Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:14:38.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dry bean competitiveness with annual weeds as affected by soil nutrient availability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael A. Ugen ,
Hans C. Wien  and
Charles S. Wortmann
Michael A. Ugen
Affiliation:
Namulonge Agricultural and Animal Production Research Institute, P.O. Box 7984, Kampala, Uganda
Hans C. Wien
Affiliation:
Fruits and Vegetable Science Department, 134A Plant Science Building, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Productivity of dry bean is constrained by the competition with weeds for scarce nutrients and water in eastern Africa. Trials were conducted at Cornell University in 1996 and in central Uganda during the two seasons of 1997 to test the hypothesis that bean crop nutrition can be improved while increasing the relative competitiveness of bean with annual weed species. Soil levels of available N, P, and K were varied in the main plots. Subplots consisted of bean and two weed species in pure stands and bean mixed with each of the weed species. The weed species were black nightshade and smallflower galinsoga at Cornell and smallflower galinsoga and hairy beggarticks in Uganda. Bean yield was the most suppressed by hairy beggarticks with a mean reduction of 48%. Bean nutrient uptake and growth decreased relative to the weed nutrient uptake and growth when N and P were applied, but the relative competitiveness of bean increased with K application. The K effect on bean yield was greater than the P effect in two out of three trials. Alternative practices for the supply of N and P need to be evaluated for increasing bean yields while reducing the relative benefit to weeds.

Keywords

Black nightshade, Solanum nigrum L. SOLNIhairy beggarticks, Bidens pilosa L. BIDPIsmallflower galinsoga, Galinsoga parviflora Cav. GASPAdry bean or bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L.Crop–weed competitionnutrientsUgandaweed management
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , August 2002 , pp. 530 - 535
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Bhaskar, A. and Vyas, K. G. 1988. Studies on competition between wheat and Chenopodium album L. Weed Res. 28:53–58.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 39:48–53.Google Scholar
de Carvalho, D. A. 1981. Study on specific competition of weeds in beans. II. Competitive effects of different densities of marmalade grass [Brachiaria plantaginea (Link) Hitch.] and black spanish needle (Bidens pilosa L.) on final stand, grain yield and primary components of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Cienc. Prat. 5:138–143.Google Scholar
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 Sci. 43:375–380.Google Scholar
Dusky, J. A., Shrefler, J. W., Shilling, D. G., Brecke, B. J., Colvin, D. L., Sanchez, C. A., and Stall, W. M. 1996. Influence of phosphorus fertility on competition between lettuce and Amaranthus spinosus . Pages 141–145 In Hugh, B., Cussans, G. W., Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., Fernandez-Quintanilla, C., Helweg, A., Labrada, R. E., Lander, M., Kudsk, P., and Streibid, J. C., eds. Proceedings of the Second International Weed Control Congress. Slagelse, Denmark: Department of Weed Control and Pesticide Ecology, Flakkebjerg.Google Scholar
Evanylo, G. K. and Zehnder, G. W. 1989. Common ragweed interference in snap beans at various soil potassium levels. Appl. Agric. Res. 4:101–105.Google Scholar
Everaarts, A. P. 1992. Response of weeds to application of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium on low-fertility acid soils in Suriname. Weed Res. 32:385–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fennimore, S. A., Mitich, L. W., and Radosevich, S. R. 1984. Interference among bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and black nightshade (Solanum nigrum). Weed Sci. 32:336–342.Google Scholar
Foster, H. L. 1971. Rapid routine soil analysis and plant analysis without automatic equipment. I. Routine soil analysis. East Afr. Agric. For. J. 37:160–170.Google Scholar
Hoveland, C. S., Buchanan, G. A., and Harris, M. C. 1976. Responses of weeds to soil phosphorus and potassium. Weed Sci. 24:194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 Sci. 41:62–68.Google Scholar
Pachio, D. 1989. Trends in world common bean production. Pages 1–8 In Schwartz, H. F. and Paster-Corrales, M. A., eds. Bean Production Problems in the Tropics. Cali, Columbia: CIAT.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Dusky, J. A., Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., and Bewik, T. A. 1998. Phosphorus effect on competitive interactions of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) with lettuce (Latuca sativa). Weed Sci. 46:307–312.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1987. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, 4th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 2572 p.Google Scholar
Sindel, B. M. and Michael, P. W. 1992. Growth and competitiveness of Senecio madagascariensis Poir. (fireweed) in relation to fertilizer use and increases in soil fertility. Weed Res. 32:399–406.Google Scholar
Smithson, J. B., Edje, O. T., and Giller, K. E. 1993. Diagnosis and correction of soil nutrient problems of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) in the Usambara Mountains of Tanzania. J. Agric. Sci. 120:233–240.Google Scholar
Vanegas, C.J.A. 1986. Plant Density, Row Spacing and Fertilizer Effects in the Weeded and Unweeded Stands of Common Beans Phaseolus vulgaris . Swedish University of Agriculture Sciences, Department of Plant Husbandry Rep. 0 (160): 3–43.Google Scholar
Vengris, J., Colby, W. G., and Drake, M. 1955. Plant nutrient competition between weeds and crops. Agron. J. 47:213–216.Google Scholar
Walkey, A. and Black, I. A. 1934. An examination of the method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 37:29–38.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. and Rao, M. R. 1980. A competitive ration for quantifying competition between intercrops. Exp. Agric. 16:117–125.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1993. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41:607–610.Google Scholar
Wortmann, C. S. 1993. Contribution of bean morphological characteristics to weed suppression. Agron. J. 85:840–843.Google Scholar
Wortmann, C. S., Kirkby, R. A., and Eledu, C. A. 1998. Atlas of Common Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Production in Africa. CIAT Publication No. 297. Cali, Colombia: CIAT.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. K. and Kells, J. J. 1992. Perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis) interference in soybean (Glycine max) and dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 7:52–57.Google Scholar