Variation of weed-suppressing potential of Vietnamese rice cultivars against barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in laboratory, greenhouse and field screenings

Figures & data

Table 1. The inhibition effects of 73 rice cultivars against barnyardgrass in laboratory screening.

	Inhibition (%)
Rice cultivars	G^1	SL^2	RL^3	DW^4	AI^5	G^6
AVT01	6.6	11.9	24.1	9.6	13.1	F
AC-4	11.6	4.1	24.6	−1.2	9.8	F
AC-5	15.0	3.5	3.1	5.6	6.8	F
BTST	1.67	6.7	8.7	4.9	5.5	F
Bao Thai	10.0	18.2	38.5	7.5	18.6	LNS
Bao Dam	30.0	21.3	20.1	12.0	20.9	LNS
Boi Tap	3.3	24.9	25.9	10.8	16.2	H
Bac Uu	6.7	25.7	26.6	0.7	14.9	F
CHG-1	15.0	8.8	30.5	8.7	15.8	F
CL9	13.3	9.9	29.1	9.2	15.3	F
CH207	15.0	−5.6	17.9	10.4	9.4	H
C70	6.6	3.8	9.2	4.57	6.0	H
CH-208	13.3	18.1	18.7	0.2	12.6	H
CIDAD 141	15.0	15.0	27.4	11.5	17.3	F
Dot Bien I18	10.0	10.6	16.1	0.5	9.3	H
DHB-5	13.3	1.9	32.5	9.4	13.2	H
DSCH	8.3	11.0	1.6	5.6	6.6	H
DT-37	6.6	4.3	17.8	6.4	8.8	H
DK18 D/C-42	6.6	0.9	14.4	9.9	7.9	H
D2	6.6	6.7	25.3	2.8	10.4	H
DT-36	3.3	0.4	−1.9	1.0	0.7	H
Gao Chien	15.0	23.4	20.3	2.6	15.3	TS
HDB6	11.6	14.2	30.9	−5.6	12.8	F
HT-1	13.3	5.9	27.9	−20.4	6.7	F
H207	15.0	10.4	21.2	0.9	11.9	H
HDB-1	6.6	−1.8	26.2	11.8	10.7	H
Khang Dan	15.0	24.1	32.3	13.1	21.1	LNS
KD1-Dot Bien	8.3	0.8	7.3	10.4	6.7	H
KT-90	15.0	18.1	2.3	3.1	9.6	H
Khau Van	11.7	15.8	34.1	13.6	18.8	LUNS
Moc Tuyen	11.7	16.8	34.3	14.1	19.2	LNS
MT-42	11.6	8.3	6.3	6.1	8.1	F
MT508-1	13.3	14.8	11	4.5	10.1	F
Thoc Mu	6.6	10.7	28.4	11.2	14.5	LUNS
Nep Quyt	6.6	17.2	13.3	−5.6	7.9	TS
Nep con Gioi	15.0	27.2	14.7	−1.6	13.8	TUS
Nep My	8.3	28.7	17.5	10.1	16.2	TS
Nhi Uu	16.6	27.5	34.1	14.8	23.3	H
NepTau Co Rau	11.7	13.8	22.6	1.4	12.4	TS
Nep Thom-LS	3.3	4.0	11.4	−3.1	3.9	TUS
Nep-352	11.7	−0.2	17.9	4.5	8.5	TS
Nep Thom	13.3	13.1	40.0	8.0	18.6	TS
Nep Hoa Vang	15.0	8.4	28.2	9.2	15.2	TS
Nep 69	3.3	13.0	−2.9	6.4	4.9	TS
Nep Xiem	13.3	19.1	14.1	10.6	14.3	TUS
Nep Meo	8.3	−0.5	22.5	12.5	10.7	TUS
Nep Ha Giang	8.3	11.9	28.5	18.8	16.9	TUS
Nep Muong Trang	15.0	−13.7	15.8	21.2	9.6	TUS
Lua Hai Dong	13.3	22.5	35.9	9.6	20.3	H
Lua Huong	10.0	24.8	43.6	9.4	21.9	TS
LT2	3.33	8.6	26.9	12.0	12.7	LNS
Lua Can	11.6	11.0	34.8	19.3	19.2	LUNS
Phuc Tien	0.0	4.0	27.2	8.0	9.8	LNS
PC-5	6.6	2.3	16.2	8.9	8.5	H
PD211	3.3	6.5	18.4	4.5	8.2	H
Pke Chong Po	10.0	6.9	22.8	16.0	13.9	LUNS
Q5	15.0	28.2	25.3	3.3	17.9	LNS
Tap Giao	8.3	16.9	32.6	4.0	15.4	H
Te 108	15.0	−9.3	17.9	1.9	6.4	LNS
TM	8.3	−4.6	0.4	2.4	1.6	F
Thoc Te L93-1	6.7	3.5	32.6	16.7	14.9	LUNS
Thoc Te Duoi Bo	8.3	1.9	20.9	10.6	10.4	LUNS
T-10	1.7	−1.4	11.3	−2.8	2.2	F
U17	8.3	33.3	35.9	7.5	21.3	H
U20	6.6	18.8	5.5	2.1	8.2	H
Vien Cham	3.3	4.3	24.4	9.4	10.4	LUNS
Vu Di 3	11.6	16.9	27.3	5.9	15.4	H
VH5	15.0	8.8	23.4	−4.5	10.7	H
VH-3	15.0	13.8	12.7	2.4	10.9	H
VH-1	10.0	6.7	21.7	7.1	11.4	H
Xe Liem Man Te	8.3	13.2	15.2	19.3	14.0	LUNS
Y-1	11.7	33.3	29.3	17.9	23.0	F
8FA 337	8.3	15.9	10.2	16.0	12.6	F
LSD(0.05)	14.24	0.82	0.72	0.72	4.13
^1Germination; ^2Shoot length; ^3Root length; ^4Dry weight; ^5Average inhibition; ^6Group; −: means promotion. Abbreviations: F, foreign; H, hybrids; TS, traditional sticky; TUS, traditional upland sticky; LNS, local non-sticky; LUNS, local upland non-sticky.

Table 2. The inhibitory effects of 73 rice cultivars against barnyardgrass in greenhouse screening.

	Inhibition (%)
Rice cultivars	SL^1	DW^2	AI^3	G^4
AVT01	7.2	16.0	11.6	F
AC-4	11.5	9.3	20.8	F
AC-5	16.5	29.8	23.2	F
BTST	16.8	20.5	18.7	F
Bao Thai	9.0	20.5	14.8	LNS
Bao Dam	−5.1	−4.4	−4.8	LNS
Boi Tap	10.4	1.8	6.1	H
Bac Uu	7.9	10.4	9.2	F
CHG-1	6.2	6.1	6.2	F
CL9	4.5	0.6	2.3	F
CH207	7.7	6.7	7.2	H
C70	17.4	31.7	24.6	H
CH-208	15.1	27.9	21.5	H
CIDAD 141	−2.8	−6.9	−4.9	F
Dot Bien I18	6.6	12.3	9.5	H
DHB-5	−2.4	−5.6	4.0	H
DSCH	21.2	27.2	24.2	H
DT-37	2.7	6.7	4.7	H
DK18 D/C-42	10.8	17.9	14.4	H
D2	13.5	17.3	15.4	H
DT-36	14.5	26.6	20.6	H
Gao Chien	−6.6	−10.0	−8.3	TS
HDB6	11.1	18.6	14.9	F
HT-1	5.1	9.8	7.5	F
H207	14.1	19.7	16.9	H
HDB-1	18.9	32.2	25.6	H
Khang Dan	1.3	11.7	6.5	LNS
KD1-Dot Bien	3.3	7.4	5.4	H
KT-90	16.3	21.0	18.7	H
Khau Van	29.1	45.8	37.6	LUNS
Moc Tuyen	7.9	1.1	4.5	LNS
MT-42	12.1	18.6	15.6	F
MT508-1	16.3	26.1	21.2	F
Thoc Mu	10.3	17.3	13.8	LUNS
Nep Quyt	−2.0	11.2	4.6	TS
Nep Con Gioi	−4.7	−0.7	−2.7	TUS
Nep My	−6.5	−14.3	−10.4	TS
Nhi Uu	5.3	13.6	9.5	H
NepTau Co Rau	−4.6	−37.9	−21.3	TS
Nep Thom-LS	9.4	12.3	10.9	TUS
Nep-352	2.2	4.8	3.5	TS
Nep Thom	7.3	14.1	10.7	TS
Nep Hoa Vang	3.3	16.0	9.7	TS
Nep 69	16.9	29.1	23.0	TS
Nep Xiem	11.0	13.6	12.3	TUS
Nep Meo	8.0	13.6	10.8	TUS
Nep Ha Giang	14.8	21.1	18.0	TUS
Nep Muong Trang	12.3	20.5	16.4	TUS
Lua Hai Dong	1.5	8.0	4.8	H
Lua Huong	11.8	20.5	16.2	TS
LT2	0.7	8.0	4.4	LNS
Lua Can	11.2	12.3	11.8	LUNS
Phuc Tien	10.3	21.6	16.0	LNS
PC-5	24.2	33.5	28.9	H
PD211	11.8	17.9	14.9	H
Pke Chong Po	17.5	21.1	19.3	LUNS
Q5	2.9	15.4	9.2	LNS
Tap Giao	7.0	24.2	15.6	H
Te 108	−5.7	−5.6	−5.7	LNS
TM	8.0	16.0	12.0	F
Thoc Te L93-1	10.2	13.1	11.7	LUNS
Thoc Te Duoi Bo	11.6	14.9	13.3	LUNS
T-10	9.0	11.7	10.4	F
U17	14.0	29.8	16.9	H
U20	4.3	14.4	9.4	H
Vien Cham	15.4	24.2	19.8	LUNS
Vu Di 3	7.0	17.3	12.2	H
VH5	12.9	17.9	15.4	H
VH-3	−2.1	−7.4	4.8	H
VH-1	2.9	−1.3	0.4	H
Xe Liem Man Te	15.4	0.5	8.0	LUNS
Y-1	7.4	13.0	10.2	F
8FA 337	15.6	−19.9	−2.3	F
LSD(0.05)	0.8	0.05	0.43
^1Shoot length; ^2Dry weight; ^3Average inhibition; ^4Group. −: means promotion. Abbreviations: F, foreign; H, hybrids; TS, traditional sticky; TUS, traditional upland sticky; LNS, local non-sticky; LUNS, local upland non-sticky.

Table 3. The inhibitory effects of 18 rice cultivars against emergence of barnyardgrass in the field screening.

	Inhibition (%)
Rice cultivars	RH^1	RGW^2	DWB^3	TN^4	SL^5	DW^6	AI^7	G^8
CL9	114.0	24.3	59.2	26.2	15.9	38.5	33.7	F
HT1	111.9	21.1	63.9	24.6	30.9	59.1	42.8	F
CIDAD 141	113.9	22.2	48.0	19.5	9.5	32.2	26.4	F
Khang Dan	87.3	24.2	52.1	19.1	27.1	62.2	41.5	LNS
Bao Thai	96.1	24.5	36.4	25.4	15.5	39.7	25.8	LNS
Phuc Tien	106.2	25.9	60.7	63.2	38.8	74.2	50.4	LNS
CH207	92.4	21.4	69.5	21.3	24.0	53.5	40.1	H
Nhi Uu	100.3	23.8	71.6	33.3	24.1	58.2	42.5	H
U17	103.1	24.5	69.2	54.5	31.4	63.4	46.3	H
Nep My	103.1	24.3	60.9	58.9	24.0	48.7	38.4	TS
Nep Thom	97.3	23.8	80.2	23.1	23.1	48.6	42.6	TS
Nep Hoa Vang	90.3	22.3	52.8	37.3	16.6	43.2	32.4	TS
Nep Thom-LS	99.9	23.9	23.7	53.8	19.5	56.4	26.2	TUS
Nep Xiem	98.1	23.0	19.9	33.2	8.3	39.8	22.9	TUS
Nep MuongTrang	81.6	21.0	−3.8	14.2	16.0	55.6	22.3	TUS
Xe Liem Man Te	113.9	23.8	−16.7	14.6	5.9	27.8	6.7	LUNS
Thoc Te L931	126.0	21.4	3.4	38.3	29.6	60.2	27.6	LUNS
Pke Chong Po	119.0	24.8	30.3	53.7	23.4	46.6	28.7	LUNS
LSD (0.05)	29.2	3.36	1.14	3.15	6.88	0.83	3.9
^1Rice plant height; ^2Rice grain weight; ^3Dry weight biomass of natural weeds; ^4Tiller number of barnyardgrass; ^5Shoot length of barnyardgrass; ^6Dry weight of barnyarngrass; ^7Average inhibition; ^8Group. −: means promotion. Abbreviations: F, foreign; H, hybrids; TS, traditional sticky; TUS, traditional upland sticky; LNS, local non-sticky; LUNS, local upland non-sticky.

Figure 1.  Comparison of inhibition against growth of barnyardgrass among rice varietal groups in laboratory, greenhouse, and field screenings. F, foreign; H, hybrids; TS, traditional sticky; TUS, traditional upland sticky; LNS, local non-sticky; LUNS, local upland non-sticky. The bars indicate mean±standard error.

Figure 2.  Correlation coefficient of rice against shoot length and dry weight of barnyardgrass in laboratory, greenhouse, and field screenings. NS, no significance

Figure 3.  Total average inhibition of rice cultivars with different varietal groups against the growth of barnyardgrass in laboratory, greenhouse and field screenings. F, foreign; H, hybrids; TS, traditional sticky; TUS, traditional upland sticky; LNS, local non-sticky; LUNS, local upland non-sticky. The bars indicate mean±standard error.