Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:14:20.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Corn and Rice Response to Simulated Drift of Imazethapyr Plus Imazapyr

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason A. Bond*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, LSU AgCenter, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
James L. Griffin
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, LSU AgCenter, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Jeffrey M. Ellis
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, LSU AgCenter, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Steven D. Linscombe
Affiliation:
LSU AgCenter, Rice Research Station, 1373 Caffey Road, Rayne, LA 70578
Bill J. Williams
Affiliation:
LSU AgCenter, Northeast Research Station, Box 438, St. Joseph, LA 71366
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Field research was conducted for 2 yr to evaluate response of corn and rice to simulated drift rates of a commercial premix of imazethapyr plus imazapyr [3:1 (w/w)]. Drift rates of the imazethapyr plus imazapyr premix represented 0.8, 1.6, 3.2, 6.3, and 12.5% of the usage rate of 63 g ai/ha (0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 7.9 g/ha, respectively). The imazethapyr plus imazapyr premix applied to six-leaf corn at 7.9 g/ha reduced height 11% compared with the nontreated control 7 days after treatment (DAT) but did not affect corn height 14 and 28 DAT. Corn yield was equivalent regardless of imazethapyr plus imazapyr rate and ranged from 10,200 to 11,500 kg/ha. At 28 DAT, rice height was reduced 12% when 7.9 g/ha of the imazethapyr plus imazapyr premix was applied early postemergence (EPOST) at two- to three-leaf and 14 and 5% when the imazethapyr plus imazapyr premix at 7.9 and 4 g/ha, respectively, was applied late postemergence (LPOST) at panicle differentiation. Reductions in mature rice height of 11 and 6% were observed when the imazethapyr plus imazapyr premix was applied LPOST at 7.9 and 4 g/ha, respectively, and a 5% reduction was observed for 7.9 g/ha of the imazethapyr plus imazapyr premix applied EPOST. Application of the imazethapyr plus imazapyr premix EPOST at 7.9 g/ha delayed heading in only 1 yr, but heading was delayed both years when applied LPOST. Rice yield was reduced 39 and 16% when the imazethapyr plus imazapyr premix was applied LPOST at 7.9 and 4 g/ha, respectively, compared with a 9% yield reduction for 7.9 g/ha applied EPOST.

Type
Research Article
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

Al-Khatib, K., Parker, R., and Fuerst, E. P. 1992a. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) response to simulated herbicide spray drift. Weed Technol. 6:956960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Parker, R., and Fuerst, E. P. 1992b. Sweet cherry (Prunus avium) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Technol. 6:975979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banks, P. A. and Schroeder, J. 2002. Carrier volume affects herbicide activity in simulated spray drift studies. Weed Technol. 16:833837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouse, L. F., Carlton, J. B., and Merkle, M. G. 1976. Spray recovery from nozzles designed to reduce drift. Weed Sci. 24:361365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberlein, C. V. and Guttieri, M. J. 1994. Potato (Solanum tuberosum) response to simulated drift of imidazolinone herbicides. Weed Sci. 42:7075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. M. and Griffin, J. L. 2002. Soybean (Glycine max) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 16:580586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. M., Griffin, J. L., and Jones, C. A. 2002. Effect of carrier volume on corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 16:587592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. M., Griffin, J. L., Linscombe, S. D., and Webster, E. P. 2003. Rice (Oryza sativa) and corn (Zea mays) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol. 17:452460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosheh, H. Z., Chandler, J. M., and Bierman, R. H. 1994. Impact of DPX-PE350 drift on corn and grain sorghum. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:24.Google Scholar
Hanks, J. E. 1995. Effect of drift retardant adjuvants on spray droplet size of water and paraffinic oil applied at ultralow volume. Weed Technol. 9:380384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, H. R. 1982. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated drift from selected herbicides. Weed Sci. 30:311315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, S. T., Sanders, D. E., Koske, T. J., Cannon, J. M., Boudreaux, J. E., Owings, A. D., and Strahan, R. E. 2005. 2005. Louisiana Suggested Chemical Weed Control Guide: Web page: http://www.lsuagcenter.com/weedguide/pdf/RICE.pdf. Accessed: March 7, 2005.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr., Hurst, H. R., and Wauchope, R. D. 1981. Effects of simulated MSMA drift on rice (Oryza sativa) growth and yield. Weed Sci. 29:303308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D. B., Harris, F. D., and Goering, C. E. 1982. Variables affecting drift from ground boom sprayers. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Engin. 25:14991503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1991. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated triclopyr drift. Weed Technol. 5:493498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1994. Potato (Solanum tuberosum) response to simulated drift of dicamba, clopyralid, and tribenuron. Weed Sci. 42:110114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wauchope, R. D., Richard, E. P. Jr., and Hurst, H. R. 1982. Effects of simulated MSMA drift on rice (Oryza sativa). II: arsenic residues in foliage and grain and relationships between arsenic residues, rice toxicity symptoms, and yields. Weed Sci. 30:405410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, T. M., Grover, R., Wallace, K., Shewchuk, S. R., and Maybank, J. 1992. Effect of protective shields on drift and deposition characteristics of field sprayers. in The Role of Application Factors in the Effectiveness and Drift of Herbicides. Regina, SK, Canada: Agric. Canada, Pp. 2952.Google Scholar