Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T00:18:39.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common Waterplantain, Alisma plantago-aquatica, Control in Wild Rice, Zizania palustris, with MCPA and 2,4-D

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Joel K. Ransom  and
Ervin A. Oelke
Joel K. Ransom
Affiliation:
CIMMYT, P.O. Box 25171, Nairobi, Kenya
Ervin A. Oelke
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. Plant Genet., Univ. Minn., St. Paul, MN 55108
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of application time on common waterplantain control in wild rice with MCPA and 2,4-D. Common waterplantain control was greatest when MCPA or 2,4-D were applied at 1.1 or 1.7 kg ai/ha at the two-aerial leaf stage. The best late-season control was MCPA applied at the scape elongation growth stage. Common waterplantain was controlled adequately when 0.6 to 0.8 kg/ha of MCPA were applied at the scape elongation or early flowering stage. However, because of common water plantain interference and sensitivity of wild rice to late herbicide applications, the best treatment stage for wild rice yield was when MCPA was applied at 0.6 kg/ha to common waterplantain at the two-aerial leaf stage. Wild rice at this time is at the more tolerant one-aerial leaf growth stage.

Keywords

MCPA, (4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy)acetic acid2,4-D, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acidcommon waterplantain, Alisma plantago-aquatica L. # ALSPAwild rice, Zizania palustris L.Alisma plantago-aquaticaZizania palustrisALSPA
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , July 1988 , pp. 310 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by the 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

1. Bayer, D. E., Hill, J. E., Seaman, D. E., and Fischer, B. B. 1983. Weeds, p. 27–48 in Flint, M. L. and Miller, M. D., eds. Integrated Pest Management in Rice. Univ. Calif., Div. Agric. Sci. Pub. No 3280.Google Scholar
2. Coble, H. D., and Slife, F. W. 1970. Development and control of honeyvine milkweed. Weed Sci. 18:352–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Coble, H. D., Slife, F. W., and Butler, H. S. 1970. Adsorption, metabolism and translocation of 2,4-D by honeyvine milkweed Weed Sci. 18:653–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Klingman, G. C., and Ashton, F. M. 1975. Weed Science. Principles and Practices. John Wiley and Sons. New York.Google Scholar
5. Luib, , Weerd, M. M., and Van De, J. C. 1977. New results with betazon in the rice growing areas of Europe and the Americas Weed Abstr. 26:1896.Google Scholar
6. Ransom, J. K., and Oelke, E. A. 1982. Common waterplantain (Alisma triviale) interference with wild rice (Zizania palustris) Weed Sci. 30:10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Ranson, J. E. Oelke, E. A., and Wyse, D. L. 1983. Behavior of 2,4-D in common waterplantain (Alisma trivale). Weed Sci. 31:766–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Smith, R. J. Jr. 1958. The differential varietal response of rice to 2,4-D as influenced by the stage of growth at the date of application. Rice J. 61:18–19, 26–27.Google Scholar
9. Smith, R. J., Flinchum, W. T., and Seaman, D. E. 1977. Weed control in U.S. rice population. U.S. Dep. Agric. Handbook No. 497.Google Scholar
10. Wardlaw, I. F. 1968. The control and pattern of movement of carbohydrates in plants. Bot. Rev. 34:79–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Wiese, A. F., and Rea, H. E. 1962. Factors affecting the toxicity of phenoxy herbicides to field bindweed. Weeds 10:58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar