Vol.4, No.10, 558-562 (2013) Agricultural Sciences
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/as.2013.410075
Tolerance of mung bean to postemergence
herbicides
Nader Soltani*, Christy Shropshire, Peter H. Sikkema
University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Canada; *Corresponding Author:
Received 21 July 2013; revised 24 August 2013; accepted 20 September 2013
Copyright © 2013 Nader Soltani et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ABSTRACT
There are a limited number of postemergence
(POST) herbicides available for weed manage-
ment in mung bean production in Ontario. Five
field studies were conducted in 2010, 2011 and
2012 near Exeter, Ontario and in 2011 and 2012
near Ridgetown, Ontario to determine the toler-
ance of mung bean to fomesafen, bentazon, ben-
tazon + fomesafen and halosulfuron applied
POST at the 1X and 2X proposed manufacturer’s
recommended rate. Bentazon caused 5% - 29%,
4% - 31%, and 2% - 18% injury, fomesafen caus-
ed 3% - 17%, 1% - 7%, and 0% - 6% injury, ben-
tazon + fomesafen caused 6% - 40%, 4% - 37%,
and 1% - 20% injury, and halosulfuron caused
13% - 65%, 8% - 75%, and 5% - 47% injury in
mung bean at 1, 2, and 4 weeks after treatment
(WAT), respectively. At Exeter, fomesafen had no
adverse effect on height of mung bean but ben-
tazon, bentazon + fomesafen and halosulfuron
decreased mung bean height as much as 5%
compared to the untreated control. At Ridge-
town, there was no decrease in mung bean height
due to the herbicides applied. Fomesafen had no
adverse effect on shoot dry weight of mung bean
but bentazon, bentazon + fomesafen and halo-
sulfuron decreased shoot dry weight of mung
beans as much as 43%, 47%, and 57%, respec-
tively. Fomesafen, bentazon, bentazon + fomesa-
fen and halosulfuron had no adverse effect on
the seed moisture content and seed yield of mung
bean with the exception of halosulfuron applied
POST at 70 g ai ha−1 which increased seed moi-
sture content 0.4% at Exeter and 1.4% at Ridge-
town and decreased yield 16% at Exeter compar-
ed to the untreated control. Based on these re-
sults, there is not an adequate margin of crop
safety for bentazon, bentazon + fomesafen and
halosulfuron applied POST in mung bean. How-
ever, there is potential for fomesafen applied
POST at the proposed manufacturer’s rate of
240 g ai ha−1 in mung bean production.
Keywords: Height; Injury; Seed Moisture Content;
Shoot Dry Weight; Yield
1. INTRODUCTION
Mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek) is a spe-
cialty crop grown in Ontario for domestic use as well as
export to Japan [1]. There is also potential for exporting
mung beans to United States as currently it imports near-
ly 75% of its need from China [1]. Weed management in
mung beans is one of the main production concerns for
growers as mung bean, similar to other dry beans, has
short stature and slow early growth and therefore is not a
competitive crop with weeds. Weed interference in dry
bean can reduce seed yield as much as 83% [2-4] and can
interfere with harvest efficiency and may cause staining
and reduce seed quality [5-7]. There is limited number of
postemergence (POST) herbicides available for mung
bean production in Ontario [8]. More research is needed
to identify POST herbicides that provide broadleaved
weed control in mung beans.
Bentazon is a benzothiadiazole herbicide that controls
broadleaved weeds including common lambsquarters (Che-
nopodium al bum), velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti), lady-
sthumb (Polygonum persicaria), wild mustard (Sinapis
arvensis), purslane (Portulaca oleracea), wild radish (Ra-
phanus raphanistrum), hairy galinsoga (Galinsoga cilia-
ta), jimsonweed (Datura stramonium), cocklebur (Xan-
thium strumarium), shepherdspurse (Capsella bursapas-
toris) and common chickweed (Stellaria media ) including
acetolactate synthase and triazine-resistant biotypes [8,
9].
Fomesafen is a diphenyl ether herbicide that controls
broadleaved weeds including Sinapis arvensis, redroot

N. Soltani et al. / Agricultural Sciences 4 (2013) 558-562 559
pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), common ragweed (Am-
brosia artemisiifolia), Polygonum persicaria, Xanthium
strumarium and Solanum spp.) including acetolactate
synthase and triazine-resistant biotypes [8,9]. Fomesafen
in tank mix combination with bentazon provides improv-
ed control of broadleaved weeds such as Amaranthus,
Ambrosia, Solanum species and Polygonum convolvulus
[8,9].
Halosulfuron is a sulfonylurea herbicide that controls
broadleaved weeds including Chenopodium album, Ama-
ranthus retroflexus, Abutilon theophrasti, Polygonum pe r-
sicaria, Xanthium strumarium, Sinapis arvensis, and yel-
low nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus), including triazine
resistant biotypes [9]. Halosulfuron is active at low doses,
possesses low mammalian toxicity, is relatively immo-
bile in the soil and degrades rapidly, so it has little po-
tential to contaminate groundwater and the environment
[9].
There is little information on sensitivity of mung bean
to fomesafen, bentazon, bentazon + fomesafen and halo-
sulfuron applied POST. Fomesafen, bentazon, bentazon
+ fomesafen and halosulfuron applied POST can provide
Ontario mung bean growers with new herbicides options
that provide control of specific broad leaved weeds.
The objective of this research was to determine the to-
lerance of mung bean to fomesafen, bentazon, bentazon
+ fomesafen and halosulfuron applied POST at the 1X
and 2X proposed manufacturer’s recommended rate.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Field studies were conducted in 2010, 2011, and 2012
at the Huron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario, Canada
and in 2011 and 2012 at the University of Guelph Ridge-
town Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada. The soil at
Exeter was a Brookston clay loam (Orthic Humic Gleysol,
mixed, mesic, and poorly drained) and the soil at Ridge-
town was a Wattford (Grey-Brown Brunisolic, mixed, me-
sic, sandy, and imperfectly drained)-Brady (Gleyed Bru-
nisolic Grey-Brown Luvisol, mixed, mesic, sandy, and im-
perfectly drained) sandy loam. Seedbed preparation at all
sites consisted of fall mold board plowing followed by
two passes with a field cultivator with rolling basket har-
rows in the spring.
The experiments were established as a randomized
complete block design (RCBD) with four replications.
Treatments included an untreated control, bentazon (1080
and 2160 g ai ha−1), fomesafen (240 and 480 g ai ha−1),
bentazon + fomesafen (840 + 140 and 1680 + 280 g ai
ha−1), and halosulfuron (35 and 70 g ai ha−1) applied
POST. Plots were 3 m wide (4 rows spaced 0.75 m apart)
and 10 m long at Exeter and 8 m long at Ridgetown.
Mung beans (“Harosprout”) were planted 3 - 4 cm deep
at the rate of 220,000 seed ha−1 in late May to early June
of each year.
Herbicide applications were made to 2 - 3 trifoliate
leaf mung beans with a CO2-pressurized backpack spray-
er calibrated to deliver 200 L ha−1 of spray solution at a
pressure of 200/240 kPa using low drift nozzles (ULD120-
02, Spraying Systems Co., P.O. Box 7900. Wheaton, IL
60188). The boom was 2.5 m wide with six nozzles
spaced 0.5 m apart. Plots were maintained weed free by
cultivation and hand hoeing as required to eliminate the
confounding effect of weed interference.
Mung bean injury was visually estimated on a scale of
0 (no injury) to 100% (complete plant death) at 1, 2 and
4 weeks after treatment application (WAT). Bean shoot
dry weight was determined 2 WAT by cutting plants at
the soil surface from 1m of row per plot. Plants were dri-
ed at 60 C to constant moisture and then weighed. Mung
bean height was measured for 10 plants in each plot 5
WAT and averaged. Mung bean was considered mature
when 90% of the pods in the untreated control had turned
from green to a golden colour. Beans were harvested from
each plot with a small plot combine, weight and seed
moisture content were recorded, and seed yields were ad-
justed to 13% moisture.
Data were analyzed as an RCBD using PROC MIXED
in SAS 9.2. Herbicide treatment was considered a fixed
effect, while environment (year-location combinations),
the interaction between environment and herbicide treat-
ment, and replicate nested within environment were con-
sidered random effects. Significance of the fixed effect
was tested using F-test and random effects were tested
using a Z-test of the variance estimate. Environments were
combined for a given variable if the environment by her-
bicide treatment interaction was not significant. The
UNIVARIATE procedure was used to test data for nor-
mality and homogeneity of variance. For all injury rat-
ings, the untreated check (assigned a value of zero) was
excluded from the analysis. However, all values were
compared independently to zero to evaluate treatment
differences with the untreated control. To satisfy the as-
sumptions of the variance analyses, moisture was log
transformed (Exeter only), and injury 1, 2 and 4 WAT as
well as shoot dry weight were square root transformed.
Treatment comparisons were made using Fisher’s Pro-
tected LSD at a level of P < 0.05. Data compared on the
transformed scale were converted back to the original
scale for presentation of results.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Analysis of variance indicated that Environment by
treatment interaction was significant for all variables ex-
cept shoot dry weight. Therefore, data for Ridgetown and
Exeter are presented separately for all variables except
hoot dry weight (Tables 1 and 2). s

N. Soltani et al. / Agricultural Sciences 4 (2013) 558-562
560
Table 1. Percent injury 1, 2 and 4 WAT in mung bean treated with various POST herbicides at Exeter (2010-2012) and Ridgetown, ON
(2011-2012). Means followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD at
P < 0.051.
Injury
1 WAT 2 WAT 4 WAT
Treatment Rate Exeter Ridgetown Exeter Ridgetown Exeter Ridgetown
g ai ha−1 %
Untreated 0 a 0 0 a 0 A 0 a 0 a
Bentazon 1080 5 b 16 ab 4 cd 20 C 2 bc 9 bcd
Bentazon 2160 6 b 29 bc 6 de 31 Cd 3 cd 18 de
Fomesafen2 240 3 b 10 a 1 b 4 Ab 0 a 4 b
Fomesafen3 480 5 b 17 ab 2 bc 7 B 0 a 6 bc
Bentazon + fomesafen 840 + 140 6 b 25 bc 4 cd 28 cd 1 b 16 cd
Bentazon + fomesafen 1680 + 280 8 bc 40 cd 7 de 37 cd 2 bc 20 de
Halosulfuron4 35 13 c 53 d 8 e 50 de 5 d 31 ef
Halosulfuron5 70 22 d 65 d 16 f 75 e 9 e 47 f
SE 1 3 1 3 0 3
1Abbreviations: WAT, week after herbicide application; POST, postemergence. 2Mineral oil/surfactant blend added at 0.5% v/v. 3Mineral oil/surfactant blend
added at 1.0% v/v. 4Non-ionic surfactant added at 0.25% v/v. 5Non-ionic surfactant added at 0.5% v/v.
Table 2. Shoot dry weight, height, seed moisture content at harvest and yield for mung bean treated with various postemergence
herbicides at Exeter (2010-2012) and Ridgetown, ON (2011-2012). Means followed by the same letter within a column are not
significantly different according to Fisher’s Protected LSD at P < 0.051.
Height Seed Moisture Yield
Treatment Rate Dry weight Exeter Ridgetown Exeter Ridgetown Exeter Ridgetown
g ai ha-1 g cm % t ha-1
Untreated 58 a 59ab 85a 12.1ab12.9 a 1.30 a 2.26a
Bentazon 1080 35 c 58bc 87a 12.2ab13.4 ab 1.28 a 2.43a
Bentazon 2160 33 cd 56c 86a 12.2bc13.6 abc 1.26 a 2.33a
Fomesafen2 240 54 a 60a 88a 12.1ab12.9 ab 1.35 a 2.49a
Fomesafen3 480 48 ab 59ab 86a 12.0a 13.0 ab 1.32 a 2.32a
Bentazon + fomesafen 840 + 140 38 bc 56c 87a 12.1ab13.3 ab 1.25 a 2.39a
Bentazon + fomesafen 1680 + 280 31 cd 58bc 85a 12.2ab13.5 ab 1.29 a 2.36a
Halosulfuron4 35 31 cd 57bc 74a 12.1ab13.7 bc 1.26 a 2.43a
Halosulfuron5 70 25 d 56c 73a 12.5c 14.3 c 1.09 b 2.16a
SE 2 0 2 0.1 0.2 0.03 0.04
1Abbreviations: POST, postemergence. 2Mineral oil/surfactant blend added at 0.5% v/v. 3Mineral oil/surfactant blend added at 1.0% v/v. 4Non-ionic surfactant
added at 0.25% v/v. 5Non-ionic surfactant added at 0.5% v/v.
3.1. Crop Injury
The POST application of bentazon caused 5% - 29%,
4% - 31%, and 2% - 18% injury, fomesafen caused 3% -
17%, 1% - 7%, and 0% - 6% injury, bentazon + fomesafen
caused 6% - 40%, 4% - 37%, and 1% - 20% injury, and
halosulfuron caused 13% - 65%, 8% - 75%, and 5% -
47% injury in mung bean at 1, 2, and 4 WAT, respec-
tively (Ta b le 1 ). Mung bean injury was significantly hi-
gher at Ridgetown compared to Exeter at all evaluation
dates (Table 1). Injury was generally greater at the 2X
rate compared to the 1X rate for each herbicide evaluated
and decreased over time but differences were not always
statistically significant (Table 2).
In other studies, less than 5% injury was seen in various
market classes of dry bean with fomesafen, bentazon +
fomesafen and imazamox + fomesafen applied POST
[10-12]. Wilson [13] found 3.5, 4.3, 4.8, and 6% injury
with fomesafen applied POST at 210, 280, 560, and 840 g
a.i. ha−1 in dry bean, respectively. There was 8 and 6% in-
jury when fomesfen + imazamox and fomesafen + ben-
tazon were applied POST, respectively [13]. Injury up to
20% has been reported in snap bean with fomesafen ap-
plied POST at 280 g ai ha−1 [14]. Halosulfuron applied
POST in other studies caused as much as 73% injury in
adzuki bean and 13% injury in black, cranberry, kidney,
otebo, pinto, small red Mexican and white beans [15].
Silvey et al. [16] reported 5% injury from halosulfuron

N. Soltani et al. / Agricultural Sciences 4 (2013) 558-562 561
POST in snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Van Gessel
et al. [17] reported 0 to 33% injury to lima bean with
imazamox + bentazon depending on site, year and ap-
plication rate. Wall [18] found that thifensulfuron + ben-
tazon applied POST caused ≤50% injury in navy bean at
2 WAT and ≤14% injury at 4 WAT. Stewart et al. [19]
found up to 67% injury when halosulfuron was applied at
35 g ai ha−1 and 86% injury at 70 g ai ha−1 in adzuki
bean.
3.2. Shoot Dry Weight
Fomesafen applied POST had no adverse effect on
shoot dry weight of mung bean but bentazon, bentazon +
fomesafen and halosulfuron applied POST decreased
shoot dry weight of mung bean as much as 43, 47, and
57%, respectively (Table 2).
In other studies, fomesafen applied alone had no ad-
verse effect on the shoot dry weight of black, cranberry,
kidney, and white bean [20]. The tank mix application of
bentazon + fomesafen applied POST at 840 + 140 or 1680
+ 280 g a.i. ha−1 did not have any adverse effect on the
shoot dry weight of black, brown, cranberry, kidney, otebo,
pinto, white and yellow eye beans [12]. However, halo-
sulfuron applied POST reduced shoot dry weight of ad-
zuki bean 68%, otebo bean 12%, and small red Mexi-
can bean 14% [15]. Shoot dry weight of black, cranberry,
kidney, pinto and white beans was not affected with ha-
losulfuron applied POST [15]. Stewart et al. [19] report-
ed a significant reduction in shoot dry weight with halo-
sulfuron and thifensulfuron applied POST in adzuki
bean.
3.3. Plant Height
Plant height is important in mung bean production as
shorter plants may have greater shatter loss at the cutter
bar of combine during harvesting resulting in reduced
harvested seed yield. At Exeter, fomesafen applied POST
had no adverse effect on the height of mung bean (Table
2). However, bentazon, bentazon + fomesafen and ha-
losulfuron applied POST decreased height of mung bean
as much as 5% compared to the untreated control (Table
2). At Ridgetown, there was no decrease in the height of
mung beans as a result of the herbicides applied compar-
ed to the untreated control (Table 2).
In other studies, bentazon + fomesafen applied POST
reduced height of pinto beans 13% and white navy beans
9% at 1680 + 280 g ha−1, however, there was no effect on
height of black, brown, cranberry, kidney, otebo, and yel-
low eye bean [12]. Halosulfuron applied POST reduced
adzuki bean height up to 60 and 70% at 35 and 70 g ai
ha−1, respectively [15]. Thifensulfuron and halosulfuron
also caused significant reduction in height of adzuki bean
[19]. However, halosulfuron applied POST at 35 and 70
g ai ha−1 caused no adverse effect on the height of black,
cranberry, kidney, otebo, pinto, small red Mexican and
white beans [15].
3.4. Seed Yield and Moisture Content
Seed moisture content at harvest time is critical in dry
bean production as low seed moisture (less than 13%)
can cause split seed coats and high seed moisture content
(greater than 13%) can increase respiration and deterio-
rate seed quality. Fomesafen, bentazon, bentazon + fome-
safen and halosulfuron applied POST had no adverse ef-
fect on the seed moisture content of mung bean with the
exception of halosulfuron applied POST at 70 g ai ha−1
which increased seed moisture content 0.4% at Exeter
and 1.4% at Ridgetown compared to the untreated con-
trol (Table 2). In other studies, halosulfuron applied POST
increased seed moisture content 2.2% at 35 g ai ha−1 and
2.4% at 70 g ai ha−1 in adzuki bean and 3% in cranberry
bean and 1.8% in kidney bean at 70 g ai ha−1 however,
seed moisture content of black, otebo, pinto, small red
Mexican and white beans was not affected with either
rate of halosulfuron [15].
Fomesafen, bentazon, bentazon + fomesafen and halo-
sulfuron applied POST had no adverse effect on the seed
yield of mung bean with the exception of halosulfuron
applied POST at 70 g ai ha−1 which decreased seed yield
16% at Exeter compared to the untreated control (Table
2). In other studies, fomesafen caused no adverse effect
on seed yield of black, cranberry, kidney, and white bean
[20]. The tank mix application of bentazon + fomesafen
applied POST at 840 + 140 or 1680 + 280 g ha−1 has been
shown to have no adverse effect on the seed yield of black,
brown, cranberry, kidney, otebo, pinto, white and yellow
eye beans [12]. Wilson [13] also reported no reduction in
yield with fomesafen applied POST at 210 to 840 g ai ha−1
in dry bean. However, yield reductions of 0 to 22% have
been reported with fomesafen in combination with imaza-
mox when applied POST in white bean [10]. In other
studies, halosulfuron applied POST decreased seed yield
of adzuki bean up to 68% at 70 g ai ha−1, white bean up
to 9% at 70 g ai ha−1 but had no adverse effect on black,
cranberry, kidney, otebo, pinto and small red Mexican
beans [15].
4. CONCLUSION
Bentazon, bentazon + fomesafen and halosulfuron ap-
plied POST at the proposed manufacturer’s rate or twice
that rate have potential to cause severe crop injury in
mung beans. Fomesafen applied POST at the 1X rate
caused initial injury in mung beans under some environ-
ments but the injury was minimal and transient with no
adverse effect on plant height, biomass, seed moisture
content, and seed yield. These results indicate that benta-

N. Soltani et al. / Agricultural Sciences 4 (2013) 558-562
562
[10] Sikkema, P.H., Soltani, N., Shropshire, C. and Cowan, T.
(2004) Tolerance of white beans to postemergence broad-
leaf herbicides. Weed Technology, 18, 893-901.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT-03-043R3
zon, bentazon + fomesafen and halosulfuron applied
POST do not have an adequate margin of crop safety for
use in mung bean. However, fomesafen applied POST at
the proposed manufacturer’s rate of 240 g ai ha−1 has
potential for use in weed management in mung bean
production. Further studies are needed to determine the
efficacy of using fomesafen to control troublesome
weeds in Ontario.
[11] Soltani, N., Nurse, R.E., Robinson, D.E. and Sikkema, P.H.
(2008) Response of pinto and Small Red Mexican bean to
postemergence herbicides. Weed Technology , 22, 195-199.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT-07-091.1
[12] Soltani, N., Shropshire, C. and Sikkema, P.H. (2006) Ef-
fects of post-emergence application of bentazon and fo-
mesafen on eight market classes of dry beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris L.). Crop Protection, 25, 826-830.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2005.11.011
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge Todd Cowan for his exper-
tise and technical assistance in these studies. Funding for this project
was provided in part by Ontario Bean Growers and the Agricultural
Adaptation Council.
[13] Wilson Jr., R.G. (2005) Response of dry bean and weeds
to fomesafen tankmixtures. Weed Technology, 19, 201-
206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT-04-166R
[14] Bailey, W.A., Wilson, H.P. and Hines, T.E. (2003) Weed
control and snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) response to
reduced rates of fomesafen. Weed Technology, 17, 269-
275.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/0890-037X(2003)017[0269:WC
ASBP]2.0.CO;2
REFERENCES
[1] Guenther, L. (2012) Mung bean has potential for Western
Canada.
http://saskpulse.com/news-events/news/mung-bean-has-p
otential-for-western-canada/ [15] Soltani, N., Shropshire, C. and Sikkema, P.H. (2012) Re-
sponse of dry bean to halosulfuron applied postemergen-
ce. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 92, 723-728.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4141/cjps2011-220
[2] Arnold, N.R., Murray, W.M., Gregory, J.E. and Smeal, D.
(1993) Weed control in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)
with imazethapyr combinations. Weed Technology, 7, 361-
364. [16] Silvey, B.D., Mitchem, W.E., Macrae, A.W. and Monks,
D.W. (2006) Snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) tolerance to
halosulfuron PRE, POST, or PRE followed by POST.
Weed Technology , 20, 873-876.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT-05-046.1
[3] Malik, V
.S., Swanton, C.J. and Michaels, T.E. (1993) In-
teraction of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars, row
spacing, and seeding density with annual weeds. Weed
Science, 41, 62-68.
[17] V
anGessel, J.M., Monks, W.D. and Quintin, R.J. (2000)
Herbicides for potential use in lima bean (Phaseolus lu-
natus) production. Weed Technology, 14, 279-286.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/0890-037X(2000)014[0279:HF
PUIL]2.0.CO;2
[4] Chikoye, D., Weise, S.F. and Swanton, C.J. (1995) Influ-
ence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) time
of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vul-
garis). Weed Science, 43, 375-380.
[5] Burnside, O.C., Ahrens, W.H., Holder, B.J., Wiens, M.J.,
Johnson, M.M. and Ristau, E.A. (1994) Efficacy and eco-
nomics of various mechanical plus chemical weed control
systems in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol-
ogy, 8, 238-244.
[18] Wall, D. (1995) Bentazon tank-mixtures for improved
redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and common
lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) control in navy bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technology, 9, 610-616
[19] Stewart, C.L., Nurse, R.E., Gillard, C. and Sikkema, P.H.
(2010) Tolerance of adzuki bean to preplant-incorporated,
pre-emergence, and post-emergence herbicides in Ontario,
Canada. Weed Biology and Management, 10, 40-47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-6664.2010.00365.x
[6] Bauer, T.A., Renner, K.A., Penner, D. and Kelly J.D.
(1995) Pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) varietal tolerance
to imazethapyr. Weed Scienc e , 43 , 417-424.
[7] Urwin, C.P., Wilson, R.G. and Mortensen, D.A. (1996)
Responses of dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) culti-
vars to four herbicides. Weed Technology, 10, 512-518. [20] Sikkema, P
.H., Shropshire, C. and Soltani, N. (2009) Re-
sponse of dry bean to pre-plant incorporated and pre-
emergence applications of S-metolachlor and fomesafen.
Crop Protection, 28, 744-748.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2009.05.011
[8] [OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and
Rural Affairs (2012) Guide to weed control. Publication
75. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Af-
fairs, Toronto.
[9] Senseman, S.A. (2007) Herbicide handbook. 9th Edition.
Weed Science Society of America, Champaign, 458.