Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:40:44.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and Green Foxtail (Setaria viridis) Interference in Dry Bean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Abdel O. Mesbah ,
Stephen D. Miller  and
Paul J. Koetz
Abdel O. Mesbah
Affiliation:
Powell Research and Extension Center, University of Wyoming, 747 Road 9, Powell, WY 82435
Stephen D. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, P.O. Box 3354, Laramie, WY 82071
Paul J. Koetz
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, P.O. Box 3354, Laramie, WY 82071
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1994 and 1995 under sprinkler irrigation at the University of Wyoming Research and Extension Center at Torrington to evaluate the effects of season-long interference and the effects of duration of interference of several common sunflower and green foxtail densities, alone or in combination, on pinto bean yield. Green foxtail densities did not significantly affect pinto bean yield in 1994 and reduced yield only at the highest density in 1995. In contrast, sunflower densities reduced pinto bean yield, except at the lowest density in 1994. Pinto bean yield was reduced as the combined density of green foxtail and sunflower increased. Compared with yield losses from each weed species alone, yield reductions from mixed species were additive in 1994 and at low weed densities in 1995 and less than additive at higher weed densities in 1995. The minimum number of weeds per m of row that will economically reduce pinto bean yield was estimated to be 1.6 to 2.9 for green foxtail and 0.12 to 0.2 for sunflower. Pinto bean yield reduction increased as the duration of green foxtail and sunflower interference increased, whether grown alone or in combination. The maximum duration that green foxtail, sunflower, and green foxtail plus sunflower can interfere with pinto bean before causing economical losses was estimated to be 4.5, 3.2, and 2.5 wk, respectively.

Keywords

Common sunflower, Helianthus annuus L. #3 HELANgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. # SETVIpinto bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Bill Z’Competitiontime of removal.
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 902 - 907
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Bassett, I. J. and Munro, D. B. 1985. The biology of Canadian weeds. 67. Solanum ptycanthum Dun., S. nigrum L., and S. sarrachoides . Sendt. Can. J. Plant Sci 65:401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 39:48–53.Google Scholar
Bloomberg, J. R., Kirkpatrick, B. L., and Wax, L. M. 1982. Competition of common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) with soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 30:507–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1988. Misinterpretations of results in weed research through inappropriate use of statistics. Weed Res 28:281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, J. H. 1964. Competition between irrigated field beans and annual weeds. Weed Sci. 12:206–208.Google Scholar
Fennimore, S. A., Mitich, L. W., and Radosevich, S. R. 1984. Interference among bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivar red kidney, barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and black nightshade (Solanum nigrum). Weed Sci. 32:336–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesbah, A., Miller, S. D., Fornstrom, K. J., and Legg, D. E. 1994. Kochia (Kochia scoparia) and green foxtail (Setaria viridis) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 8:754–759.Google Scholar
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
Parker, C. and Fryer, J. D. 1975. Weed control problems causing major reductions in world food supplies. FAO Plant Prot. Bull 23:83–95.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS User's Guide. Version 7.0. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Bridge, L. D. 1982. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 30:514–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R. H., Wells, L. W., and McGuire, J. A. 1989. Bristly starbur (Acanthospermum hispidum) interference in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 37:196–200.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1993. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41:607–610.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G., 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
Wyoming Agricultural Statistics. 2001. Crops: Web page: http://www.nass.usda.gov/wy/internet/crops/bull-69.pdf. Accessed: August 3, 2003.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition. Corvallis, OR: International Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University. Pp. 73–74.Google Scholar