Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:04:12.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of a Range of Dosages of MCPA, Glyphosate, and Thifensulfuron: Tribenuron (2:1) on Conventional Canola (Brassica napus) and White Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Growth and Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jaret W. Sawchuk ,
Rene C. Van Acker  and
Lyle F. Friesen
Jaret W. Sawchuk
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
Rene C. Van Acker
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
Lyle F. Friesen*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: Lyle_Friesen@umanitoba.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a high potential for inadvertent herbicide injury to crops in western Canada on an annual basis because of the diversity of crops grown in close proximity to each other, although accurate data regarding the annual number of injury incidents is not available. A field study was conducted at two locations in southern Manitoba, Canada, in 2001 and 2002, to investigate the effects of a range of dosages of MCPA ester, glyphosate, and thifensulfuron:tribenuron (2:1) applied to the seedling growth stage of conventional (nongenetically engineered) canola and white bean on subsequent shoot dry matter and crop yield. Similar to other studies that utilized sublethal herbicide dosages, results between site-years were variable, particularly for crop yield. Where possible, a nonlinear log-logistic model was fitted to the data. Generally, canola was more sensitive than white bean to the herbicides used in this study. Based on the fitted regression equations and recorded mean values for canola, 10% of the commercial herbicide dosage normally applied in other (possibly adjacent) crops caused greater than 10% canola yield loss for 9 of 12 unique combinations of herbicide-site-year. For white bean, 10% of the commercial herbicide dosage caused yield losses greater than 10% for only 4 of 13 unique combinations of herbicide-site-year. Spray drift is probably the most common source of inadvertent application of herbicide to sensitive crops; generally, only a fraction of the herbicide dosage applied on an adjacent crop drifts off-target. The results of this study indicate that for any of the three herbicides investigated on canola and white bean, it is difficult to accurately predict eventual crop yield loss based on early season sublethal herbicide injury symptoms due to site-year variability and the potential for crop recovery and compensatory growth. This response was particularly true for white bean in this study.

Keywords

Glyphosate, isopropylamine saltMCPA, iso-octyl esterthifensulfuron, methyl estertribenuron, methyl estercanola, Brassica napus L. ‘46A65’white bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Envoy’Herbicide driftherbicide injurysublethal dosagedose response
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 184 - 197
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

Banks, P. A. and Schroeder, J. 2002. Carrier volume affects herbicide activity in simulated spray drift studies. Weed Technol. 16:833–837.Google Scholar
Canola Council of Canada. 2005. Canola Growers Manual—Seeding Rates. Web page: http://www.canola-council.org. Accessed March 8, 2005.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Anderson, R. L., Blackshaw, R. E., and Maxwell, B. 2002. Weed dynamics and management strategies for cropping systems in the northern Great Plains. Agron. J. 94:174–185.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. 1996. Interaction of surfactant dose and spray volume on rimsulfuron activity. Weed Technol. 10:508–511.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. in Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 421–422.Google Scholar
Kvalseth, T. O. 1985. Cautionary note about R 2 . Am. Statistician 39:279–285.Google Scholar
Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives. 2004. Guide to Crop Protection 2004. Carman, MB: Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives. 354 p.Google Scholar
Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation. 2005. Manitoba Management Plus Program (MMPP). Web page: http://www.mmpp.com. Accessed: February 25, 2005.Google Scholar
Parr, J. F. 1982. Toxicology of Adjuvants. in Hodgson, F. H., ed. Adjuvants for Herbicides. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 93–114.Google Scholar
Ramsdale, B. K., Messersmith, C. G., and Nalewaja, J. D. 2003. Spray volume, formulation, ammonium sulfate, and nozzle effects on glyphosate efficacy. Weed Technol. 17:589–598.Google Scholar
Saskatchewan Pulse Growers. 2000. Pulse Production Manual, 2nd ed. Saskatoon, SK: Saskatchewan Pulse Growers. Pp. 9–11.Google Scholar
Sawchuk, J. W. 2003. The Influence of Simulated Herbicide Drift on Canola (Brassica napus L.) and Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L). M.Sc. dissertation. The University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB. 126 p.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Sikkema, P. H., Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., and Cowan, T. 2004. Tolerance of white beans to postemergence broadleaf herbicides. Weed Technol. 18:893–901.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. 1999–2004. Field Crop Reporting Series. Table 1—November Estimate of the Production of Principal Field Crops, Canada. Ottawa, ON: Agriculture Division, Statistics Canada. Web page: http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca.proxy2.lib.umanitoba.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/22-002-XIB/0080422-002-XIB.pdf. Accessed: March 9 2005.Google Scholar
Tanaka, D. L., Krupinsky, J. M., Liebig, M. A., Merrill, S. D., Ries, R. E., Hendrickson, J. R., Johnson, H. A., and Hanson, J. D. 2002. Dynamic cropping systems: an adaptable approach to crop production in the Great Plains. Agron. J. 94:957–961.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Leeson, J. Y., and Van Acker, R. C. 1999. Farm Management Practices in Manitoba—1997 Weed Survey Questionnaire Results. Weed Survey Series Publ. 99-3. Saskatoon, SK: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 297 p.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1994. Tolerance of five annual broadleaf crops to simulated thifensulfuron:tribenuron (2:1) spray drift. Weed Technol. 8:785–793.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1996. Effect of sublethal dosages of 2,4-D on annual broadleaf crops. Can. J. Plant Sci. 76:179–185.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A., Derksen, D. A., and Friesen, L. F. 1995. Canola (Brassica napus) response to simulated sprayer contamination with thifensulfuron and thifensulfuron:tribenuron (2:1). Weed Technol. 9:468–476.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook, 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar