Share This Article:

Weed Control with Halosulfuron Applied Preplant Incorporated, Preemergence or Postemergence in White Bean

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:2570KB) PP. 875-881
DOI: 10.4236/as.2014.510094    2,172 Downloads   2,461 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

Four field trials were conducted over a three-year period (2011-2013) at various locations in Ontario to evaluate the level of weed control provided by halosulfuron applied PPI,PREor POST at 17.5, 35 and 70 g·ai·ha-1 in white bean. Halosulfuron applied PPI or PRE at 17.5, 35 and 35 g·ai·ha-1 caused 2% or less visible injury 1 and 4 WAA in white bean. However, halosulfuron applied POST at 17.5, 35 and 70 g·ai·ha-1 caused 2% - 8% and 1% - 3% white bean injury at 1 and 4 WAA, respectively. There was no decrease in white bean seed yield relative to the weed free check due to weed interference with halosulfuron applied PPI or PRE at doses evaluated, except when applied PRE at 17.5 g·ai·ha-1 which resulted in a decrease in seed yield of 25%. Weed interference caused a decrease in white bean yield of 47%, 42% and 44%, when halosulfuron was applied POST at 17.5, 35 and 70 g·ai·ha-1, respectively. Halosulfuron applied PPI, PRE and POST controlled AMARE 92% - 100%, 85% - 99% and 47% - 75%; CHEAL 95% - 100%, 83% - 99% and 36% - 51%; and SINAR 97% - 100%, 99% - 100% and 100%, respectively. Halosulfuron applied PPI and PRE reduced AMARE density 93% - 97% and 75% - 95%; CHEAL density 89% - 98% and 81% - 93%; and SINAR density 99% - 100% and 99% - 100%, respectively. Halosulfuron applied PPI and PRE reduced dry weight of AMARE 96% - 98% and 86% - 96%; CHEAL 96% - 98% and 87% - 93%; and SINAR 100% and 100%, respectively. Halosulfuron applied POST at rates evaluated reduced SINAR density and dry weight 100% but caused no significant reduction in AMARE and CHEAL density or dry weight compared to the weedy check. Based on these results, halosulfuron applied PPI orPREat 35 g·ai·ha-1 can be used safely for the control of selected broadleaf weeds in white bean production.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Soltani, N. , Nurse, R. , Shropshire, C. and Sikkema, P. (2014) Weed Control with Halosulfuron Applied Preplant Incorporated, Preemergence or Postemergence in White Bean. Agricultural Sciences, 5, 875-881. doi: 10.4236/as.2014.510094.

References

[1] Kulasekera, K. (2014) Estimated Area, Yield, Production and Farm Value of Specified Field Crops, Ontario, 2011-2013 (Metric Units). Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/crops/estimate_new.htm
[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.
[3] Bauer, T.A., Renner, K.A., Penner, D. and Kelly, J.D. (1995) Pinto Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Varietal Tolerance to Imazethapyr. Weed Science, 43, 417-424.
[4] Blackshaw, R.E. and Esau, R. (1991) Control of Annual Broadleaf Weeds in Pinto Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technology, 5, 532-538.
[5] Urwin, C.P., Wilson, R.G. and Mortensen, D.A. (1996) Responses of Dry Edible Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Cultivars to Four Herbicides. Weed Technology, 10, 512-518.
[6] Wilson, R.G. and Miller, S.D. (1991) Dry Edible Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Responses to Imazethapyr. Weed Technology, 5, 22-26.
[7] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) (2013) Guide to Weed Control. Publication 75. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs, Toronto.
[8] Senseman, S.A. (2007) Herbicide Handbook, Ninth Edition. Weed Science Society of America, Champaign, 458 p.
[9] Soltani, N., Shropshire, C. and Sikkema, P.H. (2012) Response of Dry Bean to Halosulfuron Applied Postemergence. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 92, 723-728. http://dx.doi.org/10.4141/cjps2011-220
[10] 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
[11] Soltani, N., Nurse, R.E. and Sikkema, P.H. (2013) Weed Management in White Bean with Postemergence Herbicide Tankmixes. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 93, 669-674. http://dx.doi.org/10.4141/cjps2012-273
[12] 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
[13] 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.
[14] Sikkema, P.H., Soltani N., Shropshire C. and Cowan. T. (2004) Tolerance of White Beans to Postemergence Broadleaf Herbicides. Weed Technology, 18, 893-901. http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT-03-043R3
[15] Burnside, O.C., Ahrens, W.H., Holder, B.J., Wiens, M.J., Johnson, M.M. and Ristau, E.A. (1994) Efficacy and Economics of Various Mechanical Plus Chemical Weed Control Systems in Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technology, 8, 238-244.
[16] VanGessel, J.M. and Westra, P. (1997) Economics and Efficacy of Postemergence Spurred Anoda (Anoda cristata) Control in Pinto Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technology, 11, 329-334.
[17] 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

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.