Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T00:05:25.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Susceptibility of Dry Edible Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, Cranberry Bean) to the Rotary Hoe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Maryse L. Leblanc  and
Daniel C. Cloutier
Maryse L. Leblanc*
Affiliation:
Institut de Recherche et de Développement en Agroenvironnement, P.O. Box 480, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada J2S 7B8
Daniel C. Cloutier
Affiliation:
Institut de Malherbologie, P.O. Box 222, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Québec, Canada H9X 3R9
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: maryse.leblanc@irda.qc.ca.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A 3-yr study was conducted to assess cranberry bean susceptibility to mechanical weeding using a rotary hoe at preemergence, hook, cotyledon, unifoliate, and first to fourth trifoliate stages of bean development and at different combinations of stages. The experiment was conducted in a weed-free environment. Cultivation with the rotary hoe reduced bean yield only for the treatment that received four cultivations at four different bean growth stages. Three cultivations improved yield compared with no cultivation. Single cultivation done at any of the eight crop growth stages did not affect yield. Crop density at harvest was decreased 6% in the treatments receiving two cultivations and 9% in the treatments receiving four cultivations compared to no cultivation. The effects of the cultivations on grain moisture were not consistent and differed from year to year. Seed weight did not differ among treatments in either year. Because this study was conducted under weed-free conditions, the beneficial effects of cultivating with the rotary hoe are probably mostly related to breaking the soil crust, improving soil aeration, preserving soil moisture, or promoting mineralization of the nutrients required by the crop.

Keywords

Cranberry beanPhaseolus vulgaris L. ‘SVM Taylor’Bentazoncultivationfenoxaprop-p-ethylmechanical weedingphysical weed controltrifluralin
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 224 - 228
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

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 1999. Market and Industry Services Branch, Horticulture and Special Crops Division. Web page: http://www.agr.ca/misb/spcrops/bean_e.html. Accessed: January 29, 2001.Google Scholar
Baldenhofer, M. and Gattenlöhner, U. 1992. Striegeln und hacken—methoden des mechanischen Unkrautregulierung. Sonderveröffentlichung im Rahmen des Bodensee-Umweltschutzprojektes der Deutschen Umwelthilfe e.V. und des Modellprojektes. Radolfzell, Germany: Biotopvernetzung und Extensivierung landwirtschaftlich genutzer Flähen im Landkreis Konstanz. 15 p.Google Scholar
Blake, G. R. and Aldrich, R. J. 1955. Effect of cultivation on some soil physical properties and on potato and corn yields. Soil Sci. Soc. Proc. 19: 400–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Doll, J. D., Proost, R. T., and Visocky, M. R. 1995. Integrating mechanical weeding with reduced herbicide uses in conservation tillage corn production systems. Agron. J. 87: 507–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Krause, N. H., Wiens, M. J., Johnson, M. M., and Ristau, E. A. 1993. Alternative weed management systems for the production of kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 7: 940–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 8: 238–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cloutier, D. C., Leblanc, M. L., Benoit, D. L., Assémat, L., Légère, A., and Lemieux, C. 1996. Evaluation of a field sampling technique to predict weed emergence. Xième Colloque International sur la Biologie des Mauvaises Herbes à Dijon (11-13 septembre 1996), Ann. Assoc. Natl. Prot. Plantes. 10: 3–6.Google Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L. 1990. Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 5: 114–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, D. C., Vyn, T. J., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Alternative weed management strategies in conservation tillage systems for white beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Can. J. Plant Sci. 78: 363–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, T. L. 1922. Intertillage of crops and formation of nitrates in soil. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 14: 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souty, N. and Rode, C. 1994. La levée des plantules au champ: un problème mécanique? Sécheresse. 5: 13–22.Google Scholar
Trembley, M. 1997. The effect of mechanical weed cultivation on crop yield and quality, disease incidence and phenology in snap bean, carrots and lettuce crops. , McGill University, Montréal. 131 p.Google Scholar
Van Der Weide, R., Jonkers, J., and Geelen, P. 1994. Met eg en schoffel onkruid te lijf. Groeten + Fruit/Vollegrondsgroeten. 18 (May 6): 6–7.Google Scholar
Vangessel, M. J., Wiles, L. J., Schweizer, E. E., and Westra, P. 1995. Weed control efficacy and pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) tolerance to early season mechanical weeding. Weed Technol. 9: 531–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar