Research regarding weeds control in grain legumes crops

Scientific Papers. Series A. Agronomy, Vol. LXIV, No. 1, 2021 ISSN 2285-5785; ISSN CD-ROM 2285-5793; ISSN Online 2285-5807; ISSN-L 2285-5785 RESEARCH REGARDING WEEDS CONTROL IN GRAIN LEGUMES CROPS Marga GRĂDILĂ1, Daniel JALOBĂ1, Valentin CIONTU1, Mihaela ŞERBAN2, Victor PETCU2 1 Research and Development Institute for Plant Protection, Ion Ionescu de la Brad Blvd, Bucharest, Romania 2 National Agricultural Research and Development Institute Fundulea, 1 N. Titulescu Street, Fundulea, Romania Corresponding author email: [email protected] Abstract Although there are quite small areas sown with grain legumes in Romania, in recent years these crops have become more attractive to farmers also due to the fact that it leaves the soil enriched in nitrogen. Dried grain legumes crops have certain peculiar features that farmers must take into account to obtain profitable harvests. One of these features refers to the sensitivity of pea and bean crops to weed infestation, especially in the early stages of vegetation. In this context, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and selectivity of the herbicides applied in pre and post-emergence on weed control in peas and beans. To this end, three experimental fields were conducted in Ilfov, Calarasi and Bucharest during spring and summer of 2020. Assessments were made at 14, 28 and 42 days after treatments application and they aimed at the effectiveness in controlling the mono and dicotyledonous weeds and crop safety. The results obtained have shown that the effectiveness of herbicides applied in peas and beans crops depends on weed species, their density on square meter, pedoclimatic and agrophytotechnical indicators. Key words: effectiveness, herbicides, phytotoxicity, bean, pea. Weeds are one of the major biological constraint in crop production and, therefore, their control is an important component of any crop production system. Bean and pea plants are sensitive to weed competition, mainly during the early vegetative growth stages (Blackshaw, 1991; Pynenburg et al., 2011; Teixeira et al., 2009; Vidal et al., 2010; Fontes et al., 2013), found that seed yield in dry bean was reduced up to 85% result of season-long weed competition. Also, weeds compete vigorously with pea and yield reduction of 20-40 % are common (Blackshaw & O Donovan, 1993; Wall et al., 1991). Wider spacing in peas provides ample opportunities for weed infestation resulting in 18-76% yield losses (Singh et al., 1991; Kundra et al., 1993; Banga et al., 1998). Chemical weed control is still the predominant component of weed management in crop production (Arevalo et al., 1992; Tironi et al., 2012; Aboali & Saeedipour, 2015). The objective of this research was to investigate weed control efficacy and phytotoxicity to the crop of some herbicides INTRODUCTION Grain legumes are valuable crops, rich in proteins and essential amino acids, playing an important role in human nutrition (Esmaeilzadeh & Aminpanah 2015; Ivanov, 2019). Alone, they contribute up to 33% of the dietary protein needs of humans (Vance et al., 2002). These crops also leave the soil enriched in nitrogen and they have an important role in crop rotation (Bazitov, 2002). Peas (Pisum sativum L.) and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) are crops intended for both food and fodder, being appreciated by the Romanian consumer. Romania has the largest number of grain legume farms in the EU, almost 100,000 agricultural holdings (*2017). A Romanian farm that grows peas or beans measures an average of 1.8 hectares, being 3.5 times smaller than the European average. Pea and bean crops have become more attractive to Romanian farmers since the European Union decided to encourage these crops by providing grants, namely "payment for greening". 344 applied in peas and beans at different doses, with different application timings. ability and selectivity to the crop. Herbicides under investigation (Table 2) were: aclonifen (Challenge, 600 g a.i./L), S-metolachlor (Dual Gold, 960 g a.i./L), imazamox+ bentazone (Corum, 22.4 g a.i./L + 480 g a.i./L) and Fluazifop-P-butyl (Fusilade max, 125 g a.i./L). Untreated plots were always added as checks. Post-emergence treatments were always performed with the crop at the 2–5 leaves stage, broadleaved weeds at the 2–4 true leaves stage and grasses at the 3–5 leaves stage. Weed density was assessed in ground % and in number of plants per square meter. Weed control (efficacy) was assessed at 10, 28, and 42 days after each application in % control in comparison with the untreated plots. In each trial, herbicide phytotoxicity was rated visually at - at each date of the efficacy assessments on a 0–10 scale (0: no visible injury; 10: plant death). Also, there were observations on the weed found in the experimental plots before treatment. Determination of segetal flora was performed on one square meter using a metric frame. Statistical data - processing of the assessments was based on the analysis of ARM-9 software (P=.05, Student-NewmanKeuls), ADC GmbH company. MATERIALS AND METHODS For this purpose, 3 experimental fields were placed in Ilfov, Călărași and Bucharest counties during spring and summer 2020 at SC Ghinea Prod. S.R.L., Călăraşi county (N: 44°28'77.6, E: 27°02'69.0), Didactic farm Moara Domnească (N: 44°29'38.6, E: 26°14'02.0) and Research Development Institute for Plant Protection - Bucharest (N: 44°30'82.5, E: 26°04'17.8). The soils in the experimental fields were: brown redish with clay loam texture at Ilfov and Bucharest, and cambic chernozem at Călăraşi, rich in organic matters. The trials were carried out in accordance with good experimental practices, as concerns soil tillage and seedbed preparation (Bonciarelli & Bonciarelli, 2001; Pannacci et al., 2007). The main agronomic practices are shown in Table 1. Experimental design was always a randomised block with four replicates and plot size of 30 m². In each trial, some herbicides were used in pre or post-emergence applications in order to assess weed control Table 1. Agronomic practices in the field experiments Location Crops Preceding crop Sowing date Cultivar Density (plants/m2) Spacing between rows (cm) Fertilisation (Kg/ha) Emergence date Pre-emergence treatments date Post-emergence treatments date Fungicide azoxystrobin 2.5 l/ha Insecticide Deltametrin 0.5 l/ha Călărași Bean Pea Maize Sunflower 25.04.2020 04.03.2020 Rocco Salamanca 40 140 70 12.5 NPK 180 NPK 180 06.05.2020 29.03.2020 29.04.2020 20.03.2020 15.05.2020 15.04.2020 18.05.2020 02.05.2020 19.05.2020 04.05.2020 Ilfov Bean Pea Wheat Wheat 08.05.2020 13.03.2020 Diva Belmondo 45 120 70 12.5 NPK 180 NPK 180 15.05.2020 01.04.2020 12.05.2020 25.03.2020 28.05.2020 18.04.2020 22.05.2020 01.05.2020 30.05.2020 05.05.2020 Bucharest Bean Pea Maize Maize 05.05.2020 11.03.2020 Bianca Trendy 40 140 70 12.5 NPK 180 NPK 180 12.05.2020 25.03.2020 08.05.2020 23.03.2020 25.05.2020 15.04.2020 24.05.2020 01.05.2020 20.05.2020 05.05.2020 Table 2. Herbicide treatments on beans and peas in 2020 Treatment Aclonifen S-metolachlor Imazamox +Bentazone Aclonifen +Fluazifop-P-butyl Active Subst. g/l 600 960 22.4 + 480 600 + 125 Formulation SC EC SC EC *1.5 l/ha for pea 345 Rates l/ha 3.0 1.5 1.25+ 0.6 Dash 3.0 + 2.0/1.5* Application time Pre-emerg. Pre-emerg. Post-emerg. Pre+Post Code A A B A+B Water volume l/ha 300 300 300 300 The best results were obtained in the sample in which pre-emergence herbicide was performed with aclonifen followed by the post-emergence application of the herbicide Fusilade max based on Fluazifop-P-butyl in a dose of 2.0 l/ ha for beans and 1.5 l/ha for peas. Fluazifop-p-butyl is a selective aryloxyphenoxypropionate herbicide and provides excellent control of annual and perennial weeds. Fluazifop-P-butyl is quickly absorbed into the leaf surface, hydrolysed to fluazifop-P and translocated through the phloem and xylem and it is accumulated in the rhizomes and stolons of perennial weeds and the meristems of annual and perennial weeds. Weeds treated with fluazifop-p-butyl stopped growing within a few hours, showed gradual discoloration on newer growth in 3 to 4 days, and eventually necrosis, desiccation, and plant death occurs within 2 to 3 weeks (Urano, 1982; Erlingson, 1988). Thus, for Setaria species at pre-emergence herbicide applicaton with aclonifen and post-emergence application with fluazifop-p-butyl, the control percentage ranged from 81.5% for peas to 100% for beans in the Dâlga experimental field (Table 3). In the experimental field with beans of RDIPP Bucharest in which the Setaria species had a % of soil cover of 22% at 42 days after application of the treatments, % of control compared to the untreated sample was of 90.7% (Table 5). In the experimental samples in which only preemergent herbicides were applied, the effect on weeds was lower, especially on species with a high degree of infestation. Thus, in Dâlga in the case of the species E. annuus, which had a 42% cover of the soil at 42 days after the treatment, the effectiveness in control was 48.7% in the case of application in pre-emergence of aclonifen and 66.6% for s-metolachlor. In Dâlga peas at Veronica species that had a 16% soil cover, the control efficacy was 30.3% for aclonifen and 60% for S-metolachlor (Table 3). Dual Gold herbicide has been shown to be more effective in controlling weeds, especially against grass weeds because it has high solubility, remains active and does not move out, even when small amounts of precipitation occur. Compared to S-metolachlor, aclonifen does not prevent germination but controls germinating weeds. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The segetal flora in the experimental fields was composed mainly of annual dicotyledonous and monocotyledonous weeds. The annual dicotyledonous group was the most numerous, being found: Ambrosia artemisiifolia L., Amaranthus retroflexus L., Capsella bursapastoris (L.) Medik., Chenopodium album L., Datura stramonium L., Daucus carota L., Fallopia convolvulus (L.) Á.Löve., Galium aparine L., Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers., Fumaria officinalis L., Lamium purpureum L., Tripleurospermum inodorum (L.) Sch.Bip., Polygonum aviculare L., Portulaca oleracea L., Raphanus raphanistrum L., Sinapis arvensis L., Solanum nigrum L., Sonchus asper (L.) Hill., Sonchus oleraceus L., Stellaria media (L.) Vill., Tribulus terrestris L. and Veronica species. Of the group of annual monocotyledonous weeds there were found the species Echinochloa cruss-galli (L.) Beauv., Poa annua L., Panicum miliaceum L., and Setaria species. Perennial species were also present like Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop., Convolvulus arvensis (L.) and Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers., but they had a low density on square meter. The major, dominant weeds with a % of soil cover higher than 15% at 42 days after treatments were: Setaria spp., 23.8%, L. purpureum 20%, E. cruss-galli 18.8%, P. oleraceea 16.8%, G. aparine 16.5%, P. convolvulus 16.3%, A. retroflexus 16.3%, Veronica spp., 16% and E. annuus 15.8%. Because the peas are sown in early spring (in the melted snow), the experimental fields were infested in the first part of the vegetation period mainly with weeds with early emergence in spring as well as with species that can overwinter: L. purpureum, S. media, C. bursapastoris, F. officinalis G. aparine, Veronica spp. Weeds infestation reduces the nutritional area of plants and creates conditions for the development of the diseases and pests, difficulties for the harvesting machinery and the result is strong yield reduction (Angelova & Yancheva, 1996; Dimitrova, 2000). In such conditions of weeds infestation, the herbicides provided good result in control of annual dicotyledonous and monocotyledonous weeds species in grain legumes (Tables 3, 4 and 5). 346 Table 3. The efficacy of herbicides in crop after 42 days of treatment (Dâlga 2020) Treatment name LSD (P=.05) Dose L/ha 1.25 3.0+2.0 3.0 2.0 1.25 Efficacy - % control in compared to the untreated plots 96.2a 97.2a 7.9-16 10.0d 49.8c 60.3bc 92.6a 100a 100a 0.3-5.5 8.0c 39.5b 60.5ab 84.4a 100a 100a 0.5-7.2 92.1a 93.0a 10-15 7.0b 50.0a 65.1a 70.7a 94.5a 95.4a 8.6-15 100a 100a 1.6-12 5.0c 60.2b 70.2b 94.8a 100a 100a 1.3-11 15.0c 39.5b 60.5ab 84.4a 92.4a 89.3a 8.5-13 6.0d 60.5c 81.5 b 100a 100a 100a 1.0-10 10.0d 38.3c 60.9b 81.5a 100a 100a 1.3-10 16.0c 40.c 55.0ab 76.3a 12.0c 55.1b 65.3ab 84.4a 8.0c 60.9b 71.4b 100a Challenge + Fusilade Corum 66.6b 68.8b 60.1b 67.1b 53.8b 63.0b 60.2b 52.6b 64.0b 77.1b - Dual Gold 48.7c 53.8c 48.7c 47.0c 38.3c 49.9c 44.9c 40.8c 53.9b 65.4c - Challenge 15.8d 7.3d 6.0d 11.3d 5.0d 7.0d 10.0d 18.8c 12.0c 4.5d - Untreated (ground %) 2.0 LSD (P=.05) 3.0 Pea Challenge + Fusilade - Corum Dual Gold ERIAN TRBTE DATST CHEAL SINAR AMARE GALAP ECHCG SETSS VERSS STEME FUMOF Challenge Weeds EPPO CODE* Untreated (ground %) Bean 3.0+1.5 - 85.7ab 85.8a 80.3a 90.3a 85.8a 100a 80.5a 76.7a 80.1ab 100a 24.7-30 30.9-34 23.7-24 12.5-18 30.9-34 2.9-15 16.1-18 20.0-21 19.3-21 4.6-19 *ERIAN = E. annuus; TRBTE=T. terrestris; DATST= D. stramonium; CHEAL = C. album; SINAR= S. arvensis; AMARE= A. retroflexus; GALAP= G. aparine; ECHCG= E. cruss-gall; SETSS=Setaria spp., VERSS= Veronica spp., STEME= S. media; FUMOF= F. officinalis. Because the velocity of the effect is influenced by the available reserves of weed seeds in the soil, the effectiveness of this herbicide was lower. In such a way, at 42 days after treatments, in pea experimental field of Research Development Institute for Plant Protection - Bucharest, the erbicide Dual Gold provided a good effectiveness in weed control: A. retroflexus 60.6%, C. album 76.0%, P. aviculare 80.5%, S. oleraceus 72.3%, Setaria spp., 68.0%, E. cruss-galli 75.0% (Table 5). At Ilfov, the erbicide Dual Gold had a moderate effectiveness in control of dicotyledonous weeds in peas: D. carota – 65.2%, P. convolvulus – 51%, G. aparine – 50%, S. media – 60% and M. inodora –51% (Table 4). At the initial stages, due to the slower pace of development, pea and bean are suppressed by the rapidly developing of broadleaf weeds. For example, as far as concerns the invasive species E. annuus, the ground coverage was 15.8% in bean and 10% in peas in experimental field of Dâlga. In these conditions of infestation with this species, the herbicides applied in preemergence had a lower efficacy. During that period especially, herbicide Corum was efficient at 1.25 l/ha, applied at stage of 25 leaves of crops together with the adjuvant Dach. Composed of two active substances (bentazone and imazamox), the herbicide Corum had a very good effectiveness in controlling weeds in peas and beans, the results obtained being close to those obtained in the pre-emergent version treated with aclonifen and post-emergent with fluazifop-p-butyl. Thus, at Moara Domnească, the effectiveness of herbicide Corum ranged from 90% to 100%: D. carota 100%, P. convolvulus 97%, A. artemisiifolia 100%, G. aparine 90%, Setaria spp. 91%, P. annua 100% and P. miliaceum 100%. Bentazone acts by contact, with an impact on the process of photosynthesis, being absorbed by leaves and other green organs. Imazamox is taken up by plants up to the growth areas where it blocks the synthesis of essential amino acids, responsible for cell growth and division, being absorbed by plants especially through the leaves, but also through the roots. Herbicide action is enhanced by the light sunny weather, which stimulates active growth, while the cool, dark weather or prolonged drought inhibit the growth of weeds or reduces their turgor, and thus can reduce the effectiveness of the herbicide. 347 Table 4. The efficacy of herbicides in crop after 42 days of treatment (Moara Domnească 2020) Treatment name 2.0 66.6b 61.7b 63.0b 58.0b 60.5b 71.4b 63.0b - Dose L/ha 3.0 1.3-11 8.0d 50.0c 5.6-13 10.0d 35.0c 1.4-11 10-15 15.0d 29.8c 12-18 0.3-5.6 1.5-12 6.0d 60.1c 12.0d 44.9c 10.0d 39.9c 6.0c 50.0b LSD (P=.05) Challenge + Fusilade Corum Dual Gold Challenge Untreated (ground %) 3.0+2.0 99.4a 94.5a 100a 91.9a 92.2a 100a 100a - LSD (P=.05) 1.25 100a 97.4a 100a 89.7a 91.7a 100a 100a - Dual Gold Challenge + Fusilade 3.0 52.5c 47.5c 50.0c 37.0c 39.5c 58.8c 48.7c - Pea Corum DAUCA POLCO AMBEL GALAP SETSS POAAN PANMI STEME MATIN SONAS 10.0d 16.3d 7.0d 16.3d 23.8d 10.0d 12.5d - Challenge Weeds EPPO CODE* Untreated (ground %) Bean 2.0 1.25 3.0+1.5 65.2b 80.6a 80.2a 11.3-13 51.1b 70.3a 75.2a 11.1-12 50.1b 75.4a 70.3a 12.-12.7 80.6b 100a 00a 0.8-8.8 60.1b 85.5a 80.1a 7.6-9.9 51.1b 75.3a 72.2a 11.1-12 65.2b 88.5a 93.0a 1.3-24.8 *DAUCA= D. carota, POLCO= F. convolvulus, AMBEL=A. artenisiifolia. POAAN= P. annua, PANMI =P. miliaceum, MATIN= T. inodorum, SONAS= S. asper. symptoms have been shown in the experimental plot. No symptoms of chlorosis, necrosis, leaf deformation, height reduction, distortion and delay at flowering in plots treated with clopyralid were seen (*, 2014). In the experimental fields were also present 4 invasive weed species: A. artemisiifolia, E. annuus, V. persica and S. halepense which were carefully monitored given the growing invasion of alien species, allogeneic in natural ecosystems and anthropogenic in our country. The application of adjuvant results in better weed coverage with a thicker wax layer on the leaf surface and prevents the possible reduction of herbicidal action at low atmospheric humidity and high temperatures. The combination between the herbicide Corum and the adjuvant Dach has no impact on the next crop in crop rotation, but it is not recommended to mix them with foliar fertilizers and organophosphorus insecticides (Tibets & Saskevich, 2006). No phytotoxicity Table 5. The efficacy of herbicides in crop after 42 days of treatment (ICDPP-Bucharest, 2020) Treatment name AMARE CHEAL POLAV POROL SONOL SETSS ECHCG LAMPU CAPBP RAPRA 3.0 2.0 1.25 16.3d 45.0c 63.9b 95.4a 12.0c 48.7b 58.9b 99.4a 12.0e 42.4d 56.4c 92.5b 16.8c 44.9b 56.3b 97.1a 6.5d 50.0c 60.2b 100a 22.5d 46.2c 63.9b 93.4a 13.0d 53.8c 63.9b 100a - 3.0+2.0 99.4a 100a 98.1a 93.7a 100a 90.7a 100a - Dose L/ha 4-13.8 2.0c 1.4-12 10.0b 5.5-14 7.0c 6.8-14 0.9-9.8 5.0b 7.3-12 15.0c 0.6-8.0 10.0d 20.0c 8.0c 6.0c 3.0 2.0 47.5b 60.6b 56.8a 76.0a 62.1b 80.5b 59.6a 72.5a 53.8b 68.0ab 6.3b 75.0ab 32.1b 51.3ab 51.3b 64.4b 43.7b 57.8 b 1.25 89.4a 90.6a 100a 88.8a 88.7a 100a 81.2a 96.2a 88.8a 3.0+2.0 91.a 92.6a 100a 89.3a 82.7a 100a 80.4a 96.8a 82.4a LSD (P=.05) Challenge+ Fusilade Corum Dual Gold Challenge Untreated (ground %) LSD (P=.05) Pea Challenge + Fusilade Corum Dual Gold Challenge Weeds EPPO CODE* Untreated (ground %) Bean 22.2-27 27-30.8 7.5-23.8 23.5-25 16.4-20 23-15 32.2-34 15-25.5 1.9-23.6 *POLAV=P. aviculare, POROL = P. oleracea, SONOL=S. oleraceus. LAMPU=L. purpureum, CAPBP= C. bursa-pastoris, RAPRA= R. raphanistrum 348 Borchartt, L., Jakelaitis, A., Valado, F.C.A., Ventuora, L.A.C., des Santos, C.L. (2011). Períodos de interferência de plantas daninhas na cultura do feijoeiro-comum (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Rev. Ci Agron., 42. 725–734. Dimitrova, T. (2000). Biological testing of herbicides for weed control in spring fodder peas. Bulgarian Journal of Crop, Scence, 37, 328–331. Erlingson, M. (1988). Fusilade - a strategy for long-term control of couch (Elymus repens). Weeds Weed Control, 1, 158–165. Esmaeilzadeh, S., Aminpanah, H. (2015). Effects of planting date and spatial arrangement on common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) yield under weed-free and weedy conditions. Planta Daninha, 33(3), 425–432. Ivanov, S. (2019). Weeds and weed control in forage pea: a review. Agricultural Science and Technology, 11(2), 107–112. Pannacci, E., Graziani, F., Covarelli, G. (2007). Use of herbicide mixtures for pre and post-emergence weed control in sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Crop Prot., 26, 1150–1157. Pynenburg, G.M., Sikkema, P.H., Robinson, D.E. Gillard, C.L. (2011). The interaction of annual weed and white mold management systems for dry bean production in Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci., 91(3), 587– 598. Teixeira, I.R., Silva, R.P., Silva, A.G., Freitas, R.S. (2009). Competição entre feijoeiros e plantas daninhas em função do tipo de crescimento dos cultivares. Planta Daninha, 27. 235–240. Tibets, J.L., Saskevich, P.A. (2006). Comparative efficacy of herbicides with vozdelivanii spring rape. Agroecol., 4. 182–185. Tironi, S.P., Galon, L., Faria, A.T., Belo, A.F., Silvia, A.A., Barbosa, M.H.P. (2012). Efficiency of a reduced herbicide rate for Brachiaria brizantha control in sugarcane. Planta Daninha, 30. 791–798. Urano, K. (1982). Onecide, a new herbicide fluazifopbutyl. Jap Pestic, Inf., 41, 28–31. Vance, C.P. (2002). Root-bacteria interactions: symbiotic nitrogen fixation. In: Waisel, Y; Eshel, A.; Kafkati, U. (Ed.) Plant roots: The Hidden Half, Ed 3, New York, Marcel Dekker, (pp. 839-867). Vidal, R.A., Kalsing, A., Gherekhloo, J. (2010). Interferência e nível de dano econômico de Brachiaria plantaginea e Ipomoea nil na cultura do feijão comum. Ci Rural. 40. 1675–1681. *, 2014 - http://pp1.eppo.org/list.php, PP1/135(4), Phytotoxicity assessment. Efficacy evaluation of plant protection products Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin (2014) 44 (3), 265–273 ISSN 0250-8052. DOI: 10.1111/epp.12134. *, 2017 https://www.zf.ro/companii/romania-detine-celemai-multe-ferme-de-leguminoase-pentru-boabe-dinue-insa-la-productie-suntem-codasi-161. CONCLUSIONS Bean and pea crops are very sensitive to weed infestation, especially at the early stages of vegetation. The annual mono and dicotyledonous weeds were dominant in the experimental fields. Herbicides applied provided good results in control of weeds in grain legumes. The post-emergence Corum herbicide applied together with the Dash adjuvant had a good efficacy in controlling the segetal flora that suppressed the experimental fields. The obtained results demonstrate that the application of pre-emergence treatments before the emergence of crops and post-emergence in vegetation is the best strategy to control weeds in pea and bean crops. No phytotoxicity symptoms have been shown in experimental plots. The results obtained have shown that the effectiveness of herbicides applied in peas and beans crops depends on weed species, their density, pedoclimatic and agrotechnical indicators. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special greetings to S.C. Ghinea Prod. S.R.L., Călăraşi county and Didactic Farm Belciugatele, Moara Domnească, for making our research possible. REFERENCES Aboali, Z., Saeedipour, S. (2015). Efficacy evaluation of some herbicides for weed management and yield attributes in broad bean (Vicia faba). Iranian Journal of Pulse Research, 8. 205–214. Angelova, S. Yancheva, H. (1996). Biological and economic characteristics of some specimens of winter forage peas. Bulgarian Journal of Crop Science, 33. 64–68. Arevalo, G.R.C. Lusarreta, C.A. Neyra, C.B. Sanchez, M.A., Algarra, P.J.H. (1992). Chemical control of annual weeds in field beans (Vicia faba) in Central Spain. Weed Science, 40(1), 96–100. Bazitov, V. (2002). Effect of soil cultivation and fertilization on productivity of compacted crop rotation. Scientific Papers of Agrarian University, Plovdiv, 47. 71–76. Blackshaw, R.E. (1991). Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci., 39(1), 48–53. Bonciarelli, F., Bonciarelli, U., (2001). Coltivazioni Erbacee. Edagricole, Edizioni Agricole, Bologna, Italy, 492. 349