Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T05:19:16.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) Control and Rice Density Effects on Rice Yield Components

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Brian V. Ottis  and
Ronald E. Talbert
Brian V. Ottis*
Affiliation:
Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri–Columbia, Portageville, MO 63873
Ronald E. Talbert
Affiliation:
Department of Crops, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The response of new, high-yielding rice cultivars to varying barnyardgrass control levels and rice plant densities is not well understood. Studies were conducted in 2002 through 2004 at the Rice Research and Extension Center near Stuttgart, AR, to evaluate three new rice cultivars at plant densities ranging from 79 to 392 plants/m2 grown in competition with barnyardgrass. Representatives from each of the three classes of long-grain rice produced in the United States were selected. ‘Wells’ represented conventional, long-grain rice, ‘CL161’ represented semidwarf, imidazolinone-tolerant, long-grain rice, and ‘XL8’ represented hybrid, long-grain rice. Rice density and barnyardgrass control affected rice total aboveground biomass production, panicle weight, and harvest index. As rice density decreased or barnyardgrass control increased, total aboveground biomass production and harvest index increased. Rice density had no effect on panicle density or yield. Panicle density increased 14 panicles/m2 for every 10% increase in barnyardgrass control. Cultivar yields were affected similarly by barnyardgrass control, and increased 750 kg/ha for each 10% increase in barnyardgrass control. XL8 and Wells produced the highest average yields, with CL161 producing the lowest over the three-year experiment. XL8 yield components fluctuated more than CL161 or Wells over the range of rice densities and barnyardgrass control levels, indicating that XL8 is highly sensitive to intra- and interspecific competition at high plant populations.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGrice, Oryza sativa L. ‘CL161’, ‘Wells’, ‘XL8’Competitiondensityhybrid riceseeding rate
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 110 - 118
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, , 2006. Planting Recommendations. RiceTec Inc. Web page: http://www.ricetec.com/publications/mgmtRecomm_2006.pdf. Accessed: 30 Jan 2006.Google Scholar
Barrett, S. C. H. 1983. Crop mimicry in weeds. Econ. Bot. 37:255–282.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. 1992. Crop Losses Due to Weeds. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America. 10.Google Scholar
Carey, V. F. III, Hoagland, R. E., and Talbert, R. E. 1995. Verification and distribution of propanil-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in Arkansas. Weed Technol. 9:366–372.Google Scholar
Gravois, K. A. and Helms, R. S. 1992. Path analysis of rice yield and yield components as affected by seeding rate. Agron. J. 84:1–4.Google Scholar
Gravois, K. A. and Helms, R. S. 1996. Seeding rate effects on rough rice yield, head rice, and total milled rice. Agron. J. 88:82–84.Google Scholar
Hill, J. E., LeStrange, M. L., Bayer, D. E., and Williams, J. F. 1985. Integrated weed management in California rice. Proc. West. Weed Sci. Soc. 38:686–692.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Pancho, J. V., Herberger, J. P., and Plucknett, D. L. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Honolulu University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Pancho, J. V., Herberger, J. P., and Plucknett, D. L. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. New York J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Jones, D. B. and Snyder, G. H. 1987. Seeding rate and row spacing effects on yield and yield components of drill-seeded rice. Agron. J. 79:623–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klosterboer, A. D. and Turner, F. T. 2001. Seeding rates. in Blair, C., ed. 2002 Rice Production Guidelines. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. D-1253:7.Google Scholar
NASS 2006. State level data for field crops—grains. National Agricultural Statistics Service: Web page: http://www.nass.usda.gov. Accessed: January 30, 2006.Google Scholar
Ni, H., Moody, K., and Robles, R. P. 2004. Analysis of competition between wet-seeded rice and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) using a response-surface model. Weed Sci. 52:142–146.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr 1968. Weed competition in rice. Weed Sci. 16:252–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr 1974. Responses of rice to postemergence treatments of propanil. Weed Sci. 22:563–568.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr 1988. Weed thresholds in southern U.S. rice, Oryza sativa . Weed Technol. 2:232–241.Google Scholar
Stauber, L. G., Smith, R. J. Jr, and Talbert, R. E. 1991. Density and spatial interference of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) with rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci. 39:163–168.Google Scholar
Wells, B. R. and Faw, W. F. 1978. Short-statured rice response to seeding and N rates. Agron. J. 70:477–480.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. E., Branson, J. W., and Davis, C. H. Jr. 2006. RICESEED. Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service: Web page: http://www.uaex.edu/Other_Areas/publications/PDF/FSA-2017.pdf. Accessed: January 30, 2006.Google Scholar
Wilson, C. E., Slaton, N., Norman, R., and Miller, D. 2000. Efficient use of fertilizer. in Slaton, N., ed. Rice Production Handbook MP192. Fayetteville, AK University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture. 51–74.Google Scholar
Wu, G., Wilson, L. T., and McClung, A. M. 1998. Contribution of rice tillers to dry matter accumulation and yield. Agron. J. 90:317–323.Google Scholar