Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T21:49:17.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Halosulfuron Applied Preplant Incorporated, Preemergence, and Postemergence on Dry Bean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nader Soltani ,
Robert E. Nurse ,
Christy Shropshire  and
Peter H. Sikkema
Nader Soltani*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Robert E. Nurse
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow, Ontario, Canada N0R 1G0
Christy Shropshire
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: nsoltani@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Five field trials were conducted over a 2-yr period (2007, 2008) at various locations in Ontario to evaluate the tolerance of black, cranberry, kidney, otebo, pink, pinto, small red Mexican (SRM), and white bean to halosulfuron applied PPI, PRE, and POST at 35 and 70 g ai/ha. There was minimal injury (3% or less) with halosulfuron applied PPI or PRE in dry bean. At Exeter and Ridgetown, halosulfuron applied POST at 35 and 70 g/ha caused 3 to 5% and 4 to 8% injury in dry bean, respectively at 1 wk after herbicide application (WAA). The injury was transient with no significant injury at 2 and 4 WAA. At Harrow, halosulfuron POST at 35 and 70 g/ha caused as much as 4% injury at 35 g/ha and 14% injury at 70 g/ha in dry bean. Halosulfuron applied PPI, PRE, and POST at 35 and 70 g/ha caused no decrease in plant height of dry bean except for kidney bean, which was reduced 6% at 70 g/ha, and white bean, which was reduced 3% at both 35 and 70 g/ha. Halosulfuron applied PPI, PRE, and POST at 35 and 70 g/ha caused no decrease in dry bean yield except for kidney bean, which was reduced 9% at 35 g/ha and 10% at 70 g/ha; otebo bean, which was reduced 3% at 70 g/ha; and white bean, which was reduced 7% at both 35 and 70 g/ha. On the basis of these results, there is an adequate margin of crop safety in dry bean to halosulfuron applied PPI or PRE at 35 and 70 g/ha. In addition, there is an adequate margin of crop safety in black, cranberry, pink, pinto, and SRM bean to halosulfuron applied POST at 35 and 70 g/ha. However, further research is required to ascertain the tolerance of kidney, otebo, and white bean to halosulfuron applied POST.

Keywords

Black bean ‘Black Knight’cranberry bean ‘Etna’kidney bean ‘Red Hawk’otebo bean ‘Hime’pink bean ‘Sedona’pinto bean ‘GTS 900’small red Mexican ‘Merlot’white bean ‘OAC Rex’Phaseolus vulgaris L.Dry beanPhaseolus vulgarispreemergencepreplant-incorporatedpostemergence herbicidessensitivitytolerance
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 535 - 539
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 2008. Estimated Area, Yield, Production and Farm Value of Specified Field Crops, Ontario, 2001–2008. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Rural Affairs. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/crops/. Accessed: April 20, 2009.Google Scholar
Arnold, N. R., Murray, W. M., Gregory, J. E., and Smeal, D. 1993. Weed control in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with imazethapyr combinations. Weed Technol 7:361–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, M. S. 1947. The use of transformations. Biometrics 3:39–52.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
Blackshaw, R. E. and Esau, R. 1991. Control of annual broadleaf weeds in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol 5:532–538.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Molnar, L. J., Muendel, H. H., Saindon, G., and Li, X. 2000. Integration of cropping practices and herbicide improves weed management in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol 14:327–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Saindon, G. 1996. Dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) tolerance to imazethapyr. Can. J. Plant Sci 76:915–919.Google Scholar
[HDC] Hensall District Co-operative 2009. Coloured Beans Seed. http://www.hdc.on.ca/food/seed/coloured.php. Accessed: April 16, 2009.Google Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs 2008. Guide to Weed Control. Publication 75. Toronto, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1992. Responses of navy bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) grown in rotation to clomazone, imazethapyr, bentazon, and aciflurofen. Weed Sci 40:127–133.Google Scholar
Senseman, S. A. 2007. Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 76–78.Google Scholar
Sikkema, P. H., Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., and Cowan, T. 2004. Tolerance of white beans to postemergence broadleaf herbicides. Weed Technol 18:893–901.Google Scholar
Soltani, N., Nurse, R. E., Nurse, D. E., and Sikkema, P. H. 2008. Response of pinto and small red Mexican bean to postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 22:195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urwin, C. P., Wilson, R. G., and Mortensen, D. A. 1996. Responses of dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars to four herbicides. Weed Technol 10:512–518.Google Scholar
VanGessel, J. M., Monks, W. D., and Quintin, R. J. 2000. Herbicides for potential use in lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus) production. Weed Technol 14:279–286.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