Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:29:18.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Four Market Classes of Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) to Foramsulfuron, Isoxaflutole, and Isoxaflutole plus Atrazine Applied in Previous Years

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Darren E. Robinson ,
Nader Soltani  and
Peter H. Sikkema
Darren E. Robinson
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Nader Soltani*
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: nsoltani@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three field trials were established from 2001 to 2003 in Ontario to determine the effect of foramsulfuron POST (35 and 70 g ai/ha), isoxaflutole PRE (105 and 210 g ai/ha), and isoxaflutole plus atrazine PRE (105 + 1063 and 210 + 2126 g ai/ha) applied in the previous years to field corn on cranberry, black, kidney, and white (navy) bean. Foramsulfuron residues did not cause visible injury, or reductions in shoot dry weight or yield of dry bean 1 yr after application in corn. In contrast, visual injury across the four market classes varied from 4 to 37% 1 yr after application of isoxaflutole, and from 30 to 54% 1 yr after application of isoxaflutole plus atrazine. Isoxaflutole residues reduced shoot dry weight and yield as much as 81 and 44% in cranberry, 52 and 39% in black, 53 and 19% in kidney, and 42 and 19% in white bean, respectively. Isoxaflutole plus atrazine residues reduced shoot dry weight and yield as much as 87 and 64% in cranberry, 75 and 61% in black, 71 and 46% in kidney, and 65 and 33% in white navy bean, respectively. Injury was not detected regardless of market classes 2 yr after application of isoxaflutole alone or in tank mix with atrazine. Based on these results, it is recommended that none of the market classes of dry bean tested in this study should be grown 1 year after an application of isoxaflutole or isoxaflutole plus atrazine. A recropping interval of 2 years is currently recommended following applications of isoxaflutole or isoxaflutole plus atrazine for these market classes of dry bean.

Keywords

Atrazineforamsulfuronisoxaflutolecorn, Zea mays L.dry bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L.Black beancarryovercranberry beanforamsulfuronisoxaflutolekidney beanwhite navy beanDAE, days after emergenceOM, organic matterPRE, preemergencePOST, postemergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 558 - 563
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

Bartlett, M. S. 1947. The use of transformations. Biometrics 3:39–52.Google Scholar
Bauer, T. A., Renner, K. A., Penner, D., and Kelly, J. D. 1995. Pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) varietal tolerance to imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 43:417–424.Google Scholar
Clarke, M., Hodgson, J., and Price, L. 2001. Balance®—A New Broadleaf Herbicide for the Chickpea Industry. Website: http://www.agspsrv34.agric.wa.gov.au/cropupdates/2001/weeds/Clarke_Hodgson. Accessed: May 16, 2005.Google Scholar
Datta, A. 2004. Factors affecting the sensitivity of chick pea (Cicer arietinum) to isoxaflutole and its effect on nitrogen fixation and competitive ability. Website: http://www.une.edu.au/agronomy/weeds/rsch.html. Accessed: May 16, 2005.Google Scholar
Felix, J. and Doohan, D. J. 2005. Response of five vegetable crops to isoxaflutole soil residues. Weed Technol. 19:391–396.Google Scholar
Greenland, G. R. 2003. Injury to vegetable crops from herbicides applied in previous years. Weed Technol. 17:73–78.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. H. and Talbert, R. E. 1993. Imazaquin, chlorimuron and fomesafen may injure rotational vegetables and sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Weed Technol. 7:573–577.Google Scholar
Johnson, E. N., Ulrich, D. A., Blackshaw, R. E., May, W. E., Holm, F. A., and Sapsford, K. 2005. Isoxaflutole and sulfentrazone—potential broadleaf herbicides for chickpea. in FarmTech 2005 Proceeding. Pp. 142–161.Google Scholar
Monks, C. D. and Banks, P. A. 1991. Rotational crop response to chlorimuron, clomazone and imazaquin applied the previous year. Weed Sci. 39:629–633.Google Scholar
[OMAF] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 2002. Agronomy Guide to Field Crops. Toronto, ON: OMAF Publication 811.Google Scholar
[OMAF] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 2004. Guide to Weed Control. Toronto, ON: OMAF Publication 75.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. The SAS System for Windows, Release 8.0. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 3884 p.Google Scholar
Schroeder, J. 1998. Cucumber (Cucumis sativus) response to selected foliar- and soil-applied sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Technol. 12:595–601.Google Scholar
Sikkema, P., Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., and Cowan, T. 2004a. Sensitivity of kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to soil applications of S-metolachlor and imazethapyr. Can. J. Plant Sci. 84:405–407.Google Scholar
Sikkema, P., Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., and Cowan, T. 2004b. Tolerance of white beans to postemergence broadleaf herbicides. Weed Technol. 18:893–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N., Bowley, S., and Sikkema, P. H. 2005. Responses of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 19:351–358.Google Scholar
Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., Cowan, T., and Sikkema, P. 2003. Tolerance of cranberry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to soil applications of S-metolachlor and imazethapyr. Can. J. Plant Sci. 83:645–648.Google Scholar
Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., Cowan, T., and Sikkema, P. 2004a. Tolerance of black beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to soil applications of S-metolachlor and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 18:166–173.Google Scholar
Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., Cowan, T., and Sikkema, P. 2004b. White bean sensitivity to preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 18:675–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urwin, C. P., Wilson, R. G., and Mortensen, D. A. 1996. Responses of dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars to four herbicides. Weed Technol. 10:512–518.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. p. 493.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Miller, S. D. 1991. Dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) responses to imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:22–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yenish, J. P., Eaton, N. A., Toker, J., Schneider, P., and Scheenstra, E. 2000. Eastern Washington Weed Control Report. Pullman, WA: Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University Technical Report 01–3. 73 p.Google Scholar