Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:34:48.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Dry Bean and Weeds to Fomesafen and Fomesafen Tank Mixtures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert G. Wilson
Robert G. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 2002 and 2003 to evaluate weed control and dry bean response to fomesafen and fomesafen tank mixtures. In the first experiment, six market classes of dry bean were treated at the first trifoliate growth stage with fomesafen + nonionic surfactant (NIS) + urea ammonium nitrate solution (UAN) at rates ranging from 210 to 840 g/ha. In the second experiment, fomesafen + NIS + UAN at 280 g/ha was applied alone or combined with imazamox at 36 g/ha, bentazon at 560 g/ha, or clethodim at 140 g/ha, and each treatment was applied postemergence at either the unifoliate, first trifoliate, or third trifoliate growth stage to six dry bean cultivars. Crop injury from fomesafen in the form of stunting and leaf crinkling was apparent 7 d after treatment (DAT), but crop injury was temporary and plants recovered. Common lambsquarters and hairy nightshade control increased from 61 to 71% and 74 to 92%, respectively, as fomesafen rate increased from 210 to 280 g/ha. Redroot pigweed, kochia, and common purslane were controlled at the ≥90% level by fomesafen at 210 g/ha. Applying fomesafen and fomesafen tank mixtures at the unifoliate growth stage caused less dry bean injury and improved redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, and hairy nightshade control compared with treatments made at the first or third trifoliate growth stage. Decreased weed control caused by delaying herbicide application to the third trifoliate growth stage resulted in a 17% decrease in crop yield, compared with treatments where herbicides were applied at the unifoliate growth stage. Combining fomesafen with other herbicides increased crop injury 4%, 14 DAT. A tank mixture of fomesafen plus imazamox caused more crop injury than fomesafen plus bentazon. Combining fomesafen with imazamox or bentazon improved hairy nightshade control to 92 and 87%, respectively; however, common lambsquarters control was improved only with tank mixtures of fomesafen with bentazon.

Keywords

Bentazonclethodimfomesafenimazamoxcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon purslane, Portulaca oleracea L. # POROLhairy nightshade, Solanum sarrachoides Sendt. # SOLSAkochia, Kochia scoparia (L.) SCHRAD. # KCHSCredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREdry bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. black, Great Northern, light red kidney, navy, pink, pinto, ‘Shadow’, ‘Marquis’, ‘Chinook’, ‘Schooner’, ‘Viva’, ‘Poncho’Field beansinterferenceseed yieldDAT, days after treatmentNIS, nonionic surfactantPOST, postemergenceUAN, urea ammonium nitrate solution
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 201 - 206
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

Bailey, W. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2003. Weed control and snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) response to reduced rates of fomesafen. Weed Technol. 17:269–275.Google Scholar
Balyan, R. S. and Malik, R. K. 1989. Control of horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum) and barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in mung bean (Vigna radiata). Weed Sci. 37:695–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobucci, T., Prates, H. T., Falcao, C. M., and Rezende, M. V. 1998. Effect of imazamox, fomesafen, and acifluorfen soil residue on rotational crops. Weed Sci. 46:258–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, J. J. 1964. Competition between irrigated field beans and annual weeds. Weeds 12:206–208.Google Scholar
Foes, M. J., Liu, L. X., Tranel, P. J., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1998. A biotype of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistant to triazine and ALS herbicides. Weed Sci. 46:514–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical procedures for agriculture research. New York: John Wiley. 680 p.Google Scholar
Hein, G. L., Kamble, S. T., Voorhees, W., and Waggoner, W. 1992. Pesticide use on Specialty Crops in Nebraska. Institute of Agricultural and National Resources University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Pp. 4–7.Google Scholar
Hinz, R. Jr. and Owen, M. D. K. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) population. Weed Technol. 11:13–19.Google Scholar
Sweat, J. K., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Lloyd, R. W., and Boyer, J. E. 1998. Herbicide efficacy on four Amaranthus species in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:315–321.Google Scholar
Unland, R. D., Al-Khalib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 1999. Interactions between imazamox and diphenylethers. Weed Sci. 47:462–466.Google Scholar
Urwin, C. P., Wilson, R. G., and Mortensen, D. A. 1996. Late season weed suppression from dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars. Weed Technol. 10:699–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wichert, R. A., Bozsa, R., Talbert, R. E., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Temperature and relative humidity effects on diphenylether herbicides. Weed Technol. 6:19–24.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1993. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41:607–610.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Miller, S. D. 1991. Dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) response to imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:22–26.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Smith, J. A. 2002. Influence of harvest-aid herbicides on dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) desiccation, seed yield, and quality. Weed Technol. 16:109–115.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G., 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