Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-w5hgh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T15:58:15.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relating rice traits to weed competitiveness and yield: a path analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Fernando B. Pérez de Vida,
Emilio A. Laca,
David J. Mackill,
Grisel M. Fernández and
Albert J. Fischer
Fernando B. Pérez de Vida
Affiliation:
Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria, Ruta 8 km 282, Treinta y Tres CP 33000, Uruguay
Emilio A. Laca
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
David J. Mackill
Affiliation:
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), DAPO Box 7777, Metro Manila, Philippines
Grisel M. Fernández
Affiliation:
Estación Experimental Dr. Mario A. Cassinoni, Facultad de Agronomía Universidad de la República, Ruta 3 km 363, Paysandú C.P. 60000, Uruguay
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Resistance to herbicides in the most important weeds threatens the sustainability of California rice. Weed-competitive rice cultivars could be a low-cost and safe nonchemical addition to an integrated weed management program. Trade-offs between competitiveness and productivity and inconsistent trait expression under weedy and weed-free conditions could complicate the breeding of competitive rice cultivars. A 2-year competition experiment was conducted in the greenhouse involving eight rice cultivars and two weed competition regimes (presence or absence of late watergrass) to examine the effects of rice weed-suppressive ability and tolerance to weed competition (weed tolerance) on rice yield. Competition reduced average rice yield from 32 to 48%, and watergrass biomass from 44 to 77%. Path analysis suggested that enhancing rice weed-suppressive ability and weed tolerance while minimizing possible productivity trade-offs should promote early (12 d after seeding) growth and light-capture traits followed by moderate growth rates before heading and a vigorous grain filling period. Crop growth rate (CGR) after heading was a relevant determinant of yield (direct path: 0.82, P < 0.01) and correlated (r = 0.30, P < 0.01) with weed tolerance. Late biomass accumulation was negatively correlated with harvest index and CGR during ripening (r = −0.46, P < 0.01); thus, late-season competitiveness can lower productivity. Rice traits conferring competitiveness were correlated across weed competition regimes (r = 0.36–0.81, P < 0.01). However, significant cultivar-by-competition and cultivar-by-year interactions suggest that selection efficiency would be greater when traits are identified under competition and in different environments. This study relates to the phenotypic expression of traits for competitiveness. Breeding competitive cultivars will require additional knowledge on trait heritability, genetic correlations with competitiveness, and on the effects of the environment upon gene expression.

Keywords

Late watergrass, Echinochloa phyllopogon (Stapf) Koss., ECHPHrice, Oryza sativa L.Crop interferencecompetitive cultivarsweed-suppressive abilityweed toleranceyield penalty

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 6 , December 2006, pp. 1122 - 1131
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Akita, S. 1994. Ecophysiological aspects of raising the yield plateau of irrigated rice in the tropics. Pages 85–89 in Cassman, K. G. ed. Breaking the Yield Barrier. Proceedings of a Workshop on Rice Yield Potential in Favorable environments. Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).Google Scholar
Bastiaans, L., Kropff, M. J., Kempuchetty, N., Rajan, A., and Migo, T. R. 1997. Can simulation models help design rice cultivars that are more competitive with weeds? Field Crops Res. 51:101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callaway, M. B. and Forcella, F. 1993. Crop tolerance to weeds. Pages 100–131 in Callaway, M. B. and Francis, C. A. eds. Crop Improvement for Sustainable Agriculture Systems. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
Christensen, S. 1994. Crop–weed competition and herbicide performance in cereal species and varieties. Weed Res. 34:29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingkuhn, M., Johnson, D. E., Sow, A., and Audebert, A. Y. 1999. Relationships between upland rice characteristics and weed competitiveness. Field Crops Res. 61:79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingkuhn, M., Penning de Vries, F. W. T., De Datta, S. K., and van Laar, H. H. 1991. Concepts for a new plant type for direct seeded flooded tropical rice. Pages 17–38 in Direct Seeded Flooded Rice in the Tropics. Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).Google Scholar
Fischer, A. J., Bayer, D. E., Carriere, M. D., Ateh, C. M., and Yim, K. O. 2000. Mechanisms of resistance to bispyribac-sodium in an Echinochloa phyllopogon accession. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 68:156–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, A. J., Ramírez, H. V., Gibson, K. D., and Da Silveira Pinheiro, B. 2001. Competitiveness of semidwarf upland rice cultivars against palisadegrass (Brachiaria brizantha) and signalgrass (B. decumbens). Agron. J. 93:967–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, A. J., Ramírez, H. V., and Lozano, J. 1997. Suppression of junglerice [Echinochloa colona (L.) Link] by irrigated rice cultivars in Latin America. Agron. J. 89:516–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fofana, B. and Rauber, R. 2000. Weed suppression ability of upland rice under low-input conditions in West Africa. Weed Res. 40:271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaudet, C. L. and Keddy, P. A. 1988. A comparative approach to predicting competitive ability form plant traits. Nature. 334:242–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, K. D. and Fischer, A. J. 2001. Relative growth and photosynthetic response of water-seeded rice and [Echinochloa oryzoides (Ard.) Fritsch] to shade. Int. J. Pest Manage. 47:305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, K. D. and Fischer, A. J. 2004. Competitiveness of rice cultivars as a tool for crop-based weed management. Pages 517–537 in Inderjit, ed. Weed Management in Agroecosystems. Dodrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Fischer, A. J., and Foin, T. C. 2001. Shading and the growth and photosynthetic responses of Ammannia coccinea . Weed Res. 41:59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Fischer, A. J., and Foin, T. C. 2004. Compensatory responses of late watergrass (Echinochloa phyllopogon) and rice to resource limitations. Weed Sci. 52:271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Fischer, A. J., Foin, T. C., and Hill, J. E. 2002. Implications of delayed Echinochloa germination and duration of competition for integrated weed management in water-seeded rice. Weed Res. 42:351–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Fischer, A. J., Foin, T. C., and Hill, J. E. 2003. Crop traits related to weed suppression in water-seeded rice (Oryza sativa L). Weed Sci. 51:87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Hill, J. E., Foin, T. C., Caton, B. P., and Fischer, A. J. 2001. Water-seeded rice cultivars differ in ability to interfere with watergrass. Agron. J. 93:326–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, D. E. and Landa, K. 1991. Competitive effect and. response: hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages of competition. J. Ecol. 79:1013–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gravois, K. A. and Helms, R. S. 1992. Path analysis of rice yield components as affected by seeding rate. Agron. J. 84:1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J. E., Fischer, A., and Ehlhardt, M. 2002. Rice (Oryza sativa). Pages 336–344 in California Weed Science Society ed. Principles of Weed Control. Fresno, CA: Thompson.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. and Orcutt, D. R. 1991. Functional relationships of growth and competitiveness in perennial weeds and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 39:575–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, R. 1982. Plant Growth Curves—The Functional Approach to Plant Growth Analysis. Baltimore, MD: University Park. Pp. 16–23.Google Scholar
Ingram, K. T., Rodríguez, R., Sarkarung, S., and Yambao, E. B. 1995. Germplasm evaluation and improvement for dry seeded rice in drought-prone environments. Pages 55–67 in Ingram, K. T. ed. Rainfed Lowland Rice: Agricultural Research for High-Risk Environments. Manila, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).Google Scholar
IRRI. 2005. The Rice Plant and How It Grows. http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/riceIPM/IPM_Information/PestEcologyBasics/CropGrowthAndPestDamage/RicePlantHowItGrows/The_Rice_plant_and_How_it_Grows.htm.Google Scholar
Jannink, J. L., Orf, J. H., Jordan, N. R., and Shaw, R. G. 2000. Index selection for weed suppressive ability in soybean. Crop Sci. 40:1087–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, P. R. and Aquino, R. C. 1968. Studies on competition in rice: III. The mechanism of competition among genotypes. Evolution. 22:529–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. W., Carnahan, H. L., Teng, S. T., Oster, J. J., and Hill, J. E. 1986. Registration of “M-202” rice. Crop Sci. 26:198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. E., Dingkuhn, M., Jones, M. P., and Mahamane, M. C. 1998. The influence of rice plant type on the effect of weed competition on Oryza sativa and Oryza glaberrima . Weed Res. 38:207–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. A. and Wichern, D. W. 2002. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pp. 293–317.Google Scholar
Jordan, N. 1993. Prospects for weed control through crop interference. Ecol. Appl. 3:84–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordan, N. 1992. Differential interference between soybean (Glycine max) varieties and common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium): a path analysis. Weed Sci. 40:614–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawano, K., Gonzalez, H., and Lucena, M. 1974. Intraspecific competition, competition with weeds, and spacing response in rice. Crop Sci. 14:841–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropff, M. J., Cassman, K. G., Peng, S., Matthews, R. B., and Setter, T. L. 1994. Quantitative understanding of yield potential. Pages 21–38 in Cassman, K. G. ed. Breaking the Yield Barrier. Proceedings of a Workshop on Rice Yield Potential in Favorable Environments. Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).Google Scholar
Lemerle, D., Verbleek, B., Cousens, R. D., and Coombes, N. E. 1996. The potential for selecting wheat cultivars strongly competitive against weeds. Weed Res. 36:505–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. C. 1975. Path Analysis—A Primer. Pacific Grove, CA: Boxwood Press. 347 p.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Kropff, M. J. 1996. Applications of an ecophysiological model for irrigated rice (Oryza sativa)–Echinochloa competition. Weed Sci. 44:52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ni, H., Moody, K., Robles, R. P., Paller, E. C. Jr., and Lales, J. S. 2000. Oryza sativa plant traits conferring competitive ability against weeds. Weed Sci. 48:200–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogg, A. G. and Seefeldt, S. S. 1999. Characterizing traits that enhance the competitiveness of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) against jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica). Weed Sci. 47:74–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pantone, D. J., Baker, J. B., and Jordan, P. W. 1992. Path analysis of red rice (Oryza sativa L.) competition with cultivated rice. Weed Sci. 40:313–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passioura, J. B. 1996. Simulation models: science, snake oil, education, or engineering? Agron. J. 88:690–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, S., Laza, R. C., Visperas, R. M., Sanico, A. L., Cassman, K. G., and Khush, G. S. 2000. Grain yield of rice cultivars and lines developed in the Philippines since 1966. Crop Sci. 307–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roush, M. L. and Radosevich, S. R. 1985. Relationships between growth and competitiveness of four annual weeds. J. Appl. Ecol. 22:895–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, F. A., Brown, J. H., and Valone, T. J. 1997. Path analysis: a critical evaluation using long-term experimental data. Am. Nat. 149:29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
University of California. 2005. Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project. http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu.Google Scholar
Wall, P. C. 1983. The role of plant breeding in weed management in the advancing countries. Pages 40–46 in Improving Weed Management. Proc. FAO/IWSS Expert Consultation on Improving Weed Management in Developing Countries, Rome, 6–10 Sept. 1982. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Williams, W. A., Jones, M. B., and Demment, M. W. 1990. A concise table for path analysis statistics. Agron. J. 82:1022–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. 1921. Correlation and causation. J. Agric. Res. 20:557–585.Google Scholar