Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-fxdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T01:48:31.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imazethapyr is Safe and Effective for Imidazolinone-Tolerant Rice Grown on Coarse-Textured Soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Brian V. Ottis ,
John H. O'Barr ,
Garry N. McCauley  and
James M. Chandler
Brian V. Ottis*
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2474
John H. O'Barr
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2474
Garry N. McCauley
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2474
James M. Chandler
Affiliation:
Texas A&M Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Eagle Lake, TX 77434
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A study was conducted in 2001 and 2002 in Texas to evaluate red rice control and crop response of imidazolinone-tolerant rice with imazethapyr on coarse-textured soils. Because imazethapyr was not registered for use on imidazolinone-tolerant rice on coarse-textured soils in Texas, crop response was evaluated to determine whether imidazolinone-tolerant rice yields would be reduced with sequential applications of imazethapyr on soils having greater than 50% sand content. The treatment factors consisted of preemergence (PRE) applications of imazethapyr at 50, 70, or 87 g ai/ ha followed by (fb) preflood (PREFLD) applications of 35 or 50 g/ha. Imazethapyr at 70 g/ha PRE fb 70 g/ha PREFLD was added as a seventh treatment. PRE applications were activated by rainfall or surface irrigation after application, and PREFLD applications were sprayed 1 to 2 d before application of the permanent flood. In both years, 100% red rice control was achieved with all rate combinations. Early-season visual rice injury ranged from 5 to 21% and did not result in yield losses, indicating that imazethapyr is safe on coarse-textured soils.

Keywords

Imazethapyrred rice, Oryza sativa L. #3 ORYSArice, Oryza sativa L. ‘CL121’DAT, days after treatmentfb, followed byPRE, preemergencePREFLD, preflood.
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 1096 - 1100
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

Ahrens, W. H. editor. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 147–149.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J 81:665–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Che, M., Loux, M. M., Traina, S. J., and Logan, T. J. 1992. Effect of pH on sorption and desorption of imazaquin and imazethapyr on clays and humic acid. J. Environ. Qual. 21:698–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. 1990. Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38:421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, R. E. and Obien, S. R. 1969. Herbicide equilibrium in soils in relation to soil water content. Weed Sci. 17:514–520.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
Johnson, D. H., Shaner, D. L., Deane, J., Mackersie, L. A., and Tuxhorn, G. 2000. Time-dependent adsorption of imazethapyr to soil. Weed Sci. 48:769–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendig, J. A., Ohmes, G. A., Ezell, P. M., and Barham, R. L. 2000. Performance of imazethapyr in non-flushed, drill seeded rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:37.Google Scholar
Masson, J. A., Webster, E. P., and Williams, B. J. 2001. Flood depth, application timing, and imazethapyr activity in imidazolinone-tolerant rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 15:315–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ottis, B. V., Chandler, J. M., and McCauley, G. N. 2003. Imazethapyr application methods and sequences for imidazolinone-tolerant rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 17:526–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. SAS User's Guide, version 8.1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1686 p.Google Scholar
Sciumbato, A. S., Krutz, L. J., Steele, G. L., Senseman, S. A., Lee, D. J., and Ottis, B. V. 2003. Plant available imazethapyr in soil solution and red rice (Oryza sativa L.) efficacy as influenced by herbicide rate and soil moisture. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 56:351.Google Scholar
Steele, G. L., Chandler, J. M., and McCauley, G. N. 2002. Control of red rice (Oryza sativa) in imidazolinone-tolerant rice (O. sativa). Weed Technol. 16:627–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Shea, P. J., and Martin, A. R. 1990. Effect of soil type and pH on adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38:67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. H. and Hackworth, H. M. 1999. Weed control with imidazolinone tolerant rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 52:185.Google Scholar
Zhang, W., Webster, E. P., and Selim, H. M. 2001. Effect of soil moisture on efficacy of imazethapyr in greenhouse. Weed Technol. 15:355–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar