Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T21:58:18.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Rice (Oryza sativa) to Glyphosate Applied to Simulate Drift

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mark E. Kurtz  and
Joe E. Street
Mark E. Kurtz*
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Stoneville, MS 38776
Joe E. Street
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Stoneville, MS 38776
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: mekurtz@drec.msstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000 to determine the effect of glyphosate (isopropyl amine salt) on rice injury and yield when applied postemergence at 0, 70, 140, and 280 g ai/ha to dry-seeded rice in the three- to four-leaf (3- to 4-L), midtiller (MT), panicle initiation (PI), and boot (BT) growth stages. Glyphosate at 140 and 280 g ai/ha applied at the 3- to 4-L, MT, and PI growth stages resulted in the greatest foliar injury, and 280 g ai/ha was more injurious than 140 g ai/ha at the first rating, with the exception of MT and PI 2000, where they were equal. Glyphosate treatments resulted in the least visible foliar injury when applied at the BT stage. Rough rice yield was reduced by glyphosate applied at 280 g/ha to rice in the MT growth stage three out of four years. Applied to rice at PI, glyphosate at 140 g/ha reduced yields two out of four years, and three out of four years when applied at 280 g/ha. BT-stage applications of glyphosate at 70, 140, and 280 g/ha reduced yields two out of four, three out of four, and four out of four years, respectively.

Keywords

Glyphosaterice, Oryza sativa (L.) ‘Cypress’, ‘Lemont’, ‘Priscilla’Rice growth stageBT, bootMT, midtillerPI, panicle initiation3- to 4-L, three- to four-leaf
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 234 - 238
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

Al-Khatib, K. and Peterson, D. 1999. Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 13: 264–270.Google Scholar
Ateh, C. M. and Harvey, R. G. 1999. Annual weed control by glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 394–398.Google Scholar
Baird, D., Upchurch, R., Homesly, W., and Franz, J. 1971. Introduction of a new broad spectrum postemergence herbicide class with utility for herbaceous perennial weed control. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 26: 64–68.Google Scholar
Braverman, M. P. 1998. Simulated glufosinate drift on rice and soybean. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 269.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 2: 174–185.Google Scholar
Hurst, H. R. 1982. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Sci. 30: 311–315.Google Scholar
Kerby, T. and Voth, R. 1998. Roundup Ready—introduction experiences in 1997 as discussed in the beltwide cotton production conference weed management: transgenics and new technologies panel. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1: 26–29.Google Scholar
Kim, J. K., Duan, X., Wu, R., Seok, S. J., Boston, R. S., Jang, I. C., Eun, M. Y., and Nahm, B. H. 1999. Molecular and genetic analysis of transgenic plants expressing the maize ribosome-inactivating protein b-32 gene and the herbicide resistance bar gene. Mol. Breed 5: 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, M. W., Al-Khatib, K., and Maddux, L. 1999. Glyphosate efficacy on ivyleaf morningglory in glyphosate tolerant corn. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 52: 48–52.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. G., Brawley, P. A., and Hayes, R. M. 1998. Effect of glyphosate drift on non-glyphosate tolerant corn. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 259–260.Google Scholar
Owen, M. D. K. 2000. Current use of transgenic herbicide-resistant soybean and corn in the USA. Crop Prot. 19: 765–771.Google Scholar
Rowland, D. D. Jr., Reynolds, D. B., and Blackley, R. H. Jr. 1999. Corn and cotton response to drift rates of non-desired herbicide applications. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 30.Google Scholar
Smith, J. M., Baumann, P. A., and Morgan, G. D. 1998. Comparison of weed control systems in conservation tillage cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1: 865–866.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1991. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated triclopyr drift. Weed Technol. 5: 493–498.Google Scholar
Sparks, O. C., Oliver, L. R., and Barnes, J. W. 1999. Weed control systems in roundup ready corn. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 231–232.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P., Bryant, K. J., and Earnest, L. D. 1999. Weed control and economics in non-transgenic and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 586–593.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Hayes, R., and Askew, S. D. 1998. New weed management programs for weed control in no-till cotton. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1: 865.Google Scholar
Yates, W. E., Akesson, N. B., and Bayer, D. E. 1978. Drift of glyphosate sprays applied with aerial and ground equipment. Weed Sci. 26: 597–604.Google Scholar