Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T13:40:13.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sensitivity of Fieldbeans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to Reduced Rates of 2,4-D and Dicamba

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Drew J. Lyon  and
Robert G. Wilson
Drew J. Lyon
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of the dimethylamine salt of dicamba (3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid) and the dimethylamine salt of 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid] on fieldbeans (Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Great Northern Valley’) were studied in order to assess the potential hazards of using these herbicides in areas adjoining fieldbean production. Dicamba and 2,4-D were applied to fieldbeans at three different rates (1.1, 11.2, and 112.5 g ai/ha) and four different growth stages (preemergence, second trifoliolate leaf, early bloom, and early pod). Application of 2,4-D preemergence or in the second trifoliolate leaf stage of growth did not reduce seed yield, delay maturity, or reduce germination of seed obtained from treated plants. Dicamba or 2,4-D applied at 112.5 g/ha to fieldbeans in the early bloom or early pod stages of growth consistently reduced seed yield, delayed maturity, and reduced germination percentage. Fieldbeans exhibited a greater overall sensitivity to dicamba than to 2,4-D.

Keywords

Dry edible beansherbicide driftseed qualityprogeny germination and vigor
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 6 , November 1986 , pp. 953 - 956
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Ashton, F. M. and Crafts, A. S. 1981. Mode of Action of Herbicides. Pages 139–157 and 272–291. 2d ed. Wiley Interscience Publ., John Wiley and Sons, New York. 525 pp.Google Scholar
2. Auch, D. E. and Arnold, W. E. 1978. Dicamba use and injury on soybeans. Weed Sci. 26:471–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Black, C. C. and Buchanan, G. A. 1980. How herbicides work–the phenoxyacetic acids and related herbicides. Weeds Today 11:13–15.Google Scholar
4. Coyne, D. P. 1977. Dry edible beans. Pages 70–71 in Williams, J. H. and Murfield, D. (eds.). Agricultural Atlas of Nebraska. Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 39 pp.Google Scholar
5. Eggemeyer, L. 1971. Recognizing symptoms for herbicide drift and reduction of drift problems. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 26:108–109.Google Scholar
6. Payne, M. G. and Fults, J. L. 1947. Some effects of 2,4-D, DDT, and Colorado 9 on root nodulation in the common bean. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 39:52–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Slife, F. W. 1956. The effect of 2,4-D and several other herbicides on weeds and soybeans when applied as postemergence sprays. Weeds 4:61–68.Google Scholar
8. Swanson, C. P. 1946. Histological responses of the kidney bean to aqueous sprays of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Bot. Gaz. 107:522–531.Google Scholar
9. Thompson, L. Jr. and Egli, D. B. 1973. Evaluation of seedling progeny of soybeans treated with 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, and dicamba. Weed Sci. 21:141–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Van Schaik, P. H. and Probst, A. H. 1959. Effect of six growth regulators on pod set and seed development in Midwest soybeans. Agron. J. 51:510–511.Google Scholar
11. Wax, L. M., Knuth, L. A., and Slife, F. W. 1969. Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram. Weed Sci. 17:388–393.Google Scholar
12. Weaver, R. J. and DeRose, H. R. 1946. Absorption and translocation of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Bot. Gaz. 107:509–521.Google Scholar