Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T01:04:14.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of dry beans to tiafenacil applied preemergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 August 2021

Nader Soltani Open the ORCID record for Nader Soltani [Opens in a new window] ,
Christy Shropshire  and
Peter H. Sikkema
Nader Soltani*
Affiliation:
Adjunct Professor, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Christy Shropshire
Affiliation:
Research Technician, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Nader Soltani, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, 120 Main St. East, Ridgetown, ON, CanadaN0P 2C0. Email: soltanin@uoguelph.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tiafenacil is a new nonselective, protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase–inhibiting pyrimidinedione herbicide that is under consideration for registration to control grass and broadleaf weeds in corn, soybean, wheat, cotton, and other crops prior to crop emergence. The sensitivity of dry beans to tiafenacil is not known. Four field experiments were completed at Exeter and Ridgetown, ON, Canada, during the 2019 and 2020 growing seasons, to determine the sensitivity of azuki, kidney, small red, and white beans to tiafenacil applied preemergence (PRE) at 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 g ai ha−1. Tiafenacil applied at 100 g ai ha−1 caused 5% or less injury to azuki, kidney, small red, and white beans: 0% to 3% injury to azuki bean; 1% to 5% injury to kidney bean; and 1% to 4% injury to both small red bean and white bean. Tiafenacil applied PRE at 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 g ai ha−1 caused up to 1%, 4%, 4%, and 5% visible dry bean injury, respectively, but had no negative effect on other measured growth parameters including seed yield. Crop injury was generally greatest when tiafenacil was appled at the 100 g ai ha−1 rate in dry beans. Generally, kidney, small red, and white bean were more sensitive to tiafenacil than azuki bean. Dry bean injury was persistent and increased with time with the greatest injury observed 8 wk after emergence. Tiafenacil applied PRE can be a useful addition to the current strategies to control grass and broadleaf weeds, especially glyphosate-resistant horseweed and amaranth species prior to bean emergence.

Keywords

Tiafenacildry bean, Phaseolus vulgarisazuki bean, Vigna angularisBiomassinjurydensitydry biomassheightplant standvisible control
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , December 2021 , pp. 991 - 994
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: David Johnson, Corteva Agriscience

References

Anonymous (2020) Tiafenacil 339SC Herbicide label. Concord, OH: ISK Biosciences Corporation. EPA Registration No. 71512Google Scholar
Bedford, E (2021) Canada’s dry bean production volume 2016/17–2020/21. https://www.statista.com/statistics/819203/production-volume-of-dry-beans-canada/#statisticContainer. Accessed: April 21, 2021Google Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency (2020a) EPA Proposes Registration of New Herbicide to Aid in Resistance Management. https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/ USAEPAOPPT/bulletins/298347a. Accessed: March 10, 2021Google Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency (2020b) Ecological risk assessment for use of the new herbicide tiafenacil on corn, cotton, soybeans, wheat, grapes, fallow, and non-cropped areas. https://www.epa.gov/pesticides/epa-proposes-registration-new-herbicide-aid-resistance-management. Accessed: August 5, 2021Google Scholar
Gao, M, Bian, C, Zhou, W, Liu, L, Li, B, Tang, L (2021) Dissipation of tiafenacil in five types of citrus orchard soils using the HPLC-MS coupled with the quick, easy, cheap, effective, rugged, and safe method. J Separation Sci 44:1950–1960 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haring, B, Hanson, B (2020) Glufosinate and Tiafenacil Burndown Trial. University of California, Davis. https://ucanr.edu/repository/fileaccess.cfm?article=178644&p=NFLFGK. Accessed: April 19, 2021Google Scholar
Hekmat, S, Shropshire, C, Soltani, N, Sikkema, PH (2007) Response of dry bean to sulfentrazone. Crop Prot 26:525–529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensall District Co-operative (2020) Coloured beans seed. www.hdc.on.ca/. Accessed: April 28, 2021Google Scholar
OMAFRA (2021) Area, yield, production and farm value of specified field crops (Imperial and Metric Units): 2015–2021 by year. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/crops/estimate_new.xlsx. Accessed: April 28, 2021Google Scholar
Park, J, Young, OA, Jeong-Won, N, Myoung, KH, Namsook, S, Taejoon, K, Gyung-Hee, Y, Soon-Kee, S (2018) Biochemical and physiological mode of action of tiafenacil, a new protoporphyrinogen IX oxidase-inhibiting herbicide. Pesticide Biochem Physiol 152:38–44 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renner, KA, Powell, GE (2002) Dry bean responses to flumioxazin and sulfentrazone. Proc North Central Weed Sci Soc 57:136 Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems (2014). The SAS system for windows, release 9.4. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 457 pGoogle Scholar
Sikkema, PH, Shropshire, C, Soltani, N (2009) Responses of dry bean to pre-plant incorporated and pre-emergence applications of S-metolachlor and fomesafen. Crop Prot 28:744–748 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, SP, Gepts, P, Debouck, DG (1991a) Races of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, fabaceae). Econ Bot 45:379–396 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, SP, Gutierrez, JA, Molina, A, Urrea, C, Gepts, P (1991b) Genetic diversity in cultivated common bean: II. Marker-based analysis of morphological and agronomic traits. Crop Sci 31:23–29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, SP, Nodari, R, Gepts, P (1991c) Genetic diversity in cultivated common bean: I. Allozymes. Crop Sci 31:19–23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Dille, JA, Burke, IC, Everman, WJ, VanGessel, MJ, Davis, VM, Sikkema, PH (2018) Potential yield loss in dry bean crops due to weeds in the United States and Canada. Weed Technol 32:342–346 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Bowley, S, Sikkema, PH (2005) Responses of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to flumioxazin. Weed Technol 19:351–358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Shropshire, C, Sikkema, PH (2021) Control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with tiafenacil mixes. Weed Technol. DOI: 10.1017/wet.2021.44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Shropshire, C, Sikkema, PH (2010) Sensitivity of leguminous crops to saflufenacil Weed Technol 24:143–146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprague, C, Powell, G, Stiles, B (2020) Dry bean safety from early preplant applications of tiafenacil. Michigan dry bean research report. https://michiganbean.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Final-Print-Report.pdf. Accessed: April 19, 2021Google Scholar
Westerveld, D (2021) Evaluation of Bromoxynil, Pyraflufen-ethyl/2,4-D, and Tiafenacil for the Control of Glyphosate-resistant Canada fleabane (Conzya canadensis) in Soybean (Glycine max) and Metribuzin for the Control of Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberuclatus) with Two Mechanisms of Resistance to Photosystem II-inhibiting herbicides. M.Sc. thesis. Guelph, ON: University of Guelph. 191 p. Westerveld_David_202103_MSc.pdf (uoguelph.ca). Accessed: April 24, 2020Google Scholar