Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T23:07:54.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control and Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Response to In-Row Cultivation, Rotary Hoeing, and Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mario D. Amador-Ramirez ,
Robert G. Wilson  and
Alex R. Martin
Mario D. Amador-Ramirez*
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Panhandle Research and Extension Center, 4502 Avenue I, Scottsbluff, NE 69361-4939
Alex R. Martin
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Agronomy, 279 Plant Science Building, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1996 and 1997 to evaluate weed control and dry bean response to mechanical tillage and herbicide treatments. Herbicide treatments were EPTC plus ethalfluralin, dimethenamid, and imazethapyr plus bentazon. Herbicides were applied alone or combined with rotary hoeing and in-row cultivation. Differences in dry bean yields between years were due to differences in weed density. Weed species included redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, hairy nightshade, wild proso millet, and green foxtail. Weed density in the untreated check plots at the end of the growing season was 35 plants/m2 in 1996 and 134 plants/m2 in 1997. Dry bean stands were not reduced by rotary hoeing, in-row cultivation, and herbicides in 1996, but in-row cultivation reduced dry bean populations 27% compared to the hand-weeded check in 1997. In-row cultivation and rotary hoeing provided similar weed control in both years. At low weed densities, either mechanical tillage or herbicides alone were effective in suppressing weeds, whereas at higher densities, herbicides combined with mechanical tillage were required for effective control.

Keywords

BentazondimethenamidEPTCethalfluralinimazethapyrcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALdry bean, Phaseolus vulgaris, Great Northern ‘Beryl’; green foxtail, Setaria viridis L. Beauv. # SETVIhairy nightshade, Solanum sarrachoides Sendt. # SOLSAredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREwild proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L. # PANMICombinationsherbicides and mechanical tillagepostemergence herbicidespreemergence herbicidespreplant-incorporated herbicidesDAP, days after plantingIR, in-row cultivationPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceRH, rotary hoeing
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 2001 , pp. 429 - 436
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: INIFAP, Campo Experimental Calera, Apartado Postal ∞18, Calera V.R., Zac. 98500 Mexico

References

Literature Cited

Bauer, T. A., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1995a. Response of selected weed species to postemergence imazethapyr and bentazon. Weed Technol. 9: 236–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, T. A., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1995b. ‘Olathe’ pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) response to postemergence imazethapyr and bentazon. Weed Sci. 43: 276–282.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 39: 48–53.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Gunsolus, J. L. 1996. Effect of date of preplant tillage and planting on weed populations and mechanical weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 44: 373–379.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1992. Integrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs in soybean. Agron. J. 84: 973–978.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Doll, J. D., Proost, R. T., and Visocky, M. R. 1995. Integrating mechanical weeding with reduced herbicide use in conservation tillage corn production systems. Agron. J. 87: 507–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Ahrens, W. H., Holder, B. J., Wiens, M. J., Johnson, M. M., and Ristau, E. A. 1994. Efficacy and economics of various mechanical plus chemical weed control systems in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 8: 238–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Wiens, M. J., Krause, N. H., Weisberg, S., Ristau, E. A., Johnson, M. M., and Sheets, R. A. 1998. Mechanical and chemical weed control systems for kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 12: 174–178.Google Scholar
Cantwell, J. R., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Imazethapyr for weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 3: 596–601.Google Scholar
Chandler, J. M., Hamill, A. S., and Thomas, A. G., eds. 1984. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in Canada and United States. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 22 p.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 43: 375–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, S. E., Wax, L. M., and Hager, A. G. 1997. Comparison of total postemergence weed control programs in soybean. J. Prod. Agric. 10: 136–141.Google Scholar
Hooker, D. C., Vyn, T. J., and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Effectiveness of soil-applied herbicides with mechanical weed control for conservation tillage systems in soybean. Agron. J. 89: 579–587.Google Scholar
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
Mohler, C. L., Frisch, J. C., and Pleasant, J. Mt. 1997. Evaluation of mechanical weed management programs for corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11: 123–131.Google Scholar
Mulder, T. A. and Doll, J. D. 1993. Integrating reduced herbicide use with mechanical weeding in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7: 382–389.Google Scholar
Pullen, D.W.M. and Cowell, P. A. 1997. An evaluation of the performance of mechanical weeding mechanisms for use in high speed inter-row weeding of arable crops. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 67: 27–34.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1996. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 6.12. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 705 p.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E., Westra, P., and Lybecker, D. W. 1992. Controlling weeds in corn (Zea mays) rows with an in-row cultivator versus decisions made by a computer model. Weed Sci. 42: 593–600.Google Scholar
Solorzano, V. E. 1983. Periodo critico de competencia entre malezas y frijol de riego en Pabellon, Ags. Fitotecnia 5: 75–89.Google Scholar
Thomas, G. A., Rawson, J. E., and Ladewig, J. H. 1980. Effect of weed competition and inter-row cultivation on yield of grain sorghum. Qld. J. Agric. Anim. Sci. 37: 47–51.Google Scholar
University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension. 1997. A 1997 Guide for Herbicide Use in Nebraska. Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska. Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC 97-130-D. 86 p.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Wiles, L. J., Schweizer, E. E., and Westra, P. 1995a. Weed control efficacy and pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) tolerance to early season mechanical weeding. Weed Technol. 9: 531–534.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Schweizer, E. E., Lybecker, D. W., and Westra, P. 1995b. Compatibility and efficiency of in-row cultivation for weed management in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 9: 754–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanGesssel, M. J., Schweizer, E. E., Wilson, R. G., Wiles, L. J., and Westra, P. 1998. Impact of timing and frequency of in-row cultivation for weed control in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 12: 548–553.Google Scholar
Van Wychen, L. R., Harvey, R. G., Albright, J. W., and Anthon, T. M. 1996. Sweet corn hybrid—weed control study. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 53: 13–17.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1993. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41: 607–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Miller, S. D. 1991. Dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) response to imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5: 22–26.Google Scholar