Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:24:54.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating the EPA's Comparative Product Performance Testing Guidelines for Herbicides in Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robin R. Bellinder ,
Marija Arsenovic ,
Jonathan J. Kirkwyland  and
Russell W. Wallace
Robin R. Bellinder
Affiliation:
Department of Fruit and Vegetable Science Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-0327
Marija Arsenovic
Affiliation:
Department of Fruit and Vegetable Science Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-0327
Jonathan J. Kirkwyland
Affiliation:
Department of Fruit and Vegetable Science Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-0327
Russell W. Wallace
Affiliation:
Department of Fruit and Vegetable Science Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-0327
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Following suggested guidelines developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), comparative snap bean herbicide performance field trials were conducted from 1993 to 1995 in New York. Data were obtained on crop injury, weed control, and weed biomass, and crop yield, quality, and losses during harvest. Trifluralin, EPTC, and pendimethalin applied preplant incorporated (PPI) and applications of metolachlor applied preemergence (PRE) provided less than adequate control of redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, and hairy galinsoga. Cultivation improved weed control with PPI and PRE applications. Metolachlor + fomesafen PRE provided good control of hairy galinsoga, adequate redroot pigweed control, and marginal control of common lambsquarters. Fomesafen applied postemergence (POST), combinations of metolachlor applied PRE with fomesafen or bentazon applied POST, and fomesafen + bentazon applied POST adequately controlled the three weed species without cultivation. Herbicide treatments had little measurable impact on snap bean quality or losses during harvest. Information from product comparison trials may be useful in developing recommendations for growers but may prove less than adequate in providing data necessary for a thorough evaluation of the relative benefits of individual herbicides as intended by EPA guidelines. Difficulties were encountered in following the guidelines, and costs of conducting the product comparison trials for a single crop in one growing region exceeded $90,000 over 3 yr.

Keywords

EPTC, S-ethyl dipropyl carbamothioatecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALhairy galinsoga, Galinsoga ciliata (Raf) Blake # GASCIredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREsnap bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Labrador.'Comparative product performance trialscultivationherbicide reductionpesticide regulationbentazonEPTCfomesafenmetolachlorpendimethalintrifluralinAmaranthanus retroflexusChenopodium albumGalinsoga ciliataAMARECHEALGASCIBEAD, The Biological and Economic Assessment DivisionBMP, Best Management PracticesEPA, Environmental Protection AgencyEIQ, Environmental Impact QuotientPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 215 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Abernathy, J. R. and Wax, L. M. 1973. Bentazon mobility and adsorption in twelve Illinois soils. Weed Sci. 21:224–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 1992. New York Agricultural Statistics 1991–1992. Albany, NY: NY Agric. Stats. Ser. 100 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1994. Herbicide Handbook for the Weed Science Society of America. Champaign, IL: Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 301 p.Google Scholar
Ashley, R. A. 1972. Effect of competition and control of Galinsoga ciliata (Raf.) Blake in snap beans. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 26:338–345.Google Scholar
Bauer, T. A., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1995. Response of selected weed species to postemergence imazethapyr and bentazon. Weed Technol. 9:236–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellinder, R. R. 1990. Alternative weed control programs for snap beans. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:69.Google Scholar
Bellinder, R. R. 1995. Snap Bean Growers Weed Management Survey. 5 p.Google Scholar
Bellinder, R. R., Wallace, R. W., and Jordan, G. L. 1997. English pea (Pisum sativum) tolerance to paraquat and paraquat plus bentazon. Weed Technol. 11:39–44.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. 1992. Crop losses due to weeds in the United States. Champaign, IL: Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 403 p.Google Scholar
Caverly, D. J. 1987. Advisory problems with residual soil herbicides. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 2:601–610.Google Scholar
Comeau, G. R., Bellinder, R. R., and Orfanedes, M. 1994. Effects of surfactants on fomesafen and bentazon injury in snap and dry beans. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:103.Google Scholar
Dunnett, C. W. 1955. A multiple comparisons procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 50:1096–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberlein, V. C., Gutieri, M. J., and Schaffers, W. C. 1992. Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) control in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) with bentazon plus additives. Weed Technol. 6:85–90.Google Scholar
Fuerst, E. P. 1987. Understanding the mode of action of the chloroacetamide and thiocarbamate herbicides. Weed Technol. 1:270–277.Google Scholar
Gerber, H. R., Miller, G., and Ebner, L. 1974. CGA 34705, a new grasskiller herbicide. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 2:787–794.Google Scholar
Ivany, J. A. and Sweet, R. D. 1973. Germination, growth, development, and control of Galinsoga . Weed Sci. 21:41–45.Google Scholar
Kovach, J., Petzoldt, C., Degni, J., and Tette, J. 1992. A method to compare the environmental impact of pesticides. NY Food Life Sci. Bull. 139. Geneva, NY: NY State Agric. Exp. Stn. 8 p.Google Scholar
Kramer, C. Y. 1956. Extension of multiple range tests to group means with unequal numbers of replications. Biometrics 12:307–310.Google Scholar
Lanfranconi, L. E., Bellinder, R. R., and Wallace, R. W. 1992. Grain rye residues and weed control strategies in reduced tillage potatoes. Weed Technol. 6:1021–1026.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Adamczewski, K. A. 1977. Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) control with bentazon plus additives. Weed Sci. 25:506–510.Google Scholar
Roggenbuck, F. C., Rowe, L., Penner, D., Petroff, L., and Burow, R. 1990. Increasing postemergence herbicide efficacy and rainfastness with silicon adjuvants. Weed Technol. 4:576–580.Google Scholar
Rose, R. P. and Riabov, J. 1985. Today's herbicide: Reflex 2LC herbicide–a new selective postemergence broadleaf weed herbicide for soybeans. Weeds Today 16:5.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, 4th edition Gary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 846 p.Google Scholar
Savage, E. K. 1973. Nitralin and trifluralin persistance in soil. Weed Sci. 21:285–288.Google Scholar
Schepps, A. L. and Ashley, R. A. 1985. Weed–snap bean competition for light. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:77–79.Google Scholar
Sweet, R. D. 1986. Life History Studies as Related to Weed Control in the Northeast. 9. Galinsoga. Ithaca, NY: Northeast Reg. Publ., Cornell Univ. 34 p.Google Scholar
Warner, J. E., Winter, S. R., and Wiese, A. F. 1987. Persistence of dinitroaniline herbicides and potential for injury to sugarbeets. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Beet Technol. 24:57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. and Clark, S. K. 1982. Degradation of three acetanilide herbicides in soil. Weed Sci. 30:545–548.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. and Gwynn, S. M. 1977. Soil degradation of three dinitroanilines. Weed Sci. 25:247–251.Google Scholar