Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:48:44.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Response of Dry Bulb Onion, Sugar Beet, and Pinto Beans to Imazosulfuron Soil Residues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joel Felix*
Affiliation:
Oregon State University/Malheur Experiment Station, 595 Onion Avenue, Ontario, OR, 97914
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2010 in Ontario, OR, to evaluate the response of direct-seeded dry bulb onion, sugar beet, and pinto beans to imazosulfuron soil residues 12 mo after application to control weeds in potato. The studies were organized as randomized complete block designs with three replications each. Imazosulfuron was applied alone PRE at 224 and 450 g ai ha−1, sequentially at 224 g ha−1 PRE and POST, or in tank mixture with S-metolachlor 1,060 g ha−1. Very few onion plants emerged in plots previously treated with imazosulfuron at 224 g ha−1, regardless of timing. Emerged onion plants were severely injured and never matured. No onions emerged from residues of imazosulfuron applied at 450 g ha−1. A few sugar beet plants emerged from 224 g ha−1 but were severely stunted and never grew beyond the first set of leaves. There was no sugar beet emergence from imazosulfuron sequential applications, regardless of the rate and application timing. However, imazosulfuron residues did not affect pinto beans, which emerged and produced marketable yield, similar to grower standard and nontreated plots. The results suggest sensitivity of direct-seeded dry bulb onion and sugar beet, but not pinto beans, to imazosulfuron residues 12 mo after application.

En 2010 se realizaron estudios de campo en Ontario, OR, para evaluar la respuesta de la siembra directa de bulbo seco de cebolla, remolacha azucarera y frijol pinto a los residuos en el suelo de imazosulfuron, 12 meses después de su aplicación, para controlar malezas en papa. Los estudios se organizaron con un diseño de bloques completos al azar con tres réplicas cada uno. Imazosulfuron se aplicó solo en PRE a 224 y 450 g ia ha−1, secuencialmente a 224 g ha−1 en PRE y POST o mezclado en tanque con S-metolachlor 1,060 g ha−1. Muy pocas plantas de cebolla brotaron en parcelas tratadas previamente con imazosulfuron a 224 g ha−1, sin importar el momento de aplicación. Las plantas de cebolla que brotaron fueron dañadas severamente y nunca maduraron. Ninguna cebolla brotó debido a los residuos de imazosulfuron aplicado a 450 g ha−1. Unas cuantas plantas de remolacha emergieron donde se aplicó el herbicida a 224 g ha−1, pero se retrasaron en el crecimiento severamente y nunca crecieron más allá del primer brote de hojas. No hubo brotes de remolacha azucarera donde se hicieron aplicaciones secuenciales del herbicida, sin importar la dosis y el momento de aplicación. Sin embargo, los residuos de imazosulfuron no afectaron al frijol pinto, el cual emergió y produjo un rendimiento comercial similar a las parcelas estándar de los agricultores y a las no tratadas. Los resultados sugieren, que hay sensibilidad en la siembra directa del bulbo seco de cebolla y de remolacha azucarera a los residuos de imazosulfuron, 12 meses después de la aplicación, pero no así para el frijol pinto.

Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
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

Anonymous. 1991. United States Standards for Grades of Potatoes. USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. 10 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1995. United States Standards for Grades of Onions (other than Bermuda-Granex-Grano and Creole Type). USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Fresh Produce Branch. 9 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2008. United States Standards for Beans. USDA: Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. Federal Grain Inspection Service. 17 p.Google Scholar
Boydston, R. A. and Felix, J. 2008. Yellow nutsedge control in potato with imazosulfuron. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 61:6.Google Scholar
Brewster, B. D. and Appleby, A. P. 1983. Response of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and rotation crops to chlorsulfuron. Weed Sci. 31:861865.Google Scholar
Dittmar, P. J., Jennings, K. M., and Monks, D. W. 2010. Response of diploid watermelon to imazosulfuron POST. Weed Technol. 24:127129.Google Scholar
Felix, J. and Boydston, R. A. 2010. Evaluation of imazosulfuron for yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and broadleaf weed control in potato. Weed Technol. 24:471477.Google Scholar
Felix, J. and Doohan, D. J. 2005. Response of five vegetable crops to isoxaflutole soil residues. Weed Technol. 19:391396.Google Scholar
Greenland, R. G. 2003. Injury to vegetable crops from herbicides applied in previous years. Weed Technol. 17:7378.Google Scholar
Hay, J. V. 1990. Chemistry of sulfonylurea herbicides. Pestic. Sci. 29:247261.Google Scholar
Jennings, K. M. 2010. Tolerance of fresh-market tomato to postemergence-directed imazosulfuron, halosulfuron, and trifloxysulfuron. Weed Technol. 24:117120.Google Scholar
Morrica, P., Barbato, F., Della, I. R., Seccia, S., and Ungaro, F. 2001a. Kinetics and mechanism of imazosulfuron hydrolysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 49:38163820.Google Scholar
Morrica, P., Giordano, A., Seccia, S., Ungaro, F., and Ventriglia, M. 2001b. Degradation of imazosulfuron in soil. Pest Manag. Sci. 57:360365.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R. 1995. Sulfonylurea herbicide effects on following crops. Weed Technol. 9:373379.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R. and Esau, R. 1996. Imidazolinone herbicide effects on following rotational crops in southern Alberta. Weed Technol. 10:100106.Google Scholar
Novosel, K. M., Renner, K. A., Kells, J. J., and Chomas, A. J. 1995. Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) response to and sorption characteristics of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 9:484489.Google Scholar
Pekarek, R. 2008. Evaluation of a ‘Caliente’ Mustard Cover Crop, S-Metolachlor, Imazosulfuron, and Thifensulfuron-Methyl for Weed Control in Bell Pepper. Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University. 129 p.Google Scholar
Strand, L. 2006. Integrated Pest Management for Potatoes in the Western United States, 2nd ed. University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program Pub. 3316. 167 p.Google Scholar
Tomlin, C. D. C. 1997. The Pesticide Manual. 11th ed. Farnham, Surrey, UK BCPC. Pp. 703704.Google Scholar
Senseman, S. A., ed. 2007. Herbicide Handbook, 9th ed. WSSA: Lawrence, KS: WSSA. Pp. 9192.Google Scholar