Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T23:21:44.329Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) Response to Acifluorfen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Henry P. Wilson
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agric. Exp. Stn., Virginia Polytech. Inst. and State Univ., Painter, VA 23420
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agric. Exp. Stn., Virginia Polytech. Inst. and State Univ., Painter, VA 23420

Abstract

Field studies were conducted for 3 yr to determine the foliar activity of acifluorfen {5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acid} for control of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L. # CHEAL) in snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Provider’ in 1983 and 1985 and ‘Green Crop’ in 1984). Control of 1 to 7 cm tall common lambsquarters varied between 75 and 100% with 0.28 kg ai/ha acifluorfen and frequently increased linearly with increases in acifluorfen rates to 0.84 kg/ha. Snap bean injury occurred each year and in 1985 was influenced by acifluorfen rate, stage of snap bean growth, and surfactant. Snap bean yields in 1983 were reduced linearly with increases in acifluorfen rates and in 1985 were reduced more from applications at the 1- to 2-trifoliolate leaf stage than at the 4- to 8-trifoliolate leaf stage. In the greenhouse, reductions in snap bean height from acifluorfen were related to application timing, surfactant and cultivar. Fresh weight reduction of snap beans was highest with the cultivar ‘Green Crop’ but was increased to both cultivars by early application timing and the addition of surfactant to the spray mix.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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. Bagley, P. C., and Beste, C. E. 1980. New herbicides for narrow-row snap beans. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 34:176186.Google Scholar
2. Bagley, P. C., and Beste, C. E. 1981. Herbicides for narrow-row snap beans. Abstract. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 35:179.Google Scholar
3. Comegys, W. R., and Ryan, J. B. 1979. Acifluorfen: Summary of postemergence weed control results in soybeans. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. p. 128129.Google Scholar
4. Johnson, W. O., Kollman, G. E., Swithenbank, C., and Yih, R. Y. 1978. RH-6201 (Blazer): A new broad-spectrum herbicide for postemergence use in soybeans. J. Agric. Food Chem. 26:285286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Lee, S. D., and Oliver, L. R. 1982. Efficacy of acifluorfen on broadleaf weeds. Times and methods of application. Weed Sci. 30:520526.Google Scholar
6. Mathis, W. D., and Oliver, L. R. 1980. Control of six morning-glory (Ipomoea) species in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 28:409415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Murphy, T. R., and Gossett, B. J. 1984. Control of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) in soybean (Glycine max) with acifluorfen. Weed Sci. 32:427431.Google Scholar
8. Ritter, R. L., and Coble, H. D. 1981. Penetration, translocation, and metabolism of acifluorfen in soybean (Glycine max), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), and common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum). Weed Sci. 29:474480.Google Scholar
9. Ritter, R. L., and Coble, H. D. 1984. Influence of crop canopy, weed maturity, and rainfall on acifluorfen activity. Weed Sci. 32:185190.Google Scholar