Propanil and Mixtures with Propanil for Weed Control in Rice

Author(s): Roy J. Smith, Jr.

Source: Weeds, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Jul., 1965), pp. 236-238
Published by: Weed Science Society of America and Allen Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4041035
Accessed: 01-01-2016 18:07 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Allen Press and Weed Science Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Weeds.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.100.58.76 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 18:07:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Propanil and Mixtures with Propanil for Weed Control in Rice'
RoY J.
Abstract. The herbicide 3',4'-dichloropropionanilide (propanil)
effectively controlled barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crusgalli (L.)
Beauv.], brachiaria [Brachiaria platyphylla (Griseb.) Nash], crab-
grass [Digitaria spp.], sesbania [Sesbania exaltata (Raf.) Cory],
ctirly indigo [Aeschynomene virginica (L.) B.S.P.J, spikerush
[Eleocharis spp.], and umbrellasedge [Cyperus spp.] in the 1- to 4-
leaf stages wvithout significant injury to commercial varieties of
rice in the 1- to 2-leaf stages. It was ineffective for control of
duicksalad [Heteranthera spp.], redstem [Ammannia coccinea Rottb.],
morningglory [Ipomoea spp.], sprangletop [Leptochloa panicoides
(Presl.) Hitchc.], and red rice [Oryza sativa L.]. Mixtures of
propanil and a blended surfactant, containing petroleum sulfonate,
free and combined fatty acids, and petroleum oil, and mixtures
of propanil and isopropyl N-(3-chlorophenyl)carbamate (CIPC) and
methyl 2,4-dichlorocarbanilate (swep), controlled barnyardgrass bet-
ter than propanil alone. Propanil sometimes injured the rice,
blut it recovered in 5 to 10 days after treatment and yield and
quiality wvere unaffected.
INTRODUCTION
D OTATIONS, seedbed preparation, land-leveling, levee
1X construction, use of weed-free crop seed, and water
management help prevent and control weed infesta-
tions in rice (7). Herbicides used in combination with
cultural practices are more effective for weed control
than either practice alone. Combination practices can
effectively reduce weed losses to rice which are esti-
mated to exceed $85 million each year in the United
States (10). Cooperative field trials in Arkansas, Cali-
fornia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas showed that pro-
panil increased yields of rice from 34 to 74 per cent (3).
Although many weeds were present in these trials, barn-
yardgrass was the most prevalent and serious weed.
The purpose of these investigations was to: (1) Evalu-
ate the effectiveness of propanil and mixtures of propa-
nil and herbicides with preemergence activity for con-
trol of weeds in rice, (2) determine the effects of propa-
nil on the yield and quality of rice, (3) study the effects
of cultural practices on the effectiveness of propanil,
(4) evaluate the effects of environment and soil on weed
control with propanil and (5) study the interaction
of weed control with propanil with rice production
management practices.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
During 1960-63 more than 40 field experiments were
conducted in Arkansas on Crowley silt loam, Perry
clay, and Sharkey clay, at Stuttgart, Rohwer, and Keiser,
respectively. Commercial varieties of rice were drilled,
broadcast, or water-seeded on well-prepared seedbeds.
Plots were arranged in randomized complete or split
blocks with 3 to 6 replicates. Propanil at 2 to 12 lb/A
'Received for publication October 9, 1964. Cooperative investiga-
tions of the Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service,
U. S. Department of Agriculture, and the Arkansas Agricultural
Experiment Station.
2Agroniomist, Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research
Service, U.S. Departmenit of Agriculture, Stuttgart, Arkansas.
This content downloaded from 129.100.58.76 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 18:07:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SMITH, JR.2
was applied pre- or postemergence by ground equip-
ment in 5 to 40 gpa of water or by aerial equipment in
3 to 15 gpa of water. Plots were usually dry when
sprayed and they were flooded a few days afterward.
Phosphorus and potassium were applied preplanting and
nitrogen was applied postemergence in accordance with
needs of the rice as indicated by soil tests. Plots were
harvested by hand, threshed, and grain yields corrected
to 13 per cent moisture.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Weeds controlled. Propanil controlled many grass,
broadleaved, and sedge weeds in rice (5): barnyardgrass
[Echinochloa crusgalli (L.) Beauv.], brachiaria [Brachi-
aria platyphylla (Griseb.) Nash], crabgrass [Digitaria
spp.], sesbania [Sesbania exaltata (Raf.) Cory], curly
indigo [Aeschynomene virginica (L.) B.S.P.], smart-
weed [Polygonum spp.], spikerush[Eleocharis spp.], um-
brellasedge [Cyperus spp.], hoorahgrass [Fimbristylis
miliacea (L.) Vahl.] and beakrush [Rhynchospora corni-
culata (Lam.) Gray]. Propanil was ineffective for con-
trol of ducksalad [Heteranthera spp.], redstem [Amman-
nia coccinea Rothb.] gooseweed [Sphenoclea zeylanica
Gaertn.], redtop [Agrostis alba L.] sprangletop [Lepto-
chloa panicoides (Presl.) Hitchc.], knotgrass [Paspalum
distichum L.], morningglory [Ipomoea spp.] and red
rice [Oryza sativa L.].
Time, rate, and method of propanil application.
Propanil applied preemergence did not control weeds (9).
They were controlled best when propanil was applied
to plants that were 1/2 to 2 inches tall (1- to 4-leaf stage)
(Table 1). Propanil applied at 3 to 9 lb/A to grass
6 to 36 inches tall was ineffective. Rapidly growing
weeds were controlled better than those growing slowly.
For example, in 1961 control of grass decreased as the
plants became larger, but in 1962 control decreased
from 100 per cent when grass with 1 to 4 leaves was
treated to 22 per cent when grass in the tillering stage
was treated. Control increased to 42 to 46 per cent when
grass in the tillering to heading stages was treated. Nitro-
gen applied immediately after the fourth-stage treat-
ment made the grass grow rapidly and increased its
susceptibility to propanil.
In 1960 grass plants with 1 leaf were killed by propa-
nil, but those that emerged after spraying reinfested
the plots (Table 1). Most grass plants emerged by the
time tlhe oldest grass had 3 or 4 leaves. Because propanil
was not effective at preemergence, postemergence ap-
plications, delayed until after maximum emergence of
grass seedlings, were most effective. Propanil was most
effective when applied to weeds with one to 4 leaves
regardless of the stage of rice. A reasonable stand of
rice should be assured before treatment because if rice
236
 SMITH, JR.: PROPANIL ON RICE
Table 1. Control of barnyardgrass, brachiaria and other weeds and yield of rough rice per acre as influenced by time of application of
propanil, Stuttgart, Arkansas, 1960-62. Values are averages from plots treated with 3, 5, 7, and 9 pounds per acre of propanil.

Per cent control of grass Lb/A rough ricea

Height or stage of grass when sprayed --- - - -? -
1960 1961 1962 Average 1960 1961 1962 Average
Preemergence ................................................................. 17 - - - 2,640 - -
Preemergence to _% inch or 1 leaf ................................................ 58 - - - 3,960 - - -
M to 2 inches or 1 to 4 leaves ................................................... 84 69 100 84 4,660 3,720 4,680 4,350
Y2 to 7 inches or 2 leaves to tillering .............................................. - 60 82 71 - 3,570 4,530 4,050
2 to 8 inches or tillering ............................... - 48 50 49 - 3,440 3,950 3,700
6 to 13 inches or tillering ....................................................... - 17 22 20 - 2,700 3,070 2,890
10 to 20 inches or tillering to heading ......................... - 0 42 21 - 2,310 3,510 2,910
15 to 36 inches or tillering to heading ......................... - 10 46 28 - 2,530 3.380 2,950
LSD, 5%6 level ............................................................. 8 11 16 12 330 440 890 550
level ............................................................
LSD, 1%c// 11 16 23 17 440 630 1,060 710

aln 1960 the grass free and untreated check plots yielded 4,720 and 2,640 lb/A. In 1961 and 1962 there was no grass-free check plot, but the u-ntreated check plots
yielded 2,340 and 2,010 lb/A, respectively.

is replanted after spraying effectiveness of propanil could be sprayed rapidly and at the right time. Medium-
would be lost. fine droplets were considered satisfactory for ground
Propanil at 3 or more lb/A controlled weeds satis- and aerial equipment (8).
factorily (Table 2). Yields of rice were excellent from The spray patterns of aerial and ground equipment
plots treated with propanil at 3 lb/A. Propanil at less were important. Propanil was effective only when the
than 3 lb/A was somewhat less effective than 3 or more spray covered the weeds well. When aerial equipment
lb/A. was used a swath width of 30 to 40 ft, about equal
Sometimes temporary chlorosis and tip burn occurred to or slightly less than the wing span of the aircraft,
oni rice leaves 2 to 3 days after treatment with propanil covered weeds well enough for good control.
even at 3 to 4 lb/A, but no permanent injury of rice Water management. Irrigating the rice before treat-
was obtained with rates as high as 12 lb/A. New leaves ment with propanil was necessary when the soil was dry.
emerging after treatment showed no injury. Injury of At Stuttgart in 1962 rice was seeded with sufficient
rice was miore pronounced and persisted longer when moisture in the soil for germination of rice and grass,
the soil wvas dry and temperatures were above 95 F but no rain fell during the 11 days from planting until
at treatment. However, severely injured rice outgrew spraying. Weeds were growing slowly in the dry soil
this damage 5 to 10 days after treatment. and many plants were not killed by propanil. When the
Propanil was applied in the field with ground or soil was dry and crusty irrigation 2 to 5 days before
aerial equipment. For ground treatments boom-nozzle
sprayers were most satisfactory. Boom-nozzle, venturi, spraying stimulated weeds and made them susceptible
and rotary-atomizer sprayers, when properly adjusted to propanil. Propanil controlled 90 per cent of the
and operated, were satisfactory for aerial treatments. grass when the soil was moist as compared with 70
Aerial equipment was more satisfactory than ground per cent when it was dry. Propanil did not kill weeds
equipment because levees did not reduce spraying effi- covered with water because it did not contact the leaves
cienicy and fields too wet to support ground equipment (11). Flooding rice 1 to 4 days after treatment was neces-

1 able 2. Control of barnyardgrass, brachiaria and other weeds and yield of rough rice per acre as influenced by rate of application of
propanil, 1960-63. Propanil applied when grass had 1 to 4 leaves (1 to 3 inches tall) and when rice had 1 or 2 leaves (3 to 4 inches tall).

Per cent control of grass with propanil

at indicated lb/A LSD Lb/A rough rice from plots treated with propanil at indicated lb/A LSD
Year and location --? 5? --- 5% - ---
2 3 4 5 7 9 12 level 0 2 3 4 5 7 9 12 level
1 960:
Sttuttgart ................. - 80 - 84 88 - - 8 2,640 - 4,640 - 4,700 4,630 - - 330
1961:
StLtttgart ................. - 57 - 70 77 73 - 15 2,340 - 3,520 - 3,670 4,050 3,630 - 550
Rohwer .................. 70 85 - 85 88 83 87 a 2,460 3,110 3,320 - 3,380 3,400 3,410 3,730 b
Keiser .................... 70 78 - 86 91 96 99 10 3,490 3,840 3,700 - 4,000 3,860 3,930 3,590 b

1962:
Stuttgart ................. - 65 - 85 90 89 - 12 2,590 - 3,930 - 4,610 4,850 4,750 - 650
Stuttgart ................. 72 80 85 - - - - e 2,960 4,690 5,020 5,540 - - - - 980
Rohwer .................. - 99 - 100 - - - a 2,860 - 4,180 - 4,100 - - - 420
Keiser ... .......... - 70 - 85 - - - a 1,260 - 2,950 - 3,450 - - - 390
1 963:
StuLttgart................. 35 85 78 - - - - 23 3,150 4,020 5,180 4,620 - - - - 670
Keiser .................... - 96 - 98 - - - c 2,770 - 3,870 - 3,700 - - - 450

Average .................. 62 80 82 87 87 85 93 c 2,650 3,920 4,030 5,080 3,950 4,160 3,930 3,660 c

aNo significant difference.

bYield for 0 rate was significantly less than treated, but yield for rates of 2 to 12 lb/A were not significantly different.
cNot determined.

'237

This content downloaded from 129.100.58.76 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 18:07:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 W E E D
sary to prevent additional grass plants from emerging
and reinfesting the field. Propanil controlled 80 per cent
of the grass when flooding was accomplished 5 days
after spraying as compared with 10 per cent when flood-
ing was delayed until 22 days after spraying. In Louisi-
ana and Texas flooding soon after spraying was neces-
sary for best control of grass (1, 6).
Method and depth of seeding and spray volume. Rice
broadcast dry-seeded 0 to 2 inches, drill-seeded 1 to 2
inches, or water-seeded with seed on the soil surface,
was not injured by propanil at 3, 6, or 12 lb/A ap-
plied postemergence. Weeds were controlled by propa-
nil under dry- and water-seeding practices, provided the
plots were drained.
Coverage of the leaves with propanil was required
for effective control of weeds. At Stuttgart in 1960 propa-
nil at 3 to 9 lb/A applied by tractor in 5, 10, 20, and
40 gpa of water controlled barnyardgrass without in-
jury to rice. In other experiments best control was ob-
tained with volumes of 15 to 20 gpa.
A spray volume of 10 gpa applied aerially controlled
weeds with a minimum of spray drift. At Stuttgart in
1960 propanil at 4 lb/A in 5 and 10 gpa of water was
effective, but the spray from 10 gpa drifted less. At
Rohwer in 1962 propanil at 3 to 4 lb/A was less effec-
tive at 5 than at 10 gpa. Spray volumes of 12 to 15
gpa were more effective than volumes of 10 gpa or
less on dense stands of weeds with 4 leaves or more.
Soil type and rice variety. Soil type did not affect
the effectiveness of propanil. No evidence of differential
varietal responses to propanil was obtained (4, 6). Propa-
nil at 3 to 6 lb/A did not injure any commercial varie-
ties of rice.
Mixtures of propanil and surfactants. Propanil at 3
lb/A, surfactants at 1, 2, and 3 per cent by weight,
and mixtures of each were applied postemergence to
rice, barnyardgrass, and other weeds. Propanil at 3 lb/A
and Multifilm L at 3 per cent by weight controlled 76
per cent of the barnyardgrass as compared with 68 per
cent for propanil alone. Plots sprayed with this mix-
ture yielded 5,170 lb/A of rough rice as compared with
4,570 lb/A with propanil alone. Sterox AA (polyoxy-
ethylene with ethylene oxide side chains varying in
length) and Triton GR-7 (sulfonated alkylester in a
light petroleum distillate solvent) alone or mixed with
propanil burned leaves of rice and grass more than
propanil alone, but they did not increase the effective-
ness of propanil on grass. The surfactant Sterox NJ at
1/4 to 1 per cent by weight mixed with propanil at 2
and 3 lb/A gave 85 to 90 per cent control of barnyard-
grass as compared with 65 to 75 per cent control for
propanil alone (2).
Mixtures of propanil and preemergence herbicides.
Propanil mixed with CIPC or swep controlled barnyard-
grass and other weeds better than either herbicide
alone. Mixtures of propanil at 3 lb/A and CIPC at 4
lb/A controlled 35 per cent of barnyardgrass. Mix-
238
This content downloaded from 129.100.58.76 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 18:07:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
S
tures of propanil and swep at 2 and 4 and 3
and 4 lb/A controlled 59 and 65 percent, respectively,
of the grass. Propanil at 3 lb/A, CIPC at 4 lb/A, and
swep at 4 lb/A controlled 10, 8, and 18 per cent of the
grass, respectively. These plots were kept moist by irri-
gation and rainfall for 22 days after spraying to en-
courage emergence of grass. The postemergence action
of propanil and swep killed most grass plants emerged
at treatment and swep gave some residual control to
kill many plants that emerged after spraying.
Temperature and rainfall. Propanil was most effective
on weeds when daily temperatures ranged from 70 to
90 F. When daily minimum temperatures were below
50 for a few days just before treatment or daily maxi-
mum temperatures did not exceed 70 propanil was less
effective. Propanil at 3 to 4 lb/A injured rice severely
where daily maximums temperatures were above 95
for several days before spraying, especially when rice
was under drought stress.
A period of 8 to 12 hours without rain was required
after treatment for effective control of weeds with propa-
nil. Rain 1 to 8 hours after treatment presumably
washed off propanil and reduced its activity.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance
of W. T. Fox and H. M. McWilliams in conducting
the field experiments. I also wish to acknowledge the
cooperation of Colloidal Products Corporation of Sau-
salito, California; Food Machinery and Chemical Corpo-
ration of Middleport, New York: Monsanto Chemical
Company of St. Louis, Missouri; Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Rohm and
Haas Company of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania who sup-
plied the experimental herbicides and surfactants.
LITERATURE CITED
1. BAKER, J. B. 1961. Rice weed control. Louisiana Agr. Exp.
Sta. Rice Exp. Ann. Prog. Rept. 49:144-150.
2. BOWMAN, D. H. 1963. Weed control in rice. SWC Res.
Rept. 16:26-29.
3. BRANDES, G. A. 1962. Stam F-34 proved successful for grass
weed control in rice. Rice J. 65(1):8, 10, 12, 37-39.
4. CARPENTER, W. D. 1962. Rogue: new grass and weed killer
for rice growers. Rice J. 65(4):19, 22-40.
5. FRENCH, E. W. and W. B. GAY. 1963. Weed control in rice.
WVorldCrops 15:196-199, 201-204, 206.
6. HUDGINS, H. R. 1962. Control of barnyardgrass in rice wvith
DPA. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Prog. Rept. 2229, 4 p.
7. NESTER, R. P. 1964. Rice production in Arkansas. Arkansas
Agr. Ext. Serv. Circ. 476. 36 p. (Revised).
8. ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY. 1963. Stam F-34 aerial applica-
tion manual for grass and weed control in rice. (Philadelphia
5, Pa.) Ag-172a:1-9.
9. SMIITH,R. J., JR. 1961. 3,4-Dichloropropionanilide for control
of barnyardgrass in rice. Weeds 9:318-322.
10. and W. C. SHAW. 1965. WVeedsand their control in
rice production. U. S. Dep. Agr. Handbook. (In press).
11. VISTE, K. L. 1963. Control of wAeedsin rice in California.
Rice Tech. Working Grotup, Proc. 10:10-12.