Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T20:26:33.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herbicide Tolerance of Lima Bean (Phaseolus lunatus) in Ontario

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kristen E. McNaughton ,
Peter H. Sikkema  and
Darren E. Robinson
Kristen E. McNaughton
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Darren E. Robinson*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: drobinso@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lima bean cultivar ‘Improved Kingston’ was evaluated for sensitivity to herbicide treatments in a field experiment, conducted from 1999 to 2001 in Ontario. Crop was evaluated for visual injury at 7, 14, and 28 d after emergence following preemergence (PRE) applications of metolachlor (1,600 and 3,200 g ai/ha) and imazethapyr (75 and 150 g ai/ha). Crop visual injury to postemergence (POST) applications of imazamox + fomesafen (25 + 200 g ai/ha and 50 + 400 g ai/ha) and quizalopfop-P (72 and 144 g ai/ha) was evaluated at 7, 14, and 28 d after treatment. Plant height and crop yield were also assessed. The imazamox + fomesafen mixture caused significant visual injury and tended to decrease lima bean height and yield. Despite some initial injury observed in the metolachlor, imazethapyr, and quizalofop-P treatments, yield was not significantly decreased. Because of their margin of crop safety, metolachlor applied PRE at 1,600 g/ha, imazethapyr applied PRE at 75 g/ha, and quizalofop-P applied POST at 72 g/ha have excellent potential as weed management tools in Ontario lima bean production.

Keywords

Fomesafenimazamoximazethapyrmetolachlorquizalopfop-Plima bean, Phaseolus lunatus LHerbicide injurysensitivityDAE, days after emergenceDAT, days after treatmentOM, organic matterPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergenceUAN, urea ammonium nitrate
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 106 - 110
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

Bassett, I. J. and Munro, D. B. 1985. The biology of Canadian weeds. 67. Solanum ptycanthum Dun., S. nigrum L. and S. sarrachoides Sendt. Can. J. Plant Sci 65:401–414.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
Glancey, J. L., Kee, W. E., and Wootten, T. L. 1995. Machine harvesting of lima beans for processing. J. Veg. Crop Prod 3:59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kee, W. E. Jr., Glancey, J. L., and Wootten, T. L. 1997. The lima bean: a vegetable crop for processing. HortTech 7:119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1983. Influence of planting date on the growth of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum). Weed Sci. 31:180–184.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. Jr. and Dawson, J. H. 1984. Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Sci. 32:327–335.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. Jr., Rogers, B. S., and Schilling, E. E. 1981. Characterization of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and related species in the United States. Weed Sci. 29:27–32.Google Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2002. Guide to Weed Control 2002, Publication 75. Toronto, Canada: OMAFRA. Pp. 84–90.Google Scholar
Sankula, S., VanGessel, M. J., Kee, W. E. Jr., Beste, C. E., and Everts, K. L. 2001. Narrow row spacing does not affect lima bean yield or management of weeds and other pests. HortSci 36:884–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urwin, C. P., Wilson, R. G., and Mortensen, D. A. 1996. Response of dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars to four herbicides. Weed Technol. 10:512–518.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Miller, S. D. 1991. Dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) response to imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:22–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar