Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:47:47.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical periods for weed control in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Orvin C. Burnside ,
Melvin J. Wiens ,
Bobby J. Holder ,
Sanford Weisbere ,
Eric A. Ristau ,
Michelle M. Johnson  and
James H. Cameron
Melvin J. Wiens
Affiliation:
Central Lakes Agricultural Center, Staples, MN 56479
Bobby J. Holder
Affiliation:
Division of Agriculture, University of Minnesota, Crookston, MN 56716
Sanford Weisbere
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Statistics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Eric A. Ristau
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Michelle M. Johnson
Affiliation:
Central Lakes Agricultural Center, Staples, MN 56479
James H. Cameron
Affiliation:
Division of Agriculture, University of Minnesota, Crookston, MN 56716
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed removal experiments in dry edible beans were conducted during 1992 and 1993 at Crookston and Staples, MN. Ten manual weed removal treatments were studied to determine when a natural infestation of weeds first reduced dry bean yield, and when weed removal could be discontinued without further loss of seed yield. Major weeds in order of average biomass production on weedy check plots at dry bean harvest over locations and years were wild mustard, foxtail spp., redroot pigweed, common ragweed, wild buckwheat, hairy nightshade, and common lambsquarters. Hairy nightshade also emerged late in the growing season and could negatively affect harvest efficiency and stain navy beans. Weed removal treatments had little effect on dry bean stands or 100-seed weights of harvested dry bean seed. The critical period for weed control in dry beans was 3 to 5 or 6 weeks after planting (WAP). Thus, weed control practices should begin no later than 3 WAP and continue until at least 5 or 6 WAP for maximum dry bean yields.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters Chenopodium album L., CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, AMBELfoxtails, Setaria spp.hairy nightshade, Solanum sarrachoides Sendtner, SOLSAredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retro-flexus L., AMAREwild buckwheat, Polygonum convolvulus L., POLCOwild mustard, Brassica kaber (DC.) L.C. Wheeler, SINARdry edible bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Montcalm Red’ and ‘Seafarer.’Competitionhand weedinginterferenceAmaranthus retroflexusAmbrosia artemisiifoliaBrassica kaberChenopodium albumPolygonum convolvulusSetaria spp.Solanum sarrachoidesAMAREAMBELCHEALPOLCOSINARSOLSA
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , June 1998 , pp. 301 - 306
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrochoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 39: 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Esau, R. 1991. Control of annual broadleaf weeds in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 5: 532–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgert, K. L., Burnside, O. C., and Fenster, C. R. 1973. Black nightshade leaves its mark. Farm, Ranch Home Q. 20: 8–10.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C. 1972. Tolerance of soybean cultivars to weed competition and herbicides. Weed Sci. 20: 294–297.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., Krause, N. H., Wiens, M. J., Johnson, M. M., and Ristau, E. A. 1993. Alternative weed management systems for the production of kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 7: 940–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Wilson, R. G., Weisberg, S., and Hubbard, K. G. 1996. Seed longevity of 41 weed species buried 17 years in eastern and western Nebraska. Weed Sci. 44: 74–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Challaiah, O. C. Burnside, Wicks, G. A., and Johnson, V. A. 1986. Competition between winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars and downy brome (Bromus tectorum). Weed Sci. 34: 689–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coble, H. D. 1986. Development and implementation of economic thresholds for soybean. Pages 295–307 in Frisbie, R. E. and Adkisson, P. L., eds. CIPM: Integrated Pest Management on Major Agricultural Systems. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1986. A simple model related yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107: 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, J. H. 1964. Competition between irrigated field beans and annual weeds. Weeds 12: 206–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durgan, B. R., Gunsolus, J. L., and Becker, R. L. 1997. Cultural and chemical weed control in field crops. Minnesota Extension Service. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, pp. 24–27.Google Scholar
[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Agricultural Chemicals in Ground Water: Proposed Pesticide Strategy. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Francis, C. A. and King, J. W., eds. 1988. Sustainable Agriculture in the Midwest: North Central Regional Conference. Lincoln, NE: USDA and University of Nebraska, pp. 1–102.Google Scholar
King, R. P., Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and Zimdahl, R. L. 1986. Bioeconomic modeling to simulate weed control strategies for continuous corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 34: 972–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamey, H. A., Zollinger, R. K., McBride, D. K., Venette, R. C., and Venette, J. R. 1991. Production problems and practices of northarvest dry bean growers in 1989. N. D. Farm Res. 49: 17–24.Google Scholar
Nieto, J. H., Brondo, M. A., and Gonzalez, J. T. 1968. Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for competition from weeds. PANS 14: 159–166.Google Scholar
Rose, S. J., Burnside, O. C., Specht, J. E., and Swisher, B. A. 1984. Competition and allelopathy between soybeans and weeds. Agron. J. 76: 523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, M., Saxena, M. C., Abu-Irmaileh, B. E., Al-Thahabi, S. A., and Haddad, N. I. 1996. Estimation of critical period of weed control. Weed Sci. 44: 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., Forcella, F., Gunsolus, J. L., and King, R. P. 1994. Estimation of crop yield loss due to interference by multiple weed species. Weed Sci. 42: 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1996. Agriculture Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 90–105.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, G. G., Modena, S. A., and Coble, H. D. 1991. HERB: decision model for postemergence weed control in soybean. Agron. J. 83: 413–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. G. Jr., Wicks, G. A., and Fenster, C. R. 1980. Weed control in field beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) in western Nebraska. Weed Sci. 28: 295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolley, B. L., Michaels, T. E., Hall, M. R., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. The critical period of weed control in white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41: 180–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition—A Review. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, pp. 1–195.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. K. and Kells, J. J. 1993. Perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis) interference in soybean (Glycine max) and dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 7: 52–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar