Influence of method of land preparation on weed regeneration in cowpea ( Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.)

The influence of four methods of land preparation on weed regeneration and the efficacy of imazaquin (2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1 H-imidasol-2yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acid) applied singly at 0.18 kg a.i. ha −1, and in tank mixture with either 2.0 kg a.i. ha −1 of metolachlor (2-chloro- N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)- N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl) acetamine) or 0.64 kg a.i. ha −1 of diuron ( N′-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)- N, N-dimethylurea) in cowpea ( Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) was studied in the late season of 1989 at the University of Benin and in the early season of 1990 at the Nigerian Institute for Oil Palm Research (NIFOR), Benin City, Nigeria. The methods of land preparation were: no-tillage (NT-B with all the stubble mulch packed and burnt in situ); no-tillage (NT-Pa, the existing vegetation was killed with paraquat and the sod left in situ); ploughing (P); ploughing and harrowing (P+H). The number of regenerating weeds was significantly greater were the land was prepared by no-till and the stubble mulch left in situ compared with all other methods of land preparation. There were no significant differences in number of regenerating weeds and the weed biomass between NT-B, P and P+H. Herbicide treatments significantly reduced both the number of regenerating weeds and weed biomass irrespective of the method of land preparation. Herbicides generally performed better in NT-B, P, P+H than in NT-Pa plots. Cowpea pod or grain yield was not significantly influenced by the method of land preparation. However, it was significantly depressed where the plots were left unweeded for all methods of land preparation, especially so in the NT-Pa treatment. These observations suggest that where a good degree of burn or stubble mulch removal is achieved, further soil tillage may not necessarily enhance the efficacy of imazaquin and its tank-mixtures with diuron or metolachlor.