Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T06:33:27.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance of White Beans to Postemergence Broadleaf Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Peter H. Sikkema,
Nader Soltani,
Christy Shropshire and
Todd Cowan
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON N0P 2C0, Canada
Nader Soltani*
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON N0P 2C0, Canada
Christy Shropshire
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON N0P 2C0, Canada
Todd Cowan
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, 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

Weed control in white beans is currently limited by the small number of registered herbicides. The tolerance of two white bean cultivars, ‘AC Compass’ and ‘OAC Thunder’, to various postemergence (POST) herbicides at the maximum use rate and twice the maximum use rate for soybean or corn was evaluated at two Ontario locations in 2001 and 2002. Generally, the two cultivars did not differ in their response to the POST herbicides. POST applications of imazamox plus fomesafen, imazamox plus bentazon, and cloransulam-methyl decreased plant height, shoot dry weight, and yield by as much as 29, 41, and 55%, respectively, and increased seed moisture content up to 3.9%. POST applications of thifensulfuron, chlorimuron, and bromoxynil decreased plant height as much as 57%, shoot dry weight by up to 71%, yield as much as 93% and increased seed moisture content up to 15.5%. Based on these results, AC Compass and OAC Thunder white beans do not possess sufficient tolerance to support the registration of imazamox plus bentazon, imazamox plus fomesafen, cloransulam-methyl, thifensulfuron, chlorimuron, and bromoxynil.

Keywords

Bentazonbromoxynilchlorimuroncloransulam-methylfomesafenimazamoxthifensulfuroncorn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.white bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘AC Compass’, ‘OAC Thunder’Crop toleranceherbicide injurypostemergence herbicidesseed moisture contentwhite beansyieldDAP, days after plantingDAT, days after treatmentPOST, postemergence.

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004, pp. 893 - 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

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.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 39:48–53.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Esau, R. 1991. Control of annual broadleaf weeds in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 5:532–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Molnar, J. L., Muendel, H., Saindon, G., and Xiangju, L. 2002. Integration of cropping practices and herbicides improves weed management in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 14:327–336.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Saindon, G. 1996. Dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) tolerance to imazethapyr. Can. J. Plant Sci 76:915–919.Google Scholar
Breuer, T. 2002. The Emerging Bean. Harvest 2002 Edition. London, ON, Canada: Ontario White Bean Producers. Pp. 3–5.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 43:375–380.Google Scholar
Hager, A. and Renner, K. A. 1994. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) control in soybean (Glycine max) with bentazon as influenced by imazethapyr or thifensufuron tank mixes. Weed Technol. 8:766–771.Google Scholar
Jachetta, J. J., VanHeertum, J. C., Gerwick, B. C., and Barrentine, J. L. 1995. Cloransulam-methyl: a new herbicide for soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 48:199.Google Scholar
Kells, J., Renner, K. A., and Guza, C. J. 2003. Weed Control Guide for Field Crops. Extention Bulletin E-434. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Extension. Pp. 124–126.Google Scholar
Malik, V. S., Swanton, C. J., and Michaels, T. E. 1993. Interaction of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars, row spacing, and seeding density with annual weeds. Weed Sci. 41:62–68.Google 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. Pp. 24–90.Google Scholar
Reddy, N. K. and Whiting, K. 2000. Weed control and economic comparisons of glyphosate-resistant, sulfonylurea-tolerant, and conventional soybean (Glycine max) systems. Weed Technol. 14:204–211.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.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.Google 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., 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.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1993. Wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.) competition with navy beans. Can. J. Plant Sci 73:1309–1313.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1995. Bentazon tank-mixtures for improved redwood pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) control in navy beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 9:610–616.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. Jr. and Miller, S. D. 1991. Dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) responses to imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:22–26.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. Jr., Wicks, G. A., and Fenster, C. R. 1980. Weed control in field beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) in western Nebraska. Weed Sci. 28:295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolley, B. L., Michaels, T. E., Hall, M. R., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. The critical period of weed control in white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41:180–184.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. K. and Kells, J. J. 1993. Perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis) interference in soybean (Glycine max) and dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 7:52–57.Google Scholar