Chemical Weed Control in Direct-seeded Flooded Rice in Taiwan

1974 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 425-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. L. Chang ◽  
S. K. De Datta
2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 258-262
Author(s):  
Chad Brabham ◽  
Jason K. Norsworthy ◽  
Craig A. Sandoski ◽  
Vijay K. Varanasi ◽  
Lauren M. Schwartz-Lazaro

AbstractBenzobicyclon is a new pro-herbicide being evaluated in the Midsouth United States as a post-flood weed control option in rice. Applications of benzobicyclon to flooded rice are necessary for efficacious herbicide activity, but why this is so remains unknown. Two greenhouse experiments were conducted to explore how herbicide placement (foliage only, flood water only, foliage and flood water simultaneously) and adjuvants (nonionic surfactant, crop oil concentrate, and methylated seed oil [MSO]) affect herbicide activity. The first experiment focused on importance of herbicide placement. Little to no herbicidal activity (<18% visual control) was observed on two- to four-leaf barnyardgrass, Amazon sprangletop, and benzobicyclon-susceptible weedy rice with benzobicyclon treatments applied to weed foliage only. In contrast, applications made only to the flood water accounted for >82% of the weed control and biomass reduction achieved when benzobicyclon was applied to flood water and foliage simultaneously. The second experiment concentrated on adjuvant type and benzobicyclon efficacy when applied to foliage and flood water simultaneously. At 28 days after treatment, benzobicyclon alone at 371 g ai ha−1 provided 29% and 67% control of three- to five-leaf barnyardgrass and Amazon sprangletop, respectively. The inclusion of any adjuvant significantly increased control, with MSO providing near-complete control of barnyardgrass and Amazon sprangletop. Furthermore, we used the physiochemical properties of benzobicyclon and benzobicyclon hydrolysate to derive theories to explain the complex activity of benzobicyclon observed in our study and in field trials. Benzobicyclon applications should contain an oil-based adjuvant and must be applied to flooded rice fields for optimal activity.


1994 ◽  
Vol 34 (7) ◽  
pp. 1021 ◽  
Author(s):  
JE Hill ◽  
RJ Jr Smith ◽  
DE Bayer

Among temperate rice areas, the United States and Australia are most similar in climate and in the mechanisation of rice culture. Many weed problems, even weed species invading rice, are common to both countries; and the present technology for weed control as well as concern for the impact of these technologies to environmental quality, herbicide resistance, and other weed-related issues bear many similarities. Application of current, and any new, technologies to emerging issues in US rice weed control will therefore be directly relevant to rice production in Australia and all other temperate areas struggling with the same challenges. Weeds are a significant problem in temperate rice culture. In the United States, rice is mechanically direct-seeded, allowing weeds to germinate and establish with the crop. In the last 15 years weed growth and competition has been increased by the adoption of semi-dwarf cultivars, high N fertilisation, and, in water-seeded rice, shallow flooding. High rates, and often multiple applications, of herbicides have been necessary to maximise the yield potential of these cultural systems. Advances in cultural practices and herbicide technology have maintained, if not improved, weed control; but nearly 30 years of propanil use in the southern USA resulted in propanil-resistant barnyard grass Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv., and after 4 years of continuous use, bensulfuron resistance to 4 aquatic weed species was discovered in California. Although herbicides with different mechanisms of action are needed for alternation in resistance management strategies, fewer are likely to be available. Social and environmental concerns have slowed the development and registration of rice herbicides and increased the cost of controlling weeds. Water quality deterioration from ricefield tailwaters, drift to sensitive crops, the cost of renewing registration in aquatic systems, and weed resistance all forecast reduced herbicide use in rice. Neither cultural practices nor herbicides alone can solve weed problems in direct-seeded, mechanised rice culture. With fewer herbicides and a cultural system highly vulnerable to weed losses, integrated management strategies with better information on which to base weed control decisions will be needed to solve weed problems in temperate rice.


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Agostinetto ◽  
L.C. Fontana ◽  
L. Vargas ◽  
L.T. Perboni ◽  
E. Polidoro ◽  
...  

Determining the periods of weed competition with crops helps the producer to choose the most appropriate time to use weed control practices. This strategy allows for the reduction of the number of herbicide applications, reducing costs and the environmental impact of pesticides. The objectives were to determine the period before the interference (PBI) of crabgrass (Digitaria ciliaris) competing with flooded rice, the critical period of interference prevention (CPIP) of crabgrass with soybean and the effects of competition on the grains yield and their components. Experiments were conducted with the coexistence of BRS Querência rice cultivar with crabgrass, for periods of 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 110 days after emergency (DAE) and Fundacep 53RR soybean cultivar, whose periods of coexistence and control of crabgrass were 0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 156 DAE. Rice can grow with crabgrass infestation until 18 DAE, while soybean should remain free from the presence of crabgrass in the period between 23 and 50 DAE. The grain yield and its components, in the crops studied, are affected when grown with crabgrass.


2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. MUHAMMAD ◽  
I. MUHAMMAD ◽  
A. SAJID ◽  
L. MUHAMMAD ◽  
A. MAQSHOOF ◽  
...  

Weed management is a primary concern in direct seeded rice (DSR) cropping because weed growth becomes a major constraint on crop yield. A two year field study was set up to evaluate the effect of various weed control measures on crop growth, grain yield and grain quality of DSR. The experiment involved five different weed control measures: hand weeding, hoeing, inter-row tine cultivation, inter-row spike hoeing and herbicide treatment (Nominee 100 SC). The extent of weed control (compared to a non-weeded control) ranged from 50-95%. The highest crop yield was obtained using hand weeding. Hand weeding, tine cultivation and herbicide treatment raised the number of fertile rice tillers formed per unit area and the thousand grain weight. Tine cultivation provided an effective and economical level of weed control in the DSR crop.


2001 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. R. Mohanty ◽  
K. Bharati ◽  
B. T. S. Moorthy ◽  
B. Ramakrishnan ◽  
V. R. Rao ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 369
Author(s):  
M. Madhavi ◽  
M. Yakadri ◽  
P. Leela Rani ◽  
T. Ramprakash
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
K. Nandini Devi ◽  
M. Sumarjit Singh

Field experiments were conducted at Research Farm, Central Agricultural University, Imphal during <italic>kharif</italic> 2011 and 2012 to study the effect of cross ploughing on weed control of wet- direct seeded rice in Manipur. Maximum plant population was observed in control and once hand weeding without cross ploughing treatments as compared to other treatments. But maximum number of panicles per metre square, grain and straw yield were significantly higher in cross ploughing thrice followed by cross ploughing twice than the other treatments after cross ploughing. Plant populations as well as number of weeds were significantly lower in the treatment cross ploughing thrice at 25 days after sowing. Thus cross ploughing twice at 25 days after sowing of wet –direct seeded rice was found to be the best economic method of weed control for obtaining highest B:C ratio with minimum cost of cultivation in both the years. This weed control method of cross ploughing in wetdirect seeded rice is of great significance in conserving the natural resources and maintaining the sustainability of the agricultural production system.


1992 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 223-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Dingkuhn ◽  
S.K. De Datta ◽  
C. Javellana ◽  
R. Pamplona ◽  
H.F. Schnier

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document