Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T12:55:52.202Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sensitivity of Adzuki Bean (Vigna angularis) to Preplant-Incorporated Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

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

Abstract

There is a limited number of herbicides available for weed control in adzuki bean production in Ontario, Canada. A total of six field trials were conducted in Ontario over a 2-yr period (2003 and 2004) to evaluate tolerance of adzuki bean to preplant incorporated (PPI) application of EPTC (4,400 and 8,800 g ai/ha), trifluralin (1,155 and 2,310 g ai/ha), dimethenamid (1,250 and 2,500 g ai/ha), S-metolachlor (1,600 and 3,200 g ai/ha), and imazethapyr (75 and 150 g ai/ha). All treatments, including the nontreated control, were maintained weed free during the growing season. EPTC and dimethenamid caused as much as 39% visual crop injury and reduced plant height, shoot dry weight, and yield up to 34, 63, and 38%, respectively. Maturity was delayed with the application of EPTC and dimethenamid. Trifluralin caused as much as 9% visual crop injury and decreased plant height up to 11%. There was no effect of trifluralin on shoot dry weight, seed moisture content, and yield. S-metolachlor caused as much as 19% visual crop injury, decreased plant height up to 23%, and reduced shoot dry weight up to 29%. Yield was not affected at the low rate but was decreased 19% at the high rate. There was no effect of S-metolachlor on maturity. Imazethapyr caused up to 6% visual injury but had no adverse effects on plant height, shoot dry weight, seed moisture content, and yield except at the high rate, which caused a 15% reduction in plant height. Based on these results, trifluralin and imazethapyr applied PPI have an adequate margin of crop safety for weed management in adzuki bean production in Ontario.

Keywords

DimethenamidEPTCimazethapyrS-metolachlor; trifluralinAdzuki bean, Vigna angularis.(Willd.) Ohwi and Ohashi ‘Erimo’crop injurytoleranceDAE, days after emergencePPI, preplant incorporated

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2005, pp. 897 - 901
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.Google Scholar
Bartlett, M. S. 1947. The use of transformations. Biometrics 3:39–52.Google 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
Hang, A. N., McClary, D. C., Gilliland, G. C., and Lumpkin, T. A. 1993. Plant configuration and population effects on yield of azuki bean in Washington State. in Janick, J. and Simon, J. E., eds. New Crops. New York: Wiley. Pp. 588–590.Google Scholar
Lumpkin, T. A., Konovsky, J. C., Larson, K. J., and McClary, D. C. 1993. Potential new specialty crops from Asia: Azuki bean, edamame soybean, and astragalus. in Janick, J. and Simon, J. E., eds. New Crops. New York: Wiley. Pp. 45–51.Google Scholar
McGill, J. A. Jr. 1995. Michigan-Japan and azuki beans. Michigan Dry Bean Digest 19 (3):4–7.Google Scholar
McClary, D. C., Hang, A. N., Gilliland, G. C., Babcock, J. M., Lumpkin, T. A., Ogg, A. G., and Tanigoshi, L. K. 1993. Herbicides for azuki production. in Janick, J. and Simon, J. E., eds. New Crops. New York: Wiley. Pp. 590–594.Google Scholar
McClary, D. C., Raney, T. L., and Lumpkin, T. A. 1989. Japanese food marketing channels: a case study of azuki beans and azuki products. Pullman, WA: Washington State University IMPACT Center Rpt. 29.Google Scholar
[OMAF] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food. 2004. Guide to weed control. Publication 75. Toronto, Canada: OMAF. 348 p.Google Scholar
Powell, G. E., Sprague, C. L., and Renner, K. A. 2004. Adzuki Bean: Weed Control and Production Issues. 59th North Central Weed Science Proceedings 59:32.Google Scholar
Rubatzky, V. E. and Yamaguchi, M. 1997. World Vegetables: Principles, Production, and Nutritive Values. 2nd ed. New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Sacks, F. M. 1977. A literature review of Phaseolus angularis—the adzuki bean. Econ. Bot. 31:9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. The SAS System for Windows, Release 8.0. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 3884 p.Google Scholar
Sikkema, P., 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., Robinson, D. E., and Sikkema, P. H. 2004. Tolerance of Otebo bean to preemergence herbicides. 59th North Central Weed Science Proceeding 59:40.Google Scholar
Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., Cowan, T., and Sikkema, P. 2003. Tolerance of cranberry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to soil applications of S-metolachlor and imazethapyr. Can. J. Plant Sci. 83:645–648.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Sci. Soc. Am., 493 p.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.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