Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:41:35.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Several Herbicides on Green Pea (Pisum sativum) and Subsequent Crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy W. Miller
Timothy W. Miller*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, 16650 State Route 536, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Five herbicides were tested in green pea, and their residual effects on several rotational crops were investigated in northwestern Washington from 1998 through 2000. In both years, imazamox applied postemergence caused 21 and 28% early-season injury at 0.036 and 0.045 kg/ha, respectively, but only in 1999 did early-season injury result in yield loss compared with nontreated, weedy pea. Trifluralin, clomazone, and sulfentrazone caused 15 to 19% injury to pea in 1998 but not in 1999. Although pea treated with sulfentrazone produced more harvestable pods than nontreated pea (5.0 and 4.1 pods/plant, respectively), pod numbers were similar to peas treated with clomazone, pendimethalin, pendimethalin plus imazamox, or trifluralin. All rotationally grown crops were tolerant to herbicides used in green pea, except for strawberry in 1999, in which leaf area was reduced 23% in plots treated with 0.045 kg/ha imazamox compared with nontreated plots. Intensive tillage combined with favorable soil and climatic conditions in this study indicate that western Washington green pea producers may have greater flexibility in their choice of herbicides and rotational crop alternatives than previously believed.

Keywords

Clomazoneimazamoxpendimethalinsulfentrazonetrifluralingreen pea, Pisum sativum Lstrawberry, Fragaria × ananassa DuchCarry overrotational cropsPOST, postemergencePOTR, posttransplantPPI, preplant incorporatedppt, precipitationPRE, preemergenceUAN, urea–ammonium nitrate
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 731 - 737
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Ahrens, W. H. and Fuerst, E. P. 1990. Carryover injury of clomazone applied in soybeans (Glycine max) and fallow. Weed Technol. 4:855–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 1959. Table 1: U.S. Standards for Grades of Frozen Peas. Processing Products Branch, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. 5 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001. Washington Agricultural Statistics: Vegetables. Olympia, WA: Washington Agricultural Statistics Service. Pp. 57–60.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. and Walenta, D. L. 1998. Imazamox Carry-Over to Barley, Canola, and Spring Wheat. Western Society of Weed Science Research Progress Rep. 71 p.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1998. Postemergence weed control in pea (Pisum sativum) with imazamox. Weed Technol. 12:64–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Molnar, L. J., Muendel, H-H., Saindon, G., and Li, X. 2000. Integration of cropping practices and herbicides improves weed management in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 14:327–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1974. Trifluralin dissipation in soil following repeated applications. Weed Sci. 22:374–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobucci, T., Prates, H. T., Falcao, C. L. M., and Rezende, M. M. V. 1998. Effect of imazamox, fomesafen, and acifluorfen soil residue on rotational crops. Weed Sci. 46:258–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croster, M. P. and Masiunas, J. B. 1998. The effect of weed-free period and nitrogen on eastern black nightshade competition with English pea. Hortscience 33:88–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, W. S., Liebl, R. A., and Simmons, F. W. 1992. Effects of tillage and application method on clomazone, imazaquin, and imazethapyr persistence. Weed Sci. 40:482–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallaher, K. and Mueller, T. C. 1996. Effect of crop presence on persistence of atrazine, metribuzin, and clomazone in surface soils. Weed Sci. 44:698–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Fay, P. K., and Inskeep, W. P. 1989. Clomazone dissipation in two Montana soils. Weed Technol. 3:146–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvey, P. V. and Monks, D. W. 1998. Response of vegetable crops grown in rotation to sulfentrazone treated soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 91–92.Google Scholar
Gerwing, P. D. and McKercher, R. B. 1992. The relative persistence of trifluralin (545 EC and 5 G) and ethalfluralin in prairie soils. Can. J. Soil Sci 72:255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. C., and Brecke, B. J. 2000. Response of seven peanut cultivars to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 14:51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, B. D. and Thill, D. C. 2001. Effects of imazethapyr and pendimethalin on lentil (Lens culinaris), pea (Pisum sativum), and a subsequent winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) crop. Weed Technol. 15:190–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harker, K. N., Blackshaw, R. E., and Clayton, G. W. 2001. Timing weed removal in field pea (Pisum sativum). Weed Technol. 15:277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havens, D. 1997. Skagit County Ag Stats. Mount Vernon, WA: Washington State University Cooperative Extension. 26 p.Google Scholar
Lawson, H. M. and Topham, P. B. 1985. Competition between annual weeds and vining peas grown at a range of population densities: effects on the weeds. Weed Res. 25:221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Availability and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in soil. Weed Sci. 37:259–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCue, A. S. and Minotti, P. L. 1979. Competition between peas and broadleaf weeds. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc 33:106.Google Scholar
McNevin, G. R. and Harvey, R. G. 1982. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in processing peas (Pisum sativum) and soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 30:365–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, T. W. and Libbey, C. R. 1999. Herbicides for Weed Control in Green Peas. Western Society of Weed Science Research Progress Rep. Pp. 68–70.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. C. and Nylund, R. E. 1962. Competition between peas grown for processing and weeds. Weeds 10:224–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohmes, G. A., Hayes, R. M., and Mueller, T. C. 2000. Sulfentrazone dissipation in a Tennessee soil. Weed Technol. 14:100–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, K. A., Meggitt, W. F., and Leavitt, R. A. 1988. Influence of rate, method of application, and tillage on imazaquin persistence in soil. Weed Sci. 36:90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1992. Response of navy bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) grown in rotation to clomazone, imazethapyr, bentazon, and acifluorfen. Weed Sci. 40:127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyes, C. C. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1989. Mathematical description of trifluralin degradation in soil. Weed Sci. 37:604–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. 5th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 956 p.Google Scholar
Shea, P. J. 1985. Detoxification of herbicide residues in soil. Weed Sci. 33: (Suppl. 2). 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, F. C. and van Kessel, C. 1996. The nitrogen and non-nitrogen rotation benefits of pea to succeeding crops. Can. J. Plant Sci 76:735–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szeto, S. Y. and Price, P. M. 1991. Persistence of pesticide residues in mineral and organic soils in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia. J. Agric. Food Chem. 39:1679–1684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Frank, J. R. 1983. Tolerance of peas (Pisum sativum) to acifluorfen applied postemergence. Weed Sci. 31:592–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Monks, D. W., and Johnson, Q. R. 2000. Herbicides for potential use in lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus) production. Weed Technol. 14:279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vencill, W. K. ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 87, 248, 341, 406, and 442.Google Scholar
Walsh, J. D., DeFelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1993. Influence of tillage on soybean (Glycine max) herbicide carryover to grass and legume forage crops in Missouri. Weed Sci. 41:144–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, J. J. and Talbert, R. E. 1998. Cultivar tolerance of southern peas (Vigna sinensis) to sulfentrazone. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 264.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G., Shea, P. J., and Tupy, D. R. 1995. Dinitroaniline herbicide carry over to sugar beet. J. Sugar Beet Res 32:201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wixson, M. B. and Shaw, D. R. 1992. Effects of soil-applied ACC 263,222 on crops rotated with soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6:276–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yenish, J. P. and Eaton, N. A. 2002. Weed control in dry pea (Pisum sativum) under conventional and no-tillage systems. Weed Technol. 16:88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, F. L., Ogg, A. G. Jr., Thill, D. C., Young, D. L., and Papendick, R. I. 1996. Weed management for crop production in the northwest wheat (Triticum aestivum) region. Weed Sci. 44:429–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L., Catizone, P., and Butcher, A. C. 1984. Degradation of pendimethalin in soil. Weed Sci. 32:408–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar