Effects of limited irrigation and herbicide on yield, yield components and water consumption of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)

پژوهش‌های حبوبات ایران

Volume 14, Issue 1 - Serial Number 27, June 2023, Pages 146-159   

Document Type: Original Article

DOI: 10.22067/ijpr.v14i1.2210-1046

Authors

Seyed Hossein Nazer Kakhki^{* 1}; Samira Vahedi²; Masoud Kamel Shikhraje³

¹Plant Protection Research Department, Khorasan Razavi Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Mashhad, Iran

²Soil and Water Research Department, Zanjan Agriculture and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Zanjan, Iran

³Horticulture Crops Research Department, Mazandaran Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Sari, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
The effectiveness of productivity and sustainable agricultural development depends on the availability of natural resources as well as the efficiency of management measures in agricultural lands. Increasing water use efficiency is a promising way to manage agricultural production in arid and semi-arid regions where there is little or no prospect of expanding water resources (Boutraa, 2010). According to Malik et al. (1993) bean yield may be reduced up to 70% when faced in competition with weeds. Extending the irrigation cycle (limited irrigation) in beans is expected to diminish not only the water consumption but also to influence the weed density along with dry matter too.
 
Materials and Methods
This project was conducted at Khair-abad research station in Zanjan, Iran, over a period of two years starting from the 2017 growing season. The experimental design utilized a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with 24 treatments and three replications. The treatments were arranged in a strip plot layout. The vertical factor of the experiment consisted of three levels of irrigation intervals: efficient irrigation (every 4 days), limited irrigation (every 9 days), and more limited irrigation (every 12 days). The horizontal factor involved eight sub-factors of herbicides: Trifloraline, Imazethapyr, Trifloraline + Bentazone, Imazethapyr + Bentazone, Imazethapyr + Sitogate, Bentazon + Gallant Super, traditional hand mowing, and a test sub-factor with no control. Several traits were evaluated in this study, including the number of pods, number of seeds per pod, 100-seed weight, bean grain yield, biological yield, harvest index, and productivity index. Data analysis and mean comparisons were performed using the SAS statistical software, employing Duncan's multiple range tests.
 
Results and Discussion
The Results indicated that both the herbicides and irrigation periods were effective on density and dry matter of weeds. Reducing irrigation intervals will allow for greater control of weed density and dry matter. Imazethapyr and Trifloraline herbicides as pre-emergence and pre-plant followed by post emergence application of Bentazone leads to about 85 and 82 % reduction at in weeds density at bean 3rd three leaflet appearance stage, 85 and 82 % reduction at 50% flowering stage bean in tow year of the study recorded the most reduction on weeds density. Moreover, these herbicides inducing about 88 and 81% decrease at bean 3rd three leaflets and 91 and 87% decrease at bean 50% flowering stage. These treatments after weeding had the highest control on weed density and dry matter. Trifloraline, when applied as a pre-plant treatment, showed the lowest effectiveness in controlling weeds among all the treatments. It resulted in an average reduction of 49% at the appearance of the bean's third three leaflets and approximately 70% reduction at the 50% flowering stage of the bean plant. This treatment consistently ranked the lowest in terms of weed control throughout the study period. The treatments of Imazethapyr, whether applied solely as a pre-emergence treatment or in combination with Situgate as a post-emergence treatment, were found to be ineffective in controlling weeds. Therefore, these treatments are not recommended for weed management in beans, particularly under limited irrigation regimes. The maximum number of sheaths, grains per sheath, and weight of 100 grains were observed in the irrigation regime of every 4 days when integrated with the application of Trifloraline, traditional hand mowing, Imazethapyr + Situgate, and Imazethapyr alone. In terms of bean harvest, the highest yields of 5175 kg/ha, 4707 kg/ha, and 4624 kg/ha were obtained from the irrigation regime of every 4 days when integrated with traditional hand mowing, the application of Imazethapyr + Bentazone, and Imazethapyr + Situgate, respectively. On the other hand the best biological performance as 9950, 9783, and 9733 kg/ha were related to 4 days interval when integrated with application of Imazethapyr + Bentazone, hand mowing, and Imazethapyr + Situgate. The maximum bean harvest index at 52.82 and 50.80 percent were related to 4 and 9 days intervals integrated with hand mowing, followed by 50.54 percent related to 4 days round integrated with Imazethapyr and 9 days round integrated with Trifloraline+ Bentazone. The highest water efficiency as 0.83 was related to 9 days interval whereas the lowest one as 0.48 was related to 4 days round. Regarding the horizontal factors, during the two years study the maximum water efficiency as 0.86, 0.77, and 0.76 were registered at treatments of hand mowing, application of combined Imazethapyr + Bentazone, and combined Imazethapyr + Situgate, respectively.
 
Conclusion
Based on the overall results and considering water shortage as well as water usage efficiency and decreasing the amount of both performance and traits of performance reduction in Chiti bean "Kosha" leading to desirable weeds control and bean yield, nine days round irrigation could be recommended provided with application of Imazethapyr or trifloraline herbicides with Bentazone.

Keywords

Crop management; Herbicide; Irrigation period; Surface irrigation

References

1. Abd El-Wahed, M. H., Baker, G. A., Ali, M. M., and Abd El-Fattah, F. A. 2017. Effect of drip deficit irrigation and soil mulching on growth of common bean plant, water use efficiency and soil salinity. Journal of Scientia Horticulturae 225(1): 235-242.
2. Adams, M. W. 1982. Plant architecture and yield breeding. Journal of Research Iowa State 56(3): 225-254.
3. Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration-Guidelines for computing crop water requirements-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome 300(9), D05109.
4. Bennett, J.P., Adams, M.W., and Burga, C. 1997. Pod yield component variation and inter correlation in (Phaseolus vulgaris) as affected by planting density. Journal of Crop Science 17(1): 73-75.
5. Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) interference in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Journal of Weed Science 39(1): 48-53.
6. Blackshaw, R.E., Molnar, L.J., Clayton, G.W., Harker, K.N., and Entz, T.2007. Dry bean production in zero and conventional tillage. Journal of Agronomy 99(1): 122-
7. Boutraa, T. 2010. Improvement of water use efficiency in irrigated agriculture: a review. Journal of Agronomy 9(1): 1-8.
8. Boydston, R. A., Porter, L. D., Chaves-Cordoba, B., Khot, L. R., and Miklas, P. N. 2018. The impact of tillage on pinto bean cultivar response to drought induced by deficit irrigation. Journal of Soil and Tillage Research 180(1): 63-72.
9. Griffin, B. S., Shilling, D. G., Bennett, J. M., and Curry, W. L. 1989. The influence of water stress on the physiology and competition of soybean (Glycine max) and Florida beggar weed (Desmodium tortuosum). Weed Sci. 37: 544-551.
10. Karimi Arpanahi, N.A., Eslami, S., and Dehghan Khalili, R.A. 2017. The effect of drought stress on the growth and distribution of purple weevil (Cyperus rotundus). Journal of Iranian Plant Protection Research 31(1): 29-39. (In Persian with English Summary).
11. Karimzadeh Soureshjani, H., Nezami, A., Kafi, M., and Tadayon, M. 2019. Responses of two common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) genotypes to deficit irrigation. Journal of Agricultural Water Management 213(1): 270-279. (In Persian with English Summary).
12. Lak, M.Z., Dori, H.R. and Farahani, L. 2013. The effect of weed intervention on yield and yield components of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris. L). Journal of Iranian Society of Weed Science 9(1): 65-78.
13. Li, Y., Li, H., Li, Y., and Zhang, S. 2017. Improving water-use efficiency by decreasing stomatal conductance and transpiration rate to maintain higher ear photosynthetic rate in drought-resistant wheat. The Crop Journal 5(3): 231-239.
14. Malik, V. S., Swanton, C.J, and Michaels, T.E. 1993. Interaction of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Cultivars, row spacing and seeding density with annual weeds. Journal of Weed Science 41(1): 62 – 68.
15. Ministry of Jihad-e Agriculture (MJA). 2021. Agricultural statistics data: Volume 1, Field Crops (2020-2021). Tehran: Bureau for Base Information and Studies, Ministry of Jihad-e Agriculture.p. (In Persian).
16. Mosavi, S.K., Nazer kakhki, S.H., Lak. M. R., Tabatabaii, R. and Behrozi, D. 2011. Evaluation of Imazetapyr herbicide efficiency for weed control in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L). Iranian Journal of Pulses Research 1(2): 111-122. (In Persian with English Summary).
17. Pandey, R.K, Herrera, W.A.T., and Pendlton, J.W. 1984. Drought response of grain legumes under irrigation gradient. 1. Yield and yield components. Agronomy Journal 76(4): 549-553.
18. Parker, R. 2003. Water Conservation; weed control Go Hand in Hand. Issued by Washington State University Cooperative Extension and the U. S. Department of Agriculture in furtherance of the Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914.Available at Web site http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
19. Tarumingkeng, R., and Coto, Z. 2003. Effects of drought stress on growth and yield of soybean. Kisman. Journal of Philosophy of Science 702(1): 798-807.
20. Venuprasad, R., Lafitte, H. R., and Atlin, G. N. 2007. Response to Direct Selection for Grain Yield under Drought Stress in Rice. Journal of Crop Science 47(1): 285-293.
21. Wallace, J. S. (2000). Increasing agricultural water use efficiency to meet future food production. Journal of Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 82(1-3): 105-119.
22. Yonts, C. D., Haghverdi, A., Reichert, D. L., and Irmak, S. 2018. Deficit irrigation and surface residue cover effects on dry bean yield, in-season soil water content and irrigation water use efficiency in western Nebraska high plains. Journal of Agricultural Water Management 199(1): 138-147.
23. Zanjani jam, M., and Sofi, M. 2005. Investigating the relationship between climate and watershed areas in Zanjan province. In: Abstract Book of the 3rd National Conference on Erosion and Sedimentation, August 28, 2005.Tehran Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization. (In Persian).