Alternative Weed Management Systems for the Production of Kidney Beans (<i>Phaseolus vulgaris</i>)

Burnside, O. C.; Krause, Norman H.; Wiens, Melvin J.; Johnson, Michelle M.; Ristau, Eric A.

doi:10.1017/s0890037x00038045

Cited by 11 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A previous study similarly found that dry bean yield was not reduced when planted directly into wheat, canola, barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), oat (Avena sativa L.), or flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) stubble (Blackshaw et al 2007). Similar to our results with cover crops, dry bean yield in treatments combining herbicides with a winter rye or a barley cover crop were similar to the no-cover crop control (Burnside et al 1993;Shrestha et al 2002). In contrast, Liebman et al (1995) documented that a winter rye cover crop reduced dry bean yield in 1 of 2 yr.…”

Section: G/ha --------------------------------------------------supporting

confidence: 88%

“…Cover crops can provide ground cover to protect the soil from erosion, improve pest and weed management, and potentially increase dry bean yield (Sarrantonio and Gallandt 2003;Teasdale 1996). Limited research on snap bean (Knavel and Herron 1986;Skarphol et al 1987) and dry bean (Burnside et al 1993;Liebman et al 1995) has found that cover crop use can result in lower, similar, or higher bean yields. Clearly, additional research is needed to determine dry bean growth and yield response to cover crops.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Integration of Conservation Tillage and Herbicides for Sustainable Dry Bean Production

Blackshaw¹,

Molnár²

2008

Weed Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Development of conservation tillage practices for dry bean has lagged behind that of many other crops. A field study was conducted to determine the effects of various crop residues and herbicide treatments on weed management and dry bean yield within a zero-tillage system. Main plot treatments included wheat stubble, canola stubble, fall-seeded winter rye, fall-seeded spring rye, and a no-cover control. Subplot treatments included various preplant and POST herbicides. Wheat stubble, canola stubble, and winter rye residue provided sufficient ground cover to prevent soil erosion, and they effectively reduced weed density compared with the no-cover control in all years. Fall-seeded spring rye provided only partial soil-erosion protection and reduced weed density in only 1 of 3 yr. Dry bean emergence was 3 to 5 d slower in the crop residue treatments compared with the no-cover control, but crop density was not adversely affected. However, winter rye residue delayed dry bean maturity by 2 to 6 d. Fall-applied granular ethalfluralin followed by POST bentazon/imazethapyr or imazamox provided the most effective weed control. A sole POST imazamox application also provided good weed control when weed densities were reduced by winter rye residue or wheat stubble. Overall, results indicate that with suitable herbicide programs, similar yields were attained when dry bean was seeded directly into crop stubble or cover crop residues compared with the no-cover control. Information gained in this study will be used to encourage greater farmer adoption of conservation tillage practices for dry bean production on the Canadian prairies.

show abstract

Section: G/ha --------------------------------------------------supporting

confidence: 88%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Integration of Conservation Tillage and Herbicides for Sustainable Dry Bean Production

Blackshaw¹,

Molnár²

2008

Weed Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Blackshaw (2008) found that despite slower emergence, dry bean density was not significantly affected by cover crops (fall‐ and spring‐seeded rye, barley, and oat) in southern Alberta. Other studies also showed that fall rye (Liebman et al, 1995) or spring barley (Burnside et al, 1993) cover crops did not adversely affect dry bean plant density.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Conservation Management Practices and Rotations for Irrigated Dry Bean Production in Southern Alberta

Larney

Pearson

et al. 2015

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) production on the Canadian prairies has traditionally used wide rows, inter‐row cultivation, and undercutting at harvest. Recent breeding efforts have produced cultivars with more upright growth which are better suited to solid‐seeded narrow‐row production systems. A 12 yr (2000–2011) study compared conservation (CONS) and conventional (CONV) management for dry bean in 3‐ to 6‐yr rotations. The CONS rotations included reduced tillage, cover crops, feedlot manure compost, and solid‐seeded narrow‐row dry bean. Effects of CONS management on plant density were inconsistent with some years showing lower density when seeded into high‐residue conditions. On average, there was a 3 d maturity advantage with CONS (103 d) vs. CONV (106 d) management. The CONS rotations showed significantly higher mean incidence (19%) of white mold [Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary] than CONV rotations (6%). Averaging across 12 yr, there was no significant rotation effect on yield (P = 0.19) showing that CONS production performed as good as CONV production. In the last 2 yr (2010–2011) of the study, in an attempt to reduce harvest losses, CONS dry bean was undercut rather than direct combined. This led to significantly higher (25%) yield with CONS (3311 kg ha−1) vs. CONV management (2651 kg ha−1). Our results provide incentive for more rapid adoption of conservation‐oriented soil and crop management practices for dry bean production on the Canadian prairies, including narrow rows, reduced tillage, cover crops, and feedlot manure compost addition.

show abstract

“…Rotary hoeing or interrow cultivation alone did not control weeds as well as herbicides alone or herbicides with interrow cultivation (Burnside et al. 1994, Burnside et al. 1993).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Rotary hoeing or interrow cultivation alone did not control weeds as well as herbicides alone or herbicides with interrow cultivation (Burnside et al 1994, Burnside et al 1993. Rotary hoeing and interrow cultivation together can be an eective way of weed control in corn and soybean.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Response of Corn Hybrids Differing in Canopy Architecture to Chemical and Mechanical (Rotary Hoeing) Weed Control: Morphology and Yield

Begna

Hamilton

Dwyer

et al. 2001

J Agronomy Crop Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Weed interference with the growth and yield of corn plants is aected by both mechanical and chemical means of weed control. Recently, corn hybrids accumulating more leaf area, maturing earlier, yielding better in narrower row spacings and tolerating higher plant populations better than conventional hybrids have been developed. Because of more rapid leaf area accumulation during the earliest stages of canopy development and overall canopy architecture, they may be more susceptible to damage due to mechanical weed control. The objective of this study was to assess the response of corn hybrids with a wide range of canopy architectures to chemical and mechanical (rotary hoeing) weed control, with an emphasis on quantifying morphology and grain yield responses. Field experiments were conducted in 1997 and 1998 at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec. Three hybrids were tested: leafy reduced-stature (LRS1 and LRS2), and the conventional hybrid Pioneer 3979 (P3979). Rotary hoeing alone had very little eect, while herbicide application reduced the interference of weeds with growth and grain yield of all hybrids. Hybrid P3979 had more total leaf area than LRS1 and LRS2, but the percentage of leaf area above the ear was much higher for LRS hybrids (70 %) than for P3979 (51 %). Generally, LRS hybrids were much shorter with more leaf area above the ear than P3979, contributing to the large dierences in canopy architecture between the LRS hybrids and P3979. However, morphology and grain yield response of hybrids to rotary hoeing and herbicide weed control was not dierent, indicating that the new hybrids were not more susceptible to damage caused by mechanical weed control than a corn hybrid with a conventional canopy architecture.

show abstract

Alternative Weed Management Systems for the Production of Kidney Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)

Cited by 11 publications

References 9 publications

Integration of Conservation Tillage and Herbicides for Sustainable Dry Bean Production

Integration of Conservation Tillage and Herbicides for Sustainable Dry Bean Production

Conservation Management Practices and Rotations for Irrigated Dry Bean Production in Southern Alberta

Response of Corn Hybrids Differing in Canopy Architecture to Chemical and Mechanical (Rotary Hoeing) Weed Control: Morphology and Yield

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About