Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:22:44.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) Control as a Basis for Reduction of Fomesafen Use in Snap and Dry Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bradley J. Rauch ,
Robin R. Bellinder  and
Daniel C. Brainard
Bradley J. Rauch
Affiliation:
Quality Milk Production Services, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850
Robin R. Bellinder*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Daniel C. Brainard
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reducing herbicide rates can reduce production costs and the potential for carryover injury in subsequent crops, but may also compromise residual weed control. When used at the highest recommended rates (0.35 kg ai/ha), fomesafen may cause carryover injury on sweet corn. One of the most valuable attributes of fomesafen use in snap and dry beans is control of common ragweed. Field experiments were conducted in 1999, 2000, and 2002 to investigate both the residual ragweed control from fomesafen at 0.09, 0.18, and 0.36 kg ai/ha and the potential for a second application to extend the duration of residual control, while reducing the total amount applied per season. Results were significantly affected by weather conditions. In a very wet year (2000), with the greatest ragweed pressure, a single application of fomesafen at 0.20 kg/ha was predicted to provide at least 90% control of ragweed throughout snap and dry bean seasons. In the driest year (1999), 0.09 kg ai/ha provided greater than 90% control for the same period. Regardless of whether a single or double application was made, the total amount of fomesafen required per season was less than the manufacturer's recommended rate. Compared with making a single application, two low-rate applications did not reduce the total fomesafen rate required per season. To help insure at least 90% control of ragweed throughout the snap and dry bean seasons a grower should apply 0.20 kg ai/ha early in the season. Lower rates may be used, but in wet seasons, a second application may be needed to prevent yield loss or interference of ragweed with mechanical harvesting.

Keywords

Fomesafencommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELbean (snap or dry), Phaseolus vulgaris L.sweet corn, Zea maysResidual controlrate reductionsplit applicationsbean qualityprotoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitordiphenyl ether
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 623 - 628
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
Basset, I. J. and Crompton, C. W. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds. 11. Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. and A. psilostachya DC. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:463–476.Google Scholar
Bellinder, R. R., Arsenovic, M. A., Shah, D., and Rauch, B. J. 2003. Effect of weed growth stage and adjuvant on reducing post-emergence herbicide rates. Weed Sci. 51:1016–1021.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Weins, M. J., Holder, B. J., Weisberg, S., Ristau, E. A., Johnson, M. M., and Cameron, J. H. 1998. Critical periods for weed control in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 46:301–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chikoye, D., Hunt, L. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Simulation of competition for synthetically active radiation between common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 44:545–554.Google Scholar
Evanylo, G. K. and Zehnder, G. W. 1989. Common ragweed interference in snap beans at various soil potassium levels. Appl. Agric. Res. 4:101–105.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 2002. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC SAS Institute Inc. 633.Google Scholar
Manley, B. S., Singh, B. K., Sharner, D. L., and Wilson, H. P. 1999. Imidazolinone resistance in smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) is due to an altered acetolactate synthase. Weed Technol. 13:697–705.Google Scholar
Myers, M. W., Curran, W. S., VanGessel, M. J., Calvin, D. D., Mortensen, D. A., Majek, B. A., Karsten, H. D., and Roth, G. W. 2004. Predicting weed emergence for eight annual species in the northeastern United States. Weed Sci. 52:913–919.Google Scholar
Poston, D. H., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2000. Imidazolinone resistance to several Amaranthus hybridus populations. Weed Sci. 48:508–513.Google Scholar
Poston, D. H., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2002. Growth and development of imidazolinone-resistant and -susceptible smooth pigweed biotypes. Weed Sci. 50:485–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauch, B. J., Bellinder, R. R., Brainard, D. C., Lane, M., and Thies, J. E. 2006. Dissipation of fomesafen in New York state soils and potential to cause carryover injury to sweet corn. Weed Technol. 21:206–212.Google Scholar
Reiners, S., Petzoldt, C. H., and Hoffman, M. P. 2000. Integrated crop and pest management guidelines for commercial vegetable production. Ithaca, NY Cornell Cooperative Extension. 309.Google Scholar
SAS 1999. SAS User's Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Schepps, A. L. and Ashley, R. A. 1982. The effects of various weed-free periods on snap bean yields. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 36:104–107.Google Scholar
Shoup, D. E., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 2003. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 51:145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Wax, L. M. 1973. Periodicity of germination and emergence of some annual weeds. Weed Sci. 21:574–580.Google Scholar
Sweet, R. D., Veatch, C., and Dunn, S. 1978. Life History Studies as Related to Weed Control in the Northeast. Cornell University, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Bulletin 1033 (January). 24.Google Scholar
Uva, R. H., Neal, J. C., and DiTomaso, J. M. 1997. Weeds of the Northeast. Ithaca, NY Cornell University Press. 397.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 493.Google Scholar
Volenberg, D. S., Stoltenberg, D. E., and Boerboom, C. M. 2000. Solanum ptycanthum resistance to acetolactate synthase inhibitors. Weed Sci. 48:399–401.Google Scholar