Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:21:12.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control in Dry Pea (Pisum sativum) Under Conventional and No-Tillage Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joseph P. Yenish  and
Nichole A. Eaton
Joseph P. Yenish*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6420
Nichole A. Eaton
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6420
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicides were evaluated for weed control and crop response in conventional and no-tillage dry pea production. Preplant or preemergence (PRE) applications of imazethapyr, sulfentrazone, flumetsulam, cloransulam, and BAY FOE 5043 + metribuzin did not show crop injury within the locations, years, and tillage systems where applied. Postemergence applications of cloransulam had crop injury in excess of 60% where applied, and injury with flumiclorac and fomesafen ranged from 0 to greater than 40% with differences in crop injury as a result of dry pea growth stage at the time of application and surfactant use. Imazamox injury was as great as 24% when applied at a more advanced dry pea growth stage and was not different from 0% when applied at an earlier growth stage. Dry pea injury with bentazon was not significant, with an exception at one of the six locations where injury was 14%. Common lambsquarters was best controlled (80 to 90%) with sulfentrazone and imazamox. Preplant and PRE applications of sulfentrazone consistently provided the greatest mayweed chamomile control across tillage systems (control ranged from 59 to 93%), whereas bentazon provided the greatest postemergence (POST) control of mayweed chamomile (control ranged from 46 to 84%). Prickly lettuce control with preplant or PRE treatments was greatest with sulfentrazone (74 to 85%), whereas the greatest POST control was with imazamox in combination with urea-ammonium nitrate solution and surfactant or bentazon and crop oil concentrate (71 to 92%). Dry pea yields with herbicide treatments were not always greater than the nontreated and were often affected by crop injury.

Keywords

BAY FOE 5043, N-(4fluorophenyl)-N-(1-methylethyl)-2-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]oxy]acetamidebentazoncloransulamflumetsulamflumicloracfomesafenimazamoximazethapyrmetribuzinsulfentrazonecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALdry pea, Pisum sativum L., ‘Columbia’, ‘Phantom’mayweed chamomile, Anthemis cotula L. # ANTCOprickly lettuce, Lactuca serriola L. # LACSEConservation tillageherbicide efficacypea yieldCOC, Crop Oil ConcentrateDAT, days after treatmentFPP, fall preplantNIS, nonionic surfactantPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporatedPRE, preemergenceSPP, spring preplantUAN, urea-ammonium nitrate solution
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 88 - 95
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

Agricultural Statistics Board. 2000. Crop Production, 1999 Summary. United States Department of Agriculture—National Agricultural Statistics Service. 110 pp.Google Scholar
Boerboom, C. M. and Young, F. L. 1995. Effect of postplant tillage and crop density on broadleaf weed control in dry pea (Pisum sativum) and lentil (Lens culinaris). Weed Technol. 9: 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conservation Technology Information Center. 1997. 1997 National Crop Residue Management Survey. West Lafayette, IN: Conservation Technology Information Center. 81 p.Google Scholar
Douglas, C. L., Wysocki, D. J., Zuzel, J. F., Rickman, R. W., and Klepper, B. L. 1990. Agronomic Zones for the Dryland Pacific Northwest. PNW Coop. Ext. Bull. PNW 354. 8 p.Google Scholar
Gylling Data Management Incorporated. 2000. Users Guide: Agriculture Research Manager Version 6.1. Brookings, SD: Gylling Data Management.Google Scholar
Jennings, M. D., Miller, B. C., Bezdicek, D. F., and Granatstein, D. 1990. Sustainability of dryland cropping in the Palouse: an historical view. J. Soil Water Conserv. 45: 75–80.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R. and Esau, R. 1996. Imidazolinone herbicide effects on following rotational crops in southern Alberta. Weed Technol. 10: 100–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veseth, R., Cox, D., Guy, S., Thill, D., Hammel, J., Fiez, T., and Yenish, J. 1999. Grower direct seed pea trials in eastern Washington and northern Idaho. In Proc. Northwest Direct Seed Cropping System Conf. and Trade Show. pp. 183–191.Google Scholar
Yoo, K. H. and Molnau, M. 1982. Simulation of soil erosion from winter runoff in the Palouse Prairie of the Pacific Northwest. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. 25: 1,628–1,636.Google 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.Google Scholar