Plant Protect. Sci.

Vol. 45, 2009, No. 3: 0–

The Use of Herbicides for Weed Control in Direct

Wet-Seeded Rice (Oryza sativa L.) in Rice Production
Regions in the Republic of Macedonia

Zvonko PACANOSKI1 and Gordana GLATKOVA2

1
Faculty for Agricultural Sciences and Food, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje,
R. Macedonia; 2Institute of Agriculture, Skopje, R. Macedonia

Abstract

Pacanoski Z., Glatkova G. (2009): The use of herbicides for weed control in direct wet-seeded rice (Oryza
sativa L.) in rice production regions in the Republic of Macedonia. Plant Protect. Sci., 45: 00–00.

Field trials were conducted in the Agricultural Research Institute for Rice, at two localities during 2005 and 2006.
The objective of the study was to establish an appropriate weed management strategy for the effective control of
weed flora in direct wet-seeded rice. Herbicide selectivity and influence on grain yield were also evaluated. The
weed population in the trials was composed of 8 and 5 weed species in Kočani and Probištip locality, respectively.
The most prevailing weeds in both localities were: Cyperus rotundus, Echinochloa crus-galli and Heteranthea
limosa. The average weediness for both years was 456.8 weed stems per m 2 in Kočani locality and 589.0 weed
stems per m 2 in Probištip locality. In both localities all herbicides controlled Cyperus rotundus, Echinochloa
crus-galli and Heteranthera limosa excellently except Mefenacet 53 WP. All applied herbicides showed high
selectivity to rice, no visual injuries were determined at any rates in any year and locality. Herbicidal treatments
in both localities significantly increased rice grain yield in comparison with untreated control.

Keywords: rice; herbicides; weed control; yield

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is one of the world’s most rice yield is still low compared with many other
important food crops (Singh & Khush 2000). Cur- countries, particularly the European ones. There
rently, more than one third of the human population are some abiotic and biotic factors contributing to
relies on rice for their daily sustenance. Worldwide, the low yield. Weeds are the most serious biotic
530 millions tones of paddy rice at an average yield constraint to higher yields (De Datta & Bernasor
of 3.5 t/ha are harvested from 150 millions hectares 1973; Subhas & Jitendra 2001; Mandal et al.
annually, providing 21% of the world’s food calorie 2002). They are a major problem in all rice-produc-
supply. Almost 90% of the total crop is produced in tion countries, including Macedonia, mainly because
Asia, where China and India are the major producers; rice is grown mostly as a continuous crop. In rice
only a small proportion of the world’s rice is grown crops worldwide, losses due to competitive effects
in temperate regions (Zimdahl 1988; McDonald of weeds are estimated at 10% to 15% of potential
1994). In the Republic of Macedonia the total area production (Smith 1983; Zoschke 1990; Baltazar
under rice crop in 2005 and 2006 was about 2500 ha & DeDatta 1992). On average in Europe, the po-
with average yield of 4030 kg/ha (Anonymous tential reduction in rice yields due to uncontrolled
2005). In the Republic of Macedonia the average weeds has been estimated at 55–60% (Oerke et al.


Vol. 45, 2009, No. 3: 0– Plant Protect. Sci.

1994). Madrid et al. (1972) reported that losses in locality. Standard agronomic practices were used
rice yields due to weeds ranged from 41% to 100%. during both years of trials. The following treat-
It has been estimated that without weed control, ments were included in the study (Table 1).
at a yield level of 7 t/ha to 8 t/ha, yield loss can be Herbicidal treatments were applied to rice at the
as high as about 90% (Ferrero 2003). tillering stage with a CO 2-pressurized backpack
Weed management in rice is a combination of sprayer with 400 l/ha water. Weeds at the time
cultural and chemical tools (Baltazar & DeData of treatment were at the initial growth stages.
1992). Chemical control is the most commonly Densities of the most prevailing weed species
used and reliable method for controlling weeds before herbicide applications were: Cyperus rotun-
in rice. The importance of their control was em- dus (268.5 stems/m 2) and Echinochloa crus-galli
phasised in the past by various authors (DeData (119.4 stems/m 2) in Kočani locality, and Cyperus
& Baltazar 1996; Labrada 1996; Ze-Pu Zhang rotundus (216.3 stems/m 2 ), Echinochloa crus-
1996). Chemical weed control has increased sig- galli (150.0 stems/m 2 ) and Heteranthea limosa
nificantly over the last ten years. This is due to (135.8 stems/m 2) in Probištip locality (Table 2).
labour shortages, leading to an increased shift Rice injury and weed control were estimated
from transplanted rice to direct seeding, with a visually using a 0% to 100% scale, where 0% = no
subsequent increase in herbicide use. rice injury or no weed control and 100% = all rice
Taking into consideration the necessity of chemi- plants dead or complete weed control (Frans et
cal weed control for stable rice production, the al. 1986). Rice injury was estimated 14 and 28 days
objective of this study was to investigate the effec- after treatment (DAT). Weed control was estimated
tiveness of some herbicides for controlling weeds at 28 and 56 DAT.
in rice crop, and, at the same time, to estimate the Yield was determined after harvest based on
influence of herbicides on rice yield. the weight of grain containing 13% moisture. The
data were finally subjected to statistical analysis
applying LSD-test (Steel & Torrie 1980).
Material and Methods

Field trails were conducted during 2005 and Results and Discussion
2006 in Kočani and Probištip locality on alluvial
soil and Vertisol, respectively. The trial was laid Weed control
out in randomised complete block with four rep-
lications and harvest plot size of 25 m 2. The field Cyperus rotundus, Echinochloa crus-galli and
trails were carried out with the rice variety Prima Heteranthera limosa infestations were heavy, while
riska, which was drill-seeded into a well-prepared Echinochloa macrocarpa, Scirpus mucronatus,
seedbed at a seeding rate of 200 kg/ha on May 10th, Ammania coccinea, Rotala ramosior, and Leersia
2005 and May 15 th, 2006 in Kočani locality, and oryzoides infestations were light throughout the
May 22 nd, 2005, and May 25 th, 2006, in Probištip experimental area in both years (Table 2).

Table 1. Trade names, active ingredients and rates of application of herbicides

Treatment Active ingredient (a.i.) Name of active ingredient Rate (l/ha)

Untreated control – – –
Stam F-34 + Bentazon 350 + 480 g/l propanil + bentazon 14.0 + 4
Mefenacet 53 WP 490 + 40 g/kg mefenacet + bensulfuron-methyl 1.5
Rainbow 26.7 g/l penoxulam 1.0
Rainbow 26.7 g/l penoxulam 1.2
Rainbow 26.7 g/l penoxulam 1.5
Gulliver + Trend 500 g/kg azimsulfuron + adjuvant 0.025 + 0.2
Gulliver + Trend 500 g/kg azimsulfuron + adjuvant 0.030 + 0.2


Plant Protect. Sci. Vol. 45, 2009, No. 3: 0–

Table 2. Weed population in the trials before herbicide application (average of both years)

Weed species Kočani locality Probištip locality

Cyperus rotundus 268.5 216.3
Echinochloa crus-galli 119.4 150.0
Heteranthera limosa 25.3 135.8
Echinochloa macrocarpa 14.8 –
Scirpus mucronatus 11.0 –
Ammania coccinea 9.8 56.6
Rotala ramosior 4.4 30.3
Leersia oryzoides 3.6 –
Total weed species 8 5
2
Total (weed stems/m ) 456.8 589.0

The criterion for weed control was taken as the 78% and 84% control of Echinochloa crus-galli and
percentage of weeds that are controlled by any Heteranthera limosa, respectively, in Kočani local-
particular treatment in comparison with untreated ity. Similar results in the control of Echinochloa
control. According to data regarding the herbicide crus-galli and Heteranthera limosa were obtained
efficacy presented in Table 3 and 4, we can see in Probištip locality (74% and 86%, respectively).
that all investigated herbicides had a significant Weed control at 56 DAT in both localities (Table 4)
(P < 0.01) effect on the reduction of weed stem was similar to the previous assessment (78% to
number per m 2. The herbicide efficacy in control 100%). The efficacy of Mefenacet 53 WP in the
of prevailing weeds in both localities at 28 DAT control of Echinochloa crus-galli and Heteranthera
ranged from 74% to 100% (Table 3). All herbicides limosa was in the range of 82% to 86% in Kočani
controlled Cyperus rotundus, Echinochloa crus- locality and 78% to 89% in Probištip locality. A
galli and Heteranthera limosa excellently except mixture of mefenacet and bensulfuron-methyl
Mefenacet 53 WP. Mefenacet 53 WP provided (Mefenacet 53 WP) showed the reduced control

Table 3. Control of prevalent weeds in both localities at 28 DAT (average of both years)

Weed control (%)

Treatments Rate (l/ha) Kočani locality Probištip locality
CYPRO ECHCG HETLI CYPRO ECHCG HETLI
Untreated control – 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stam F-34 + Bentazon 14,0 + 4 96** 95** 91** 97** 97** 94**
Mefenacet 53 WP 1.5 98** 78** 84** 97** 74** 86**
Rainbow 1.0 98** 99** 96** 98** 97** 100**
Rainbow 1.2 97** 100** 99** 99** 99** 100**
Rainbow 1.5 99** 100** 100** 99** 100** 100**
Gulliver + Trend 0.025 + 0.2 100** 93** 99** 99** 92** 100**
Gulliver + Trend 0.030 + 0.2 100** 96** 100** 100** 94** 100**
LSD0.05 2.1 3.6 2.3 1.8 2.9 2.6
LSD0.01 2.9 4.9 3.1 2.5 3.9 3.6

Significant level *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, NS – non significant; CYPRO – ???, ECHCG – ???


Vol. 45, 2009, No. 3: 0– Plant Protect. Sci.

Table 4. Control of prevalent weeds in both localities at 56 DAT (average of both years)

Weed control (%)

Treatments Rate (l/ha) Kočani locality Probištip locality
CYPRO ECHCG HETLI CYPRO ECHCG HETLI
Untreated control – 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stam F-34 + Bentazon 14.0 + 4 98** 98** 94** 99** 97** 95**
Mefenacet 53 WP 1.5 99** 82** 88** 98** 78** 89**
Rainbow 1.0 98** 100** 99** 99** 99** 100**
Rainbow 1.2 99** 100** 100** 99** 100** 100**
Rainbow 1.5 100** 100** 100** 99** 100** 100**
Gulliver + Trend 0.025 + 0.2 100** 95** 100** 100** 94** 100**
Gulliver + Trend 0.030 + 0.2 100** 99** 100** 100** 97** 100**
LSD0.05 1.4 2.6 2.1 1.3 2.5 2.9
LSD0.01 1.8 3.5 2.8 1.8 3.4 4.0

Significant level *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, NS – non significant

of Echinochloa crus-galli and Heteranthera limosa doses) which excellently controlled weeds in both
in both localities although mefenacet is mainly localities. Similar findings were reported by many
active against grass weeds (Hess et al. 1990) and other authors. Shiracura et al. (1995) stated that
bensulfuron-methyl is mainly active against sedges azimsulfuron at a rate as low as 6 g a.i./ha afforded
and broadleaf weeds (Vidotto et al. 2007; Osuna the excellent control of sedge and perennial weeds,
et al. 2002). Kim and In (2002) reported that the especially of Cyperus serotinus. Only two of the
mixture of mefenacet and bensulfuron-methyl resistant barnyardgrass biotypes in Greece were
controlled annual and perennial weeds at a level effectively controlled by azimsulfuron (0.02 kg
of 90%. Particularly high efficacy was shown by a.i./ha) applied at the two-to-three leaf stage, but
Rainbow (applied at 1.2 and 1.5 l/ha, respectively), all biotypes were effectively controlled with addi-
followed by Gulliver + Trend (applied at both tion of propanil (3.5 kg/ha) at the three-to-five leaf
Table 5. Grain yield and crop injury (average of both years)

Grain yield (kg/ha) Rice injury (%)

Treatments Rate (l/ha)
Kočani locality Probištip locality Kočani locality Probištip locality
Untreated control – 3260 2990 – –
Stam F-34 + Bentazon 14.0 + 4 6620** 6185** 0 0
Mefenacet 53 WP 1.5 5980** 5500** 0 0
Rainbow 1.0 6755** 6290** 0 0
Rainbow 1.2 6780** 6430** 0 0
Rainbow 1.5 6830** 6560** 0 0
Gulliver + Trend 0.025 + 0.2 6750** 6480** 0 0
Gulliver + Trend 0.030 + 0.2 6795** 6580** 0 0
LSD0.05 319.07 388.53
LSD0.01 434.27 528.81

Significant level *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, NS – non significant


Plant Protect. Sci. Vol. 45, 2009, No. 3: 0–

stage (Vasilakoglu et al. 2000). On the contrary, led to a fourfold increase in rice yields (Ntanos
Vidotto et al. (2007) found that the fresh weight et al. 2001). Talbert and Burgos (2007) found
reduction of all Echinochloa population in Italian that penoxsulam did not injure rice and improved
rice field sprayed with azimsulfuron averaged rice yields compared with standard propanil-based
55.1%, 70.9% and 76.9% at 0.5×, 1×, and 2× field programs. Rice treated with penoxsulam (POST)
rate, respectively. But, the linear contrast pointed yielded 3110 and 2730 kg/ha with and without
out that Echinochloa crus-galli was significantly the addition of clomazone PRE, respectively, in
more sensitive to azimsulfuron than Echinochloa comparison with 1140 kg/ha in untreated plots
erecta and Echinochloa phyllopogon. (Griffin 2006).
Excellent control of Echinochloa crus-galli with Weed management is a fundamental practice in
penoxulam applied at the three-to-four leaf growth rice cultivation. Unsuccessful weed control can
stage was reported by Ottis et al. (2003). Barn- result in the almost total loss of rice yield. In view
yardgrass control with penoxsulam was reported of these encouraging results, the application of
to be at least 99% at 21 days after application if herbicides suitable for every floristic situation led
applied alone and following the PRE application to minimization of yield losses, and at the same
of clomazone (Ottis et al. 2004). Penoxulam ap- time, to an increase in the quality and quantity
plied in rates of 20 to 40 g a.i./ha provided 94% of rice crops.
to 100% control of Echinochloa oryzoides and
Echinochloa phyllopogon at the three-to-four leaf
stage. However, mixtures of penoxulam at 20 or References
30 g/ha with bentazon, azimsulfuron or MCPA
resulted in reduced control of Echinochloa phyl- Baltazar A.M., DeDatta S.K. (1992): Weed manage-
lopogon compared with a single application of ment in rice. Weed Abstracts, 41: 495–507.
penoxulam (Damalas et al. 2006). Chin D.V., Hach C.V., Thanh N.C., Tai N.T. (2000):
Taking into consideration the fact that all inves- Weedy Rice Situation in Vietnam. In: FAO Report of
tigated herbicides applied at the particular growth Global Workshop on Red Rice Control, Information
stages of rice possesses high selectivity to rice, no Division, Food and Agricultural Organization of UN,
visual injuries were determined at any rates in any Rome: 67–74.
year and locality (Table 5). Damalas C.A., Dhima K.V., Eleftherohorinos
I.G. (2006): Control of early watergrass (Echonochloa
oryzoides) and late watergrass (Echinochloa phyllopo-
Grain yield gon) with Cyhalofop, Clefoxidim, and Penoxulam ap-
plied alone and in mixture with broadleaf herbicides.
The removal of the competitive effect of weeds Weed Technology, 20: 992–998.
led to an increase in the participation of the yield DeDatta S.K., Baltazar A. (1996): Weed control tech-
components of rice crops and as a result the grain nology as a component of rice production systems.
production also increased. Herbicidal treatments In: Auld B., Kim K.U. (eds): Weed Management in
in both localities had a significant (P < 0.01) ef- Rice. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper,
fect on grain yield (Table 5). In both localities No. 139: 25–52.
the lowest grain yield was recorded in untreated DeDatta S.K., Bernasor P.C. (1973): Chemical weed
control plots (3260 and 2990 kg/ha, respectively) control in broadcast-seeded flooded tropical rice.
while the highest grain yield (6830 and 6580 kg/ha, Weed Research, 13: 351–354.
respectively) was recorded in plots treated with Ferrero A. (2003): Weedy rice, biological features and
Rainbow (1.5 l/ha) in Kočani locality and plots control. In: Labrada R. (ed.): Weed Management for
treated with Gulliver + Trend (0.030 +0.2 l/ha) in Developing Countries. Addendum 1. FAO Plant Pro-
Probištip locality. Chin et al. (2000) reported a duction and Protection Paper, No. 120: 89–107.
significant increase in rice yield after the applica- Frans R. E., Talbert R., Marx D., Crowley H. (1986):
tion of herbicides in comparison with untreated Experimental design and techniques for measuring
controls. Herbicide treatments for the control and analyzing plant responses to weed control prac-
of barnyardgrass doubled rice yields in Italian tices. In: Camper N.D. (ed.): Research Methods in
experiments (Tabacchi & Romani 2002). In ex- Weed Science. 3rd Ed. Southern Weed Science Society,
periments in Greece, the control of barnyardgrass Champaign: 37–38.


Vol. 45, 2009, No. 3: 0– Plant Protect. Sci.

Griffin R.M. (2006): Echinochloa polystachya Man- Singh R.j., Khush G.S. (2000): Cytogenetics of rice. In:
agement in Louisiana Rice. [Dissertation.] Louisiana Nanda J.S. (ed.): Rice Breeding and Genetics – Re-
State University. search Priorities and Challenges. Science Publishers,
Hess F.d., Holmsen J.d., FedtkE C. (1990): The influ- Enfield: 287–311.
ence of the herbicide mefenacet on cell division and Smith R.J. Jr. (1983): Weeds of major economic impor-
cell enlargement in plants. Weed Research, 30: 21–27. tance in rice and yield losses due to weed competition.
Kim S.C., Im B.I. (2002): Change in weed control stud- In: Proceeding of the Conference on Weed Control in
ies of rice paddy fields in Korea. Weed Biology and Rice, International Rice Research Institute: 19–36.
Management, 2: 65–72. Steel R.g.d., Torrie J.H. (1980): Principles and Pro-
Labrada R. (1996): Weed control in rice. In: Auld B., cedures of Statistics: A Biological Yield Approach. 2nd
Kim K.U. (eds): Weed Management in Rice. FAO Plant Ed. McGraw Hill Book Co., New York.
Production and Protection, Paper No. 139: 3–5. Subhas C., Jitendra P. (2001): Effect of rice (Oryza
Madrid M.t., Punzalan F.l., Lubigan R.T. (1972): sativa L.) culture, nitrogen and weed control on ni-
In: Some Common Weeds and Their Control. 1st Ed. trogen competition between scented rice and weeds.
Weed Science Society of the Philippines, Languna. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 46, 68–74.
Mani V.C., Gautam K.C., Chakraberty T.K. (1968): Tabacchi M., Romani M. (2002): Echinochloa spp.
Losses in crop yield in India due to weed growth. Control with new herbicides in water and dry-seeded
PANS, 42: 142–158. rice in Italy. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Temperate Rice
Mandal B., De P., De G.C. (2002): Efficiency of herbal Conference, 13–17 June 1999, Sacramento, California,
leaves on weed management of transplanted Kharif USA. International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos
rice. Journal of Interacademicia, 6: 109–112. (Philippines).
McDonald D.J. (1994): Temperate rice technology for Talbert R.e., Burgos N. R. (2007): History and man-
21st century; an Australian example. Australian Journal agement of herbicide-resistant barnyardgrass (Echino-
of Experimental Agriculure, 34: 877–888. chloa crus-galli) in Arkansas rice. Weed Technology,
Ntanos D.A., Koutroubas S., Mavrotas D.C. (2000): 21: 324–331.
Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control in wa- Vasilakoglu I.b., Eleftherohorinos I.G., Dhima
ter-seeded rice (Oryza sativa) with Cyhalofop-butyl. K.V. (2000): Propanil-resistant barnyardgrass (Echono-
Weed Technology, 14: 383–388. chloa crus-galli L.) biotypes found in Greece. Weed
Oerke E.C., Dehne H.W., Schnbeck F., Weber A. Technology, 14: 524–529.
(1994): Crop Production and Crop Protection: Esti- Vidotto F., Tesio F., Tabacchi M., Ferrero A. (2007):
mated Losses in Major Food and Cash Crops. Elsevier, Herbicide sensitivity of Echinochloa spp. accessions in
Amsterdam. Italian rice fields. Crop Protection, 26: 285–293.
Osuna M.D., Vidotto F., Fisher A.J., Bayer D.E., Ze-Pu Zhang (1996): Weed Management in transplant-
Prado R.D., Ferrero A. (2002): Cross-resistance to ed rice. In: Auld B., Kim K.U. (eds): Weed Manage-
Bispyribac-sodium and Bensulfuron-methyl in Echi- ment in Rice. FAO Plant Production and Protection
nochloa phyllopogon and Cyperus difformis. Pesticide Paper No. 139: 75–86.
Biochemistry and Physiology, 73: 9–17. Zimdahl R.L. (1988): The concept and application of
Ottis B.V., Talbert R.E., Malik M.S., Ellis T.A. the critical weed-free period. In: Altieri M.A., Lieb-
(2003): Rice Weed Control with Penoxulam (Grasp). man M. (eds): Weed Management in Agroecosystems:
AAES Research, Series 517: 144–150. Ecological Approaches. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Ottis B.V., Lassiter R.B., Malik M.S., Talbert R.E. Zoschke A. (1990): Yield loss in tropical rice as in-
(2004): Penoxsulam (XDE-638) for rice weed control. fluenced by the competition of weed flora and the
Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society, 57: timing of its elimination. In: Grayson B.T., Green
304. M.B., Copping L.G. (eds): Pest Management in Rice.
Shiracura S., Ito K., Aizawa H., Gee S.K., Barefoot Elsevier Science, London: 301–313.
A.C. (1995): Activity of a sulfonylurea herbicide Azim-
sulfuron (DPX-A8947) in combination with Bensul- Recieved for publication February 12, 2008
furon Methyl and effects of environmental factors. Accepted after corrections June 27, 2009
Journal of Weed Science and Technology, 40: 29–38.

Corresponding author:
Dr. Zvonko Pacanoski, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Faculty for Agricultural Sciences and Food,
P.O. Box 297, 1000, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
tel.: + 389 231 152 77, fax: + 389 231 343 10, e-mail: [email protected]