Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-23T05:12:02.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Rice performance following exposure to a sublethal concentration of paraquat applied alone or in mixture with common residual herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2020

Benjamin H. Lawrence*
Affiliation:
Assistant Extension/Research Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Jason A. Bond
Affiliation:
Research/Extension Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Bobby R. Golden
Affiliation:
Extension/Research Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Thomas W. Allen
Affiliation:
Associate Extension/Research Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Daniel B. Reynolds
Affiliation:
Professor and Endowed Chair, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Dorman Hall, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Taghi Bararpour
Affiliation:
Assistant Extension/Research Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Benjamin H. Lawrence, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, P.O. Box 197, Stoneville, MS38776. Email: bhl21@msstate.edu

Abstract

In glyphosate-resistant (GR) cropping systems, paraquat applied in mixtures with residual herbicides prior to crop emergence offers an alternative herbicide mode of action (MOA) to aid in GR weed management. Rice is sensitive to off-target herbicide movement; however, severity of injury can vary with herbicide, rate, and formulation. Therefore, research was conducted from 2015 to 2017 in Stoneville, MS, to characterize rice response to a sublethal concentration of paraquat applied at 84 g ai ha–1 in combination with common residual herbicides. Paraquat plus metribuzin injured rice 68% to 69% 14 and 28 d after treatment (DAT), which was 10% to 13% greater than injury following paraquat alone or paraquat plus fomesafen. Pooled across metribuzin and fomesafen treatments, paraquat reduced rough rice yields 23%. Paraquat plus 10 different residual herbicides injured rice ≥51% 28 DAT and reduced rough rice yields ≥21%. These studies indicate a severe negative impact on rice growth and development following exposure to a sublethal concentration of paraquat alone or in mixture with common residual herbicides. Therefore, applications of paraquat plus residual herbicides to fields in proximity to rice should be avoided if conditions are conducive for off-target movement.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

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

Associate Editor: David Johnson, Corteva Agriscience

References

Adair, CR, Bollich, CN, Bowman, DH, Jordon, NE, Johnson, TH, Webb, BD, Atkins, JG (1972) Rice breeding and testing methods in the United States. Pages 25–75 in Rice in the United States: Varieties and Production. Handbook 289. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research ServiceGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (1999) Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 7:97102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2019) Gramoxone SL herbicide label. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldAGR000.pdf. Accessed: May 4, 2019Google Scholar
Armel, GR, Richardson, RJ, Wilson, PH, Hines, TE (2009) Strategies for control of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) and other winter annual weeds in no-till corn. Weed Technol 23:379383 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, PA, Schroeder, J (2002) Carrier volume affects herbicide activity in simulated drift studies. Weed Technol 16:833837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, J, Golden, B, Allen, T, Gore, J (2015) Off-target herbicide movement to rice. Mississippi Crop Situation. Starkville, MS: Mississippi State University Extension Service Publication Google Scholar
Bond, JA, Griffin, JL, Ellis, JM, Linscombe, SD, Williams, BJ (2006) Corn and rice response to simulated drift of imazethapyr plus imazapyr. Weed Technol 20:113117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, JA, Lawrence, BH, Bararpour, TM, Dodds, DM, Golden, BR, Irby, JT, Larson, EJ, Reynolds, DB, eds (2018) 2019 Weed Management Suggestions for Mississippi Row Crops. MS Publication 3171. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University Extension Service and Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station. Pp 19–23Google Scholar
Buehring, N (2008) Rice growth and development. Mississippi Rice Growers Guide. Starkville, MS: Mississippi State University Extension Service Publication 2255Google Scholar
Culpepper, SA, Webster, TM, Sosnoskie, LM, York, AL (2010) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in the United States. Page 207 in Nandula VK, ed, Glyphosate Resistance in Crops and Other Weeds History Development and Management. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley IncGoogle Scholar
Davis, B, Scott, RC, Norsworthy, JK, Gbur, E (2011) Response of rice (Oryza sativa) to low rates of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 25:198203 Google Scholar
Edwards, CB (2013) Postemergence and residual control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) with dicamba. Master’s Thesis. Starkville, MS: Mississippi State University. 30 pGoogle Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL, Jones, CA (2002) Effects of carrier volume on corn (Zea mays) and soybeans (Glycine max) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 16:587592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL, Linscombe, SD, Webster, EP (2003) Rice (Oryza sativa) and corn (Zea mays) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 17:452460 Google Scholar
Eubank, TW, Poston, DH, Nandula, VK, Koger, CH, Shaw, DR, Reynolds, DB (2008) Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control using glyphosate-, paraquat-, and glufosinate-based herbicide programs. Weed Technol 22:1621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, IM (2019) International herbicide-resistant weed database. http://www.weedscience.org/Home.aspx. Accessed: April 29, 2019Google Scholar
Hensley, JB, Webster, EP, Blouin, DC, Harrell, DL, Bond, JA (2012) Impact of drift rates of imazethapyr and low carrier volume on non-Clearfield rice. Weed Technol 26:236242 Google Scholar
Kurtz, ME, Street, JE (2003) Response of rice (Oryza sativa) to glyphosate applied to simulate drift. Weed Technol 17:234238 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, BH, Bond, JA, Golden, BR, Hydrick, HT, Edwards, HM (2017) Nitrogen fertilizer programs following rice exposure to paraquat. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 70:178 Google Scholar
Miller, T, Street, J (2008) Introduction. Page 2 in Mississippi Rice Growers Guide. Publication 2255. Starkville, MS: Mississippi State University Extension Service Google Scholar
Norman, RJ, Slaton, NA, Roberts, TL (2013) Soil fertility. Pages 69102 in Hardke, TJ, ed, Rice Production Handbook. MP192. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Griffith, G (2011) Evaluation of combinations of paraquat plus photosystem II–inhibiting herbicides for controlling failed stands of maize (Zea mays). Crop Prot 30:307310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, MDK (2000) Current use of transgenic herbicide-resistant soybean and corn in the USA Crop Prot 19:765771 Google Scholar
Palhano, MG, Norsworthy, JK, Barber, T (2018) Evaluation of chemical termination options for cover crops. Weed Technol 32:227235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roider, CA, Griffin, JL, Harrison, SA, Jones, CA (2008) Carrier volume affects wheat response to simulated glyphosate drift. Weed Technol 22:453458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxton, AM (1998) A macro for converting mean separation output into letter grouping in ProcMixed. Pages 1243–1246 in Proceedings of the 23rd SAS users Group International. Cary, NC: SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp 337338 Google Scholar
Sperry, BP, Lawrence, BH, Bond, JA, Reynolds, DB (2019) Corn response to sub-lethal rates of paraquat and fomesafen at vegetative growth stages. Weed Technol 33:595600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] United States Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics Service (2018) Statistics by Subject. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject. Accessed: April 22, 2019Google Scholar
Walker, TW, Bond, JA, Ottis, BV, Harrell, DL (2008) The effects of starter nitrogen to rice seeded at various densities. Crop Manag 7, 10.1094/CM-2008-0911-01-RS CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:1227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, EP, Hensley, JB, Blouin, DC, Harrell, DL, Bond, JA (2015) Impact of off-site deposition of glufosinate to non-Clearfield rice. Weed Technol 29:207216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, EP, Hensley, JB, Blouin, DC, Harrell, DL, Bond, JA (2016) Rice crop response to simulated drift of imazamox. Weed Technol 30:99105 Google Scholar
Webster, TM (2012) Weed Survey–southern states: grass crops subsection. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 65:267288 Google Scholar
Webster, TM (2013) Weed Survey–southern states: broadleaf crops subsection. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 66:275287 Google Scholar
Woodyard, AJ, Bollero, GA, Riechers, DE (2009) Broadleaf weed management in corn utilizing synergistic postemergence herbicide combinations. Weed Technol 23:513518 Google Scholar