Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T10:53:18.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physiological Response of Rice (Oryza sativa) to Fenoxaprop

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Derrick M. Oosterhuis ,
Stan D. Wullschleger ,
Ron E. Hampton  and
Rosalind A. Ball
Derrick M. Oosterhuis
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Stan D. Wullschleger
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Ron E. Hampton
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Rosalind A. Ball
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Growth chamber experiments were conducted to elucidate the morphological and physiological responses of rice to postemergence application of fenoxaprop. Two rice cultivars, ‘Newbonnet’ and ‘Mars’, and barnyardgrass were treated with 0.17 kg ai ha−1 fenoxaprop at the five-leaf stage. Within 2 days of fenoxaprop application, rice cultivars developed a white chlorotic band across leaves that were in direct contact with spray droplets. Leaf elongation rates for the two rice cultivars were inhibited by 40% after 4 days and by over 50% after 14 days. Inhibition of leaf elongation by fenoxaprop contributed to an overall decrease in leaf area and shoot dry weight. Net photosynthesis was reduced by 35% in fenoxaprop-treated plants 11 days after application, although stomatal conductance was not affected. Nitrogen fertilization prior to fenoxaprop application increased foliar injury of both rice cultivars. Visible injury symptoms showed the following order of susceptibility to foliar-applied fenoxaprop: barnyardgrass > Mars rice > Newbonnet rice.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. # ECHCGfenoxaprop, (±)-2 - [4 - [(6 - chloro-2-benzoxazolyl)oxy]phenoxy]propanoic acidrice, Oryza sativa L. ‘Mars’ and ‘Newbonnet’Crop injuryepicuticular waxgrowth analysisphotosynthesisstomatal conductanceEchinochloa crus-galliECHCG
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 38 , Issue 6 , November 1990 , pp. 459 - 462
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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

1. Brezeanu, A. G., Davis, D. G., and Shimabukuro, R. H. 1976. Ultrastructural effects and translocation of methyl-2-(4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenoxy)propanoate in wheat (Triticum aestivum) and wild oat (Avena fatua). Can. J. Bot. 54:2038–2048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Chandrasena, N. R. and Sagar, G. R. 1987. The effect of the site of action of 14C-fluazifop on its uptake and translocation by quackgrass (Agropyron repens). Weed Sci. 35:457–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. 347.Google Scholar
4. Hoppe, H. H. 1985. Differential effect of diclofop-methyl on fatty acid biosynthesis in leaves of sensitive and tolerant plant species. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 23:297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Khodayari, K., Nastasi, P., and Smith, R. J. Jr. 1989. Fenoxaprop for grass control in dry-seeded rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 3:131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Kobek, K., Focke, M., and Lictenthaler, H. K. 1988. Fatty acid biosynthesis and acetyl-CoA carboxylase as a target of diclofop, fenoxaprop and other aryloxy-phenoxy-propanoic acid herbicides. Z. Naturforsch. 43C:47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Shimabukuro, R. H. and Walsh, W. C. 1986. The effects of fluazifop-butyl, haloxyfop-methyl, and CGA-82725 on IAA-induced growth, proton transport, and cell membrane potential. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 26:229.Google Scholar
8. Shimabukuro, R. H. and Wright, J. P. 1985. Changes in the membrane electrogenic proton gradient: The basis for antagonistic interaction between diclofop-methyl and 2,4-D. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 25:230.Google Scholar
9. Silva Fernandes, A. M., Baker, E. M., and Martin, J. T. 1964. Studies on plant cuticle. VI. The isolation and fractionation of cuticular waxes. Ann. Appl. Biol. 53:43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Smith, R. J. Jr. 1988. Weed control in water- and dry-seeded rice, Oryza sativa . Weed Technol. 2:242–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Snipes, C. E. and Street, J. E. 1987. Fenoxaprop for postemergence barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci. 35:224–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Snipes, C. E. and Street, J. E. 1987. Rice (Oryza sativa) tolerance to fenoxaprop. Weed Sci. 35:401–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Boykin, D. L. 1987. Influence of flood interval and cultivar on rice (Oryza sativa) tolerance to fenoxaprop. Weed Sci. 35:842–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Luthe, D. S. 1987. Physiological influences of fenoxaprop on corn (Zea mays). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 28:333–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar