Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:48:49.792Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Saflufenacil in Drill-Seeded Rice (Oryza sativa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Garret B. Montgomery ,
Jason A. Bond ,
Bobby R. Golden ,
Jeffrey Gore ,
H. Matthew Edwards ,
Thomas W. Eubank  and
Timothy W. Walker
Garret B. Montgomery
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
Jason A. Bond*
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
Bobby R. Golden
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
Jeffrey Gore
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
H. Matthew Edwards
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
Thomas W. Eubank
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
Timothy W. Walker
Affiliation:
Delta Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Stoneville, MS 38776
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Palmer amaranth is the most common and troublesome broadleaf weed species of rice in Mississippi because of the effects of early-season interference and infestations on rice levees, and herbicides for residual or POST control of Palmer amaranth in rice are limited. Three studies were conducted in 2012 and 2013 to evaluate application rates and timings of saflufenacil in rice and to determine the influence of adjuvants when mixed with saflufenacil applied POST. In a PRE study, no injury occurred after saflufenacil PRE, and no control was observed from carfentrazone. Hemp sesbania and Palmer amaranth control increased with increasing saflufenacil rate when applied PRE. Hemp sesbania control with saflufenacil at any rate PRE was ≤ 25% at 35 d after treatment (DAT). Palmer amaranth and ivyleaf morningglory control with saflufenacil at 75 g ai ha−1 PRE was ≥ 94% 35 DAT. In a POST study, rice injury was influenced by application timing and rate of saflufenacil; however, efficacy was not. Rice injury with saflufenacil at 25 g ha−1 and carfentrazone early POST (EPOST) and late POST was similar 7 DAT. Saflufenacil at 50 and 75 g ha−1 EPOST were the most injurious 7 DAT. Control of hemp sesbania and ivyleaf morningglory was similar for all rates of saflufenacil and carfentrazone; however, Palmer amaranth control with saflufenacil at any rate was greater than that of carfentrazone 14 and 28 DAT. In an adjuvant study, rice injury was influenced by adjuvant and saflufenacil rate. Saflufenacil applied alone or in mixture with crop oil concentrate (COC) was least injurious, and saflufenacil at 50 g ha−1 was more injurious than saflufenacil at 25 g ha−1. Saflufenacil applied in combination with any adjuvant provided better control of hemp sesbania and Palmer amaranth than saflufenacil alone. On the basis of this research, saflufenacil should be applied PRE at 50 or 75 g ha−1, depending on weed spectrum, and POST applications should be made at 25 g ha−1 in combination with COC after the two-leaf rice growth stage.

Amaranthus palmeri es la especie de malezas de hoja ancha más común y problemática en arroz en Mississippi debido a sus efectos en la interferencia temprano durante la temporada de crecimiento y sus infestaciones en los diques en los campos de arroz, además hay pocos herbicidas para el control residual y POST de esta maleza en arroz. En 2012 y 2013, se realizaron tres estudios para evaluar la dosis y momentos de aplicación de saflufenacil en arroz y así determinar la influencia de adyuvantes cuando estos se mezclaron con saflufenacil y fueron aplicados POST. En un estudio PRE, no hubo daño después de aplicaciones PRE de saflufenacil, y no se observó control alguno con aplicaciones de carfentrazone. El control de Sesbania herbacea y A. palmeri aumentó con el incremento en las dosis de saflufenacil cuando se aplicó PRE. A cualquier dosis, el control de S. herbacea con saflufenacil PRE fue ≤25% a 35 d después del tratamiento (DAT). El control de A. palmeri e Ipomoea hederacea con saflufenacil a 75 g ai ha−1 PRE fue ≥94% 35 DAT. En un estudio POST, el daño en el arroz fue influenciado por el momento y dosis de aplicación de saflufenacil, sin embargo, la eficacia no lo fue. El daño en el arroz con saflufenacil a 25 g ha−1 y carfentrazone en POST temprana (EPOST) y POST tardía fue similar a 7 DAT. Saflufenacil a 50 y 75 g ha−1 EPOST fueron los tratamientos más dañinos 7 DAT. El control de S. herbacea e I. hederacea fue similar para todas las dosis de saflufenacil y carfentrazone. Sin embargo, el control de A. palmeri con saflufenacil a cualquiera de las dosis fue mayor que el control con carfentrazone 14 y 28 DAT. En un estudio con adyuvantes, el daño al arroz fue influenciado por el adyuvante y la dosis de saflufenacil. Saflufenacil aplicado solo o en mezcla con aceite concentrado de cultivo (COC) causó menos daño, y saflufenacil a 50 g ha−1 causó más daño que saflufenacil a 25 g ha−1. Saflufenacil aplicado en combinación con cualquier adyuvante brindó mejor control de S. herbacea y A. palmeri que saflufenacil solo. Con base en esta investigación, saflufenacil debería ser aplicado PRE a 50 ó 75 g ha−1, dependiendo del espectro de malezas, y las aplicaciones POST deberían hacerse a 25 g ha−1 en combinación con COC y después del estado de crecimiento de dos hojas del arroz.

Keywords

Carfentrazonesaflufenacilhemp sesbania, Sesbania herbacea (P. Mill.) McVaugh SEBEXivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. IPOHEPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats AMAPArice, Oryza sativa L.Adjuvantapplication rateapplication timingsurface applications
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 660 - 670
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 (2013a) Aim herbicide label. Web page: http://www.greenbook.net. Accessed February 12, 2014Google Scholar
Anonymous (2013b) Sharpen herbicide label. Web page: http://www.greenbook.net. Accessed June 27, 2013Google Scholar
Anonymous (2014a) Crop Production and Agricultural Chemical Usage in Field Crops. Agricultural Statistics Board, NASS, and USDA: Web page: http://www.usda.gov/nass. Accessed March 17, 2014Google Scholar
Anonymous (2014b) Sharpen supplemental label. Web page: http://www.greenbook.net. Accessed March 11, 2014Google Scholar
Askew, SD, Shaw, DR, Street, JE (2000) Graminicide application timing influences red rice (Oryza sativa) control and seedhead reduction in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 14:176–181 Google Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165–169 Google Scholar
Bond, JA, Oliver, LR (2006) Comparative growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions. Weed Sci 54:121–126 Google Scholar
Bond, JA, Oliver, LR, Stephenson, DO IV (2006) Response of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to accession to glyphosate, fomesafen, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol 20:885–892 Google Scholar
Buehring, NW, ed. (2008) Mississippi Rice Grower's Guide. Starkville, MS: Mississippi State University Extension Service. 80 pGoogle Scholar
Buehring, NW, Bond, JA (2008) Rice weed control. Pages 34–43 in Mississippi Rice Growers Guide. Starkville, MS: Mississippi State University Extenson Service Google Scholar
Camargo, ER, Senseman, SA, McCauley, GN, Guice, JB (2010) Rice tolerance to saflufenacil in a clomazone weed control program. Pages 160–161 in Rice Technical Working Group Annual Meeting. Biloxi, MS:Google Scholar
Camargo, ER, Senseman, SA, McCauley, GN, Guice, JB (2012) Rice (Oryza sativa) response and weed control from tank-mix applications of saflufenacil and imazethapyr. Crop Prot 30:94–98 Google Scholar
Carlson, TP, Webster, EP, Salssi, ME, Bond, JA, Hensley, JB, Blouin, DC (2012) Economic evaluations of imazethapyr rates and timings on rice. Weed Technol 26:24–28 Google Scholar
Eubank, TW, Nandual, VK, Reddy, KN, Poston, DH, Shaw, DR (2013) Saflufenacil efficacy on horseweed and its interaction with glyphosate. Weed Biol Manage 13:135–143 Google Scholar
Everman, WJ, Burke, IC, Clewis, SB, Thomas, WE, Wilcut, JW (2008) Critical period of grass vs. broadleaf weed interference in peanut. Weed Technol 22:68–73 Google Scholar
Geier, PW, Stahlman, PW, Charvat, LD (2009) Dose responses of five broadleaf weeds to saflufenacil. Weed Technol 23:313–316 Google Scholar
Gower, SA, Loux, MM, Cardina, J, Harrison, SK (2002) Effect of planting date, residual herbicide, and postemergence application timing on weed control and grain yield in glyphosate-tolerant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 16:488–494 Google Scholar
Green, JM, Cahill, WR (2003) Enhancing the biological activity of nicosulfuron with pH adjusters. Weed Technol 17:338–345 Google Scholar
Grichar, WJ (2007) Horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum), smellmelon (Cucmid melo), and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in peanut with postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 21:688–691 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, K, Hutzler, J, Caspar, G, Kwiatkowksi, J, Brommer, CL (2011) Saflufenacil (Kixor™): biokinetic properties and mechanism of selectivity of a new protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase inhibiting herbicide. Weed Sci 59:290–298 Google Scholar
Grossman, K, Niggeweg, R, Christiansen, N, Looser, R, Ehrhardt, T (2010) The herbicide saflufenacil (Kixor™) is a new inhibitor of protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase activity. Weed Sci 58:1–9 Google Scholar
Hoagland, RE, Norsworthy, JK, Carey, F, Talbert, RE (2004) Metabolically based resistance to the herbicide propanil in Echinochloa species. Weed Sci 52:475–486 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Javaid, MM, Tanveer, A (2013) Optimization of application efficacy for POST herbicides with adjuvants on three-cornered jack (Emex australis Steinheil) in wheat. Weed Technol 27:437–444 Google Scholar
Kichler, J, Culpepper, AS (2012) How tillage and application timing of reflex affects Palmer amaranth control and cotton injury. Page 1534 in 2012 Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Cordova, TN National Cotton Council of America Google Scholar
Klingaman, TE, Oliver, LR (1994) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 42:523–527 Google Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Datta, A, Scott, J, Charvat, LD (2009) Adjuvants influenced saflufenacil efficacy on fall-emerging weeds. Weed Technol 23:340–345 Google Scholar
Lorenzi, HJ, Jeffery, LS (1987) Weeds of the United States and their control. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. p 180 Google Scholar
Loux, MM, Dobbels, AF, Johnson, WG, Young, BG (2011) Effect of residual herbicide and postemergence application timing on weed control and yield in glyphosate-resistant corn. Weed Technol 25:19–24 Google Scholar
Meier, JR, Smith, KL, Bullington, JA, Doherty, RC (2010) Page 149 in Program approaches for hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata) control in drill-seeded rice. Rice Technical Working Group Annual Meeting. Biloxi, MS:Google Scholar
Meyer, CJ, Norsworhy, JK, Riar, DS, Barapour, MT, Schrage, BW, Bell, HD, Hill, ZT (2014) Yield loss from early season Palmer amaranth interference in rice. in Rice Technical Working Group Annual Meeting. New Orleans, LA:Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW (2013) Herbicide-based weed management programs for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 27:331–340 Google Scholar
Miller, T, Street, J (2008) Introduction. Page 3 in Mississippi Rice Growers Guide. Starkville, MS: Mississippi State University Extension Service Google Scholar
[MSU-ES] Mississippi State University Extension Service (2014a) Weed Control Guidelines for Mississippi. Pp 67–77 Google Scholar
Nandula, VJ, Reddy, KN, Koger, CH, Poston, DH, Rimando, AM, Duke, SO, Bond, JA, Ribeiro, DN (2012) Multiple resistance to glyphosate and pyrithiobac in Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) from Mississippi and response to flumiclorac. Weed Sci 60:179–188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Bangarwa, SK, Scott, RC, Still, J, Griffith, GM (2010) Use of propanil and quinclorac tank mixtures for broadleaf weed control on rice (Oryza sativa) levees. Crop Prot 29:255–259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, GM, Scott, RC, Smith, KL, Oliver, LR (2008) Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 22:108–113 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Oliver, LR (2002) Hemp sesbania interference in drill-seeded glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Sci 50:34–41 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Scott, RC, Gbur, EE (2007) Consultant perspectives on weed management needs in Arkansas cotton. Weed Technol 21:825–831 Google Scholar
Page, ER, Cerruda, D, Westra, P, Loux, M, Smith, K, Foresman, C, Wright, H, Swanton, CJ (2012) Why early season weed control is important in maize. Weed Sci 60:423–430 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, RG, York, AC, Jordan, DL (2006) Weed control in glyphosate-resistant corn as affected by preemergence herbicide and timing of postemergence herbicide application. Weed Technol 20:564–570 Google Scholar
Riar, DS, Norsworthy, JK (2011) Use of imazosulfuron in herbicide programs for drill-seeded rice (Oryza sativa) in the mid-South United States. Weed Technol 25:548–555 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riar, DS, Norsworthy, JK, Johnson, DB (2012) Evaluation of layby programs for Palmer amaranth control in cotton. Page 1501 in Proceedings of 2012 Beltwide Cotton Conference. Cordova, TN National Cotton Council of America Google Scholar
Riar, DS, Norsworthy, JK, Steckel, LE, Stephenson, DO IV, Eubank, TW, Bond, J, Scott, RC (2013) Adoption of best managment practices for herbicide-resistant weeds in midsouthern United States cotton, rice, and soybean. Weed Technol 27:788–797 Google Scholar
Saxton, AM (1998) A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Pages 1243–1246 in Proceedings of the 23rd SAS users Group International. Car, NC: SAS Institute Google Scholar
Smith, RJ (1968) Weed competition in rice. Weed Sci 16:252–254 Google Scholar
Smith, RJ (1988) Weed thresholds in southern U.S. rice, Oryza sativa . Weed Technol 2:232–241 Google Scholar
Waggoner, BS, Mueller, TC, Bond, JA, Steckel, LE (2011) Control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with saflufenacil tank mixtures in no-till cotton. Weed Technol 25:310–315 Google Scholar
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:12–27 Google Scholar
Webster, TM (2012) Weed survey—grass crops subsection. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 65:267–288 Google Scholar
Webster, TM (2013) Weed survey—broadleaf crops subsection. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 66:275–287 Google Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS (2010) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in soybean with glyphosate and conventional herbicide systems. Weed Technol 24:403–410 Google Scholar
Zhang, W, Webster, EP, Pellerin, KJ, Blouin, DC (2006) Weed control programs in drill-seeded imidazolinone-resistant rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol 20: 956–960 CrossRefGoogle Scholar