Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:02:42.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control Efficacy and Pinto Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Tolerance to Early Season Mechanical Weeding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Mark J. Vangessel ,
Lori J. Wiles ,
Edward E. Schweizer  and
Phil Westra
Mark J. Vangessel
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol., Weed Sci., Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Lori J. Wiles
Affiliation:
Water Manage. Res., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Edward E. Schweizer
Affiliation:
Water Manage. Res., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Phil Westra
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol. and Weed Sci., Colorado State Univ., Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An integrated approach to weed management in pinto bean is needed since available herbicides seldom adequately control all weed species present in a field. A two-year study was conducted to assess weed control efficacy and pinto bean tolerance to mechanical weeding from a rotary hoe or flex-tine harrow at crook, unifoliolate, and trifoliolate stages of bean development. Weed control was similar for both implements and all timings in 1993. In 1994, mechanical weeding at trifoliolate and both crook and trifoliolate stages controlled more weeds than at other growth stages, regardless of type of implement. Using the flex-tine harrow reduced pinto bean stand, but results based on growth stage were not consistent each year. Damage to pinto bean hypocotyls and stems was observed with the flex-tine harrow used at both crook and trifoliolate stages in 1994. Rotary hoeing did not reduce pinto bean stand or cause injury. Yield and seed weight did not differ among treatments in either year.

Keywords

Pinto beans, Phaseolus vulgaris L., ‘Bill Z.’Cultivationintegrated weed managementflex-tine harrowrotary hoeAmaranthus retroflexusEchinochloa crus-galliEuphorbia dentataAMAREECHCGEPHDE
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 531 - 534
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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. Bumside, 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.Google Scholar
2. 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
3. Gunsolus, J. L. 1990. Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 5:114–119.Google Scholar
4. Lovely, W. G., Weber, C. R., and Staniforth, D. W. 1958. Effectiveness of rotary hoeing for weed control in soybeans. Agron. J. 50:621–625.Google Scholar
5. Malik, S. V., Swanton, C. J., and Michaels, T. E. 1993. Interaction of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars, row spacing, and seedling density with annual weeds. Weed Sci. 41:62–68.Google Scholar
6. 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
7. van Schoonhoven, A. and Pastor-Corrales, M. A., compilers. 1987. Standard system for the evaluation of bean germplasm. CIAT, Cali, Colombia. 53 p.Google Scholar