American Journal of Plant Sciences, 2011, 2, 835-840
doi :1 0.4236/ aj ps.2011 .26098 Publ i s hed Online December 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ajps)
835
Response of Eight Market Classes of Dry Bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to Pendimethalin
Nader Soltani1*, Robert E. Nurse2, Christy Shropshire1, Pete r H. Sikkema1
1University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Canada; 2Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow, Canada.
Received October 5th, 2010; revised November 8th, 2011 ; accep ted November 20th, 2011.
ABSTRACT
There is little informatio n on the tolerance of dry bean to pendimethalin. Field studies were co nducted in 2007 to 2009
at Exeter, Ontario and in 2008 and 2009 at Ridgetown, Ontario to evaluate tolerance of black, cranberry, kidney, otebo,
pink, pinto, Small Red Mexican (SRM) and white bean to pendimethalin applied preplant incorporated (PPI) at 1080
and 2160 g·a.i·ha–1. Pendimethalin PPI caused minimal injury in most market classes of dry bean at 1 and 2 weeks after
emergence (WAE ). There was no injury in various market classes of dry bean with the low dose at 1 and 2 WAE.
However, at the high dose there was 0 to 4% in jury a t 1 WAE and 0 to 7% injury a t 2 WAE in black, cranberry, kidney,
otebo, pink, pinto, SRM and white bean. Pendimethalin PPI was more injurious in white bean than in black, cranberry,
kidney, otebo, pink, pinto and SRM bean. Pink and SRM bean exhibited the most tolerance to pendimethalin applied
PPI at 1080 g·ai·ha–1 or 2160 g·ai·ha–1. Pendimethalin caused no adverse effect on plant height, shoot dry weight, seed
moisture content and seed yield of black, cranberry, kidney, otebo, pink, pinto, SRM and white bean. Based on these
results, there is an adequate margin of crop safety for pendimethalin applied PPI at the proposed dose of 1080 g·ai·ha–1
in black, cranberry, kidney, otebo, pink, pinto, SRM and white bean in Ontario.
Keywords: Black Bean, Cranberry Bean, Kidney Bean, Otebo Bean, Pendimethalin, Pink Bean, Small Red Mexican
Bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L., White Bean
1. Introduction
Dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is an important crop
grown in southern Ontario since the 1940’s [1]. The Ontario
white bean and Ontario coloured bean industry include
about 1000 gro wers that plant approximately 95, 000 ha and
produce approximately 77,000 MT of dry bean with
annual farm-gate value of about $70,000,000 [2]. Dry
bean is an alternative high-value crop that producers can
grow in rotation with wheat (Triticum aest ivum L.) , field
corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]
in southwestern Ontario. Major market classes (same
geographic origin, gene pool, seed size and seed color) of
dry bean grown in Ontario include black, cranberry,
kidney and white (navy) bean. In recent years other
speciality market classes of dry beans such as otebo, pink,
pinto and Small Red Mexican (SRM) bean are also
produced as farmers diversify their production and pursue
new global markets, especially those in Asia. Weed
control is one of the most crit ical proble ms faci ng growers
as dry bean is a poor competitor with weeds. Weeds
compete with dry bean for moisture, nutrients and light
and can cause significant seed yield and seed quality
losses if not adequately controlled [3-7]. Ontario dry
bean producers have a limited number of herbicide op-
tions available to them for grass and broadleaf weed
control. More research is needed to identify herbicides
that provide consistent annual grass and broadleaf weed
control and are safe to use on dry bean.
Pendimethalin is a dinitroaniline selective herbicide
used to cont rol most annua l grasses and certain broadleaf
weeds in field corn, soybean, rice, potatoes, lettuce, stone
fruit, cotton, peanuts, sunflowers and berry fruits in-
cluding strawberry [8]. Pendimethalin is primarily ab-
sorbed by root. It inhibits cell division and cell elon-
gation. Susceptible plants die shortl y after germination or
following emergence from the soil [8]. Pendimethalin
can be used preplant incorporated (PPI), preemergence
(PRE), and early postemergence (EPOST) [8,9]. Pendi-
methalin controls annual grasses such as barnyardgrass
(Echinochloa crusgalli (L.) Beauv.), smooth crabgrass
(Digitaria ischaemum (Schreb) Muhl.), large crabgrass
(Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop), fall panicum (Panicum
dichoto miflorum Michx.), giant foxtail (Setaria faberii

Response of Eight Market Classes of Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to Pendimethalin
836
Her rm.), green foxtail (Setaria viridis (L.) Beau v.), yellow
foxtail (Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv.), and certain annual
broadleaf weed such as common lambsquarters (Cheno-
podium album L.), common redroot pigweed (Amaran-
thus retroflexus L.), common chickweed (Stellaria media
(L.) Cyrillo) and nightshades (Solanum spp.) [8,9 ].
Sensitivity of dry bean to herbicides has been attri-
buted to application dose, application timing, market class,
cultivar and environmental conditions [6,10-13]. There is
little published information on the response of various
market classes of dry bean to pendimethalin. If tolerance
is adequate, the registration of pendimethalin would pro-
vide Ontario dry bean producers with a new herbicide for
the control of annual grasses and small seeded broad-
leaved weeds in dry bean.
The objective of this research was to determine the
tolerance of eight cultivars of dry bean representing eight
market classes of dry bean to penthimethalin PPI at the
dose of 1080 and 2160 g·ai·ha–1, representing 1× and 2×
the manufacturer’s recommended dose.
2. Materials and Methods
Field studies were conducted in 2007 to 2009 at the Hu-
ron Research Station, Exeter, Ontario and in 2008 and
2009 at the University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus,
Ridgetown, Ontario. The soil at Exeter was a Brookston
loam/clay loam (Orthic Humic Gleysol, mixed, mesic,
and poorly drained) with 32% sand, 41% silt, 27% clay,
4.6% organic matter and pH of 7.9 in 2007, 33% sand,
35% silt, 32% clay, 3.4% organic matter and pH of 7.9 in
2008, and 38% sand, 41% silt, 21% clay, 3.7% organic
matter and pH of 7.8 in 2009. The soil at Ridgetown was
a Wa ttford (Grey-Brown Bruni solic, mixed, mesic, sandy,
and imperfectly drained)-Brady (Gleyed Brunisolic Grey-
Brown Luvisol, mixed, mesic, sandy, and imperfectly
drained) with 56% sand, 27% silt, 17% clay, 5.4%
organic matter and pH of 6.7 in 2008 and 38% sand, 41%
silt, 21% clay, 3.7% organic matter and pH of 7.8 in
2009. Seedbed preparation at all sites consisted of au-
tumn moldboard plowing followed by two passes with a
field cultivator in the spring.
Experiments were arranged in a completely rando-
mized block design in a two way factorial arrangement
with four replications. Factor 1 was market class of dry
bean and factor 2 was pendimethalin PPI dose (1080 and
2160 g·ai·ha–1). A non-treated check was included in
each trial representing the zero dose. Plots were 6 m
wide (8 rows spaced 0.75 m apart) and 10 m long at Exe-
ter and 6 m wide and 8 m long at Ridgetown. Within
each plot there was one row of black (“Black Knight”),
cranberry (“Etna”), kidney (‘Red Hawk’), otebo (“Hime”),
pink (“Sedona”), pinto (“GTS 900”), Small Red Mexican
(“Merlot”) and white (“OAC Rex”) bean. Bea ns were plan-
t e d to a d e pt h o f 5 cm i n l a t e Ma y t o e ar l y Ju n e of each year
at the rate of 200,000 seeds ha–1.
The PPI app lication of pendimethalin was made to the
soil surface one day before planting and was immedi-
ately incorporated. Herbicide applications were made
with a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer calibrated to
deliver 200 L·ha–1 of spray solution at a pressure of 200
kPa using 8002 flat-fan nozzles (Hypro ULD 120-02 no-
zzle tips, Spraying Systems Co., P.O. Box 7900. Whea-
ton, IL 60188). The boom was 2.5 m wide with six noz-
zles spaced 0.5 m apart. Plots were maintained weed free
by cultivation and hand hoeing as required to eliminate
the confounding effect of weed interference.
Estimates of crop injury were evaluated visually 1, 2
and 4 weeks after emergence (WAE) using a scale of 0 to
100% where a rating of 0 was defined as no visible plant
injury and a rating of 100 was defined as plant death.
Ten plants per plot were randomly selected and the
height from the soil surface to the highest growing point
was measured 4 WAE. At 6 WAE, a 1 m section of row
for each cultivar was hand harvested at ground level,
oven dried at 60˚C to a constant weight and the dry
weight was recorded. Yields were measured at crop ma-
turity by hand-harvesting the remaining 9 m from each
plot at Exeter and 7 m from each plot at Ridgetown and
threshed in a plot combine. Crops were considered phy-
sically mature when 90% of pods in the untreated plots
of each cultivar had turned from green to a golden colour.
All yields were adjusted to 18% moisture and seed moi-
sture content was deter mined.
All data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANO-
VA) using SAS statistical software (Statistical Analysis
Systems, version 9. Box 8000, SAS Institute Inc., Cary,
NC 27512). Variance analyses combined over years and
locations were performed using the Proc Mixed proce-
dure of SAS. Variances were partitioned into the rando m
effects of locations, years, and years by locations, blocks
within years by locations, and their interactions with
fixed effects, and into the fixed effects of herbicide treat-
ment, market class and herbicide by market class. Signi-
ficance of random effects were tested using a Z-test of
the variance estimate and fixed effects were tested using
F-tests. Error assumptions of the variance analyses (ran-
dom, homogeneous, normal distribution of error) were
confirmed using residual plots and the Shapiro-Wilk
normality test. T o meet assumptions of the nor mality, in-
jury at 2 WAE and shoot dry weight data were square-
root transformed and injury at 4 WAE and seed moisture
content were log-tranformed. Means were compared using
Fisher’s protected LSD. The Type I error was set at 0.05
for all statistical comparisons.

Response of Eight Market Classes of Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to Pendimethalin 837
3. Results and Discussion
Analysis of variance indicated that location by market
class by herbicide treatment interactions were significant
for all injury data therefore, Exeter 2008 was analyzed
separately (for injury 1 and 2 WAE) and is the only in-
jury data presented because Exeter 2007 & 2009 and
Ridgetown 2008 and 2009 injury were zero and could
not be analyzed properly (Table 1). For injury 4 WAE,
Exeter 2008 and 2009 were the only non-zero locations
and could be combined with each other. Higher in- jury
at Exeter compared to Ridgetown could be due to higher
rainfall at Exeter after application that moved the pen-
dimethalin into the dry bean root zone. Location by
market class by herbicide treatment interactions were not
significant for the remaining variables and all three data
sets were analyzed together. Seed moisture content was
not significant for any interaction, therefore data are not
presented. For the main effects, Market class and Rate
were significant for injury 1 and 2 WAE (Table 1). Mar-
ket class was significant for dry weight and yield.
Visual injury symptoms caused by pendimethalin in
dry bean included reduced emergence, hypocotyl swell-
ing, stem brittle at the soil line, and growth reduction.
Dry bean growers in Ontario generally don’t like greater
than 5% injury in their field. Pendimethalin PPI caused
minimal injury in most market classes of dry bean at 1
and 2 WAE (Table 1). There was no injury i n any market
class of dry bean when pendimethalin applied PP I a t 1 0 80
g·ai·ha–1 1 and 2 WAE (Table 2). However, pendi-
methalin applied PPI at 2160 g·ai·ha–1 caused 0 to 4%
injury at 1 WAE and 0 to 7% injury at 2 WAE in black,
cranberry, kidney, otebo, pink, pinto, SRM and white
bean. Other studies have shown little o r no visible inj ury
in adzuki, kidney, pinto, otebo-, and white bean with
other dinitroanalide herbicides such as trifluralin [14-18].
Pendimethalin PPI was more injurious in white bean than
in black, cranberry, kidney, otebo, pink, pinto and SRM
bean. Pink and SRM bean exhibited the greastest to-
lerance to pendimethalin. This is similar to other studies
that have shown differential sensitivity of dry bean [4,6].
We have also found significantly higher sensitivity in
black and white bean market classes compared to cran-
berry and kidney bean market classes in response to soil
applied herbicides such as S-metolachlor, imazethapyr,
flumioxazin and pyroxasulfone [19-23]. Market classes
of dry bean vary in their gene pool as they originate from
different geographic regions which can affect their to-
lerance to herbicides [24-26].
Table 1. Si gnificance of main effects and interactions for percent visual injury, height, shoot d ry weight, and yield of dry bean.
Means followed by the same letter w ithin a column are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Protecte d LSD at P <
0.05. Means for a main effect were separated only if there was no significant interaction involving that main effect a.
Dry bean injury
Main effect s 1 WAEbc 2 WAEc 4 WAEd Heighte Dry weighte Yielde
% cm g·m·row–1 t·ha–1
Variet y of dry bean ** * NS NS ** **
Black 0.6 1.6 0.4 53 54 c 3.00 a
Cranberry 0 0.7 0.2 51 68 ab 2.33 c
Kidney 0 1.3 0.3 52 61 bc 1.83 d
Otebo 0.6 1.0 0.7 51 67 ab 2.86 a
Pink 0 0 0.1 58 67 ab 2.38 bc
Pinto 0 0.7 0.3 54 70 a 2.67 abc
Small Red Mexican 0 0 0.6 56 54 c 2.42 bc
White 1.9 2.6 0.6 52 56 c 2.74 ab
Pendimethalin rate (g·ai·ha–1) ** ** ** NS NS NS
0 0 0 0 a 54 65 2.58
1080 0 0 0 a 54 60 2.51
2160 0.8 2.2 0.9 b 53 61 2.49
Interaction
V × R ** * NS NS NS NS
aAbbreviations: WAE, Week after emergence; V, variety of dry bean; R, pendimethalin rate; NS, not significant at P = 0.05 level; bSi gn i fi c an c e at P < 0.05 and
P < 0.01 levels denoted by * and **, respectively; cExeter 2008 data only; dExe ter 2008 and 2009 data only; eData are averaged for locations and years.

Response of Eight Market Classes of Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to Pendimethalin
838
Table 2. Percent visual injury 1 and 2 weeks after emergence (WAE) at Exeter (2008), Ontario, Canada for eight dry bean
varieties at two doses of pendimethalin. Means followed by the same letter within a column (a - c) or row (Y - Z) in each
section are not significantly different according to Fisher’s Prot ected LSD at P < 0.05.
Pendimethal in dose (g·ai·ha–1)
Dry bean variety by variable 0 1080 2160 SE
%
Injury 1 W A E
Black 0 a Z 0 a Z 1.2 a Z 0.6
Cranberry 0 a Z 0 a Z 0 a Z 0
Kidney 0 a Z 0 a Z 0 a Z 0
Otebo 0 a Z 0 a Z 1.2 a Z 0.6
Pink 0 a Z 0 a Z 0 a Z 0
Pinto 0 a Z 0 a Z 0 a Z 0
Small Red Mexican 0 a Z 0 a Z 0 a Z 0
White 0 a Z 0 a Z 3.8 b Y 0.9
Injury 2 WAE
Black 0 a Z 0 a Z 4.2 bc Y 1.3
Cranberry 0 a Z 0 a Z 1.8 ab Z 0.8
Kidney 0 a Z 0 a Z 3.4 bc Y 1.6
Otebo 0 a Z 0 a Z 2.6 b Y 1.3
Pin k 0 a Z 0 a Z 0 a Z 0
Pinto 0 a Z 0 a Z 1.8 ab Z 0.8
Small Red Mexican 0 a Z 0 a Z 0 a Z 0
White 0 a Z 0 a Z 7.3 c Y 1.6
Plant height is important in dry bean production as
shorter plants can have greater shatter loss at the cutter
bar of the combine during harvesting and therefore reduce
harvested yield. Pendimethalin applied PPI at 1080 g·ai·ha–1
or 2160 g·ai·ha–1 had no effect on plant height in black,
cranberry, kidney, otebo, pink, pinto, SRM and white
bean (Table 1). In other studies, there was differential
height reduction among market classes of dry bean in res-
ponse to soil applied herbicides such as S-metolachlor,
imazethapyr, flumioxazi n and pyroxasulfone [18-22]. How-
ever, other studies have shown no significant height re-
duction in dry bean with other dinitroanaline herbicides
such as trifluralin in adzuki and otebo bean [15,18,21].
Shoot dry weight for each market class was not af-
fected with pendimethalin applied PPI at 1080 g·ai·ha–1
or 2160 g·ai·ha–1 but there were differences among shoot
dry weights of various market classes of dry bean (Table
1). White, SRM and black bean had lower shoot dry
weights than cranberr y, kidney, otebo and pink bea n which
had lower dry weight than pi nto bea n although results were
not always statistically significant. In other studies root
and shoot dry weight was not adversely affected with
other dini troanali ne herbicid es such as tri flurali n in adzu ki
and otebo bean [15,18,21].
Seed moisture content at harvest is important in dry
bean production. Dry bean should have a seed moisture
content of about 18% at harvest. Low seed moi- sture can
result in mechanical injury (split seed coats) while high
seed moisture content can increase respiration and pro-
mote growth of seed embryos, insects and fungi. Pedi-
me thal in appli e d PP I at 1080 g· ai·ha–1 or 2160 g·ai·ha–1 ha d
no effect on seed moisture content in black, cranberry,
kidney, otebo, pink, pinto, SRM and white bean (Data
not shown).
There were differences in seed yield among the va-
rious market classes of dry bean but seed yield for each
market class was not affected by pendimethalin applied
PPI at 1080 g·ai·ha–1 or 2160 g·ai·ha–1 (Table 1). Black,
otebo, pinto and white bean had the highest seed yield
while cranberry and kidney bean had the lowest yield
among various market classes of dry bean evaluated. In
other studies Arnold et al. (1993) [14] and Powell et al.
(2004) [27] found no seed yield reduction with dini-
troanalid e herbicide s su ch as triflura li n in pinto and adzuk i
bean. In other research, we have also seen no adverse
effects on seed yield with trifluralin in adzuki, kidney,

Response of Eight Market Classes of Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to Pendimethalin839
otebo, and white bean [16-18].
4. Conclusions
Based on this study pendimethalin applied PPI at the
proposed dose of 1080 g·ai·ha–1 has an adequate margin
of crop safety for used in black, cranberry, kidney, otebo,
pink, pinto, SRM and white bean under Ontario environ-
mental conditions. Availability of pendimethalin would
provide Ontario dry bean producers with a new herbicide
for the control of annual grasses and small seeded broad-
leaved weeds. Using pendimethalin in a diversified, inte-
grated weed management program could also help reduce
the selection intensity for herbicide resistant weeds.
REFERENCES
[1] Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, “Crop Profile for Dry
Bean in Canada,” Pest Management Centre Pesticide Risk
Reduction Program, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,
Ottawa, 2005, p p. 1-3 1.
[2] B. McGee, “Field Crop Statistics,” Ontario Ministry of
Agriculture and Food and Rural Affairs, Toronto, 2010.
http://www.om af ra .g ov.o n .c a /englis h/stats /c rops/i n de x . html
[3] R. E. Blackshaw, “Hairy Nightshade (Solanum sarra-
choides) Interference in Dry Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris),”
Weed Science, Vol. 39, No. 1, 1991, pp . 48- 5 3.
[4] R. G. Wilson and S. D. Miller, “Dry Edible Bean (Pha-
seolus vulgaris) Responses to Imazethapyr,” Weed Tech-
nology, Vol. 5, No. 1, 19 91 , pp. 2 2-26.
[5] R. G. Wilson, “Wild Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum)
Interference in Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris),” Weed
Science, Vol . 41, No. 4, 1993, pp. 607-610.
[6] T. A. Bauer, K. A. Renner, D. Penner and J. D. Kelly,
“Pinto Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Varietal Tolerance to
Imazethapyr,” Weed Science, Vol. 43, No. 3, 1995, pp.
417-424.
[7] C. P. Urwin, R. G. Wilson and D. A. Mortensen, “Res-
ponses of Dry Edible Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Cultivars
to Four Herbicides,” Weed Technology, Vol. 10, No. 3,
1996, pp . 512-518 .
[8] S. A. Senseman, “Herbicide Handbook,” 9th Edition,
Weed Science Society of America, Lawrence, 2007, pp.
1-493.
[9] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Rural
Affairs (OMAFRA), “Guide to Weed Control,” Publica-
tion 75, Toron to, 2009, pp. 1-396.
[10] K. A. Renner and G. E. Powell, “Responses of Navy
Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and Wheat (Triticum aestivum)
Grown in Rotation to Clomazone, Imazethapyr, Bentazon,
and Acifluorfen,” Weed Science, Vol. 40, No. 1, 1992, pp.
127-133.
[11] R. E. Blackshaw and G. Saindon, “Dry Bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris) Tolerance to Imazethapyr,” Canadian Journal
of Plant Science, Vol. 76, No. 4, 1996, pp. 915-9 1 9.
do i:10.4141/cjps96-153
[12] J. M Van Gessel, W. D. Monks and R. J. Quintin,
“Herbicides for Potential Use in Lima Bean (Phaseolus
lunatus) Production,” Weed Technology, Vol. 14, No. 2,
2000, pp . 279-286.
do i:10.1614/0890-037X(2000)014[0279:HFPUIL]2.0.CO
;2
[13] I. K. Ward and E. S. Weaver, “Responses of Eastern
Black Nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) to Low Rates o f
Imazethapyr and Metolachlor,” Weed Science, Vol. 44,
No. 4, 1996, pp. 897-902.
[14] N. R. Arnold, W. M. Murray, J. E. Gregory and D. Smeal,
“Weed Control in Pinto Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with
Imazethapyr Combinations,” Weed Technology, Vol. 7,
No. 2, 1993, pp. 361-364.
[15] D. C. McClary, T. L. Raney and T. A. Lumpkin, “Ja-
panese Food Marketing Channels: A Case Study of Azuki
Beans and Azuki Products,” Washington State University
IMPACT Center Rpt., Pullman, 1989, p. 29.
[16] N. Soltani, C. Shropshire, D. E. Robinson and P. H.
Sikkema, “Sensitivity of Adzuki Bean (Vigna angularis)
to Preplant-Incorporated Herbicides,” Weed Technology,
Vol. 19, No. 4 , 20 05, p p. 8 97- 90 1.
doi:10.1614/WT-05-005R1.1
[17] N. Soltani, R. E. Nurse, L. L. Van Eerd, R. J. Vyn, C.
Shropshire and P. H. Sikkema, “Weed Control, Environ-
mental Impact and Profitability with Trifluralin Plus
Reduced Doses of Imazethapyr in Dry Bean,” Crop Pro-
tection, Vol. 29, No. 4, 2010, pp. 364-368.
[18] P. H. Sikkema, D. E. Robinson, C. Shropshire and N.
Soltani, “Tolerance of Otebo Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)
to New Herbicides in Ontario,” Wee d Tec hnology , Vol. 20,
No. 4, 2006, pp. 862-866. doi:10.1614/WT-05-144.1
[19] N. Soltani, C. Shropshire, T. Cowan and P. Sikkema,
“Tolerance of Cranberry Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to
Soil Applications of S-Metolachlor and Imazethapyr,”
Canadian Journal of Plant Science, Vol. 83, 2003 pp.
645-648. doi:10.4141/P03-006
[20] N. Soltani, C. Shropshire, T. Cowan and P. Sikkema,
“Tolerance of Black Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to Soil
Applications of S-Metolachlor and Imazethapyr,” Weed
Technology, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2004, pp. 166-173.
doi:10.1614/WT-03-044R
[21] N. Soltani, S. Bowley and P. H. Sikkema, “Responses of
Dry Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to Flumioxazin,” Weed
Technology, V o l. 1 9, N o. 2, 20 05, pp. 351-358.
doi:10.1614/WT-04-146R1
[22] P. Sikkema, N. Soltani, C. Shropshire and T. Cowan,
“Sensitivity of Kidney Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to Soil
Applications of S-Metolachlor and Imazethapyr,” Cana-
dian Journal of Plant Science, Vol. 84, No. 1, 2004, pp.
405-407. doi:10.4141/P03-069
[23] P. Sikkema, C. Shropshire and N. Soltani, “Dry Bean Re-
sponse to Preemergence-Applied KIH-485,” Weed Tech-
nology, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2007, pp. 230- 2 34.
doi:10.4141/P03-069
[24] S. P. Singh, P. Gepts and D. G. Debouck, “Races of
Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, Fabaceae,” Econo-

Response of Eight Market Classes of Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to Pendimethalin
840
mic Botany, Vol. 45, No. 3, 1991, pp. 379-396.
doi:10.1007/BF02887079
[25] S. P. Singh, J. A. Gutierrez, A. Molina, C. Urrea and P.
Gepts, “Genetic Diversity in Cultivated Common Bean:
II. Marker-Based Analysis of Morphological and Agro-
nomic Traits,” Crop Science, Vol. 31, 1991, pp. 23-29.
doi:10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183X003100010005x
[26] S. P. Singh, R. Nodari and P. Gepts, “Genetic Diversity in
Cultivated Common Bean: I. Allozymes,” Crop Science,
Vol. 3 1, 1991, pp. 19-23.
doi:10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183X003100010004x
[27] G. E. Powell, C. L. Sprague and K. A. Renner, “Adzuki
Bean: Weed Control and Production Issues,” 59th North
Central Weed Science Proceed ings, Vol. 59, 2004, p. 32.