Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T11:17:26.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Tolerance to Halosulfuron PRE, POST, or PRE followed by POST

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Brandy D. Silvey ,
Wayne E. Mitchem ,
Andrew W. Macrae  and
David W. Monks
Brandy D. Silvey*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Wayne E. Mitchem
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Andrew W. Macrae
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted in 1996 and 1997 to determine snap bean tolerance to halosulfuron based on crop injury, height, and yield. Halosulfuron was applied preemergence (PRE), postemergence (POST), and sequentially PRE followed by (fb) POST at 35, 53, and 70 g ai/ha, respectively. For comparison, a hand-weeded check was included. When data were averaged across years and halosulfuron rates, halosulfuron PRE, POST, and PRE fb POST provided similar yellow nutsedge control (74 to 82%) at snap bean harvest. Halosulfuron PRE resulted in 4% snap bean injury at harvest. Similarly, halosulfuron PRE fb POST resulted in 5% injury, while halosulfuron POST caused the most damage at 8%. Snap bean height at harvest was reduced 14% with halosulfuron POST compared to the weed-free check, with only 5 and 6% reduction caused by halosulfuron PRE and PRE fb POST, respectively. Halosulfuron POST reduced yield 39% compared to the weed-free check, while the PRE and PRE fb POST application timings produced yield similar to the check. When averaged across years and halosulfuron application timings, an increase in halosulfuron rate had no effect on yellow nutsedge control or snap bean yield. A linear trend was found for snap bean injury and plant height at harvest with snap bean injury increasing with an increase in halosulfuron rate while snap bean plant height decreased with an increase in halosulfuron rate. Application of halosulfuron PRE is the safest means to control yellow nutsedge in snap bean in North Carolina.

Keywords

halosulfuronyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. #3 CYPESsnap bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Strike’crop injuryplant heightyieldfb, followed byPRE, preemergencePOST, postemergenceWAP, wks after planting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 873 - 876
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

Ackley, J. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1996. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control POST with acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol. 10:576–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 2004. Sandea herbicide. Technical release, Gowan Company, Yuma, AZ 85366.Google Scholar
Blum, R. R., Isgrigg, J. III, and Yelverton, F. H. 2000. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (C. esculentus) control in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) turf. Weed Technol. 14:357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyette, M. D. and Sumner, P. E. 1994. Harvesting and postharvest handling. In Adams, D. B., Schultheis, J. R., and Monks, C. D., eds. Commercial Production of Edible Beans and Southern Peas. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Publication AG-513.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Besler, B. A., and Brewer, K. D. 2003. Purple nutsedge control and potato (Solanum tuberosum) tolerance to sulfentrazone and halosulfuron. Weed Technol. 17:485–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molin, W. T., Maricic, A. A., Khan, R. A., and Mancino, C. F. 1999. Effect of MON 12037 on the growth and tuber viability of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Weed Technol. 13:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, D. W. and Monks, C. D. 1994. Weed Management. In Adams, D. B., Schultheis, J. R., and Monks, C. D., eds. Commercial Production of Edible Beans and Southern Peas. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Publication AG-513.Google Scholar
[NCDA & CS] North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2003. North Carolina Agricultural Statistics 2003. North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Neary, P. E. and Majek, B. A. 1990. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) interference in snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 4:743–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 2002. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control and tuber production with glyphosate and ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol. 16:512–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2005. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 9.1.3, Service Pack 2. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Hawf, L. R. 1995. Effect of MON 12037 on purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow (Cyperus esculentus) nutsedge. Weed Technol. 9:148–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E., Kropff, M. J., and Groeneveld, R. M U. 1992. The critical period of weed interference. Weed Res. 40:302–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Coble, H. D. 1997. Changes in the weed species composition of the southern United States: 1974 to 1995. Weed Technol. 11:308–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
William, R. D. and Warren, G. F. 1975. Competition between purple nutsedge and vegetables. Weed Sci. 23:317–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar