Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:27:16.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chemical Control of Annual Weeds in Field Beans (Vicia faba) in Central Spain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Rafael C. Garcia De Arevalo
Affiliation:
Finca Exp. La Poveda, IAA, CSIC, Ctra. Campo Real, Km 0.300, 28500 Arganda del Rey, Madrid, Spain
Carmen A. Lusarreta
Affiliation:
Finca Exp. La Poveda, IAA, CSIC, Ctra. Campo Real, Km 0.300, 28500 Arganda del Rey, Madrid, Spain
Carmen B. Neyra
Affiliation:
Finca Exp. La Poveda, IAA, CSIC, Ctra. Campo Real, Km 0.300, 28500 Arganda del Rey, Madrid, Spain
Mercedes A. Sanchez
Affiliation:
Finca Exp. La Poveda, IAA, CSIC, Ctra. Campo Real, Km 0.300, 28500 Arganda del Rey, Madrid, Spain
Pedro J. H. Algarra
Affiliation:
Finca Exp. La Poveda, IAA, CSIC, Ctra. Campo Real, Km 0.300, 28500 Arganda del Rey, Madrid, Spain

Abstract

Field studies were conducted over 3 yr to investigate the effect of chemicals on field beans density and weed control. Predominant weed species were common lambsquarters, fumitory, henbit, corn poppy, prostrate knotweed, and wild mustard. All herbicide treatments except linuron injured field beans. Mean field beans survival at harvest was 78% in alachlor and 84% in alachlor containing treatments. Only 5% survived atrazine at 1.9 kg ai ha−1. Ethalfluralin, pendimethalin, simazine, terbutylazine plus terbutryn, and trifluralin treatments produced plant survival values of 56, 82, 86, 74, and 71%, respectively. Chemical control of the main weed species overshadowed the detrimental effect on field beans density, and thus most herbicide treatments except alachlor resulted in increased dry beans yield. The best overall results occurred with linuron, simazine, terbuthylazine plus terbutryn, and pendimethalin which increased dry beans yields 76, 63, 56, and 40%, respectively, over the control plots. Common lambsquarters was the dominant weed, and prostrate knotweed and corn poppy were the most difficult and the easiest species to control, respectively.

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 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. Americanos, P. G. 1986. Herbicides for broadbeans. Agric. Res. Inst., Nicosia, Cyprus. Tech. Bull. No. 76. 4 pp.Google Scholar
2. Bhomik, P. C. 1988. Cinmethylin for weed control in soybeans, Glycine max . Weed Sci. 36:678682.Google Scholar
3. Buhler, D. D. and Werling, V. L. 1989. Weed control from imazaquin and metolachlor in no-till soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37:392399.Google Scholar
4. Caballero, R. 1987. The effect of plant population and row width on seed yield and yield components in field beans. Res. and Dev. Agric. 4:147150.Google Scholar
5. Caballero, R. 1988. Nitrogen fertilization of field beans in Central Spain. Effects on seed yields and chemical composition. Res. Dev. Agric. 5:165169.Google Scholar
6. Coyne, D. P., Anderson, F. N., Ashburn, C. L., Fenster, C. R., Hagen, A. F., Howe, O. W., Lancaster, O. W., Schuster, M. L., and Steadman, J. R. 1973. Growing dry edible beans in Nebraska. Publ. Univ. Nebraska Agric. Exp. Sta. SB 527. 39 pp.Google Scholar
7. Fenster, C. R. and Wicks, G. A. 1971. Weed control in field beans in Nebraska. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 26:5052.Google Scholar
8. Franek, M. and Radziszewski, J. 1987. Chemical weed control in pulse crops. Ochr. Rostl. 31(5):68.Google Scholar
9. Fuerst, E. P., Arntzen, C. J., Pfister, K., and Penner, D. 1986. Herbicide cross-resistance in triazine-resistant biotypes of four species. Weed Sci. 34:344353.Google Scholar
10. Fuerst, E. P., Barrett, M., and Penner, D. 1986. Control of triazine-resistant common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and two pigweed species (Amaranthus spp) in com (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 34:440443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Gummesson, G. 1981. Weed control in field beans. Proc. 22nd Swedish Weed Conf., Uppsala. Pages 201202.Google Scholar
12. Harvey, R. G. 1977. Relative phytotoxicities of seven acetanilide herbicides to eight crop and seven weed species. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 32:113.Google Scholar
13. Pope, M. 1980. Chemical weed control in shallow-drilled spring-sown field beans (Vicia faba L.). Ann. Appl. Biol. 94 (Suppl.). Pages 4647.Google Scholar
14. Putman, A. R. and Love, A. P. 1971. Preplant and pre-emergence herbicides for effective weed control in snap beans. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 26:99.Google Scholar
15. Standsted, R. F., How, R. B., Muka, A. A., and Sherf, A. F. 1971. Growing dry beans in New York State. Information Bull. New York State Coll. of Agric. No. 2. 22 pp.Google Scholar
16. Willis, M. D. 1984. Herbicide activity of ethalfluralin and its uptake and translocation in selected vegetable crops. Diss. Abstr. Int. (B) 45:1075B.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. 28:295299.Google Scholar