HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (13) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gibson, K. D. Articles by Fischer, A. J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Gibson, K. D. Articles by Fischer, A. J. Agricola Articles by Gibson, K. D. Articles by Fischer, A. J. Related Collections Weed Management Rice

Water-Seeded Rice Cultivars Differ in Ability to Interfere with Watergrass

^a Dep. of Agron. and Range Sci., Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
^b Int. Rice Res. Progr., P.O. Box 3127, Makati Cent. Post Office 1271, Makati City, Philippines
^c Dep. of Vegetable Crops, Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Response of watergrass dry weight (DW) to rice cultivar and propanil rates at 145 d after seeding (DAS) in 1997 from an experiment at Biggs, CA. Regression equations fitted for each cultivar are given in Table 3. Bars extending beyond symbols denote standard error

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Response of watergrass tillers to rice cultivar and propanil rates at 145 d after seeding (DAS) in 1997 from an experiment at Biggs, CA. Regression equations fitted for each cultivar are given in Table 3. Bars extending beyond symbols denote standard error

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Response of rice yields to cultivar and propanil rates at 145 d after seeding (DAS) in 1997 from an experiment at Biggs, CA. Regression equations fitted for each cultivar are given in Table 3. Bars extending beyond symbols denote standard error