Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T23:32:04.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responses of Dry Beans to Flumioxazin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nader Soltani ,
Stephen Bowley  and
Peter H. Sikkema
Nader Soltani*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Stephen Bowley
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: nsoltani@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is little information on the sensitivity of dry beans to flumioxazin. Tolerance of eight cultivars of dry beans representing four market classes (black, cranberry, kidney, and white beans) to preplant incorporated (PPI) and preemergence (PRE) applications of flumioxazin at the rate of 52.5, 70, and 140 g ai/ha were studied in three field experiments in Ontario in 2002 and 2003. There were no differences (P < 0.05) between two cultivars within a market class in their responses to flumioxazin. However, the four market classes differed in their responses to flumioxazin. Black and white beans were more sensitive to the PRE application of flumioxazin than cranberry and kidney beans. Flumioxazin applied PRE at 140 g/ha caused as much as 34% visual injury and reduced plant height by 23 to 28%, shoot dry weight by 35 to 39%, and yield by 20 to 30% in black and white bean market classes. Flumioxazin-applied PPI did not injure any market class. On the basis of this research, there is an acceptable margin of crop safety in these black and white bean cultivars only when flumioxazin is applied PPI. The two cranberry and kidney bean cultivars were tolerant to all rates of flumioxazin applied both PPI and PRE.

Keywords

Flumioxazinblack beancranberry beankidney beannavy beanwhite beanPhaseolus vulgaris L.Dry beansherbicide tolerancepreemergence herbicidespreplant incorporated herbicidesDAE, days after emergenceOM, organic matterPPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 351 - 358
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

Bartlett, M. S. 1947. The use of transformations. Biometrics 3:39–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Eyherabide, J. J. 1996. Evaluation of flumioxazin sprayed alone and in mixtures with other pre-emergent herbicides for weed control in soybeans. Tests of agrochemicals and cultivars 17. Ann. Appl. Biol. 128: (Suppl). 62–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, J., Liu, H., Guo, P., and Hao, C. 2002. Weed control in summer-sown soybeans with flumioxazin plus acetochlor and flumiclorac-pentyl plus clethodim. Weed Biol. Manag. 2:120–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, B. 2004. Sulfentrazone and Flumioxazin Injury to Soybean. Ames, IA: Iowa State University: Web page: http://www.weeds.iastate.edu/mgmt/2004/ppoinjury.shtml. Accessed: July 19, 2004.Google Scholar
Niekamp, J. W. 1998. Weed Management with Sulfentrazone and Flumioxazin in No-tillage Soybean. M.S. thesis. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. 157 p.Google Scholar
Niekamp, J. W. and Johnson, W. G. 2001. Weed management with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Crop Prot. 20:215–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niekamp, J. W., Johnson, W. G., and Smeda, R. J. 1999. Broadleaf weed control with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:233–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2004. Guide to Weed Control. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Publ. 75. 347 p.Google Scholar
Poling, K. 1999. Dry edible bean responses to dimethenamid and metolachlor. M.S. thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 90 p.Google Scholar
Price, A. J., Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Cranmer, J. R., and Danehower, D. 2004. Physiological basis for cotton tolerance to flumioxazin applied postemergence directed. Weed Sci. 52:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 2002. Dry bean responses to flumioxazin and sulfentrazone. Proc. N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:136.Google 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
Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., Cowan, T., and Sikkema, P. 2003. Tolerance of cranberry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to soil applications of S-metolachlor and imazethapyr. Can. J. Plant Sci. 83:645–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., Cowan, T., and Sikkema, P. 2004. Tolerance of black beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to soil applications of S-metolachlor and imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 18:166–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S., Wax, L. M., and Bollero, G. 2002. Preemergence flumioxazin and pendimethalin and postemergence herbicide systems for soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16:502–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S., Wax, L. M., and Nelson, R. 2001. Phytotoxic response and yield of soybean (Glycine max) varieties treated with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 15:95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valent, , 1998. Valor Herbicide Technical Information Bulletin. Walnut Greek, CA: Valor USA.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 200–202.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