Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-fnl2l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-12T00:17:58.899Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Timing and Frequency of In-Row Cultivation for Weed Control in Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Mark J. Vangessel ,
Edward E. Schweizer ,
Robert G. Wilson ,
Lori J. Wiles  and
Phil Westra
Mark J. Vangessel
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Weed Science
Edward E. Schweizer
Affiliation:
Water Management Research, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Lori J. Wiles
Affiliation:
Water Management Research, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Phil Westra
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology and Weed Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Effectiveness of rotary hoeing with cultivation and comparison of an in-row cultivator with a standard row-crop cultivator were determined in dry edible bean. The effectiveness of in-row cultivation conducted at various timings and frequencies was examined. The in-row cultivator was more effective in reducing weed populations than the standard cultivator, although at least two mechanical weeding operations were needed to reduce weed populations to levels of the herbicide check (EPTC [S-ethyl dipropyl carbamothioate] plus ethalfluralin). When the in-row cultivation was delayed until the second trifoliolate stage or later, weed populations were greater than those in the herbicide check. In situations with high weed populations, rotary hoeing prior to cultivation was required to reduce weed populations to levels similar to the herbicide check. An in-row cultivator has potential to improve mechanical weed control options in a crop such as dry edible bean. The types of adjustments made in combination with soil textures, soil moisture, and operator experience affect overall weed control. Thus, it is expected that the level of weed control will vary from year to year and even field to field for the same operator.

Keywords

Pinto bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L., ‘Bill Z,’ ‘Great Northern,’ ‘Marquis.'Mechanical weed controlrotary hoe
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , September 1998 , pp. 548 - 553
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Bauer, T. A., Renner, K. A., Penner, D., and Kelly, J. D. 1995. Pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) varietal tolerance to imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 43:417–424.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 39:48–53.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
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1993. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) control in soybeans (Glycine max) with reduced bentazon rates and cultivation. Weed Sci. 41:447–453.Google 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.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) time of emergence and density on white beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 43:375–380.Google Scholar
Colorado State University Cooperative Extension. 1996. Dry Bean Production and Pest Management. Regional Bull. 562A. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University. 106 p.Google Scholar
Dawson, J. H. 1964. Competition between irrigated field beans and annual weeds. Weeds 12:206–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L. 1990. Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 5:114–119.Google Scholar
Malik, V., Swanton, C., and Michaels, T. 1993. Interaction of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars, row-spacing, and seeding density with annual weeds. Weed Sci. 41:62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mt. Pleasant, J., Burt, R. F., and Frisch, J. C. 1994. Integrating mechanical and chemical weed management in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 8:217–223.Google Scholar
Mulder, T. A. and Doll, J. D. 1993. Integrating reduced herbicide use with mechanical weeding in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7:382–389.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E., Westra, P., and Lybecker, D. W. 1994. Controlling weeds in corn (Zea mays) rows with an in-row cultivator versus decisions made by a computer model. Weed Sci. 42:593–600.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., DeFelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1990. Integrating reduced rates of postemergence herbicides and cultivation for broadleaf weed control in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38:541–545.Google Scholar
Urwin, C. P., Wilson, R. G., and Mortensen, D. A. 1996. Response of dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars to four herbicides. Weed Technol. 10:512–518.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Schweizer, E. E., Lybecker, D. W., and Westra, P. 1995a. Compatibility and efficiency of in-row cultivation for weed management in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 9:754–760.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Wiles, L. J., Schweizer, E. E., and Westra, P. 1995b. Weed control efficacy and pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) tolerance to early season mechanical weeding. Weed Technol. 9:531–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1992. Wild proso millet interference in dry edible beans. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 45:31.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Miller, S. D. 1991. Dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) response to imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:22–26.Google 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