Historically, herbicides were used for Echinochloa spp control in California rice production which led to the selection of herbicide-resistant biotypes. Field surveys were conducted across the seven major rice-growing counties in 2020 and Echinochloa spp samples including barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P.Beauv.), junglerice (Echinochloa colona (L.) Link), late watergrass (Echinochloa oryzicola (Vasinger) Vasinger) and coast cockspur (Echinochloa walteri (Pursh) Heller) were collected. Greenhouse experiments were carried out to determine their suspected resistance to common preemergence and postemergence rice herbicides used in California in Fall and Winter of 2021. A total of 62 and 63 samples were characterized for suspected resistance to four preemergence granular and three postemergence foliar-applied herbicides, respectively. When granular herbicides were evaluated, samples suspected of resistance in Winter were a subset of samples that were suspected of resistance in Fall. Results indicate >90% of Echinochloa spp samples were resistant to thiobencarb, benzobicyclon + halosulfuron and penoxsulam when combined across species and counties. Cross-resistance between benzobicyclon + halosulfuron and penoxsulam was observed in >90% of the samples when combined across species and counties. Suspected clomazone resistance was observed in <75% of the samples when combined across species and counties. Suspected resistance to cyhalofop and propanil was observed in <50% of the samples when averaged across both runs. Multiple-resistance to foliar herbicides ranged from 48-60% of the samples across species and experimental runs. These results indicate the necessity for rotating herbicides during alternate cropping seasons and emphasizing integrating non-chemical strategies for Echinochloa spp control in California rice production.
{"title":"Echinochloa spp response to preemergence and postemergence herbicides in California rice (Oryza sativa L.)","authors":"Rohith Vulchi, Taiyu Guan, Troy Clark, Whitney Brim-DeForest","doi":"10.3389/fagro.2024.1349008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2024.1349008","url":null,"abstract":"Historically, herbicides were used for Echinochloa spp control in California rice production which led to the selection of herbicide-resistant biotypes. Field surveys were conducted across the seven major rice-growing counties in 2020 and Echinochloa spp samples including barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P.Beauv.), junglerice (Echinochloa colona (L.) Link), late watergrass (Echinochloa oryzicola (Vasinger) Vasinger) and coast cockspur (Echinochloa walteri (Pursh) Heller) were collected. Greenhouse experiments were carried out to determine their suspected resistance to common preemergence and postemergence rice herbicides used in California in Fall and Winter of 2021. A total of 62 and 63 samples were characterized for suspected resistance to four preemergence granular and three postemergence foliar-applied herbicides, respectively. When granular herbicides were evaluated, samples suspected of resistance in Winter were a subset of samples that were suspected of resistance in Fall. Results indicate >90% of Echinochloa spp samples were resistant to thiobencarb, benzobicyclon + halosulfuron and penoxsulam when combined across species and counties. Cross-resistance between benzobicyclon + halosulfuron and penoxsulam was observed in >90% of the samples when combined across species and counties. Suspected clomazone resistance was observed in <75% of the samples when combined across species and counties. Suspected resistance to cyhalofop and propanil was observed in <50% of the samples when averaged across both runs. Multiple-resistance to foliar herbicides ranged from 48-60% of the samples across species and experimental runs. These results indicate the necessity for rotating herbicides during alternate cropping seasons and emphasizing integrating non-chemical strategies for Echinochloa spp control in California rice production.","PeriodicalId":505893,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Agronomy","volume":"209 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140484497","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-29DOI: 10.3389/fagro.2024.1281393
George Cusworth
There is great diversity in the methods, terms, and empirical focuses employed by social and natural scientists working on agroecological transitions. The upshot is that whilst various researchers may nominally be putting their shoulder to the same agroecological wheel, the impact of their combined efforts is not what it might be. The aim of this article is to assist in the co-ordination and collaboration of disparate research activities and actors. It does so by offering the readers of this journal a user-friendly guide to some of the terms being used by social scientists (particularly human geographers and anthropologists) in their work on pests, diseases, crop protections and agroecological transitions. Such a document is of particular use as the terms and concepts employed by social scientists are equipped to generate analysis with explicit political insight in a way that those used by natural scientists may not be. The concepts and theories of social scientists foreground the commonalities that cut across case studies which might otherwise seem separated by a reservoir of context specificity. Tooled with these terms of analysis, the promise of agroecology rightly becomes something with far reaching political and justice consequences. These terms are presented across five areas: the ontological, the epistemological, the methodological, the historical, and the aesthetic. Given the range of social, ecological, cultural, and economic barriers involved in effecting an agroecological transition, it is vital that different researchers are conversant in each other’s language.
{"title":"Agroecological transitions: reading, writing, and thinking across disciplinary divides","authors":"George Cusworth","doi":"10.3389/fagro.2024.1281393","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2024.1281393","url":null,"abstract":"There is great diversity in the methods, terms, and empirical focuses employed by social and natural scientists working on agroecological transitions. The upshot is that whilst various researchers may nominally be putting their shoulder to the same agroecological wheel, the impact of their combined efforts is not what it might be. The aim of this article is to assist in the co-ordination and collaboration of disparate research activities and actors. It does so by offering the readers of this journal a user-friendly guide to some of the terms being used by social scientists (particularly human geographers and anthropologists) in their work on pests, diseases, crop protections and agroecological transitions. Such a document is of particular use as the terms and concepts employed by social scientists are equipped to generate analysis with explicit political insight in a way that those used by natural scientists may not be. The concepts and theories of social scientists foreground the commonalities that cut across case studies which might otherwise seem separated by a reservoir of context specificity. Tooled with these terms of analysis, the promise of agroecology rightly becomes something with far reaching political and justice consequences. These terms are presented across five areas: the ontological, the epistemological, the methodological, the historical, and the aesthetic. Given the range of social, ecological, cultural, and economic barriers involved in effecting an agroecological transition, it is vital that different researchers are conversant in each other’s language.","PeriodicalId":505893,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Agronomy","volume":"77 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140485926","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：