Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:41:40.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Pinto and Small Red Mexican Bean to Postemergence Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nader Soltani ,
Robert E. Nurse ,
Darren E. Robinson  and
Peter H. Sikkema
Nader Soltani*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Robert E. Nurse
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow, Ontario, Canada N0R 1G0
Darren E. Robinson
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: nsoltani@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four field trials were conducted over a 2-yr period at Exeter (2005, 2006), Harrow (2006) and Ridgetown (2006), Ontario to evaluate the tolerance of pinto and small red Mexican (SRM) bean to the POST application of bentazon, imazethapyr, or their combination. Bentazon applied once or twice (to simulate a spray overlap in the field) at 840 g ai/ha and imazethapyr applied at 37.5 g/ha caused minimal injury (6% or less) in pinto and SRM bean and had no adverse effect on plant height, shoot dry weight, seed moisture content, and yield. Imazethapyr applied twice at 37.5 and all single and repeat applications containing 75 or 150 g/ha caused 15 to 44% injury to dry bean. These injuries were persistent and reduced plant height by as much as 21% and shoot dry weight by as much as 34%, but caused no adverse effect on maturity and yield, except for imazethapyr applied twice at 150 g/ha, which delayed maturity and reduced yield 16%. The addition of bentazon to imazethapyr applied as a tankmix reduced injury by as much as 23%. Imazethapyr at 37.5 or 75 g/ha combined with bentazon at 840 g/ha applied once or twice caused 3 to 23% injury but had no adverse effect on plant height, shoot dry weight, maturity, or yield. Two applications of imazethapyr at 150 g/ha plus bentazon at 840 g/ha reduced plant height 16% and shoot dry weight 28%.

Keywords

Bentazonimazethapyrpinto beansmall red Mexican bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L.Crop injurycrop tolerancedry beanpostemergence herbicidessensitivity
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 195 - 199
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

Arnold, N. R., Murray, W. M., Gregory, J. E., and Smeal, D. 1993. Weed control in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with imazethapyr combinations. Weed Technol. 7:361–364.Google Scholar
Bartlett, M. S. 1947. The use of transformations. Biometrics 3:39–52.Google Scholar
Bauer, T. A., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1995a. ‘Olathe’ pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) response to postemergence imazethapyr and bentazon. Weed Sci. 43:276–282.Google Scholar
Bauer, T. A., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1995b. Response of selected weed species to postemergence imazethapyr and bentazon. Weed Technol. 9:236–242.Google Scholar
Bauer, T. A., Renner, K. A., Penner, D., and Kelly, J. D. 1995c. Pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) varietal tolerance to imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 43:417–424.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Esau, R. 1991. Control of annual broadleaf weeds in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 5:532–538.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Molnar, L. J., Muendel, H. H., Saindon, G., and Li, X. 2000. Integration of cropping practices and herbicide improves weed management in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 14:327–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Saindon, G. 1996. Dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) tolerance to imazethapyr. Can. J. Plant Sci. 76:915–919.Google Scholar
Defelice, M. S., Brown, W. B., Aldrich, R. J., Sims, B. D., Judy, D. T., and Guethle, D. R. 1989. Weed control in soybeans (Glycine max) with reduced rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 37:365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, D. L., Long, J. H., and Maddux, L. D. 1991. Using reduced rate of postemergence herbicides in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5:834–840.Google Scholar
[HDC] Hensall District Co-operative 2007. Coloured Beans Seed. http://www.hdc.on.ca/food/seed/coloured.php. Accessed: April 16, 2007.Google Scholar
McGee, B. 2007. Estimated area, production and farm value of specified field crops, Ontario, 1998–2005. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Rural Affairs. http://www.omfra.gov.on.ca/English/stats/crops/. Accessed: September 7, 2007.Google Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 2006. Guide to weed Control. Toronto, Ontario, Canada Publication 75. 396.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P. and Mead, J. A. 1993. Reduced rate of postemergence herbicides in conventional soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 7:365–369.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 aciflurofen. Weed Sci. 40:127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sikkema, P. H., 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., Shropshire, C., Cowan, T., and Sikkema, P. H. 2004. Tolerance of black beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to soil applications of S-metolachlor and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 18:111–118.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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 ed. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America. 493.Google Scholar
Voysest, O. and Dessert, M. 1991. Bean cultivars: classes and commercial seed types. Pages 119–162. in van Schoonhoven, A. and Voysest, O., editors. Common Beans: Research for Crop Improvement. Wallingford, UK C.A.B. Int. and CaliColumbia CIAT.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1995. Bentazon tank-mixtures for improved redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) control in navy bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 9:610–616.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