Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:44:53.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responses of Various Market Classes of Dry Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to Linuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

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

Abstract

Tolerance of eight market classes of dry beans (black, brown, cranberry, kidney, otebo, pinto, white, and yellow eye beans) to the PRE application of linuron at the rate of 2.25 and 4.50 kg ai/ha was studied at two locations in Ontario, Canada, in 2003 and 2004. The eight market classes differed in their response to linuron. Linuron PRE caused as much as 43, 20, 7, 17, 54, 36, 56, and 12% visual injury in black, brown, cranberry, kidney, otebo, pinto, white, and yellow eye beans, respectively. Linuron PRE at 2.25 kg/ha reduced plant height 38% in otebo beans and 31% in white beans. Linuron PRE at 4.50 kg/ha reduced plant height 24 to 56% in black, brown, otebo, pinto, and white beans. Shoot dry weight was reduced in otebo beans by 56% and in white beans, by 46% at the low rate. Shoot dry weight was decreased 26 to 92% in black, otebo, pinto, white, and yellow eye beans at the high rate. There were no differences in the shoot dry weight of the other market classes. Linuron PRE at the low rate reduced otebo bean yield 42% and at the high rate reduced yields by 56, 74, and 61% in black, otebo, and white beans, respectively. There was no effect on the yield of other market classes. Differences in dry bean market class tolerance to linuron exists and may be summarized for these cultivars as cranberry > kidney > brown > yellow eye > pinto > black > white > otebo. Additional research is needed to determine if cultivars within a dry bean market class differ in their response to linuron.

Keywords

LinuronBlack bean, ‘AC Harblack’otebo bean, ‘Hime’pinto bean, ‘GTS 900’white bean, ‘OAC Thunder’brown bean, ‘Berna’cranberry bean, ‘Hooter’kidney bean, ‘Montcalm’yellow eye bean, ‘GTS 1701’Phaseolus vulgaris L. #3 PHSVXDry beansherbicide tolerancenavy beanpreemergence herbicidesDAE, days after emergenceOM, organic matter
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 118 - 122
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
Bassett, I. J. and Munro, D. B. 1985. The biology of Canadian weeds, 67: Solanum ptycanthum Dun., S. nigrum L., and S. sarrachoides Sendt. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:401–414.CrossRefGoogle 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
Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 39:48–53.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Saindon, G. 1996. Dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) tolerance to imazethapyr. Can. J. Plant Sci. 76:915–919.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. and Rogers, B. S. 1989. Taxonomy, distribution, biology, and control of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and related species in the United States and Canada. Rev. Weed Sci. 4:25–58.Google Scholar
[OMAF] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 2004. Guide to Weed Control. Toronto, ON, Canada: OMAF Publication 75. 348 p.Google Scholar
Parker, C. and Fryer, J. D. 1975. Weed control problems causing major reductions in world food supplies. FAO Plant Prot. Bull. 23:83–95.Google Scholar
Poling, K. 1999. Dry Edible Bean Responses to Dimethenamid and Metolachlor. M.S. thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 90 p.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1992. Responses of navy bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) grown in rotation to clomazone, imazethapyr, bentazon, and acifluorfen. Weed Sci. 40:127–133.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 2002. Dry bean responses to flumioxazin and sulfentrazone. Proc. North Central Weed Sci. Soc. CD-ROM NCWSS. IL.Google Scholar
Sikkema, P., Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., and Cowan, T. 2004. Sensitivity of kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to soil applications of S-metolachlor and imazethapyr. Can. J. Plant Sci. 84:405–407.Google 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. 2004. Tolerance of black beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to soil applications of S-metolachlor and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 18 (1):166–173.Google Scholar
VanGessel, J. M., Monks, W. D., and Quintin, R. J. 2000. Herbicides for potential use in lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus) production. Weed Technol. 14:279–286.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook, 8th Edition. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 493 p.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1993. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41:607–610.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Miller, S. D. 1991. Dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) responses to imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:22–26.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed–Crop Competition. Corvallis, OR: International Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University. Pp. 73–74.Google Scholar