Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T15:49:40.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance of Otebo Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) to New Herbicides in Ontario

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Peter H. Sikkema ,
Darren E. Robinson ,
Christy Shropshire  and
Nader Soltani
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown campus, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Darren E. Robinson
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown campus, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Christy Shropshire
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown campus, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Nader Soltani*
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

Weed management is a major production issue facing otebo bean growers in Ontario. Field trials were conducted at six Ontario locations during a 2-yr period (2003 and 2004) to evaluate the tolerance of otebo bean to the preplant incorporated (PPI) application of EPTC at 4,400 and 8,800 g ai/ha, trifluralin at 1,155 and 2,310 g ai/ha, dimethenamid at 1,250 and 2,500 g ai/ha, S-metolachlor at 1,600 and 3,200 g ai/ha, and imazethapyr at 75 and 150 g ai/ha. EPTC, trifluralin, dimethenamid, and S-metolachlor applied PPI resulted in minimal (less than 5%) visual injury and with exception of the low rate of dimethenamid causing a 16% reduction in shoot dry weight and the high rate causing an 8% plant height reduction had no adverse effect on plant height, shoot dry weight, seed moisture content, and yield. Imazethapyr applied PPI caused up to 7% visual injury and reduced plant height, shoot dry weight, and yield 8, 18, and 12% at 75 g/ha and 19, 38, and 27% at 150 g/ ha, respectively. Seed moisture content was also reduced by 0.4% with both rates. Based on these results, otebo bean is not tolerant of imazethapyr applied PPI at rates as low as 75 g/ha, the proposed use rate. EPTC, trifluralin, dimethenamid, and S-metolachlor applied PPI have a 2× rate crop safety margin for use in otebo bean weed management.

Keywords

DimethenamidEPTCimazethapyrS-metolachlortrifluralinotebo bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Hime’Sensitivityvisual injurytoleranceshoot dry weight1×, the recommended maximum use rate2×, twice the maximum recommended use rateBCMV, bean common mosaic virusDAE, days after emergenceOM, organic matterPPI, preplant incorporated
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 862 - 866
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

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.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
Burnside, O. C., Ahrens, W. H., Holder, B. J., Wiens, M. J., Johnson, M. M., and Ristau, E. A. 1994. Efficacy of various mechanical plus chemical weed control systems in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 8:238–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[HDC] Hensall District Co-operative. 2005. Coloured Bean Varieties—Specialty Beans. Web page: http://www.hdc.on.ca/seed/. Accessed: January 6, 2006.Google Scholar
McClary, D. C., Hang, A. N., Gilliland, G. C., Babcock, J. M., Lumpkin, T. A., Ogg, A. G., and Tanigoshi, L. K. 1993. Herbicides for azuki production. in Janick, J. and Simon, J. E. (eds.). New Crops. New York: Wiley. Pp. 590–594.Google Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2004. Guide to Weed Control. Publication 75. Toronto: OMAFRA. 348 p.Google Scholar
Powell, G. E., Sprague, C. L., and Renner, K. A. 2004. Adzuki bean: weed control and production issues. 59th North Central Weed Science Proceedings 59:32.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. The SAS System for Windows, Release 8.0. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 3884 p.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. 18:111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N., Shropshire, C., Robinson, D. E., and Sikkema, P. H. 2005. Adzuki bean tolerance to preplant incorporated herbicides. 59th North Central Weed Science Proceedings 59:40.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 493 p.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