Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:23:26.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rice Cultivar Response to Penoxsulam

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason A. Bond ,
Timothy W. Walker ,
Eric P. Webster ,
Nathan W. Buehring  and
Dustin L. Harrell
Jason A. Bond*
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
Timothy W. Walker
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
Eric P. Webster
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Nathan W. Buehring
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
Dustin L. Harrell
Affiliation:
Rice Research Station, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Rayne, LA 70578
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jbond@drec.msstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A study was conducted in 2005 and 2006 to evaluate the response of 10 rice cultivars to penoxsulam applied at 70 g ai/ha to two- to three-leaf rice. A related study was conducted in 2004 and 2005 to compare the rice response to applications of penoxsulam at 35 and 70 g/ha and bispyribac-sodium at 28 g ai/ha. In the first study, all 10 rice cultivars exhibited tolerance to penoxsulam as evidenced by plant height, number of days to 50% heading, and rice grain yield. In the second study, applications of both rates of penoxsulam and bispyribac-sodium reduced mass of rice roots 65 to 71% 2 wk after treatment compared with a nontreated control. However, rice grain yield was higher following application of penoxsulam at 70 g/ha compared with yield of the nontreated control or yield following penoxsulam at 35 g/ha and bispyribac-sodium. Rice recovered from injury observed following herbicide application with no negative impact on grain yield. Results indicate that, even though rice root injury can be severe following application, penoxsulam is safe for application to rice cultivars currently grown in the southern U.S. Rice Belt.

Keywords

Penoxsulambispyribac-sodiumrice, Oryza sativa L.Application rateroot mass reduction
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 961 - 965
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

Anonymous 2004. Penoxsulam global technical bulletin. Dow AgroSciences Publication 010-30367. Indianapolis, IN Dow AgroSciences. 12.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2006a. Grasp herbicide label. http://www.greenbook.net. Accessed: November 20, 2006.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2006b. RiceTec hybrid rice planting recommendations. http://www.ricetec.com/seed/management_recommendations.asp. Accessed: December 11, 2006.Google Scholar
Braverman, M. P. and Jordan, D. L. 1996. Efficacy of KIH-2023 in dry- and water-seeded rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 10:876–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences in combined analyses of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, M. D. 1989. Phloem translocation of herbicides. Rev. Weed Sci. 4:191–225.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D., Bestman, H. D., and Vanden Born, W. H. 1990. Physiological basis for the different phloem mobilities of chlorsulfuron and clopyralid. Weed Sci. 38:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, A. T., Ottis, B. V., and Talbert, R. E. 2005. Rice cultivar rooting tolerance to penoxsulam (Grasp). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 58:50.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. L. and Baker, J. B. 1990. Tolerance of rice (Oryza sativa) cultivars to fenoxaprop, sethoxydim, and haloxyfop. Weed Sci. 38:528–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Bollero, G. A., and Stoller, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helms, R. S., Tripp, T. N., Smith, R. J. Jr, Baldwin, F. L., and Hackworth, M. 1989. Rice (Oryza sativa) response to imazaquin residues in a soybean (Glycine max) and rice rotation. Weed Technol. 3:513–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, P. J. S., Boydston, R. A., Ransom, C. V., Tonks, D. J., and Beutler, B. R. 2005. Potato variety tolerance to flumioxazin and sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 19:683–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jabusch, T. W. and Tjeerdema, R. S. 2005. Partitioning of penoxsulam, a new sulfonamide herbicide. J. Agric. Food Chem. 53:7179–7183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lanclos, D. Y., Webster, E. P., and Zhang, W. 1999. Glufosinate-resistant rice lines treated with glufosinate at intervals throughout the season. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:213.Google Scholar
Lassiter, R. B., Haygood, R. A., Mann, R. K., Richburg, J. S., and Walton, L. C. 2006. Penoxsulam for postflood weed control in southern U.S. rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 59:13.Google Scholar
Linscombe, S. D., Saichuk, J. K., Seilhan, K. P., Bollich, P. K., and Funderburg, E. R. 1999. General agronomic guidelines. Pages 5–12. in. Louisiana Rice Production Handbook. Baton Rouge, LA Louisiana State University Agricultural Center Publication 2321.Google Scholar
Mudge, C. R., Webster, E. P., Leon, C. T., and Zhang, W. 2005. Rice cultivar tolerance to clomazone in water-seeded production. Weed Technol. 19:907–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ottis, B. V., O'Barr, J. H., Mccauley, G. N., and Chandler, J. M. 2004. Imazethapyr is safe and effective for imidazolinone-tolerant rice grown on coarse-textured soils. Weed Technol. 18:1096–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherder, E. F., Talbert, R. E., and Clark, S. D. 2004. Rice (Oryza sativa) cultivar tolerance to clomazone. Weed Technol. 18:140–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 1991. Physiological effects of the imidazolinone herbicides. Pages 129–138. in Shaner, D.L., O'Conner, S.L. eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL CRC.Google Scholar
Strahan, R. E. 2004. Texasweed (Caperonia palustris) control in rice with penoxsulam. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:70.Google Scholar
Walton, L. C., Langston, V. B., Lassiter, R. B., Mann, R. K., and Richburg, J. S. 2005. Penoxsulam EUP and concept results from 2004 in southern U.S. rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 58:269.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. and Shaw, D. R. 1996. Carryover potential of pyrithiobac to rotational crops on a Mississippi black belt region clay soil. Weed Technol. 10:140–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, B. J. and Burns, A. B. 2006. Penoxsulam a new herbicide for broadleaf weed management in rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 59:12.Google Scholar
Willingham, S. D., Nanson, W. D., McCauley, G. N., and Chandler, J. M. 2006. New alligatorweed [Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb] control programs for Texas rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 59:67.Google Scholar
Zhang, W. and Webster, E. P. 2002. Shoot and root growth of rice (Oryza sativa) in response to V-10029. Weed Technol. 16:768–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W., Webster, E. P., Blouin, D. C., and Linscombe, S. D. 2004. Differential tolerance of rice (Oryza sativa) varieties to clomazone. Weed Technol. 18:73–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W., Webster, E. P., and Leon, C. T. 2005. Response of rice cultivars to V-10029. Weed Technol. 19:307–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar