Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:15:49.427Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imazethapyr plus Propanil Programs in Imidazolinone-Resistant Rice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Tyler P. Carlson ,
Eric P. Webster ,
Michael E. Salassi ,
Justin B. Hensley  and
David C. Blouin
Tyler P. Carlson
Affiliation:
School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Science, Louisiana State University, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Eric P. Webster
Affiliation:
School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Science, Louisiana State University, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Michael E. Salassi
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, 101 Agricultural Administration Building, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Justin B. Hensley
Affiliation:
School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Science, Louisiana State University, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
David C. Blouin*
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Statistics, 45 Agricultural Administration Building, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: ewebster@agcenter.lsu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2008 and 2009 near Crowley, Louisiana, to evaluate the addition of different propanil formulations in mixture with a standard imazethapyr program of 70 g ai ha−1 early postemergence followed by (fb) 70 g ha−1 late postemergence. Weeds evaluated included red rice, barnyardgrass, Texasweed, and alligatorweed. Control of all species with treatments, including a propanil formulation applied at 3,400 g ai ha−1, was equivalent to, or greater than, the standard imazethapyr program. Rough rice yield and economic returns were maximized when the propanil formulations of Propanil 1 or Propanil 3 were mixed with imazethapyr in the early postemergence applications. The addition of propanil to imazethapyr increased rough rice yield and economic returns because of improved weed control.

En 2008 y 2009, se realizaron estudios de campo cerca de Crowley, Louisiana para evaluar la adición de diferentes formulaciones de propanil en mezcla con un programa estándar de imazethapyr de 70 g ia ha−1 aplicado en post-emergencia temprana y seguido por (fb) 70 g ha−1 en post-emergencia tardía. Las malezas evaluadas incluyeron Oryza sativa (silvestre), Echinochloa crus-galli, Caperonia palustris y Althernanthera philoxeroides. El control de todas las especies con tratamientos incluyendo una formulación de propanil, aplicada a 3400 g ia ha−1, fue equivalente o mayor que el programa estándar de imazethapyr. El rendimiento de arroz en bruto y los ingresos se maximizaron cuando las formulaciones de Propanil 1 o Propanil 3 se mezclaron con imazethapyr en post-emergencia temprana. La adición de propanil al imazethapyr incrementó el rendimiento bruto del arroz y los ingresos, debido al mejoramiento en el control de malezas.

Keywords

Imazethapyrpropanilalligatorweed, Althernanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Grisebbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauvred rice, Oryza sativa L.Texasweed, Caperonia palustris (L.) St. HilClearfield riceeconomicseconomic returnsherbicide
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 204 - 211
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

Ashton, F. M. and Monaco, T. J. 1991. Weed Science: Principles and Practices. 3rd ed. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Baltazar, A. M. and Smith, R. J. Jr. 1994. Propanil-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol 8:575–581.Google Scholar
Braverman, M. P. 1995. Weed control in rice (Oryza sativa) with quinclorac and bensulfuron coating of granular herbicides and fertilizer. Weed Technol 9:494–498.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyuist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two of three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.Google Scholar
Craigmiles, J. P. 1978. Introduction. Pages 5–6. In Eastin, E. F. ed. Red Rice Research and Control. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 1270.Google Scholar
Croughan, T. P. 1994. Application of tissue culture techniques to development of herbicide resistant rice. La. Agric 37:25–26.Google Scholar
Gianessi, L. P. 2005. Economic and herbicide use impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops. Pest Manag. Sci 61:241–245.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Bollero, G. A., and Stroller, 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
Hydrick, D. E. and Shaw, D. R. 1994. Effects of tank-mix combinations of non-selective foliar and selective soil-applied herbicides on three weed species. Weed Technol 8:129–133.Google Scholar
Judd, W. S., Campbell, C. S., Kellogg, E. A., and Stevens, P. F. 1999. Plant Systematics: A Phylogenetic Approach. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Pp. 283–288.Google Scholar
Khodayari, K., Smith, R. J. Jr., and Black, H. L. 1987. Red rice (Oryza sativa) control with herbicide treatments in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 35:127–129.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E., King, C. A., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity. Weed Sci 40:227–232.Google Scholar
Lorenzi, H. J. and Jeffery, L. S. 1987. Weeds of the United States and their Control. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 355 p.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.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. Weed Technol 18:1037–1042.Google 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. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Wiley, G. L. 1995. AC 263,222 and imazethapyr rates and mixtures for weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol 9:801–806.Google Scholar
SAS 2003. Version 9.1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Senseman, S. A. ed. 2007. Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 169–171.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. 1961. 3,4-Dichloropropionanilide for control of barnyardgrass in rice. Weeds 9:318–322.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. 1965. Propanil and mixtures with propanil for weed control in rice. Weeds 13:236–238.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. 1974. Responses of rice to postemergence treatments of propanil. Weed Sci 22:563–568.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. 1981. Control of red rice (Oryza sativa) in water-seeded rice (O. sativa). Weed Sci 29:663–666.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. and Hill, J. E. 1990. Weed control technology in U.S. rice. Pages 314–327. In Grayson, B. T., Green, M. B., and Copping, L. G. eds. Pest Management in Rice. United Kingdom: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. and Khodayari, K. 1985. Herbicide treatments for control of weeds in dry-seeded rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci 33:686–692.Google Scholar
Stidham, M. A. and Singh, B. K. 1991. Imidazolinone-acetohydroxyacid synthase interactions. In Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L. eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pages. 71–90.Google Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Shea, P. J., and Martin, A. R. 1990. Effect of soil type and pH on adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci 38:67–73.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 2009. World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE). http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/index.htm. Accessed: October 21, 2009.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. and Levy, R. 2009. Weed Management. Pages 46–71. In Saichuk, J. ed. Louisiana Rice Production Handbook. Pub. 2321. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Agricultural Center.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. and Masson, J. A. 2001. Acetolactate synthase–inhibiting herbicides on imidazolinone-tolerant rice. Weed Sci 49:652–657.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2004. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 57:404–426.Google Scholar
Zhang, W., Webster, E. P., and Selim, H. M. 2001. Effect of soil moisture on efficacy of imazethapyr in greenhouse. Weed Technol 15:355–359.Google Scholar