Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:38:12.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance of Black Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to Soil Applications of S-Metolachlor and Imazethapyr

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nader Soltani ,
Christy Shropshire ,
Todd Cowan  and
Peter Sikkema
Nader Soltani
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Christy Shropshire
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Todd Cowan
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Peter Sikkema*
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate the tolerance of two black bean cultivars, AC Harblack and Midnight Black Turtle, to preplant incorporated (PPI) and preemergence (PRE) applications of S-metolachlor at 1.6 and 3.2 kg ai/ha, imazethapyr at 0.075 and 0.15 kg ai/ha, and S-metolachlor plus imazethapyr at 1.6 plus 0.075 and 3.2 plus 0.15 kg ai/ha, respectively, at Exeter and Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada, in 2001 and 2002. There were generally no differences between the two cultivars in their responses to the herbicide treatments. PPI and PRE applications of S-metolachlor did not reduce black bean growth or yield. The PPI and PRE applications of imazethapyr alone or in tank mixture with S-metolachlor at the low and high rates did not have a significant effect on plant height, dry weight, seed moisture content, or yield at Ridgetown but caused as much as 14% visual crop injury at Exeter and reduced plant height, dry weight, and yield as much as 25, 40, and 49%, respectively. The higher rate of either herbicide alone or in tank mixture generally caused greater crop injury than the lower rate. At sites where there was a significant difference, the PPI application caused less crop injury than the PRE application. On the basis of these results, the PPI and PRE applications of S-metolachlor can be applied safely at the recommended label rate for the control of annual grass in black beans. However, the PPI and the PRE applications of imazethapyr alone and in tank mixture with S-metolachlor require careful application to avoid spray overlaps because there is potential for crop injury and yield reduction under some environmental conditions.

Keywords

ImazethapyrS-metolachlorblack bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘AC Harblack’, ‘Midnight Black Turtle’Crop injurycrop tolerancematurityplant dry weightplant heightyieldDAE, days after emergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 111 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Arnold, N. R., Murray, W. M., Gregory, J. E., and Smeal, D. 1993. Weed control in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with imazethapyr combinations. Weed Technol. 7:361–364.Google Scholar
Bauer, T. A., Renner, K. A., Penner, D., and Kelly, J. D. 1995. Pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) varietal tolerance to imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 43:417–424.Google Scholar
Beste, C. E. 1983. Herbicide Handbook, 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 39:48–53.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Esau, R. 1991. Control of annual broadleaf weeds in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 5:532–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Saindon, G. 1996. Dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) tolerance to imazethapyr. Can. J. Plant Sci 76:915–919.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 43:375–380.Google Scholar
Malik, V. S., Swanton, C. J., and Michaels, T. E. 1993. Interaction of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars, row spacing, and seeding density with annual weeds. Weed Sci. 41:62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, S. D., Dalrymple, A. W., and Krall, J. M. 1990. Weed Control in Pinto Beans with Preplant Incorporated or Complimentary Preplant Incorporated/Postemergence Treatments. Newark, CA: Western Society of Weed Science Progress Rep. Pp. 257–258.Google Scholar
Moseley, M. C. and Hagood, E. S. 1990. Reducing herbicide inputs when establishing no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 4:14–19.Google Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2002. Guide to Weed Control. Publication 75. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.Google Scholar
Osborne, T. B., Shaw, R. D., and Ratliff, L. R. 1995. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar tolerance to SAN 582H and metolachlor as influenced by soil moisture. Weed Sci. 43:288–292.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J., Thomas, R. J., and Sikkema, P. 2001. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar sensitivity to RPA 201772. Weed Technol. 15:332–336.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1992. Responses of navy bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) grown in rotation to clomazone, imazethapyr, bentazon, and acifluorfen. Weed Sci. 40:127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, L. and Penner, D. 1990. Factors affecting chloroacetamide injury to corn. Weed Technol. 4:904–906.Google Scholar
Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., Cowan, T., and Sikkema, P. 2003. Tolerance of cranberry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to soil applications of s-metolachlor and imazethapyr. Can. J. Plant Sci. 18:645–648.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. 2002. Preliminary Estimates of Principal Field Crop Area. Statistics Canada Field Crop Series no. 4. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
VanGessel, J. M., Monks, W. D., and Quintin, R. J. 2000. Herbicides for potential use in lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus) production. Weed Technol. 14. 279–286.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., and Hatzios, K. K. 1990. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and rotational crop response to imazethapyr in pea (Pisum sativum) and snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 4:39–43.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1993. Wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.) competition with navy beans. Can. J. Plant Sci 73:1309–1313.Google Scholar
Ward, I. K. and Weaver, E. S. 1996. Responses of eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) to low rates of imazethapyr and metolachlor. Weed Sci. 44:897–902.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. Jr. and Miller, S. D. 1991. Dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) responses to imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:22–26.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. Jr., Wicks, G. A., and Fenster, C. R. 1980. Weed control in field beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) in western Nebraska. Weed Sci. 28:295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolley, B. L., Michaels, T. E., Hall, M. R., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. The critical period of weed control in white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41:180–184.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. K. and Kells, J. J. 1993. Perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis) interference in soybean (Glycine max) and dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 7:52–57.Google Scholar