Weeds of Direct-Seeded Rice in Asia: Problems and Opportunities

Rice production symbolizes the single largest land use for food production on the Earth. The significance of this cereal as a source of energy and income seems overwhelming for millions of people in Asia, representing 90% of global rice production and consumption. Estimates indicate that the burgeoning population will need 25% more rice by 2025 than today's consumption. As the demand for rice is increasing, its production in Asia is threatened by a dwindling natural resource base, socioeconomic limitations, and uncertainty of climatic optima. Transplanting in puddled soil with continuous flooding is a common method of rice crop establishment in Asia. There is a dire need to look for rice production technologies that not only cope with existing limitations of transplanted rice but also are viable, economical, and secure for future food demand.Direct seeding of rice has evolved as a potential alternative to the current detrimental practice of puddling and nursery transplanting. The associated benefits include higher water productivity, less labor and energy inputs, less methane emissions, elimination of time and edaphic conflicts in the rice-wheat cropping system, and early crop maturity. Realization of the yield potential and sustainability of this resource-conserving rice production technique lies primarily in sustainable weed management, since weeds have been recognized as the single largest biological constraint in direct-seeded rice (DSR). Weed competition can reduce DSR yield by 30-80% and even complete crop failure can occur under specific conditions. Understanding the dynamics and outcomes of weed-crop competition in DSR requires sound knowledge of weed ecology, besides production factors that influence both rice and weeds, as well as their association. Successful adoption of direct seeding at the farmers' level in Asia will largely depend on whether farmers can control weeds and prevent shifts in weed populations from intractable weeds to more difficult-to-control weeds as a consequence of direct seeding. Sustainable weed management in DSR comprises all the factors that give DSR a competitive edge over weeds regarding acquisition and use of growth resources. This warrants the need to integrate various cultural practices with weed control measures in order to broaden the spectrum of activity against weed flora. A weed control program focusing entirely on herbicides is no longer ecologically sound, economically feasible, and effective against diverse weed flora and may result in the evolution of herbicide-resistant weed biotypes. Rotation of herbicides with contrasting modes of action in conjunction with cultural measures such as the use of weed-competitive rice cultivars, sowing time, stale seedbed technique, seeding rate, crop row spacing, fertilizer and water inputs and their application method/timing, and manual and mechanical hoeing can prove more effective and need to be optimized keeping in view the type and intensity of weed infestation. This chapter tries to unravel the dynamics of weed-crop competition in DSR. Technological issues, limitations associated with DSR, and opportunities to combat the weed menace are also discussed as a pragmatic approach for sustainable DSR production. A realistic approach to secure yield targets against weed competition will combine the abovementioned strategies and tactics in a coordinated manner. This chapter further suggests the need of multifaceted and interdisciplinary research into ecologically based weed management, as DSR seems inevitable in the near future.

Weed control in dry direct-seeded rice using tank mixtures of herbicides in South Asia

Dry direct-seeded rice (DSR) faces with complex weed problems particularly when farmers missed pre-emergence herbicide applications. Thus, an effective and strategic weed control in DSR is often required with available options of post-emergence herbicides. In such situations, tank mixtures of herbicides may provide broad spectrum weed control in DSR. Field experiments were conducted in the wet seasons of 2013 and 2014 to study weed control in response to tank mixtures of herbicides currently applied in DSR in South Asia. Results revealed that the tank mixtures of the currently available herbicides (azimsulfuron plus bispyribac or fenoxaprop, bispyribac plus fenoxaprop, and azimsulfuron plus bispyribac plus fenoxaprop; all applied as post-emergence) rarely resulted in antagonistic effects. Highest weed control efficiency (∼98%) was recorded with the tank mixture of azimsulfuron plus bispyribac plus fenoxaprop during both the years. This treatment also produced highest grain yield (7.2 t ha−1 in 2013 and 7.9 t ha−1in 2014), which was similar to the grain yield in the plots treated with the tank mix of azimsulfuron plus fenoxaprop, pendimethalin (applied as pre-emergence) followed by (fb) bispyribac, pendimethalin fb fenoxaprop, as well as pendimethalin fb azimsulfuron. Plots treated with the post-emergence application of single herbicide (i.e., azimsulfuron, bispyribac, or fenoxaprop) had lower grain yield (3.0–5.2 t ha−1 in 2013 to 3.5–6.1 t ha−1in 2014) than all the sequential herbicide treatments and tank mixtures (azimsulfuron plus fenoxaprop and azimsulfuron plus bispyribac), owing to a broad spectrum weed control. The study suggested that if farmers missed the pre-emergence application of herbicides (e.g., pendimethalin) due to erratic rains or due to other reasons, good weed control and high yield can still be obtained with tank mix applications of azimsulfuron plus fenoxaprop or azimsulfuron plus bispyribac plus fenoxaprop in DSR.

"Description of blue tongue and other arboviruses in Northern Australia"

A serological survey of cattle from throughout Queensland and sheep from cattle/sheep interface areas was conducted to determine the distribution and prevalence of antibodies to Bluetongue virus serotypes. This information allowed preliminary designation of arbovirusfree zones and identification of livestock populations at greatest risk to introduction of exotic Bluetongue viruses. Throughout the state antibodies were detected to only serotypes I and 21. In cattle prevalence decreased with increasing distance from the coast ringing from 73% in the far north to less than I% in the southwest. In sheep, prevalence of bluetongue antibodies in the major cattle/sheep interface areas in the north-west and central Queensland ranged from O% to 5%. A system of strategically placed sentinel herds of 10 young serologically negative cattle was established across northern Australia to monitor the distribution and seasonality of bluetongue viruses. Initially 23 herds were located in Queensland, 4 in Northern Territory and 2 in Western Australia but by the completion of the project the number of herds in Queensland had been reduced to 12. No bluetongue virus activity was detected in Western Australia or Northern Territory herds throughout the project although testing of one herd in Northern Territory with a history of bluetongue activity was not done after June 1991. In Queensland, activity to bluetongue serotypes I and 21 was detected in all years of the project. Transmissions occurred predominantly in the period April to September and were more widespread in wetter years' The pathogenic bluetongue setotypes previously isolated from the Northern Territory have not spread to adjoining States.