Amaranthus species are problematic weeds in snap bean production systems. They reduce crop yields, and their stem fragments contaminate harvested pods. Knowledge of snap bean tolerance to different preemergence herbicides is limited; however, knowing this tolerance is essential for planning a reliable weed management system, breeding herbicide-tolerant cultivars, and registering herbicides for use on minor crops such as snap bean. Field trials were conducted in 2021 and 2022 to determine the tolerance of eight snap bean cultivars to preemergence herbicides with activity on Amaranthus species, including dimethenamid-P, flumioxazin, lactofen, metribuzin, saflufenacil, and sulfentrazone. Snap bean plant density (number of plants per square meter), plant biomass (grams per plant), and canopy biomass (grams per square meter) 21 d after treatment were used to assess crop tolerance to a range of herbicide rates. Linear mixed-effects regression models were fitted to quantify the relationships between preemergence herbicide rate and snap bean cultivar tolerance. Results indicated a high margin of crop safety with dimethenamid-P and lactofen for weed control in snap bean, and a low margin of crop safety with metribuzin and saflufenacil. Results indicated differential cultivar tolerance to flumioxazin and sulfentrazone, which could be driven by genetic variability among cultivars.

Following the introduction of dicamba-resistant (DR) soybean in 2017, concerns have increased with regard to dicamba off-target movement (OTM) onto sensitive crops, including vegetables. Field trials were conducted in New Jersey, New York, and Delaware to evaluate cucumber (‘Python’), eggplant (‘Santana’), and snap bean (‘Caprice’ and ‘Huntington’) injury and yield response to simulated dicamba drift rates. Crops were exposed to dicamba applied at 0, 0.056, 0.11, 0.56, 1.12, 2.24 g ae ha–1, representing 0, 1/10,000, 1/5,000, 1/1,000, 1/500, and 1/250 of the maximum soybean recommended label rate (560 g ae ha–1), respectively. Dicamba was applied either at the early vegetative (V2) or early reproductive (R1) stages. Minimal to no injury, vine growth reduction, or yield loss was noted for cucumber. Dicamba was more injurious to eggplant with up to 22% to 35% injury 2 wk after treatment (WAT) at rate ≥1.12 g ae ha–1; however, only the highest dicamba rate caused 27% reduction of the commercial yield compared to the nontreated control. Eggplant also showed greater sensitivity when dicamba exposure occurred at the R1 than at theV2 stage. Snap bean was the most sensitive crop investigated in this study. Injury 2 WAT was greater for ‘Caprice’ with dicamba ≥0.56 g ae ha–1 applied at V2 compared to R1 stage, whereas a similar difference occurred as low as 0.056 g ae ha–1 for ‘Huntington’. Compared to the nontreated control, reduction in plant height and biomass accumulation occurred for both cultivars at dicamba rate ≥0.56 g ae ha–1. Dicamba applied at 1.12 g ae ha–1 or greater resulted in 30% yield loss for ‘Caprice’, whereas ‘Huntington’ yield dropped 52% to 93% with dicamba ≥0.56 g ae ha–1. ‘Caprice’ bean yield was not influenced by dicamba timing of application. Conversely, ‘Huntington’ bean yield decreased by 8% following application at R1 compared to V2 stage.

The effect of common cocklebur interference on snap beans was investigated at Bridgeton, NJ, in 1987 and 1988. Snap bean yields were reduced by increasing weed densities. Yields were reduced 8 to 44% in 1987 and 2 to 55% in 1988 by full-season in-row weed densities ranging from 0.5 to 8/m2. One weed and 4 weeds/m2 were the damage-threshold populations of common cocklebur with full-season interference in 1987 and 1988, respectively. The weed-free requirement, after planting, was to the unifoliolate stage of snap beans. Common cocklebur at 4 weeds/m2 did not affect yield when snap beans were maintained weed free until the unifoliolate stage of snap beans. The critical duration of interference for common cocklebur emerging with snap beans was between the emergence and full-bloom stage of snap beans. Snap bean yield was not reduced with weed removal at full bloom.

Five cultivation implements (two flex-tine cultivators, brush hoe, and rolling and shovel cultivators) were evaluated for weed control and effect on broccoli, snap bean, and sweet corn yield. Each implement was used alone or in combination with flex-tine cultivators. Standard broadcast herbicide treatments were: broccoli, metolachlor at 2.3 kg ai/ha posttransplant; snap bean, metolachlor preemergence (PRE) at 2.3 kg ai/ha followed by fomesafen postemergence (POST) at 0.4 kg ai/ha; sweet corn, atrazine at 1.1 kg ai/ha plus metolachlor at 2.3 kg ai/ha PRE. In the snap bean trials, an additional treatment consisted of metolachlor at 2.3 kg ai/ha PRE applied in a 25-cm band over the crop row followed by fomesafen POST at 0.4 kg ai/ha directed at the crop row, with a subsequent shovel cultivation. In the sweet corn trials, all cultivation treatments received an application of atrazine at 1.1 kg ai/ha plus metolachlor at 2.3 kg ai/ha PRE in a 25-cm band over the crop row. In broccoli, weed control and yields with all cultivation treatments were comparable to those with broadcast herbicide. In snap bean, flex-tine cultivators failed to control weeds and prevent yield reductions compared to the broadcast herbicide treatment. When either the brush hoe or the shovel cultivator was preceded by flex-tine cultivation, weed control and snap bean yield were comparable to those with broadcast herbicides. Banded herbicides followed by shovel cultivation also controlled weeds and prevented yield reductions. In sweet corn, banded herbicides controlled in-row weeds, and despite variable between-row weed control, all cultivation treatments yielded as well as the broadcast herbicide treatment. Relative performance of the cultivators was influenced by soil type and rainfall as well as crop canopy characteristics.

There is significant interest from processors in producing organic sweet corn and snap bean. However, large-scale production is necessary for this to be a practical and economical venture for processors. This study focused on the feasibility of managing weeds in organic sweet corn and snap bean, utilizing methods that are practical in large hectarage. Tactics such as rotary hoe, interrow cultivation, and a stale seedbed were evaluated alone or in combination. Hand-weeded and herbicide-based treatments were included for each crop for comparison. Percentage weed control, weed biomass, and crop yield were quantified, and net profit was calculated for each treatment. Organic weed management was feasible in snap bean, with yields similar among several of the organic treatments and the herbicide treatment in all 3 yr of the study. Interrow cultivation was the most effective means of organic weed control in snap bean. Organic weed management was possible in snap bean because it is a short-season crop and an effective competitor with weeds in the crop row. Organic weed management was more difficult in sweet corn because of the longer crop season and poor competition with weeds in the crop row. In sweet corn, the organic treatment involving three interrow cultivations was the only one consistently similar in yield to the herbicide treatments. Higher net profits were attained for most of the organic treatments in both crops because of the organic premium. Market saturation and organic premium adjustments are factors for grower consideration in this potential industry, particularly for sweet corn production.

Snap bean was evaluated for sensitivity to a number of herbicides in field studies conducted during a 2-yr period in Exeter, ON. Preemergence (PRE) applications of metolachlor (1,600 and 3,200 g ai/ha), imazethapyr (75 and 150 g ai/ha), and clomazone plus metobromuron (840 + 1,000 g ai/ha and 1,680 + 2,000 g/ha) were evaluated for visual injury at 7, 14, and 28 d after emergence. Postemergence (POST) applications of imazamox plus fomesafen (25 + 200 g ai/ha and 50 + 400 g/ha), quizalofop-P (72 and 144 g ai/ha), and clethodim (90 and 180 g ai/ha) also were evaluated for visual injury 7, 14, and 28 d after treatment. Plant height and crop yield were assessed for all treatments. Visual injury, stunting, and yield loss were not observed in the metolachlor treatments. Imazethapyr (150 g/ha) caused stunting and reduced snap bean yield in both study years. Clomazone plus metobromuron (1,680 + 2,000 g/ha) injured and stunted snap bean in both years of the study and reduced yield in 2000. Imazamox plus fomesafen (50 + 400 g/ha) injured snap bean in both years but only reduced yield in 2000. Quizalofop-P injured snap bean but did not reduce plant height or yield. Clethodim did not injure, stunt, or reduce yield of snap bean. Metolachlor (PRE), imazamox plus fomesafen (POST), quizalofop-P (POST), and clethodim (POST) have excellent potential as weed management tools in snap bean in Ontario.

Agronomic crops with resistance to the herbicides dicamba and 2,4-D are currently in the regulatory approval process. The potential increased use of these herbicides has raised concern among vegetable producers about potential off-target movement and implications to crop yield. The overall goal of this research was to describe the relationship between visually estimated crop injury and snap bean and potato yield and quality. In snap bean in 2011, injury from dicamba 7 d after treatment (DAT) ranged from 19% at the 1.2 g ae ha−1 application rate to 45% at the 7.0 g ae ha−1 application rate. By 28 DAT in 2011, injury from 2,4-D was similar to the nontreated control. However, early-season injury in 2011 delayed snap bean flowering and reduced crop yield compared to the nontreated control for all treatments except where the 1.4 g ae ha−1 rate of 2,4-D and glyphosate at 7.0 g ae ha−1 were applied. Snap bean injury from dicamba was greater than that from 2,4-D at all rating timings in 2011 and two of three rating timings in 2012, and crop yield was reduced compared to where 2,4-D was applied and the nontreated control in both years. Potato tuber size distribution was variable and total yield did not differ among treatments and the nontreated control in 2011. In 2012, tuber size distribution was again variable, but more nonmarketable cull potatoes were harvested when dicamba was applied to 25-cm potato plants at the 7.0 g ae ha−1 rate compared to any other treatment. Snap bean injury observations about 3 wk prior to harvest were strongly correlated with crop yield (r = −0.84 and −0.88 in 2011 and 2012, respectively), allowing time to make informed harvest decisions relative to crop quality. In contrast, the relationship between potato injury and tuber yield was poor and highly variable in both years.

In northern U.S. vegetable cropping systems, attempts at no-till (NT) production have generally failed because of poor crop establishment and delayed crop maturity. Strip tillage (ST) minimizes these problems by targeting tillage to the zone where crops are planted while maintaining untilled zones between crop rows, which foster improvements in soil quality. ST has been shown to maintain crop yields while reducing energy use and protecting soils in vegetable crops, including sweet corn, winter squash, snap bean, carrot, and cole crops. Despite potential benefits of ST, weed management remains an important obstacle to widespread adoption. Increased adoption of ST in cropping systems for which effective, low-cost herbicides are either limited (e.g., most vegetable crops) or prohibited (e.g., organic systems) will require integration of multiple cultural, biological, and mechanical approaches targeting weak points in weed life cycles. Weed population dynamics under ST are more complex than under either full-width, conventional tillage (CT) or NT because weed propagules—as well as factors influencing them—can move readily between zones. For example, the untilled zone in ST may provide a refuge for seed predators or a source of slowly mineralized nitrogen, which affects weed seed mortality and germination in the tilled zone. Greater understanding of such interzonal interactions may suggest manipulations to selectively suppress weeds while promoting crop growth in ST systems. Previous studies and recent experiences in ST vegetable cropping systems suggest a need to develop weed management strategies that target distinct zones while balancing crop and soil management tradeoffs. For example, in untilled zones, optimal management may consist of weed-suppressive cover crop mulching, combined with nitrogen exclusion and high-residue cultivation as needed. In contrast, weed management in the tilled zone may benefit from innovations in precision cultivation and flame-weeding technologies. These short-term strategies will benefit from longer-term approaches, including tillage-rotation, crop rotation, and cover cropping strategies, aimed at preventing seed production, promoting seed predation and decay, and preventing buildup of problematic perennial weeds. However, a concerted research effort focused on understanding weed populations as well as testing and refining integrated weed management strategies will be necessary before ST is likely to be widely adopted in vegetable cropping systems without increased reliance on herbicides.