Mega business
  • Home
  • About ISWS
    • About Society
    • President's Message
    • Executive Board
    • Constitution
    • Weed Information
    • Other Important Links
    • Downloads
  • Publications
    • Indian Journal of Weed Science
    • IJWS MS online submission
    • Publications login
    • Conference Proceedings
    • Meeting Proceedings
    • ISWS Newsletters
    • Weed News
  • Membership
    • Join ISWS Online
    • Directory ISWS
    • Update ISWS Directory
  • Award
  • Contact Us
    • Contact Us
    • Directory ISWS
  • Member Login
Home IJWS
Submit Your Paper
Guide for Authors
Peer Review Policy
View Editorial Board
Abstracting/ Indexing
Current Issue
All Issue

All issues

Volume - 52(2020)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 51(2019)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 50(2018)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 49(2017)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 48(2016)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 47(2015)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 46(2014)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 45(2013)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 44(2012)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 43(2011)
Issue-1&2
Issue-3&4
Volume - 42(2010)
Issue-1&2
Issue-1&2 Supplymentary
Issue-3&4
Volume - 41(2009)
Issue-1&2
Issue-3&4
Issue-1&2 Supplymentary
Issue-3&4 Supplymentary
Volume - 40(2008)
Issue-1&2
Issue-3&4
Issue-1&2 Supplymentary
Issue-3&4 Supplymentary
Volume - 39(2007)
Issue-1&2
Volume - 38(2006)
Issue-1&2
Volume - 37(2005)
Issue-1&2
Issue-3&4
Volume - 36(2004)
Issue-1&2
Issue-3&4
Volume - 1(1969)
Issue-1&2
Issue-3&4

Indian Journal of Weed Science


Print ISSN: 0253-8050
Online ISSN: 0974-8164

NAAS rating: 5.17

Chief Editor

J.S. Mishra
Dr. J.S. Mishra
Principal Scientist, Division of Crop Research,
ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region,
Bihar Veterinary College, Patna - 800014 (Bihar)
Mobile - +91 9494240904
Email- editorisws@gmail, jsmishra31@gmail.com

Associate editors

Bhagirath S. Chauhan

Dr. Bhagirath Singh Chauhan
Queensland Alliance for Agricultureand Food Innovation
Level 2, Queensland Bioscience Precinct
The University of Queensland
St Lucia QLD 4069, Australia
Email: b.chauhan@uq.edu.au
A.N. Rao
Dr. A.N. Rao
Hydarabad, INDIA
Mobile Number: +91 9440372165
Email: adusumilli.narayanarao@gmail.com

CALL FOR RESEARCH PAPER

Indian Journal of Weed Science is inviting your articles, review article, Research article and Research note on all topics of weed science. IJWS welcomes quality work that focuses on research, development and review. We are looking forward for strict compliance to the modern age standards in all these fields. Authors across the globe are welcome to submit their research papers in the prestigious journal fulfilling the requisite criterion.

Indian Journal of Weed Science (IJWS) is inviting papers for the VOL-53, ISSUE-1 March-(2021)


Article submission guideline

Enter your login details for IJWS below. If you do not already have an account you will need to.. Register here
Author login
  • Author Instruction
  • Style of Invited paper
  • Style of Research Article
  • Style of Research note

Paper Publication Process –

  • Manuscripts are received online in the editorial office with the certificate that MS has not been sent for consideration in any other journals for consideration.
  • Manuscripts are checked by office for its style and pattern and for plagiarism. If plagiarism is more than 20%, it is not considered and sent back to author for revision and re-submission.
  • If MS is found fit at Editorial office in context to plagiarism and style and pattern, it is sent to Chief Editor for further processing.
  • If chief Editor find the MS suitable for consideration, he shall suggest two name of referees as reviewers either from editorial board or from other institutions of concern discipline for reviewing the MS.
  • Editorial Office shall send the MS for double blind review to the reviewers suggested by Chief Editor.
  • Comments of double -blind reviewers will be sent to corresponding author without disclosing the identity of the reviewers to address the comments and re-submission of MS.
  • In case, one reviewer rejects while other accept the MS, it is sent to third reviewer suggested by Chief Editor.
  • Revised MS is again sent to reviewers to see whether their comments are addressed suitably.
  • On agreeing by the reviewers, the MS is again sent to Chief Editors with comments of reviewers and reply of author to take the final decision.
  • The final decision of Chief Editor is communicated to authors.

CALL FOR RESEARCH PAPER

Indian Journal of Weed Science is inviting your articles, review article, Research article and Research note on all topics of weed science. IJWS welcomes quality work that focuses on research, development and review. We are looking forward for strict compliance to the modern age standards in all these fields. Authors across the globe are welcome to submit their research papers in the prestigious journal fulfilling the requisite criterion.

Indian Journal of Weed Science (IJWS) is inviting papers for the VOL-51, ISSUE-4 December-(2019)


Article submission guideline

Enter your login details for IJWS below. If you do not already have an account you will need to.. Register here
Author login
  • Author Instruction
  • Style of Invited paper
  • Style of Research Article
  • Style of Research note

Paper Publication Process –

  • Manuscripts are received online in the editorial office with the certificate that MS has not been sent for consideration in any other journals for consideration.
  • Manuscripts are checked by office for its style and pattern and for plagiarism. If plagiarism is more than 20%, it is not considered and sent back to author for revision and re-submission.
  • If MS is found fit at Editorial office in context to plagiarism and style and pattern, it is sent to Chief Editor for further processing.
  • If chief Editor find the MS suitable for consideration, he shall suggest two name of referees as reviewers either from editorial board or from other institutions of concern discipline for reviewing the MS.
  • Editorial Office shall send the MS for double blind review to the reviewers suggested by Chief Editor.
  • Comments of double -blind reviewers will be sent to corresponding author without disclosing the identity of the reviewers to address the comments and re-submission of MS.
  • In case, one reviewer rejects while other accept the MS, it is sent to third reviewer suggested by Chief Editor.
  • Revised MS is again sent to reviewers to see whether their comments are addressed suitably.
  • On agreeing by the reviewers, the MS is again sent to Chief Editors with comments of reviewers and reply of author to take the final decision.
  • The final decision of Chief Editor is communicated to authors.
Read More

Guidelines for Authors

Indian Journal of Weed Science is a quarterly journal publishing original research article, research notes, opinion articles and review articles (invited or with prior approval of the title reflecting substantial contributions of the author) covering all areas of weed science research. All contributions must be of a sufficient quality to extend our knowledge in weed science.

The papers submitted should not have been published or communicated elsewhere. Authors will be solely responsible for the factual accuracy of their contribution. Manuscript should not carry any material already published in the same or different forms.

  • Style of Invited paper
  • Style of Research Article
  • Style of Research note

Format

Full length article should be suitably divided into the following sub-sections; ABSTRACT, Key words, INTRODUCTION, MATERIALS AND METHODS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION and REFERENCES. The heading, introduction need not be mentioned in the text.

Title

The title of article should be informative but concise and should not contain abbreviations. It should indicate the content of the article essential for key word indexing and information retrieval. It should be set in small and bold letters. A good title briefly identifies the subject, indicates the purpose of study and introduces key terms and concepts. Title should not be started with the waste words like 'a study of', 'effect of', 'influence of' , 'some observations on', 'a note of' etc. The title should indicate preferably English name or most popular common name of the crops or organisms studied, wherever relevant. Scientific name can be given in abstract and introduction. Authority for such a name should be given at first mention in the text. A short title should be given for running headlines and should cover the main theme of the article.

Author(s) name(s) and affiliations

The name(s) of the author(s) should be given in small letters with sentence case separated by 'comma' or by 'and'. Institute name where the research was carried out should be given in italics. If authors are of different institutes, these can be mentioned by allotting number like 1, 2 or 3 as superscript over the name of author. The affiliation of such author may be given below of the corresponding author email address. Sometimes authors retire and change frequently and wish to give their current address, this should be given as foot note. Email address of main author or corresponding author should be given at the bottom.

Abstract

The abstract should contain at least one sentence on each of the following: objective of investigation (hypothesis, purpose, collection, result and conclusions). Give complete scientific name for plants or other organisms and full name of any symbol or abbreviations used. There is a need to mention place, name and priod of study in abstract. Emphasis should be given to highlight the results and the conclusion of the study. It should not exceed a total length of 200-250 words. Abstract should not have the words like 'will be explained or will be discussed'.

Key words

(5 6) should be given at the end of the abstract and should be arranged alphabetically. Each key word should be started with capital letter and separated by comma ( , ) from other words.

Introduction

Introduction should be brief and to the point, cover the problem and should justify the work or the hypothesis on which it is based. In introduction, a detail review is not necessary. However, to orient readers, important references about previous concepts and research should be given. It should briefly state the currently available information and should identify the research gap that is expected to be abridged through this investigation. Give preference to recent references from standard research publication unless it is of historical importance or a landmark in that field.

Materials and Methods

This part should begin with information relating to period/season/year and place of study, climate or weather conditions, soil type etc. Treatment details along with techniques and experimental design, replications, plot size etc. should be clearly indicated. Use of symbols for treatments may be avoided and an abbreviation should be fully explained at its first mention. Crop variety, methodology for application and common cultivation practices should be mentioned. Known methods may be just indicated giving reference but new techniques developed and followed should be described in detail. Methods can be divided into suitable sub-headings, typed in bold at first level and in italics at second level, if necessary.

Results and Discussion

Results may be reported and discussed together to avoid duplication. Do not mention and recite the data in the text as such given in the table. Instead interpret it suitably by indicating in terms of per cent, absolute change or any other derivations. Relate results to the objectives with suitable interpretation of the references given in the introduction. If results differ from the previous study, suitable interpretation and justification should be given. Repeated use of statements like 'our results are in agreement’ or ‘similar results were reported’ 'should be avoided. At the end of results and discussion, conclusion of the study should be given in 2-3 sentences along with suggestion for further study, if any. All statistical comparisons among treatments may be made at P=0.05 level of probability.

Acknowledgement

The authors may place on record the help and cooperation or any financial help received from any source, person or organization for this study. This should be very brief.

References

Only relevant and recent references of standard work should be quoted. Preference should be given to quote references of journals over proceedings or reports. In general, not more than 15 references should be quoted in full paper and 5 in short communication. However, in review article, emphasis should be given to quote more references with each valid statement/findings in the text. There is no need to give references for standard procedures of soil and plant analysis, and for routine statistical analysis in practice, only the methodology may be indicated. As a thumb rule, all the references quoted in the text must appear at the end of the article and vice-verse. It has been decided to use full name of the journal after the year 2011 onwards. Therefore, references should include names of all authors, year, full title of the article quoted, full name of the journal in italics (no abbreviations), volume number (in Bold), issue number (in brackets) and pages. For books, monographs, theses etc. full title in italics, publisher or university name, volume no., if any, and relevant page range or total no. of pages should be given. The list of references should be arranged alphabetically on author's names and chronologically per author. Author name should be started with surname and initial letter with capital letter. There is no need to separate author's initials by full stop but it should be given in capital letters without gap. Each author name should be separated by comma (,) and last author name by ‘and’. A few examples of correct citation of references for Indian Journal of Weed Science are given below:

Singh Samunder, Punia SS, Yadav A and Hooda VS. 2011. Evaluation of carfentrazone-ethyl + metsulfuron-methyl against broadleaf weeds of wheat. Indian Journal of Weed Science 43(1&2): 12-22.

Neeser C and Varshney Jay G. 2001. Purple nutsedge; biology and principles for management without herbicides, Indian Journal of Pulses Research 14(1): 10-19.

Naseema A, Praveena R and Salim AM. 2004. Ecofriendly management of water hyacinth with a mycoherbicide and cashew nut shell liquid. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research 10(1&2): 93-100.

Arya DR, Kapoor RD and Dhirajpant. 2008. Herbicide tolerant crops: a boon to Indian agriculture, pp 23-31. In: Biennial Conference on Weed Management in Modern Agriculture: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities. (Eds. Sharma RS, Sushilkumar, Mishra JS, Barman KK and Sondhia Shobha), 27-28 February 2008, Patna. Indian Society of Weed Science, Jabalpur.

Anonymous. 2006. Long-term herbicide trial in transplanted lowland rice-rice cropping system, pp 62-68. In: Annual Progress Report, AICRP on Weed Control, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.

DWSR. 2010. Annual Report, 2010-11, pp 35-37. Directorate of Weed Science Research, Jabalpur.

Gopal B and Sharma KP. 1981. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) the most troublesome weeds of the world. Hindasia Publisher, New Delhi, 129 p.

Sushilkumar, Sondhia S and Vishwakarma K. 2003. Role of insects in suppression of problematic alligator weed (Altemanthera philoxeroides) and testing of herbicides for its integrated management. Final Report of ICAR Adhoc Project, 39 p.

For Web references: the full URL should be given and the date when the reference was last accessed. e.g. http://www.faostat.fao.org (accessed 21 May 2019)

Length

Paper TypeMaximum Length (including tables and figures)
Research Article6000 words
Research note4000 words
Review8000 words
Mini-Review5000 words

Units, abbreviations and nomenclature

For physical units, unit names and symbols, the SI system should be employed. Biological names should be given according to the latest international nomenclature. Upon its first use in the title, abstract and text, the common name of a weed should be followed by the scientific name (genus, species and authority) in parentheses. If no common name exists in English, the scientific name should be used only. At the first mention of an herbicide or other chemical substance, give its generic name only. Trade names should not be used. Biological and zoological names, gene designations and gene symbols should be italicized. Yield data should be reported in kg/ha or t/ha. All such letters such as viz., et al., in situ, ex situ, Rabi, Kharif, i.e., etc. should be italicized.

Tables and figures

Tables and figures should be concise and limited to the necessary minimum. We encourage the authors to set tables and figures at the appropriate places in the article but if it is not possible, the same may be given separately. The title should fully describe the contents of the table and explain any symbol or abbreviations used in it. The standard abbreviations of the units of different parameters should be indicated in parentheses. Vertical lines should not be given in the tables and horizontal lines should be used to separate parameters and end of the table.

Figures may be preferred in place of table. In no case the same data should be presented by both tables and figures. While presenting data through line graphs, vertical bars, cylinders, pie charts etc, the same should be preferred with black lines or bars having different clear symbols and shades. The graphs chosen with colours reproduce poorly and should not be given unless it became necessary.

Some useful tips

Avoid numerals and abbreviations at the beginning of a sentence. Don't use superscript for per hectare, ton or meter (kg ha-1 or t ha-1) instead use kg/ha or g/m2, t/ha, mg/g, ml/l etc. Prefer to mention yield data in t/ha only. If it becomes necessary, give yield in kg/ha but not in quintal. Don't use lakh, crores or arabs in text, instead give such figures in million. Only standard abbreviations should be used and invariably be explained at first mention. Avoid use of self-made abbreviations like iso., buta., rizo., etc. Don't use first letter capital for names of plant protection chemicals but it should be used for trade names. Use of treatment symbols like T1 T2 T3 etc. should be avoided. All weights and measurements must be in SI or metric units. Use % after double digit figures, not per cent, for example 10% not 10 per cent. In a series of range of measurement, mention the units only at the end, e.g. 3,4,5 kg/ha instead of 3 kg/ha, 4 kg/ha and 5 kg/ha. Nutrient doses as well as concentration in soil and plant should be given in elemental form only, i.e. P and K should not be given as P2O5 K2O. A variety may be mentioned within single quotes in italic such as 'Pusa Basmai', 'Kufri Sinduri' etc. Statistical data should be given in LSD (P=0.05) instead CD (P=0.05).

Authors are requested to see the recent issue of the journal to prepare the manuscript as per the journal's format.

Manuscript submission

Manuscripts must conform to the journal style (see the latest issue). Correct language is the responsibility of the author. After having received a contribution, there will be a review process, before the Chief Editor makes the definitive decision upon the acceptance for publication. Referee's comments along with editors comments will be communicated to authors as scanned copy/soft copy through email. After revision, author should send back the copy of revised manuscripts to the Chief Editor, ISWS by e-mail only.

Editorial Board reserves the right to suitably modify, accept or reject the MS in view on the reviewer's advice.

We encourage submission of paper only by electronically via E-mail as one complete word document file. When preparing your file, please use only Times New Roman font for text (title 16, all heads 14 and text of 12 point, double spacing with 1.5" margin all the sides) and Symbol font for Greek letters to avoid inadvertent character substitutions.

All manuscripts should be submitted Online (http://www.isws.org.in/login_IJWS.aspx). For authors unable to submit their manuscript online

To see sample copy to prepare the manuscript, please Log on: http://www.isws.org.in/IJWSn/Journal.aspx

Peer Review Policy

All published articles in Indian Journal of Weed Science (IJWS) are subjected to rigorous peer review processes based on initial editor screening and anonymized refereeing by two referees. The ultimate purpose of peer review is to sustain the originality and quality of research work and filtration of poor quality and plagiarized articles. Peer review assures research quality.

Paper Publication Process –

  • Manuscripts are received online in the editorial office with the certificate that MS has not been sent for consideration in any other journals for consideration.
  • Manuscripts are checked by office for its style and pattern and for plagiarism. If plagiarism is more than 20%, it is not considered and sent back to author for revision and re-submission.
  • If MS is found fit at Editorial office in context to plagiarism and style and pattern, it is sent to Chief Editor for further processing.
  • If chief Editor find the MS suitable for consideration, he shall suggest two name of referees as reviewers either from editorial board or from other institutions of concern discipline for reviewing the MS.
  • Editorial Office shall send the MS for double blind review to the reviewers suggested by Chief Editor.
  • Comments of double -blind reviewers will be sent to corresponding author without disclosing the identity of the reviewers to address the comments and re-submission of MS.
  • In case, one reviewer rejects while other accept the MS, it is sent to third reviewer suggested by Chief Editor.
  • Revised MS is again sent to reviewers to see whether their comments are addressed suitably.
  • On agreeing by the reviewers, the MS is again sent to Chief Editors with comments of reviewers and reply of author to take the final decision.
  • The final decision of Chief Editor is communicated to authors.

Peer Review Policy

The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our reviewers therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the (Indian Journal of Weed Science) Journal of Management and Research and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

Initial manuscript evaluation

The Editors first evaluate all manuscripts. In some circumstances it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to experts for review.

Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed within 2 weeks of receipt.

Type of Peer Review

The (Indian Journal of Weed Science) employs double blind review, where the reviewer remains anonymous to the authors throughout the process.

How the reviewer is selected

Reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our reviewer database contains reviewer contact details together with their subject areas of interest, and this is constantly being updated.

Reviewer reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • Is original
  • Is methodologically sound
  • Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
  • Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
  • Correctly references previous relevant work

Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process. Reviewers are requested to refrain from giving their personal opinion in the "Reviewer blind comments to Author" section of their review on whether or not the paper should be published. Personal opinions can be expressed in the "Reviewer confidential comments to Editor" section.

How long does the peer review process take?

Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within 2-8 weeks. Should the reviewers' reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion will be sought. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the Editors within 3 weeks and the Editors may request further advice from the reviewers at this time. The Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript.

Final report

A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the reviewers, and may include verbatim comments by the reviewers.
Chief Editor's Decision is final
Reviewers advise the Editors, who are responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

Special Issues / Conference Proceedings

Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organizers or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office.

Becoming a Reviewer for the (Indian Journal of Weed Science)

If you are not currently a reviewer for the (Indian Journal of Weed Science) but would like to be considered as a reviewer for this Journal, please contact the editorial office by e-mail at (editorisws@gmail.com), and provide your contact details. If your request is approved and you are added to the online reviewer database you will receive a confirmatory email, asking you to add details on your field of expertise, in the format of subject classifications.

Editorial Board

Editorial office:

Office Manager, Indian Society of Weed Science, ICAR-Directorate of Weed Research, Maharajpur, Jabalpur, India 482 004

Publisher Address:

Secretary, Indian Society of Weed Science, ICAR-Directorate of Weed Research, Maharajpur, Jabalpur, India 482 004

Principal Scientist
Division of Crop Research
ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region
Bihar Veterinary College, Patna - 800014 (Bihar)

Chief Editor J.S. Mishra 9494240904 jsmishra31@gmail.com

The University of Queensland
St Lucia QLD 4069, Australia

Associate Editor Bhagirath Singh Chauhan b.chauhan@uq.edu.au

Consultant,
ICRISAT,
International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics
Patancheru, Hyderabad

Associate Editor A.N. Rao 9440372165 adusumilli.narayanarao@gmail.com

Editors

Professor,
Department of Agronomy, CCSHAU,
Hisar-125 004 (Haryana)

Ashok Kumar Yadav 9416995523 aky444@gmail.com

Professor & Head,
Division of Agronomy
FoA, Main Campus,
Chatha, SKUAST-Jammu (J&K)

B.C. Sharma 9419152428 drbhagwati@gmail.com

Principal
Vanavarayar Institute of Agriculture
Affiliated to TNAU)
Manakkadavu, Pollachi-642103 (Tamil Nadu)

C. Chinnusamy 9443721575 chinnusamyc@gmail.com

Scientist,
ICAR - Directorate of Weed Research,
Jabalpur (Madhya Padesh)

Dibakar Ghosh 8989190213 dghoshagro@gmail.com

Principal Scientist
Department of Agronomy,
Assam Agricultural University
Jorhat - 785013 (Assam)

I.C. Barua 9435094326 iswar_barua@yahoo.co.in

Principal Scientist
PJTSAU, Hyderabad-30 (Telangana)

M. Madhavi 9491021999 molluru_m@yahoo.com

Assistant Agronomist
Directorate of Agriculture (Govt. of WB)
Kolkata 700001, West Bengal

Malay Kumar Bhowmick 9434239688 bhowmick_malay@rediffmail.com

Associate Professor
(Soil Science & Agrl. Chemistry)
Anbil Dharmalingam Agricultural College & Research Institute (TNAU),
Trichy (Tamil Nadu)

P. Janaki 9443936160 janakibalamurugan@rediffmail.com

Assistant Chemist (Residue),
Department of Agronomy,
Punjab Agricultural University
Ludhina-141 004 (Punjab)

Pervinder Kaur 9646105418 pervi_7@yahoo.co.in

Sr. Agronomist, Directorate of Extension Education
Punjab Agricultural University
Ludhiana – 141004 (Punjab)

Simerjeet Kaur 9814081108 simer@pau.edu

College of Horticulture,
Vellanikkara. Thrissur – 680 656, (Kerala)

T. Girija 9447004940 girijavijai@gmail.com

Principal Scientist,
Directorate of Maize Research,
Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

C.M. Parihar 9013172214 pariharcm@gmail.com

Indexing Indexing & Abstracting Services


1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Volume- 45 | Issue-3 (Jul-Sep) | Year 2013

Mixed weed flora management by bispyribac-sodium in transplanted rice
Suresh Kumar, S.S. Rana, Navell Chander and Ramesh
Full length articles | DOI: 2013-45-3-1 | Volume: 45 Page No:151-155 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Different doses of bispyribac-sodium 20, 25 and 30 g/ha were evaluated against mixed weed flora in transplanted rice under mid-hill conditions of Himachal Pradesh during 2010 and 2011. Major associated weeds were Echinochloa colona (31.1%) and Commelina benghalensis (7.3%) among grasses, Cyperus iria (26.9%) and Scripus (9.3%) among sedges and Ammania baccifera (8.8%) among broad-leaved weeds. Bispyribac-sodium 20-30 g/ha effectively controlled E. colona. Cyhalofop-butyl/butachlor fb metsulfuron-methyl was comparable to bispyribac-sodium in controlling C. benghalensis. Bispyribac-sodium brought about significant reduction in the count of Cyperus sp. up to 60 days after transplanting (DAT). Bispyribac-sodium 30 g/ha behaving statistically similar with bispyribac-sodium 20 and 25 g/ha resulted in significantly lower total weed count and total weed dry weight. There was no phytotoxicity of bispyribac-sodium on rice and no residual toxicity on succeeding crop of wheat. Bispyribac-sodium, farmer’s practice, cyhalofop-butyl fb metsulfuron-methyl and cyhalofop-butyl fb 2,4-D were comparable in influencing rice grain yield. Rice grain yield was positively associated with plant height, panicle length, effective tillers and spikelets/panicle and was negatively associated with weed count and weed biomass. With one weed per m2 increase up to harvest, grain yield of rice was expected to decrease by 15.3 kg/ha. Bispyribac-sodium at 30 kg/ha was the best in terms of net returns due to weed management. Cyhalofop-butyl fb metsulfuron-methyl gave the highest net profit/rupee invested. Herbicide efficiency index (HEI) was highest and weed index was lowest under bispyribac-sodium 30 g/ha. Weed management index (WMI) and agronomic management index (AMI) were highest under cyhalofop-butyl fb metsulfuron-methyl.

Email

skg_63@yahoo.com

Address

CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh 176 062
Field demonstrations on chemical weed control in transplanted rice
M.M. Mishra and R.R. Dash
Full length articles | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-2 | Volume: 45 Page No:156-158 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Fourty field demonstrations on chemical weed control practices were laid at four villages of Delang block of Puri district in transplanted rice during Kharif season of 2010 to 2012 to analyze the performance and profitability of new generation herbicides, viz. oxadiargyl, pyrazosulfuron-ethyl, pretilachlor and chloromuron-ethyl + metsulfuron-methyl at 70, 25, 750 and 4 g/ha, respectively on weed growth and productivity of transplanted rice at farmer’s fields. The farmers’ fields were found infested with mixed flora of grasses, sedges and broad-leaved weeds. The herbicides used for demonstrations were found to be highly effective in controlling weeds and thereby increasing grain yield of rice by 23–42% over farmers’ practice based on the intensity and growth of different weed flora. The economic benefits of herbicide demonstration over the farmers’ practice varied from Rs. 4,362 - 9,343/ha.

Email

mishramm2012@gmail.com

Address

All India Coordinated Research Project on Weed Control, OUAT, Bhubaneswar, Odisha 751 003
Chemical management of non-grassy weeds in direct-seeded rice
Sheeja K. Raj*, Nimmy Jose, Reena Mathew and S. Leenakumary
Full length articles | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-3 | Volume: 45 Page No:159-162 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Field experiments were conducted during Rabi 2011-12, Kharif  2012 and Rabi 2012-13 to evaluate the bioefficacy of carfentrazone-ethyl at 20 and 25 g/ha on 15-20 DAS with 2,4-D Na salt 800 g/ha on 20-25 DAS, weed free situation and un-weeded check as treatments in randomized block design replicated four times. Fimbristylis miliacea, Cyperus difformis, Cyperus iria, Schenoplectus pungens were the major sedges and Monochoria vaginalis, Ludwigia perennis and Sphenoclea  zeylanica were the dominant broad-leaved weed species. Application of carfentrazone-ethyl 20 g/ha on 15-20 DAS proved effective in controlling sedges and broad-leaved weeds in direct-seeded rice. Carfentrazone-ethyl 40 DF 20 g/ha recorded higher grain yield (3.68 t/ha) with weed control efficiency of 90.7% and weed index of 9.5. It was comparable with 2,4-D Na salt 800 g/ha (3.65 t/ha) with weed control efficiency of 96.7% and weed index of 10.5. There was 72% reduction in grain yield due to the infestation of non-grassy weeds in direct-seeded rice. Weed free situation recorded the highest grain yield (4.07 t/ha) but its B: C ratio was lower than carfentrazone-ethyl 20 g/ha and 2,4-D Na salt 800 g/ha.  Carfentrazone-ethyl, both at 20 and 25 g/ha did not exhibit any phytotoxic effect in rice plant.

Email

sheejakraj70@gmail.com

Address

Rice Research Station, Kerala Agricultural University, Moncompu, Alappuzha, Kerala 688 503
Yield performance of rainfed rice under planting methods and weed control measures
R.K. Singh, A.K. Singh, V.B. Singh and S.K. Kannaujia
Full length articles | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-4 | Volume: 45 Page No:163-165 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field experiment was conducted at Kotwa, Azamgarh during rainy season of 2008 and 2009 to evaluate the comparative efficacy of various planting methods and weed control measures on weeds density growth, yield attributes, grain yield and economics of rice variety ‘Godawari’. Four main rice establishment techniques comprised with six sub-plot weed control practices was laid out in split plot design and replicated thrice. Echinichloa colona, E. crusgalli, Cyperus rotundus, C. difformis and Commelina benghalensis were predominant weed species. Among the rice establishment techniques, puddled transplanted practices proved best for reducing weed dry matter accumulation and produced significantly highest mean grain yield (3.89 t/ha) along with yield contributing parameters in comparison to rest planting methods. Direct drum-seeded rice under puddled condition were observed to be significantly superior and recorded 2.82 t/ha more mean grain yield over direct-dry seeding. Application of pretilachlor 750 g/ha pre-emergence followed by cyhalofop-butyl 60 g/ha post-emergence at 25 DAS/DAT was found quite effective against mixed weed flora which recorded statistically similar grain yield to that of repeated hand weedings. The integration of herbicide with tools, viz. pretilachlor 750 g/ha supplemented with mechanical weeding at 25 DAS/DAT again found equally effective in increasing the grain yield as pre- and post-emergence applied herbicides.

Email

rksagron@gmail.com

Address

Krishi Vigyan Kendra, NDUAT, Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh 276 001
Effect of crop establishment and weed management practices on weed growth and productivity of Basmati rice
M.K. Mandal, B. Duary* and G.C. De
Full length articles | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-5 | Volume: 45 Page No:166-170 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field experiment was conducted at village Binuria of the district Birbhum, West Bengal, India during rainy seasons (Kharif) of 2008 and 2009 to study the effect of crop establishment methods and weed management practices on weed growth and productivity of aromatic rice cv. ‘Basmati 370’. Three crop establishment methods viz. drum seeding (DS), system of rice intensification (SRI) and conventional transplanting (CTR) were assigned in main plots and six weed management practices, viz. weed-free check (WFC), unweeded check (WC), pyrazosulfuron-ethyl (PSE) at 20 g/ha, cono weeder (CW) twice at 15 and 30 DAS/DAT, combination of pyrazosulfuron-ethyl (PSE) at 20 g/ha and cono weeder twice (PSE + CW) and metsulfuron -methyl 10% + chlorimuron- ethyl 10% (Almix) at 4 g/ha in sub-plots, replicated thrice. Cynodon dactylon, Echinochloa colona and Oryza rufipogon under grasses, Hydrolea zeylanica, Ludwigia parviflora, Sphenoclea zeylanica, Monochoria vaginalis, Sagittaria sagitifolia and Marsilea quadrifolia among broad-leaved and Cyperus iria, C. difformis and Fimbristylis miliacea among the sedges were predominant weeds. Hydrolea zeylanica was the most pre-dominant species in SRI as well as conventional transplanting method while Fimbristylis miliacea in drum seeding. SRI recorded significantly lower number of total weeds at 60 DAT, the highest number of panicles (231/m2), filled grains (98/panicle) and grain filling efficiency (84.79%) producing the highest grain yield (3.23 t/ha), 19.68 and 25.8% higher than that of CTR and DS methods respectively. Pyrazosulfuron-ethyl in combination with cono-weeder recorded the lowest weed population and dry weight at 40 DAS/DAT, higher grain yield (2982 kg/ha), 20.58% more over weedy check and was equivalent to sole application of pyrazosulfuron- ethyl and metsulfuron-methyl + chlorimuron-ethyl.

Email

bduary@yahoo.co.in

Address

Institute of Agriculture, Visva-Bharati, Sriniketan, West Bengal 731 236
Competitiveness of rice cultivars under stale seedbed in dry direct_seeded rice
M.K. Singh
Full length articles | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-6 | Volume: 45 Page No:171-174 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field experiment was conducted to study the performance of cultivar and weed management practices under stale seed bed in dry direct seeded rice. The treatment consisted of combination of two methodsof rice sowing i.e. dry seeding after stale seed bed by glyphosate 1 kg/ha and shallow tillage and two weed management treatment (weedy and two hand weeding) in main plot and four cultivars viz. ‘BPT-5204, Sarjoo -52, PRH-10’ and ‘HUBR2-1’ in sub-plot replicated thrice in split plot design. The results revealed that ‘Sarjoo-52’ was found to be more competitive than other cultivars in terms of grain yield and economics. Studies on competitive traits revealed that number of grains/panicle had highest direct positive effect whereas number of panicles/m2 via number of grains/panicle had more indirect effect on grain yield.

Email

mksingh_neha@ yahoo.co.in

Address

Department of Agronomy, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi,Uttar Pradesh 221 005
Herbicide adoption pattern in rice and wheat among Haryana farmers
S.S. Punia, Dharambir Yadav and Anil Duhan
Full length articles | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-7 | Volume: 45 Page No:175-178 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A systematic study on herbicide adoption by farmers in rice and wheat growing areas of Haryana conducted during 2008-2009, revealed  that in Sirsa and Fatehabad districts of state,  95% farmers applied herbicide to control weeds in transplanted rice whereas in north-eastern Haryana, all farmers applied herbicides in rice crop. In Sirsa and Fatehabad districts, EC formulation of butachlor was the choice of 45% farmers followed by anilofos (26%), pretilachlor (12%) and oxadiargyl (8%). In Karnal, Kurukshetra, Ambala and Kaithal districts, pretilachlor was the first choice of 42% farmers followed by butachlor (24%) None of the farmer used anilofos. Even 11% farmers used pyrazosulfuron not approved by CCS HAU, Hisar for effective weed control. Twenty two (22) per cent farmers also applied post-emergence herbicide bispyribac- sodium in addition to pre-emergence herbicide because of poor control given by pre-emergence herbicides. In all 50-60% farmers applied herbicides timely (3 DAT). In Sirsa and Fatehabad, splash method of herbicide application is most popular used by  54% farmers where as, in north-eastern Haryana mixing of herbicide with DAP at 3-7 DAT, is most popular method used by 61% farmers. None of farmer in north-eastern districts used sand mix application of herbicide in rice which was the only method approved by CCSHAU, whereas in Sirsa and Fatehabad, only 8% farmers used this technology. In wheat, 94 -96% farmers of state used herbicide to control P. minor and other weeds. In Hisar, sulfosulfuron was the choice of majority of farmers (56%) followed by clodinafop (28%) where as in Kurukshetra district 44 % farmers used sulfosulfuron + metsulfuron (RM), 14% meso+iodosulfuron (Atlantis) and 16% used various brands of sulfosulfuron and only  20% used clodinafop. None of farmer used fenoxaprop and only 4% farmers of Hisar used isoproturon. In Kurukshetra, 66% farmers used flat fan nozzle but in Hisar majority of farmers (52%) used hollow cone nozzle which is the main reason for poor efficacy of herbicides at farmer’s fields. Eighty six farmers in Kurukshetra used recommended brands of sulfosulfuron+ metsulfuron (RM) as against 25% of sulfosulfuron.

Email

puniasatbir@gmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy, CCS HAU, Hisar, Haryana 125 004
Ready-mix formulation of clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl against complex weed flora in wheat
R.S. Malik, Ashok Yadav and Ramesh Kumari
Full length articles | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-8 | Volume: 45 Page No:179-182 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Bio-efficacy of ready-mix formulation of clodinafop-propargyl 15% + metsulfuron-methyl 1% WP was studied against complex weed flora in wheat during 2006-07 and 2007-08 at Hisar, India.  Among different herbicidal treatments, clodinafop 0.06 kg/ha was found very effective (95-98%) only against grassy weeds. Metsulfuron 0.004 kg/ha was effective (88-90%) only against broad-leaf weeds. Sequential application of clodinafop 0.06 kg  fb metsulfuron 0.004 kg/ha being statistically at par with clodinafop- propargyl + metsulfuron- methyl at 0.06 + 0.004 kg/ha and above proved very effective against complex weed flora and the control of grassy and broad-leaved weeds to the extent of 95%. clodinafop- propargyl + metsulfuron- methyl being at par with clodinafop fb metsulfuron 0.06 and 0.004 kg/ha recorded the number of spikes, 1000-grain weight and grain yield of wheat statistically similar to that of weed free check. There was no additional gain in grain yield of wheat by using higher doses of clodinafop- propargyl + metsulfuron- methyl beyond 0.06 + 0.004 kg/ha. Weeds allowed growing throughout the crop seasons resulted into 42.9 and 45.1% reduction in the grain yield of wheat during 2006-07 and 2007-08, respectively. There was no residual impact of clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl at x dose (0.06+ 0.004 kg/ha) and 2x dose (0.12 + 0.008 kg/ha) on succeeding crops of sorghum and moongbean. HPLC analysis indicated that there were no residues of clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl (x and 2x doses) at wheat harvest in soil, grains and straw. There was also no adverse effect of herbicides on physico-chemical properties of soil.

Email

aky444@gmail.com

Address

CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana 125 004
Nutrient uptake by chickpea + mustard intercropping system as influenced by weed management
Ranjeet Kour, B.C. Sharma, Anil Kumar and Paramjeet Kour
Full length articles | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-9 | Volume: 45 Page No:183-188 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field experiment was consisted of four intercropping systems, viz. sole chickpea, sole mustard, chickpea + mustard (additive series) and chickpea + mustard (replacement series) and six weed management practices viz. weedy check, weed free, pendimethalin 1 kg/ha as pre-emergence (PE), fluchloralin 1 kg/ha as pre-plant incorporation (PPI), isoproturon 0.75 kg/ha as post-emergence (POE) and quizalofop-ethyl 50 ml/ha as post-emergence. These treatments were evaluated under split plot design with three replications. Results revealed that sole stands of chickpea and mustard removed highest amount of N, P and K which were followed by additive series and replacement series whereas among the weed management practices, highest amount of N, P and K was removed by weed free treatment followed by pendimethalim 1kg/ha and fluchloralin 1 kg/ha while the lowest N, P and K was removed by isoproturon 0.75 kg/ha followed by quizalofop-ethyl 50 ml/ha. Among the different intercropping treatments, weeds removed significantly highest N, P and K from sole mustard followed by sole chickpea, replacement series and additive series. Among weed management practices, the uptake of N, P and K in weeds was found to be significantly less in all the weed management practices as compared to weedy check treatment.

Email

ranjeet1661@yahoo.com

Address

Research Farm, Main Campus, Chatha, SKUAST, Jammu, Jammu & Kashmir 180 009
Chemical weed management in lentil
Pooja Dhuppar, Anamika Gupta and D. Sarveshwara Rao
Full length articles | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-10 | Volume: 45 Page No:189-191 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

The effect of chemical weed management practices in lentil was studied during 2010-11 and 2011-12 at Agra (Utter Pradesh). The treatments included: control, pendimethalin 0.50 kg/ha, pendimethalin 0.75 kg/ha, pendimethalin 1.0 kg/ha, pendimethalin 1.25 kg/ha, pendimethalin 1.50 kg/ha and hand weeding. All herbicidal treatments including hand weeding significantly controlled the weeds. Among all the treatments hand weeding gave the highest weed control (84.8%) and produced lower weed biomass (54.0 g/m2). It gave maximum net income (Rs. 30,850) with CBR of 1:4.4. Pendimethalin 1.5 kg/ha controlled the weeds effectively but germination of seeds were affected. Highest grain yield (1.50 t/ha) was recorded from hand weeding plot with 48.6 and 52.0% increase in yield during 2011 and 2012, respectively.

Email

dpuja29@gmail.com

Address

Botany Department, Dayalbagh Educational Institute, Dayalbagh, Agra, Uttar Pradesh 282 110
Integrated weed management of lambsquarter and nut sedge in lentil
J. Lhungdim, Y. Singh, Pramod Kumar and S.K. Chongtham
Full length articles | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-11 | Volume: 45 Page No:192-197 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field study was conducted during 2010-11 and 2011-12 to evaluate the effect of integrated weed management on two lentil associated weeds viz., Chenopodium spp., Cyperus spp. and economics of the weed management packages. Two hand weedings (HW) at 30 and 45 DAS was the most effective method for containing Chenopodium  spp. and Cyperus spp. counts and dry matter from 60 DAS to harvest. Imazethapyr 2EC and pendimethalin controlled the intensity and corresponding dry matter of Chenopodium   significantly but poorly affected Cyperus which was better suppressed with treatment where mechanical weeding was either a component or as a sole treatment. Among sole herbicides, imazethapyr was the most effective for Cyperus and Chenopodium  weed control whereas, pendimethalin incorporated integrated package was effective on Chenopodium  while imazethapyr associated integrated system was effective on Cyperus weeds.  Average weed control efficiency at 75 DAS and crop harvest reflected that two HW was most efficient for control of Chenopodium  (77.6%) and Cyperus (75.3%) followed by pendimethalin 1 kg/ha supplemented with imazathapyr 37.5 g/ha on both the weed species (75.3 and 81.2%), respectively. The effect of sole chlorimuron and quizalofop-ethyl on both the weeds were least, but better than control. Pendimethalin 1 kg/ha fb mechanical weeding recorded better yield attributes, highest yield of lentil and cost: benefit ratio (1.37 t/ha and 2.80) but minimum weed index (4.53),  next to hand weeding. Hand weeding performed well in all aspects except the lower benefit cost ratio. Hence, integration of pendimethalin 1 kg/ha with mechanical weeding (hoeing) was considered to be the profitable treatment besides being more ecofriendly than chemical-chemical sequential application.

Email

ginlhungdim@rediffmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, BHU, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221 005
Non-chemical methods of weed management in maize under organic production system
J.P. Saini, Rameshwar, Punam, S. Chadha, S. Sharma, N. Bhardwaj and Nisha Rana
Full length articles | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-12 | Volume: 45 Page No:198-200 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field experiment was conducted to study the non-chemical methods of weed management in organically grown maize during the year 2010 and 2011. Among the 9 weed management treatments, soybean intercropping + one mechanical weeding ( 20 DAS) and  2 mechanical weeding (20 and 40 DAS) +  mash intercropping being at par with each other resulted in significantly lower weed dry weight, higher yield attributes and maize equivalent yield over other treatments. One mechanical weeding at 20 DAS gave highest benefit-cost ratio of 4.3 followed by 2 mechanical weeding at 20 and  40 DAS and soybean intercropping + 1 MW (20 DAS), which gave the benefit : cost ratio of 2.3.

Email

drjpsaini@gmail.com

Address

Department of Organic Agriculture, CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh 176 062
Suitable cropping system and weed management practices for higher fodder oat production
Waseem Raja
Full length articles | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-13 | Volume: 45 Page No:201-203 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Field experiments were carried out during 2009-10 and 2010-11 at Mountain Livestock Research Institute, Manasbal, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology Kashmir, India to find out the suitable weed management practices and cropping system of fodder oat. The green fodder yield and dry matter accumulation of oat was significantly higher under oat sole than oat + vetch (2:1) and oat + vetch (1:1), however was at par to oat + vetch 4:1. The magnitude of increase in green fodder yield with oat sole was 0.96, 12.71 and 15.51% than 4:1, 2:1 and 1:1 cropping system, respectively. Application of pendimethalin 0.75/ha recoded 7.76, 24.46 and 98.6% superiority over application of butachlor 2 kg/ha, wheel hoe and weedy check, respectively. The oat sole with application of pendimethalin 0.75/ha recorded highest gross profit (Rs. 76,903/ha), net returns (Rs. 49,363/ha) and B:C (2.79) than other treatment combination.

Email

waseemra1@gmail.com

Address

Mountain Livestock Research Institute, SKUAST-J, Manasbal, Jammu & Kashmir 193 504
Water hyacinth for heavy metal scavenging and utilization as organic manure
N.K. Sasidharan, T. Azim, D. Ambika Devi and Samuel Mathew
Full length articles | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-14 | Volume: 45 Page No:204-209 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Study on phytoremedial capability of water hyacinth as a safe  organic manure source was done at the Regional Agricultural Research Station, Kumarakom during 2010-12. The heavy metals and other minerals in water hyacinth were Fe (33038 ppm), Al (13075 ppm), Ca (2234.80 ppm), Mn (1440.1 ppm), Mg (1608.3 ppm), Zn (77.08 ppm), Cu (49.80 ppm), Cr (23.37 ppm), As (5.276 ppm), Pb (0.531 ppm),  and Hg (0.151 ppm). The heavy metal contents in all the three forms of composts were almost  similar, except for Fe, Cr and Cd. The biomass yield of Amaranthus viridis in a pot culture study was higher in water hyacinth than  ordinary compost during the initial harvest, while yields for the final harvest and total yields were significantly higher for the farmyard waste compost. The heavy metals Pb, Hg and Cd content in Amaranthus remained unaltered by the organic sources, while As, Cr and Ni content were enhanced significantly by the water hyacinth treatments.

Email

n.k.sasidharan@gmail.com

Address

Regional Agricultural Research Station, Kerala Agricultural University, Kumarakom, Kerala 686 566
Evaluation of herbicides alone and in combination for weed control in wheat
Archna Kumari, Satish Kumar, Bhagat Singh and Anil Dhaka
Short communications | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-15 | Volume: 45 Page No:210-213 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Metribuzin alone 210 g/ha resulted in significantly lower population of Phalaris minor than alone application of clodinafop 60 g/ha, pinoxaden 40 g/ha and sulfosulfuron 25 g/ha. Application of sulfosulfuron + metsulfuron 32 g/ha  and 25 + 210 g/ha resulted in significantly lower population of P. minor and C. album, respectively. Sulfosulfuron + metsulfuron 32 g/ha resulted in 89.2% WCE which was at par with sulfosulfuron + metribuzin  25 + 210 g/ha. Weed control treatments produced significantly higher grain yield as compared to weedy check. Sulfosulfuron 25 g/ha being significantly superior to alone application of metribuzin 210 g/ha, clodinafop 60 g/ha and pinoxaden 40 g/ha produced higher wheat grain yield, which was evident from the higher WCE  as compared to other herbicides. Ready-mix application of sulfosulfuron + metsulfuron at 32 g/ha produced the highest grain yield (6.42 t/ha) among different herbicide treatments but it was statistically at par with weed free.  

Email

skkhokhar64@gmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana 125 001
Effect of integrated weed management on seed yield of fodder maize
Pratik Sanodiya, A.K. Jha and Arti Shrivastava
Short communications | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-16 | Volume: 45 Page No:214-216 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field experiment was conducted at Research Farm,  JNKVV, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh during Kharif  2012 to see the effect of integrated weed management on growth, development and seed yield of fodder maize. The lowest  weed density and weed biomass was recorded under weed free treatment closely followed by atrazine 1.0 kg/ha + hand weeding. All the treated plots receiving either manual weeding or herbicidal treatments and integration with hand weeding produced higher yield over weedy check plots. The maximum seed and stover yields were noted in hand weeding at 20 and 40 DAS followed by atrazine 1.0 kg/ha + hand weed at 30 DAS. The B: C ratio (1.71) was higher in the tank mixed application of atrazine 0 .75 kg/ha + alachlor 2.25 kg/ha.

Email

amitagcrewa@rediffmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy, Jawaharlal Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 482 004
Comparative efficacy of different herbicides in summer pearlmillet
Joysmita Das, B.D. Patel, V.J. Patel and R.B. Patel
Short communications | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-17 | Volume: 45 Page No:217-218 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Among the different chemical weed management practices atrazine 1000 g/ha PE fb HW at 30 DAS recorded minimum number of monocot and dicot weed. Pendimethalin treated plots showed poor germination which might be due to the phytotoxic effect of herbicide. Further, interculturing fb HW at 20 and 40 DAS registered higher grain (7.82 t/ha) and stover yields (19.44 t/ha) which was closely followed by atrazine  1000 g/ha PE fb HW at 30 DAS

Email

bdpatel62yahoo.com

Address

B.A. College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat 388 110
Effect of post-emergence herbicides on growth and yield of soybean
Mahendra Singh, M.L. Kewat, Anil Dixit, Kaushal Kumar and Vijaypal
Short communications | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-18 | Volume: 45 Page No:219-222 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

The field was mainly infested with monocot weeds like Echinochloa colona, Dinebra retroflexa and Cyperus iria, whereas dicot weeds Eclipta alba and Alternanthera philoxeroides were less dominant in soybean. The application of quizalofop-p-ethyl 37.5 g/ha + chlorimuron 24 g/ha gave satisfactory control of weeds and it gave highest crop biomass (592 g/m2), seed yield (1.59 t/ha) and net monetary returns (15,918/ha) followed by imazethapyr 75 g/ha which registered the crop biomass (557 g/m2), seed yield (1.52 t/ha) and net monetary returns (14,712/ha). However, 2 hand weedings checked the weed growth and recorded significantly higher seed yield (1.87 t/ha) over rest of the treatments, but net monetary return (15,594/ha) were lower than application of quizalofop-p-ethyl 37.5 g/ha + chlorimuron 24 g/ha.

Email

mahendraagro@gmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 482 004
Pre- and post-emergence herbicides for weed management in chickpea
T.C. Poonia and M.S. Pithia
Short communications | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-19 | Volume: 45 Page No:223-225 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field experiment was conducted at Junagadh during 2012-13 to evaluate bio-efficacy of pre-and post-emergence herbicides under irrigated conditions of south Gujarat (India). Significantly higher chickpea seed yield (1.39 g/ha) was recorded with application of pendimethalin 38.7% CS at 1.0 kg/ha as pre-emergence (PE) + 1 hoeing at 30-35 DAS and remained at par with pendimethalin (1.0 kg/ha) as PE + 1 HW at 25-30 DAS (1.36 g/ha) and oxyfluorfen 23.5% EC (0.25 kg/ha) as PE at 20 DAS + hoeing at 30-35 DAS (1.21 g/ha). Pre-application of pendimethalin 30% EC + imazethapyr 2% (Velor 32 at 1.0 kg/ha) significantly enhanced branching in chickpea but proved phytotoxic under south Gujarat conditions. One hand weeding was found inadequate for getting higher chickpea seed yield as weedy situation prevailing throughout the crop period caused 54.7% reduction in seed yield of chickpea.

Email

pooniatc@gmail.com

Address

Pulse Research Station, Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh, Gujarat 362 001
Persistence of imazethapyr residues in soybean and soil
Asha Arora and Shobha Sondhia
Short communications | DOI: IJWS-2013-45-3-20 | Volume: 45 Page No:226-227 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field experiment was conducted to study the persistence of imazethapyr applied to soybean in sandy clay loam soil. The herbicide was applied as post-emergence 20 days after sowing at 100 and 200 g/ha. The residue analysis of imazethpyr 200 g/ha applied as post-emergence 20 days after sowing was carried out in soil samples collected at 15, 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after application and in soil, grain and plant samples after harvest. The residue level of imazethapyr in soil was found 0.017, 0.016, 0.015, 0.012 and 0.011 µg/g at 15, 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after herbicide application. At harvest the residue was below detectable limit.  However the residue level of 0.082 and 0.023 µg/g were detected in soybean grains and straw, respectively which were below the maximum residue limit

Email

ashaaroragwl@gmail.com

Address

RVSKVV, College of Agriculture, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh 474 002

CONTACT Us

123 Main Street, St. NW Ste, 1 Washington, DC,USA.
  • business@support.com
  • +56 (0) 012 345 6789

Links

  • About Us
  • Services
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms & condition

Latest Blog

Image

Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation

On 10 Feb, 2016
Image

Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation

On 10 Feb, 2016

NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Subscribe to Our Newsletter to get Important News, Amazing Offers & Inside Scoops:

© 2018 Garden HTML5 Template. All Rights Reserved.