Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T17:43:38.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Row Spacing on Weed Competition with Snap Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John R. Teasdale and
J. Ray Frank
John R. Teasdale
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Beltsville Agric. Res. Ctr., Beltsville, MD 20705
J. Ray Frank
Affiliation:
Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., P.O. Box 1209, Frederick, MD 21701
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Five field experiments were conducted with snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) row spacings of 15, 25, 36, 46, and 91 cm, all of which were seeded at a constant density of 43 plants/m2. When weeds were allowed to emerge with the crop, row spacings of 15 to 36 cm suppressed weed growth by 18% compared to the conventional 91-cm row spacing. When weeds were controlled for the first half of the season, row spacings of 15 to 36 cm suppressed weed growth by 82% compared to the 91-cm row spacing. The effect of the 46-cm row spacing on weed growth was variable. Weed suppression by narrow rows was explained by a higher rate of snap bean canopy closure in narrow rows. Snap beans in row spacings of 15 to 46 cm produced similar yields and were higher by an average of 23% than yields produced by snap beans in 91 - cm rows.

Keywords

Canopylight

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , January 1983, pp. 81 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Bell, R. S., Lachman, W. H., Rahn, E. M., and Sweet, R. D. 1962. Life history studies as related weed control in the Northeast. 1. Northern nutgrass. R. I. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. No. 364. 33.Google Scholar
2. Brendler, R. A. 1969. Bush snap beans. Varietal evaluations and timing for mechanical harvest. Calif. Agric. (June) 23:16–17.Google Scholar
3. Buchanan, G. A. and Hauser, E. W. 1980. Influence of row spacing on competitiveness and yield of peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 28:401–409.Google Scholar
4. Burnside, O. C. 1979. Soybean (Glycine max) growth as affected by weed removal, cultivar, and row spacing. Weed Sci. 27:562–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Burnside, O. C. and Colville, W. L. 1964. Soybean and weed yield as affected by irrigation, row spacing, tillage, and amiben. Weeds 12:109–112.Google Scholar
6. Dawson, J. H. 1964. Competition between irrigated field beans and annual weeds. Weeds 12:206–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Felton, W. L. 1976. The influence of row spacing and plant population on the effect of weed competition in soybeans (Glycine max). Aust. J. Exp. Agric. and Anim. Husb. 16:926–931.Google Scholar
8. Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1978. Light requirements of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). and light interception by crops. Weed Sci. 26:10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Knake, E. L. 1972. Effect of shade on giant foxtail. Weed Sci. 20:588–592.Google Scholar
10. Kust, C. A. and Smith, R. R. 1969. Interaction of linuron and row spacing for control of yellow foxtail and barnyardgrass in soybeans. Weed Sci. 17:489–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Mack, H. J. and Hatch, D. L. 1968. Effects of plant arrangement and population density on yield of bush snap beans. Proc. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 92:418–425.Google Scholar
12. Moore, E. L. and Watson, W. W. 1967. The relation of sieve size, pod weight and harvest period of snap bean varieties for processing. Miss. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 744, 7.Google Scholar
13. Noguchi, K. and Nakayama, K. 1978. Studies on competition between upland crops and weeds. III. Effect of shade on growth of weeds. Jpn. J. Crop. Sci. 47:56–62.Google Scholar
14. Orwick, P. L. and Schreiber, M. M. 1979. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and robust foxtail (Setaria viridis var. robusta-alba or var. robusta-purpurea) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 27:665–674.Google Scholar
15. Peters, E. J., Gebhardt, M. R., and Stritzke, J. F. 1965. Interrelations of row spacing, cultivation and herbicides for weed control in soybeans. Weeds 13:285–289.Google Scholar
16. Smittle, D. A. 1976. Response of snap bean to irrigation, nitrogen, fertilization, and plant populations. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 101:37–40.Google Scholar
17. Stang, J. R., Mack, H. J., and Rowe, K. E. 1979. Quantitative relation of bush snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) yields to plant population density. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 104:873–875.Google Scholar
18. Tompkins, F. D., Guinn, R. S., and Mullins, C. A. 1979. Optimizing plant spacing for commercial snap bean production. Tenn. Farm Home Sci. 110:41–44.Google Scholar
19. Vengris, J. and Damon, R. A. Jr. 1976. Field growth of fall panicum and witchgrass. Weed Sci. 24:205–208.Google Scholar
20. Williams, C. F., Crabtree, G., Mack, H. J., and Laws, W. D. 1973. Effect of spacing on weed competition in sweet corn, snap beans, and onions. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 98:526–529.Google Scholar
21. Williams, E. D. 1970. Effects of decreasing the light intensity on the growth of Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. in the field. Weed Res. 10:360–366.Google Scholar