolerance, and grain yield in imidazolinone-tolerant rice. In drill- and water-seeded rice, imazethapyr effectively controlled barnyardgrass 91 to 97% with a soil fb EPOST or LPOST application except when applied at 105 fb 35 g/ha EPOST at 49 d after late-postemergence treatment. Rice yields were 5,920 and 3,920 kg/ ha in the drill-seeded study with a single application of imazethapyr at 140 g/ha EPOST in 2000 and 2001, respectively. These yields were greater than or equal to those from treatments with two imazethapyr applications.

Keywords

Imazethapyrbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv # ECHCGrice, Oryza sativa L. ‘93 AS-3510’, ‘CL 141’Acetolactate synthaseALSClearfield riceDAT, days after late-postemergence treatmentEPOST, early postemergencefb, followed byIT, imidazolinone tolerantLPOST, late postemergencePOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergenceSURF, surface

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 223 - 227
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

∗ Published with the approval of the Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803.

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. 8:575–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantwell, J. R., Libel, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Imazethapyr for weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 3:596–601.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croughan, T. P. 1994. Application of tissue culture techniques to the development of herbicide resistant rice. La. Agric. 3:25–26.Google Scholar
Dillon, T. L., Baldwin, F. L., and Talbert, R. E. 1999. Control of red rice and other difficult weeds in imidazolinone tolerant rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:15.Google Scholar
Dillon, T. L., Baldwin, F. L., and Talbert, R. E. 2001. Weed control programs in imidazolinone tolerant rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:43.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. 1994. Spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus L.) control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L). Weed Technol. 8:199–202.Google Scholar
Hackworth, H. M., Sarokin, L. P., and White, R. H. 1998. 1997 field evaluation of imidazolinone tolerant rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:221.Google Scholar
Harrison, M. P., Rhodes, G. N. Jr., Krueger, W. A., and Hayes, R. M. 1989. Activity of imazethapyr in soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:57.Google Scholar
Hart, R. G., Lignowski, E. M., and Taylor, F. R. 1991. Imazethapyr herbicide. in Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 247–256.Google Scholar
Kendig, J. A., Ohmes, G. A., Ezell, P. M., and Barham, R. L. 2000. Performance of imazethapyr in non-flushed, drill-seeded rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:37.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
Liscano, J. F., Williams, B. J., and Croughan, T. P. 1999. Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control in dry-seeded imidazolinone tolerant rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:13.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.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masson, J. A., Webster, E. P., Zhang, W., Lanclos, D. Y., and Morris, S. N. 2000. Evaluation of weed control and crop response to imazethapyr application timings in a water-seeded culture. Proc. Rice Tech. Work. Group. 28:150–151.Google Scholar
Ohmes, G. A., Kendig, J. A., Barham, R. L., and Ezell, P. M. 2001. Clearfield vs. Liberty: a comparison of two rice technologies that offer selectve red rice control. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:182.Google Scholar
Ottis, B. V., O'Barr, J. H., McCauley, G. N., and Chandler, J. M. 2002. Clearfield rice tolerance and red rice control with imazethapyr on coarse soils in Texas. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:20.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Wehtje, G. R. 1993. Toxicity of imazethapyr to purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedges (Cyperus esculentus). Weed Technol. 7:900–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherder, E. F., Talbert, R. E., Lovelace, M. L., and Buehring, N. W. 2001. Weed control programs in herbicide-tolerant rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:39–40.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. 1974. Responses of rice to postemergence treatments of propanil. Weed Sci. 22:563–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. 1988. Weed thresholds in southern U.S. rice, Oryza sativa . Weed Technol. 2:232–241.Google Scholar
Stauber, L. G., Smith, R. J. Jr., and Talbert, R. E. 1991. Density and spatial interference of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) with rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci. 39:163–168.Google Scholar
Stidham, M. A. and Singh, B. K. 1991. Imidazolinone-acetohydroxyacid synthase interactions. in Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 71–90.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. and Masson, J. A. 2001. Acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides on imidazolinone-tolerant rice. Weed Sci. 49:652–657.Google Scholar
Wepplo, P. J. 1991. Chemical and physical properties of the imidazolinones. in Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 15–29.Google Scholar