Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T14:53:09.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herbicides for Potential Use in Lima Bean (Phaseolus lunatus) Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mark J. Vangessel ,
David W. Monks  and
Quintin R. Johnson
Mark J. Vangessel*
Affiliation:
Research and Education Center, Georgetown, DE 19947
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Horticulture Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Quintin R. Johnson
Affiliation:
Research and Education Center, Georgetown, DE 19947
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: mjv@udel.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicides registered for lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus L.) do not consistently control many troublesome weeds. Some herbicides registered for soybean (Glycine max) will control these weeds, but tolerance to lima bean is not known. Two field and two greenhouse studies were conducted to evaluate recently registered soybean herbicides for lima bean tolerance. Field studies were conducted in Delaware from 1996 to 1998, and in North Carolina during 1997 and 1998. The first field study evaluated the preemergence (PRE) herbicides cloransulam at 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, and 0.04 kg ai/ha; flumetsulam at 0.04, 0.05, 0.06, and 0.07 plus metolachlor at 1.3, 1.6, 1.8, and 2.1 kg ai/ha; sulfentrazone at 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, and 0.25 kg ai/ha; lactofen at 0.2 and 0.25 kg ai/ha; and the commercial standard treatment of imazethapyr plus metolachlor at 0.05 and 1.7 kg ai/ha, respectively. Lima bean injury 5 to 8 wk after emergence was lowest for imazethapyr plus metolachlor (standard treatment) and all four rates of cloransulam. Crop injury with flumetsulam plus metolachlor ranged from 0 to 18% and sulfentrazone ranged from 3 to 75% depending on location and rate. Lactofen treatments caused unacceptable lima bean injury. Yield in plots treated with cloransulam were consistently greater than in the plots treated with other herbicides. The second field study examined the postemergence (POST) herbicides cloransulam (0.013 or 0.02 kg ai/ha), bentazon (1.1 kg ai/ha), imazethapyr (0.035 or 0.053 kg ai/ha), and imazamox (0.018 or 0.036 kg ai/ha), applied when the crop was at the first trifoliolate stage. Cloransulam caused 0 to 13% crop injury and imazamox caused 3 to 25% injury depending on rate and location. In greenhouse studies, no differences were observed among eight common processing lima bean cultivars in tolerance to sulfentrazone applied PRE or to cloransulam, imazamox, imazethapyr, or bentazon applied POST.

Keywords

soybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrCrop tolerancevarietal sensitivityCOC, crop oil concentrateNIS, nonionic surfactantPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 279 - 286
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

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.Google Scholar
Glancey, J. L., Kee, W. E., Wootten, T. L., and Postles, B. C. 1995. Harvesting of Green Peas and Lima Beans for Processing. Proceedings of the American Society of Agricultural Engeers Annual Meeting Paper 95-1773.Google Scholar
Glancey, J. L., Kee, W. E., and Wootten, T. L. 1997. Machine harvesting of lima beans for processing. J. Veg. Crop Prod. 3: 59–68.Google Scholar
Glaze, N. C., and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1984. Competitive effects of sicklepod on lima beans. Weed Sci. 32: 1–3.Google Scholar
Kee, W. E. Jr., Glancey, J. L., and Wootten, T. L. 1997. The lima bean: a vegetable crop for processing. HortTechnology. 7: 119–128.Google Scholar
Sankula, S., VanGessel, M. J., and Everts, K. L. 1999. Impact of weed density and pod rot on lima bean yield and quality. Abstr. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:73.Google Scholar
Tarburton, J. F., Feurer, T. W., and Bay, D. M. 1995. Delaware Agricultural Statistics Summary for 1994. Delaware Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar