Reaction of two growth types of pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to weed management

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Crop Sciences, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University

2 Department of Agronomy, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources

Abstract

Background and objectives: Bean is one of the most important legumes worldwide for direct human consumption and is a rich source of protein and carbohydrates. Bean is weak to compete with weed because of the slow growth at the early stages. Therefore, competition with weeds causes a significant reduction in grain yield at the end of the growing season. Weed competition is a kind of nonliving stress, which effect on plant yield. Pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars, with different morphological and genetic characteristics, show different responses in the presence of weeds, which may ultimately result in possible difference in yield. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the effect of different chemical and non-chemical weed control managements on the yield of determinate and indeterminate bean varieties.
Material and methods: A field experiment was carried out in Behshahr, Mazandaran, in 2021. The experiment was conducted as factorial based on a randomized complete block design with three replications. The first factor: different weed control methods: (1) trifluralin herbicide as pre-sowing 2.5 liters per hectare; (2) Trifluralin herbicide 2.5 liters per hectare + one weeding stage; (3) wheat mulch in the amount of two tons per hectare; (4) bentazon 50% of the recommended dose; (5) bentazon 75% of the recommended dose; (6) bentazon 100% of the recommended dose; (7) weed-free control; (8) control with weed and the second factor includes bean cultivars: (1) Sadri variety (indeterminate growth type) and (2) Negin variety (determinate growth type). In the final harvesting stage, the type of weed species, density, and dry weight of weeds were measured. Also, SPAD value, height, number of pods per plant, number of sub-branches, number of leaves per plant, number of seeds per pod, weight of 100 seeds, seed yield and biological yield of pinto beans were investigated.
Results: The results showed that Amaranthus retroflexus L. and Portulaca oleracea L. had the highest relative frequency in the field. The highest density and dry weight of weeds were observed in the weed infestation control treatment, and among the weed management treatments, mulch and bentazon 100% of the recommended dose treatments caused a decrease in the density and dry weight of weeds in Negin and Sadri cultivars. Among the weed management treatments, the highest height, number of leaves, number of pods per plant, 100-seed weight, seed yield and biological yield were observed in mulch and bentazon 100% of the recommended dose treatment. The use of trifluralin and bentazon 50% treatments had the least effect in controlling weeds. The highest amount of seed yield of Sadri variety (2426.01 kg.ha-1) and Negin variety (1957.11 kg.ha-1) was observed in the weed-free control treatment. Sadri variety with indeterminate growth has higher competitive ability with weeds and had higher yield than Negin variety.
Conclusion: In general, it can be concluded that the Sadri cultivar with higher competitive ability and having morphological and physiological characteristics had performed better against the weed than the Negin cultivar and also, among the weed management treatments, the non-chemical treatment of mulch and the chemical treatment of bentazon 100% of the recommended dose had better performance.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1.  Mola, T. and Belachew, K. 2015. Determination of critical period of weed-common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) competition at Kaffa, Southwest Ethiopia. Greener. J. Agric. Sci. 5: 3. 93-100.

    1. Statistical Pocketbook. 2022. FAOSTAT database. http://faostat. fao.Org.
    2. Ahmadi, K., Ebadzadeh, H., Hatami, F., Hosseinpour, R. and Abdshah, A. 2019. Agric. jihad statis. 1: 241. (In Persian)
    3. Behgam, M., Amini, R. and Dabagh Mohammadi Nesab, A. 2017. The effect of integrated weed management methods on yield and yield components of pinto bean. J. Agric. Sci. Sustain. Prod. 23: 4. 175-190. (In Persian)
    4. Lak, M.R., Dorri, H.R., Ramazani, M.K. and Hadizadeh, M.H. 2005. Determination of the critical period of the weed control of pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Sci. Technol. Agric. Nat. Resour. 9: 3. 161-168. (In Persian)
    5. Wang, G., McGiffen J.R., Lindquist, J.L., Ehlers, J.D. and Sartorato, I. 2007. Simulation study of the competitive ability of erect, semi-erect and prostrate cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) genotypes. Weed Res. 47: 129-139.
    6. Ghamari, H. and Ahmadvand, G. 2013. Effect of different periods of interference and weed control on height, yield and yield components of red bean. J. Crop Prod. Proc. 3: 9. 71-79. (In Persian).
    7. Soltani, N., Nurse, R.E., Van Eerd, L.L., Vyn, R.G., Shropshire, C. and Sikkema, P.H. 2010. Weed control, environmental impact and profitability with trifluralin plus reduced doses of imazethapyr in dry bean. Crop Protec. 29: 364-368.
    8. Wilson, R.G., Wicks, J.R.G.A. and Fenster, C.R. 2016. Weed Control in Field Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) in Western Nebraska. Weed Science Society of America and Allen press.
    9. Agha Alikhani, M., Yadvi, A.R. and Modaress Sani, A.M. The critical period of the control of the bean weed in pinto bean. Sci. J. Agric. 28: 1. 13-23. (In Persian)
    10. Robert, E., Nurse, L., Laura, L., Eerd, V., Richard, J.V., Shropshire, C., Soltani, N. and Sikkem, P.H. 2010. Weed control environmental impact and profitability with trifluralin plus reduced doses of imazethapyr in dry bean. Crop Protect. 29: 364-368.
    11. Manoli, G., Huang, C.W., Bonetti, S., Domec, J.C., Marani, M. and Katul, G. 2017. Competition for light and water in a coupled soil-plant system. Adv. Water Resour. 108: 216-230.
    12. Mahmood, A., Ihsan, M.Z., Khaliq, A., Hussain, S., Cheema, Z.A., Naeem, M., Daur, I., Hussain, H.A. and Alghabari, F. 2015. Crop residues mulch as organic weed management strategy in maize. Clean Soil Air Water. 43: 317-324.
    13. Datta, A., Sindel, B.M., Jessop, R.S., Kristiansen, P. and Felton, W.L. 2007. Phytotoxic response and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) genotypes with pre-emergence application of isoxaflutole. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 47: 1460- 1467.
    14. Mousavi, K., Nazari Alam, J. and Nazarai, S. 2018. Investigating the effectiveness of the mixture of fomsafen, bentazone and acifluorfen herbicides to control bean weeds in Lorestan. Iran. Legume Res. J. 2: 2. 35-46. (In Persian)
    15. Lak, M.R., Dorri, H.R. and Farahani, L. 2013. Effect of weeds interference on yield and yield components of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Iran Soc. Weed Sci. 9: 65-78. (In Persian)
    16. Ahmadi, A., Mirzaei Talarposhti, R., Mousavi, S.K. and Mohammadi, H. 2007. Determination of the critical period of weed control in dry bean using a thermal basis. Iran. J. Weed Sci. 3: 21- 38.
    17. Noralizadeh otaghsara, M., Nakhzari Moghadam, A., Gholamalipour Alamdari, E., Mollashahi, M. and Rameah, V. 2020. Effect of row spacing and herbicide application on weed control, photosynthetic pigments and rapeseed grain and oil yield. J. Crop Ecophysiol. 14: 30. 447-464. (In Persian)
    18. Strydhorst, S.M., King, J.R., Lopetinsky, K.J. and Harker, K.N. 2008. Forage potential of intercropping barley with faba bean, lupin, or field pea. Agron. J. 100: 1. 182-190.
    19. Mehraban, A. 2018. Evaluation of competitive ability and performance of some bean cultivars in interference with weeds. Sci. Res. J. Plant Ecophysiol. 37: 106-95.
    20. Jongschaap, R. and Booij, R. 2004. Spectral measurements at different spatial scales in potato: Relating leaf, plant and canopy nitrogen status. Int. J. Appl. Earth. Obs. Geoinf. 5: 205-218.
    21. Ghatari, A.S. and Roozbahani, A. 2015. Chemical and mechanical weed control methods and their effects on photosynthetic pigments and grain yield of kidney bean. J. Crop Ecophysiol. 9: 3. 461-476. (In Persian)
    22. Saberali, S.F., Modares Sanavi, S.A.M., Baghestani, M.A., Bannayan, M. and Rahimian-Mashhadi, H. 2012. Influence of nitrogen rates on the growth and grain yield of two dry bean genotypes under redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) competition. J. Agroecol. 2: 34-47. (In Persian)
    23. Ribeiro, V.H.V., Júnior, M.A.S., Pereira, G.A.M., Ferreira, E.A., Silva, E.B. and dos Santos, J.B. 2017. Total chlorophyll and nutrients content in bean plants and weeds in competition. Comun. Sci. 8: 2. 307-315.
    24. Amini, R., Alizadeh, H. and Yousefi, A. 2014. Interference between red kidneybean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). Eur. J. Agron. 60: 13-21.
    25. Heydari, S., Sajdi, N.A. and Madani, M.J. 2014. The effect of integrated management on yield, yield components and control of legume weeds. Iran Legume Res. 6: 2. 139-150. (In Persian)
    26. Mojaddam, M., Shokohfar, A.R., Derogar, N. and Bandani, M. 2016. The effect of weed control period and nitrogen rate on yield and yield components of cowpea. J. Agron. Plant Breed. 12: 2. 47-55. (In Persian)
    27. Tabatabaiepour, S.Z., Tahmasebi, Z., Taab, A. and Rashidi Monfared, S. 2021. Evaluation of response of red bean cultivars with two different growth habits on weed competition. Ir. J. Pulses Res. 12: 1. 68-87. (In Persian)
    28. Farokhbakht, O., Lorzadeh, S. and Khodarahmpour, Z. 2010. Evolution of the effect of integrated weeds management on yield and yield of components of cowpea (Vigna sinensis) in the north of Khuzestan. Sci. J. Mana. Sys. 2: 6. 1-12. (In Persian)
    29. Ghatari, A.S., Roozbahani, A. and Yaghoobi, S.R. 2019. Integration of mechanical and chemical methods in red bean (Phaseolus Vulgaris) weeds management. J. Plant Ecophysiol. 11: 39. 58-70. (In Persian)
    30. Ram, H., Singh, G. and Aggarwa, N. 2016. Effect of irrigation, straw mulching and weed control on growth, water use efficiency and productivity of summer mung bean. Legume Res. 39: 39. 284-288.
Journal of Crop Production
Volume 16, Issue 1
April 2023
Pages 201-220

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics