Agronomy Science, przyrodniczy lublin, czasopisma up, czasopisma uniwersytet przyrodniczy lublin
Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Agronomy Science Baner text

Vol. 73 No. 4 (2018)

Articles

The effect of combined use of herbicide and growth retardants as well as diversified mineral fertilization on weed infestation of spring wheat

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24326/asx.2018.4.10
Submitted: January 10, 2019
Published: 2018-12-19

Abstract

This thesis presents the results of the research aiming at determination of the weed control  efficacy of the herbicide Lintur 70 WG (dicamba + triasulfuron) applied alone or in combination with growth regulators Antywylegacz Płynny 675 SL (chlormequat chloride) and Cerone 480 SL (ethephon) under different mineral fertilization conditions in a spring wheat crop. A two-factorial field experiment was conducted at the Czesławice Experimental Farm, belonging to the University of Life Sciences in Lublin, over the period 2010–2013. The obtained study results, compared to the treatment where the herbicide was applied without growth retardant, the weed control efficacy was significantly reduced when the herbicide was applied with the addition of Antywylegacz Płynny 675 SL, whereas combined application of the herbicide and the growth retardant Cerone 480 SL did not cause significant changes in weed infestation. The increase in mineral fertilizer rate contributed to increase number and dry weight of weeds compared to the treatment with standard fertilization.

References

  1. Acosta G., 1996. Effect of sowing date on the growth and seed yield of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in highland environments. Field Crops Res. 49, 1–10.
  2. Ayaz S., McKenzie B.A., Hill D.G., McNeil D.L., 2004. Variability in yield of four grain legume species in a subhumid temperate environment. I. Yields and harvest index. J. Agric. Sci. 142, 9–20.
  3. Blackshaw R.E., Molnar J.L., Muendel H., Saindon G., Xiangju L., 2000. Integration of cropping practices and herbicides improves weed management in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 14, 327–336, DOI:10.1614/0890-37x(2000)014[0327:IOCPAH]2.0.CO;2.
  4. Chmielowiec P., Borowy A., 1998. Wpływ konkurencji chwastów na plonowanie fasoli zwykłej (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) uprawianej na suche nasiona. Zesz. Nauk. AR Krak., 333, 75–80.
  5. Chmielowiec P., Borowy A., 2004. Ocena działania bentazonu i metolachloru w uprawie fasoli zwykłej (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) ‘BONA’. Acta Sci. Pol., Hortorum Cultus 3(1), 75–87.
  6. Dobrzański A., 1996. Krytyczne okresy konkurencji chwastów a racjonalne stosowanie herbicydów w uprawie warzyw. Prog. Plant Protect./Post. Ochr. Roś. 36(1), 110–116.
  7. Głowacka A., 2008. Wpływ dolistnego nawożenia mikroelementami i środków ochrony roślin na plonowanie fasoli zwyczajnej (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Biul. IHAR 248, 97–104.
  8. Głowacka A., 2013. The influence of strip cropping on the state and degree of weed infestation in dent maize (Zea mays L.), common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Acta Agrobot. 66(1), 135–148, DOI: 10.5586/aa.2013.015.
  9. Głowacka A., Klikocka H., Onuch J., 2015. Content of zinc and iron in common bean seeds (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in different weed control methods. J. Elem. 20(2), 293–303, DOI: 10.5601/jelem.2014.19.2.499.
  10. Graham P.H., Ranalli P., 1997. Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Field Crop Res. 53, 131–146.
  11. Hekmat S., Shropshire Ch., Soltani N., Sikkema P.H., 2007. Responses of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to sulfentrazone. Crop Protect. 26, 525–529, DOI:10.1016/j.cropro.2006.05.009.
  12. Hekmat S., Soltani N., Shropshire Ch., Sikkema P.H., 2008. Effect of imazamox plus bentazon on dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Crop Protect. 27, 1491–1494, DOI:10.1016/j.cropro. 2008.07.008.
  13. Heems H.D.J., 1985. The influence of competition on crop yield. Agric. Systems, 18, 81–93.
  14. Korus J., Gumul D., Achremowicz B., 2005. Skład chemiczny pięciu nowych odmian fasoli zwy-czajnej (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Żywn. Nauka Technol. Jakość 4(45), 81–86.
  15. Krupa U., Soral-Śmietana M., 2003. Nasiona fasoli – źródłem odżywczych i nieodżywczych ma-kroskładników. Żywn. Nauka Technol. Jakość, 2(35) Supl., 99–108.
  16. Krupa U., Soral-Śmietana M., 2005. Wpływ czynników fizycznych na dostępność enzymatyczną in vitro białek nasion fasoli (Phaseolus sp). Żywn. Nauka Technol. Jakość, 2(43) Supl, 121–132.
  17. Łabuda H. 2010. Runner bean (Phaseolus coccineus L.) – biology and use. Acta Sci. Pol., Hortorum Cultus 9(3), 117–132.
  18. Łabuda H., Papliński R., 2005. Ocena nowych odmian fasoli zwykłej i fasoli wielokwiatowej na suche nasiona. In: Zmienność genetyczna i jej wykorzystanie w hodowli roślin ogrodniczych, B. Michalik, E. Żurawicz (ed.), Skierniewice, 161–166.
  19. Martín-Cabrejas M.A., Sanfiz B., Vidal A., Mollá E., Esteban R., López-Andréu F.J., 2004. Effect of fermentation and autoclaving on dietary fiber fractions and antinutritional factors of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 52, 261–266.
  20. Nienhuis J., Singh S.P., 1986. Combining ability analyses and relationships among yield, yield components, and architectural traits in dry bean. Crop Sci. 26, 21–27.
  21. Osorio-Diaz P., Bello-Perez L.A., Sayago-Ayerdi S. G., Benitez-Reyes M. D., Tovar J., Paredes-Lopez O. 2003. Effect of processing and storage time on in vitro digestibility and resistant starch content of two bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) varieties. J. Sci. Food Agric. 83, 1283–1288, DOI:10.1002/jsfa.1413.
  22. Prusiński J., 2006. Plonowanie fasoli zwykłej (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) w zależności od intensyw-ności technologii uprawy. Cz. I. Wysokość i jakość plonu nasion oraz ich agrotechniczne uwarunkowania. Acta Sci. Pol., Agricultura 5(2), 65–76.
  23. Santalla M., Amurrio J.M., de Ron A.M., 2001. Interrelationships between cropping systems for pod and seed quality components and breeding implications in common bean. Euphytica 121, 45–51.
  24. Soltani N., Bawley S., Sikkema P.H., 2005. Responses of black and cranberry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to post-emergence herbicides. Crop Protect. 24, 15–21, DOI:10.1016/j.cropro.2004.06.003.
  25. Soltani N., Shropshire Ch., Sikkema P.H., 2006. Effects of post-emergence application of bentazon and fomesafen on eight market classes of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Crop Protect. 25, 826–830. DOI:10.1016/j.cropro.2005.11.011.
  26. Soltani N., Van Eerd L.L., Vyn R., Shropshire C., Sikkema P.H., 2007. Weed management in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with dimethenamid plus reduced doses of imazethapyr applied preplant incorporated. Crop Protect. 26(5), 739–745. DOI:10.1016/j.cropro.2006.06.013.
  27. Urwin C.P., Wilson R.G., Mortensen D.A., 1996. Responses of dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgar-is) cultivars to four herbicides. Weed Technol. 10, 512–518, DOI:10.1017/S0890037 X0040355.
  28. Wall D.A., 1995. Bentazon tank-mixtures for improved redwood pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) control in navy beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 9, 610–616. DOI:10.1017/S0890037X00023927.
  29. Vencill W.K., 2002. Herbicide Handbook, 8th ed. Weed Science Society of America, Lawrence, KS, 493 pp.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 > >> 

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.