Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T15:17:47.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Navy Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Grown in Rotation to Clomazone, Imazethapyr, Bentazon, and Acifluorften

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Karen A. Renner  and
Gary E. Powell
Karen A. Renner
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
Gary E. Powell
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Soil Sci., Michigan State Univ., E. Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The response of ‘C-20’ navy bean and ‘Frankenmuth’ soft white winter wheat grown in rotation to clomazone, imazethapyr, bentazon, and acifluorfen was examined. Clomazone at 560 and 430 g ai ha−1 plus 800 g ai ha−1 pendimethalin and 2000 g ai ha−1 chloramben visibly injured navy bean in 1 of 2 yr. However, navy bean seed moisture at harvest and yield was not reduced compared to the weed-free control. PPI and PRE treatments of 70 g ai ha−1 imazethapyr did not injure navy bean or reduce yield. Imazethapyr applied POST at 70 g ha−1 plus nonionic surfactant visibly injured navy bean. The addition of urea ammonium nitrate to imazethapyr enhanced visible injury and seed moisture compared to nonionic surfactant alone in 1 of 2 yr. However, seed yield was not reduced. Seed moisture at harvest was greater following treatment with 430 g ai ha−1 acifluorfen plus nonionic surfactant or urea ammonium nitrate and 140 and 280 g ha−1 acifluorfen plus 840 g ai ha−1 bentazon in 1 of 2 yr compared to the weed-free control, but yield was not reduced. Wheat yield was reduced in 2 of 2 and 1 of 2 yr by 560 g ha−1 and 430 g ha−1 clomazone, respectively, plus pendimethalin plus chloramben compared to the weed-free control. Wheat yield was not reduced by imazethapyr, bentazon, or acifluorfen.

Keywords

Acifluorfen, 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrobenzoic acidbentazon, 3-(1-methylethyl)-(1H)-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one 2,2-dioxidechloramben, 3-amino-2,5-dichlorobenzoic acidclomazone, 2-[(2-chlorophenyl)methyl]-4,4-dimethyl-3-isoxazolidinoneEPTC, S-ethyl dipropylcarbamothioateimazethapyr, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidmetolachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamidependimethalin, N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenaminenavy bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. var. navy ‘C-20’wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Frankenmuth’Bioactivitybioavailabilitycarryovercrop rotationdry beanspersistenceresidues
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 127 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 by the 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

1. Abernathy, J. R. and Keeling, J. W. 1979. Efficacy and rotational crop response to levels and dates of dinitroaniline herbicide applications, Weed Sci. 27:312–317.Google Scholar
2. Ahrens, W. B. and Fuerst, E. P. 1990. Carryover injury of clomazone applied in soybeans (Glycine max) and fallow. Weed Technol. 4:855–861.Google Scholar
3. Dawson, J. H. 1964. Competition between irrigated field beans and annual weeds. Weeds 12:206–208.Google Scholar
4. Dossekou, M. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1985. Acifluorfen and dinoseb for wild mustard control in navy bean. Proc. Norm Cent. Weed Control Conf. 40:86.Google Scholar
5. Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. Jr. 1990. Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38:421–428.Google Scholar
6. Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1985. Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1:1–63.Google Scholar
7. Krausz, R. F. and Kapusta, G. 1988. Rotational cropping with imazaquin, imazethapyr, clomazone, and chlorimuron. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 43:39.Google Scholar
8. Loux, M. M. and Slife, F. W. 1989. Availability and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in soil. Weed Sci. 37:259–267.Google Scholar
9. McGinnity, P. and Fontana, S. 1983. POST weed control in dry beans with acifluorfen-sodium. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 38; 156.Google Scholar
10. Nash, N. G. 1988. Dissipation from soil. Pages 131–169 in Grover, R., ed. Environmental Chemistry of Herbicides. Vol. I. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
11. Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1988. Dry edible bean tolerance to postemergence herbicides. Proc. North Cent Weed Control Conf. 43:36.Google Scholar
12. Walsh, J. D., DeFelice, M. S., Sims, B. D., Brown, W. B., and Perkins, C. S. 1989. Influence of tillage on soybean herbicide carryover to winter crops. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 44:44.Google Scholar
13. Weed Science Society of America. 1989. Pages 4–6 in Herbicide Handbook. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign IL.Google Scholar
14. Wilson, R. G. and Miller, S. D. 1990. Dry edible bean response to imazethapyr. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 30:21.Google Scholar
15. 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.Google Scholar