Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T09:28:19.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mixture interactions of quizalofop and reduced rates of halosulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2021

L. Connor Webster Open the ORCID record for L. Connor Webster [Opens in a new window] ,
Eric P. Webster ,
David C. Blouin  and
Benjamin M. McKnight
L. Connor Webster*
Affiliation:
Research Associate, School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Science, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Eric P. Webster
Affiliation:
Professor, School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Science, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
David C. Blouin
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Experimental Statistics, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Benjamin M. McKnight
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University, College Station, TX, USA.
*
Author for correspondence: L. Connor Webster, School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Science, Louisiana State University, 104 M.B. Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA70803 Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A field study was conducted in 2017 and 2018 at the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center H. Rouse Caffey Rice Research Station near Crowley, LA, to evaluate the impact of reduced rates of halosulfuron on quizalofop activity in Louisiana rice production. Halosulfuron and a prepackaged mixture of halosulfuron plus thifensulfuron were evaluated at 0, 17, 35, or 53 g ai ha−1 and 34 or 53 g ai ha−1, respectively, in a mixture with quizalofop at 120 g ai ha−1. Control of barnyardgrass, red rice, and two non-acetyl-CoA carboxylase resistant rice lines, CL-111 and CLXL-745, were recorded at 14 and 28 d after treatment (DAT). The red rice, CL-111, and CLXL-745 represented a weedy rice population. Across all species evaluated at 14 DAT, all mixtures containing halosulfuron and halosulfuron plus thifensulfuron resulted in antagonism with an observed control of 79% to 90%, compared with an expected control of 96% to 99%. At 28 DAT, all mixtures containing halosulfuron resulted in neutral interactions for barnyardgrass control. Quizalofop mixed with halosulfuron plus thifensulfuron at the lower rate of 34 g ha−1 was able to overcome the antagonism compared with the higher rate of 53 g ha−1 for barnyardgrass control at 28 DAT. Both the high and the low rate of halosulfuron plus thifensulfuron resulted in antagonistic interaction for red rice, CL-111, and CLXL-745 control at 28 DAT. This research suggests that mixing quizalofop with halosulfuron plus thifensulfuron should be avoided, especially at the higher rate of 53 g ha−1.

Keywords

Halosulfuronhalosulfuron plus thifensulfuronbarnyardgrassEchinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.red riceOryza sativa L.riceOryza sativa L.Antagonismbarnyardgrassred ricemixturereduced rates
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , October 2021 , pp. 690 - 696
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Jason Bond, Mississippi State University

References

Anonymous (2017) Provisia® herbicide product label. BASF publication No. 33906-9-7969. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF. 12 pGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berenbaum, MC (1981) Criteria for analyzing interactions between biologically active agents. Adv Cancer Res 35:269–335 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blackshaw, RE, Harker, KN, Clayton, GW, O’Donovan, JT (2006) Broadleaf herbicide effects on clethodim and quizalofop-p efficacy on volunteer wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol 20:221–226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2010) On a method for synergistic and antagonistic joint-action effects with fenoxaprop mixtures in rice. Weed Technol 24:583–589 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Zhang, W (2004) Analysis of synergistic and antagonistic effects of herbicides using non-linear mixed model methodology. Weed Technol 18:464–472 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgos, NR, Singh, V, Tseng, TM, Black, HL, Young, ND, Huang, Z, Hyma, KE, Gealy, DR, Caicedo, AL (2014) The impact of herbicide-resistant rice (Oryza sativa L.) technology on phenotypic diversity and population structure of U.S. weedy rice. Plant Physiol 166:1208–1220 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burton, JD, Gronwald, JW, Somers, DA, Gengenbach, BG, Wyse, DI (1989) Inhibition of corn acetyl-CoA carboxylase by cyclohexanedione and aryloxyphenoxypropionate herbicides Pest Biochem Physiol 34:76–85 Google Scholar
Carey, VF III, Hoagland, RE, Talbert, RE (1995) Verification and distribution of propanil-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 9:366–372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, TP, Webster, EP, Salassi, ME, Hensley, JB, Blouin, DC (2011) Imazethapyr plus propanil programs in imidazolinone-resistant rice. Weed Technol 25:205–211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665–672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colby, SR (1967) Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weed Sci 15:20–22 Google Scholar
Croughan, TP (2003) Clearfield rice: It’s not a GMO. LA Agr 46:24–26Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Corbin, FT, Sheldon, YS (1999) Basis for antagonism in mixtures of bromoxynil plus quizalofop-p applied to yellow foxtail (Setaria glauca). Weed Technol 13:515–519 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowler, CC (1997) Weed survey – southern states: grass crops subsection. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 50:227–246 Google Scholar
Drury, RE (1980) Physiological interaction, its mathematical expression. Weed Sci 28:573–579 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estorninos, LE Jr, Gealy, DR, Gbur, EE, Talbert, RE, McClelland, MR (2005) Rice and red rice interference. II. Rice response to population densities of three red rice (Oryza sativa) ecotypes. Weed Sci 53:683–689 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, KL, Coble, HD (1994) Effect of DPX-PE350 on the efficacy of graminicides. Weed Sci 42:222–226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, JC, Webster, EP, Blouin, DC, Bond, JA (2015) Imazethapyr co-application interactions in imidazolinone-resistant rice. Weed Technol 29:689–696 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, JC, Webster, EP, Blouin, DC, Bond, JA (2016) Imazamox plus propanil mixtures for grass weed management in imidazolinone-resistant rice. Weed Technol 30:29–35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Focke, M, Lichtenthaler, HK (1987) Notes: Inhibition of the Acetyl-CoA carboxylase of barley chloroplasts by cycloxydim and sethoxydim. Z Naturforsch C 42:1361–1363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gealy, DR, Saldain, NE, Talbert, RE (2000) Emergence of red rice (Oryza sativa) ecotypes under dry-seeded rice (Oryza sativa) culture. Weed Technol 14:406–412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gealy, DR, Mitten, DH, Rutger, JN (2003) Gene flow between red rice (Oryza sativa) and herbicide-resistant rice (O. sativa): implications for weed management. Weed Technol 17:627–645 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, JM (1989) Herbicide antagonism at the whole plant level. Weed Technol 3:217–226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gressel, J, Valverde, BE (2009) A strategy to provide long-term control of weedy rice while mitigating herbicide resistance transgene flow, and its potential use for other crops with related weeds. Pest Manag Sci 65:723–731 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grichar, WJ, Boswell, TE (1987) Herbicide combinations in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol 1:290–293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, AG, Wax, LM, Bollero, GA, Stroller, EW (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
Hatzios, KK, Penner, D (1985) Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in higher plants. Rev Weed Sci 1:1–63 Google Scholar
Jordan, DL, Frans, RE, McClelland, MR (1993) Interactions of DPX-PE350 with fluazifop-p, sethoxydim, clethodim, and quizalofop-p. Weed Technol 7:605–610 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, MS, Burgos, NR, Talbert, RE (2010) Confirmation and control of propanil-resistant and quinclorac-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in rice. Weed Technol 24:226–233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, PM (1978) Some comments on the assessment of joint action in herbicide mixtures. Weed Sci 26:58–71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, PF, Coble, HD (1992) Antagonism of graminicide activity on annual grass species by imazethapyr. Weed Technol 6:333–338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, RG (1981) Phytotoxic interaction studies—techniques for evaluation and presentation of results. Weed Sci 29:147–155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oard, J, Cohn, MA, Linscome, SD, Gealy, DR, Gravios, K (2000) Field evaluation of seed production, shattering, and dormancy in hybrid populations of transgenic rice (Oryza sativa) and the weed, red rice (Oryza sativa). Plant Sci 157:13–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellerin, KJ, Webster, EP (2004) Imazethapyr at different rates and timings in drill- and water-seeded imidazolinone-tolerant rice. Weed Technol 18:223–227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellerin, KJ, Webster, EP, Zhang, W, Blouin, DC (2003) Herbicide mixtures in water-seeded imidazolinone-resistant rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol 17:836–841 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajguru, SN, Burgos, NR, Shivrain, VK, Stewart, JM (2005) Mutations in the red rice ALS gene associated with resistance to imazethapyr. Weed Sci 53:567–577 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, GN Jr, Coble, HD (1984) Influence of application variables on antagonism between sethoxydim and bentazon. Weed Sci 32:436–441 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rustom, SY, Webster, EP, Blouin, DC, McKnight, BM (2018) Interactions between quizalofop-p-ethyl and acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides in acetyl-coA carboxylase inhibitor-resistant rice production. Weed Technol 32:297–303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute (2013) SAS/STAT 9.2 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Google Scholar
Smith, RJ Jr (1968) Weed competition in rice. Weed Sci 16:252–255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streibig, JC, Kudsk, P, Jensen, JE (1998) A general joint action model for herbicide mixtures. Pestic Sci 53:21–28 3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sudianto, E, Beng-Kah, S, Ting-Xiang, N, Saldain, NE, Scott, RC, Burgos, NR (2013) Clearfield rice: its development, success, and key challenges on a global perspective. Crop Prot 49:40–51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, EP, Carlson, TP, Salassi, ME, Hensley, JB, Blouin, DC (2012) Imazethapyr plus residual herbicide programs for imidazolinone-resistant rice. Weed Technol 26:41–416 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, EP, Masson, JA (2001) Acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides on imidazolinone-tolerant rice. Weed Sci 49:652–657 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J, Hamill, AS, Weaver, SE (1995) Antagonism and synergism between herbicides: trends from previous studies. Weed Technol 9:86–90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W, Linscombe, SD, Webster, EP, Tan, S, Oard, J (2006) Risk assessment of the transfer of imazethapyr herbicide tolerance from Clearfield rice to red rice (Oryza sativa). Euphytica 152:75–86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W, Webster, EP, Blouin, DC, Leon, CT (2005) Fenoxaprop interactions for barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control in rice. Weed Technol 19:293–297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar