Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:12:55.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Dry Edible Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Cultivars to Four Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Carl P. Urwin ,
Robert G. Wilson  and
Dave A. Mortensen
Carl P. Urwin
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361 and Lincoln, NE 68583
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361 and Lincoln, NE 68583
Dave A. Mortensen
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361 and Lincoln, NE 68583
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dry edible bean tolerance to PPI-applied EPTC, alachlor and POST-applied imazethapyr was evaluated over two years at Scottsbluff, NE. Eight market classes of dry edible beans comprising 12 cultivars were studied. Crop tolerance was assessed by measuring crop injury, stand, leaf area index, leaf chlorosis, plant canopy volume, projected canopy cover, crop maturity, and seed yield. Leaf area index measured late in the growing season provided the best correlation with seed yield in both years. In 1993 and 1994, imazethapyr treatment caused crop injury, which resulted in a decrease of leaf area and in 1994 decreased seed yield. Differences in herbicide tolerance existed between market classes and cultivars, although the level of herbicide tolerance varied between years.

Keywords

Alachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl)acetamideEPTC, S-ethyl dipropyl carbamothioateethalfluralin, N-ethyl-N-(2-methyl-2-propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)-benzenamideimazethapyr, 2-[(4,5)-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic aciddry edible bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Aurora,’ Black Turtle, Cranberry, ‘D-84354,’ ‘Fleetwood,’ Great Northern, ‘Harris,’ Light Red Kidney, ‘Marquis,’ ‘Mayflower,’ Navy, Pink, Pinto, ‘RS-101,’ ‘Sacramento,’ Small White, ‘T-32,’ ‘UI-906,’ ‘Variety 74,’ ‘Viva.’Herbicide toleranceleaf area indexleaf chlorosisplant canopy volumeprojected canopy covervisual injury
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 512 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by the 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

1. 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
2. Doersch, R., Harvey, R. G., Binning, L. K., and Armstrong, T. F. 1974. Response of edible beans to alachlor. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 29:78.Google Scholar
3. Hein, G. L., Kamble, S. T., Voorhees, W., and Waggoner, W. 1992. Pesticide use on specialty crops in Nebraska. Inst. of Agric. and Nat. Resour. Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln. p. 4–7.Google Scholar
4. Nebraska Dep. of Agric. 1994. 1993–1994 Nebraska Agricultural Statistics. Nebraska Agric. Stat. Serv. p. 64.Google Scholar
5. Nkwen-Tamo, E., Jeffrey, L. S., Robison, L. R., and Jolley, V. D. 1989. Soil-applied herbicide and soil-temperature effects in Pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 3:573–578.Google Scholar
6. Penner, D. and Graves, D. 1972. Temperature influence on herbicide injury to navy beans. Agron. J. 64:30.Google Scholar
7. Putnam, A. R. and Rice, R. P. 1979. Environmental and edaphic influences on the selectivity of alachlor and snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 27:570–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1992. Response 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
9. Steele, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., NY. p. 550.Google Scholar
10. Vencill, W. K., Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., and Hatzios, K. K. 1990. Common lambsquarter (Chenopodium album) and rotational crop response to imazethapyr in pea (Pisum sativum) and snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 4:39–43.Google Scholar
11. Wilson, R. G. and Miller, S. D. 1991. Dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) response to imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:22–26.Google Scholar
12. Wilson, R. G., Wicks, G. A., and Fenster, C. R. 1980. Weed control in field beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) in western Nebraska. Weed Sci. 28:295–299.Google Scholar
13. Wyse, D. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1976. Factors affecting EPTC injury in navy bean. Weed Sci. 24:1–4.Google Scholar