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
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

Full length manuscript should not exceed 4500 words including space required for figures, tables and list of references. Research note can be up to 2500 words, with not more than 2 figures or tables. One season/year data should invariably be presented as research notes only.

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- 50 | Issue-3 (Jul-Sep) | Year 2018

Intractable weed problems need innovative solutions using all available technologies
Jonathan Gressel
Review article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00049.7 | Volume: 50 Page No:201-208 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

There is often strong public dissent to innovations, typically fanned by those who lose out economically, but the reasons they promulgate are not economic and are targeted to public emotions.  Agriculture has some problems that have been intractable to present technologies and we have no choice but to utilize new technologies to overcome them.  These include developing new herbicides that affect multiple targets, new selective synergists and safeners, transgenic herbicide resistant plants that will not have the transgenes expressed in related weeds, using transposons or gene drives to disseminate deleterious genes in weeds, sterile pollen, enhanced-virulence biocontrol agents with sustaining formulations.  These might be workable for multiple resistant Amaranthus and Echinochloa species, parasitic weeds, Phalaris in wheat as well as weedy rice in rice.  Per force, most of the innovations must originate in the public sector, by weed scientists who have a broad training in basic sciences, in collaboration with experts from other fields.

Email

jonathan.gressel@weizmann.ac.il

Address

Plant & Environmental Sciences, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, 76100 Israel
Importance of allelopathy in agriculture: Bioavailability and functions of allelochemicals in soil environment
Prasanta C. Bhowmik
Review article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00050.3 | Volume: 50 Page No:209-217 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Weed invasion and subsequent infestation represents a major problem in crop production. Chemical weed control is the major management tactic used in conventional agriculture. Complementary strategies to herbicides are increasingly being investigated. The importance of allelopathy has been considered for weed management over the years. However, the relevance of allelopathy has been highly discussed due to the lack of phytotoxic concentrations of allelochemicals under field conditions. Avena fatua, Brassica nigra, Fagopyrum esculentum, Secale cereale, Sorghum bicolor, Triticum aestivum and other cover crops have been used in weed management on a limited basis. Crop residues from existing crop or rotational crops can provide selective weed suppression through their physical presence on the soil surface and/or through the release of allelochemicals. Some of the allelochemicals have been reported to play a role in weed management, including phenolic acids, DIBOA, DIBOA-glycoside, and BOA, dhurrin, fatty acids, hydroxamic acids, isoflavonoids, isothiocyanate, juglone, momilactone, scopoletin, and sorgoleone. The soil system, a living and dynamic, influences the fate and functions of allelochemicals in time and space. The bioavailability of allelochemicals in the soil is dependent on processes such as adsorption, leaching and degradations by abiotic and biotic factors. The clay types, organic matter, and soil pH can affect the bioavailability of allelochemicals in the soil. Thus, the allelopathic potential of many compounds may not be expressed in some soils because of the chemical adsorption to soil colloids. The resulting concentrations (sub-toxic) of any of these allelochemicals in soil matrix may have a variety of functions that influence seed germination, seedling emergence, plant growth suppression, nutrient acquisition or soil microbial activity. Examples of such compounds are benzoic acid, catechin, coumaric acid, dihydroxyphenylalanine, ferulic acid, hydroxybenzoic acid, sorgoleone, vanillic acid, and others.

In my view, future allelopathic research should be focused on mechanisms facilitating persistence of allelochemicals in soil environment and characterization of complementary roles of these compounds in plant growth and development. The bioavailability of allelochemicals under field conditions must be established for its effective role in weed management. Currently, we face challenges and opportunities in using allelopathy as a part of weed management strategies in today’s production agriculture.

Email

pbhowmik@umass.edu

Address

Stockbridge School of Agriculture, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA
Conservation agriculture-based resource-conserving practices and weed management in the rice-wheat cropping systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plains
Ram K. Malik, Virender Kumar and Andrew McDonald
Review article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00051.5 | Volume: 50 Page No:218-222 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Conservation agriculture (CA) was used interchangeably with terms like conservation tillage, no tillage, zero tillage (ZT), direct drilling etc. ZT has been the function of weed management, not just in wheat but in rice too. ZT in India was at the dead end in the early 1990s. Until the evolution of herbicide resistance (HR) in Phalaris minor. By now ZT machines are recognised not only as a commercial venture but also attracts major technological step towards intensification of agriculture. With the availability of the “Happy Seeder”– a ZT machine that can plant rice and wheat in high-residue conditions – has made it possible to retain the residues on the soil surface, thereby providing an alternative to residue burning.  It has been reported that ZT in combination with residue mulch reduced the weed problem over time in ZT wheat than CT wheat. In direct-seeded rice (DSR), no single method can provide effective and sustainable weed management solutions. Therefore, combining cultural methods in tandem with judicious use of modern herbicides is crucial. For successful weed control in DSR,  pre-emergence (pendimethaline or oxadiargyl or pretilachlor with safner) followed by post-emergence (bispyribac or bispyribac based tank mixture including bispyribac + pyrazosulfuron/azimsulfuron/2,4-D/halosulfuron or fenoxaprop with saftner or fenoxaprop based tank mixture including fenoxaprop + ethoxysulfuron) herbicide application has provided effective weed control in DSR.

Email

RK.Malik@cgiar.org

Address

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre, NASC Complex, New Delhi 110 012; International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines
Herbicide resistant biotech crops and their import to Indian agriculture
V.S. Rao
Review article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00052.7 | Volume: 50 Page No:223-238 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Herbicide resistant (HR) biotech crops which include both the transgenic and non-transgenic ones are being grown in several countries for over 24 yr. Transgenic biotech crops are derived when an exogenous herbicide-resistant gene/s from non-plant sources is/are inserted into the desired crop plant. When the inserted genes stably integrate and express in the plant genome, the concerned plant behaves like a normal plant but with the acquired character, i.e. herbicide resistance. On the other hand, the non-transgenic biotech crops are generated for some herbicides (ALS-inhibiting and ACCase-inhibiting cyclohexane-diones) by selecting for target mutations in plant populations or by tissue culture or by mutation breeding. HR varieties have been developed for soybean, maize, cotton, canola, wheat, rice, sugar beet, alfalfa, etc. while the herbicides included glufosinate, dicamba, 2,4-D, phenmedipham, paraquat, imidazolinones, mesotrione, sulfonylureas, etc.

About 190 million ha around the world have been under HR transgenic crops in 2017. Around 80% of this area was under HR ones either alone or stacked with insect resistance. Biotech crops have made a positive contribution to global crop production and the economies of farmers, while they certainly raised concerns about biosafety to consumers. Several countries led by USA have widely adopted HR biotech crops, while India has been growing only the insect-resistant (IR) Bt cotton since 2002. With adoption of Bt varieties, the country has achieved a great stride in cotton production, accounting for a quarter of market share in global cotton production in 2017. Although no HR biotech crop is adopted in India, it is grown illegally by farmers in key cotton-growing states.

The concerns and limitations about HR biotech crops are related to agro-ecology, evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds, food safety, soil ecosystem, coexistence of biotech and conventional crops, socio-economic consequences, coexistence of biotech and conventional food products, etc. This paper also discusses management of HR biotech crops in greater detail.

Email

dr_vs_rao@yahoo.com

Address

Affiliate Faculty Member, Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, USA
Herbicides vis-a-vis other pesticides: An overview on use and potential hazards
Neelam Sharma, N.T. Yaduraju and S.S. Rana
Review article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00053.9 | Volume: 50 Page No:239-249 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Modern agriculture depends on the four main factors viz: seed, water, fertilizers and pesticides. The total number of pests attacking major crops has increased significantly from 1940s. Therefore, the demand of pesticides especially herbicides in agriculture is increasing. Farmers are facing shortages of labour for hand weeding crop fields as people are moving to urban from rural areas. Herbicides are cheaper and more readily available than labour for hand weeding. This review article focuses on the status of using herbicides vis a vis other pesticides and their uses and potential hazards. All pesticides must be toxic to be effective against the pests they are intended to control. Because of being toxic, pesticides are potentially hazardous to humans, animals, other organisms, and the environment. Therefore, users of the pesticides must understand the relative toxicity and potential health effects of the products they use. Pesticides are classified based on the oral and dermal lethal dose, 50% values (to the rat) of the active principles. Globally, 35% of the 158 insecticides fall under extremely hazardous and highly hazardous categories, compared to only about 4% in case of herbicides. Under the slightly hazardous group, the number of herbicides is two times higher as compared to insecticides. The number of herbicides that are unlikely to present acute hazard is as much as 37.1% of the total as compared to 12.6% insecticides. Thus, herbicides as a pesticide category are safer or less hazardous than other pesticides especially insecticides. But it is not intended to give clear chit to herbicides because the ultimate toxicity depends on the formulation. The formulation of pesticides may be thousand times more toxic than their active principles. Thus, there is need to set maximum residue limits (MRLs) based on formulation rather than on the basis of active principles.

Email

sharma_neelam29@rediffmail.com

Address

CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur Himachal Pradesh 176 062; Former Director, Directorate of Weed Research, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 482 004
Dissipation and fate of ready mix combination of pyrazosulfuron-ethyl and pretilachlor in rice field
V. Ezhilarasi, P. Janaki, P. Murali Arthanari and C. Chinnusamy
Research article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00054.0 | Volume: 50 Page No:250-256 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Application of ready-mix herbicides containing two active ingredients in rice to manage broad group of weeds is in practice currently. Among different ready mix formulations, one comprising pyrazosulfuron-ethyl and pretilachlor have been recently registered in India. Though, the persistence of each herbicide in soil under rice as single formulation was reported, the information on persistence of herbicides from ready-mix formulations is not reported under semi-arid tropical conditions of India. Hence, an experiment was conducted to study the dissipation and fate of these ready-mix formulation herbicides in rice soil, water and in rice grain. Pyrazosulfuron-ethyl and pretilachlor residues were determined using high performance liquid chromatograph (HPLC) and gas chromatograph (GC), respectively. The average recoveries of pyrazosulfuron-ethyl and pretilachlor from matrix ranged from 80.3-103.3% with less than 10% standard deviation and sensitivity up to 0.001 µg/g. Both herbicides showed rapid dissipation in rice field water than soil and the degradation followed first order reaction kinetics. While pyrazosulfuron-ethyl dissipated with a half-life of 2.17-5.45 and 0.77-0.79 days respectively in rice field soil and water, pretilachlor dissipated with a half-life of 5.18–6.68 days in soil and 2.59–3.00 days in field water. Pyrazosulfuron-ethyl has shorter half-life than pretilachlor and both the active ingredients dissipated rapidly in rice field soil than water. At harvest, the residues of both the herbicides in rice grain and straw were below the MRLs set by FSSAI

Email

janakibalamurugan@rediffmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641003; Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Anbil Dharamalingam Agricultural College and Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Trichy 620009
Pretilachlor + pyrazosulfuron-ethyl (ready-mix) against complex weed flora in transplanted rice and its residual effects
Dharam Bir Yadav, Ashok Yadav, S.S. Punia, Narender Singh and Anil Duhan
Research article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00055.2 | Volume: 50 Page No:257-261 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field experiment was conducted at CCS HAU, Regional Research Station, Karnal during Kharif 2010 to 2014 to evaluate the bio-efficacy of pretilachlor 6.0% + pyrazosulfuron-ethyl 0.15% GR (ready-mix) against complex weed flora in transplanted rice and also to study its residual effects. Results from on-station experiment (2010 and 2011) revealed that the optimum dose of pretilachlor + pyrazosulfuron-ethyl was 615 g/ha which provided effective control (91-96%) of complex weed flora in transplanted rice, with higher grain yield (5.98-6.05 t/ha) and B-C ratio (2.19-2.28). In general, it was comparable to its higher doses, bensulfuron-methyl + pretilachlor 660 g/ha, pretilachlor 1000 g/ha, butachlor 1500 g/ha, bispyribac-sodium 25 g/ha and weed free check in terms of weed control, grain yield of rice and benefit-cost ratio. In comparison to weedy check, there was 54-57% increase in grain yield of transplanted rice under pretilachlor + pyrazosulfuron-ethyl 615 g/ha. On an average of 19 adaptive/farmers-participatory trials, pretilachlor + pyrazosulfuron-ethyl 615 g/ha proved superior to commonly used herbicides butachlor 1500 g/ha in 2013 and pretilachlor 1000 g/ha in 2014 in terms of weed control and grain yield of rice. There was no phyto-toxicity of pretilachlor + pyrazosulfuron-ethyl on transplanted rice up to 1230 g/ha (2x dose) and it was also safe to the succeeding chickpea and wheat (2011-12, 2012-13 and 2012-13) crops in rotation.

Email

dbyadav@gmail.com

Address

CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana, 125 004
Impact of crop intensification and establishment techniques on weed dynamics under different cropping systems
Indu Bala Sethi, Rohitashav Singh, V.K. Singh, Sumit Chaturvedi, Ajit Pratap Singh, Dushyant Prabhakar and Jodh Pal Singh
Research article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00056.4 | Volume: 50 Page No:262-268 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

The field experiments were conducted during 2015-16 and 2016-17 at Norman E. Borlaug Crop Research Center, Pantnagar G.B Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, U.S. Nagar (Uttarakhand) India, to study the crop intensification and establishment techniques influence on weed dynamics under irrigated rice-wheat system. In Kharif season, density of total weeds as well as grasses, broad-leaved weeds and sedges was observed lowest in rice – wheat cropping system. Transplanted rice-vegatable pea- groundnut cropping sequence proved superior over those cropping systems where upland direct-seeded rice was included as one of the crop with respect to control of Kharif season weeds. In Rabi season, maize (B) (cob + fodder) + cowpea (B) + Sesbania (F)-2:1:2 - vegetable pea (B) + toria (F)-3:1 – groundnut (B) + mentha (F)-3:1(BBF 105 x 30 cm)] proved to be the most prominent cropping system for controlling broad-leaved weeds and sedges. All the cropping systems proved superior for the control of grassy weeds (Phalaris minor and Avena fatua) in which there was inclusion of either legumes or oilseed crops in place of wheat. During summer season, soybean (B) + rice (DSR) (F)-2:1 – wheat (B) + mentha (F) (3:1) - continue (NBS 60 x 30 cm) cropping system was found better for the control of complex weed flora

Email

indubalasethia2012@gmail.com

Address

G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand 263 145
Weed seed bank in soil as affected by different weed management practices in spring sweet corn
Prithwiraj Dey, Tej Pratap, Sudershan Mishra, Pramit Pandit
Research article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00057.6 | Volume: 50 Page No:269-272 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field study was conducted in spring season of 2016 and 2017 on sweet corn to evaluate the effect of different weed management practices upon the weed seed bank dynamics in the soil. In the sample from seed bank studied, the per cent contribution of Cleome viscosa was highest among all the weed species before sowing and harvest stage of the crop   and was followed by Dactyloctenium aegypticum, in both the stages and years. Depth wise weed seed distribution indicated highest weed seed in 10-15 cm depth before sowing and in 0-5 cm depth at harvest stage of the crop. Effect of all the weed control treatments upon previous season’s dormant seeds was non-significant. Twice hand weeding was effective to reduce seed bank in deeper layer. Atrazine 1000 g/ha followed by tembotrione 120 g/ha and tembotrione alone 120 g/ha had caused a significant reduction in weed seed number in 0-5 and 0-10 cm layer but weed seed number at 10-15 cm layer remained  unchanged.

Email

mailprithwi@gmail.com

Address

G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand 263 145
Pre- and post-emergence application of atrazine in integration with hand weeding for weed management in pearl millet
H.M. Bhuva and A.C. Detroja
Research article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00058.8 | Volume: 50 Page No:273-277 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field experiment was conducted during the Kharif season of 2013 to 2015 at pearl millet Research Station, Jamnagar, Gujarat to study the effect of pre- and post-emergence application of atrazine integrated with manual weeding on weeds, crop productivity, nutrient removal and economics of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.). The experiment was laid out in a randomized block design comprising of eight weed control treatments with three replications. Lesser weed density (8.22 no./m2 at 30 DAS and 11.89 no./m2 at harvest) and weed-biomass (20.2 g/m2), higher weed control efficiency (84.3%) and lower weed index (7.8%) were observed with post-emergence application of atrazine 0.40 kg/ha followed by (fb) hand weeding (HW) at 35 days after sowing (DAS). The pre-emergence application of atrazine 0.50 kg/ha + HW at 35 DAS was at par with post-emergence application of atrazine 0.40 kg/ha + HW at 35 DAS and recorded maximum net returns (` 40,087/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (2.97).

Email

hasmukhbhuva@gmail.com

Address

Pearl Millet Research Station, Junagadh Agricultural University, Jamnagar, Gujarat 361 006
Nutrient uptake in maize under different weed and nutrient management options
Parvati Deewan, S.L. Mundra, Jigyasa Trivedi, R.H. Meena and R. Verma
Research article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00059.X | Volume: 50 Page No:278-281 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Results of field experiment carried out during Kharif 2011 and 2012 at Instructional Farm, Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Udaipur, indicated various weed-management treatments significantly enhanced N and P uptake by maize (Zea mays L.) and reduced removal of nutrients by weeds as compared to weedy check. Maximum saving of 52.96% nitrogen and 51.87 % phosphorus was achieved with oxyfluorfen 0.15 kg/ha pre-emergence fb one hoeing 30 DAS. On pooled basis, this treatment gave 163.57% and  95.86%more grain and stover yield, respectively compared to weedy check, which was followed by metribuzin 0.25 kg/ha pre- emergence fb one hoeing 30 DAS. The yield as well as uptake of N and P by the crop was maximum with 150% RDF which were statistically at par with 125% RDF.

Email

parvatideewan@gmail.com

Address

Rajasthan College of Agriculture, MPUAT, Udaipur, Rajasthan 313 002
Dynamics of microbial community and enzyme assay as influenced by green manuring and weed control measures in rice-groundnut cropping system
S.S. Pinjari, S.B. Ganagawane, Y.R. Govekar, U.V. Mahadkar and N.A. Meshram
Research article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00060.6 | Volume: 50 Page No:282-286 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A long-term experiment was commenced (2011) and conducted at the Research Farm of Dapoli (Maharashtra) during Kharif and Rabi season in rice–groundnut cropping system, to evaluate the effect of green manuring and different weed control measures on the survival and growth of total bacteria, total fungi, total free living nitrogen fixers and total phosphate solubilizers in rhizospheric soil. Results emerged out from the conduct during 2011 to 2014 indicated that, green manuring (in-situ application of Sesbania rostrata 45 DAS) and without green manuring (control) as a main plot treatment and among the weed control measures and sub plot treatments comprising, comparative effects of hand weeding, fixed herbicide pretilachlor (pre-emergence) for rice crop and pendimethalin (pre-emergence) for groundnut crop, and different rotational herbicides (for rice crop, pyrazosulfuron 0.030 kg/ha at 8-10 DAT (1 year), fenoxaprop -p-ethyl 0.056 kg/ha at 25-30 DAT (2 year), oxadiargyl 0.100 kg/ha at 0-5 DAT (3 year), and for groundnut crop oxadiargyl 0.12 kg/ha at 0-2 DAS-1 year, butachlor 1.0 kg/ha at 0-3 DAS-2 year, alachlor1.5 kg/ha at 0-3 DAS-3 year) application to both the crops were significantly tested along with weedy check. The results concluded that the green manuring significantly increased in microbial populations than without green manuring. There were no adverse effects of herbicidal use on all the estimated microbial population at all the stages of both the crops. In contrast to use of fixed herbicide pretilachlor-S 0.75 kg/ha for rice and pendimethalin 1.00 kg/ha and different rotational herbicides had no long-term adverse effects on rhizosphere micro-flora of rice–groundnut cropping system.

Email

pinjari94222@gmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy, Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli, Maharashtra 415 712
Effect of nitrogen fertilizer and weed management practices on weed growth and crop yield of zero-till transplanted rice
Dibakar Ghosh, Raghwendra Singh1 and Subhash Chander
Research note | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00061.8 | Volume: 50 Page No:287-289 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

The application of N at recommended or higher dose (33% higher than recommended) effectively enhanced the growth and yield of rice crop by suppressing the weed growth in zero-till transplanted rice. Hand weeding thrice at 25, 55 and 75 days after transplanting (DAT) was the best   in reducing weed growth and ultimately increased the grain yield of zero-till transplanted rice. Among the herbicidal methods, tank mix application of bispyribac-Na + 2,4-D minimized the weed growth at early stage and enhanced rice grain yield.

Email

dghoshagro@gmail.com

Address

ICAR-Directorate of Weed Research, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 482 004
Effects of nitrogen levels and weed management in direct-seeded rice
Anurag Kumar Singh, M.K. Singh and Sneha Kumari
Research note | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00062.X | Volume: 50 Page No:290-293 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field experiment was conducted at Agricultural Research Farm, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi to study effect of nitrogen level and weed management in direct-seeded rice. Treatment consisted of 12 treatment combinations which was laid out in the split-plot design having nitrogen levels (100, 120, 140 and 160 kg N/ha) in main plot and three weed management practices, viz. weedy, two hand weeding and bispyribac-sodium 25g/ha fb Cono-weeding in sub-plots replicated thrice. Two hand weeding recorded significantly lower weed biomass and density and better performance of crop growth and yield attributes and yield followed by bispyribac-Na  25 g/ha fb cono-weeding. In case of nitrogen application of 160 kg N/ha showed better performance of growth, yield attributes and yield as compared to other nitrogen treatments. It was observed that application of nitrogen 160 kg/ha and two hand weeding was found best treatment for higher grain yield and net returns.

Email

anuragrau@gmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, BHU, Varanasi, Utter Pradesh 221 005
Efficacy of weed management practices in transplanted rice under southern dry zone of Karnataka
G.N. Dhanapal, S. Kamala Bai, M.T. Sanjay, P. Nagarjun and A. Sandeep
Research note | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00063.1 | Volume: 50 Page No:294-297 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field experiment was conducted during Kharif 2016 and 2017 at Zonal Agriculture Research Station, V.C. Farm, Mandya (Southern dry Zone, Karnataka) to study the efficacy of various weed management practices on weeds in transplanted rice. The experiment consists of ten treatments replicated thrice in a randomized complete block design. Among the various treatments, significantly the lowest weed density (18.3-22.0 no./m2) and weed biomass (5.4-6.3 g/m2) was noticed with hand weeding at 25 and 45 DAS, which was at par with pre-emergence application (PE) of bensulfuron-methyl + pretilachlor fb triafamone + ethoxysulfuron applied at 30 days after transplanting (DAT). Weed management with bensulfuron-methyl + pretilachlor (60 + 600 g/ha) PE fb triafamone + ethoxysulfuron (60 g/ha) applied at 25 DAT recorded significantly higher paddy grain and straw yields and higher economic returns.

Email

dhanapalgn@yahoo.com

Address

University of Agricultural Sciences (B), MRS, Hebbal, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560 024
Weed management in groundnut under rice-fallow
E. Aruna and G. Karuna Sagar
Research note | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00064.3 | Volume: 50 Page No:298-301 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field experiment was conducted at Agricultural Research Station, Utukur, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, India during Rabi seasons of 2016 and 2017 to test the efficacy of herbicides in rice-fallow groundnut. It is common that previous rice volunteer plants will come in the succeeding crops after rice. Keeping all this in view, the experiment was conducted with six weed control treatments arranged in a randomized block design (RBD) with four replications. Pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1.5 kg/ha followed by post-emergence application of imazethapyr 75 g/ha at 18-20 DAS recorded lower density of both broad-leaved and grassy-weeds. Weed free throughout the crop period recorded higher pod yield (4.24 t/ha), which was at par with hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS (4.19t/ha) and pendimethalin 1.5 kg/ha as pre-emergence followed by imazethapyr 75 g/ha as post-emergence at 18-20 DAS (3.91 t/ha). Higher benefit:cost ratio (2.20) was recorded with pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1.5 kg/ha followed by post-emergence application of imazethapyr 75 g/ha at 18- 20 DAS.

Email

arunaettapu@gmail.com

Address

Agricultural Research Station, ANGRAU, Utukur, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh 516 126
Weed population, weed biomass and grain yield of wheat as influenced by herbicides application
Raghubar Sahu, Kumari Sharda, Dharmendra Kumar and S.K. Mandal
Research note | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00065.5 | Volume: 50 Page No:302-304 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field experiment was conducted during Rabi seasons of 2015-16 and 2016-17 at Banka (Bihar) to evaluate the weed population, weed biomass and grain yield as influenced by herbicide application in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Seven weed species, viz. Phalaris minor, Cynodon dactylon, Chenopodium album, Oxalis purpurea, Anagallis arvensis, Medicago denticulata and Rumex dentatus infested the wheat field. Post-emergence application of sulfosulfuron 75% WG (25 g/ha) + metsulfuron-methyl 20% WP (2 g/ha) at 30 days after sowing (DAS) was very effective against broad-leaf weeds and annual grasses, and recorded significantly lower density and biomass of these weeds at 60 DAS as compared to isoproturon 75% WP 1.0 kg/ha, sulfosulfuron 75% WG 50 g/ha, metsulfuron-methyl 20% WP 4 g/ha and weedy check. Ear length, effective tillers/m2, grains/spike, grain and straw yields were also significantly higher in sulfosulfuron (25 g/ha) + metsulfuron-methyl (2 g/ha) as compared to other herbicide treatments.

Email

raghubar.bhu@gmail.com

Address

Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Banka, Bihar 813 102
Tank mix application of tembotrione and atrazine to reduce weed growth and increase productivity of maize
Puscal Sharma, Buddhadeb Duary and Raghavendra Singh
Research note | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2018.00066.7 | Volume: 50 Page No:305-308 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

The experiment was carried out during Kharif (wet) season of 2014 at Agricultural Farm of Palli Siksha Bhavana, Visva-Bharati, Sriniketan, West Bengal to find the effect of tank mix application of tembotrione and atrazine on weed growth and productivity of Kharif maize. Nine treatments comprising of herbicide tembotrione as early post-emergence at 80, 100, 120 g/ha alone and in combination with atrazine at 500 g/ha, sole application of atrazine at 1000 g/ha and weeding twice at 25 and 40 DAS and unweeded control were assigned in a randomized block design in three replication. Results revealed that the experimental field was infested with all categories of weeds including grassy, broad-leaved and sedges. Among them the most predominant weeds were Ludwigia parviflora, Cynodon doctylon, Cyperus rotundus and Fimbristylis miliacea. Overall weed infestation caused about 48% reduction in yield of maize. Combined application of tembotrione with atrazine was significantly superior to its sole application in all the doses tested. Tembotrione at 100 g/ha + stefes mero surfactant at 733 g/ha + atrazine 500 g/ha considerably reduced the weed infestation- registering lower weed density, dry weight, weed index, higher weed control efficiency and increase in values of growth and yield attributes and yield of maize, which were comparable with tembotrione at 80 g/ha + stefes mero surfactant at 733 g/ha + atrazine 500 g/ha and tembotrione at 120 g/ha + stefes mero surfactant at 733 g/ha + atrazine 500 g/ha. Thus, early post-emergence application of tembotrione at 80-100 g/ha + stefes mero surfactant at 733 g/ha + atrazine 500 g/ha appeared to be the most promising weed management practice for higher weed control efficiency, yield, gross and net return of Kharif (wet) season maize in lateritic soil of West Bengal.

Email

raghavenupc@gmail.com

Address

Institute of Agriculture, Visva-Bharati, Sriniketan, West Bengal 731 236; ICAR-National Organic Farming Research Institute, Tadong, Gangtok 737 102

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.