Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-glrdx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T22:25:07.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integration of Cropping Practices and Herbicides Improves Weed Management in Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert E. Blackshaw ,
Louis J. Molnar ,
H.-Henning Muendel ,
Gilles Saindon  and
Xiangju Li
Robert E. Blackshaw*
Affiliation:
Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, P.O. Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
Louis J. Molnar
Affiliation:
Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, P.O. Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
H.-Henning Muendel
Affiliation:
Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, P.O. Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
Gilles Saindon
Affiliation:
Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, P.O. Box 20280, Fredericton, NB, Canada E3B 4Z7
Xiangju Li
Affiliation:
Institute of Food and Oil Crops, Hebei Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, Shijiazhuang, Hebei 050031 China
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: blackshaw@em.agr.ca.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A field study was conducted to determine the combined effects of row spacing, plant density, and herbicides on weed management and dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) yield. In weed-free dry bean, a reduction in row spacing from 69 to 23 cm increased yield by 19% and an increase in density from 20 to 50 plants/m2 increased yield by 17%. In the presence of weeds, narrow rows and high plant densities increased dry bean yield, but without herbicides, yields remained low. However, when combined with herbicides, narrow-row and high-density production practices resulted in better weed control and higher dry bean yield than that attained in a wide-row and low-density production system. Herbicide combinations, often at reduced rates, controlled weeds as well or better than the full rate of any individual herbicide. Ethalfluralin applied preplant incorporated followed by reduced rates of imazethapyr or bentazon postemergence (POST) consistently controlled weeds. Imazamox exhibited the potential to provide a total POST weed control option in dry bean production. Information gained in this study will be used to develop improved weed management programs appropriate for either wide- or narrow-row dry bean production systems.

Keywords

Bentazon, 3-(1-methylethyl)-(1H)-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one 2,2- dioxideethalfluralin, N-ethyl-N-(2-methyl-2-propenyl)-2,6-dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenamineimazamox, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-(methoxymethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidimazethapyr, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidsmall red dry bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Ember.’Integrated weed managementplant densityrow spacingECHCGPOLCOPOLSCSETVISOLSAPAR, photosynthetically active radiationPOST, postemergencePPI, preplant incorporated

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 327 - 336
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1997. Crop Protection with Chemicals. Agdex 606-1. Edmonton, AB, Canada: Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. pp. 38–239.Google Scholar
Arnold, R. N., Murray, M. W., Gregory, E. J., and Smeal, D. 1993. Weed control in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with imazethapyr combinations. Weed Technol. 7: 361–364.Google Scholar
Bauer, T. A., Renner, K. A., and Penner, D. 1995. Response of selected weed species to postemergence imazethapyr and bentazon. Weed Technol. 9: 236–242.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 39: 48–53.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1998. Postemergence weed control in pea (Pisum sativum) with imazamox. Weed Technol. 12: 64–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Esau, R. 1991. Control of annual broadleaf weeds in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 5: 532–538.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Saindon, G. 1996. Dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) tolerance to imazethapyr. Can. J. Plant Sci. 76: 915–919.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Muendel, H. H., and Saindon, G. 1999. Canopy architecture, row spacing and plant density effects on yield of dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) in the absence and presence of hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides). Can. J. Plant Sci. 79: 663–669.Google Scholar
Board, J. E. and Harville, B. G. 1994. A criterion for acceptance of narrowrow culture in soybean. Agron. J. 86: 1103–1106.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1992. Integrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs. Agron. J. 84: 973–978.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Wiens, M. J., Holder, B. J., Weisberg, S., Ristau, E. A., Johnson, M. M., and Cameron, J. H. 1998. Critical periods for weed control in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 46: 301–306.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
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.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Westgate, M. E., and Warnes, D. D. 1992. Effect of row width on herbicide and cultivation requirements in row crops. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 7: 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, K. S., Arshad, M. A., and Moyer, J. R. 1997. Cultural control of weeds. In Pimental, D., ed. Techniques for Reducing Pesticide Use. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 237–275.Google Scholar
Goulden, D. S. 1976. Effect of plant population and row spacing on yield and components of yield in navy beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). N. S. J. Exp. Agric. 4: 177–180.Google Scholar
Grafton, K. F., Schneiter, A. A., and Nagle, B. J. 1988. Row spacing, plant population and genotype × row spacing interaction effects on yield and yield components of dry bean. Agron. J. 80: 631–634.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. 1995. Plant responses to light: a potential tool for weed management. Weed Sci. 43: 474–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, H. C., Kokko, M. J., and Phillippe, L. M. 1988. White mold of dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in southern Alberta, 1983-87. Can. Plant Dis. Surv. 68: 11–13.Google Scholar
Jensen, P. K. 1995. Effect of light environment during soil disturbance on germination and emergence pattern of weeds. Ann. Appl. Biol. 127: 561–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebman, M. and Janke, R. J. 1990. Sustainable weed management practices. In Francis, C. A., Flora, C. B., and King, L. D., eds. Sustainable Agriculture in Temperate Zones. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 111–143.Google Scholar
Malik, V. S., Swanton, C. J., and Michaels, T. E. 1993. Interaction of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars, row spacing, and seeding density with annual weeds. Weed Sci. 41: 62–68.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R. and Esau, R. 1996. Imidazolinone herbicide effects on following rotational crops in southern Alberta. Weed Technol. 10: 100–106.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Yakubu, Y., Weise, S., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Effect of planting patterns and inter-row cultivation on competition between corn (Zea mays) and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci. 44: 856–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogg, A. G. and Dawson, J. H. 1984. Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Sci. 32: 327–335.Google Scholar
Park, S. J. 1993. Response of bush and upright plant type selections to white mold and seed yield of common beans grown in various row widths in southwestern Ontario. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73: 265–272.Google Scholar
Redden, R. J., Usher, T., Younger, D., Mayer, R., Hall, B., Fernandes, A., and Kirton, D. 1987. Response of navy beans to row width and plant population density in Queensland. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 27: 455–463.Google Scholar
Saindon, G., Huang, H. C., and Kozub, G. C. 1995. White-mold avoidance and agronomic attributes of upright common beans grown at multiple planting densities in narrow rows. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 120: 843–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, Volume 2, 4th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 846 p.Google Scholar
Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill. 633 p.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rational and approach. Weed Technol. 5: 657–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Frank, J. R. 1983. Effect of row spacing on weed competition with snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 31: 81–85.Google Scholar
Tu, J. C. 1989. Management of white mold of white beans in Ontario. Plant. Dis. 73: 281–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urwin, C. P., Wilson, R. G., and Mortensen, D. A. 1996. Late season weed suppression from dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars. Weed Technol. 10: 699–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1993. Wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.) competition with navy beans. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73: 1309–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1995. Bentazon tank-mixtures for improved redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) control in navy bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 9: 610–616.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
Yelverton, F. H. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Narrow row spacing and canopy formation reduces weed resurgence in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 5: 169–174.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. K. and Fitterer, S. A. 1998. Utility of imazamox in dry beans. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 51: 118–119.Google Scholar