Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T08:40:51.781Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed control and its effects on yield of Phaseolus vulgaris beans in Malawi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

U. W. U. Ayonoadu ,
J. Norrington-Davies ,
O. T. Edje  and
L. K. Mughogho
U. W. U. Ayonoadu
Affiliation:
Bunda College of Agriculture, University of Malawi, P.O. Box 219, Lilongwe, Malawi
J. Norrington-Davies
Affiliation:
Bunda College of Agriculture, University of Malawi, P.O. Box 219, Lilongwe, Malawi
O. T. Edje
Affiliation:
Bunda College of Agriculture, University of Malawi, P.O. Box 219, Lilongwe, Malawi
L. K. Mughogho
Affiliation:
Bunda College of Agriculture, University of Malawi, P.O. Box 219, Lilongwe, Malawi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A number of herbicide treatments involving the use of trifluralin, preforan and igran were compared together with hand weeding as methods for the control of weeds in a cultivar of Phaseolus vulgaris sown on 19 January 1972.

Favourable increases in yield of beans were obtained by combinations of preforan and igran which were associated with an increase in the number of pods produced per plant. Hand weeding failed to give a significant increase in final yield.

Within 14 days from sowing there was an appreciable weed cover in the control and hand-weeded plots but little evidence of weeds in the herbicide-treated plots. At 41 days there were still no significant differences between the control and the plots to be hand weeded. There was, however, a considerable reduction in percentage cover of weeds on the herbicide treated plots. Trifluralin and preforan were equally effective in reducing weed cover.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 82 , Issue 2 , April 1974 , pp. 283 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

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

Anderson, P. W., Richards, A. B. & Whitworth, J. W. (1967). Trifluralin effects on cotton seedlings. Weeds 15, 224–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barreto, A. (1970). Competition between beans and weeds. Agricultura, Tecnica en Mexico 2, 519–26.Google Scholar
Cargill, R. L. & Santelmann, P. W. (1971). Influence of peanut quality and variety on susceptibility to herbicides. Agronomy Journal 63, 98–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielson, L. L. (1970). Losses and costs due to weeds, weed control methods, and benefits of weed control in vegetable legumes. 1st FAO International Conference on Weed Control, 1–17.Google Scholar
Dowson, J. H. (1964). Competition between irrigated field beans and annual weeds. Weeds 12, 206–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacskaylo, J. & Amato, V. A. (1968). Effect of trifluralin on roots of corn and cotton. Weed Science 16, 513–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palm, H. L. & Fletchall, O. H. (1968). Response of soya beans to trifluralin at various soil temperatures. Abstract of the Meeting of the Weed Science Society of America, 109.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. & Arnst, R. N. (1969). Trifluralin: Weed control in peas. Proceedings of the 22nd New Zealand Weed Pest Control Conference, pp. 55–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar