Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T02:05:10.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control and Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Response to Reduced Rates of Fomesafen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William A. Bailey ,
Henry P. Wilson  and
Thomas E. Hines
William A. Bailey
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420
Henry P. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1996, 1999, and 2000 to evaluate weed control and snap bean response to postemergence applications of fomesafen at registered and reduced rates. S-Metolachlor was applied preemergence to all plots to suppress annual grasses. Snap bean injury generally increased as fomesafen rate increased, but at rates up to 0.28 kg ai/ha, injury by fomesafen was similar to or less than that from bentazon. Fomesafen at rates as low as 0.07 kg/ha provided near-complete control of common ragweed, and rates of 0.14 kg/ha or more of fomesafen controlled ivyleaf and pitted morningglories and 5-cm or smaller common lambsquarters as effectively as did bentazon. Control of all weed species from fomesafen alone at 0.21 kg/ha did not improve with the addition of bentazon at 0.28 kg/ha. Although snap bean injury from fomesafen was as high as 43% 1 wk after treatment, snap bean yield and net returns were similar to those from S-metolachlor alone. In a rate and application timing study, fomesafen at 0.14 kg/ha applied to three-trifoliolate snap bean was the least injurious to the crop, whereas applications at 0.28 kg/ha to one- or two-trifoliolate snap bean provided the best weed control.

Keywords

BentazonfomesafenS-metolachlorcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHEpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAsnap bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Bronco’, ‘Gator Green’Fomesafen linear effectsnap bean yieldnet returnsfb, followed byPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 269 - 275
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

Ahrens, W. H. ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 64–65.Google Scholar
Alexander, S. A., Caldwell, J. S., Hohlt, H. E., Nault, B. A., O'Dell, C. R., Sterrett, S. B., and Wilson, H. P. 2001. Plant nutrient recommendations based on soil tests for vegetable crop production. In Hehlt, H. E., ed. Commercial Vegetable Production Recommendations. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech Extension Publication 456-420. p. 26.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001a. Section 18 Emergency Use Permit for Reflex in Snap Bean. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001b. Reflex Product Label. Wilmington, DE: Zeneca. 5 p.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2001. Weed management in snap bean with fomesafen. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 55: 125.Google Scholar
Bauer, T. A., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1995. Response of selected weed species to postemergence imazethapyr and bentazon. Weed Technol. 9: 236–242.Google Scholar
Bellinder, R. R. 1990. Alternative weed control programs for snap beans. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 44: 69.Google Scholar
Bellinder, R. R., Arsenovic, M., Kirkwyland, J. J., and Wallace, R. W. 1998. Evaluating the EPA's comparative product performance testing guidelines for herbicides in snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 12: 215–222.Google Scholar
Bellinder, R. R., Wallace, R. W., and Jordan, G. L. 1997. English pea (Pisum sativum) tolerance to paraquat and paraquat plus bentazon. Weed Technol. 11: 39–44.Google Scholar
Comeau, G. R., Bellinder, R. R., and Orfanedes, M. 1994. Effects of surfactants on fomesafen and bentazon injury in snap and dry beans. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 48: 103.Google Scholar
Frans, R. R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant response to weed control practices. In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Glancey, J. L., Kee, W. E., and Wooten, T. L. 1997. Machine harvesting of lima beans for processing. J. Veg. Crop Prod. 3: 59–68.Google Scholar
Glancey, J. L., Kee, W. E., Wooten, T. L., and Postles, B. C. 1995. Harvesting of Green Peas and Lima Beans for Processing. Proceedings of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual Meeting Paper 95-1773. Chicago, IL: American Society of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Harris, J. R., Gossett, B. J., Murphy, T. R., and Toler, J. E. 1991. Response of broadleaf weeds and soybeans to the diphenyl ether herbicides. J. Prod. Agric. 4: 407–410.Google Scholar
Jones, D. S., Lin, H., and Kane, M. V. 1990. Reducing herbicide rates for early-maturing soybean cultivars. In 1990 Agronomy Abstracts. Madison, WI: ASA. p. 147.Google Scholar
Little, D. L., Ilnicki, R. D., and Beale, M. W. 1984. Postemergence combinations of fomesafen with fluazifop, bentazon, or acifluorfen for weed control in soybeans. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 38: 20–26.Google Scholar
Manheimer, S. 2001. Virginia Agricultural Statistics. Richmond, VA: National Agricultural Statistics Service. p. 54.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P. and Meade, J. A. 1993. Reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in conventional soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 7: 365–369.Google Scholar
Rauch, B., Bellinder, R., and Miller, A. 2001. Evaluating fomesafen control of common ragweed in beans when considering carryover potential. Proc. Northeast. Weed. Sci. Soc. 55: 124.Google Scholar
Roggenbuck, F. C., Rowe, L., Penner, D., Petroff, L., and Burow, R. 1990. Increasing postemergence herbicide efficacy and rainfastness with silicon adjuvants. Weed Technol. 4: 576–580.Google Scholar
Rose, R. P. and Riabov, J. 1985. Today's herbicide: reflex 2LC herbicide—a new postemergence broadleaf weed herbicide for soybeans. Weeds Today 16: 5.Google Scholar
Sankula, S., VanGessel, M. J., and Everts, K. L. 1999. Impact of weed density and pod rot on lima bean yield and quality. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 53: 73.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, 4th ed, Volume 2. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 846 p.Google Scholar
Schepps, A. L. and Ashley, R. A. 1985. Weed-snap bean competition for light. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 39: 77–79.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D., Torrie, J. H., and Dickey, D. A. 1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill. 666 p.Google Scholar
Sturt, S. G. III. 2000. Crop Enterprise Cost Analysis for the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Dinwiddie, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute. pp. 29–31.Google Scholar
Sweet, R. D. 1986. Life History Studies as Related to Weed Control in the Northeast. 9. Galinsoga. Ithaca, NY: Northeast Regional, Cornell University. 34 p.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Monks, D. W., and Johnson, Q. R. 2000. Herbicides for potential use in lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus) production. Weed Technol. 14: 279–286.Google Scholar
Waller, N. and Richardson, B. 2000. Marketing Virginia Potatoes and Vegetables. Richmond, VA: Virginia Market News Service. 20 p.Google Scholar