Efficacy evaluation of some herbicides for weed management and yield attributes in broad bean (Vicia faba)

پژوهش‌های حبوبات ایران

Article 9, Volume 8, Issue 2, December 2017, Pages 205-214   

Document Type: Original Articles

DOI: 10.22067/ijpr.v8i2.55277

Authors

saeed saeedipour^{* 1}; zeinab boali²

¹Islamic azad university shoushtar branch

²islamic azad university shoushtar branch

Abstract

Introduction
Broad bean (Vicia faba, L.) is grown and consumed principally in developing countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Farmers often consider weeds to be the major biological constraint to growing legume crops successfully. Chemical control of weeds became widespread in the world because it brings about rapid and desirable control of weeds; and today chemical weed control is one of the most popular methods of controlling weeds. Weed interference in dry bean can reduce seed yield as much as 83%. There is limited number of post emergence herbicides available for broad bean production. More research is needed to identify POST herbicides that provide broadleaves weed control in broad beans. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy of some broadleaved herbicides applied POST at the proposed manufacturer’s recommended rate and to assess broad bean yield response to these herbicides since no information is available in the literature on these chemicals.

Materials & Methods
Field experiment was conducted in 2011-2012 at the Shoushtar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran (320 3´ N, 480 50´ E). The experiment was performed in randomized complete block design with four replications. Treatment consisted of 1) Basagran (bentazon) SL 48% 1.5 Lha-1 + Haloxyfop-R-methyl (super gallant) EC 10.8% 0.6 Lha-1 2) Bentazon SL 48% 1.5 Lha-1 + Sethoxydim (nabo-S) OEC 12.5% 1.5 Lha-1 3) Bentazon SL 48% 1.5 Lha-1 + Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl (whip super) EC 12% 0.7 Lha-1 4) Imazthapyr(pursuit) SL 10% 0.6 Lha-1 5) Pursuit SL 10% 0.4 applied POST, with two control plots weed-free and weed-infested throughout the crop cycle, respectively. Plots were maintained weed free by cultivation and hand hoeing as required to eliminate the confounding effect of weed interference. Bean shoot dry weight was determined by cutting plants at the soil surface from 1m of row per plot. Plants were dried at 75 0C to constant moisture and then weighed. Broad bean height was measured for 10 plants in each plot 5 WAT and averaged. Broad bean was considered mature when 90% of the pods in the untreated control had turned from green to a golden color. Beans were harvested from each plot, weight and seed moisture content were recorded, and seed yields were adjusted to 13% moisture. Data were analyzed as an RCBD using PROC MIXED in SAS 9.2. The comparison of means was conducted by Duncan method at 1 and 5% probability level.
Results & Discussion
Herbicide treatments applied to broad bean resulted in significant (P ≤ 0.05) reduction in weed biomass and density relative to the untreated control (Table1, 2). The blend of Bentazon+Nobo-S and Pursuit with the dose of 0.6 Lha-1 has been more successful in the control of weed than other treatments, and has decreased the weed biomass by over %98.7 in compare to weedy check. Other studies have found that 50 g ai ha-1 of imazethapyr (pursuit) applied post emergence will provide season-long control of broad leaf weed in pinto beans. There was no statistical difference in weed control between pursuit applied alone or tank-mixed of Bentazon with Nobo-S (Table 3). The least level of control were observed in blend of Bentazon+Whip super and pursuit with the dose of 0.4 Lha-1(Table 4). Weed management practitioners must adjust pursuit herbicide doses based on weed species composition. Among experimental treatments there was a significant difference in terms of impact on the density of weed (Table 1). Mean comparison of treatments showed that pursuit with the dose of 0.6 Lha-1 decreased the density of weed by 66.2%. Seed yield was equal in all POST herbicide treatments, and there was no statistical difference in seed yield among herbicide treatments. The lowest and highest seed yield recorded 2403 and 2545 kg ha−1 in tank-mixed of Bentazon+Super gallant and pursuit with the dose of 0.6 Lha-1, respectively (Table 4). In the weedy treatment seed yield was 1494.9 kg ha−1, and on hoeing treatment it was 3239 kg ha−1 (Table 4). Because the highest yield of herbicide treatments was only 78% of the hoeing treatment, it is likely that more efficient weed management programs can be developed. Higher seed yield in herbicide treated plots in compare to weedy check, may be an outcome of efficient weed control achieved there. These results are in conformation with those of some researchers who reported that herbicides offer sizeable increase in crop productivity corresponding to their weed control spectrum.

Conclusions
It is concluded that the most effective herbicide treatment was pursuit with the dose of 0.6 Lha-1, which provided maximum reduction in total weed dry matter. However, all herbicide treatments increased broad bean biological and seed yield as compared with the weedy check.

Keywords

Imazethapyr herbicide; Seed yield; Weed dry weight

References

1. Al-Thahabi, S.A., Yasin, J.Z., Abu-Irmaileh, B.E., Haddad, N.I., and Saxena, M.C. 1994. Effect of weed removal on productivity of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and lentil (Lens culinaris Med.) in a Mediterranean environment. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 172: 333-341.

2. Arnold, R.N., Murray, M.W., Gregory, E.J., and Smeal, D. 1993. Weed control in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with imazethapyr combinations. Weed Technology 7: 361-364.

3. Baghestani, M.A., Zand, E., Soufizadeh, S., Beheshtian, M., and Haghighi A. 2008. Study on the efficacy of weed control in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) with tank mixtures of grass herbicides with broadleaved herbicides. Crop Protection 27: 104-111. (In Persian).

4. Bauer, T.A., Renner, K.A., Penner, D., and Kelly, J.D. 1995. Pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) varietal tolerance to imazethapyr. Weed Science 43: 417-424.

5. Behdarvandi, B., and Modhaj, A. 2007. Integrated control (chemical and mechanical) of rapeseed weeds in southern Iran climate. Research Journal of Agricultural Science 13: 163-170.

6. Blackshaw, R.E., and Esau, R. 1991. Control of annual broadleaf weeds in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technology 5: 532-538.

7. Blackshaw, R.E., Molnar, J.L., Muendel, H.H., Saindon, G., and Li, X. 2000. Integration of cropping practices and herbicides improves weed management in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technology 14: 327-336.

8. 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 Technology 8: 238-244.

9. Chhokar, R.S., Singh, S., and Sharma, R.K. 2008. Herbicides for control of isoproturon-resistant little seed canary grass (Phalaris minor) in wheat. Crop Protection 27: 719-726.

10. Chikoye, D., Weise, S.F., and Swanton, C.J. 1995. Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Science 43: 375-380.

11. Gepts, P., Aragao, F., de Barros, E., Blair, M.W., and Brondani, R. 2008. Genomics of Phaseolus Beans, a Major Source of Dietary Protein and Micronutrients in the Tropics. In: ., Moore and R. Ming (Eds.). Genomics of Tropical Crop Plants. P. Springer, Berlin, Germany. p: 113-143.

12. Khajehpour, M. 2004. Industrial Plants. Esfehan Jahad Daneshgahi Press, Tehran, Iran. (In Persian). P: 320

13. Khan, I.A., Hassan, G., and Ihsanullah, S. 2003. Efficacy of pre-emergence herbicides on the yield and yield components of canola. Asian Journal of Plant Science 2: 251-253.

14. Larik, A.S., Rajput, M., Kakar, A.A., Bukhari, S.S., and Shaikh, M.A. 1999. Effect of weedicideafaon on character association in Brassica juncea and Eruca sativa. Journal of Agriculture 15: 198-202.

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

16. Marwat, K.B., Hussain, Z., Khan, N.I., and Gul, B. 2003. Impact of weed management on rapeseed. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research 9: 207-214.

17. Miri, H.R., and Rahimi, Y. 2009. Effects of combined and separate herbicide application on rapeseed and its weeds in southern Iran. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 11: 257-260.

18. OMAF. 2004. Guide to Weed Control. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, p: 348.

19. OMAFRA. 2004. Guide to Weed Control. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Toronto, Ontario, p: 347.

20. Smitchger, J.A., Burke, I.C., and Yenish, J.P. 2012. The critical period of weed control in lentil (Lens culinaris) in the Pacific Northwest. Weed Science 60: 81-85.

21. Urwin, C.P., Wilson, R.G., and Mortensen, D.A. 1996. Response of dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars to four herbicides. Weed Technology 10: 512-518.

22. Vencill, W.K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th Ed., Weed Science Society of America, Champaign, IL. ISBN-13: 9781891276330, p. 493.

23. Yadav, R.P., Shrivastava, U.K., and Yadav, K.S. 1995. Yield and economic analysis of weed-control practices in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea). Indian Journal of Agronomy 40: 122-124.