Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T08:44:27.915Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Response of Glufosinate-Resistant Rice (Oryza sativa) to Glufosinate Application Timings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David Y. Lanclos
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, 104 M. B. Sturgis, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Eric P. Webster*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, 104 M. B. Sturgis, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Wei Zhang
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, 104 M. B. Sturgis, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Steve D. Linscombe
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University AgCenter Rice Research Station, P.O. Box 1429, Crowley, LA 70527
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

At 14 d after treatment (DAT), glufosinate-resistant CPRS PB-13 rice was injured with early- and late-season glufosinate applications in 1998 and 1999. At 35 DAT, injury was less than 5%. Glufosinate delayed CPRS PB-13 heading by 7 to 15 d and reduced plant height at harvest but did not affect grain moisture and yield compared with the nontreated CPRS PB-13. But yield was reduced compared with conventional Cypress. At 14 DAT, glufosinate-resistant BNGL HC-11/62 rice was injured with early- and late-season applications. Treated BNGL HC-11/62 reached 50% heading 3 to 5 d later than did the nontreated. An application of glufosinate reduced plant height and increased grain moisture compared with the nontreated. Rice treated at the three- to five-leaf, preboot, and boot timings resulted in reduced yields compared with the nontreated BNGL HC-11/62.

Type
Commentary
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

Baughman, T. A. and Webster, E. P. 1998. Roundup ready cotton performance. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 22: 862.Google Scholar
Blackley, R. H. Jr., Reynolds, D. B., Rowland, C. D., and File, S. L. 1999. Roundup Ready cotton tolerance to topical applications of Roundup Ultra. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 252253.Google Scholar
Blair, L. K., Dotray, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Gannaway, J. R., Oliver, M. J., and Quisenberry, J. E. 1999. Crop tolerance and weed management in glufosinate tolerant cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 5.Google Scholar
Braverman, M. P. and Linscombe, S. D. 1994. Field evaluation of transgenic glufosinate-resistant rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47: 22.Google Scholar
Christou, P., Ford, T. L., and Kofron, M. 1991. Production of transgenic rice (Oryza sativa L.) plants from agronomically important indica and japonica varieties via electric discharge particle acceleration of exogenous DNA into immature zygotic embryos. Biotechnology 9: 957962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, S. A., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Jennings, K. M. 2000. Weed management in glufosinate and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14: 7788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
File, S. L., Reynolds, D. B., Snipes, C. E., and Serviss, B. E. 1998. Roundup Ready cotton tolerance to topical and post-directed applications of Roundup Ultra. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 47.Google Scholar
Masson, J. A. and Webster, E. P. 2001. Use of imazethapyr in water-seeded imidazolinone-tolerant rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 15: 103106.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. G., Rhodes, G. N. Jr., Mueller, T. C., and Hayes, R. M. 1998. Roundup® Ultra effects on Roundup Ready™ cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 39.Google Scholar
Peters, D. A., Griffin, J. L., Ellis, J. M., Bond, J. A., and Godley, J. L. 1999. Corn tolerance and weed control with Liberty-Link and Roundup-Ready programs. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 219.Google Scholar
Pline, W. A., Hatzios, K. K., and Hagwood, E. S. 2000. Weed and herbicide-resistant soybean (Glycine max) response to glufosinate and glyphosate plus ammonium sulfate and pelargonic acid. Weed Technol. 14: 667674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prochaska, L. M. and Griffin, J. L. 1994. Response of transgenic line 40-3-2 and weed control following application of glyphosate. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47: 60.Google Scholar
Rathore, K. S., Vijay, C. K., and Hodges, T. K. 1993. Use of bar as a selectable marker gene and for the production of herbicide-resistant rice plants from protoplasts. Plant Mol. Biol. 21: 871884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankula, S., Braverman, M. P., and Linscombe, S. D. 1997. Response of BAR-transformed rice (Oryza sativa) and red rice (Oryza sativa) to glufosinate application timing. Weed Technol. 11: 303307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, G. L., Chandler, J. M., and McCauley, G. N. 2000. Evaluation of imazethapyr for red rice control in Clearfield rice. Proc. Rice Tech. Working Grp. 28: 148.Google Scholar
Vargas, R. N., Wright, S., and Duvall, T. M. 1998. Tolerance of Roundup Ready® cotton to Roundup Ultra applied at various growth stages in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod. Conf. 22: 847.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. and Masson, J. A. 2000. Evaluation of weed control and crop tolerance with ALS inhibiting herbicides in imidazolinone-tolerant rice. Proc. Rice Tech. Working Grp. 28: 149.Google Scholar
Wheeler, C. C., Baldwin, F. L., Talbert, R. E., Schmidt, L. A., and Rutledge, J. S. 1999. Potential for broad-spectrum control of weeds in glufosinate-tolerant rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 14.Google Scholar
Wheeler, C. C., Baldwin, F. L., Talbert, R. E., and Webster, E. P. 1998. Weed control in glufosinate-tolerant rice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 34.Google Scholar