4.7 Article

Impact of volunteer rice infestation on yield and grain quality of rice

Journal

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
Volume 73, Issue 3, Pages 604-615

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ps.4343

Keywords

amylose content; chalkiness; Clearfield rice; hybrid rice; milling yield; non-hybrid rice; protein content

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [IOS-1032023]
  2. Direct For Biological Sciences
  3. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems [1032023] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. ARS [813509, ARS-0425080] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Volunteer rice (Oryza sativa L.) grains may differ in physicochemical traits from cultivated rice, which may reduce the quality of harvested rice grain. To evaluate the effect of volunteer rice on cultivated rice, fields were surveyed in Arkansas in 2012. RESULTS: Cropping history that included hybrid cultivars in the previous two years (2010 and 2011) had higher volunteer rice infestation (20%) compared with fields planted previously with inbred rice (5.5%). The total grain yield of rice was reduced by 0.4% for every 1% increase in volunteer rice density. The grain quality did not change in fields planted with the same cultivar for three years. Volunteer rice density of at least 7.6% negatively impacted the head rice and when infestation reached 17.7%, it also reduced the rice grain yield. The protein and amylose contents of rice were not affected until volunteer rice infestation exceeded 30%. CONCLUSION: Crop rotation systems that include hybrid rice are expected to have higher volunteer rice infestation than systems without hybrid rice. It is predicted that, at 8% infestation, volunteer rice will start to impact head rice yield and will reduce total yield at 18% infestation. It could alter the chemical quality of rice grain at >30% infestation. (C) 2016 Society of Chemical Industry

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available