Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T20:33:18.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control in Pea with Reduced Rates of Imazethapyr Applied Preemergence and Postemergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Peter Sikkema ,
William Deen  and
Sima Vyas
Peter Sikkema
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON N0P 2C0, Canada
William Deen*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON N0P 2C0, Canada
Sima Vyas
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON N0P 2C0, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: bdeen@uoguelph.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Broad-spectrum weed control options for pea are limited. Field experiments conducted from 1998 to 2000 evaluated reduced rates of imazethapyr for selective control of grass and broadleaf weed species in pea. Imazethapyr was applied preemergence (PRE) and postemergence (POST) at 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of the PRE rate of 75 g ai/ha currently labeled in Ontario. A rate of 45 g/ha or greater was required to maintain consistent control of common lambsquarters and wild mustard when imazethapyr was applied PRE. Green foxtail and redroot pigweed control was excellent at all PRE rates 56 d after treatment. The 75-g/ha rate was required to maintain effective and consistent control of common ragweed. No injury or yield reductions were observed for any of the PRE application rates of imazethapyr. Reduced rates as low as 30 g/ha of imazethapyr applied POST maintained high levels of weed control. Pea tolerance to low rates of imazethapyr applied POST was acceptable except when applied in a year of low rainfall when peas experienced moisture stress.

Keywords

Imazethapyrcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. # SETVIredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREwild mustard, Sinapsis arvensis L. # SINARpea, Pisum sativum L. ‘Bolero’, ‘Sanchos’Herbicide efficacypea yieldsreduced herbicide ratesDAT, days after treatmentOCHU, Ontario corn heat unitsPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 14 - 18
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. 1994. AC 299 263 Experimental Herbicide. Princeton, NJ: American Cyanamid. 5 p.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and O'Donovan, J. T. 1993. Higher crop seed rates can aid weed management. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf 3:1003–1008.Google Scholar
Brown, D. M. and Bootsma, A. 1993. Crop Heat Units for Corn and Other Warm Season Crops in Ontario. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, OMAF Factsheet (AGDEX 111/31). 4 p.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1991. Influence of application time on weed control with reduced rates of imazethapyr and thifensulfuron in a weed nursery, 1991. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 48:264–265.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G. and Renner, K. A. 1994. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) control in soybean (Glycine max) with bentazon as influenced by imazethapyr or thifensulfuron tank mixes. Weed Technol. 8:756–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, R. G. and Albright, J. W. 1990. Imazethapyr rate, timing additive and lupin variety weed control study. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 47:127–128.Google Scholar
Leuschen, W. E., Gunsolus, J. L., Hoverstad, T. R., and Getting, J. J. 1993. Postemergence herbicides for common cocklebur control in soybeans at Waseca, MN in 1993. Res. Rep. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 50:248–249.Google Scholar
Malik, N. D., Darwent, C. L., and Moyer, J. 1988. Weed control in forage legumes with imazethapyr. Forage Notes 32:42–45.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 1989. Factor Affecting Soil and Foliar Bioactivity of Imidazolinones. Technical Information Rep. Princeton, NJ: Agricultural Research Division, American Cyanamid. 24 p.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L., Anderson, P. C., and Stidham, M. A. 1984. Imidazolinones: potent inhibitors of acetohydroxylacid synthase. Plant Physiol 76:544–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SPSS Inc. 1983. SPSS User's Guide. A Complete Guide to SPSS Language and Operations. Chicago, IL: SPSS–McGraw Hill. 575 p.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Wilson, H. P., Hines, T. E., and Hatzios, K. K. 1988. Evaluation of imazethapyr in peas and snap beans. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc 42:200.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A., Friesen, G. H., and Bhati, T. K. 1991. Wild mustard interference in traditional and semi-leafless peas. Can J. Plant Sci 71:473–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
William, K., Vencill, H. P., Hines Thomas, E., and Kriton, K. H. 1990. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and rotational crop response to imazethapyr in pea (Pisum sativum) and snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 4:39–43.Google Scholar