Abstract
Field studies were conducted from 1988 to 1990 on a Sharkey clay to evaluate residual weed control in rice with quinclorac applied PPI, PRE to dry soil, and PRE to moist soil. Quinclorac applied at 0.4 or 0.6 kg ai ha −1 PPI or PRE to dry or moist soil controlled more than 80% of barnyardgrass, pitted morningglory, and hemp sesbania without rice injury. Quinclorac applied at 0.3 kg ha −1 controlled these three weed species substantially but inconsistently. No rice injury was observed from any quinclorac treatment. Except for one of three years when irrigation was delayed for 7 d after PRE application to dry soil, application timing did not consistently affect weed control or rice yield.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
High-rate quinclorac controlled more than 80% of barnyardgrass.
- Taxon
- rice
Oryza sativae0 - Treatment
- Quinclorac applied at 0.4 or 0.6 kg ai ha −1 PPI or PRE to dry or moist soile0
- Interactor
- barnyardgrass
Echinochloa crus-gallie0weed - Outcome
- controlled more than 80% of barnyardgrasse0
- Direction
- controllede0
- Value
- more than 80%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Quinclorac applied at 0.4 or 0.6 kg ai ha −1 PPI or PRE to dry or moist soil controlled more than 80% of barnyardgrass, pitted morningglory, and hemp sesbania without rice injury.”
Claim · model-written summary
High-rate quinclorac controlled more than 80% of pitted morningglory.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- Quinclorac applied at 0.4 or 0.6 kg ai ha −1 PPI or PRE to dry or moist soile0
- Interactor
- pitted morningglorye0weed
- Outcome
- controlled more than 80% ofe0
- Direction
- controllede0
- Value
- more than 80%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Quinclorac applied at 0.4 or 0.6 kg ai ha −1 PPI or PRE to dry or moist soil controlled more than 80% of barnyardgrass, pitted morningglory, and hemp sesbania without rice injury.”
Claim · model-written summary
High-rate quinclorac controlled more than 80% of hemp sesbania.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- Quinclorac applied at 0.4 or 0.6 kg ai ha −1 PPI or PRE to dry or moist soile0
- Interactor
- hemp sesbaniae0weed
- Outcome
- controlled more than 80% ofe0
- Direction
- controllede0
- Value
- more than 80%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Quinclorac applied at 0.4 or 0.6 kg ai ha −1 PPI or PRE to dry or moist soil controlled more than 80% of barnyardgrass, pitted morningglory, and hemp sesbania without rice injury.”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower-rate quinclorac weed control was substantial but inconsistent.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- Quinclorac applied at 0.3 kg ha −1e0
- Outcome
- controlled these three weed speciese0
- Direction
- controllede0
- Qualifier
- substantially but inconsistentlye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Quinclorac applied at 0.3 kg ha −1 controlled these three weed species substantially but inconsistently.”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
No rice injury was observed with any quinclorac treatment.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- any quinclorac treatmente0
- Outcome
- rice injurye0
- Direction
- Noe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No rice injury was observed from any quinclorac treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Application timing did not consistently affect weed control.
- Taxon
- RiceOryza sativat0
- Treatment
- application timinge0
- Outcome
- weed controle0
- Direction
- did not consistently affecte0
- Qualifier
- Except for one of three years when irrigation was delayed for 7 d after PRE application to dry soile0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Except for one of three years when irrigation was delayed for 7 d after PRE application to dry soil, application timing did not consistently affect weed control or rice yield.”
t0“Rice”
Claim · model-written summary
Application timing did not consistently affect rice yield.
- Taxon
- riceOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- application timinge0
- Outcome
- rice yielde0
- Direction
- did not consistently affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Except for one of three years when irrigation was delayed for 7 d after PRE application to dry soil, application timing did not consistently affect weed control or rice yield.”
The same questions in other papers
quinclorac · crop injury · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
quinclorac · control · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →quinclorac · Echinochloa crus-galli · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →quinclorac · weed · Oryza sativa (rice)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.