Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:22:04.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Snap Bean Tolerance to Herbicides in Ontario

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

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

Abstract

Snap bean was evaluated for sensitivity to a number of herbicides in field studies conducted during a 2-yr period in Exeter, ON. Preemergence (PRE) applications of metolachlor (1,600 and 3,200 g ai/ha), imazethapyr (75 and 150 g ai/ha), and clomazone plus metobromuron (840 + 1,000 g ai/ha and 1,680 + 2,000 g/ha) were evaluated for visual injury at 7, 14, and 28 d after emergence. Postemergence (POST) applications of imazamox plus fomesafen (25 + 200 g ai/ha and 50 + 400 g/ha), quizalofop-P (72 and 144 g ai/ha), and clethodim (90 and 180 g ai/ha) also were evaluated for visual injury 7, 14, and 28 d after treatment. Plant height and crop yield were assessed for all treatments. Visual injury, stunting, and yield loss were not observed in the metolachlor treatments. Imazethapyr (150 g/ha) caused stunting and reduced snap bean yield in both study years. Clomazone plus metobromuron (1,680 + 2,000 g/ha) injured and stunted snap bean in both years of the study and reduced yield in 2000. Imazamox plus fomesafen (50 + 400 g/ha) injured snap bean in both years but only reduced yield in 2000. Quizalofop-P injured snap bean but did not reduce plant height or yield. Clethodim did not injure, stunt, or reduce yield of snap bean. Metolachlor (PRE), imazamox plus fomesafen (POST), quizalofop-P (POST), and clethodim (POST) have excellent potential as weed management tools in snap bean in Ontario.

Keywords

Clethodimclomazonefomesafenimazamoximazethapyrmetobromuronmetolachlorquizalofop-Psnap bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L.Herbicide injurysensitivityCOC, crop oil concentrateDAE, days after emergenceDAT, days after treatmentNIS, nonionic surfactantOM, organic matterPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergenceUAN, urea ammonium nitrate.
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 962 - 967
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

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evanylo, G. K. and Zehnder, G. W. 1989. Common ragweed interference in snap beans at various soil potassium levels. Appl. Agric. Res 4:101–105.Google Scholar
Geelan, J. A. 1986. Control of solanaceous weeds in process snap beans. Proc. 39th N. Z. Weed Pest Control conf.: 39:219–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1983. Influence of planting date on the growth of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum). Weed Sci. 31:180–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leak, S. 1999. Evaluation of clomazone for pre-emergence control of Galium aparine in combinable break crops. Asp. Appl. Biol 56:99–104.Google Scholar
Lemerle, D. and Hinkley, R. B. 1991. Tolerances of canola, field pea, lupin and faba bean cultivars to herbicides. Aust. J. Exp. Agric 31:379–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitich, L. W. 1987. The devil's grass: quackgrass. Weed Technol. 1:184–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogg, A. G. Jr. and Dawson, J. H. 1984. Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Sci. 32:327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogg, A. G. Jr., Rogers, B. S., and Schilling, E. E. 1981. Characterization of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and related species in the United States. Weed Sci. 29:27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2002. Guide to Weed Control 2002, Publication 75. Toronto, ON: OMAFRA. Pp. 84–90.Google Scholar
Park, S. J. and Hamill, A. S. 1993. Response of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars to metobromuron. Weed Technol. 7:70–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quasem, J. R. 1995. Critical period of weed interference in irrigated snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Adv. Hortic. Sci 9:23–26.Google Scholar
Rutledge, A. D. 1995. Commercial Bush Snapbean Production, PB897. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service. 14 p.Google Scholar
Senesac, A. F., Warholic, D. T., and Sweet, R. D. 1979. Tolerance of snap and dry bean varieties to bentazon, metolachlor and pendimethalin. Proc. Annu. Meet. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc 33:178–182.Google Scholar
Tardif, F. J. and Leroux, G. D. 1993. Translocation of glyphosate, quizalofop, and sucrose in quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) biotypes. Weed Sci. 41:341–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urwin, C. P., Wilson, R. G., and Mortensen, D. A. 1996. Response of dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars to four herbicides. Weed Technol. 10:512–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., and Hatzios, K. K. 1990. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and rotational crop response to imazethapyr in pea (Pisum sativum) and snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 4:39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1993. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41:607–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Miller, S. D. 1991. Dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) response to imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:22–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar