The occurrence of herbicide tank contamination with dicamba or 2,4-D will likely increase with the recent commercialization of dicamba- and 2,4-D-resistant soybean. High-value sensitive crops, including dry bean, will be at higher risks for exposure. In 2017 and 2018, two separate field experiments were conducted in Michigan to understand how multiple factors may influence dry bean response to dicamba and 2,4-D herbicides, including 1) the interaction between herbicides applied POST to dry bean and dicamba or 2,4-D, and 2) the impact of low rates of glyphosate with dicamba or 2,4-D. Dry bean injury was 20% and 2% from POST applications of dicamba (5.6 h ae ha−1) and 2,4-D (11.2 g ae ha−1), respectively, 14 days after treatment (DAT). The addition of glyphosate (8.4 g ae ha−1) did not increase dry bean injury from dicamba or 2,4-D. Over 2 site-years the addition of dry bean herbicides to dicamba or dicamba + glyphosate (8.4 g ae ha−1) increased dry bean injury and reduced yield by 6% to 10% more than when dicamba or dicamba + glyphosate was applied alone. The interaction between 2,4-D (11.2 g ae ha−1) and dry bean herbicides was determined to be synergistic. However, 2,4-D (11.2 g ae ha−1) had little effect on dry bean with or without the addition of a dry bean herbicide program. These studies document that synergy also occurs between dicamba and dicamba + glyphosate and both common dry bean herbicide programs tested: 1) imazamox (35 g ha−1) + bentazon (560 g ha−1), and 2) fomesafen (280 g ha−1). The synergy between dry bean herbicide and dicamba and dicamba + glyphosate can increase plant injury, delay maturity, and reduce yield to a greater extent than dicamba or dicamba + glyphosate alone. This work emphasizes the need to properly clean out sprayers after applications of dicamba to reduce the risk of exposure to other crops.

Dicamba and 2,4-D exposure to sensitive crops, such as dry bean, is of great concern with the recent registrations of dicamba- and 2,4-D–resistant soybean. In 2017 and 2018, field experiments were conducted at two Michigan locations to understand how multiple factors, including dry bean market class, herbicide rate, and application timing, influence dry bean response to dicamba and 2,4-D. Dicamba and 2,4-D at rates of 0.1%, 1%, and 10% of the field use rate for dicamba and 2,4-D choline were applied to V2 and V8 black and navy bean. Field-use rates for dicamba and 2,4-D choline were 560 and 1,120 g ae ha−1, respectively. There were few differences between market classes or application timings when dry bean was exposed to dicamba or 2,4-D. Estimated rates to cause 20% dry bean injury 14 d after treatment were 4.5 and 107.5 g ae ha−1 for dicamba and 2,4-D, respectively. When dicamba was applied at 56 g ae ha−1, light interception was reduced up to 51% and maturity was delayed up to 16 d. Although both herbicides caused high levels of injury to dry bean, yield reductions were not consistently observed. At four site-years, 2,4-D did not reduce dry bean yield or seed weight with any rate tested. However, when averaged over site-years, dicamba rates of 3.7, 9.8 and 17.9 g ae ha−1 were estimated to cause 5%, 10%, and 15% yield loss, respectively. Dicamba also reduced seed weight by 10% when 56 g ae ha−1 was applied. However, the germination of harvested seed was not affected by dicamba or 2,4-D. Long delays in dry bean maturity from dicamba injury can also indirectly increase losses in yield and quality due to harvestability issues. This work further stresses the need for caution when using dicamba or 2,4-D herbicides near sensitive crops.

There is little information on the sensitivity of dry beans to flumioxazin. Tolerance of eight cultivars of dry beans representing four market classes (black, cranberry, kidney, and white beans) to preplant incorporated (PPI) and preemergence (PRE) applications of flumioxazin at the rate of 52.5, 70, and 140 g ai/ha were studied in three field experiments in Ontario in 2002 and 2003. There were no differences (P < 0.05) between two cultivars within a market class in their responses to flumioxazin. However, the four market classes differed in their responses to flumioxazin. Black and white beans were more sensitive to the PRE application of flumioxazin than cranberry and kidney beans. Flumioxazin applied PRE at 140 g/ha caused as much as 34% visual injury and reduced plant height by 23 to 28%, shoot dry weight by 35 to 39%, and yield by 20 to 30% in black and white bean market classes. Flumioxazin-applied PPI did not injure any market class. On the basis of this research, there is an acceptable margin of crop safety in these black and white bean cultivars only when flumioxazin is applied PPI. The two cranberry and kidney bean cultivars were tolerant to all rates of flumioxazin applied both PPI and PRE.

Three field trials were established from 2001 to 2003 in Ontario to determine the effect of foramsulfuron POST (35 and 70 g ai/ha), isoxaflutole PRE (105 and 210 g ai/ha), and isoxaflutole plus atrazine PRE (105 + 1063 and 210 + 2126 g ai/ha) applied in the previous years to field corn on cranberry, black, kidney, and white (navy) bean. Foramsulfuron residues did not cause visible injury, or reductions in shoot dry weight or yield of dry bean 1 yr after application in corn. In contrast, visual injury across the four market classes varied from 4 to 37% 1 yr after application of isoxaflutole, and from 30 to 54% 1 yr after application of isoxaflutole plus atrazine. Isoxaflutole residues reduced shoot dry weight and yield as much as 81 and 44% in cranberry, 52 and 39% in black, 53 and 19% in kidney, and 42 and 19% in white bean, respectively. Isoxaflutole plus atrazine residues reduced shoot dry weight and yield as much as 87 and 64% in cranberry, 75 and 61% in black, 71 and 46% in kidney, and 65 and 33% in white navy bean, respectively. Injury was not detected regardless of market classes 2 yr after application of isoxaflutole alone or in tank mix with atrazine. Based on these results, it is recommended that none of the market classes of dry bean tested in this study should be grown 1 year after an application of isoxaflutole or isoxaflutole plus atrazine. A recropping interval of 2 years is currently recommended following applications of isoxaflutole or isoxaflutole plus atrazine for these market classes of dry bean.