Snap Bean Tolerance to Herbicides in Ontario

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 962-967 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen E. McNaughton ◽  
Peter H. Sikkema ◽  
Darren E. Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Plant Height ◽  
Crop Yield ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Treatment Plant ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Management Tools ◽  
Snap Bean ◽  
Bean Yield

Snap bean was evaluated for sensitivity to a number of herbicides in field studies conducted during a 2-yr period in Exeter, ON. Preemergence (PRE) applications of metolachlor (1,600 and 3,200 g ai/ha), imazethapyr (75 and 150 g ai/ha), and clomazone plus metobromuron (840 + 1,000 g ai/ha and 1,680 + 2,000 g/ha) were evaluated for visual injury at 7, 14, and 28 d after emergence. Postemergence (POST) applications of imazamox plus fomesafen (25 + 200 g ai/ha and 50 + 400 g/ha), quizalofop-P (72 and 144 g ai/ha), and clethodim (90 and 180 g ai/ha) also were evaluated for visual injury 7, 14, and 28 d after treatment. Plant height and crop yield were assessed for all treatments. Visual injury, stunting, and yield loss were not observed in the metolachlor treatments. Imazethapyr (150 g/ha) caused stunting and reduced snap bean yield in both study years. Clomazone plus metobromuron (1,680 + 2,000 g/ha) injured and stunted snap bean in both years of the study and reduced yield in 2000. Imazamox plus fomesafen (50 + 400 g/ha) injured snap bean in both years but only reduced yield in 2000. Quizalofop-P injured snap bean but did not reduce plant height or yield. Clethodim did not injure, stunt, or reduce yield of snap bean. Metolachlor (PRE), imazamox plus fomesafen (POST), quizalofop-P (POST), and clethodim (POST) have excellent potential as weed management tools in snap bean in Ontario.

Potential Yield Loss in Dry Bean Crops Due to Weeds in the United States and Canada

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 342-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Soltani ◽  
J. Anita Dille ◽  
Robert H. Gulden ◽  
Christy L. Sprague ◽  
Richard K. Zollinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Census Data ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
The United States ◽  
Yield Losses ◽  
Potential Yield ◽  
Dry Bean ◽  
Bean Yield

AbstractEarlier reports have summarized crop yield losses throughout various North American regions if weeds were left uncontrolled. Offered here is a report from the current WSSA Weed Loss Committee on potential yield losses due to weeds based on data collected from various regions of the United States and Canada. Dry bean yield loss estimates were made by comparing dry bean yield in the weedy control with plots that had >95% weed control from research studies conducted in dry bean growing regions of the United States and Canada over a 10-year period (2007 to 2016). Results from these field studies showed that dry bean growers in Idaho, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Ontario, and Manitoba would potentially lose an average of 50%, 31%, 36%, 59%, 94%, 31%, 71%, 56%, and 71% of their dry bean yield, respectively. This equates to a monetary loss of US $36, 40, 6, 56, 421, 2, 18, 44, and 44 million, respectively, if the best agronomic practices are used without any weed management tactics. Based on 2016 census data, at an average yield loss of 71.4% for North America due to uncontrolled weeds, dry bean production in the United States and Canada would be reduced by 941,000,000 and 184,000,000 kg, valued at approximately US $622 and US $100 million, respectively. This study documents the dramatic yield and monetary losses in dry beans due to weed interference and the importance of continued funding for weed management research to minimize dry bean yield losses.

scholarly journals The Pitfalls of Relating Weeds, Herbicide Use, and Crop Yield: Don't Fall Into the Trap! A Critical Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Colbach ◽  
Sandrine Petit ◽  
Bruno Chauvel ◽  
Violaine Deytieux ◽  
Martin Lechenet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Crop Yield ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Crop Production ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Crop Yields ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Crop Productivity ◽  
Arable Farming ◽  
Herbicide Use ◽  
The Impact

The growing recognition of the environmental and health issues associated to pesticide use requires to investigate how to manage weeds with less or no herbicides in arable farming while maintaining crop productivity. The questions of weed harmfulness, herbicide efficacy, the effects of herbicide use on crop yields, and the effect of reducing herbicides on crop production have been addressed over the years but results and interpretations often appear contradictory. In this paper, we critically analyze studies that have focused on the herbicide use, weeds and crop yield nexus. We identified many inconsistencies in the published results and demonstrate that these often stem from differences in the methodologies used and in the choice of the conceptual model that links the three items. Our main findings are: (1) although our review confirms that herbicide reduction increases weed infestation if not compensated by other cultural techniques, there are many shortcomings in the different methods used to assess the impact of weeds on crop production; (2) Reducing herbicide use rarely results in increased crop yield loss due to weeds if farmers compensate low herbicide use by other efficient cultural practices; (3) There is a need for comprehensive studies describing the effect of cropping systems on crop production that explicitly include weeds and disentangle the impact of herbicides from the effect of other practices on weeds and on crop production. We propose a framework that presents all the links and feed-backs that must be considered when analyzing the herbicide-weed-crop yield nexus. We then provide a number of methodological recommendations for future studies. We conclude that, since weeds are causing yield loss, reduced herbicide use and maintained crop productivity necessarily requires a redesign of cropping systems. These new systems should include both agronomic and biodiversity-based levers acting in concert to deliver sustainable weed management.

Volunteer potato interference in carrot

Weed Science ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin M. Williams ◽  
Rick A. Boydston
Keyword(s):  
Weed Management ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Functional Relationships ◽  
Weed Growth ◽  
Volunteer Potato ◽  
Tuber Production ◽  
Hand Weeding ◽  
Management Recommendations

Weed management systems in carrot are limited in part by a lack of fundamental understanding of crop–weed interactions. Irrigated field studies were conducted to quantify the effect of volunteer potato density and duration of interference on carrot yield and to determine relationships among weed density, duration of weed growth, and volunteer potato tuber production. A season-long volunteer potato density of 0.06 plants m−2produced from 150 to 230 g tubers m−2and resulted in an estimated 5% crop yield loss. At two volunteer potato plants m−2, the same level of crop loss was estimated with a duration of interference of 430 growing degree days (GDD), a time at which the weed had already produced 130 g tubers m−2. Volunteer potato height at the time of weed removal predicted carrot yield loss (R2= 0.77) and may be useful for timing of management strategies such as hand weeding. Functional relationships describing carrot–volunteer potato interactions provide simple information that is useful for developing weed management recommendations for carrot, a crop that relies on multiple tactics for managing weeds, and rotational crops that are negatively affected by persistence of volunteer potato.

scholarly journals Volunteer Corn (Zea mays) Interference in Dry Edible Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 937-942 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustavo M. Sbatella ◽  
Andrew R. Kniss ◽  
Emmanuel C. Omondi ◽  
Robert G. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Yield Loss ◽  
Proper Time ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Dry Bean ◽  
Dry Edible Bean ◽  
Seed Field ◽  
Bean Yield ◽  
Volunteer Corn ◽  
Growing Conditions

Volunteer corn can affect dry bean by reducing yields; expanding the life cycle of insects, mites, and pathogens; interfering with harvest; and contaminating bean seed. Field studies were conducted at Lingle, WY, and Scottsbluff, NE, to determine the relationship between volunteer corn density and dry bean yield, establish the proper time of volunteer corn removal, and determine whether dry bean yield was affected by the method used to remove volunteer corn. Volunteer corn reduced dry bean yields, as recorded in other crops. Growing conditions for each location were different, as indicated by the accumulated growing degree days (GDD): Lingle 2008 (990), Lingle 2009 (780), and Scottsbluff 2009 (957). No difference in dry bean yields was observed between hand removal of volunteer corn and herbicide application. Dry bean yield loss increased with longer periods of volunteer corn competition and ranged from 1.2 to 1.8% yield loss for every 100 GDD that control was delayed. Control measures should be implemented 15 to 20 d after planting when volunteer corn densities are close to 1 plant m−2. Dry bean yield losses also increased as volunteer corn densities increased, with losses from 6.5 to 19.3% for 1 volunteer corn plant m−2. Based on 2015 prices, the cost of controlling volunteer corn would be the equivalent of 102 kg ha−1of dry bean, and potential losses above 4% would justify control and should not be delayed beyond 15 to 20 d after planting.

Modeling With Limited Data: The Influence of Crop Rotation and Management on Weed Communities and Crop Yield Loss

Weed Science ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Canner ◽  
L. J. Wiles ◽  
Robert H. Erskine ◽  
Gregory S. McMaster ◽  
Gale H. Dunn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Crop Rotation ◽  
Crop Yield ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Crop Rotations ◽  
Alternative Crop ◽  
Weed Communities ◽  
Multiple Species ◽  
Crop Yield Loss

Theory and models of crop yield loss from weed competition have led to decision models to help growers choose cost-effective weed management. These models are available for multiple-species weed communities in a single season of several crops. Growers also rely on crop rotation for weed control, yet theory and models of weed population dynamics have not led to similar tools for planning of crop rotations for cost-effective weed management. Obstacles have been the complexity of modeling the dynamics of multiple populations of weed species compared to a single species and lack of data. We developed a method to use limited, readily observed data to simulate population dynamics and crop yield loss of multiple-species weed communities in response to crop rotation, tillage system, and specific weed management tactics. Our method is based on the general theory of density dependence of plant productivity and extensive use of rectangular hyperbolic equations for describing crop yield loss as a function of weed density. Only two density-independent parameters are required for each species to represent differences in seed bank mortality, emergence, and maximum seed production. One equation is used to model crop yield loss and density-dependent weed seed production as a function of crop and weed density, relative time of weed and crop emergence, and differences among species in competitive ability. The model has been parameterized for six crops and 15 weeds, and limited evaluation indicates predictions are accurate enough to highlight potential weed problems and solutions when comparing alternative crop rotations for a field. The model has been incorporated into a decision support tool for whole-farm management so growers in the Central Great Plains of the United States can compare alternative crop rotations and how their choice influences farm income, herbicide use, and control of weeds in their fields.

Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Tolerance to Halosulfuron PRE, POST, or PRE followed by POST

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 873-876 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandy D. Silvey ◽  
Wayne E. Mitchem ◽  
Andrew W. Macrae ◽  
David W. Monks
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Phaseolus Vulgaris ◽  
Field Experiment ◽  
Plant Height ◽  
Linear Trend ◽  
Bean Plant ◽  
Snap Bean ◽  
Yellow Nutsedge ◽  
Crop Injury ◽  
Bean Yield

A field experiment was conducted in 1996 and 1997 to determine snap bean tolerance to halosulfuron based on crop injury, height, and yield. Halosulfuron was applied preemergence (PRE), postemergence (POST), and sequentially PRE followed by (fb) POST at 35, 53, and 70 g ai/ha, respectively. For comparison, a hand-weeded check was included. When data were averaged across years and halosulfuron rates, halosulfuron PRE, POST, and PRE fb POST provided similar yellow nutsedge control (74 to 82%) at snap bean harvest. Halosulfuron PRE resulted in 4% snap bean injury at harvest. Similarly, halosulfuron PRE fb POST resulted in 5% injury, while halosulfuron POST caused the most damage at 8%. Snap bean height at harvest was reduced 14% with halosulfuron POST compared to the weed-free check, with only 5 and 6% reduction caused by halosulfuron PRE and PRE fb POST, respectively. Halosulfuron POST reduced yield 39% compared to the weed-free check, while the PRE and PRE fb POST application timings produced yield similar to the check. When averaged across years and halosulfuron application timings, an increase in halosulfuron rate had no effect on yellow nutsedge control or snap bean yield. A linear trend was found for snap bean injury and plant height at harvest with snap bean injury increasing with an increase in halosulfuron rate while snap bean plant height decreased with an increase in halosulfuron rate. Application of halosulfuron PRE is the safest means to control yellow nutsedge in snap bean in North Carolina.

Variation in Wild Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum) Fecundity in Sweet Corn Has Residual Effects in Snap Bean

Weed Science ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 502-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam S. Davis ◽  
Martin M. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Population Density ◽  
Crop Yield ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Sweet Corn ◽  
Seedling Recruitment ◽  
Residual Effects ◽  
Snap Bean ◽  
Weed Population ◽  
Proso Millet

Bioeconomic models are predicated upon the relationship between weed fecundity and crop yield loss in consecutive growing seasons, yet this phenomenon has received few empirical tests. Residual effects of wild proso millet (WPM) fecundity in sweet corn upon WPM seedling recruitment, weed management efficacy, and crop yield within a subsequent snap bean crop were investigated with field experiments in Urbana, IL, in 2005 and 2006. WPM fecundity in sweet corn showed strong positive associations with WPM seedbank density, seedling recruitment, and demographic transitions within snap bean. A negative exponential relationship between WPM initial seedling density and seedling survival of a single rotary hoe pass indicated that the rotary hoe was ineffective at low weed population densities, but its efficacy increased with increasing weed population density to a maximum of 75% seedling mortality. Efficacy of postemergent chemical control of WPM was unaffected by WPM population density. Path analysis models demonstrated dependence between WPM fecundity in sweet corn, WPM seedling recruitment in snap bean, and reductions in snap bean yield in subsequent growing season, mediated by negative impacts of WPM seedling establishment on snap bean stand. These results underscore the importance of expanding integrated weed management programs to include management of annual weed populations both at the end of their life cycle, by reducing fecundity and seed survival, and at the very beginning of their life cycle, by reducing seedling recruitment and establishment.

Response of Rice to Drift Rates of Glyphosate Applied at Low Carrier Volumes

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin B. Hensley ◽  
Eric P. Webster ◽  
David C. Blouin ◽  
Dustin L. Harrell ◽  
Jason A. Bond
Keyword(s):  
Plant Height ◽  
Crop Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Crop Injury ◽  
Total Crop ◽  
Spray Volume ◽  
The One ◽  
Herbicide Drift ◽  
Crop Maturity

Field studies were conducted near Crowley, LA in 2005 through 2007 to evaluate the effects of simulated herbicide drift on ‘Cocodrie' rice. Each application was made with the spray volume varying proportionally to herbicide dosage based on a constant spray volume of 234 L ha−1 and a glyphosate rate of 863 g ae ha−1. The 6.3%, 54–g ha−1, herbicide rate was applied at a spray volume of 15 L ha−1, and the 12.5%, 108–g ha−1, herbicide rate was applied at a spray volume of 29 L ha−1. Compared with the nontreated, glyphosate applied at one tiller, panicle differentiation (PD), and boot resulted in increased crop injury. The greatest injury was observed on rice treated at the one-tiller timing. Applications of glyphosate at one tiller, PD, and boot reduced plant height at harvest and primary and total crop yield. Rice treated at primary crop maturity was not affected by glyphosate applications.

scholarly journals Performance of WeedSOFT for Predicting Soybean Yield Loss

2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 478-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn M. Hock ◽  
Stevan Z. Knezevic ◽  
Alex R. Martin ◽  
John L. Lindquist
Keyword(s):  
Crop Yield ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Dry Matter ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
The United States ◽  
Weed Species ◽  
Trifoliate Leaf ◽  
Soybean Yield ◽  
Weed Emergence ◽  
Crop Yield Loss

Decision support systems (DSSs) have been developed to assist producers and consultants with weed management decisions. WeedSOFT is a DSS currently used in several states in the north-central region of the United States. Accurate estimates of crop yield loss due to weed interference are required for cost-effective weed management recommendations. WeedSOFT uses competitive indices (CIs) to predict crop yield loss under multiple weed species, weed densities, and relative times of weed emergence. Performance of several WeedSOFT versions to predict soybean yield loss from weed competition was evaluated using CI values in WeedSOFT version 9.0 compared to new CI values calculated from weed dry matter, weed volume, and soybean yield loss in two soybean row spacings (19 and 76 cm) and two relative weed emergence times (at soybean emergence and first trifoliate leaf stage). Overall, new CI values improved predictions of soybean yield loss by as high as 63%. It was especially true with using new CI values based on yield loss compared to those based on weed dry matter or weed volume. However, there were inconsistencies in predictions for most weed species, suggesting that additional modifications are needed to further improve soybean yield loss predictions.

Rice Crop Response to Simulated Drift of Imazamox

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric P. Webster ◽  
Justin B. Hensley ◽  
David C. Blouin ◽  
Dustin L. Harrell ◽  
Jason A. Bond
Keyword(s):  
Plant Height ◽  
Crop Yield ◽  
Field Studies ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Ratoon Crop ◽  
Physiological Maturity ◽  
Yield Increase ◽  
Spray Volume ◽  
The One ◽  
Herbicide Drift

Field studies were conducted near Crowley, LA, to evaluate the effects of simulated herbicide drift on ‘Cocodrie' rice. Each treatment was made with the spray volume varying proportionally to herbicide dosage based on a spray volume of 234 L ha−1and an imazamox rate of 44 g ai ha−1. The 6.3%, 2.7-g ha−1, herbicide rate was applied at a spray volume of 15 L ha−1and the 12.5%, 5.5-g ha−1, herbicide rate was applied at a spray volume of 29 L ha−1. Rice was treated at the one-tiller, panicle differentiation, boot, and physiological maturity growth stages. Injury was observed with imazamox applied at the one-tiller timing. Injury was not observed until 21 and 28 d after treatment (DAT) when imazamox was applied at the panicle differentiation and boot timings. The greatest reduction in plant height resulted from applications at the one-tiller timing at 7 and 14 DAT; however, when evaluated at harvest, plant height was reduced no more than 10%. Imazamox, averaged over rate, applied to rice at the boot timing reduced primary crop yield 66% compared with the nontreated. Applications at the boot timing resulted in an increased ratoon crop yield; however, the yield increase did not compensate for the loss in the primary crop yield.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document