Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T05:31:57.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of Mechanical Cultivation with and without Herbicides in Broccoli (Brassica oleracea), Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), and Sweet Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jed B. Colquhoun ,
Robin R. Bellinder  and
Jonathan J. Kirkwyland
Jed B. Colquhoun
Affiliation:
Department of Fruit and Vegetable Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Robin R. Bellinder*
Affiliation:
Department of Fruit and Vegetable Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Jonathan J. Kirkwyland
Affiliation:
Department of Fruit and Vegetable Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Five cultivation implements (two flex-tine cultivators, brush hoe, and rolling and shovel cultivators) were evaluated for weed control and effect on broccoli, snap bean, and sweet corn yield. Each implement was used alone or in combination with flex-tine cultivators. Standard broadcast herbicide treatments were: broccoli, metolachlor at 2.3 kg ai/ha posttransplant; snap bean, metolachlor preemergence (PRE) at 2.3 kg ai/ha followed by fomesafen postemergence (POST) at 0.4 kg ai/ha; sweet corn, atrazine at 1.1 kg ai/ha plus metolachlor at 2.3 kg ai/ha PRE. In the snap bean trials, an additional treatment consisted of metolachlor at 2.3 kg ai/ha PRE applied in a 25-cm band over the crop row followed by fomesafen POST at 0.4 kg ai/ha directed at the crop row, with a subsequent shovel cultivation. In the sweet corn trials, all cultivation treatments received an application of atrazine at 1.1 kg ai/ha plus metolachlor at 2.3 kg ai/ha PRE in a 25-cm band over the crop row. In broccoli, weed control and yields with all cultivation treatments were comparable to those with broadcast herbicide. In snap bean, flex-tine cultivators failed to control weeds and prevent yield reductions compared to the broadcast herbicide treatment. When either the brush hoe or the shovel cultivator was preceded by flex-tine cultivation, weed control and snap bean yield were comparable to those with broadcast herbicides. Banded herbicides followed by shovel cultivation also controlled weeds and prevented yield reductions. In sweet corn, banded herbicides controlled in-row weeds, and despite variable between-row weed control, all cultivation treatments yielded as well as the broadcast herbicide treatment. Relative performance of the cultivators was influenced by soil type and rainfall as well as crop canopy characteristics.

Keywords

Atrazine, 6-chloro-N-ethyl-N'-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diaminefomesafen, 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-N-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamidemetolachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamidebroccoli, Brassica oleracea L. var. botrytissnap bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L.sweet corn, Zea mays L. var. rugosa BonafBanded herbicidesbrush hoeflex-tine cultivatorherbicide reductionmechanical weed controlsustainable agricultureDAP, days after plantingPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 1999 , pp. 244 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Abelson, P. H. 1997. Uncertainties about crop protection. Weed Technol. 11:629–632.Google Scholar
Ascard, J. and Mattsson, B. 1994. Inter-row cultivation in weed-free carrots: the effect on yield of hoeing and brush weeding. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 10:161–173.Google Scholar
Baumann, D. T. 1992. Mechanical weed control with spring tine harrows (weed harrows) in row crops. IX International Symposium on the Biology of Weeds, Dijon, France. Paris: Association Nationale de la Protection des Plantes. pp. 123–128.Google Scholar
Baumann, D. T. and Slembrouck, I. 1994. Mechanical and integrated weed control systems in row crops. Acta Hortic. 372:245–252.Google Scholar
Bohrnsen, A. 1993. Several years results about mechanical weeding in cereals. Communications of the Fourth International Conf. of IFOAM, Dijon, France. pp. 93–99.Google Scholar
Bowman, G. 1997. Agronomic row crops: the tools (technical information). In Bowman, G., ed. Steel in the Field: A Farmer's Guide to Weed Management Tools. Handbook 2. Beltsville, MD: Sustainable Agriculture Network. pp. 13–34.Google Scholar
Dunnett, C. W. 1955. A multiple comparisons procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 50:1096–1121.Google Scholar
Gill, H. S., Brar, L. S., and Walia, U. S. 1984. Integrated weed control in maize. J. Res. Punjab Agric. Univ. 21:496–500.Google Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. H., Frisch, J. C., and Mt. Pleasant, J. 1997. Evaluation of mechanical weed management programs for corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11:123–131.Google Scholar
Moomaw, R. S. and Robison, L. R. 1973. Broadcast or banded atrazine plus propachlor with tillage variables in corn. Weed Sci. 21:106–109.Google Scholar
Mt. Pleasant, J., Burt, R. B., and Frisch, J. C. 1994. Integrating mechanical and chemical weed management in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 8:217–223.Google Scholar
Ngouajio, M., Foko, J., and Fouejio, D. 1997. The critical period of weed control in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Cameroon. Crop Prot. 16:127–133.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J. 1992. Testing harrows for mechanical control of annual weeds in agricultural crops. Weed Res. 32:267–274.Google Scholar
Samson, R. A. and Coulman, B. E. 1989. Herbicide banding, cultivation and interseeding as an integrated weed management system for corn. Proc. Annu. Northeast. Corn Improv. Conf. 44:33–38.Google Scholar
Schepps, A. L. and Ashley, R. A. 1982. The effects of various weed-free periods on snap bean yields. Proc. Annu. Meet. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 36:104–107.Google Scholar
Van Gessel, M. J., Schweizer, E. E., Lybecker, D. W., and Westra, P. 1995. Compatibility and efficiency of in-row cultivation for weed management in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 9:754–760.Google Scholar
Vester, J. and Rasmussen, J. 1990. Test of the row brush hoe in horticultural crops. Veroff. Bundesanst. fur Agrarbiol. 20:127–134.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 1984. Critical period of weed competition in three vegetable crops in relation to management practices (cabbage, pickling cucumbers, processing tomatoes, yields). Weed Res. 24:317–325.Google Scholar
Woolley, B. L., Michaels, T. E., Hall, M. R., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. The critical period of weed control in white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41:180–184.Google Scholar