Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T03:29:27.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of Growth Stage and Application Site on Tolerance of Rice (Oryza sativa) to Haloxyfop

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John L. Baldwin
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol. Weed Sci., Miss. State Univ., Mississippi State, MS 39762
G. Euel Coats
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant and Soil Sci., Mississippi State, MS 39762
Joe E. Street
Affiliation:
Miss. Agric. For. Exp. Stn., Delta Branch, Stoneville, MS 38776
Vernon B. Langston
Affiliation:
Sen. Res. Bio., DowElanco, Wayside, MS 38780

Abstract

Greenhouse experiments were conducted to evaluate seedling rice tolerance to haloxyfop and to determine soil moisture effects on root, shoot, and root plus shoot uptake. Visible injury to rice at 4 wk after treatment increased with each increase of haloxyfop rate from 40 to 160 g ai/ha, regardless of growth stage. Less injury was observed at equivalent rates in four-leaf than in younger rice. Similarly, equivalent haloxyfop rates reduced shoot fresh weight of one- to three-leaf rice more than shoot fresh weight of four-leaf rice. There was no interation between soil moisture levels (19 and 24%) and haloxyfop activity. Fresh weights were less when haloxyfop at 40 or 80 g/ha was absorbed by both roots and shoots than when absorption was by either roots or shoots alone. However, at 80 g/ha fresh weight was similar whether haloxyfop was absorbed by roots or shoots alone. Root uptake, in the presence of 160 g/ha haloxyfop, did not contribute to reduced fresh weight with root plus shoot treatments because of the initial foliar activity incurred.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Akey, W. C., and Morrison, I. N. 1983. Effect of moisture stress on wild oat (Avena fatua) response to diclofop. Weed Sci. 31:247253.Google Scholar
2. Brewster, B. D., Appleby, A. P., and Spinney, R. L. 1977. Control of Italian ryegrass and wild oats in winter wheat with HOE 23408. Agron. J. 69:911913.Google Scholar
3. Buhler, D. D., and Burnside, O. C. 1984. Herbicidal activity of fluazifop-butyl, haloxyfop-methyl, and sethoxydim in soil. Weed Sci. 32:824831.Google Scholar
4. Carroll, K. R., and Crawford, S. H. 1985. Varietal response of rice to HOE-33171. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 38:42.Google Scholar
5. Dekker, J. H., Meggitt, W. F., and Boldt, P. F. 1981. Soil herbicidal activity from HOE-29152 and diclofop applied postemergence. Weed Sci. 29:314316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Dortenzio, W. A., and Norris, R. F. 1980. The influence of soil moisture on the foliar activity of diclofop. Weed Sci. 28:534539.Google Scholar
7. Friesen, H. A., O'Sullivan, P. A., and Vanden Born, W. H. 1976. HOE23408, a new selective herbicide for wild oats and green foxtail in wheat and barley. Can. J. Plant Sci. 56:567578.Google Scholar
8. Gray, R. A., and Weierich, A. J. 1969. Importance of root, shoot and seed exposure on the herbicidal activity of EPTC. Weed Sci. 17:223229.Google Scholar
9. Griffin, J. L., and Baker, J. B. 1990. Tolerance of rice (Oryza sativa) cultivars to fenoxaprop, sethoxydim, and haloxyfop. Weed Sci. 38:528531.Google Scholar
10. Guy, C. B., Talbert, R. E., Ferguson, J. A., Johnson, D. H., and McClelland, M. R. 1989. Application of fluazifop-P, haloxyfop, and quizalofop by sprinkler irrigation. Weed Sci. 37:585590.Google Scholar
11. Kidder, D. W., and Behrens, R. 1988. Plant responses to haloxyfop as influenced by water stress. Weed Sci. 36:305311.Google Scholar
12. Morrison, I.N., and Maurice, D. C. 1984. The relative response of two foxtail (Setaria) species to diclofop. Weed Sci. 32:686690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Oliver, L. R., Mosier, D. G., and Howe, O. W. 1982. A comparison of new postemergence herbicides for control of annual grass. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 22:17.Google Scholar
14. Oosterhus, D. M., Wullschleger, S. D., Hampton, R. E., and Ball, R. A. 1990. Physiological response of rice (Oryza sativa) to fenoxaprop. Weed Sci. 38:459462.Google Scholar
15. Smeda, R. J., and Putnam, A. R. 1990. Influence of temperature, rainfall, grass species, and growth stage on efficacy of fluazifop. Weed Technol. 4:349355.Google Scholar
16. Smith, R. J. Jr., 1988. Weed control in water- and dry-seeded rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 2:242250.Google Scholar
17. Snipes, C. E., and Street, J. E. 1987. Fenoxaprop for postemergence barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci. 35:224227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Stoltenberg, D. E., and Wyse, D. L. 1986. Regrowth of quackgrass (Agropyron repens) following postemergence applications of haloxyfop and sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 34:664668.Google Scholar
19. West, L. D., Dawson, J. H., and Appleby, A. P. 1980. Factors influencing barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control with diclofop. Weed Sci. 28:366371.Google Scholar