Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:13:17.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rice response to sublethal concentrations of paraquat, glyphosate, saflufenacil, and sodium chlorate at multiple late-season application timings as influenced by exposure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2021

Justin McCoy Open the ORCID record for Justin McCoy [Opens in a new window] ,
Bobby Golden ,
Jason Bond ,
Darrin Dodds ,
Taghi Bararpour  and
Jeff Gore
Justin McCoy*
Affiliation:
Research/Extension Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, North Mississippi Research and Extension Center, Verona, MS, USA
Bobby Golden
Affiliation:
Research/Extension Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Jason Bond
Affiliation:
Research/Extension Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Darrin Dodds
Affiliation:
Department Head, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, USA
Taghi Bararpour
Affiliation:
Research/Extension Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
Jeff Gore
Affiliation:
Research/Extension Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Delta Research and Extension Center, Stoneville, MS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Justin McCoy, Mississippi State University, North Mississippi Research and Extension Center, PO Box 1690, Verona, MS38879. Email: Justin.mccoy@msstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Mississippi, rice reproduction and ripening often overlaps with soybean maturation, creating potential for herbicide exposure onto rice from desiccants applied to soybeans. Six independent studies were conducted concurrently at the Delta Research and Extension Center in Stoneville, MS, from 2016 to 2018 to determine the response of rice to sublethal concentrations of soybean desiccants during rice reproductive and ripening growth stages. Studies included the desiccants paraquat, glyphosate, saflufenacil, sodium chlorate, paraquat + saflufenacil, and paraquat + sodium chlorate applied at a rate equal to 1/10th of Mississippi recommendations. Treatments were applied at five different rice growth stages, beginning at 50% heading––defined as 0 d after heading (DAH)––with subsequent applications at 1-wk intervals (0, 7, 14, 21, and 28 DAH), up to harvest. Injury was observed 7 d after application (DAA), with five of six desiccants at all application timings. No injury was observed with glyphosate application across all rating intervals. Rough rice grain yield following all glyphosate applications was reduced by >6%. In the studies evaluating paraquat, injury ranged from 5% to 18% at all evaluations, regardless of application timing. Rough rice grain yield was reduced >12% 0 to 21 DAH, following paraquat application. Similar trends were observed with paraquat + saflufenacil and paraquat + sodium chlorate, with rice exhibiting yield decreases >6% following an application 0 to 14 and 0 to 21 DAH, respectively. In studies evaluating saflufenacil and sodium chlorate, rough rice grain yield was >95% of the untreated across all application timings Yield component trends closely resembled reductions observed in rough rice grain yield. Reductions in head rice yield were >5% following applications of paraquat or paraquat + saflufenacil 0 to 14 and 0 to 21 DAH, respectively. Late-season exposure to sublethal concentrations of desiccant from 50% heading (0 DAH) to 28 DAH has an impact on rough rice grain yield, yield components, and head rice yield.

Keywords

Glyphosateparaquatsaflufenacilsodium chloratericeOryza sativa LsoybeanGlycine max (L.) MerrDesiccantdriftoff-target
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , December 2021 , pp. 980 - 990
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: David Johnson, Corteva Agriscience

References

Adair, CR, Bollich, CN, Bowman, DH, Jordon, NE, Johnson, TH, Webb, BD, Atkins, JG (1972) Rice breeding and testing methods in the United States. Pages 25–75 in Rice in the United States: Varieties and Production. U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service Handbook 289. Washington, DC: USDA Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K, Claassen, MM, Stahlman, W, Geier, PW, Regehr, DL, Duncan, SR, Heer, WF (2003) Grain sorghum response to simulated drift from glufosinate, glyphosate, imazethapyr, and sethoxydim. Weed Technol 17:261–265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (1999) Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 7:97–102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, SM, Clay, SA, Wrage, LJ, Matthees, D (2004) Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4-D and correlation to application rates and yield. Agron J 96:750–760 10.2134/agronj2004.0750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2018) 2019 Weed management suggestion for Mississippi row crops. Pages 16–23 in Bond, JA, ed, Mississippi State University Extension Service and Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experimental Station Pub 3171. Mississippi State, MS Google Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165–169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, JA, Griffin, JL, Ellis, JM, Linscombe, SD, Williams, BJ (2006) Corn and rice response to simulated drift of imazethapyr plus imazapyr. Weed Technol 20:113–117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudreaux, JM, Griffin, JL (2008) Harvest aids in indeterminate and determinate soybeans––application timing and value. Louisiana Agric 51:26–27 Google Scholar
Brown, LR, Robinson, DE, Young, BG, Loux, MM, Johnson, WG (2009) Response of corn to simulated glyphosate drift followed by in-crop herbicides. Weed Technol 23:11–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buehring, N (2008) Rice growth and development. in Mississippi Rice Growers Guide. Mississippi State University Extension Service Publication 2255. Starkville, MS: Mississippi State University Extension Service Google Scholar
Calhoun, JS, Barber, LT, Norsworthy, JK, Doherty, RC, Hill, ZT (2016) Off-target drift of paraquat and sodium chlorate on late-season rice. Pages 181–183 in Norman, RJ, Moldenhaour, KA, eds, B.R. Wells Arkansas Rice Research Studies 2016. Arkansas Agriculture Experiment Station Research Service Publication 643. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Agriculture Experiment Station Research Service Google Scholar
Clay, PA, Griffin, JL (2000) Weed seed production and seedling responses to late-season glyphosate applications. Weed Sci 48:481–486 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, B, Scott, RC, Norsworthy, JK, Gbur, E (2011) Response of rice (Oryza sativa) to low rates of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 25:198–203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL (2002) Soybean (Glycine max) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 16:580–586 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL, Jones, CA (2002) Effects of carrier volume on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 16:587–592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL, Linscombe, SD, Webster, EP (2003) Rice (Oryza sativa) and corn (Zea mays) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 17:452–460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golden, BR, Slaton, NA, Norman, RJ, Gbur, EE Jr., Brye, KR, Delong, RE (2006) Recovery of nitrogen in fresh and pelletized poultry litter by rice. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1359–1369 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, JL, Boudreaux, JM, Miller, DK (2010) Herbicides as harvest aids. Weed Sci 58: 355–358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensley, JB, Webster, EP, Blouin, DC, Harrell, DL, Bond, JA (2012) Impact of drift rates of imazethapyr and low carrier volume on non-Clearfield rice. Weed Technol 26:236–242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensley, JB, Webster, EP, Blouin, DC, Harrell, DL, Bond, JA (2013) Response of rice to drift rates of glyphosate applied at low carrier volumes. Weed Technol 27:257–262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, MA, Murdock, EC, Toler, JE, Wallace, SU (1989) Effects of late-season herbicide applications on sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) seed production and viability. Weed Sci 37:761–765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, BH, Bond, JA, Edwards, HM, Peeples, JD, Hydrick, HT, Reynolds, DB, Phillips, TL (2016) Corn response to low rates of paraquat and fomesafen [Abstract]. Weed Sci 69:302 Google Scholar
Lawrence, BH, Bond, JA, Golden, BR, Edwards, HM, Peeples, JD, McCoy, JM (2018) Effect of a sub-lethal rate of paraquat applied to rice at different growth stages. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 71:242 Google Scholar
Marple, ME, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (2008) Cotton injury and yield as affected by simulated drift of 2,4-D and dicamba. Weed Technol 21:954–960 Google Scholar
McNaughton, KE, Blackshaw, RE, Waddell, KA, Gulden, RH, Sikkema, PH, Gillard, CL (2015) Effect of application timing of glyphosate and saflufenacil as desiccants in dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Can J Plant Sci 95: 369–375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, GB, Bond, JA, Golden, BR, Gore, J, Edwards, HM, Eubank, TW, Walker, TW (2014) Response of commercial rice cultivars to postemergence applications of saflufenacil. Weed Technol 28:679–684 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namenek, RC, Smith, KL, Branson, JW (2001) Rice yield and herbicide symptomology as influenced by off-target herbicide rate and timing. B.R. Wells Rice Research Series. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Agriculture Experiment Station. Pp 92–96Google Scholar
Philbrook, BD, Oplinger, ES (1989) Soybean field losses as influenced by harvest delays. Agron J 81:251–258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roider, CA, Griffin, JL, Harrison, SA, Jones, CA (2007) Wheat response to simulated glyphosate drift. Weed Technol 21:1010–1015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxton, AM (1998) A macro for converting mean separation output into letter grouping in ProcMixed. Pages 1243–1246 in Proceedings of the 23rd SAS users Group International. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Google Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed. (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 419 p.Google Scholar
Slaton, NA, Golden, BR, Delong, RE, Mozaffari, M (2010) Correlation and calibration of soil potassium availability with soybean yield and trifoliate potassium. Soil Sci Soc Am J 74:1642–1651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperry, BP, Lawrence, BH, Bond, JA, Reynolds, DB (2019) Corn response to sub-lethal rates of paraquat and fomesafen at vegetative growth stages. Weed Technol 33:595–600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] United States Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics Service (2018) Statistics by Subject. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/index.php?sector=CROPS. Accessed: August 3, 2019Google Scholar
Webster, EP, Hensley, JB, Blouin, DC, Harrell, DL, Bond, JA (2016) Rice crop response to simulated drift of imazamox. Weed Technol 30:99–105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whigham, DK, Stoller, EW (1979) Soybean desiccation by paraquat, glyphosate, and ametryn to accelerate harvest. Agron J 71:630–633 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, TM, Grover, R, Wallace, K, Shewchuk, SR, Maybank, J (1993) Effect of protective shields on drift and deposition characteristics of field sprayers. Can J Plant Sci 73:1261–1273. https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/pdf/10.4141/cjps93-165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar