Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T10:03:19.497Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Postplant Tillage and Crop Density on Broadleaf Weed Control in Dry Pea (Pisum sativum) and Lentil (Lens culinaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Chris M. Boerboom  and
Frank L. Young
Chris M. Boerboom
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Sci., Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164
Frank L. Young
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric, Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99164
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Increased crop densities and postplant tillage were evaluated as nonchemical methods to supplement metribuzin for improved broadleaf weed control in dry pea and lentil. The effects of 50, 100, and 150% of recommended 220 kg/ha pea and 67 kg/ha lentil seeding rates and two dates of rotary hoeing and harrowing on pea, lentil, and broadleaf weeds were studied with and without metribuzin for two years. Under favorable growing conditions, crop competition gave 72 and 99% weed control in pea and 33 and 70% weed control in lentil with the 50 and 150% seeding rates. Under less favorable conditions, control was 21 to 39% with the low and high pea and lentil seeding rates. At recommended seeding rates, metribuzin gave greater than 90% control in either crop or year. Postplant tillage 12 to 27 d after planting slightly reduced crop densities in three tillage treatments in one year, but not the second. Postplant tillage did not affect crop yield or improve weed control. In all studies, pea was similar to or more competitive than lentil in suppressing broadleaf weeds. Because neither non-chemical practice significantly improves weed control, changes are not recommended for weed management in pea and lentil.

Keywords

Metribuzin, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-onelentil, Lens culinaris Medic. ‘Brewer,’ pea, Pisum sativum L. ‘Columbian.’Crop densitycrop populationharrowrotary hoeCHEAL
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 99 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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

1. Bender, J. 1986. Get the most from your rotary hoe. New Farm 8(3):23–27.Google Scholar
2. Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. G., and Ralston, D. F. 1992. Integrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs in soybean. Agron. J. 84:973–978.Google Scholar
3. Curran, W. S., Morrow, L. A., and Whitesides, R. E. 1985. Lentil yield as influenced by the duration of wild oat interference. Weed Sci. 35:669–672.Google Scholar
4. Entenmann, F. M., Morrison, K. J., and Youngman, V. E. 1968. Growing lentils in Washington. Washington State Univ. Coop. Ext. Bull. EB 590. 6 p.Google Scholar
5. Gargouri, T. and Seely, C. I. 1972. Competition between spring peas and nine densities of wild oat (Avena fatua L.) plants. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. p. 102–103.Google Scholar
6. Hornford, R. G. and Drew, B. N. 1985. Yield reductions in field peas and lentils resulting from volunteer crop competition. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 38:122–125.Google Scholar
7. Kaplan, A., Hinman, H., Hoffmann, T., and McCool, D. 1989. 1987 Crop enterprise budgets, selected tillage systems, eastern Whitman county, Washington. Washington State Univ. Coop. Ext. Bull. EB1437. 42 p.Google Scholar
8. Klein, R. E., Larson, R. C., and Kaiser, W. J. 1991. Virus epidemic of grain legumes in eastern Washington. Plant Dis. 75:1186.Google Scholar
9. 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
10. Lovely, W. G., Weber, C. R., and Staniforth, D. W. 1958. Effectiveness of the rotary hoe for weed control in soybeans. Agron. J. 50:621–625.Google Scholar
11. Marx, G. A. and Hagedorn, D. J. 1961. Plant population and weed growth relations in canning peas. Weeds 9:494–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Marx, G. A. and Hagedorn, D. J. 1962. Canning pea responses to a new seeding implement. Univ. Wisconsin Res. Bull. 235. 21 p.Google Scholar
13. McCue, A. S. and Minotti, P. L. 1979. Competition between peas and broadleaf weeds. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:106.Google Scholar
14. Muehlbauer, F. J. 1973. Seeding rates for ‘Tekoa’ lentils. Washington Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. No. 565.Google Scholar
15. Muehlbauer, F. J. and Dudley, R. F. 1974. Seeding rates and phosphorus placement for Alaska peas in the Palouse. Washington State Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Bull. 794. 4 p.Google Scholar
16. Muehlbauer, F. J., Short, R. W., Summerfield, R. J., Morrison, K. J., and Swan, D. G. 1981. Description and culture of lentils. Washington State Univ. Coop. Ext. Bull. EB 0957. 8 p.Google Scholar
17. Mulla, D. J. 1986. Distribution of slope steepness in the Palouse region of Washington. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50:1401–1405.Google Scholar
18. Murray, G. A., Kephart, K. D., O'Keeffe, L. E., Auld, D. L., and Callihan, R. H. 1987. Dry pea, lentil, and chickpea production in northern Idaho. Univ. of Idaho Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 664.Google Scholar
19. Nelson, D. C. and Nylund, R. E. 1962. Competition between peas grown for processing and weeds. Weeds 10:224–229.Google Scholar
20. Ogg, A. G. Jr., Stevens, R. H., and Gealy, D. R. 1993. Growth analysis of mayweed chamomile (Anthemis cotula) interference in peas (Pisum sativum). Weed Sci. 41:394–402.Google Scholar
21. Peters, E. J., Klingman, D. L., and Larson, R. E. 1959. Rotary hoeing in combination with herbicides and other cultivations for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 7:449–458.Google Scholar
22. Summerfield, R. J., Muehlbauer, F. J., and Short, R. W. 1982. Description and culture of lentils. U. S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv. Prod. Res. Rep. 181. 22 p.Google Scholar
23. Wall, D. A., Friesen, G. H., and Bhati, T. K. 1991. Wild mustard interference in traditional and semi-leafless field peas. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71:473–480.Google Scholar
24. Young, D. L., Kwon, T. J., and Young, F. L. 1994. Profit and risk for integrated conservation farming systems in the Palouse. J. Soil Water Cons. 49:601–606.Google Scholar
25. Young, F. L., Ogg, A. G. Jr., Boerboom, C. M., Alldredge, J. R., and Papendick, R. I. 1994. Integration of weed management and tillage practices in spring dry pea production. Agron. J. 86:868–874.Google Scholar