Response of Eight Market Classes of Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to Pendimethalin
Nader Soltani, Robert E. Nurse, Christy Shropshire, Peter H. Sikkema
.
DOI: 10.4236/ajps.2011.26098   PDF   HTML     4,770 Downloads   7,486 Views   Citations

Abstract

There is little information on the tolerance of dry bean to pendimethalin. Field studies were conducted in 2007 to 2009 at Exeter, Ontario and in 2008 and 2009 at Ridgetown, Ontario to evaluate tolerance of black, cranberry, kidney, otebo, pink, pinto, Small Red Mexican and white bean to the pendimethalin applied preplant incorporated at 1080 and 2160 g.a.i.ha-1. Pendimethalin PPI caused minimal injury in most market classes of dry bean at 1 and 2 WAE. There was no injury in various market classes of dry bean with the low dose at 1 and 2 weeks after emergence (WAE). However, at the high dose there was 0 to 4% injury at 1 WAE and 0 to 7% injury at 2 WAE in black, cranberry, kidney, otebo, pink, pinto, SRM and white bean. Pendimethalin PPI was more injurious in white bean than in black, cranberry, kidney, otebo, pink, pinto and SRM bean. Pink and SRM bean exhibited the most tolerance to pendimethalin applied PPI at 1080 g.ai.ha-1 or 2160 g.ai.ha-1. Pendimethalin caused no adverse effect on plant height, shoot dry weight, seed moisture content and seed yield of black, cranberry, kidney, otebo, pink, pinto, SRM and white bean. Based on these results, there is an adequate margin of crop safety for pendimethalin applied PPI at the proposed dose of 1080 g.ai.ha-1 in black, cranberry, kidney, otebo, pink, pinto, SRM and white bean in Ontario.

Share and Cite:

N. Soltani, R. Nurse, C. Shropshire and P. Sikkema, "Response of Eight Market Classes of Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to Pendimethalin," American Journal of Plant Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 6, 2011, pp. 835-840. doi: 10.4236/ajps.2011.26098.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, “Crop Profile for Dry Bean in Canada,” Pest Management Centre Pesticide Risk Reduction Program, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, 2005, pp. 1-31.
[2] B. McGee, “Field Crop Statistics,” Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Rural Affairs, Toronto, 2010. http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/crops/index.html
[3] R. E. Blackshaw, “Hairy Nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) Interference in Dry Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris),” Weed Science, Vol. 39, No. 1, 1991, pp. 48-53.
[4] R. G. Wilson and S. D. Miller, “Dry Edible Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Responses to Imazethapyr,” Weed Technology, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1991, pp. 22-26.
[5] R. G. Wilson, “Wild Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum) Interference in Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris),” Weed Science, Vol. 41, No. 4, 1993, pp. 607-610.
[6] T. A. Bauer, K. A. Renner, D. Penner and J. D. Kelly, “Pinto Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Varietal Tolerance to Imazethapyr,” Weed Science, Vol. 43, No. 3, 1995, pp. 417-424.
[7] C. P. Urwin, R. G. Wilson and D. A. Mortensen, “Responses of Dry Edible Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Cultivars to Four Herbicides,” Weed Technology, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1996, pp. 512-518.
[8] S. A. Senseman, “Herbicide Handbook,” 9th Edition, Weed Science Society of America, Lawrence, 2007, pp. 1-493.
[9] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), “Guide to Weed Control,” Publication 75, Toronto, 2009, pp. 1-396.
[10] K. A. Renner and G. E. Powell, “Responses of Navy Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Grown in Rotation to Clomazone, Imazethapyr, Bentazon, and Acifluorfen,” Weed Science, Vol. 40, No. 1, 1992, pp. 127-133.
[11] R. E. Blackshaw and G. Saindon, “Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Tolerance to Imazethapyr,” Canadian Journal of Plant Science, Vol. 76, No. 4, 1996, pp. 915-919. doi:10.4141/cjps96-153
[12] J. M Van Gessel, W. D. Monks and R. J. Quintin, “Herbicides for Potential Use in Lima Bean (Phaseolus lunatus) Production,” Weed Technology, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2000, pp. 279-286. doi:10.1614/0890-037X(2000)014[0279:HFPUIL]2.0.CO;2
[13] I. K. Ward and E. S. Weaver, “Responses of Eastern Black Nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) to Low Rates of Imazethapyr and Metolachlor,” Weed Science, Vol. 44, No. 4, 1996, pp. 897-902.
[14] N. R. Arnold, W. M. Murray, J. E. Gregory and D. Smeal, “Weed Control in Pinto Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with Imazethapyr Combinations,” Weed Technology, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1993, pp. 361-364.
[15] D. C. McClary, T. L. Raney and T. A. Lumpkin, “Japanese Food Marketing Channels: A Case Study of Azuki Beans and Azuki Products,” Washington State University IMPACT Center Rpt., Pullman, 1989, p. 29.
[16] N. Soltani, C. Shropshire, D. E. Robinson and P. H. Sikkema, “Sensitivity of Adzuki Bean (Vigna angularis) to Preplant-Incorporated Herbicides,” Weed Technology, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2005, pp. 897-901. doi:10.1614/WT-05-005R1.1
[17] N. Soltani, R. E. Nurse, L. L. Van Eerd, R. J. Vyn, C. Shropshire and P. H. Sikkema, “Weed Control, Environmental Impact and Profitability with Trifluralin Plus Reduced Doses of Imazethapyr in Dry Bean,” Crop Protection, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2010, pp. 364-368.
[18] P. H. Sikkema, D. E. Robinson, C. Shropshire and N. Soltani, “Tolerance of Otebo Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) to New Herbicides in Ontario,” Weed Technology, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2006, pp. 862-866. doi:10.1614/WT-05-144.1
[19] N. Soltani, C. Shropshire, T. Cowan and P. Sikkema, “Tolerance of Cranberry Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to Soil Applications of S-Metolachlor and Imazethapyr,” Canadian Journal of Plant Science, Vol. 83, 2003 pp. 645-648. doi:10.4141/P03-006
[20] N. Soltani, C. Shropshire, T. Cowan and P. Sikkema, “Tolerance of Black Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to Soil Applications of S-Metolachlor and Imazethapyr,” Weed Technology, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2004, pp. 166-173. doi:10.1614/WT-03-044R
[21] N. Soltani, S. Bowley and P. H. Sikkema, “Responses of Dry Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to Flumioxazin,” Weed Technology, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2005, pp. 351-358. doi:10.1614/WT-04-146R1
[22] P. Sikkema, N. Soltani, C. Shropshire and T. Cowan, “Sensitivity of Kidney Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to Soil Applications of S-Metolachlor and Imazethapyr,” Canadian Journal of Plant Science, Vol. 84, No. 1, 2004, pp. 405-407. doi:10.4141/P03-069
[23] P. Sikkema, C. Shropshire and N. Soltani, “Dry Bean Response to Preemergence-Applied KIH-485,” Weed Technology, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2007, pp. 230-234. doi:10.4141/P03-069
[24] S. P. Singh, P. Gepts and D. G. Debouck, “Races of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, Fabaceae,” Economic Botany, Vol. 45, No. 3, 1991, pp. 379-396. doi:10.1007/BF02887079
[25] S. P. Singh, J. A. Gutierrez, A. Molina, C. Urrea and P. Gepts, “Genetic Diversity in Cultivated Common Bean: II. Marker-Based Analysis of Morphological and Agronomic Traits,” Crop Science, Vol. 31, 1991, pp. 23-29. doi:10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183X003100010005x
[26] S. P. Singh, R. Nodari and P. Gepts, “Genetic Diversity in Cultivated Common Bean: I. Allozymes,” Crop Science, Vol. 31, 1991, pp. 19-23. doi:10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183X003100010004x
[27] G. E. Powell, C. L. Sprague and K. A. Renner, “Adzuki Bean: Weed Control and Production Issues,” 59th North Central Weed Science Proceedings, Vol. 59, 2004, p. 32.

Copyright © 2021 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.