Weed Control, Environmental Impact and Profitability of Pre-Plant Incorporated Herbicides in White Bean

Nader Soltani, Robert E. Nurse, Christy Shropshire, Peter H. Sikkema

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow, ON, Canada..
University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, 120 Main Street E., Ridgetown, ON, Canada;.

DOI: 10.4236/ajps.2012.37102                

Abstract

Three field experiments were conducted over a three-year period (2009 to 2011) to evaluate various preplant incorporated (PPI) herbicides in white bean in Ontario, Canada. There was minimal visible injury in white bean for any of the treatments evaluated. The control of AMARE, AMBEL, CHEAL, SETVI, and SINAR ranged 91%-93%, 13%-21%, 56%-92%, 96%-98%, and 16%-24% with pendimethalin, 93%-99%, 34%-43%, 65%-99%, 95%-100%, and 20%-47% with trifluralin, 66%-77%, 61%-76%, 64%-86%, 94%-99%, and 52%-74% with EPTC, 92%-98%, 27%-48%, 28%-76%, 96%-99%, and 33%-59% with s-metolachlor, 98% - 99%, 50%-72%, 33%-88%, 98%-99%, and 56%-78% with dimethenamid, and 98%-100%, 72%-84%, 97%-100%, 77%-88%, and 98%-100% with imazethapyr, respectively. Weed density and dry weight reduction were similar to visible weed control. Imazethapyr applied PPI at the 75 g ai ha^-1 provided yield equivalent to the weed-free check in 2009 and 2011. All other herbicide treatments had significantly lower yield than weed-free check. All herbicide treatments except pendimethalin at 1080 g ai ha^-1, EPTC at 4400 g ai ha^-1, and imazethapyr at 75 g ai ha^-1 had yield equivalent to the weed-free check in 2010. Based on environmental impact (EI) analysis, the herbicide program with the lowest environmental risk was imazethapyr followed by dimethenamid-p, trifluralin, s-metolachlor, EPTC, and then pendimethalin. Economic analysis of herbicide treatments evaluated indicates that imazethapyr had the greatest positive impact on profit margins, followed by dimethenamid-p and EPTC, followed by s-metolachlor and trifluralin and then pendimethalin.

Keywords

Dimethenamid; EPTC; Imazethapyr; Navy Bean; Pendimethalin; S-Metolachlor; Trifluralin

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	T. Breuer, “The Emerging Bean, Harvest 2002 Edition”, Ontario White Bean Producers. London, ON, Canada. 2002, 16p.
[2]	B. McGee, “Estimated Area, Yield, Production and Farm Value of Specified Field Crops, Ontario, 2001-2011”, [Online] Available: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca /english/stats/crops/estimate_metric.htm [2012, April 8].
[3]	D. Chikoye, S.F. Weise and C.J. Swanton, “Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris),” Weed Sci. Vol. 43, 1995, pp. 375-380.
[4]	V.S. Malik, C.J. Swanton and T.E. Michaels, “Interaction of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars, row spacing, and seeding density with annual weeds,” Weed Sci. Vol. 41, 1993, pp. 62-68.
[5]	C.P. Urwin, R.G. Wilson and D.A. Mortensen, “Responses of dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars to four herbicides,” Weed Technol. Vol. 10, 1996, pp. 512-518.
[6]	Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). “Guide to weed control,” Publication 75, Toronto, ON, Canada, OMAFRA, 2011, 348 pp.
[7]	S.A. Senseman, “Herbicide Handbook,” Ninth Edition. Champaign, IL: Weed Sci. Soc. Am., 2007, 458 pp.
[8]	N.R. Arnold, W.M. Murray, J.E. Gregory and D.Smeal, “Weed control in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with imazethapyr combinations,” Weed Technol. Vol. 7, 1993, pp. 361-364.
[9]	T.A. Bauer, K.A. Renner, D. Penner and J.D. Kelly, “Pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) varietal tolerance to imazethapyr,” Weed Sci. Vol. 43, 1995, pp. 417-424.
[10]	R.G. Wilson and S.D. Miller, “Dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) responses to imazethapyr,” Weed Technol. Vol. 5, 1991, pp. 22-26.
[11]	J. Kovach, C. Petzoldt, J. Degni and J. Tette, “A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides,” New York's Food Life Sciences Bulletin 139, 1992, pp. 139-146.
[12]	J. Kovach, C. Petzoldt, J. Degni and J. Tette, “A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides,” New York's Food Life Sciences Bulletin 139, updated 2004, pp. 139-146.
[13]	T.A.Brimner, G.J. Gallivan and G.R.Stephenson, “Influence of herbicide-resistant canola on the environmental impact of weed management,” Pest Management Sci., Vol. 61, 2005, pp. 47-52.
[14]	N. Soltani, L.L.Van Eerd, R.J. Vyn, C. Shropshire and P.H. Sikkema, “Weed management in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) with dimethenamid plus reduced doses of imazethapyr applied preplant incorporated,” Crop Prot. Vol. 26, 2007, pp. 739-745.
[15]	P.H.Sikkema, L.L.Van Eerd, R.Vyn and S.E.Weaver, “A comparison of reduced rate and economic threshold approaches to weed management in a corn-soybean rotation,” Weed Technol. Vol. 21, 2007, pp. 647-655.
[16]	AGRIS Cooperative Ltd., “Chemical Prices 2009-2011,” AGRIS Cooperative Ltd, Chatham, ON. Canada, 2009-2011.
[17]	P.H. Sikkema, R.J. Vyn, C. Shropshire and N. Soltani, “Integrated weed management in white bean production,” Canadian J. Plant Sci. Vol. 88, 2008, pp. 555-561.
[18]	D.A. Wall, “Bentazon tank mixtures for control of redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters in navy bean,” Weed Technol. Vol. 9, 1995, pp. 610-616.
[19]	R.E. Blackshaw and R. Esau, “Control of annual broadleaf weeds in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris),” Weed Technol. Vol. 5, 1991, pp. 532-538.
[20]	J.R. Cantwell, R.A. Liebl and F.W. Slife, “Imazethapyr for weed control in soybean (Glycine max),” Weed Technol. Vol. 3, 1991, pp. 596-601.