Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:45:56.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Flood Interval and Cultivar on Rice Tolerance to Penoxsulam

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Samuel D. Willingham ,
Garry N. Mccauley ,
Scott A. Senseman ,
James M. Chandler ,
John S. Richburg ,
Ralph B. Lassiter  and
Richard K. Mann
Samuel D. Willingham*
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77840
Garry N. Mccauley
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77840
Scott A. Senseman
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77840
James M. Chandler
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77840
John S. Richburg
Affiliation:
Dow AgroSciences, Greenville, MS 38701
Ralph B. Lassiter
Affiliation:
Dow AgroSciences, Little Rock, AR 72212
Richard K. Mann
Affiliation:
Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis, IN 46268
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: swillingham@ag.tamu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted in 2003 and 2004 over seven environments evaluating rice root growth inhibition (RGI) and foliar injury from penoxsulam at 30 and 60 g ai/ha and bispyribac-sodium at 30 g ai/ha applied to four- to five-leaf rice at three flood timings, 1, 7, and 14 d after herbicide treatment (DAT), for five rice cultivars, ‘Bengal’, ‘Cypress’, ‘Wells’, ‘Cocodrie’, and ‘XP712’. Flooding at 1 and 7 DAT resulted in greater RGI compared with flood at 14 DAT when evaluated 1 wk after flood (WAF). By 2 WAF, RGI was greater with flooding at 1 DAT compared with flooding at 7 DAT for cultivars Bengal, Cypress, and Wells. Analyzing flood timing 1 DAT, bispyribac-sodium reduced root growth of Bengal and Cypress compared with penoxsulam at 30 g/ha at 1 week after treatment (WAT). At 2 WAT, RGI for Cocodrie was higher following penoxsulam at 60 g/ha when compared with bispyribac-sodium. By 3 WAT, RGI was higher following penoxsulam at 60 g/ha when compared with penoxsulam at 30 g/ha for Cocodrie and greater than bispyribac-sodium and penoxsulam at 30 g/ha for Cypress. Foliar injury following penoxsulam at both rates was less than injury following bispyribac-sodium for all cultivars except XP712 at 1 WAT. XP712 resulted in < 5% RGI and < 6% foliar injury at each evaluation. Rice grain yield was not affected by herbicide treatment for any cultivar compared with the standard treatment of propanil plus quinclorac.

Keywords

Bispyribac-sodiumpenoxsulampropanilquincloracrice, Oryza sativa L. ‘Bengal’, ‘Cocodrie’, ‘Cypress’, ‘Wells’, ‘XP712’Herbicide toleranceroot growth inhibition
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 114 - 118
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 2004. Grasp® SC herbicide label. Indianapolis, IN Dow AgroSciences LLC Publication No. L77062. http://www.greenbook.net/docs/Label/L77062.PDF. Accessed: January 19, 2006.Google Scholar
Braverman, M. P. and Jordan, D. L. 1996. Efficacy of KIH-2023 in dry and water-seeded rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 10:876–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis for experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, M. D., Bestman, H. D., and Vander Born, W. H. 1990. Physiological basis for the different phloem mobilities of chlorsulfuron and clopyralid. Weed Sci. 38:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunand, R. T. 1999. Growth and Development of the Rice Plant: Louisiana Rice Production Handbook. Baton Rouge, LA LSU Agriculture Center Publications 2321. 12–20.Google Scholar
Ellis, A. T., Ottis, B. V., Scott, R. C., and Talbert, R. E. 2005. Rice cultivar rooting tolerance to penoxsulam (Grasp). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 58:50.Google Scholar
Jordan, D. L., Sanders, D. E., Linscombe, S. D., and Williams, B. J. 1998. Response of four rice (Oryza sativa) cultivars to triclopyr. Weed Technol. 12:254–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meins, K. B., Scott, R. C., and Pearrow, N. D. 2005. Rice tolerance and weed control with penoxsulam herbicide. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 58:13.Google Scholar
Pantone, D. J. and Baker, J. B. 1992. Variety tolerance of rice (Oryza sativa) to bromoxynil and triclopyr at different growth stages. Weed Technol. 6:968–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, T. B. 1982. The mode of action of Chlorsulfuron: a new herbicide for cereals. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 17:10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr and Street, J. E. 1984. Herbicide performance in rice (Oryza sativa) under three flooding conditions. Weed Sci. 32:157–162.Google Scholar
Richburg, J. S., Lassiter, R. B., Langston, V. B., Mann, R. K., and Walton, L. C. 2005. Weed control spectrum of penoxsulam in southern U.S. rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 58:268.Google Scholar
Scasta, J. D., O'Barr, J. H., McCauley, G. N., Steele, G. L., and Chandler, J. M. 2004. Regiment effect on rice growth and yield. Proc. South Weed Sci. Soc. 57:74.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Boykin, D. L. 1987. Influence of flood interval and cultivar on rice (Oryza sativa) tolerance to fenoxaprop. Weed Sci. 35:842–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strahan, R. E. 2004. Texasweed (Caperonia palustrus) control in rice with penoxsulam. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:70.Google Scholar
Zhang, W. and Webster, E. P. 2002. Shoot and root growth of rice (Oryza sativa) in response to V-10029. Weed Technol. 16:768–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W., Webster, E. P., and Leon, C. T. 2005. Response of rice cultivars to V-10029. Weed Technol. 19:307–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar