Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:15:11.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

English Pea (Pisum sativum) Tolerance to Paraquat and Paraquat Plus Bentazon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robin R. Bellinder ,
Russell W. Wallace  and
Grant L. Jordan
Robin R. Bellinder
Affiliation:
Department of Fruit and Vegetable Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Russell W. Wallace
Affiliation:
Department of Fruit and Vegetable Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Grant L. Jordan
Affiliation:
ACDS Research, Inc., Lyons, NY 14489
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted between 1990 and 1992 to determine tolerance of English pea at different growth stages to bentazon (0.56 kg ai/ha) and paraquat (0.14 kg ai/ha), applied alone and in combination. Initial crop injury with paraquat and paraquat plus bentazon averaged 37 and 21%, respectively. Crop injury dissipated by 21 d after treatment. Foliar injury at the different growth stages was equivalent but yields of peas treated at the six-node stage were reduced in two of four trials. Applying paraquat plus bentazon at the earlier growth stages consistently resulted in pea yields equivalent to those of plots receiving trifluralin plus handweeding or bentazon alone. Greenhouse studies were conducted to determine the effect of paraquat plus bentazon on control of selected weeds common to pea production fields. Redroot pigweed, common purslane, and common lambsquarters mortalities were 100, 100, and 90%, respectively, with the bentazon plus paraquat combination. However, barnyardgrass and large crabgrass mortalities decreased 88 and 91%, respectively, when bentazon was added, compared to paraquat alone.

Keywords

Bentazon, 3-(1 methylethyl)-(1H)-2,1,3 benzothiadiazin 4-(3H)-one 2,2-dioxideparaquat, 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium iontrifluralin, 2,6 dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenaminebarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. # ECHCGcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon purslane, Portulaca oleracea L. # POROLlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSAredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREEnglish pea, Pisum sativum L.Antagonismherbicide injurysafeningyieldDAT, days after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 1997 , pp. 39 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by the 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

Anonymous. 1986. Environmental Protection Agency: presticide products containing dinoseb. In Federal Register. Volume 51, No. 198, Part II. 36634–36661.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1995. New York Agricultural Statistics 1994–1995. Albany, NY: New York Agricultural Statistics Service. 107 p.Google Scholar
Falloon, P. G., and White, J.G.H. 1980. Development of reproductive structures in field peas (Pisum sativum L.) at different densities. New Zealand J. Agric. Res. 23:243–248.Google Scholar
Halstead, S. J., Gealy, D. R., and Ogg, A. G. Jr., 1989. Response of peas and lentils to sublethal doses of sulfonylureas, 2,4 D, and bromoxynil. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 42:147.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. K., 1993. Tolerance to foliage applied herbicides in combining peas: effect of growth stage, cultivar type, and herbicide. Crop Prot. 12:214–218.Google Scholar
Lawson, H. M., 1982. Competition between annual weeds and vining peas grown at a range of population densities: effects on the crop. Weed Res. 22:27–38.Google Scholar
McCue, A. S., and Minotti, P. I. 1979. Competition between peas and broadleaf weeds. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:106.Google Scholar
Moore, J. D., and Ranks, P. A. 1991. Interactions of foliarly applied herbicides on three weed species in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 39:614–621.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. C., and Nylund, R. E. 1962. Competition between peas grown for processing and weeds. Weeds 10:224–229.Google Scholar
Pfister, K., Buschmann, C., and Lichtenthaler, H. K. 1974. Inhibition of the photosynthetic electron transport by bentazon. Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress on Photosynthesis, pp. 675–681.Google Scholar
Procter, D. E., 1972. Inter-competition between Agropyron repens and peas. Weed Res. 12:107–111.Google Scholar
Suwanketnikom, R., Hatzios, K. K., Penner, D., and Bell, D. 1982. The site of electron transport inhibition by bentazon (3-isopropyl-(1H)-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-(4)-(3H)-one-2,2-dioxide) in isolated chloroplasts. Can. J. Bot. 60:409–412.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., McGuire, J. A., Walker, R. H., and Patterson, M. G. 1986. Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with paraquat. Weed Sci. 34:308–311.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Wilcut, J. W., Dylewski, D. P., McGuire, J. A., and Hicks, V. T. 1991. Antagonism of paraquat phytotoxicity in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) and selected weed species by naptalam. Weed Sci. 39:634–639.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Wilcut, J. W., and McGuire, J. A. 1992a. Influence of bentazon on the phytotoxicity of paraquat to peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) and associated weeds. Weed Sci. 40:90–95.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Wilcut, J. W., and McGuire, J. A. 1992b. Paraquat phytotoxicity, absorption, and translocation in peanut and selected weeds as influenced by chloramben. Weed Sci. 40:471–476.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Wehtje, G. R., Cole, T. A., Hicks, T. V., and McGuire, J. A. 1989. Postemergence weed control systems without dinoseb for peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 37:385–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar