TH ES! 8

\

Illl'lllll‘nlllll‘ulilllllll

3 1293 01710 3783

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Tillage and Crop Residue Influence Weed
Control in Navy Bean

presented by

Gary Edward Powell

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

M.S. degree in Crop and Soil Sciences

 

 

ﬂaw

'7

Major professor

Date @Mjcg 0.98

0-7639 MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State

Unlverslty

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX

to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1m mum.pes-p.u

TILLAGE AND CROP RESIDUE INFLUENCE
WEED CONTROL IN NAVY BEAN

By
Gary Edward Powell

A THESIS
Submitted to Michigan State University
in partial ﬁilﬁllment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Crop & Soil Sciences

1998

ABSTRACT
WEED CONTROL IN NAVY BEANS 1N REDUCED TILLAGE SYSTEMS
By

Gary Edward Powell

Concern over soil erosion and high production costs in conventional tillage
systems has led to an interest in reduced tillage methods of navy bean (Phaseolus vulgaris
L.) production. Navy bean ‘Mayﬂower’ was planted in a 30 in. row spacing. Conventional
tillage, no-till and zone-till systems were evaluated in Huron County and Ingham County
in 1995 and 1996. Twelve weed management systems (sub-plots) were evaluated at each
location. Glyphosate was applied twice to the no-till and zone-till plots as a bumdown.
Redroot pigweed (A maranthus retroﬂexus L.) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium
album L.) control was signiﬁcantly lower at both locations in the “cultivation only” weed
management treatment as compared with the ten weed management treatments where
herbicides were applied. Redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters populations were
lower in the no-till and zone-till as compared with the conventional plow and chisel
systems at both locations. In Huron County, navy bean populations were greater in the
chisel tillage system as compared with the no-till systems and Ingham County navy bean
populations were greater in the chisel and zone-tillage systems as compared with the no-
tillage system. Navy bean seed yield at Huron County was 44 % greater in conventional

plow and chisel tillage systems as compared with the no-tillage systems.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to Karen Renner for her guidance,
encouragement, and allowing me the “time” to accomplish this project - especially the
writing portion. I would also like to thank Don Christenson and Tim Harrigan for their
time and advice as members of my committee. Gratitude is expressed to Barry Darling,
manager of MSU Farms, and Jim LeCureux, Huron County Extension Agricultural Agent,
for technical assistance and use of equipment at the Ingham and Huron County research
sites.

I would like to express my thanks to Don Penner for encouraging me to enroll in
his herbicide physiology course ﬁve years ago - which actually got me started on this
degree, helping me get though the material, and the encouragement along the way. Also,
thanks to MSU farm managers Bill Chase at Horticulture and Paul Homey at Bean and
Beet for their help with research at those sites - it’s made my job as a technician a lot
easier and more enjoyable!

I would like to thank the graduate students, past and present, for their help,
friendship, and camaraderie over the years; long days go by quickly when the crew works
together and has “fun” on the job.

Also, I would like to thank my father, Edward Powell, for all the help on my own
farm the past few years while I’ve been working on this degree - it’s been a real help in

getting work accomplished during busy times.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................. vi
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................. 1
Dry Bean Production ........................................... 2

Dry Bean Diseases ............................................. 3
Planting ..................................................... 5

Crop Rotations ............................................... 7

Tillage Systems and Soil Compaction ............................... 8

Weed Ecology .............................................. 10
Herbicides and Mechanical Weed Control .......................... ll

Weed Competition ............................................ 15

Dry Bean Weed Control in U. S. Production Areas ................... 18
Minnesota and North Dakota - The Red River Valley Region ...... IS

Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming - Western Growing Region . . . . 19

Michigan and Ontario - Eastern Growing Region ............... 20
Herbicide Efﬁcacy in Dry Beans .................................. 20
Harvesting Dry Beans ......................................... 23
Literature Cited .............................................. 24

iv

TILLAGE, CROP RESIDUE AND SOIL TYPE INFLUENCE WEED CONTROL,

GROWTH AND YIELD IN NAVY BEANS ........................ 31
INTRODUCTION ............................................ 31
MATERIALSANDMETHODS 34

Methods Common to All Experiments in 1994, 1995, and 1996 . . . . 34

Ingham County Preliminary Study .......................... 37
Ingham County, 1995 and 1996 ............................ 37

Huron County, 1995 and 1996 ............................. 38
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................ 38
Ingham County Preliminary Study .......................... 38
Ingham County, 1995 and 1996 ............................ 39

Weed Control .................................... 39

Crop Response and Gross Margins .................... 41

Huron County, 1995 and 1996 ............................. 43

Weed Control .................................... 43

Crop Response and Gross Margins .................... 44
INTERPRETIVE SUMMARY .................................. 45
Literature Cited ....................................... 47
APPENDIX A ............................................... 62

LIST OF TABLES

TILLAGE, CROP RESIDUE AND SOIL TYPE INFLUENCE WEED CONTROL,
GROWTH AND YIELD IN NAVY BEANS

Table l Tillage systems at Huron and Ingham counties in 1995 and 1996 . . . . 49

Table 2 Weed management systems at Huron and Ingham counties
in 1995 and 1996 ......................................... 50

Table 3 Herbicide application, planting, cultivating, and harvesting dates at
Huron and Ingham counties in 1995 and 1996 ................... 51

Table 4 Weed control 14 days after postemergence application at
Ingham county in 1996, averaged across tillage systems ........... 52

Table 5 Weed control in each tillage system 14 days aﬁer postemergence
application at Ingham county in 1996 ......................... 53

Table 6 Weed control in each tillage system 14 days after postemergence
application in the cultivation only weed management system at
Ingham county in 1996 .................................... 54

Table 7 Navy bean response to herbicides 7 days after postemergence
application at Huron and Ingham counties. Data are combined
for 1995 and 1996 ........................................ 55

Table 8 Navy bean plant populations and harvest yields in different
tillage systems in Huron and Ingham counties. Data are combined
for 1995 and 1996 ........................................ 56

Table 9 Navy bean yield and gross margins over tillage and weed control
costs as inﬂuenced by four weed management systems at
Ingham county. Data are combined for 1995 and 1996 ............ 57

Table 10 Weed control in each herbicide treatment at Huron county,
23 days after postemergence application in 1995, and 14 days
after postemergence aﬁer postemergence application in 1996 ....... 58

Table 11 Weed control in each tillage system 23 and 64 days after _
postemergence application at Huron countyin I995 .............. 59

Table 12 Weed control in each tillage system 14 days after postemergence
application in the cultivation only weed management system
at Huron county in 1996 ................................... 60

Table 13 Navy bean yield and gross margins over tillage and weed control costs
as inﬂuenced by ﬁve weed management systems at Huron county.

Data are combined for 1995 and 1996 ......................... 61
APPENDIX
Table 1 Tillage systems used at Ingham county in 1994 .................. 62
Table 2 Weed management systems used at Ingham county in 1994 ......... 63

Table 3 Herbicide application, planting, cultivating, and harvesting dates at
Ingham county in 1994 .................................... 64

Table 4 Weed control in each tillage system 14 days after postemergence
application in the cultivation only weed management system at
Ingham county in 1994 .................................... 65

Table 5 Navy bean response to herbicide 7 days after postemergence
application at Ingham county in 1994 ......................... 66

Table 6 Navy bean plant populations and harvest yields in different tillage
systems at Ingham county in 1994 ........................... 67

Table 7 Navy bean yield and gross margins over tillage and weed control

costs as inﬂuenced by four weed management systems
at Ingham county in 1994 .................................. 68

vii

LITERATURE REVIEW

Dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), also known as dry edible bean, common bean,
and ﬁeld bean, are grown in the temperate, subtropical, and tropical regions of the world.
Archeologists have found evidence that they were ﬁrst consumed by man in Central and
South America 6,000 to 8,000 years ago. Dry bean were domesticated and distributed
throughout the Americas, and in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were exported to
Europe and Africa for propagation (Anonymous, 1996). Dry bean are commercially grown
in more than 17 states, the majority west of the Mississippi river, in the eastern states of
Michigan and New York, and in the providence of Ontario (Anonymous, 1996). In 1996
19% of the US. dry bean acreage was in Michigan, although acres and production by
state varies greatly year to year (USDA, 1996).

Dry bean are taxonomically classiﬁed as Phaseolus vulgaris L. within the
leguminosae family, which is divided into two groups; dry bean that are produced for their
mature seed and snap beans for their immature pods. Members of the leguminosae family
are characterized by the ability to ﬁx atmospheric nitrogen, high seed protein level, and
worldwide distribution (Brick and Shanahan, 1996). Dry bean are grouped into 15
different market classes by the USDA, with each class having one or more speciﬁc
varieties or cultivars (Robinson et al., 1972). The commonly known market classes grown
in Michigan are navy, black (black turtle or black turtle soup), pinto, cranberry, red

kidney, small red, small white, and yellow eye. Michigan leads the nation in production of

2

navy, black, and cranberry bean (Michigan Agricultural Statistics, 1996). Historically the
class of dry bean preferred by consumers has varied by section of country. Cranben'y bean
are consumed in the mining regions of the southeastern US, yellow eye bean are favored
in New England and the South Atlantic States, pinto bean are preferred by those of
Mexican descent mainly in the Southwestern U.S., red kidney bean are used mainly by the
canning industry throughout the US, black bean mainly for export to Mexico, and navy
bean have a market throughout the US. and a large export market to Europe and Aﬁ'ica
(Anderson, 1965; Erdmann et al., 1965). Outside of Michigan, and by some within the
state, the navy bean was formally known as the ‘pea’ bean through the 1960's, although
today most regions of the nation refer to it as the navy bean (Adams, 1982; Anderson,
1965; Brick and Shanahan, 1996; Erdman et al., 1965). In the Canadian province of

Ontario navy bean is referred to as white bean (McLaren and Littlejohns, 1975).

Dry Bean Production

The most productive soils for dry bean production are well drained (tile drainage)
ﬁne textured loam, clay loam, silt loam, or sandy clay loam soils. These soils were formed
under poor drainage conditions and have a higher percentage of organic matter which is
recommended for dry bean production (Andersen, 1965; Erdmann et al., 1965; McLaren
and Littlejohns, I975; Smucker et al., 1982). Dry bean are very sensitive to excessive soil
moisture, which increases the susceptibility to disease. When soil pores are ﬁlled with
water there is not enough air and plants are stressed by lack of oxygen (Kidder et al.,
1982). Standing water will injure plants in only a few hours (Andersen, 1965; Erdmann et

al., 1965).

3

Adverse soil physical conditions are a limiting factor for dry bean production in
Michigan. Soil compaction restricts root growth, increases oxygen stress by causing
excess water, and lowers the resistance of plant roots to pathogens, primarily ﬁrngi that
destroy root systems (Smucker et al., 1982). Restricted root growth ﬁom soil compaction
causes plants to wilt during periods of dry weather or after a heavy rainfall, and to die
under drought conditions or excessive rainfall when a plant with deeper roots may survive

(Smucker et al., 1982).

Dry Bean Diseases

Michigan growers have suffered serious losses over the years because of bean
diseases, which are divided into two groups: seed-transmitted and non-seed-transmitted
(Saettler and Andersen, 1982). There are three seed-transmitted bacterial blights; common
blight (the most prevalent), fuscous blight, and halo blight (Erdmann et al., 1965; Saettler
and Andersen, 1982; Venette and Lamey, 1981). Common and ﬁrscous blight are diseases
that develop in warm, humid and rainy conditions. Halo blight develops in cool, moist
conditions. Seed can be contaminated and disease spread in the ﬁeld by farm implements
(especially when the ﬁeld is wet), during threshing, or by seed handling (Erdmann et al.,
1965; Kerr and Shwartz, 1983; Saettler and Andersen, 1982). Bacterial brown spot is a
seed-transmitted disease that appears as small brown lesions surrounded by a yellow zone
on the leaves. This disease can be spread though rainstorrns and irrigation, and also can
survive on susceptible weeds such as hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth) (Kerr and Shwartz,
1983; Schwartz et al., 1996). Bacterial wilt is a seed-transmitted organism that can attack

young seedlings and kill them by plugging the water-conducting tissue. This disease is not

4

easily spread in the ﬁeld by rain or mechanical means (Kerr and Shwartz, 1983). The
recommended practices to minimize the occurrence of these ﬁve seed-transmitted bacterial
diseases are to plant only certiﬁed seed (resistant or tolerant varieties if available), treat
seed with streptomycin to reduce surface contamination, stay out of wet bean ﬁelds,
incorporate bean residue into the soil aﬁer harvest (the bacteria survive in residue),
eliminate volunteer beans the following season, and rotate with other crops for a minimum
of two seasons (Kerr and Shwartz, 1983; Schwartz et al., 1996). Other seed-transmitted
diseases are bean common mosaic virus (BCMV), which usually causes low economic
damage unless high aphid populations transmit the disease, and anthracnose which is
caused by a seed-borne fungus. Anthracnose favors cool to moderate temperatures with
high humidity or wet plants. It can easily spread to healthy plants by storms, people, and
machinery moving wet plants in the ﬁeld. It survives in crop residue and seed the
following year. Precautions taken to prevent the occurrence of this disease are similar to
that of the bacterial blights (Kerr and Schwartz, 1983; Saettler and Andersen, 1982;
Schwartz et al., 1996).

Of the non seed-transmitted diseases, bean root rot, caused primarily by the soil-
bome ﬁrngus Fusarr'um solam‘ f. sp. Phaseoli, is present in all Michigan dry bean growing
areas and is believed to cause more economic damage than any other disease. Root rot can
infect the plant any time during the growing season, with greatest infection during periods
when the root system is under stress from low soil temperatures, soil compaction, excess
soil moisture, herbicide phytotoxicity, and nutrient deﬁciencies (Saettler and Andersen,

1982)

5

In New York snap bean was planted in moldboard plow, chisel plow and rototilled
tillage systems to study tillage effects on root rot severity. Snap bean in moldboard plow
tillage had a lower root rot severity rating, greater above ground plant biomass, and
greater total pod weight than beans planted in other tillage systems. Because this ﬁeld had
a 20 year history of continuous snap bean production and a known heavy infestation of
root rot pathogens, the author concluded that the lower root rot severity observed on
plants grown in the moldboard plowed area was due to deeper burial of the debris
colonized by this pathogen, thus reducing the initial inoculum density (Abawi, I991). The
best management approach to this disease is to try and alleviate conditions that stress the
plant root system. This includes planting certiﬁed fungicide-treated seed, and rotate dry
bean with three or more years of non-host crops such as corn (Zea mays L.), wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L.), or

alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) (Kerr and Schwartz, 1983; Saettler and Andersen, 1982).

Planting

Dry bean is usually planted from May 15 through June 15 in the Great Lakes
region, although short maturity pea (navy) bean can be planted until late June and still
mature (Andersen, 1965). Dry bean need about 1800 growing degree units (GDUs) from
planting until maturity. The St. Charles area in Saginaw County averages 2560 GDUs by
September 30“ (a 25% chance of killing frost). Planting should be completed before
reaching 760 GDUs, which in this area of the state would be June 20 (Smucker et al.,
1982). Dry bean is a warm season annual with an optimum germination temperature of

65° to 85°F; temperatures below 65°F delay germination (Brick and Shanahan, 1996). In

6

Michigan, it is recommended that dry bean be planted only after soil is warm and the
temperature has reached 65°F (Andersen, 1965; Smucker et al., 1982). In North Dakota,
minimum recommended soil temperature at planting is 50°F (Schneiter, 1981); while in the
central high plains growing areas of Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska, the minimum
recommended planting soil temperature is 60°F (Brick and Shanahan, 1996). The
minimum temperature for uniform germination is 55°F.

Depth of planting should be enough to obtain good seed coverage and insure
suﬂicient moisture for germination. Planting too deep may result in damage from seed
decay and damping off organisms and injury to the seed from seed corn maggot as a result
of delayed emergence (Andersen, 1965). Recommended planting depth varies by
researcher and growing region, but generally 1 to 1.5 inches in the Michigan and Ontario
region (Andersen, 1965; McLaren and Littlejohns, 1975), 1.5 to 2.5 inches in North
Dakota (Schneiter, 1981), and 2 to 3 inches in the Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska
growing region (Brick and Shanahan, 1996). Bean may be planted deeper than the
recommended planting depths in coarse textured soils or when topsoil is dry and rain is
not imminent (Andersen, 1965; Brick, 1996).

In Michigan, planting rates of 70,000 to 90,000 seeds per acre (40 to 45 lb/acre
seed) are recommended for navy bean (Copeland et al., 1988). In Oklahoma on a ﬁne-
loamy soil, ‘Fleetwood’ navy bean yields increased by 22% when planting rate increased
from 25,800 to 62,500 plants per acre (Russo and Perkins-Veazie, 1992).

Michigan’s Saginaw Valley and “Thumb” area production areas seldom experience
prolonged periods of hot, humid weather in the summer (Andersen, 1965; Smucker et al.,

1982). Dry bean is generally not grown in extreme southern Michigan due to high

7

temperatures at blossom time (during ﬂowering) that will reduce pollination and “pod set”

and result in lower yields (Erdmann et al., 1965).

Crop Rotations

Early research in Michigan from the Ferden farm in Saginaw County showed that
dry bean should not follow dry bean due to the danger of increased disease infestation and
that a minimum of two years between crops was recommended. In Ferden farm plots, dry
bean following alfalfa or clover (Trifolium sp.) plowed down with sugarbeet following the
dry bean resulted in the highest yield of both dry bean and sugarbeet. The lowest yields
from the Ferden farm over a thirty year period came from a cash crop rotation that did not
include a plow down green manure legume (Erdmann et al., 1965; Robertson et al., 1978).
Later research in Saginaw County at the Bean & Beet Farm from a 15 year cropping
systems study showed that short rotations of navy bean and sugarbeet resulted in lower
yields, but that higher economic return for growers was probably the major reason that
longer rotations weren’t utilized. Annual net returns were calculated to be highest in short
rotations of navy bean followed by (tb) sugarbeet, or navy bean (fb) navy bean (fb)
sugarbeet, depending on sugarbeet price, even though current agronomic
recommendations are that navy bean should not be grown in consecutive years
(Christenson et al., 1991; Christenson et al., 1995).

In Ontario, it is recommended that dry bean not be grown more than one in three
years to prevent the buildup of diseases and insects. Yields were greatest when beans

followed a well-manured legume sod (McLaren and Littlejohns, I975).

Tillage Systems and Soil Compaction

Most dry bean farmers believe that tillage is essential to achieve the highest
possible dry bean yields. Research suggests that tillage may be necessary to loosen
compacted soil; kill weeds; incorporate fertilizer, lime, manure and crop residue; reduce
insects and disease; and incorporate herbicides (Robertson et al., 1982). Soybean research
indicated that optimum tillage systems were site speciﬁc. A summary of 18 research
reports shows that well drained sandy soils produced the highest soybean yields with no-
till or limited tillage, while in moderate to poorly drained productive soils nO-till resulted
in yield reductions compared to moldboard plow or reduced tillage systems (Johnson,
1994). Wind erosion can cause severe bean damage when sand blasting enables entry of
disease organisms or cuts plant tops off (Robertson et al., 1982).

Information from the western growing region indicate that dry bean is a shallow-
rooted crop, with most water and nutrient uptake occuning in the top 18 inches of soil,
and root function is easily inhibited by soil compaction (Smith, 1996). In Michigan, dry
bean grown under ideal conditions were a deep-rooted crop in which the roots could reach
deeper than 5 foot into the soil (Robertson et al., 1982). Soil compaction caused by
tractor or implement tires, moldboard plow or other tillage equipment, or excessive tillage,
especially in wet soils, can cause compaction of the soil 2 to 6 inches from the surface -
impeding root growth (Smith, 1996). Research in Michigan’s Saginaw County on a clay
loam soil indicated that ‘Seafarer’ navy bean was more susceptible to tillage and traﬂic
(tire) compaction than ‘Nebsoy’ soybean. Emergence, plant populations, root penetration
of several cultivars, and dry bean yield were all reduced by excessive secondary tillage

treatments. Soil compaction resulting from trafﬁc appeared to have the greatest effect on

9

crop establishment and grth (Smucker et al., 1991). In Colorado research, compaction
of a clay loam soil caused a 26% yield loss in ‘Olathe’ pinto bean when ﬁeld operations
were conducted on wet soils in the spring compared to non-compacted soils. Tilling the
ﬁeld at planting time with chisels set 6 inches to the side of the row and 8 inches deep
reduced compaction and resulted in a 78% recovery of the yield loss caused by
compaction (Croissant et al., 1991).

Snap bean yields in Maryland on a loamy sand soil were comparable or greater in
no—till than with conventional tillage. In this study, the no-till snap bean was planted into
glyphosate (Roundup)-treated cover crops of Austrian winter pea (Pisum sativum ssp.
arvense L. Poir), hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth), and crimson clover (Tnfolium
incarnatum L.) suggesting that nitrogen released from legume residues provided sufﬁcient
supplemental nitrogen for Optimum growth and yield (Skarphol and Corey, 1986).

In Tennessee on a sandy loam soil, snap bean stand and mean yield over a three
year period in reduced tillage was equal to beans in conventional tillage. Snap bean stands
were higher in the reduced tillage systems where beans were planted with a vibratory
opener compared with a traditional ﬂuted coulter opener. Bean yield in the conventional
system was lower than in the reduced tillage system in the ﬁrst of three years. The authors
conclude that this was due to spring tillage of a heavy long term Orchardgrass (DacMis
glomerata L.)-trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) sod that suppressed bean yields that year
(Mullins et al., 1980).

In Maine on a silt loam soil, yield of ‘Maine’ yellow eye bean planted nO-till into a
glyphosate-treated rye (Secale cereal L.) cover crop was reduced by more than 22% in

each of two years compared with conventionally planted bean. Nitrogen fertilizer was

10

applied at four varying rates (0, 45, 90, and 135 kg N ha"). In the ﬁrst year, there was a
linear yield increase, while in the second year the increase was quadratic and no-till yields
equaled conventional till yields when nitrogen was applied. In this study, the only herbicide
applied to the no-till bean ﬁeld was glyphosate, while the conventional system received an
application of ethalﬂuralin (Sonalan) and chloramben (Amiben). Also in the ﬁrst year,
there was a greater dandelion (T araxacum oﬂicinale L.) population in the no-till system as
a result of seeds blown in from unmowed ﬁelds surrounding the plots and the lack of a
residual herbicide to control germination (Liebman et al., 1995).-

In Ontario on a silt loam soil, ‘OAC Gryphon’ navy bean was planted into soybean
stubble no-till and into a conventional spring-chiseled and disked seedbed. Bean was
planted at three row widths; 76 cm (30“), 40 cm (16”), and 20 cm (8"). There was no
difference in bean yields due to tillage system when evaluated over two years and

combined over row spacings (Sandoval et al., 1992).

Weed Ecology

Altering tillage systems inﬂuences weed emergence, weed management, and seed
production. Tillage systems change the composition, vertical distribution, and density of
weed seedbanks (Buhler et al., 1996). Research has shown that over time weed
populations and species will shift in conservation tillage systems. Density of several annual
grass species such as giant foxtail (Setariafaberi Herrm.), green foxtail [Setaria virdis
(L.) beauv.], and yellow foxtail (Setaria glauca L.) increased faster in reduced tillage than
conventional tillage (Buhler and Mester, 1991; Forcella and Lindstrom, I988). Densities

of large-seeded broadleaf weeds such as velvetleaf (A butilon theophrasti Medikus) and

11
sicklepod [Senna obtusr'folia (1..) Irwin and Barneby] decreased in minimum tillage
systems (Buhler and Daniel, 1988; Banks et al., 1986). Greenhouse studies by Buhler
demonstrated that the majority of velvetleaf germinated from a depth of 2 to 6 cm in the
soil, while the majority of giant foxtail germinated on the soil surface to a 2 cm depth
(Buhler, 1995). Small-seeded broadleaf weeds such as common lambsquarters
(Chenpodium album L.) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroﬂexus L.) have shown
inconsistent responses to changes in tillage (Lindwall et al., 1994). Because large-seeded
broadleaf weeds such as velvetleaf germinate from deeper soil depths, a lack of tillage in
no-till systems would prohibit the vertical movement of seed into the germination zone,
while small-seeded shallow germinating grass seed would remain on or near the surface
where maximum germination could occur.

In the ﬁrst year of no-till differences in weed density may occur due to the effect of
tillage on seed germination or weed seed distribution (Buhler et al., 1997). 0g and
Dawson (1984) reported patterns of emergence of eight weed species, and concluded that
if a weed species had a restricted early emergence pattern that tillage could be used to
destroy weed seedlings prior to planting a crop later in the season. In a no-till system a
bumdown herbicide controls emerged weed seedlings (Johnson, 1994). Because dry bean
is planted later in the season than soybean, a bumdown herbicide would be required to

control germinated weeds as many weeds would germinate prior to planting.

Herbicides and Mechanical Weed Control
The ﬁrst herbicides evaluated for weed control in dry bean were 2-4,D and Dinitro

(DNBP) by Grigsby and Churchhill at Michigan State University (Leep et al., 1982).

12

These chemicals were developed for defoliants to expose gun positions during World War
II. In the early 19603, EPTC (Eptam) was developed as a pre-plant incorporated herbicide
in pea (navy) and red kidney bean (Andersen, 1965; Leep et al., 1982). By the mid 19708,
the dinitroaniline triﬂuralin (Treﬂan) was recommended for use in dry bean. Triﬂuralin and
EPTC are still used today on over 75% of the dry bean acres in Michigan (Renner, 1995).
Other dinitroanilines used in the 19705 were dinitramine (Cobex) and proﬂuralin (T olban).
At this time, the preemergence (PRE) herbicides chloramben (Amiben) and dinoseb
(Premerge / Sinox PE) were recommended for black nightshade and other broadleaf weed
control at rates of 4 and 6 qt/acre product, respectively. Also, dalapon (Dowpon M /
Basfapon) was recommended pre-plow at 12 lb/acre product for quackgrass control. By
1980, the acetamide alachlor (Lasso) and the dinitroaniline ethaﬂuralin (Sonalan) were
recommended for black nightshade control, both for preplant incorporated (PPI) use.
Bentazon (Basagran) was labeled as the ﬁrst postemergence (POST) herbicide in dry bean
for broadleaf weed control. By the mid 19805, dinitramine and proﬂuralin had been
discontinued and the dinoseb label was cancelled. At this time, the acetamide metolachlor
(Dual) was registered for PPI and PRE applications and another dinitroaniline,
pendimethalin (Prowl), was registered for PPI application. In the early 19903, imazethapyr
(Pursuit) was registered for PRE and POST application; sethoxydim (Poast) was
registered for POST grass control; and the manufacturer of chloramben chose to
discontinue manufacturing of this product (Meggitt, 1977-1985; Renner and Kells, 1986-
1998). The loss of chloramben was a concern of the dry bean industry, although kidney
bean research in Minnesota indicated that the loss of chloramben should not reduce the

weed control or net returns to dry bean producers in the North Central region of the U. S.

13

because they still had adequate mechanical plus chemical weed control systems available
(Burnside et al., 1993). In 1997, the acetamide dimethenamid (Frontier) was registered for
PP] and PRE use, and quizalofop-P-ethyl (Assure II) was registered for POST grass
control. Fomesafen (Reﬂex) received EPA granted section 18 registrations in 1995, 1996,
and 1997 for POST broadleaf weed control, but at this time fomesafen does not have a
federal label for use in dry bean (Meggitt, 1977-1985; Renner and Kells, 1986.1998).

In 1991, paraquat (Gramoxone) was granted a label for dry bean vine dessication.
Before this, the only chemicals available for vine dessication were sodium chlorate (Defol
6), which can be explosive if mixed with other chemicals, and urea sulfuric acid (Enquik),
which is corrosive and thus requires special application equipment (Renner and Kells,
1986-1998). A 1995 grower survey in Minnesota and North Dakota indicated that
paraquat was used on 7.4% of all acres for vine desiccation, while sodium chlorate was
used on 4.2% of the acreage (Lamey et al., 1995). In contrast, approximately 70% of
Ontario’s dry bean acres are sprayed with a desiccant each year (Renner, 1998 personal
communication).

Mechanical cultivation is still an important method of weed control in dry bean.
Using a row crop cultivator allows a grower to apply preemergence herbicides in a 7 tolO
inch band over the row, generally at planting, and cultivate weeds outside the band.
Banding reduces herbicide costs and potential environmental impacts from herbicide
applications (Leep et al., 1982). A 1995 grower survey in Minnesota and North Dakota
indicated that nearly 90% of all dry bean acres are row cultivated and growers averaged
1.9 cultivations. The rotary hoe was used on 24% of dry bean acres, with an average of

1.4 rotary hoe cultivations (Lamey et al., 1995). The rotary hoe is recommended to

14

control germinating weeds if no rainfall occurs 7 days alter a preemergence herbicide
application (Renner et al., 1998). Rotary hoes are recommended to be run at speeds of 8
to 15 MPH and can eliminate from 70 to 80% of germinating weed seedlings in proper soil
conditions (McLaren and Littlejohns, 1975). Some dry bean producers and agricultural
consultants have expressed concern about dry bean injury due to rotary hoeing. In a
Colorado study, rotary hoeing at the crook, unifoliate, and trifoliate stages did not reduce
pinto bean stands or canopy width compared to the hand-weeded check when measured 3
weeks after treatment. Using a ﬂex-tine harrow reduced pinto bean stands and produced
visual injury symptoms in the ﬁrst of two years. Neither weed control tool reduced navy
bean yield. In the ﬁrst year, both tools worked equally well controlling 89% of weeds. In
the second year, dry soil conditions prevented weed seed germination until rain fell after
the crook and unifoliate timings, which resulted in poor weed control at these timings
(Vangessel et al., 1995). This is consistent with research in soybeans planted in wide rows
(30") where one pass with a rotary hoe at the unifoliate stage reduced soybean populations
by 4% (Renner et al., 1998).

A row crop cultivator (or between-the-row cultivator) is generally used when the
beans reach the second to third trifoliate stage and again approximately 3 weeks later.
Cultivation should not be done after initiation of ﬂowering due to pruning of shallow
secondary roots that have grown across the width of a 28 inch row. Pruning of roots make
the plants more dependent on rainfall (Leep et al., 1982). Dry bean should never be
cultivated when wet from dew or rain due to the spread of blight and other diseases

(Erdmann et al., 1965; McLaren and Littlejohns, 1975).

15

Research in Minnesota and North Dakota indicated that most herbicide treatments
followed by one cultivation gave adequate weed control and the addition of two passes
with a rotary hoe and a second cultivation did not improve weed control (Burnside et al.,
1994). Another type of cultivator investigated by researchers in Colorado is the in-row
cultivator that uses a series of tools in and around the crop row to disturb soil and uproot
weeds and also uproot weeds between the rows. This tool is used at the 1", 3" , and 5"I
trifoliate stages; therefore, later than the rotary hoe. It was reported to provide more
effective weed control than a standard cultivator, although at higher weed populations
rotary hoeing prior to in-row cultivation was required to reduce weed populations to
levels similar to the herbicide-treated check. Operator experience using this tool impacted
effectiveness because of sixteen potential adjustments per row made for varying soil

texture and moisture (VanGessel et al., 1998).

Weed Competition

Weed competition in dry bean is dependent on the crop variety and row spacing as
well as weed species, weed density, and the time of weed emergence. Research in Ontario
indicated the critical period for weed control in white (navy) bean occurred between the
second trifoliate and ﬁrst ﬂowering growth stages. An increase in duration of weed
interference after planting reduced the number of pods per navy bean plant. The
indeterminate variety ‘ExRico 23' that continued vegetive grth aﬁer ﬂowering was
more competitive with weeds than the determinate variety ‘OAC Seaforth’ (Wooley et al.,

1993)

16

Also in Ontario, three white (navy) bean varieties were studied to quantify the
inherit competitive ability between them. Uncontrolled weed populations reduced navy
bean yields by 70%. Major weed species included common lambsquarters, redroot
pigweed, green foxtail (Setaria viridr‘s (L.) Beauv.), and bamyardgrass (Echinochloa
crus—galli (L.) Beauv.) Two of the indeterminate cultivars (OAC Gryphon and OAC
Laser) continued to grow after ﬂowering, reducing weed biomass by 10 to 35% compared
to the determinate variety (OAC Sprint) which stopped vegetive growth aﬁer ﬂowering
(Malik et al., 1993). In this same study, cultivars planted in wide (27") rows yielded 40%
less than those planted in 18" or 9" rows when weeds were uncontrolled throughout the
growing season but yielded only 16% less when beans remained weed-ﬂee throughout the
growing season. Cultivar, row spacing, and navy bean seeding densities that maximize
crop leaf area index in weedy conditions had no reduction in weed density, but
signiﬁcantly reduced weed biomass (Malik et al., 1993).

In Minnesota, green foxtail is the most difﬁcult weed to control in dry bean, while
hairy nightshade populations increased rapidly when weed management practices were
reduced. Kidney bean under irrigation produced the highest net return with conventional
practices (herbicide, rotary hoe, and cultivation), followed by cover crop practices,
cultivated checks with no herbicide, and lastly herbicide only. Burnside et al. (1993)
determined that the cover crop practices were not feasible due to increased costs and lack
of 100% barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cover crop control.

In great northern bean production in Nebraska, yield loss ranged from 12 to 31%
from a wild proso millet density of 10 plants per square meter, while producing

approximately 15,000 to 21,000 weed seeds per square meter (Wilson, 1993).

17

A study in western Canada showed that two hairy nightshade plants per meter of
row reduced pinto bean seed yield by 13% over two years, while 100 plants per meter of
row reduced yield by 77% (Blackshaw, 1991).

In New Jersey, snap bean yields were reduced 8 to 44% in the ﬁrst year and 2 to
55% in the second year by full season in-row weed densities ranging ﬁom 0.5 to 8 plants
per m2. One weed and 4 weeds per m2 were the damage—threshold populations of common
cocklebur in each of the two years (Neary and Majek, 1990).

In Ontario, 1.5 common ragweed seedlings per meter of row that emerged at the
same time as white (navy) bean reduced bean yield 10 to 22% and produced 4400 to 6000
weed seeds per m". When this same density of common ragweed germinated when the
navy bean was at the 2"" trifoliate grth stage, yield losses of 4 to 9% occurred and 700
to 1000 weed seeds per m‘2 were produced. This research demonstrated the need for early
season weed control (Chikoye et al., 1995).

Great northern bean yields were reduced 41 and 11% in each of two years when
wild proso millet removal was delayed until 6 weeks after planting. When grown in 30"
rows, great northern beans kept weed free for four weeks after planting until they reached
the 4"I trifoliate grth stage had yields comparable to dry bean kept weed free the entire
growing season (Wilson, 1993). Pinto bean yield was reduced if hairy nightshade emerged
within 6 weeks of bean emergence (Blackshaw, 1991). Snap bean needed to remain weed
ﬂee from planting to the unifoliate growth stage to prevent a yield loss (Neary and Majek,
1990).

In summary, dry bean must be kept weed free for four to six weeks after

emergence (4" trifoliate growth stage or ﬂowering) to prevent yield loss from occurring.

18

Alternatively, weeds that emerge with the crop must be removed by three weeks aﬁer

planting (2"‘I to 3" trifoliate) to prevent yield loss from weed competition.

Dry Bean Weed Control in U. S. Production Areas

Minnesota and North Dakota— The Red River Valley Region. This is generally a non-
irrigated dry bean production area (Zollinger, 1995) of primarily pinto and navy bean,
along with black turtle, great northern, dark and light kidney, cranberry, and small red
(NDSU, 1997). Approximately 80% of the 700,000 acres of production in this region is in
North Dakota (USDA, 1996). Ethaﬂuralin (Sonalan) is used on 97 to 98% of this acreage,
often tank mixed with EPTC (Eptam) for improved control of wild oat (A venafatua L.),
common lambsquarters, eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum Dun), and
improved control of dinitroaniline resistant green foxtail (Zollinger, 1995). These
herbicides may be applied and incorporated either in the fall after October 15 or in the
spring before planting (Durgan and Gunsolus, 1997; Zollinger, 1997). Imazethaphyr
(Pursuit) can be soil-applied only in southern Minnesota (Durgan and Gunsolus, 1997).
Imazethaphyr is used postemergence in Minnesota and North Dakota at a 1.5 to 2 oz/acre
rate for control of wild mustard [Brassica kaber (DC) Wheeler], black nightshade, kochia
[Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad.], and other broadleaf weeds (Durgan and Gunsolus, 1997;
Zollinger, 1997). In North Dakota, the use of imazethaphyr does not cause soil carryover
concerns to sugarbeet grown in rotation as these two crops are grown in different areas
(Zollinger, 1995). There is limited use of the chloroacetamide compounds (Lasso, Dual,
Frontier) in this region because they perform poorly in the dense clay soils of North

Dakota (Zollinger, 1995). Bentazon (Basagran) is recommended for broadleaf weed

19

control; sethoxydim (Poast) and quizalofop (Assure II) are recommended for annual grass
and wild oat control, although ACCcase resistant wild oat is found throughout the Red
River Valley region (Durgan and Gunsolus, 1997; Zollinger, 1997).

Nebraska, Colorado, and Wyoming— Western Growing Region This area is generally an
irrigated production region, either by furrow or overhead pivots, with the exception of the
southwestern region of Colorado (Brick and Shanahan, 1996; Miller, 1995; Westra, 1995;
Wilson, 1995). In Nebraska, Great Northems have 87% of the 200,000 acres of
production while pinto and navy share the remainder (Wilson, 1995). Colorado has
approximately 150,000 acres of dry bean production (Westra, 1995). Wyoming has
averaged 20,000 to 60,000 acres of dry bean production over the past ten years, with 80%
being pinto and 20% being navy bean. Of this acreage, approximately 15,000 each year
have been for seed production (Miller, 1995). EPTC along with ethaﬂuralin is the primary
herbicide program in Nebraska (Wilson, 1995). In Wyoming, EPTC with ethaﬂuralin is
used on 90% of the acreage; EPTC with triﬂuralin is used on the remainder only when
sugarbeets are not a rotational crop due to carryover concerns (Miller, 1995). In
Colorado, EPTC with triﬂuralin is the standard herbicide treatment (Westra, 1995). In this
region eastern black, hairy (Solanum sarrachoides Sendtn.), and cutleaf (Solanum
triﬂorum Nutt.) nightshade are important weed problems, along with amaranth ssp.,
common lambsquarters, cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium L.), velvetleaf, kochia, and
annual grasses ( Miller, 1995; Westra, 1995; Wilson, 1995). In Nebraska and Wyoming,
use of imazethaphyr is of concern due to carryover to sugarbeet grown in rotation (Miller,

1995; Wilson, 1995).

20

Michigan and Ontario—Eastern Growing Region. This area is generally a non-irrigated
production area, with the exception of some sandy soils (Renner, 1995). Of the
approximately 600,000 acres grown in this region, 350,000 or 58% are grown in Michigan
(MBSA, 1996). The majority of production in Ontario is navy beans followed by pinto
bean, while the majority of acreage in Michigan is navy bean followed by black bean
(MBSA, 1996). The predominant weeds in Michigan production are eastern black
nightshade, common ragweed (A mbrosia artemisiifolia L.), common lambsquarters,
redroot pigweed, cocklebur, and jimpsonweed (Datura stramoniunr L.) with relatively low
grass pressure (Renner, 1995). In Michigan, the predominant herbicide treatment used on
75% of the acreage is EPTC (Eptam) with triﬂuralin (Treﬂan) applied preplant
incorporated, either alone, followed with metolochlor (Dual) applied preemergence in a
band, or followed with bentazon (Basagran) applied postemergence (Renner, 1995).
Irnazethapyr + pendimethalin (Pursuit Plus) is used on 20% of the acreage, although there
are concerns with common ragweed control and soil canyover to sugarbeet grown in

rotation (Renner, 1995).

Herbicide Efﬁcacy in Dry Beans

Herbicides can have effects in the crop other than weed control. Alachlor (Lasso),
triﬂuralin (T reﬂan), and combinations of alachlor plus triﬂuralin and EPTC inhibited pinto
bean root nodule grth at all stages. Root nodules provide 30% of the nitrogen needed
for pinto bean plant grth (Nkwen-Tamo et al., 1989).

In New Mexico, imazethapyr (Pursuit) was applied alone or in combination with

other herbicides PPI, PRE, and POST in pinto bean to determine weed control and

21

selectivity to the crop. Applied PPI and POST, imazethapyr gave excellent control of
black nightshade, kochia, Russian thistle (Salsola kali L. var. tenuifolia Tausch), prostrate
pigweed (Amaranthus blitoides S. Wats.) and redroot pigweed. Bamyardgrass control
ranged from 58 to 98% when applied alone and was 98% or greater when combined with
metolachlor (Dual), pendimethalin (Prowl), triﬂuralin (Treﬂan), or EPTC (Eptam).
Bamyardgrass control was greater with a PRE application of imazethapyr. Untreated
weeds reduced pinto bean yield by 60 and 66% in each of two years compared with the
handweeded control (Arnold et al., 1993).

In Nebraska and Wyoming, imazethapyr (Pursuit) was evaluated for crop safety on
several cultivars of pinto, great northern, and light red kidney bean classes on a ﬁne sandy
loam soil with 1.0 to 1.3% organic matter and 7.3 to 8.0 pH. At 0.07 and 0.1 kg a.i.lha
(0.063 and 0.125 lb a.i.lacre) applied PPI, PRE, and POST, crop injury symptoms of bean
leaf crinkling and interveinal chlorosis were evident from 1 to 57%, along with reduction
in plant height and delayed maturity. PPI and POST applications of imazethapyr did not
reduce seed yield compared with the untreated control. Dry bean by cultivar interactions
for bean injury were signiﬁcant but varied with year and location, making it diﬂicult to '
make recommendations based on cultivar tolerance to imazethapyr (Wilson and Miller,
1991).

In Michigan, several pinto bean varieties varied in their tolerance to postemergence
imazethapyr applications with ‘Sierra’ showing the least injury and ‘Olathe’ exhibiting the
greatest injury. Imazethapyr delayed maturity and decreased yields. Pinto bean sensitivity
to imazethapyr appeared to be controlled by more than one major gene within the plant

(Bauer et al., 1995a). The addition of bentazon (Basagran) to imazethapyr postemergence

22

on ‘Olathe’ pinto bean reduced navy bean injury at 7 and I4 DAT and maturity delay from
imazethapyr (Bauer et al., 1995b). The addition of bentazon to imazethapyr did not reduce
redroot pigweed control compared to imazethapyr alone or reduce velvetleaf control
compared to bentazon or imazethapyr alone (Bauer et al., 1995c). Also, the addition of
imazethapyr to bentazon did not reduce common lambsquarters control compared to
bentazon alone.

In western Canada, postemergence tank mixtures of bentazon (Basagran) at 600 g
ai/ha plus imazethapyr (Pursuit) at 25 g/ha controlled both redroot pigweed and common
lambsquarters. In three of four years, moderate to severe injury symptoms of stunting and
chlorosis were evident 2 weeks aﬁer treatment (WAT), but in each year ‘Seafarer’ navy
bean recovered markedly by 4 WAT and by the end of the season no injury symptoms
remained. None Of the treatments aﬁ‘ected crop maturity or resulted in reduced yield as
compared to the weed ﬁ'ee check. Bentazon at 600 g ai/ha plus thifensulfuron (Pinnacle)
applied at 2 and 4 g/ha controlled redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters but caused
severe injury and delayed crop maturity (Wall, 1995).

In western Canada, research was initiated to identify herbicides suitable for
improved control of hairy nightshade, redroot pigweed, and common lambsquarters in
pinto beans. Fomesafen (Reﬂex) at 0.25 kg ai ha did not control these weed species.
Clomazone (Command) at 0.5 kg ai ha controlled only common lambsquarters.
Ethalﬂuralin (Sonalan) at 1.1 kg ai ha did not control late ﬂushes of hairy nightshade.
Imazethapyr (Pursuit) PPI or POST at 50 to 75 g ai ha controlled these weeds throughout

the growing season, and when combined with ethalﬂuralin gave excellent weed control

23

and greater crop yields than most herbicides used in western Canada (Blackshaw and

Easu, 1991).

Harvesting Dry Beans

Through the 19803 most dry beans were pulled with a knife or blade cutter,
windrowed, and threshed with a combine. Beans are generally pulled when they reach
90% maturity. Pulling and windrowing is done in the morning when a dew is present and
the pods are damp to reduce splitting and harvest loss. It is recommended that combining
be done alter pods dry and bean seed moisture reaches 17 to 18% the same aﬁernoon as
pulling. Rainfall or damp weather can result in signiﬁcant or total loss of the windrowed
crop laying on bare soil if harvest is delayed (Erdmann et al., 1965; Harrigan et al., 1992;
Pickett, 1982; Smith 1996). The rod cutter is a more recent type of bean puller. Instead of
a knife to cut and lift the plants from the soil, rotating rods under the soil and at the soil
surface liﬁ the plant and deliver it to the pickup head and cross conveyor, making pulling
and windrowing a one step Operation. Rod cutters may be superior to knife pullers when
Operating in hard soils or in narrow rows and when pulling varieties with well-developed
root systems (Harrigan et al., 1992). The rod cutter may have an advantage under diﬁicult
harvesting conditions or when the operator does not have the skill to operate a knife cutter
(Harrigan et al., 1991). There has been some concern that the rod cutter will allow more
roots and soil attached to the roots into the combine, although this has not been widely
reported to be a problem (Smith, 1996). Growers have commented that rod pullers may
not work well in stony soil as the rotating rods can be damaged by rocks leading to

“downtime” during a busy harvest schedule.

24

Growers have direct harvested dry bean with self-propelled combines on limited
acreage since the 19703. In Michigan, direct harvest of dry bean has primarily been a
salvage operation for harvesting beans in excessively wet years and not a planned harvest
method (Pickett, 1982). Direct harvest of dry bean has not been used more because of
high levels of ﬁeld loss, as high as 20 to 50% of total crop in some cases. Dry bean
varieties with indeterminate upright grth (such as ‘Mayﬂower’) and equipment
improvements such as combine ﬂex headers with narrow pitch (1.5" ‘quikcut’) cutterbars,
and air reels have renewed the interest of some growers in direct cut systems (Harrigan et
al., 1992). Studies in Michigan show total harvest loss in ‘Mayﬂower’ navy bean of 3.9%
with a rod puller and 4.9% with a knife puller when the knife puller was properly adjusted.
In a direct harvest system, total harvest loss was 8.3% when air was injected in front of
the cutterbar (air reel) on a ﬂex header, while total harvest loss was 13.1% when a similar

harvest system was used without an “air reel” (Harrigan et al., 1992).

Literature Cited

Abawi, GS. 1991. Effect of tillage practices on root rot severity and yield of snap beans.
Ann. Rep. Bean Improv. Coop. 34:56-57.

Adams, M.W. I982. Varieties. p. 143-150. In L.S. Robertson and R.D.Frazier (ed.) Dry
bean production—principles & practices. Michigan State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull.
E-1251.

Adams, M.W. 1971. Focus on Michigan’s dry bean industry. Michigan science in action.
Michigan State Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 16.

Anderson, AA. 1965. Dry bean production in the lake and northeastern states. p.3-3 l.
Agric. Res Serv. U.S. Dep. of Agric. Handbook No. 285.

Anonymous. 1996. Dry bean production and pest management. p. 1. Colorado State Univ.
Ext. Serv. Regional Bull. 562A.

25

Arnold, R.N., M.W. Murray, 15.]. Gregory, and D. Smeal. 1993. Weed control in pinto
beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with imazethapyr combinations. Weed Technol. 72361-364.

Banks, RA, T.A Tripp, J.W. Wells, and IE. Hammel. 1986. Effects of tillage on
sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) interference with soybeans (Glycine max) and soil water
use. Weed Sci. 34:143-149.

Bauer, T.A, K.A. Renner, D. Penner, and J .D. Kelly. 1995a. Pinto bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris) varietal response to imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 43:417-424.

Bauer, T.A., K.A. Renner, and D. Penner. 1995b. ‘Olathe’ pinto bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris) response to postemergence imazethapyr and bentazon. Weed Sci 43:276-282.

Bauer, T.A., K.A. Renner, and D. Penner. 1995c. Response of selected weed species to
postemergence imazethapyr and bentazon. Weed Technol. 9:236-242.

Blackshaw, RE, and R. Easu. 1991. Control of annual broadleaf weeds in pinto beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 52532-538.

Blackshaw, RE. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) interference in dry beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 39:48-53.

Brick, M.A., and J .F. Shanahan. 1996. Planting procedures. p. 14-17. Dry bean production
and pest management. Colorado State Univ. Ext. Serv. Regional Bull. 562A

Buhler, DD. 1995. Inﬂuence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and
management in corn and soybean production in the central USA. Crop Sci. 35: 1247-1257.

Buhler, DD, and TC. Daniel. 1988. Inﬂuence of tillage on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi)
and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) population and control in corn (Zea mays). Weed
Sci. 36:642-647.

Buhler, D.D., R.G. Hartzler, and F. Forcella. 1997. Implications Of weed seedbank
dynamics to weed management. Weed Sci. 45:329-336.

Buhler, DD, and TC. Mester. 1991. Effect of tillage system on the emergence depth of
giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Sci. 39:200-203.

Burnside, O.C., H.N. Krause, M.J. Wiens, MM. Johnson, and EA. Ristau. 1993.
Alternative weed management systems for the production of kidney beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris). Weed Technol. 7:940-945.

Burnside, O.C., W.H. Ahrens, B.J. Holder, M.J. Wiens, M.M. Johnson, and EA. Ristau.
1994. Eﬂicacy and economics of various mechanical plus chemical weed control systems
in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 8:23 8-244.

26

Chikoye, 0., SF. Wise, and C.J. Swanton. 1995. Inﬂuence of common ragweed
(Ambrosia artimisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris). Weed Sci. 43:375-380.

Christenson, D.R., C.E. Bricker, and RS Gallagher. 1991. Crop yields as affected by
cropping system and rotation. Michigan State Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. 516.

Christenson, D.R., R.S. Gallagher, T.M. Harrigan, and J. R. Black. 1995. Net returns
from 12 cropping systems containing sugarbeet and navy bean. J. Prod. Agric. 8:277-281.

Copeland, L.O., O.B. Hesterrnan, FJ. Pierce, and MB. Tesar. 1998. Seeding practices for
Michigan crops. Michigan State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. E-2107.

Croissant, R.L, HF. Schwartz, and PD. Ayers. 1991. Soil compaction and tillage effects
on dry bean yields. J. Prod. Agric. 4:461-464.

Durgan, BR, and J .L. Gunsolus. 1997. Cultural & chemical weed control in ﬁeld crops
1997. p.24-27. Univ. of Minnesota Coop. Ext. Serv. BU-3157-F.

Erdmann, M.H., L.S. Robertson, R.L. Janes, R.G. White, M.W. Adams, and AL.
Anderson. 1965. Field bean production in Michigan. p. 1-10. Michigan State Univ. Coop.
Ext. Serv. Bull. 513.

Forcella, F., and M.J. Lindstrom. 1988. Weed seed population in ridge and conventional
tillage. Weed Sci. 36:500-502.

Harrigan, T.M., S.S. Poindexter, and AK. Srivastava. 1991. Michigan navy bean ﬁeld
harvest loss. ASAE Paper No. 91-1561. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.

Harrigan, T.M., S.S. Poindexter, and J .P. LeCureux. 1992. Harvesting Michigan navy
beans. p.1-7. Michigan State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. E-2408.

Johnson, RR. 1994. Inﬂuence of no-till on soybean cultural practices. J. Prod. Agric.
7:43-49.

Kerr, ED, and HF. Schwartz. 1983. Recognition and management of dry bean
production problems. p. 12-27. North Central Regional Ext. Pub. 198.

Kidder, E.H., and Smucker AJ. 1982. Water management. p. 1 12-121. In L.S. Robertson
and R.D.Frazier (ed.) Dry bean production- principles & practices. Michigan State Univ.
Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. E-1251.

Lamey, H.A., R.K. Zollinger, M.P. McMullen, J. L. Luecke, K. F. Grafton, D. R.
Berglund, J. R. Vennette, and P. A. Glogoza. 1995. 1995 dry bean grower survey of pest

27

problems and pesticide use in Minnesota and North Dakota. p.7-25. North Dakota State
Univ. Ext. Rpt. No.33.

Leep, R.H., W.F. Meggitt, and M.H. Erdmann. 1982. Weed control. p. 152-157. In L.S.
Robertson and R.D.Frazier (ed.) Dry bean production- principles & practices. Michigan
State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. E-1251.

Liebman, M., S. Corson, R.J. Rowe, and W.A Haltman. 1995. Dry bean responses to
nitrogen fertilizer in two tillage and residue management systems. Agron. J. 87:538-546.

Lindwall, C. W., F. J. Lamey, A M. Johnston, and J. R. Moyer. 1994. Crop management
in conservation tillage systems. p. 185-209. In P. W. Unger, ed. Managing Agricultural
Residues. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.

Malik, U.S., C.J. Swanton, and TE. Micheals. 1993. Interaction of white bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris L.) cultivars, row spacing, and seedling density with annual weeds. Weed Sci.
41:62-68.

MBSA 1996. Industry notes. Mich. Dry Bean Dig. 20(3):28

McLaren, AD, and DA. Littlejohns. 1975. Growing white beans in Ontario. Ontario
Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Agdex 142, No.75-026.

Meggitt, W.F. 1977-1985. Weed control guide for ﬁeld crops. Michigan State Univ.
Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. E-434.

Michigan Agricultural Statistics. 1995-96. Michigan Department of Agriculture. Lansing,
MI 48909

Miller, S. 1995. Dry edible bean overviews by university specialists. Doubletree Hotel.
Aurora, CO. April 11-12, 1995. ‘

Mullins, C.A., FD. Tompkins, and W.L. Parks. 1980. Effects of tillage methods on soil
nutrient distribution, plant nutrient absorption, stand, and yields of snap beans and lima
beans. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 105(4):591-593.

NDSU. 1997. Dry bean market classes and cultivar selection. p.3-7. North Dakota State
Univ. Ext. Rpt. No. A1133.

Neary, PE, and BA. Majek. 1990. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium)
interference in snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 42743-748.

Nkwen-Tamo, E., L.S. Jeffery, L.R. Robison, and VB. Jolley. 1989. Soil-applied
herbicide and soil-temperature effects in pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol.
3:573-578.

28

0g AG., Jr., and 1H. Dawson. 1984. Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed
Sci. 32:327-335.

Pickett, L.K. 1982. Harvesting dry beans. p. 180-194. In L.S. Robertson and R.D.Frazier
(ed.) Dry bean production- principles & practices. Michigan State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv.
Bull. E-1251.

Renner, K.A. 1995. Dry edible bean overviews by university specialists. Doubletree Hotel.
Aurora, CO. April 11-12, 1995.

Renner, K.A, S.M. Swinton, and J.J. Kells. 1998. Adaption and evaluation of the
Weedsirn weed management model for Michigan. Submitted for Publication in Weed Sci..

Renner, K.A., and J). Kells. 1986-1998. Weed control guide for ﬁeld crops. Michigan
State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. E-434.

Robertson, L.S., R.L. Cook, and J .F. Davis. 1978. The Ferden farm report: part IV soil
management for navy beans. p.2-10. Research Report 350. Michigan State Univ. Agric.
Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. 350.

Robertson, L.S., D.R. Christianson, AJ. Smucker, and BL. Mokma. 1982. Tillage
systems. p.78-91. In L.S. Robertson and R.D.Frazier (ed.) Dry bean production-
principles & practices. Michigan State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. E-1251.

Robinson, R.G., W.W. Nelson, and DD. Wames. 1972. Field beans - comparison of
market classes. p.2-3. Univ. of Minnisota, Agric. Exp. Stn. Rep. 112.

Russo, V.M., and P. Perkins-Veazie. 1992. Cultural practices affecting yield and nutrient
content of dry bean. J. Prod. Agric. 52323-327.

Saettler, AW., and AL. Andersen. 1982. Bean diseases and their control. p. 172-179. In
L.S. Robertson and R.D.Frazier (ed.) Dry bean production- principles & practices.
Michigan State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. E-1251.

Sandoval, D.M., T.E Michaels, and C.J. Swanton. 1992. No-till navy beans. Ann. Rep.
Bean Improv. Coop. 35:74-75.

Schneiter, A. A. 1981. Production and management. p.7-12. Dry bean production
handbook. North Dakota State Univ. Ext. Serv. Circular A-602 Revised.

Schwartz, H.F., G.D. Frank, and ED. Kerr. 1996. Diseases. p.66-89. Dry bean
production and pest management. Colorado State Univ. Ext. Service. Regional Bull.
562A.

29

Skarphol, 8.1., and K.A. Corey. 1986. Response of snap beans to tillage and cover crop
combinations. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 112(6):936-941.

Smith, J .A. 1996. Harvest. p.32-38. Dry bean production and pest management. Colorado
State Univ. Ext. Service. Regional Bull. 562A.

Smith, J .A., and CH. Pearson. 1996. Tillage practices. p.27-31. Dry bean production and
pest management. Colorado State Univ. Ext. Service. Regional Bulletin 562A.

Smucker, J.M., AK. Srivastava, M.W. Adams, and BB. Knezek. 1991. Secondary tillage
and traffic compaction modiﬁcations of the grth and production of dry edible beans and
soybeans. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 7(2): 149-152.

Smucker, J .M., D.L. Mokma, and DE. Linvill. 1982. Environmental requirements and
stresses. p.45-60. In L.S. Robertson and R.D.Frazier (ed.) Dry bean production- principles
& practices. Michigan State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. E-1251.

USDA. 1996. Dry edible bean production estimates for major states as of December 1,
1996. US. Dep. of Agric.

Vangessel, M.J., L.J. Wiles, E.E. Schweizer, and P. Westra. 1995. Weed control eﬂicacy
and pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) tolerance to early season mechanical weeding. Weed
Technol. 92531-534.

VanGessel, M.J., E.E. Schweizer, R.G. Wilson, L.J. Wiles, and P. Westra. 1998. Impact
of timing and frequency of in-row cultivation for weed control in dry bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris). Submitted for publication Weed Technol.

Venette, J .R., and HA. Lamey. 1981. Diseases of dry beans. p. 15-17. Dry bean
production handbook. North Dakota State Univ. Ext. Serv. Circular A-602 Revised.

Wall, DA. 1995. Bentazon tank-mixtures for improved redroot pigweed (Amaranthus
retroﬂexus) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) control in navy bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 9:610-616.

Westra, P. 1995. Dry edible bean overviews by university specialists. Doubletree Hotel.
Aurora, CO. April 11-12, 1995.

Mlson, R. 1995. Dry edible beans overviews by university specialists. Doubletree Hotel.
Aurora, CO. April 11-12, 1995.

Wilson, R.G., and SD. Miller. 1991. Dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) response to
imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 5:22-26

30

Wilson, R .J. 1993. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in dry beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41 :607-610.

Wooley, B.L., T.E. Micheals, M.R. Hall, and C.J. Swanton. 1993. The critical period of
weed control in white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41: 180-184.

Zollinger, R.K. 1997. 1997 North Dakota weed control guide. p.26-27, 92-93. North
Dakota State Univ. Ext. Serv. Circular W-253 Revised.

Zollinger, R. K. 1995. Dry edible beans overviews by university specialists. Doubletree
Hotel. Aurora, CO. April 1 1-12, 1995.

TILLAGE, CROP RESIDUE AND SOIL TYPE INFLUENCE WEED CONTROL,
GROWTH AND YIELD IN NAVY BEAN

GARY EDWARD POWELL

INTRODUCTION

More than two hundred thousand acres of navy bean are grown in Michigan each
year, totaling 62% of Michigan’s dry edible bean acres and 55% of the US. navy bean
market‘. Acreage decreased over the last 50 years, as domestic per capita demand
stagnated and other states acreage increased (Kelly, 1992). Navy bean have a higher
production risk than commodities such as corn and soybean, and many producers feel the
proﬁt potential is variable and not great enough to offset risk.

Navy bean production is concentrated in the six to eight east central counties of
Michigan's southern peninsula near the Saginaw Bay and the area referred to as
Michigan’s “Thumb” (Kleweno, 1996). Navy bean have traditionally been grown in
rotation with sugarbeet, a crop that is generally cultivated under “clean” tillage due to
concerns of stand establishment, disease, plant health, and vigor (Kelly 1992).

Navy bean are planted in Michigan in early to mid-June in conventional or “clean”
tillage (fall or spring moldboard or chisel plowing, followed by spring secondary tillage

systems). The soil is usually tilled two or three times during May and June prior to navy

 

’ Mr. Greg Varner, Michigan Dry Bean Commission agronomist, personal communication.

31

32

bean planting to destroy germinating weeds and prepare a seedbed (Robertson et al.,
1982). This leaves little crop residue on the soil surface, making the soil prone to erosion
from wind and water until the growing crop is established. Erosion can deposit soil in
unwanted areas and blowing soil can damage other seedling crops. Erosion increases
siltation in farm drainage ditches, streams, and rivers; including Michigan’s Saginaw Bay
and The Great Lakes. The nutrients and pesticides in this displaced soil adversely affect
Michigan’s water resources (Fairchild et al., 1993; Sutton, 1993).

In the past decade, the acreage of no-till and minimum tillage soybeans, wheat, and
corn have greatly increased in Michigan, while conventional tillage acreage has decreased
(Bull and Sandretto, 1996). Part of this increase is due to the “conservation compliance”
requirements in the 1985 Farm Bill and producer concerns over environmental quality.
Engineering and design improvements in tillage equipment, crop planters, and drills, along
with new herbicides for weed control, have had a large impact on the increase in
conservation tillage. Low crop price, and resulting low farm income, have also increased
the desire of producers to ﬁnd more economical methods of crop production while
maintaining or increasing crop yields.

Producers question if dry bean can be economically grown in conservation tillage
systems. Research in Ontario on a silt loam soil has shown no difference in navy bean yield
when planted no-till into a soybean stubble or into a spring chiseled and disked seedbed
(Sandoval-Avila et al., 1994). Research in Michigan has shown excessive tillage to be
detrimental to navy bean. On both loam and clay soils navy bean was more susceptible to

tillage and trafﬁc (wheel track) compaction than soybean, and navy bean emergence, plant

33

populations, root penetration, and yield was reduced by compaction (Smucker et al.,
1991).

Weed management may differ for dry bean planted in reduced tillage systems, as
herbicides could not be preplant incorporated. Altering tillage practices also change weed
seed distribution in the soil, which would inﬂuence weed species emergence and efficacy
of control practices (Buhler et al., 1997). The vertical distribution of weed seeds in the soil
is inﬂuenced by tillage (Mulugeta and Stoltenburg, 1997). Seventy four, 59, and 43% of
the viable seed of common lambsquarters, giant foxtail, and redroot pigweed was less than
10 cm deep in no-till, chisel plow, and moldboard plow, respectively (Mulugeta and
Stoltenberg, 1997). Although more seeds are near the soil surface in no-till systems, as
much as 69% of seeds remaining on the soil surface were consumed by insect, bird, and
small animal predators in no-till soybean as compared with 27% in conventional tillage
(Ernst and House, 1988). In addition, tillage stimulates weed seed germination so in
reduced tillage systems weed seed germination may be reduced (Bulhler, 1997).

Our goal was to develop optimum weed management systems for these tillage
systems in navy beans. The objective of our research was to determine if navy beans could
be grown successfully in zone till and no-till systems. Emphasis was placed on weed
control systems. Do weed species and weed populations differ in reduced compared to
conventional tillage systems? Can weeds be managed in these tillage systems? We
determined how plant population, navy bean tolerance to herbicides, weed control by

species, and yield were affected by tillage system.

34

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Methods Common to All Experiments in 1994, 1995 and 1996

Field studies were conducted in Huron County in Michigan's “Thumb” and in
south central lower Michigan in Ingham County near East Lansing in 1995 and 1996. A
split plot design was used with tillage systems (Table l) as the main plot, and 12 weed
management systems (Table 2) as the sub-plots. All treatments were replicated three times
and the study was conducted in 1995 and 1996 at each location. Corn stubble remained in
the zone-till and no-till plots from the combining of corn for grain the previous year.
Glyphosate (Roundup’) at 0.75 lb a.e./acre(1qt product/acre) plus ammonium sulfate at
17 1b/ 100 gal plus non-ionic surfactant3 at 0.5% in 1994 and 1995, and Roundup [)1th
plus ammonium sulfate in 1996, was applied to all main plots as a burndown
approximately two weeks before planting; and again to the zone-till and no-till plots
immediately after planting. All spring tillage was done the day before or the day of
planting.

The cultivar ‘Mayﬂower’, an upright short vine indeterminate midseason navy bean
that matures in 95 days (Kelly et al. 1989), was planted in 30 in. rows with a John Deere
"Max Emerge” planter‘. In the zone-till and no-till plots, navy beans were planted into the

corn row from the previous year. Preemergence herbicides were applied with a tractor-

 

2Monsanto Co., 800 North Lindberg Blvd, St. Louis, MO 63167

3Activator-9O, a mixture of alkyl polyoxyethelene ester and free fatty acids.
Produced by Loveland Industries, Inc., PO. Box 1289, Greeley, CO 80632.

‘Deere and Company, 501 River Drive, Moline IL 61265-1100

35

mounted compressed-air sprayer with 8003 ﬂat fan spray tips5 at 22 gal/acre and 30 psi.
The preemergence applications were made immediately after planting, and were not tank-
mixed with the second glyphosate application in the zone-till and no-till main plots.
Postemergence herbicides were applied three weeks after planting with a tractor mounted
compressed-air sprayer with 8002 ﬂat fan spray tips‘ at 19.5 gal/acre and 50 psi.
Postemergence herbicides were applied to annual broadleaf weeds at a height of 2 to 3 in.
All plots were cultivated twice with a Hiniker model 5000 single sweep row crop
cultivator‘; ﬁrst at the 4"I to 10'” trifoliate grth stage (6 to 8 in. height), and then 1 to 2
weeks later. The weed-free treatment in the weed management sub-plots was hand-hoed
four, six, and eight weeks after planting.

Navy bean emergence, navy bean injury 14 d after planting, preemergence weed
control 21 d after planting, postemergence herbicide injury 7 d after application, and
postemergence weed control 14 d, 23 d and 64 d after application were evaluated visually.
Dry bean populations were counted in the center two rows of each plot 14 d after planting
when beans were at the ﬁrst trifoliate growth stage. Navy bean maturity was assessed
visually by tillage systems. The two center navy bean rows were direct-cut with a Massy
Ferguson model #10 self-propelled plot combine7 equipped with weight and moisture '

equipment to determine harvest yields.

 

sSpraying Systems Co., PO. Box 7900, Wheaton, IL 60189-7900
“Hiniker Company, PO. Box 3407, Mankato, MN 56002-3407

7Kincaid Equipment Mfg, PO. Box 400, Haven KS 67543

36

Enterprise budgets were calculated separately for each locationto measure
proﬁtability. Total revenues were determined each year by multiplying the yield of each
subplot by the net farm price received that year during September and October, when 54%
of navy beans are marketed in Michigan (Kleweno, 1996). Gross margins were measured
as total revenues minus tillage system and weed management system costs. Tillage costs
each year were determined through “Estimated Machinery Operating Costs, 1996, ﬁ'om
data based on an annual estimate by William Lazarus of the University of Minnesota
(Doane’s Agricultural Reports, 1996), and were kept constant each year of the
experiment. Tillage and equipment costs for moldboard plowing ($12.00/acre), chisel
plowing ($8.30/acre), soil ﬁnishing/secondary tillage ($5.25/acre), stalk chopping ($6.92 /
acre), conventional planting ($8.19/acre), no-till and zone-till planting ($10.51/acre),
conventional cultivating ($3.29/acre), no-till and zone-till cultivating ($4.83/acre), and
herbicide spraying ($1.31/acre). Costs of herbicides each year of the study were taken
ﬁ'om SOYHERB (Renner and Black 1991) and kept constant each year of the experiment
using winter 1995 prices. Cost of trucking navy bean to the local elevator ($0.15/cwt) was
kept constant both years. These variable costs expenditures were used to calculate the
total tillage and weed control cost of each subplot. No other input cost, such as seed, land,
or harvesting, were included in the analysis because these were uniform across the
treatments.

All data was analyzed using an analysis of variance. Data was analyzed separately
at each site because we had 5 tillage treatments at Huron County and 4 at Ingham County,
and tillage and planting equipment varied with site. Main effects and interactions were

tested for signiﬁcance and treatment means separated by Fisher’s Protected LSD at the

37

P=0.05 level. Data were combined over years, tillage system, and weed management

system when these variables or their interactions were not signiﬁcantly different.

Ingham County Preliminary Study

In 1994, a preliminary study was established in Ingham county. The information in
the previous section “Materials common to all experiments in 1995 and 1996” applies to
this research. Tillage systems were similar to the 1995 and 1996 Ingham county studies
(Appendix Table 1). A different selection of weed management systems were used
(Appendix Table 2, Table 2). The information below in “Ingham County 1995 and 1996”
describes the methods used, with the soil being the same as in 1996 (Riddles-Hillsdale
sandy loam). The second glyphosate application was made six days before planting
(Appendix Table 3). Sub plot size in 1994 was 37 ft long and 15 ft wide, with a 32 ft long

by 5 ft wide harvest area.

Ingham County, 1995 and 1996

In 1995, the soil was a Palms sandy loam (loamy, mixed, evic, mesic Terric
Medisaprists), with 3.7% organic matter, 19% clay, and pH of 6.0. In 1996, the soil was a
Riddles-Hillsdale sandy loam (coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludalfs), with 1.8%
organic matter, 22% clay, and pH of 6.4. Main tillage plots in 1995 were 450 ft long by 15
ft wide. Weed management sub-plots were 35 ft long by 15 ﬂ (6 row) wide. Main tillage
plots in 1996 were 510 ft long and 15 ft wide. Weed management sub-plots were 40 ft
long and 15 ft (6 row) wide. The ﬁrst glyphosate application was made with a self-

propelled sprayer at 10 gal/acre and 25 psi (Table 3). The glyphosate application in the no-

38

till and zone-till was made with a tractor- mounted compressed-air sprayer at 10 gal/acre
and 30 psi. Navy beans were planted with a 6 row John Deere model 7200 planter‘ with a
30 in. row spacing. There were four tillage systems (Table 1) and the harvested plot area

was 30 ft by 5 ft and 35 ft by 5 ft, respectively, in 1995 and 1996.

Huron County 1995 and 1996

In 1995, the soil type was a Shebeon sandy clay loam (ﬁne-loamy, mixed, mesic
Aerie Ochraqualfs), with 2.3% organic matter, 29% clay, and 7.8 pH. In 1996, the soil
was a Kilmanagh sandy clay loam (ﬁne-loamy, mixed, nonacid, mesic Aeric Ochraqualfs),
with 1.7% organic matter, 24% clay, and 7.9 pH. Main tillage plots were 200 ft long by 20
ft wide. Weed management sub-plots were 30 ft long by 10 ft (4 row) wide. The ﬁrst
glyphosate application was made with a ﬁeld sprayer at 13 gal/acre and 20 psi (Table 3).
The glyphosate application in the no-till and zone-till main plots was made with a tractor-
mounted compressed-air sprayer at 10 gal/acre and 30 psi. Navy beans were planted with
a 4 row John Deere model 7000 planter‘ with a 30 in. row spacing. There were ﬁve tillage

systems (Table 1 and the harvested plot area was 25 ft by 5 ft.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Ingham County Preliminary Study
In 1994, weed control was equal among different tillage systems (Appendix Table
4). Navy beans were planted 6 days after the second glyphosate (Roundup) bumdown.
Planting six days aﬁer the glyphosate application resulted in greater weed pressure and

competition with the navy bean due to weed germination and grth prior to planting. In

39

Ontario, common ragweed (A mbrosia artemisiifolia L.) that emerged the same time as
navy bean reduced yield 10 to 22%, while the same density of common ragweed reduced
yield by only 4 to 9% when the ragweed germinated at the 2“ trifoliate growth stage of
navy bean (Chikoye et al., 1995). In 1995 and 1996, we made our second glyphosate
bumdown at both locations immediately aﬁer planting, which resulted in less weed
competition with navy bean because weeds and navy bean germinated at a similar time.

High rainfall during the 1994 growing season probably increased weed
populations. Navy beans were planted into moist soils on June 16, 2 days after receiving
3.0 in. of rain, and 4.6 in. of rain fell within 14 days of planting. An additional 5.5 in. of
rain fell during the month of July and 5.6 in. of rain fell during the month of August.
Preemergence and postemergence herbicides effectively controlled weeds. Herbicide injury
14 d after postemergence application was very similar to 1995 and 1996 (Appendix
Table 5).

There was no difference in plant population, harvest moisture or yields, or gross
margins for navy bean in the different tillage systems in Ingham County in 1994 (Appendix
Table 6). High rainfall during the 1994 growing season resulted in low moisture stress to
navy bean throughout the growing season. Gross margins in each weed management
system and tillage system were uniform, averaging $578.00 when all tillage systems were

combined (Appendix Table 7).

Ingham County, 1995 and 1996
Weed Control. Weed populations were low in 1995 (less than If?) and there was no

difference in weed control due to tillage or weed management system (data not shown). In

40

I996, weed control was signiﬁcantly greater in the ten herbicide treatments when
compared with the cultivation-only treatment (Table 4). Redth pigweed (Amaranthus
retroﬂexus L. # AMARE') and velvetleaf (A butilon theophrasti L. ABUTH) control was
greater than 96% across tillage systems where herbicides were applied, but less than 66%
and 47%, respectively, in the cultivation-only treatment (Table 4). Common lambsquarters
(Chenopodium album L. # CHEAL) control was greater than 91% in the ten herbicide
treatments, but only 40% in the cultivation only treatment (Table 4). Research in
Minnesota and North Dakota indicated that most soil-applied herbicide treatments
followed by one cultivation gave adequate weed control and the addition of two passes
with a rotary hoe and a second cultivation did not improve weed control (Burnside et al.,
1994).

Common lambsquarters control was greater when metolachlor or dimethenamid
was applied preemergence prior to imazethapyr plus bentazon as compared to only a
postemergence application of imazethapyr plus bentazon. Annual grass control was less
than 50% in the cultivation-only treatment, and control was less than 85% where
imazethapyr plus pendimethalin was applied preemergence and where imazethapyr plus
bentazon was applied postemergence (Table 4). Imazethapyr plus pendimethalin applied
preemergence had lower annual grass control due to the low use rate of pendimethalin in
navy beans (one half the commonly used soybean use rate in Michigan), and because of a

lack of sufﬁcient rainfall aﬁer application to activate the pendimethalin (Table 4). Research

 

'Letters following this symbol are a WSSA-approved code from the Composite
List of Weeds, Revised 1989. Available from WSSA, 1508 West University Ave,
Champaign, Ill 61820-3133.

41

has shown signiﬁcant losses of§Surface applied pendimethalin when not-activated by
rainfall. Parochetti and Dec (1978) demonstrated 9.9% photodecomposition of
pendimethalin on the surface of a dry clay loam soil over a 7 d period. Volatility also
caused losses of pendimethalin. In dry soil columns at 86°F, 0.5% of pendimethalin vapor
was lost over a 3 h period (Parochetti et al., 1976).

When averaged over all weed management treatments, spring chisel plow had less
weed control than other tillage systems (Table 5). Redroot pigweed, common
lambsquarters, velvetleaf, and annual grass control was greater than 92% in the zone-till,
nO-till, and no-till chopped, and 89% or less in the spring chisel plow system. In the
cultivation-only weed management treatment, redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters,
and annual grass control was greater in the minimum tillage systems than in the spring
chisel plow system (Table 6). Redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters control was
greatest in no-till. Weed control in the no-till chopped treatments was similar to control in
the zone-till, probably due to the movement of crop residues and soil during the stalk-
chopping operation shortly before planting.

Reduced weed pressure in the no-till system may be the result of no tillage, since
tillage stimulates weed germination (Buhler, 1997). Additionally, lack of tillage aﬁer initial
wad germination and glyphosate bumdown may have reduced the number of weed seeds
in the upper 2 in. of the soil proﬁle, although the vertical seed distribution was not
determined.

Crop Response and Gross Margins. Herbicide injury to navy bean was greatest following
postemergence application of aciﬂuorfen plus bentazon. Aciﬂuorfen is not registered for

use in navy beans (Table 7). Previous research in Michigan has shown 10 to 23% visual

42

injury to navy beans 7 days after postemergence application with no reduction in yield
(Renner and Powell, 1988). By 21 days after postemergence application (DAPO) there
was no visual navy bean injury, with the exception of aciﬂuorfen plus bentazon in 1996,
which continued to show stunting ﬁom herbicide application 42 DAPO (data not shown).

Final navy bean populations were lower in the no-till systems as compared with the
conventional chisel system (Table 8). The zone-till system had signiﬁcantly higher navy
bean populations than the no-till systems.

In 1995 and 1996, there was no difference in navy bean moisture at harvest. In
1995, navy bean yield in Ingham County averaged 22 cwt/acre. In 1996 under dry
growing conditions, navy bean yield averaged 13 cwt/acre. Navy bean is a short season
crop and yield ﬂuctuations due to environmental factors are common in production.
Combined data from 1995 and 1996 showed that navy bean yields were similar across
tillage systems (Table 8). Although the no-till systems had an approximately 10% lower
plant population, the navy bean was able to compensate for this, achieving equal yields to
the conventional chisel system (Table 8). Research in Oklahoma on “Fleetwood” navy
bean showed a yield reduction of 22% when navy bean populations were reduced by 58%
(Russo and Perkins-Veazie, 1992). The 10% lower plant population in our research would
have little impact on navy bean yield. Lower plant populations in the nO-till and zone -till
systems in our research did not cause lower yields because the sandy loam soil did not
restrict root growth, allowing the navy bean to compensate for lower populations.

The highest gross margins among tillage systems were in the zone-till ($298.00)
and no-till ($296.00) systems (Table 8). The cultivation-only weed management treatment

in the chisel plow tillage system at Ingham had a gross margin of $190.00 due to higher

43

weed populations (Tables 6 and 9). The highest overall gross margin was $348.00 in the

cultivation-only treatment in the zone-till system (Table 9).

Huron County Site
Weed Control. In the 1995 growing season, annual broadleaf and grass weed pressure
were very light (<1 plant/ft). Visual weed control evaluations were made 23 and 64 d
DAPO. At 23 DAPO redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters control was
signiﬁcantly less in the “cultivation only” treatment compared to the other weed
management systems when averaged across the ﬁve tillage systems (Table 10). All
herbicide treatments provided acceptable weed control in each tillage system. Redroot
pigweed control in the no-till, no-till row cleaner (RC), and zone-till tillage systems
averaged 94% and 89% at 23 and 64 DAPO respectively, which was signiﬁcantly higher
than control in the conventional plow and chisel tillage systems which averaged 78% and
77% 23 and 64 DAPO, respectively (Table 11). Common lambsquarters control 23 DAPO
in no-till, no-till RC, and zone-till systems averaged 97%, while control was only 82% in
the chisel system and 65% in the plow system (Table 11).

Weed control 14 DAPO was better in treatments that included herbicides in 1996
(Table 10). Redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters control were greater than 96%
in each of the ten herbicide treatments, but averaged only 62% and 57%, respectively, in
the cultivation-only treatment (Table 10) . Redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters
control was signiﬁcantly greater in the no-till and no-till RC systems compared to zone-
till, although control in zone-till was better than in the chisel or moldboard plow systems

(Table 12). The increase in weed control in the no-till system was probably due to the

44

minimal disruption of the soil during planting, while the loss of weed control in the zone-
till system was due to movement of soil in the 6 to 8 in. wide tillage zone during planting
which stimulated weed germination.

Crop Response and Gross Margins. Injury to navy bean from postemergence herbicide
applications was <15% (Table 7). By 21 days after application visual injury to the navy
beans was no longer evident.

Although each tillage system was seeded at the same planting rate, there were
differences in the ﬁnal plant populations due to tillage system. The no-till and no-till RC
systems had signiﬁcantly lower plant populations than the chisel system (Table 8). In
Ingham County, the navy bean population in the zone-till system was equal to the chisel
system, while at Huron County navy bean populations in the zone-till system were
somewhat lower than in the chisel system. This difference was probably due to soil type,
as it was more difficult to establish proper seed-soil contact in the dense sandy clay loam
soil in Huron County.

There was no difference in navy bean moisture at harvest. Navy bean yield in the
no-till and no-till RC systems was signiﬁcantly lower than the conventional moldboard
plow and chisel systems (Table 8). Field soil at this site was a sandy clay loam with
relatively low organic matter. Dense soil, in conjunction with a lack of tillage and
loosening of the soil in the no-till, may have reduced plant grth and resulting seed yield.
Research in soybeans indicated that optimum tillage systems were site speciﬁc, as a
summary of 18 research reports showed that well drained sandy soils produced the highest
yields with no-till or limited tillage, while in moderate to somewhat poorly drained

productive soils no-till resulted in yield reductions compared to moldboard plow or

45

reduced tillage systems (Johnson, 1994). The highest gross margin ($188.00) among
tillage systems in our research was in the chisel plow system (T able 8). The highest gross
margin within each tillage system was in the cultivation-only weed management treatment
(Table 13), while the highest overall gross margin ($218.00) was in the cultivation-only
wwd management treatment of the moldboard plow tillage system (Table 13). The gross
margins among tillage systems (Table 9) were more uniform at Ingham county than Huron

County where lower gross margins occurred in the no-till systems.

INTERPRETIVE SUMMARY

Control of annual weeds in navy bean was improved in no-tillage systems as
compared with conventional systems. Weed control in zone-tillage systems was generally
better than in the conventional tillage systems, but less than in the no-tillage systems. The
greater the amount of tillage, the higher the weed population in a given tillage system.
There was no difference in weed species in different tillage systems, although each study
was the ﬁrst year in no-till. All tillage and weed management systems included cultivation.
Our research concurs with that of Burnside (1994) that pre and post herbicides followed
by cultivation provide acceptable weed control and economic returns. Proper timing of
glyphosate (Roundup) application appeared to be an important factor in the success of no-
tillage and zone- tillage systems. Our previous navy bean tillage research (unpublished)
indicated greater weed populations if planting was delayed several days after glyphosate
application. Research in soybean has shown that no-till systems require bumdown or early
preplant herbicides to control weed growth before planting (Johnson, 1994). Navy bean

generally outgrew injury from postemergence herbicide applications 21 DAPO; and injury

46

to navy bean from postemergence herbicides did not result in yield reductions.
Preemergence followed by postemergence herbicides were needed 1 year at Ingham
County to control weeds, while total postemergence herbicides controlled weeds in 3 of 4
site years. Navy bean populations were lower in the no-tillage systems as compared with
the conventional systems. Navy bean populations in the zone-tillage system were equal to
the conventional systems in Ingham County on a sandy loam soil, but lower than the
conventional systems in Huron County on a denser sandy clay loam soil. Navy bean yields
were equal regardless of tillage system in Ingham County, while in Huron County navy
bean yields were lower in no-till systems as compared with conventional systems, possibly
due to restricted root growth on the sandy clay loam soil. The controlling factor in no-till
navy bean production appears to be soil type. With adequate moisture during the growing
season, navy beans can successfully be raised in no-till systems on coarser sandy loam
soils. On denser sandy clay loam soils some form of tillage, either plowing or chiseling,
appears to be necessary to achieve optimum navy bean yields.

Future research should include enhanced methods of zone-tillage. Improved tillage
in the planting zone would reduce compaction in dense clay soils, allowing for increased
root penetration and more vigorous navy bean growth in zone-till systems. Future weed
control research should include different types of herbicide application in zone-tillage,
such as banding preemergence and postemergence herbicides over the tillage zone for
reduced cost and environmental beneﬁts. Early preplant soil-applied herbicides may
eliminate the need for a glyphosate application, or applying glyphosate together with a
soil-applied preemergence herbicide in a band over the tillage zone may provide adequate

weed control.

47

LITERATURE CITED

Brust, GE, and GJ. House. 1988. Weed seed destruction by arthropods and rodents in
low-input soybean agroecosystems. Am. J. Altem. Agric. 3:19-25.

Buhler, DD. 1997. Effects of tillage and light environment on emergence of 13 annual
weeds. Weed Technol. 11:496-501.

Buhler, D.D., R.G. Hartzler, and F. Forcella. 1997. Implications of weed seedbank
dynamics to weed management. Weed Sci. 452329-336.

Bull, L. and C. Sandretto. 1996. Crop residue management and tillage system trends. p.5-
11. US. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. Statistical Bulletin
No.930.

Burnside, O.C., W.H. Ahrens, B.J. Holder, M.J. Wiens, M.M. Johnson, and EA. Ristau.
1994. Efﬁcacy and economics of various mechanical plus chemical weed control systems
in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 82238-244.

Chikoye, D., 8.1“. Wise, and C.J. Swanton. 1995. Inﬂuence of common ragweed
(Ambrosia artimisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris). Weed Sci. 43:375-380.

Doane’s Agricultural Reports. 1996. Estimated Machinery Operating Costs, 1996.
Doane’s Agricultural Service. 592(22) 5-8.

Fairchild, J., M. Ort, S. Ruessler, A. Carlson, W. Donald, and J. Hatﬁeld. 1993.
Bioavailability and toxicity of agricultural chemical in runoff from MSEA sites: ecological
impacts on non-target aquatic organisms. p. 133-134. In Proc. Agricultural Research to
Protect Water Quality Conf., Minneapolis, MN. 21-24 Feb. Soil and Water Conservation
Society.

Johnson, RR. 1994. Inﬂuence of no-till on soybean cultural practices. J. Prod. Agric.
7:43-49.

Kelly, J.D., M.W Adams, L.O. Copeland, A. W. Saettler, and G.L. Hosﬁeld. 1989.
Mayﬂower Navy Beans. Michigan State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. E-2176.

Kelly, J .D. 1992. Status and potential of Michigan agriculture - sugar beets and dry beans.
p.8-14. Michigan State Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Special Rpt. 52.

Kleweno, DD. 1996. Michigan Agricultural Statistics. p.52-53. Michigan Agricultural
Statistics Service. Lansing, MI 48901.

Mull
integ

Part
hcrl
hcrl

Re:
her

lie
he

48

Mulugeta, D. and DE. Stoltenberg. 1997. Weed and seedbank management with
integrated methods as inﬂuenced by tillage. Weed Sci. 45:706-715.

Parochetti, J.V., and G.W. Dec, Jr. 1978. Photodecomposition of eleven dinitroaniline
herbicides. Weed Sci. 26: 153-156.

Parochetti, J .V., G.W. Dec, Jr., and G.W. Burt. 1976. Volatlity of eleven dinitroaniline
herbicides. Weed Sci. 24:529-532.

Renner, K.A and J .R. Black. 1991. SOYHERB: a computer program for soybean
herbicide decision making. Agron. J. 83:921-925.

Renner, K.A. and GE. Powell. 1988. Dry edible bean tolerance to postemergence
herbicides. In Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 43:36.

Robertson, L.S, D.R. Christenson, AIM. Smucker, and BL Mokma. 1982. Tillage
Systems. p.78-93. In L.S. Robertson and R.D.Frazier (ed.) Dry bean production-
principles & practices. Michigan State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. E-1251.

Russo, V.M., and P. Perkins-Veazie. 1992. Cultural practices affecting yield and nutrient
content of dry bean. J. Prod. Agric. 5:323-327.

Sandoval-Avila, D.M., T.E. Michaels, S.D. Murphy, and C.J. Swanton. 1994. Effect of
tillage practice and planting pattern on performance of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
in Ontario. Can. J. Plant Sci.74 :801-804.

Smucker, A J. M., AK. Srivastava, M.W. Adams, B.D. Knezek. 1991. Secondary tillage
and trafﬁc compaction modiﬁcations of the growth and production of dry edible beans and
soybeans. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 7:(2)149-152.

Sutton, J .D. 1993. Measuring effectiveness of management systems to reduce agricultural
nonpoint source pollution. p.282-283. In Proc. Agricultural Research to Protect Water
Quality Conf., Minneapolis, MN. 21-24 Feb. Soil and Water Conservation Society.

49

Table I. Tillage systems at Huron and Ingham Counties in 1995 and "1996.

 

Huron County Tillage systems

 

Plow Fall moldboard plow; spring ﬁeld cultivator'.
Chisel Fall chisel plow; spring ﬁeld cultivator.
Zone-Till Spring, two planter-toolbar-mounted 8 wave ﬂuted coulters 3.5 in.

deep, one planter-unit-mounted 13 wave ﬂuted coulter 1.5 in.
deep and cleaners into corn stubble.

No-Till Spring, one planter-unit-mounted 13 wave ﬂuted coulter 1.5 in.
deep into corn stubble.

No—Till w/ Row Spring, one planter-unit-mounted 13 wave ﬂuted coulter 1.5 in.

Cleaner (RC) deep and row cleaners into corn stubble.

 

Ingham County Tillage systems

 

Chisel Spring chisel plow; spring soil ﬁnisher”.

Zone-Till Spring, one planter-toolbar-mounted ripple coulter 2.5 in. deep and
one planter-unit-mounted l3 wave ﬂuted coulter 1.5 in. deep
and row cleaners into corn stubble.

No-Till Chopped Spring, one planter-toolbar-mounted ripple coulter 1.5 in. deep and
one planter-unit-mounted 13 wave ﬂuted coulter 1.5 in. deep
into chopped corn stubble.

No-Till Spring, one planter-toolbar-mounted ripple coulter 1.5 in. deep and
one planter-unit-mounted 13 wave ﬂuted coulter 1.5 in. deep

into corn stubble.

 

'Mulch Master #550, Deere and Company, 3500 Donald St., Waterloo, IA 50504-0270
I’Land Finisher series 6000, Sunﬂower Mfg.CO.,Inc. P.O.Box 566 Beloit, KS 67420

50

Table 2. Weed management systems at Huron and Ingham Counties in 1995 and 1996.

 

 

Herbicide rate
Weed management system 1b a.i./acre Application Timing
I Cultivation only - -
2 Handweeded control - 4, 6, 8 wk after plant
3 imazethapyr + pendimethalin’I 0.032 + 0.45 pre”
4 metolachlor + (imazethapyr + bentazon 2.0 + (0.032 + 0.75 pre + (post)d
+ COC") + 2 pt)
5 metolachlor + (fomesafen° + bentazon 2.0 + (0.25 + 0.75 pre + (post)
+ COC) + 1 pt)
6 metolachlor + (aciﬂuorfen + bentazonf 2.0+ (0.17 + 0.7 5 pre + (post)
+ COC) + 2 pt)
7 dimethenamid + (imazethapyr 1.0 + (0.032 + 0.75 pre + (post)
+ bentazon + COC) + 2 pt)
8 dimethenamid + (fomesafen + bentazon 1.0 + (0.25 + 0.75 pre + (post)
+ COC) + 1 pt)
9 dimethenamid + (aciﬂuorfen + bentazon 1.0 + (0.17 + 0.75 pre + (post)
+ COC) + 2 pt)
10 imazethapyr + bentazon + COC 0.032 + 0.75 + 2 pt post
11 fomesafen + bentazon + COC 0.25 + 0.75 + 1 pt post
12 aciﬂuorfen + bentazon + COC 0.17 + 0.75 + 2 pt post

 

'Applied as a commercial premixture of imazethapyr + pendimethalin at 1.3 pt/acre with trade
name “Pursuit Plus”(pendimethalin is not registered for preemergence application in navy beans),
American Cyanamid Co., One Cyanamid Plaza, Wayne NJ 07470

bpre = preemergence herbicide application

‘COC = crop oil concentrate (Herbimax, Loveland Industries, INC., Greeley, CO 80632)
‘post = postemergence herbicide application

‘fomesafen use permitted through EPA granted Section 18

fApplied as a commercial premixture of aciﬂuorfen + bentazon at 2 pt/acrc with trade name

“Galaxy” (aciﬂuorfen is not registered for use in navy beans), BASF Corp, PO. Box 13528,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Table 3. Herbicide application, planting, cultivating, and harvesting dates at Huron and
Ingham Counties in 1995 and 1996.

 

 

 

Huron County Ingham County

1995 1996 1995 1996
1‘ glyphosate bumdown May 25 May 28 May 26 May 23
2" glyphosate bumdown June 8 June 27 June 15 June 12
Planting date June 7 June 27 June 15 June 11
Preemergence herbicide June 8 June 27 June 15 June 11
Postemergence herbicide July 5 July 17 July 10 July 2
1" Cultivation July 5 August 6 July 18 July 16
2'“l Cultivation July 28 August 13 July 25 August 1
Harvest - Direct Cut September 29 October 14 October 9 October 1

 

52

Table 4. Weed control 14 days after postemergence application at Ingham County in
1996, averaged across all tillage gstems.

% visual weed control

 

 

Weed Management Treatment AMARE ABUTH CI-IEAL ANGR
1 Cultivation only 66 47 40 49
2 Handweeded 99 99 99 99
3 imazethapyr + pendimethalin' 98 98 96 84
4 metolachlor (imazethapyr + bentazon)” 99 97 97 97
5 metolachlor (fomesafenc + bentazon)” 99 98 98 97
6 metolachlor (aciﬂuorfen + bentazon)“ 99 96 97 96
7 dimethenamid (imazethapyr + bentazon)” 99 97 97 98
8 dimethenamid (fomesafen + bentazon)h 99 97 98 98
9 dimethenamid (aciﬂuorfen + bentazon)” 99 97 96 96
10 imazethapyr + bentazon” 98 98 92 80
11 fomesafen + bentazon” 99 99 96 98
12 aciﬂuorfen + bentazon” 98 97 94 99

LSD (0.05) 3 5 4 7

 

'Applied as a commercial premixture of imazethapyr + pendimethalin at 1.3 pt/acre with
trade name “Pursuit Plus”(pendimethalin is not registered for preemergence application in
navy beans), American Cyanamid Co., One Cyanamid Way, Wayne NJ 07470

bCrop oil concentrate applied at 2 pt/acre (Herbimax, Loveland Industies, Inc., Greeley,
CO 80632)

°fomesafen use permitted through EPA granted Section 18

‘Applied as a commercial premixture of aciﬂuorfen + bentazon at 2 pt/acre with trade
name “Galaxy” (aciﬂuorfen is not registered for use in navy beans), BASF Corp, PO.
Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

53

Table 5. Weed control in each tillage system 14 days after postemergence application
at Ingham county in 1996.

 

% visual weed control‘

 

Tillage System AMARE” CHEAL" ABUTH‘l AN GR‘
Spring Chisel Plow 89 86 86 84
Zone-Till 97 93 96 92
NO—Till 99 94 97 95
No-Till Chopped 98 93 95 94
LSD (0.05) 2 4 8 4

 

'Weed control is averaged over weed management treatments

”AMARE = Amaranthus retroflexus L. (redroot pigweed)
“CI-[EAL = Chenepodium album L. (common lambsquarters)
dABUTH = Abutilon theophrasti L. (velvetleaf)

°ANGR = annual grass [giant foxtail (Setariafaberi Herrm.)with some fall panicum
(Panicum dichotomiﬂorum Michx.)]

54

Table 6. Weed control in each tillage system 14 days after postemergence application in
the cultivation-only weed management system' at Ingham County in 1996.

 

% visual weed control

 

 

Tillage system AMARE” CHEAL" ABUTH“ ANGR“
Spring chisel plow 0 0 0 0
Zone-Till 81 47 58 6O
NO—Till 99 62 76 73
No-Till Chopped 85 52 53 63
LSD (0.05) 5 s 9 7

 

‘Cultivation only, no herbicide applied, Table 2, treatment #1.
”AMARE = Amaranthus retroﬂexus L. (redroot pigweed)
‘CHEAL = Chenopodium album L. (common lambsquarters)
dABUTH = Abutilon theophrasti L. (velvetleaf)

cANGR = annual grass (giant foxtail with some fall panicum)

55

Table 7. Navy bean response to herbicides‘ 7 days after postemergence application at
Huron and Ingham Counties, Data are combined for 1995 and 1996.

 

 

Weed management system Timing Huron County Ingham County
aciﬂuorfen + bentazon” post‘ 12 12
fomesafen + bentazond post 4 5
imazethapyr + bentazon” post ' 0 2
imazethapyr + pendimethalin pre‘ 0 1

LSD (0.05) 1 4

 

‘Navy bean injury, where 0 = no visible effect and 100 = complete crop mortality.

bCrop oil concentrate applied at 2 pt/acre (Herbimax, Loveland Industies Inc., Greeley CO
80632)

cpost = postemergence herbicide application

‘Crop oil concentrate applied at 1 pt/acre (Herbimax, Loveland Industies Inc., Greeley CO
80632)

‘pre = preemergence herbicide application

56

Table 8. Navy bean plant populations and harvest yields under diﬁ‘erent tillage systems in
Huron and Ingham Counties. Data are combined for 1995 and 1996.

 

 

 

 

Ingham county Huron county

gross gross

Tillage system population yield margin population yield margin
plants/ A cwt/ A $ A plants/ A cwt/ A $ A
Plow - - - 87300 1 1.3 177
Chisel 75800 17.0 272 89300 12.1 188
Zone-Till 76600 17.6 298 81000 10.2 140
No-Till 68000 17.9 296 77700 8.0 97
No-Till RC - - - 77100 7.6 109

No- Till Chopped 68800 17.1 262 - - -
LSD (0.05) 5600 n.s. 11200 3.2

 

57

2.3.: HZ DES? .433 35:96 0:0 .60 28.296 58.55 .953 .06: :_ 538:3.“ 3:090:88: :8 3:829:
8: E :=e£o::€:o$ :33 3:959. 0:3: 0:8: .23 28:: mg a: £268:an + Seaﬁoﬁé mo 2:3an 30:25:00 a me 3:35

 

 

 

33 5: SN 2: E 2: an of 8 :5 005.9228.—
g oo:om:o:§mom
can 0.2 new v.2 mum 5.2 mom 5.2 3 330:8 8:023:35
«an me: an 4.: SN S: own Z: 33% case»: =<
.:=aﬁoE_c:on +
2 m m2 cum _ .on 2 m o2 Sm m .2 Seaﬁoneﬁé 3520835
2 m 5.2 omm o.2 men ”2 o2 m2 3:0 Sgt—:0
< a «$30 < a <25 < a $50 < a <30
53:: 880 23> 5252 $05 20; 52:2 $0.5 Eu; 52:2 $0.5 Eu; 3:258;
532 9:3 8306 5.2.2 omsﬁéow 32: .85 macaw

 

 

 

 

.32 v5 32 :8 3:388 2: 8.5 5:30 SEES a:
8.03% BEE—omega: :33 Bow 3 “gooﬁngm m: 330 @325 3: 35:8 coo? Own—E :96 Emma—2: $05 :5 23» :3: >32 6 uzus

Table 10. Weed control in each herbicide treatment at Huron County, .23 days aﬁer

58

postemergence application in 1995, and 14 days after postemergence application in 1996.

 

% visual weed control

 

1995

 

 

Weed Management Treatment AMARE CHEAL AMARE CHEAL
1 Cultivation only 56 53 62 57
2 Handweeded 99 99 99 99
3 imazethapyr + pendimethalin' 76 73 96 99
4 metolachlor (imazethapyr + bentazon)” 96 94 98 99
5 metolachlor (fomesafen° + bentazon)‘l 97 92 99 99
6 metolachlor (aciﬂuorfen + bentazon)“ 88 78 97 97
7 dimethenamid (imazethapyr + bentazon)” 92 95 99 97
8 dimethenamid (fomesafen + bentazon)‘I 88 98 99 98
9 dimethenamid (aciﬂourfen + bentazon)” 84 92 99 98
10 imazethapyr + bentazon” 91 95 98 98
ll fomesafen + bentazond 94 94 99 99
12 aciﬂourfen + bentazon” 92 87 99 99

LSD (0.05) 14 16 9 3

 

'Applied as a commercial premix of imazethapyr + pendimethalin at 1.3 pt/acre with trade
name “Pursuit Plus”(pendimethalin is not registered for preemergence application in navy

beans), American Cyanamid Co., One Cyanamid Plaza, Wayne NJ 07470.

l’Crop oil concentrate applied at 2 pt/acre (Herbimax, Loveland Industries, Inc, Greeley,
CO 80632).

“fomesafen use permitted through EPA granted Section 18.

“Crop oil concentrate applied at l pt/acre (Herbimax, Loveland Industries, Inc., Greeley,
CO 80632).

“Applied as a commercial premix of aciﬂuorfen + bentazon at 2 pt/acre with trade name
“Galaxy” (aciﬂuorfen is not registered for use in navy beans), BASF Corp., PO. Box
13528, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

 

59

Table 11. Weed control in each tillage system 23 and 64 days aﬁer postemergence
application at Huron County in 1995.

 

 

 

 

% visual weed control'

AMAREb CHEAL‘=
Tillage system 23 DAPO 64 DAPO 23 DAPO
Fall Moldboard Plow 75 78 65
Fall Chisel Plow 80 76 82
Zone-Till 92 88 96
No-Till 96 91 99
No-Till w/ Row Cleaners 94 90 96
LSD (0.05) 9 8 10

 

'Weed control averaged over weed management treatments
hAMARE = A maranthus retroﬂexus L. (redroot pigweed)

°CHEAL = Chenepodium album L. (common lambsquarters)

60

Table 12. Weed control in each tillage system 14 days after postemergence application in
the cultivation only weed management system' at Huron County in 1996.

 

% visual weed control

 

 

Tillage system AMARE” CHEAL‘
Fall Moldboard Plow 0 0
Fall Chisel Plow O 10
Zone-Till 63 59
No-Till 92 85
No-Till w/ Row Cleaners 94 88
LSD (0.05) 19 18

 

‘Cultivation only, no herbicide applied, Table 2, Treatment #1.
|’AMARE = Amaranthus retroﬂexus L. (Redroot Pigweed)

°CHEAL = Chenepodium album L. (Common Lambsquarters)

61

2&8 a2 0:23 $03 62:85.6 0:0 .60 28896 5020:? A050; .90: :_ 52302—3: 3:030:88: :8 20.06%?—
8: m2 5152:2303 :35 2282—: 0:3: 0:8: :23 0:00): 2 00 53508230: + Eqaseonaé mo 0.522805 320888 a 8 20:29.2.

 

 

 

«a 0.0 8 3 2: .3 2: 0.2 v: n: 5 .220 880.0838:
Gv 0802080082
3 as a: 2 02 Z. we «.2 SN 22 3 8326.: 8:00.088...—
3 3 8 4.0 «2 0.2 at :2 m2 0.: 222% 0222.02 .2
.:=050E€:0q+:>%50~a§
S 3 S G 5 0.: 2: 3. E 3 880.0502:
E o.» 8m 22 82 q: 08 2.: as 5.2 25 2225
< a $36 < 0 <28 < 0 <26 < 2 <23 < 0 <26
20;: 22> =23: 22> 20;: 22> :23: 22> 20:: 22> .5508:
$95 $80 $80 035 $80
:2. -oz .886 002.2288 32.. .220 :2 32:
39: \3 2.22 038202 .2:

 

 

 

 

 

.32 v5 32 com 3:22:50 0:: 8.5 5:200 :053 a: 939»
N :26 2.08% 0:02—09:52: v00? 0>a .3 2005.55 3 330 32:60 .0003 2:: owe—E :26 0:336 36% 2:0 20% 502 >2: Z .2 0365

APPENDIX

Appendix Table 1. Tillage Systems at Ingham County in 1994.

 

Ingham County Tillage systems

Chisel Spring chisel plow; spn'ng soil ﬁnisher'.

Zone—Till Spring, one planter-toolbar-mounted ripple coulter 2.5 in. deep and
one planter-unit-mounted 13 wave ﬂuted coulter 1.5 in. deep and
row cleaners into corn stubble.

No-Till Chopped Spring, one planter-toolbar-mounted ripple coulter 1.5 in. deep and

one planter-unit-mounted 13 wave ﬂuted coulter 1.5 in. deep into

chopped corn stubble.
No-Till Spring, one planter-toolbar-mounted ripple coulter 1.5 in. deep and

one planter-unit-mounted l3 wave ﬂuted coulter 1.5 in. deep into

corn stubble.

'Land Finisher series 6000, Sunﬂower Mfg.CO.,Inc. P.O.Box 566 Beloit, KS 67420.

62

Appendix Table 2. Weed management systems used at Ingham County in 1994.

 

 

Herbicide rate Application
Weed management system ' lb a.i.Iacre Timing

l metolachlor (aciﬂuorfen + bentazon)b 1.5 (0.17 + 0.75) pre‘= (post)‘I
2 metolachlor (fomesafen‘ + bentazon) 1.5 (0.25 + 0.75) pre (post)
3 metolachlor (imazethapyr + bentazon) 1.5 (0.032 + 0.75) pre (post)
4 metolachlor (bentazon + 28% nitrogen) 1.5 (0.75 + 4 qt) pre (post)
5 metolachlor (bentazon) 1.5 (0.75) pre (post)
6 aciﬂuorfen + bentazon + sethoxydim 0.17 + 0.75 + 0.19 post
7 fomesafen+ bentazon + sethoxydim 0.25 + 0.75 + 0.19 post
8 imazethapyr + bentazon 0.032 + 0.75 post
9 sethoxydim + bentazon + 28% nitrogen 0.19 + 0.75 + 4 qt post
10 sethoxydim + bentazon 0.19 + 0.75 post
11 imazethapyr + pendimethalinf 0.032 + 0.45 pre

12 Cultivation only - -

 

'All postemergence treatments applied with 2 pt/acre crop oil concentrate (Herbimax, Loveland
Industries, Inc., Greeley, CO 80632)

bApplied as a commercial premixture of aciﬂuorfen + bentazon at 2 pt/acre with trade name
“Galaxy” (aciﬂourfen is not registered for use in navy beans), BASF Corp., PO. Box 13528,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

cpre = preemergence herbicide application

“post = postemergence herbicide application

‘fomesafen use granted through EPA Section 18

fApplied as a commercial premixture of imazethapyr + pendimethalin at 1.3 pt/acre with trade

name “Pursuit Plus”(pendimethalin is not registered for preemergence application in navy beans),
American Cyanamid Co., Wayne NJ 07470

63

Appendix Table 3. Herbicide application, planting, cultivating, and harvesting dates at
Ingham County in 1994. ‘

 

 

Ingham County
1‘ glyphosate bumdown May 20
2'“l glyphosate bumdown June 10
Planting date June 16
Preemergence herbicide June 16
Postemergence herbicide July 6
1" Cultivation July 12
2“ Cultivation July 24
Harvest - Direct Cut September 30

 

Appendix Table 4. Weed control in each tillage system 14 days after postemergence
application in the cultivation-only weed management system‘I at Ingham County in 1994.

 

 

 

°/o visual weed control
Tillage system AMARE” CHEALc ABUTH“
Spring chisel plow 85 85 88
Zone-Till 90 77 91
No-Till 87 87 87
No-Till Chopped 87 88 85
LSD (0.05) n.s. n.s. n.s.

 

'cultivation only, no herbicide applied, Appendix Table 2, treatment 12
l’AMARE = Amaranthus retroﬂexus L. (redroot pigweed)
cCI-IJEAL = Chenopodium album L. (common lambsquarters)

“ABUTH = Abutilon theophrasti L. (velvetleaf)

65

Appendix Table 5. Visual injury’ to navy bean, 7 days aﬁer postemergence application at

Ingham County in 1994.

 

 

Weed management system” Timing Ingham County
metolachlor (aciﬂuorfen + bentazon) pre‘ (post)‘l 17
aciﬂuorfen + bentazon post 14
metolachlor (fomesafen + bentazon) pre (post) 12
fomesafen + bentazon post 2
imazethapyr + pendimethalin pre 1

LSD (0.05) 2

 

'Navy bean injury, where O = no visible effect and 100 = complete crop mortality.

t'All postemergence treatments applied with 2 pt/acre crop oil concentrate (Herbimax,

Loveland Industries, Inc., Greeley, CO 80632)
°pre = preemergence herbicide application

“post = postemergence herbicide application

66

Appendix Table 6. Navy bean plant populations and harvest yields and gross margins
under diﬂ'erent tillage systems in Ingham County in 1994. '

 

 

 

Ingham county

Tillage system population yield gross margin

plants/ A cwt/ A S A
Chisel 90000 25.4 61 1
Zone-Till 86000 22.9 557
No-Till 91000 23.2 555
No- Till Chopped 88000 24.3 591
LSD (0.05) n.s. n.s.

 

67

 

 

 

§ 3" S. 3a 9a 2m 80 3" § :5 oocomaeoaom
. Gv ooaomaoEoemom
new 4.8 5 «.3 2m SN 2% SN e 00590585
2 S 35:58:.
8m 3a an as. a as w 6 EN 02058: =~ co ”magi
3m. SH an m. .N N: a: . mam E SE .saé 005205.85
an «.8 an a NS 3” Rm EN 25 2225
< « <25 < a <25 < a <26 m < a <26
:33: $80 22> can: saw 20; can: 9.86 2...; is: new 22> 305.8:
5.32 3:3 8&8 5.62 022283 so: 220 3.3

 

 

 

 

.vaﬂ E .5550 8935 3 2:05.? “soc—omega:
v83 .58 .3 32.255 3 380 @525 23 48:80 @003 Rama—E .26 SEES 88w v5 203 53 >52 N 6335 2.32%?

68

MICHIGnN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
mimilHHIIWIHWNIN\Ii‘llWllNHlillilWW
31293017103783