Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T21:57:17.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

White Bean Sensitivity to Preemergence Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

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

Abstract

White bean producers have a limited number of herbicide options available for annual grass and broadleaf weed control. Tolerance of two white bean cultivars to preemergence (PRE) applications of S-metolachlor, S-metolachlor + imazethapyr, flumetsulam + S-metolachlor, cloransulam-methyl, clomazone, clomazone + imazethapyr, and clomazone + S-metolachlor at the maximum labeled rate in soybean (1×) and twice the labeled rate (2×) were studied at two Ontario locations (Exeter and Ridgetown) in 2001 and 2002. S-Metolachlor, clomazone, and clomazone + S-metolachlor generally had no negative effect on plant height, dry weight, maturity, and yield. S-Metolachlor + imazethapyr and clomazone + imazethapyr reduced plant height, dry weight, and yield as much as 21, 42, and 24%, respectively. Flumesulam + S-metolachlor and cloransulam-methyl reduced plant height, dry weight, and yield as much as 39, 58, and 43%, respectively. White beans are tolerant to PRE applications of S-metolachlor, clomazone, and clomazone + S-metolachlor. White beans are sensitive to PRE applications of S-metolachlor + imazethapyr, flumetsulam + S-metolachlor, clomazone + imazethapyr, and cloransulam-methyl.

Keywords

Clomazonecloransulam-methylflumetsulamimazethapyrS-metolachlorsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merrwhite bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L.Dry beansherbicide tolerancepreemergence herbicideswhite beansDAE, days after emergencePRE, preemergence1× rate, the maximum recommended herbicide labeled rate in soybean2× rate, twice the maximum recommended herbicide labeled rate in soybeans

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 675 - 679
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999. Weed management in soybean (Glycine max) with preplant incorporated herbicides and cloransulam-methyl. Weed Technol. 13:276–282.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
Breuer, T. 2002. The Emerging Bean. Harvest 2002 Edition. Ontario White Bean Producers. London, ON, Canada: OWBP. 16 p.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Ahrens, W. H., Holder, B. J., Wiens, M. J., Johnson, M. M., and Ristau, E. A. 1994. Efficacy and economics of various mechanical plus chemical weed control systems in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 8:238–244.Google Scholar
Moseley, M. C. and Hagood, E. S. 1990. Reducing herbicide inputs when establishing no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 4:14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2002. Guide to Weed Control. Publication 75. Toronto, ON, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 331 p.Google Scholar
Osborne, T. B., Shaw, R. D., and Ratliff, L. R. 1995. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar tolerance to SAN 582H and metolachlor as influenced by soil moisture. Weed Sci. 43:288–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Sullivan, J., Thomas, R. J., and Sikkema, P. 2001. Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar sensitivity to RPA 201772. Weed Technol. 15:332–336.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
Reynolds, D. B., Jordan, D. L., Vidrine, P. R., and Griffin, J. L. 1995. Broadleaf weed control with trifluralin plus flumetsulam in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 9:446–451.Google Scholar
Rowe, L. and Penner, D. 1990. Factors affecting chloracetamide injury to corn. Weed Technol. 4:904–906.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 493 p.Google Scholar
Ward, I. K. and Weaver, E. S. 1996. Responses of eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) to low rates of imazethapyr and metolachlor. Weed Sci. 44:897–902.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