Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T04:13:04.460Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dry Bean Response to Preemergence-Applied KIH-485

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Peter H. Sikkema,
Christy Shropshire and
Nader Soltani
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Christy Shropshire
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Nader Soltani*
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 accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three field trials were conducted over a 2-yr period (2004 and 2005) at Exeter and Ridgetown, Ontario to evaluate the tolerance of eight market classes of dry beans to KIH-485 applied PRE at 210 and 420 g ai/ha. KIH-485 PRE caused as much as 67% visual injury in small-seeded and 44% visual injury in large-seeded dry beans. KIH-485 applied PRE at 420 g/ha reduced plant height up to 47% at Ridgetown and 8% at Exeter in 2004, and reduced height of brown and white bean by 15 and 19%, respectively, but had no effect on the height of the other beans in 2005. Shoot dry weight was not affected at Exeter in 2004 but was reduced by 46% at Ridgetown in 2004 and 14% at Exeter in 2005. In 2004, seed moisture content increased by 5, 6, and 12% in black, otebo, and pinto beans, respectively. Seed yield was reduced up to 27% at Ridgetown and 11% at Exeter in 2004 but was not affected at Exeter in 2005. On the basis of this research, KIH-485 PRE causes unacceptable injury in some dry bean market classes.

Keywords

KIH-485dry bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. black ‘AC Harblack’brown ‘Berna’cranberry ‘Hooter’kidney ‘Montcalm’otebo ‘Hime’pinto ‘GTS 900’white ‘OAC Thunder’yellow eye ‘GTS 1701’Sensitivityvisual injurytoleranceshoot dry weight

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2007, pp. 230 - 234
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
Bartlett, M. S. 1947. The use of transformations. Biometrics 3:39–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Burnside, O. C., Ahrens, W. H., Holder, B. J., Wiens, M. J., Johnson, M. M., and Ristau, E. A. 1994. Efficacy of various mechanical plus chemical weed control systems in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 8:238–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cumming, J. 2006. Estimated area, production, and farm value of specified field crops, Ontario, 1998–2005. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Rural Affairs. Website. available: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/crops/estimate_metric.html. Date accessed: March 14, 2006.Google Scholar
Doersch, R., Harvey, R. G., Binning, L. K., and Armstrong, T. F. 1974. Response of edible beans to alachlor. Proc. North Central Weed Sci. Soc. 29:78.Google Scholar
Dyer, C. D., Bauman, T. T., and White, M. D. 2004. Weed control and soil longevity of KIH-485, acetochlor, dimethenamid, and S-metolachlor. Proc. North Central Weed Sci. Soc. 59:63.Google Scholar
Geier, P. W. and Stahlman, P. W. 2004. Comparison of KIH-485 and S-metolachlor in corn. Proc. North Central Weed Sci. Soc. 59:72.Google Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 2006. Guide to weed control. Toronto, ON, Canada Publication 75. 396.Google Scholar
Poling, K. 1999. Dry edible bean responses to dimethenamid and metolachlor. M.S. thesis, East Lansing, MI. 48824 Michigan State University. 90.Google Scholar
Porpiglia, P. J., Nakatani, M., and Ueno, R. 2004. Two years results with KIH-485: a new, broad-spectrum herbicide. Proc. North Central Weed Sci. Soc. 59:71.Google Scholar
Porpiglia, P. J., Nakatani, M., and Ueno, R. 2005. KIH-485: a new broad spectrum herbicide. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 45:314.Google 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., Bowley, S., and Sikkema, P. H. 2005. Responses of dry beans to flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 19:351–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., Cowan, T., and Sikkema, P. H. 2003. Tolerance of cranberry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to soil applications of S-metolachlor and imazethapyr. Can. J. Plant Sci. 83:645–648.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., and Sikkema, P. H. 2006. Responses of various market classes of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to linuron. Weed Technol. 20:118–122.CrossRefGoogle 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
Watanabe, O., Porpiglia, P. J., Yamaji, Y., and Honda, H. 2006. Residual control with KIH-485. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 46:13.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Miller, S. D. 1991. Dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) responses to imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:22–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar