Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-gs9qr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T07:23:31.865Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Overlay of residual herbicides in rice for improved weed management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2019

Matthew J. Osterholt ,
Eric P. Webster Open the ORCID record for Eric P. Webster [Opens in a new window] ,
David C. Blouin  and
Benjamin M. McKnight
Matthew J. Osterholt
Affiliation:
Graduate Assistant, School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Science, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Eric P. Webster*
Affiliation:
Professor, School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Science, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
David C. Blouin
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Experimental Statistics, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Benjamin M. McKnight
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Researcher, School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Science, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Eric P. Webster, Louisiana State University, School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Science, 104 M.B. Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. Email: ewebster@agcenter.lsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A study was conducted at the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center’s H. Rouse Caffey Rice Research Station in 2017 and 2018 to evaluate a prepackaged mixture of clomazone plus pendimethalin applied delayed preemergence (DPRE) or POST within an herbicide residual overlay with saflufenacil, clomazone, or quinclorac. POST applications included penoxsulam or halosulfuron in combination with the second residual application. No differences were observed in barnyardgrass control (92% to 98%) at 14 days after treatment (DAT). At 42 DAT, barnyardgrass treated with clomazone plus pendimethalin in combination with either clomazone or quinclorac at either timing was controlled 95% to 96%. However, when saflufenacil was applied PRE, regardless of the POST herbicide or when saflufenacil was applied POST with halosulfuron, barnyardgrass control was reduced to 78% to 81%, compared with 95% to 96% with the control with all other residual combinations. Yellow nutsedge and rice flatsedge control increased when treated with halosulfuron compared with penoxsulam across all evaluation dates. At 28 and 42 DAT, texasweed treated with saflufenacil PRE, regardless of POST applications, was controlled 83% and 87%, respectively, and this was greater control than provided by clomazone or quinclorac applied PRE regardless of POST herbicide program.

Keywords

Jason Bond, Mississippi State UniversityclomazonehalosulfuronpendimethalinpenoxsulamquincloracsaflufenacilbarnyardgrassEchinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.rice, Orzya sativa (L.)rice flatsedge, Cyperus iria (L.)texasweed, Caperonia palustris (L.) St.-Hilyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus (L.)overlayextended control

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , June 2019 , pp. 426 - 430
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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

References

Anonymous (2015) Sharpen® Herbicide Product Label. EPA Reg No. 7969–278. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Google Scholar
Bond, JA, Walker, TW, Koger, CH (2009) Pendimethalin applications in stale seedbed rice production. Weed Technol 23:167–170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, SH, Jordan, DL (1995) Comparison of single and multiple applications of propanil and residual herbicides in dry-seeded rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol 9:153–157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665–672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferhatoglu, Y, Barrett, M (2005) Studies of clomazone mode of action. Pestic Biochem Physio 85:7–14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, AG, Was, LM, Bollero, GA, Stroller, EW (2003) Influence of diphenylether herbicide application rate and timing on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 17:14–20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrell, D (2017) 2017 Rice Variety by Acreage Survey– Planting Method. http://edit.lsuagcenter.com/~/media/system/6/a/3/f/6a3fe83182ba4dc0fcfc7f14099b69e7/planting%20method%202017pdf.pdf. Accessed: February 25, 2019Google Scholar
Keeley, PE (1987) Interference and interaction of purple and yellow nutsdeges (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus) with crops. Weed Technol 1:74–81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, MS, Burgos, NR, Talbert, RE (2010) Confirmation and control of propanil-resistant and quinclorac-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in rice. Weed Technol 24:226–233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKnight, BM, Webster, EP, Blouin, DC (2018) Benzobicyclon activity on common Louisiana rice weeds. Weed Technol 32:314–318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Scott, RC, Bangarwa, S, Griffith, GM, Wilson, MJ, Still, JA (2009) Control of clomazone-resistant barnyardgrass in rice with preemergence herbicides. Pages 190–193 in B.R. Wells Rice Research Studies 2008. Arkansas Agriculture Experiment Station Research Ser. 571. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas; 328 pGoogle Scholar
Riar, DS, Norsworthy, JK, Steckel, LE, Stephenson, DO, Eubank, TW, Bond, J, Scott, RC (2013) Adoption of best management practices for herbicide-resistant weeds in midsouthern United States cotton, rice, and soybean. Weed Technol 27:788–797 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salassi, M, Deliberto, M, Hilbun, B (2015) Projected Costs and Returns Crop Enterprise Budgets for Rice Production in Louisiana, 2015. https://www.lsuagcenter.com/~/media/system/6/3/9/8/6398546d2360375bd86d7c4e964d3286/2015riceenterprisebudgets.pdf. Accessed: February 25, 2019Google Scholar
SAS Institute (2013) SAS/STAT 9.2 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Google Scholar
Shaner, D (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp 343–345, 485Google Scholar
Smith, R (1968) Weed competition in rice. Weed Sci 16:252–255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R (1974) Competition of barnyardgrass with rice cultivars. Weed Sci 22:423–426 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R (1983) Competition of bearded sprangletop (Leptochloa fascicularis) with rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci 31:120–123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R (1984) Competition of spreading dayflower (Commelina diffusa) with rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci 32:116–119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R (1988) Weed thresholds in Southern U.S. rice. Weed Technol 2:232–241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stauber, LG, Nastasi, P, Smith, RJ, Baltazar, AM, Talbert, RE (1991) Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) and bearded sprangletop (Leptochloa fascicularis) control in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol 5:337–344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] (2019) Rice Yearbook. U.S. Acreage, Production, Yield, and Farm Price. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rice-yearbook/. Accessed February 25, 2019Google Scholar
Vaughn, KC, Lehnen, LP (1991) Mitotic disruptor herbicides. Weed Sci 39:450–457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, EP (2017) Rice weed management. Pages 38–49. in Stephenson, DO, ed. Louisiana Suggested Chemical Weed Management Guide– 2017. Louisiana State University Agricultural Center Publication 1565-01/17 rev. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Google Scholar
Webster, E (2014) Weed Management. Pages 54–81 in Saichuk, J, ed. Louisiana Rice Production Handbook. Louisiana State University Agricultural Center Publication 2321-05/14 rev. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Google Scholar
Willingham, S, Falkenberg, N, McCauley, G, Chandler, J (2008) Early postemergence clomazone tank mixes on coarse-textured soils in rice. Weed Technol 22:565–570 CrossRefGoogle Scholar