Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:44:51.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of reduced-rate herbicide combinations in dry-seeded rice (Oryza sativa) on alluvial clay soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David L. Jordan
David L. Jordan*
Affiliation:
Northeast Research Station, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, P.O. Box 438, St. Joseph, LA 71366
*
Corresponding address: Crop Science Department, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research was conducted from 1993 through 1995 to evaluate barnyardgrass control, rice yield, and estimated economic return with POST applications of propanil or propanil + molinate applied alone or with quinclorac. Herbicides were applied under a variety of water management practices and environmental conditions at rates ranging from 1.1 to 3.4, 1.7 to 5.6, and 0.17 to 0.40 kg ai ha−1 for propanil, propanil + molinate, and quinclorac, respectively. Reduced-rate combinations of propanil or propanil + molinate with reduced rates of quinclorac controlled small, actively growing barnyardgrass and provided yields and estimated economic returns similar to combinations of these herbicides at higher rates when irrigated. When herbicides were applied to larger barnyardgrass, propanil + molinate at 5.6 kg ha−1 was more effective than propanil at 3.4 kg ha−1 or quinclorac at 0.40 kg ha−1 applied alone. Propanil + molinate applied with quinclorac at 0.28 or 0.40 kg ha−1 controlled barnyardgrass more effectively and provided higher yields and greater estimated economic returns than propanil at 3.4 kg ha−1, propanil + molinate at 5.6 kg ha−1, quinclorac at 0.17, 0.28, or 0.40 kg ha−1, or combinations of propanil and quinclorac.

Keywords

Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGMolinate, S-ethyl hexahydro-1H-azepine-1-carbothioatepropanil, N-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)propanamidequinclorac, 3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid, barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCG
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , February 1997 , pp. 151 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Baldwin, F. L. 1995. A consolidated approach to weed management in rice (final report). in Wells, B. R., ed. Rice Research Studies 1994. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Series 446, pp. 32–37.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: 576–581.Google Scholar
Crawford, S. H. and Jordan, D. L. 1995. Comparison of single and multiple applications of propanil and residual herbicides in dry-seeded rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 9: 153–157.Google Scholar
Elmore, C. D. 1988. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 41: 396–410.Google Scholar
Giesler, G. and Heagler, A. 1994. Projected costs and returns—rice, Louisiana, 1994. in Projected Costs and Returns and Cash Flows for Major Agricultural Enterprises Louisiana, 1994. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station A.E.A. Information Series No. 117–124, pp. F-60 and F-61.Google Scholar
Guy, C. B. Jr., Helms, R. S., and Ashcraft, R. W. 1995. Weed control and crop tolerance of herbicides. in Wells, B. R., ed. Rice Research Studies 1994. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Series 446, pp. 38–46.Google Scholar
Guy, C. B. Jr., Helms, R. S., Beary, J. D., Black, H. L., and Ashcraft, R. W. 1994. Reduced rate combinations of quinclorac with thiobencarb, propanil, and propanil + molinate. Proc. Rice Tech. Working Group 25: 158–159.Google Scholar
Helms, R. S., Guy, C. B., Black, H. L., and Ashcraft, R. W. 1995. Weed management in rice. in Wells, B. R., ed. Rice Research Studies 1994. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Series 446, pp. 37–51.Google Scholar
Jordan, D., Burns, A., and Barnes, J. 1994. Rice weed control research in northeast Louisiana, 1994. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station Mimeo Series No. 96. 244 p.Google Scholar
Jordan, D., Burns, A., and Barnett, W. 1996. Rice weed control research in northeast Louisiana, 1995. Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station Mimeo Series No. 115. 235 p.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. 1988. Weed thresholds in southern U.S. rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 2: 242–250.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. 1990. Quinclorac combinations for weed control in rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 43: 116.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. and Hill, J. E. 1990. Weed control technology in U.S. rice. in Grayson, B. T., Green, M. B., and Copping, L. D., eds. Pest Management in Rice. United Kingdom: Elsevier, pp. 314–327.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr., and Khodayari, K. 1985. Herbicide treatments for control of weeds in drill-seeded rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci. 33: 686–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Street, J. E. and Mueller, T. C. 1993. Rice (Oryza sativa) weed control with soil applications of quinclorac. Weed Technol. 7: 600–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar