Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T17:43:49.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wild Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum) Interference in Dry Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert G. Wilson
Robert G. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Panhandle Res. and Ext. Ctr., Univ. Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Effects of proso millet interference with irrigated dry beans were evaluated in Nebraska over a 2-yr period. Dry bean yield reduction ranged from 12 to 31% from a wild proso millet density of 10 plants m-2. As density increased, dry bean yield reduction could be predicted with a rectangular hyperbola regression model. Ten wild proso millet plants m-2 growing with dry beans produced 14 780 to 21 420 seed m-2. Dry bean yields were reduced 41 and 11% in 1990 and 1991, respectively, when wild proso millet removal was delayed 6 wk after dry bean planting. Four weeks of weed-free maintenance were sufficient to provide dry bean yields comparable to plots kept weed free all season.

Keywords

Wild proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L. # PANMIdry bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Great Northern 088’Competitiontime of removalsethoxydimPANMI
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 607 - 610
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solarium sarrachoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 39:48–53.Google Scholar
2. Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Cousens, R. 1988. Misinterpretations of results in weed research through inappropriate use of statistics. Weed Res. 28:281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Dawson, J. H. 1964. Competition between irrigated field beans and annual weeds. Weeds 12:206–208.Google Scholar
5. Fennimore, S. A., Mitich, L. W., and Radosevich, S. R. 1984. Interference among bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivar red kidney, barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and black nightshade (Solarium nigrum). Weed Sci. 32:336–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Gast, R. E., Wilson, R. G., and Kerr, E. D. 1984. Lesion nematode (Pratylenchus spp.) infection of weed species and fieldbeans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 32:616–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Harvey, R. G. 1979. Serious new weed threat: wild-proso millet. Crops Soils Mag. 31(2):10–13.Google Scholar
8. Luellen, W. R. 1982. Wild proso millet: will you recognize it before it is too late? Crops Soils Mag. 34(7):9–11.Google Scholar
9. Mc Nevin, G. R. 1982. Wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in processing peas and soybeans. Weed Sci. 30:365–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. O'Toole, J. J. and Cavers, P. B. 1983. Input to seed banks of proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Can. J. Plant Sci. 63:1023–1030.Google Scholar
11. SAS Institute, Inc. 1985. SAS User's Guide: Statistics, Version 5 ed. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC. Pages 675–712.Google Scholar
12. Wilson, R. G. and Westra, P. 1991. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in corn (Zea mays) Weed Sci. 39:217–220.Google Scholar
13. Woolley, B. L., Swanton, C. J., and Michaels, T. E. 1988. Integrated weed management in white beans. Univ. Guelph Highlights 11:16–19.Google Scholar