Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:15:47.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Quizalofop-p-ethyl application in water-seeded coenzyme A carboxylase–inhibiting herbicide-resistant rice with different flood systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2019

Eric P. Webster*
Affiliation:
Professor, School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Science, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Gustavo M. Teló
Affiliation:
Post-Doctoral Researcher, School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Science, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Samer Y. Rustom Jr.
Affiliation:
Graduate Assistant, School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Science, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Benjamin M. McKnight
Affiliation:
Post-Doctoral Researcher, School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Science, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
David C. Blouin
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Experimental Statistics, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Eric P. Webster, F. Avalon Daggett Professor of Rice Research, Louisiana State University, School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Science, 104 M.B. Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA70803. Email: ewebster@agcenter.lsu.edu

Abstract

A field study was conducted during the 2016 and 2017 crop seasons at the LSU AgCenter H. Rouse Caffey Rice Research Station to evaluate weed control and rice yield after quizalofop-p-ethyl applications in water-seeded coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase)–resistant ‘PVLO1’ long-grain rice production utilizing different flood systems, application timings, and quizalofop rates. The initial application of quizalofop was applied at five timings beginning when ‘PVLO1’ rice was at the coleoptile stage (PEG) through the one- to two-tiller stage. A total quizalofop rate of 240 g ai ha–1 was split into two applications: 97 followed by 143 g ha–1 or 120 followed by 120 g ai ha–1 in both pinpoint and delayed flood water-seeded management systems. A second quizalofop application was applied 14 d after initial treatment (DAIT). At 14 DAIT, a reduction in control of barnyardgrass and red rice was observed by delaying the initial quizalofop application to the two- to four-tiller stage compared with rice treated at earlier growth stages. At 42 DAIT, control of barnyardgrass was 94% to 96%, and red rice was 98% following the second application of quizalofop, regardless of initial application timing. Rice treated with quizalofop at the PEG and two- and three-leaf stage resulted in a rice height of 104 cm at harvest compared with 96 to 100 cm when the initial application of quizalofop was delayed to later growth stages. Applying the initial application of quizalofop to rice at the PEG timing in the pinpoint or the delayed flood system resulted in a total gross value per hectare of $450 and $590, respectively. Within each flood system, delaying the initial application of quizalofop to the one- to two-tiller stage resulted in a gross per-hectare value reduction of $100 ha-1 in the pinpoint flood and $110 ha-1 in the delayed flood.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Jason Bond, Mississippi State University

References

Anonymous (2018) “Provisia® herbicide product label”. Publication No. 2017-04-522-0004 Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corp. p 12Google Scholar
Askew, SD, Shaw, DR, Street, JE (2000) Graminicide application timing influences red rice (Oryza sativa) control and seedhead reduction in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 14:176181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergeron, EA (2017) Nealley’s sprangletop (Leptochloa nealleyi Vasey) management and interference in rice production. Master’s thesis. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University. 64 pGoogle Scholar
Carlson, TP, Webster, EP, Salassi, ME, Bond, JA, Hensley, JB, Blouin, DC (2012) Economic evaluations of imazethapyr rates and timings on rice. Weed Technol 26:2428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, SG, Nyuist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diarra, A, Smith, RJ, Talbert, RE (1985) Interference of red rice (Oryza sativa L.) with rice. Weed Sci 33:644649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunand, RT, Baker, EA, Sonnier, A, Dilly, RR (1985) Cultural management for red rice control in rice. http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US8630775. Accessed: October 31, 2019Google Scholar
Hager, AG, Wax, LM, Bollero, GA, Stroller, EW (2003) Influence of diphenylether herbicide application rate and timing on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 17:1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrell, D, Saichuk, JK (2014) General agronomic guidelines. Pages 316in Saichuk, J, ed. Louisiana Rice Production Handbook. Publication 2321-5/14 rev. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Agricultural CenterGoogle Scholar
Leon, CT, Webster, EP, Bottoms, SL, Blouin, DC (2008) Water management and chemical control of red rice (Oryza punctata) in water-seeded imidazolinone-resistant rice. Weed Technol 22:132135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, RJ, Bond, JA, Webster, EP, Griffin, JL, Linscombe, SD (2006) Effect of cultural practices on weed control and crop response in imidazoline-tolerant rice. Weed Technol 20:249254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masson, JA, Webster, EP, Williams, BJ (2001) Flood depth, application timing, and imazethapyr activity in imidazolinone-tolerant rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol 15:315319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noldin, JA, Chandler, JM, McCauley, GN, Sij, JW, Jr (1998) Red rice (Oryza sativa) and Echinochloa spp. control in Texas Gulf Coast soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 12:677683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ntanos, DA, Koutroubas, S, Mavrotas, C (2000) Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control in water-seeded rice (Oryza sativa) with cyhalofop-butyl. Weed Technol 14:383388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterholt, MJ, Webster, EP, Blouin, DC, McKnight, BM (2019a) Quizalofop interactions when mixed with clomazone and pendimethalin in acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase–inhibiting herbicide-resistant rice. Weed Technol 33:17. doi: 10.1017/wet.2019.59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osterholt, MJ, Webster, EP, Blouin, DC, McKnight, BM (2019b) Overlay of residual herbicides in rice for improved weed management. Weed Technol 33:426430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellerin, KJ, Webster, EP (2004) Imazethapyr at different rates and timing in drill- and water-seeded imidazolinone-tolerant rice. Weed Technol 18:223227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rustom, SY, Webster, EP, Blouin, DC, McKnight, BM (2018) Interactions between quizalofop-p-ethyl and acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides in acetyl-coA carboxylase inhibitor-resistant rice production. Weed Technol 32:297303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rustom, SY, Webster, EP, Blouin, DC, McKnight, BM (2019) Interactions of quizalofop-p-ethyl mixed with contact herbicides in ACCase-resistant rice production. Weed Technol 33:233238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute (2013) Base SAS 9.4 Procedures Guide. Cary, NC: SAS InstituteGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp 401402Google Scholar
Smith, RJ, Jr (1981) Control of red rice (Oryza sativa) in water-seeded rice (O. sativa). Weed Sci 29:663666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonnier, E, Baker, J (1980) Red rice studies: water management experiment. Ann Progress Rep Lou Rice Exp Sta 72:186192Google Scholar