Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T15:29:55.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of weed growth stage and adjuvant on the efficacy of fomesafen and bentazon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robin R. Bellinder ,
Marija Arsenovic ,
Denis A. Shah  and
Bradley J. Rauch
Marija Arsenovic
Affiliation:
IR-4 Project, Center for Minor Crop Pest Management, Technology Centre of New Jersey, 681 U.S. Highway #1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Denis A. Shah
Affiliation:
STA Laboratories, Inc., 1821 Vista View Drive, Longmont, CO 80504
Bradley J. Rauch
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Room 146-A Plant Science Building, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The efficacies of bentazon and fomesafen in controlling annual weeds in dry and edible pod beans in New York State were investigated in greenhouse and field experiments. Dose responses to bentazon and fomesafen were studied for four weed species (ragweed, velvetleaf, eastern black nightshade, and hairy nightshade) under greenhouse conditions. Herbicides were applied at cotyledon to two-, two- to four-, and four- to six–true leaf stages, both with and without a crop oil concentrate (bentazon) or a nonionic surfactant (fomesafen). Field studies were conducted for 2 yr for all weed species except eastern black nightshade, for which no adequate field populations were found. Field studies confirmed greenhouse results, indicating that weed control could be improved by the use of an adjuvant, but there were exceptions. In general, adjuvant usage improved the efficacy of fomesafen more than it did with bentazon. The minimum rates of herbicide required for effective and consistent control was dependent on the particular combination of weed species, herbicide and its rate of application, growth stage at which the application was made, and adjuvant usage.

Keywords

Bentazonfomesafencommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELeastern black nightshade, Solanum ptycanthum Dun. SOLPThairy nightshade, Solanum sarrachoides Sendt. SOLSAvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medic. ABUTHdry and snap bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L.Weed growth stagereduced herbicide rates
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 6 , December 2003 , pp. 1016 - 1021
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

Arsenovic, M., Bellinder, R. R., and Kirkwyland, J. J. 1997. Utilizing dose-response testing to minimize postemergence herbicide rates in snap and dry beans. Weed Sci. Soc. Am 37:17. [Abstract].Google Scholar
Beale, M. W., Ilnicki, R. D., and Little, D. L. 1985. Fomesafen combinations for weed control in soybeans. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc 39:8–12.Google Scholar
Bellinder, R. R., Arsenovic, M., and Kirkwyland, J. J. 1999. Response of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) to benatzon, fomesafen, and imazethapyr. 11th European Weed Research Society Symposium 1999; Basel, Switzerland. Basel, Switzerland: European Weed Research Society.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci 39:48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boodley, J. W. and Sheldrake, R. Jr. 1977. Cornell Peat-lite Mixes for Commercial Plant Growing. Information Bulletin 43. Ithaca, NY: New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University. 8 p.Google Scholar
Bostrom, U., Hansson, M., and Fogelfors, H. 2000. Weeds and yields of spring cereals as influenced by stubble-cultivation and reduced doses of herbicides in five long-term trials. J. Agric. Sci 134:237–244.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Doll, J. D., Proost, R. T., and Visocky, M. R. 1995. Integrating mechanical weeding with reduced herbicide use in conservation tillage corn production systems. Agron. J 87:507–512.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1993. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) control in soybean (Glycine max) with reduced bentazon rates and cultivation. Weed Sci 41:447–453.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
Couderchet, M. and Retzlaff, G. 1995. Daily changes in the relative water-content of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic) may explain its rhythmic sensitivity to bentazon. J. Plant Physiol 145:501–506.Google Scholar
DeFelice, M. S., Brown, W. B., Aldrich, R. J., Sims, B. D., Judy, D. T., and Guethle, D. R. 1989. Weed control in soybeans (Glycine max) with reduced rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci 37:365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, L. D., Long, J. H., and Maddox, L. D. 1991. Using reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol 5:834–840.Google Scholar
Gorski, S. F. and Wertz, M. K. 1987. Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) tolerance to acifluorfen. Weed Technol 1:278–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, A. and Renner, K. 1994. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) control in soybean (Glycine max) with bentazon as influenced by imazethapyr or thifensulfuron tank-mixes. Weed Technol 8:766–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamill, A. S. and Zhang, J. H. 1997. Rate and time of bentazon/atrazine application for broadleaf weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 11:549–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1982. Efficacy of acifluorfen on broadleaf weeds: time and methods for application. Weed Sci 30:520–526.Google Scholar
Levene, B. C. and Owen, M. D. K. 1995. Effect of moisture stress and leaf age on bentazon absorption in common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci 43:7–12.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS® System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. 633 p.Google Scholar
Little, D. L., Ilnicki, R. D., and Beale, M. W. 1984. Postemergence combinations of fomesafen with fluazifop, bentazon, or acifluorfen, for weed control in soybeans. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc 38:20–26.Google Scholar
Newcomer, D. T. and Banks, P. A. 1986. Three new broadleaf herbicides in no-till soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 39:82.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1984. Differential response of nightshades to herbicides (Solanum ptycanthum). Proc. West. Weed Control Conf 37:68–69.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. Jr. and Rogers, B. S. 1989. Taxonomy, distribution, biology, and control of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and related species in the United States and Canada. Rev. Weed Sci 4:25–58.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P. and Meade, J. A. 1993. Reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in conventional soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol 7:365–369.Google Scholar
Quakenbush, L. S. and Andersen, R. N. 1984. Distribution and biology of two nightshades (Solanum spp.) in Minnesota (Solanum ptycanthum, Solanum sarrachoides). Weed Sci 32:529–533.Google Scholar
Schabenberger, O., Tharp, B. E., Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. 1999. Statistical tests for hormesis and effective dosages in herbicide dose response. Agron. J 91:713–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Starke, R. J., Renner, K. A., Penner, D., and Roggenbuck, F. C. 1996. Influence of adjuvants and desmedipham plus phenmedipham on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and sugarbeet response to triflusulfuron. Weed Sci 44:489–495.Google Scholar
Stougaard, R. N., Maxwell, B. D., and Harris, J. D. 1997. Influence of application timing on the efficacy of reduced rate postemergence herbicides for wild oat (Avena fatua) control in spring barley (Hordeum vulgare). Weed Technol 11:283–289.Google Scholar
Tharp, B. E., Schabenberger, O., and Kells, J. J. 1999. Response of annual weed species to glufosinate and glyphosate. Weed Technol 13:542–547.Google Scholar
Zabkiewicz, J. A. 2000. Adjuvants and herbicidal efficacy—present status and future prospects. Weed Res 40:139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoschke, A. 1994. Toward reduced herbicide rates and adapted weed management. Weed Technol 8:376–386.Google Scholar