Use of false seedbed and reduced doses of imazethapyr for weed management in common bean (Phaseolus vulgari L.)

پژوهش‌های حبوبات ایران

Article 6, Volume 6, Issue 1, June 2015, Pages 108-116   

Document Type: Original Articles

DOI: 10.22067/ijpr.v1394i1.23780

Authors

Ali Reza Yousefi^* ; Mohammad Ali Peri

University of Zanjan

Abstract

Experiment was conducted in 2011 to evaluate the efficacy of reduced herbicide rates in combination with false seedbed for selective weed control in common bean. The experiment was carried out with a completely randomized factorial design. Factors were herbicide dose (post-emergence application of imazethapyr at the rates of 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 g a.i. ha-1) and seedbed preparation (false seedbed and conventional seedbed). A hand weeding control was also included as check. In the absence of herbicide, there were significant differences in grass and total weeds biomass between two seedbeds (p< 0.01), however, biomass of broadleaved weeds was not significantly different in two seedbeds (P=0.053). The false seedbed decreased grass and total weed biomass by 28 and 21%, respectively, as compared with conventional seedbed. Imazethapyr application greatly affected grass and broadleaf weed growth and biomass production. The rate of 50 g a.i. ha-1of imazethapyr was as effective as the 100 g a.i.ha-1 rate to maintain consistent weed control in the false seedbed, while, the rate of 75 g a.i. ha-1 was required to maintain effective weed control in conventional seedbed. Season-long weed competition resulted in 68 and 73% yield loss in common bean in the false and conventional seedbed, respectively. However, imazethapyr application decreased yield loss down to 4.7 and 2.9% in false and conventional seedbed, respectively. The study suggests that acceptable weed control in common bean of the weed species observed in the present study could be achieved using imazethapyr at the rate of 56 g a.i. ha-1 in combination with false seedbed, which can save the yield by 90%.

Keywords

Dose-Response; Integrated Weed Management; Seedbed

References

1. Bostrom, U., and Fogelfors, H. 2002. Response of weeds and crop yield to herbicide dose decision-support guidelines. Weed Science 50: 186-195.

2. Dogan, M.N., Unay, A., Boz, O., and Ogut, D. 2009. Effect of pre-sowing and pre-emergence glyphosate applications on weeds in stale seedbed cotton. Crop Protection 28:503-507.

3. FAOSTAT AGRICULTURE DATA. 2012. Available at: http://faostat3.fao.org (verified 10 June 2013).

4. Fogelfors, H. 1990. Different doses of herbicide for control of weeds in cereals final report from the long-term series. In: 31st Swedish Crop Protection. Conf. Weeds and Weed Control Reports, pp. 139-151.

5. Klingaman, T.E., King, C.A., and Oliver, L.R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species, and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity. Weed Science 40: 227-232.

6. Lonsbary, S.K., O'Sullivan, J., and Swanton, C.J. 2003. Stale-seedbed as a weed management alternative for machine-harvested cucumbers (Cucumis sativus). Weed Technology 17(4): 724-730.

7. Malik, V.S., Swanton, C.J., and Michaels, T.E. 1993. Interference of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars, row spacing and seeding density with annual weeds. Weed Science 41: 62-68.

8. Monaco, T.J., Weller, S.C., and Ashton, F.M. 2002. Weed Science: principles and practices, 4th edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

9. Mortimer, M. 1997. The need for studies on weed ecology to improve weed management. Expert consulation on weed ecology and management. F.A.O. Report.

10. Oveisi, M., Rahimian-Mashhadi, H., Baghestani, M.A., and Alizade, H.M. 2008. Modelling herbicide dose effect and multiple weed species interference in corn. Iranian Weed Science 4: 47-63. (In Persian with English Summary).

11. Riemens, M.M., Van Der Weide, R.Y., Bleeker, P.O., and Lotz, L.A.P. 2007. Effect of stale seedbed preparations and subsequent weed control in lettuce (cv. Iceboll) on weed densities. Weed Research 47: 149-156.

12. Salonen, J. 1992. Yield responses of spring cereals to reduced herbicide doses. Weed Research 32: 439-499.

13. Sikkema, P., Deen, W., and Vyas, S. 2005. Weed control in pea with reduced rates of imazethapyr applied preemergence and postemergence. Weed Technology 19: 14-18.

14. Soltani, N., Robinson, D.E., Shropshire, C., and Sikkema, P.H. 2006. Otebo bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) sensitivity to pre-emergence herbicides. Crop Protection 25(5): 476-479.

15. Soltani, N., Van Eerd, L.L., Vyn, R., Shropshire, C., and Sikkema, P.H. 2007. Weed management in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with dimethenamid plus reduced doses of imazethapyr applied preplant incorporated. Crop Protection 26(5): 739-745.

16. Yousefi, A.R., Gonzalez-Andujar, J.L., Alizadeh, H., Baghestani, M.A., Rahimian, H., and Karimmojeni, H. 2012. Interactions between reduced rate of imazethapyr and multiple weed species–soyabean interference in a semi-arid environment. Weed Research 52: 242-251.

17. Zhang, J., Weaver, S.E., and Hamill, A.S. 2000. Risks and reliability of using herbicides at below-labeled doses. Weed Technology 14: 106-115.