Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:30:40.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dry Edible Bean Class and Cultivar Response to Dimethenamid and Metolachlor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kyle W. Poling ,
Karen A. Renner  and
Donald Penner
Kyle W. Poling
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Karen A. Renner
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Donald Penner*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: renner@msu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dry edible bean class and cultivar response to dimethenamid and metolachlor was investigated in the greenhouse and field. Kidney and cranberry cultivars, as well as a small red cultivar, were not injured by dimethenamid applied PRE at 2,100 g ai/ha in the greenhouse, whereas pinto bean tolerance varied and navy and black bean cultivars were injured by this rate. Injury to navy bean was greater in the greenhouse when dimethenamid and metolachlor were placed in the zone above and including the seed, compared with placement in the seed, root, or root plus seed zone. In an application timing field study, dimethenamid at 1,300 g/ha applied at the crook or unifoliate growth stage caused injury to navy bean, delayed maturity, and reduced seed yield. Metolachlor at 1,400 g ai/ha delayed maturity when applied at the unifoliate growth stage but did not reduce seed yield. Dimethenamid or metolachlor PRE, at 1,300 or 2,800 g ai/ha, respectively, injured navy and black bean cultivars, but seed yield was not reduced in a cultivar tolerance field study. In a planting date study, dimethenamid PRE at 2,300 g/ha reduced leaf area and delayed maturity compared with the nontreated control when pooled over five planting dates and cultivars in each of 2 yr. Metolachlor PRE at 2,800 g/ha reduced leaf area in 1 yr and delayed maturity in both years when pooled over planting dates and cultivars. If weed control and herbicide costs are comparable, metolachlor at a standard use rate is a safer choice than dimethenamid for use in navy and black bean production.

Keywords

Dimethenamidmetolachlordry bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Avanti’, ‘Schooner’, and ‘Vista’ navy bean, ‘Midnight’ and ‘T-39’ black bean, kidney bean, ‘Rufus’ small red bean, cranberry bean, pinto beanApplication timingdry beancrop safetycrop toleranceherbicide injuryherbicide placementwhite bean
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 73 - 80
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

Anonymous 2000. Crop Protection Reference. Chemical and Pharmaceutical Press Inc., Pp. 280–284, 1346–1365, and 1625–1640.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
Brick, M. A. and Shanahan, J. F. 1996. Classification and development. in Schwarts, H. F., Brick, M. A., Nuland, D. S., and Franc, G. D., editors. Dry Bean Production and Pest Management. Volume 562A. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University Regional Bulletin 106.Google Scholar
Brunk, G., Randrich, L., Kazarian, D., Miller, P. M., Nissen, S., and Westra, P. 1998. Absorption and fate of dimethenamid in pinto, black and navy beans. Proc. West. Weed Sci. Soc 51:60.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Ahrens, W. H., Holder, B. J., Wiens, M. J., Johnson, M. M., and Ristau, E. A. 1994. Efficacy and economics of various mechanical plus chemical weed control systems in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol 8:238–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1996. Pesticide Tolerances for Dimethenamid. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1996/March/Day-15/pr-601.html. Accessed: May 22, 2008.Google Scholar
Gray, R. A. and Weierich, A. J. 1969. Importance of root, shoot, and seed exposure on the herbicidal activity of EPTC (ethyl-N,N-dipropylthiolcarbamate). Weed Sci 17:223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeBlanc, M. L. and Cloutier, D. C. 2001. Susceptibility of dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, cranberry bean) to the rotary hoe. Weed Technol 15:224–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, B. T., Shaw, D. R., and Ratliff, R. L. 1995. Soybean cultivar tolerance to SAN 582H and metolachlor as influenced by soil moisture. Weed Sci 43:288–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penner, D. and Graves, D. 1972. Temperature influence on herbicide injury to navy beans. Agron. J. 64:30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillai, P., Davis, D. E., and Truelove, B. 1979. Effects of metolachlor on germination, growth, leucine uptake, and protein synthesis. Weed Sci 27:634–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, A. R. and Rice, R. P. Jr. 1979. Environmental and edaphic influences on the selectivity of alachlor on snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci 27:570–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, R. P. Jr. and Putnam, A. R. 1980. Temperature influences on uptake, translocation, and metabolism of alachlor in snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci 28:131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, L. and Penner, D. 1990. Factors affecting chloroacetamide injury to corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 4:904–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sikkema, P., 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
Sikkema, P. H., Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., and Robinson, D. E. 2006. Response of adzuki bean to pre-emergence herbicides. Can. J. Plant Sci 86:601–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N., Robinson, D. E., Shropshire, C., and Sikkema, P. H. 2006. Otebo bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) sensitivity to pre-emergence herbicides. Crop Prot 25:476–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N. S., Shropshire, C., Cowan, T., and Sikkema, P. 2004a. Tolerance of black beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to soil applications of S-metolachlor and imazethapyr. Weed Technol 18:111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N. S., Shropshire, C., Cowan, T., and Sikkema, P. 2004b. White bean sensitivity to preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 18:675–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urwin, C. P., Wilson, R. G., and Mortensen, D. A. 1996. Response of dry edibel bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars to four herbicides. Weed Technol 10:512–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voysest, O. and Dessert, M. 1991. Bean cultivars: classes and commercial seed types. Pages 119–162. in van Schoonhoven, A. and Voysest, O., editors. Common beans: research for crop improvement. Wallingford, UK: CAB International; Cali, Colombia: CIAT (International Center for Tropical Agriculture).Google Scholar
Weber, C. J. and Peter, J. B. 1982. Adsorption, mobility, and efficacy of alachlor and metolachlor as influenced by soil properties. Weed Sci 33:874–881.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
[WSSA] Weed Science Society of America 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar