Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T12:56:59.859Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Cultural Practices on Weed Control and Crop Response in Imidazolinone-Tolerant Rice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ronald J. Levy JR. ,
Jason A. Bond ,
Eric P. Webster ,
James L. Griffin  and
Steven D. Linscombe
Ronald J. Levy JR.
Affiliation:
LSU AgCenter, Cooperative Extension Service, 157 Cherokee Drive, Crowley, LA 70526
Jason A. Bond*
Affiliation:
LSU AgCenter, Rice Research Station, 1373 Caffey Road, Rayne, LA 70578
Eric P. Webster
Affiliation:
LSU AgCenter, Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, LSU AgCenter, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
James L. Griffin
Affiliation:
LSU AgCenter, Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, LSU AgCenter, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Steven D. Linscombe
Affiliation:
LSU AgCenter, Rice Research Station, 1373 Caffey Road, Rayne, LA 70578
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jbond@agcenter.lsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field research was conducted for 3 yr to evaluate crop response and weed control under conventional and reduced tillage in drill- and water-seeded imidazolinone-tolerant (IT) rice culture. Imazethapyr was applied at 70 g ai/ha PRE followed by (fb) imazethapyr at 70 g/ha applied POST to three- to four-leaf rice or at 105 g/ha PRE fb 70 g/ha POST. In both conventional and reduced tillage systems, imazethapyr applied PRE fb POST at 70 g ai/ha controlled red rice, barnyardgrass, Amazon sprangletop, and rice flatsedge 87 to 99% 35 d after POST treatment (DAT). At 35 DAT, Indian jointvetch control with sequential applications of imazethapyr was as high as 70% in water-seeded rice but no more than 54% in drill-seeded rice. Tillage, seeding method, and imazethapyr rate had no effect on days to 50% heading, seeds per panicle, seed weight per panicle, or percentage of seed harvest. However, a reduction of 27% in days to 50% heading, 80% in seeds per panicle, 84% in seed weight per panicle, and 100% in percentage seed harvest index occurred when imazethapyr was not applied because of weed interference. Culm number was reduced 28%, and culm weight 32% under reduced tillage compared with conventional tillage. With sequential applications of imazethapyr at 70 g/ha, rice yield was 63% greater when rice was water-seeded compared with drill-seeded. No differences in tillage systems for weed control, days to 50% heading, seed number, seed weight per panicle, percent seed, panicle height, lodging, or yield were observed. Results of these experiments demonstrate imazethapyr will effectively control weeds in both water- and drill-seeded rice and that reduced tillage can be used without negatively affecting rice production.

Keywords

ImazethapyrAmazon sprangletop, Leptochloa panicoides (Presl) Hitchc. #3 LEFPAbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. # ECHCGIndian jointvetch, Aeschynomene indica L. # AESINred rice, Oryza sativa L. # ORYSArice flatsedge, Cyperus iria L. # CYPIRrice, Oryza sativa L. ‘93-AS-3510’, ‘CL121’Conventional tillagecrop injurydrill-seeded ricereduced tillagewater-seeded riceALSacetolactate synthase (E.C.4.1.3.18)
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 249 - 254
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

Anonymous. 2003. NewPath herbicide label. Web page: http://www.greenbook.net. Accessed: July 8, 2005.Google Scholar
Bollich, P. K. 1992. Conservation tillage practices for water-seeded rice. in Mullen, M. D. and Duck, B. N., eds. Proceedings of the Southern Conservation Tillage Conference for Sustainable Agriculture; Jackson and Milan, TN, 21–23 July. Knoxville, TN: Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station. Pp. 53–55.Google Scholar
Bollich, P. K. and Feagley, S. E. 1994. A comparison of water-seeded rice management systems: potential improvements in water quality. in Mullen, M. D. and Duck, B. N., eds. Proceedings of the Southern Conservation Tillage Conference for Sustainable Agriculture; Jackson and Milan, TN, 21–23 July. Knoxville, TN: Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station. Pp. 64–69.Google Scholar
Bollich, P. K., Salassi, M. E., Webster, E. P., Regan, R. P., Romero, G. R., and Walker, D. M. 2002. An evaluation of Clearfield rice production on a stale seedbed. in van Santen, E. ed. Proceedings of the Southern Conservation Tillage Conference for Sustainable Agriculture; Auburn, AL. 24–26 June. Auburn, AL: Alabama Agriculture Experiment Station and Auburn University. Pp. 184–189.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant difference for combined analysis of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croughan, T. P. 1994. Application of tissue culture techniques to the development of herbicide-resistant rice. Louisiana Agric. 37 (3):25–26.Google Scholar
Diarra, A., Smith, R. J. Jr., and Talbert, R. E. 1985. Growth and morphological characteristics of red rice (Oryza sativa) biotypes. Weed Sci. 33:310–314.Google Scholar
Dunand, R. T., Baker, J. B., Sonnier, E. A., and Dilly, R. R. 1985. Cultural management for red rice control in rice. Louisiana Agric. 29:20–21.Google Scholar
Feagley, S. E., Sigua, G. C., Bengston, R. L., Bollich, P. K., and Linscombe, S. D. 1992. Effects of different management practices on surface water quality from rice fields in south Louisiana. J. Plant Nutr. 15:1305–1321.CrossRefGoogle 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. Pp. 5–35.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Bolero, G. A., and Stoller, E. W. 2003. Influence of diphenylether herbicide application rate and timing on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 17:14–20.Google Scholar
Linscombe, S. D., Saichuk, J. K., Seilhan, K. P., Bollich, P. K., and Funderburg, E. R. 1999. General agronomic guidelines. in Louisiana Rice Production Handbook. LSU Agric. Ctr. Publ. 2321. Baton Rouge, LA: LSU Agric. Ctr. Pp. 5–12.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
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2005. Agricultural Statistics Database—Crops County and District Data. Web page: http://151.121.3.33:8080/QuickStats/PullData_US. Accessed: July 7, 2005.Google Scholar
Navarro, M. A. 1985. Effect of stand density and composition on competition between red rice and the cultivar Mars under field conditions. M.S. Thesis. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.Google Scholar
Noldin, J. A., Chandler, J. M., Ketchersid, M. L., and McCauley, G. N. 1999. Red rice (Oryza sativa) biology, II: ecotype sensitivity to herbicides. Weed Technol. 13:19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ottis, B. V., Chandler, J. M., and McCauley, G. N. 2003. Imazethapyr application methods and sequences for imidazolinone-tolerant rice. Weed Technol. 17:526–533.Google Scholar
Pellerin, K. J., Webster, E. P., Zhang, W., and Blouin, D. C. 2003. Herbicide mixtures in water-seeded imidazolinone-resistant rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 17:836–841.Google Scholar
Pellerin, K. J., Webster, E. P., Zhang, W., and Blouin, D. C. 2004. Potential use of imazethapyr mixtures in drill-seeded imidazolinone-resistant rice (Oryza sativa) production. Weed Technol. 18:1037–1042.Google Scholar
Sanders, D. E. and Jordan, D. 1999. Pest management. in Louisiana Rice Production Handbook. LSU Agric. Ctr. Publ. 2321. Baton Rouge, LA: LSU Agric. Ctr. Pp. 37–50.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc. Pp. 2419–2504.Google Scholar
Steele, G. L., Chandler, J. M., and McCauley, G. N. 2002. Control of red rice (Oryza sativa) in imidazolinone-tolerant rice (O. sativa). Weed Technol. 16:627–630.Google Scholar
Stidham, M. A. 1991. Herbicides that inhibit acetohydroxyacid synthase. Weed Sci. 39:428–434.Google Scholar
Street, J. E. and Bollich, P. K. 2003. Rice production. in Smith, C. W. and Dilday, R. H., eds. Rice: Origin, History, Technology, and Production. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Pp. 271–296.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2000. Weed survey—grass crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:247–264.Google Scholar