Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:38:57.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alternative Weed Management Systems for the Production of Kidney Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Orvin C. Burnside ,
Norman H. Krause ,
Melvin J. Wiens ,
Michelle M. Johnson  and
Eric A. Ristau
Orvin C. Burnside
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. Plant Genet., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul
Norman H. Krause
Affiliation:
Irrigation Res. Cent., Staples, MN 56479
Melvin J. Wiens
Affiliation:
Irrigation Res. Cent., Staples, MN 56479
Michelle M. Johnson
Affiliation:
Irrigation Res. Cent., Staples, MN 56479
Eric A. Ristau
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. Plant Genet, Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed management experiments with kidney beans were conducted at one irrigated site in 1991 and at two irrigated sites near Staples, MN during 1992. Green foxtail was the most difficult weed to control at the three research sites which agrees with survey results from dry bean growers regarding their worst weed problems. Hairy nightshade increased rapidly when weed management methods were reduced. Dry bean seed yields were highest in cultivated check plots on the farmer's field and in conventional practices plots at the Irrigation Research Center. Net economic returns, averaged over 1991 and 1992, for producing kidney beans at the Irrigation Research Center were $899/ha using conventional practices, $791/ha with cover crop practices, $734/ha with cultivated checks, $690/ha with herbicides only, and $208/ha on weedy checks. Kidney beans are an economical crop for North Central growers, but adequate weed management technologies are necessary for profitable production.

Keywords

Kidney beans, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Montcalm red’ and ‘MRK-43 light red’green foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. # SETVIhairy nightshade, Solanum sarrachoides Sendtner # SOLSADry bean seed yieldcompetitioncover croprotary hoerow cultivationsustainable crop productionweed biomassSetaria viridisSolanum sarrachoidesSETVISOLSA
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 940 - 945
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Anonymous. 1941–92. Agriculture statistics; U.S. Dep. Agric., Supt. Documents, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
2. Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 39:48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Blackshaw, R. E. and Esau, R. 1991. Control of annual broadleaf weeds in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 5:532–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Burnside, O. C. 1993. Weed science—the step child. Weed Technol. 7: 515–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. DeHaan, R. L., Wyse, D. W., Ehlke, N. J., and Putnam, D. H. 1990. Development of a Brassica sp. smother plant for weed control in corn. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:27.Google Scholar
6. Durgan, B. R., Gunsolus, J. L., and Becker, R. L. 1993. Cultural and chemical weed control in field crops. AG-BU-3157-S, Minnesota Ext. Serv., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. 67 p.Google Scholar
7. Fuller, E., Lazurus, B., and Carrigan, L. 1992. Minnesota farm machinery economic cost estimates for 1992. AG-FO-2308-C, Minnesota Ext. Serv., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. 6 p.Google Scholar
8. Harvey, R. G. and Albright, J. W. 1988. Red kidney bean weed control study. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 45:128.Google Scholar
9. Lamey, H. A., Zollinger, R. K., McBride, D. K., Venette, R. C., and Venette, J. R. 1991. Production problems and practices of northarvest dry bean growers in 1989. North Dakota Farm Res. 49(2):17–24.Google Scholar
10. Lazarus, B. and Fuller, E. 1991. Minnesota farm custom rate survey for 1991. AG-FS-3700-A, Minnesota Ext. Serv., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. 2 p.Google Scholar
11. Ogg, A. G. and Rogers, B. S. 1989. Taxonomy, distribution, biology, and control of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and related species in the United States and Canada. Rev. Weed Sci. 4:25–58.Google Scholar
12. Quakenbush, L. S. and Andersen, R. N. 1984. Distribution and biology of two nightshades (Solanum spp.) in Minnesota. Weed Sci. 32: 529–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1992. Response of navy bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) grown in rotation to clomazone, imazethapyr, bentazon, and acifluorfen. Weed Sci. 40: 127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Robinson, R. G. 1975. Pulse or grain legume crops for Minnesota. Stn. Bull. 513, Agric. Exp. Stn., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. 19 p.Google ScholarPubMed
15. Sorenson, B. A., Wyse, D. L., Koskinen, W. C., Buhler, D. D., Lueschen, W. E., and Jorgenson, M. D. 1993. Formation and movement of 14C-atrazine degradation products in a sandy loam soil under field conditions. Weed Sci. 41:239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Wilson, R. G. and Miller, S. D. 1991. Dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) response to imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:22–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Wilson, R. G. Jr., Wicks, G. A., and Fenster, C. R. 1980. Weed control in field beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) in western Nebraska. Weed Sci. 28: 295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar