Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:36:12.085Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance of Peas (Pisum sativum) to Acifluorfen Applied Preemergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John R. Teasdale  and
J. Ray Frank
John R. Teasdale
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Beltsville, MD 20705
J. Ray Frank
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Beltsville, MD 20705
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In four field experiments, acifluorfen {5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acid} applied preemergence at 1.1 kg/ha was not phytotoxic to peas (Pisum sativum L.) and increased the yield of shelled peas by an average of 25% compared to the weedy control. Yields were highest in all four experiments at the 1.1 kg/ha rate and tended to decline at higher rates of application. Growth chamber studies demonstrated that pea tolerance to acifluorfen was not affected by temperatures of 16/10 to 27/21C (light/dark) nor by stimulated rainfall of 0.5 to 5.0 cm. Peas and soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] were more tolerant of acifluorfen than were snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and lima beans (Phaseolus lunatus L.) when acifluorfen was applied preemergence in the greenhouse or in hydroponic nutrient solution.

Keywords

TemperaturerainfallGlycine maxPhaseolus vulgarisPhaseolus lunatus
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 31 , Issue 5 , September 1983 , pp. 592 - 596
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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. Blankendaal, M., Hodgson, R. H., Davis, D. G., Hoerauf, R. A., and Shimabukuro, R. H. 1972. Growing plants without soil for experimental use. Misc. Pub. No. 1251. Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric. 17.Google Scholar
2. Bubenzer, G. D. 1979. Inventory of rainfall simulators. Proc. Rainfall Simulator Workshop, Tucson, AZ, March 7-9. pp. 120–130.Google Scholar
3. Harvey, R. G. 1982. Pea foliage type, weed control interactions. Abstr., Weed Sci. Soc. Am. p. 29.Google Scholar
4. Harvey, R. G. and Jacques, G. L. 1977. Dinitroaniline herbicides for weed control in peas. Weed Sci. 25:256–259.Google Scholar
5. Jordan, G. L. and Harvey, R. G. 1978. Response of processing peas (Pisum sativum) and annual weeds to acetanilide herbicides. Weed Sci. 26:313–317.Google Scholar
6. McCue, A. S. and Minotti, P. L. 1979. Competition between peas and broadleaf weeds. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:106.Google Scholar
7. Nelson, D. C. and Nylund, R. E. 1962. Competition between peas grown for processing and weeds. Weeds 10:224–229.Google Scholar
8. Orr, G. L. and Hess, F. D. 1981. Characterization of herbicidal injury by acifluorfen-methyl in excised cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) cotyledons. Pestic. Biochem. and Physiol. 16:171–178.Google Scholar
9. Warholic, D. T. and Sweet, R. D. 1976. Pisum sativum yield response to some dinitroaniline herbicides. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 30:205–207.Google Scholar
10. Weed Science Society of America. 1979. Herbicide Handbook, Fourth Edition. 479.Google Scholar