Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T09:55:09.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Late Season Weed Suppression from Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Cultivars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Carl P. Urwin ,
Robert G. Wilson  and
Dave A. Mortensen
Carl P. Urwin
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361 and Lincoln, NE 68583
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361 and Lincoln, NE 68583
Dave A. Mortensen
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361 and Lincoln, NE 68583
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dry bean cultivars were evaluated for suppression of late-season weed emergence near Scottsbluff, NE in 1993 and 1994. The 12 cultivars differed in plant canopy architecture and the amount of light intercepted. In 1993, the vine growth habit of Pinto ‘D-84354’ provided a more dense canopy and more yellow foxtail suppression than Pinto ‘RS-101’ that had an upright growth habit. Growing season also influenced plant canopy and late season weed emergence. Cooler temperatures in 1993 resulted in a less dense Navy ‘Mayflower’ canopy which provided less redroot pigweed suppression than warmer conditions in 1994 that resulted in a more dense crop canopy. No difference in weed suppression was observed among cultivars for common lambsquarters, common purslane, and hairy nightshade.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon purslane, Portulaca oleracea L. # POROLhairy nightshade, Solanum sarrachoides, Sendt. # SOLSAredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREyellow foxtail, Setaria glauca L. Beauv. # SETLUdry bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. Great Northern, Pinto, Navy, Black Turtle, Light Red Kidney, Small White, Cranberry, Pink, ‘Harris,’ ‘Marquis,’ ‘D-84354,’ ‘RS-101,’ ‘Mayflower,’ ‘Fleetwood,’ ‘UI-906,’ ‘T-39,’ ‘Sacramento,’ ‘Aurora,’ ‘Variety 74,’ ‘Viva.’Crop competitiondry bean cultivarsgrowth habits
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 699 - 704
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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. Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 39:48–53.Google Scholar
2. Dawson, J. H. 1964. Competition between irrigated field beans and annual weeds. Weeds 12:206–208.Google Scholar
3. Fennimore, S. A., Mitich, L. W., and Radosevich, S. R. 1984. Interference among bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and black nightshade (Solanum nigrum). Weed Sci. 32:336–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Knake, E. L. 1972. Effect of shade on giant foxtail. Weed Sci. 20:588–592.Google Scholar
5. Monks, D. W. and Oliver, L. R. 1988. Interactions between soybean (Glycine max) cultivars and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 36:250–255.Google Scholar
6. Murphy, T. J. and Gossett, B. J. 1981. Influence of shading by soybeans (Glycine max) on weed suppression. Weed Sci. 29:610–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. National Climatic Data Center. 1993. Climatological Data-Nebraska. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 98:3, 6.Google Scholar
8. National Climatic Data Center. 1994. Climatological Data-Nebraska. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 99:3, 6.Google Scholar
9. Nebraska Department of Agriculture. 1994. 1993–1994 Nebraska Agricultural Statistics. Nebraska Agricultural Statistics Service. p. 64.Google Scholar
10. Ogg, A. G. and Dawson, J. H. 1984. Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Sci. 32:327–335.Google Scholar
11. Regnier, E. E. and Stoller, E. W. 1989. The effects of soybean (Glycine max) interference on the canopy architecture of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), jimsonweed (Datura stramonium), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 37:187–195.Google Scholar
12. Regnier, E. E., Stoller, E. W., and Nafziger, E. D. 1989. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) root and shoot interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37:308–313.Google Scholar
13. Rose, S. J., Burnside, O. C., Specht, J. E., and Swisher, B. A. 1984. Competition and allelopathy between soybeans and weeds. Agron. J. 76:523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Singh, S. P. 1982. A key for identification of different growth habits of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Annu. Rep. Bean Improv. Coop. 25:92–95.Google Scholar
15. Taylorson, R. B. and Borthwick, H. A. 1968. Light filtration by foliar canopies: significance for light-controlled weed seed germination. Weed Sci. 16:48–51.Google Scholar
16. Wilson, R. G. 1993. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41:607–610.Google Scholar
17. 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
18. Wyse, D. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1976. Factors affecting EPTC injury in navy bean. Weed Sci. 24:1–4.Google Scholar