Weed Control in Groundnut

STUDIES ON EFFICIENCY OF HERBICIDES IN
GROUNDNT (Arachis hypogaea L.) – WHEAT

(Triticum aestivum L.) CROPPING SYSTEM
Thesis submitted to the

University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURE)
In
AGRONOMY
By
SOMASHEKHAR S. MUTNAL
DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
DHARWAD – 580 005
NOVEMBER, 2006
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DHARWAD (C.A. AGASIMANI)

NOVEMBER, 2006 MAJOR ADVISOR
Approved by :
Chairman : ___________________________
(C.A. AGASIMANI)
Members : 1. _________________________
(Y.B. PALLED)
2. _________________________
(S.M. HIREMATH)
3. _________________________
(H.L. NADAF)
4. _________________________
(S.S. ADIVER)
CONTENTS
Chapter No. Titles
I. INTRODUCTION
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
III. MATERIAL AND METHODS
IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
V. DISCUSSION
VI. SUMMARY
VII. REFERENCES
APPENDIX
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Titles
No.
1 Physical and chemical properties of the soil of experimental field
2 Monthly meteorological data for the experimental year (2005-06) and the
mean of past 55 years (1950-2004) of Main Agricultural Research
Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad
3 Qualitative description of treatments on weeds and crop in the visual
phyto toxicity ratings (0-10)
4 Effect of weed control treatments on monocot weed count (m-2) at
different crop growth stages in groundnut
-2
5 Effect of weed control treatments on dicot weed count (m ) at different
crop growth stages in groundnut
6 Effect of weed control treatments on sedge weed count (m-2) at different
-2
7 Effect of weed control treatments on total weed count (m ) at different
8 Effect of weed control treatments on dry weight of weed (m-2) at different
9 Effect of weed control treatments on weed weight (kg ha-1) at harvest,
weed control efficiency (%) and weed index in groundnut
10 Effect of weed control treatments on plant height (cm) at different crop

growth stages in groundnut
11 Effect of weed control treatments on number of primary branches per

plant at different crop growth stages in groundnut
12 Effect of weed control treatments on number of leaves per plant at
-2
13 Effect of weed control treatments on leaf area (dm ) per plant at
14 Effect of weed control treatments on leaf area index per plant at different
-
15 Effect of weed control treatments on total dry matter production (g plant
1
) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
16 Effect of weed control treatments on dry matter accumulation in leaves
(g plant-1) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
17 Effect of weed control treatments on dry matter accumulation in stem (g
1
plant- ) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
18 Effect of weed control treatments on dry matter accumulation in pods (g
-1
plant ) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
19 Effect of weed control treatments on number of pods per plant, 100 pod
weight (g) and 100 kernel weight (g) at different crop growth stages in
groundnut
Contd……
Table
Titles
No.
20 Effect of weed control treatments on shelling percentage and sound
matured kernels in groundnut
-1 -
21 Effect of weed control treatments on pod yield (q ha ), haulm yield (q ha
1
) and oil content (%) in groundnut
-2
22 Effect of weed control treatments on monocot weed count (m ) at
different crop growth stages in wheat
-2
23 Effect of weed control treatments on dicot weed count (m ) at different
crop growth stages in wheat
-2
24 Effect of weed control treatments on sedge weed count (m ) at different
-2
25 Effect of weed control treatments on total weed count (m ) at different
-2
26 Effect of weed control treatments on dry weight (g m ) at different crop
growth stages in wheat
-1
27 Effect of weed control treatments on weed weight (kg ha ), weed control
efficiency (%) and weed index in wheat
28 Effect of weed control treatments on plant height (cm) at different crop
29 Effect of weed control treatments on productive tillers per plant at
different crop growth stages
2
30 Effect of weed control treatments on leaf area (dm ) at different crop
31 Effect of weed control treatments on leaf area index at different crop
-1
32 Effect of weed control treatments on total dry matter production (gm
row length) at different crop growth stages in wheat
33 Effect of weed control treatments on dry matter accumulation in leaves
(gm-1 row length) at different crop growth stages in wheat
34 Effect of weed control treatments on dry matter accumulation in stem
(gm-1 row length) at different crop growth stages in wheat
35 Effect of weed control treatments on dry matter accumulation in ear
head (gm-2 row length) at different crop growth stages in wheat
36 Effect of weed control treatments on ear length (cm) at different crop
37 Effect of weed control treatments on yield attributing characters of 1000
grain weight (g), grain weight per ear and number of grains per spikelets
in wheat
38 Effect of weed control treatments on grain yield (kg ha-1), straw yield (kg
-1
ha ) and harvest index (%) in wheat
39 Economics of weed control treatments in groundnut
40 Economics of weed control treatments in wheat
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Titles
No.
1a Monthly meteorological data for the experimental year (2005-06) of

Main Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences,
Dharwad
1b Monthly meteorological data for the past 55 years (1950-2004) of Main

Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences,
Dharwad
2 Plan of layout of the experimental plot
3 Effect of weed control treatments on total weed count (m-2) at different

4 Effect of weed control treatments on dry weight of weed (m-2) at

5 Effect of weed control treatments on weed control efficiency (%) and

weed index in groundnut
6 Effect of weed control treatments on total dry matter production at

7 Effect of weed control treatments on pod yield and haulm yield in

groundnut
8 Effect of weed control treatments on total weed count (m-2) at different

9 Effect of weed control treatments on dry weight of weeds (g m-2) at

10 Effect of weed control treatments on weed control efficiency (%) and

weed index in wheat
11 Effect of weed control treatments on total dry matter production (g m-1

row length) at different crop growth stages in wheat
12 Effect of weed control treatments on grain yield (kg ha-1) and straw
-1
yield (kg ha ) in wheat
13 Economics of weed control treatments in groundnut
14 Economics of weed control treatments in wheat

LIST OF PLATES
Plate No. Titles
1 General view of experimental site (Groundnut)
2 Effect of Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme +2IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1

HW at 45 DAS
3 Effect of Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme +2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1

HW at 45 DAS
4 Effect of Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS

+ HW at 45 DAS
5 Effect of Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1

HW at 45 DAS
6 Weed free check
7 Weedy check
8 Farmers practices 3 IC at 20, 30 and 45 DAS +1 HW at 40 DAS
9 General view of experimental site (Wheat)
10 Effect of 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS
11 Effect of Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS
12 Effect of Metsulfuron-methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS
13 Effect of Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS
14 Weed free check
15 Weedy check
16 Farmers practice (2 HW at 20 DAS and 40 DAS)

LIST OF APPENDIX
Appendix No. Titles
1 Prices of in puts and out puts

I. INTRODUCTION
India is one of the fore player in the vegetable oil scenario of the world, being one of
the important oilseed grower, producer, importer and exporter. India is one of the biggest
producer of oilseed crops in the world and have achieved self-sufficiency in oilseed
production. However, demand is likely to increase in coming years due to increase in the per
capita consumption has also ever increasing population. Among winter crops Wheat stands
first which is one of the most important cereals crop of the world. It is a staple food of nearly
35 per cent of the world population.
In India, groundnut is grown over an area of 5.9 million ha producing 8.18 million
tonnes (2003-04) with a productivity of 1364 kg per ha. In Karnataka, crop is grown in an area
of 0.8 million ha producing 0.47 million tonne with a productivity of 583 kg per ha. With regard
to production of wheat, India stands second in the world. In India, it is grown in an area of 2.6
million ha producing 72 million tonnes with a productivity of 2718 kg per ha.
In Karnataka, Wheat is grown in an area of 0.23 million ha producing 0.11 million
tonnes with a productivity of 480 kg per ha in 2003-04 (ACMIE March, 2006).
The low yields of groundnut and wheat are attributed to many factors. Among them,
many folds losses caused by weeds is of serious nature. Uncontrolled weed reduces the yield
of rainy season (Kharif) Groundnut by 54-71 per cent (Anon., 1998) especially during early
period of crop. In this period, less crop canopy coverage favours strong competition with
weeds causing considerable reduction in yield of the crop.
According to Chauhan et al. (1997), the maximum yield loss in Wheat (33%) was
caused by weeds alone. The yields were reduced up to 50 per cent due to weed competition.
The short stature of new dwarf varieties coupled with high fertilizer and irrigation requirement
creates favourable ecological conditions for weed growth. In groundnut and wheat mechanical
weed control measures alone are rather difficult due to narrow spacing. So, alternate method
to control weed is through integrated method is appears to be feasible.
Herbicides efficiency has been found to be better when applied with other mechanical
weed control practices. Certain herbicides applied as pre-emergence or post emergence
which helps checking weeds at early growth of crop, further growth in weed can be easily kept
under check by certain cultural practices like hand weeding and inter cultivation.
Adequate information is available for weed management in the individual crops. But,
information of carryover effects of herbicides on the succeeding crop in the sequence is
meagre. Hence, the present investigation was taken under at Main Agricultural Research
Station, Dharwad on Groundnut-Wheat cropping system with the following objectives.
To evaluate the effect of herbicides on weed incidence and weed growth and yield of
groundnut crop
To study the effect of herbicides on succeeding wheat crop.
To workout the economics of the weed management practices.
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The literature pertaining to weed management in groundnut and wheat has been
reviewed in this chapter under the following aspects.
Weed flora
Crop weed competition
Methods of weed control
Weed management in succeeding crops
Economics of weed control
2.1 WEED FLORA

2.1.1 Weed flora in groundnut
The degree of damage caused by weeds is related to the type, species and density of
weeds growing in a crop community, weeds vary from place to place and season to season.
Kondap et al. (1989) reported the presence of Commelina bengalensis L., Cynodon
dactylon pers, Cyperus rotundus L., Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop., Dactyloctenium
aegyptium Beauv and Echinochloa colonum Link among monocots. Amaranthus viridis L.,
Celosia argentia L. Digera arvensis forsk, Ephorbia hirta Linn., Flavaria australasica Hook,
Portulaca oleraceae L., Trichoderma indicum L. in Tridax procumbens L. among dicot weeds
in groundnut.
Selvamani and Sankaran (1989) found hat Cyperus rotundus Linn. was dominant
(60%) during kharif and Trianthem portulacastrum L. was dominant with 55 per cent of total
weed population during late rabi.
Devidayal et al. (1994) observed Cyperus rotundus L., Echinochloa colonum L. Link.
Dacty loctenium aegyptium Beauv., Commelina bengalensis L., Euphorbia hira L.,
Phyllanthus niruri L., Portulaca aleraceae L. and Triadax procumbens L. in groundnut during
kharif season. Similar weed flora was also observed by Subramaniyan Arulmozhi (1998a) at
Vidyachalam, Tamil Nadu.
Prakasa Rao and Arunee Kumar (1996) made observation on the weed flora of
ground fields and reported that, out of 55 weed species 14 were monocots and remaining 41
species were of dicots belonging to 21 families.
Ghosh (2000) observed eight times higher grasses and four times higher broad leaf
weeds than sedges. The main weeds were Echinochloa crusgalli (23.4%) Dactyloctenium
aegyptium (178%), Elecusine indica (7.4%), Digitaria filiformis (5.4%), Brachiaria spp. (3.5%),
Ageratum Conyzoides L., (18.2%) and Cyperus iria L. (7.5%).
Attarde et al. (2001) reported the major perennial weeds in groundnut like Cyperus
rotundus, Cynodon dectylon and Isochaemum pilosum, Eragrostis spp. Echinochloa crusgalli
L., Parthenium hysterophorus L. and Ephorbia spp.
2.1.2 Weed flora in wheat

Behl and Moolani (1969) at Hissar (Haryana) observed Chenopodium album (60 to
80%), Convolvulus arvensis (8-16%), Portulaca spp. (3 to 9%) and Cyperus rotundus (4 to
7%) as dominant species in wheat.
Tiwari and Parihar (1993) and Malik et al. (1995a) observed Chenopodium album,
Melilotus indica and Vicia sativa as major weed flora in wheat field at Hissar and Sarkanda,
Bilaspur (Madhya Pradesh).
The common weeds observed in wheat in Karnataka include Dinebra retroflexa,
Brachiaria isachne, Chrozophora rotteri, Portulaca spp., Trianthama portulacastrum,
Amaranthus spp. Parthenium hysterophorus and Digera arvensis (Hosmani, 1995).
Singh et al. (1997b) and Panwar et al. (1998) observed Phalaris minor, Melilotus
indica, Rumex maritimus and Chenopodium album as dominant weed species in wheat field
at Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) and Hissar.
Tiwari and Parihar (1997) observed Phalaris minor, Solanum nigrum, Chenopodium
album, Anagallis arvensis, Mililotus alba, Cynodon dactylon, Fumaria parviflora and Vicia
sativa as predominant weed species in wheat field at Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh.
Kushwaha and Singh (2000) reported infestation of wheat with Cinnivera dinnatifida,
Phalaris minor, Cyperus rotundus, Cynodon dactylon, Anagallis arvensis, Chenopodium
album, Fumaria parviflora, Portulaca oleracea, Avena fatua, Mililotus indica and Panicum spp.
at Haridwar, Uttar Pradesh.
Singh et al. (2004) observed Chenopodium album, Melilotus abla, Melilotus indica,
Medicago denticulata, Lathyrus aphaca, Vicia sativa, Vicia hirsuta, Fumaria parviflora, Anallis
arvensis and Coronopus didymus, Rumex spp.
Mishra et al. (2005) reported that field was infested mainly with Chenopodium album
(88.6%) and Physalis minima (8.5%).
2.2 CROP WEED COMPETITION

Determination of period of maximum weed competition in the crops is most important
in deciding upon the weed control programme.
2.2.1 Critical period of crop weed competition

2.2.1.1 Groundnut
Singh and Bajpai (1991) reported that most of the weeds emerged before 35 days of
crop growth, weeds emerged between 35 and 50 days after sowing were significantly less,
there by could not compete with better crop canopy as evidenced by lower weed dry weight.
Bhan and Singh (1993) observed that critical period of crop weed competition in
groundnut is 40 to 60 days after sowing.
Mahadkar et al. (1993) reported that competition with the crops was observed to be
very high during 50 to 60 days period. This period was found to be critical period for crop
weed competition.
Weed competition during the first 30 days period of crop growth in groundnut was
found critical under kharif rainfed condition (Suresh and Nanjappa, 1994).
2.2.1.2 Wheat
Gogoi et al. (1993) noticed that the period between 15 and 45 days after sowing as
the critical period for weed competition in wheat (cv. Sonalika).
2.2.2 Competition for nutrients

2.2.2.1 Groundnut
At Hissar, Yadav et al. (1986) reported that weeds when allowed to compete till
harvest depleted 162.8 kg N, 21.7 kg P2O5 and 141.8 kg K2O per ha. Herbicides and hand
weeding significantly brought down the nutrient removal by weeds and enhanced the uptake
of nutrient by groundnut crop.
Nimje (1992) at Bhopal reported that removal of nitrogen by weeds was highest in
weedy check in both the years (19.36 and 21.68 kg/ha). While, hand weeding twice removed
the lowest amount of nitrogen (4.18 and 7.12 kg/ha). Devakumar and Giri (1999) also
reported a similar result on nutrient uptake.
2.2.2.2 Wheat
Weeds, which emerge simultaneously with crop plants absorb fertilizer nutrients
faster and relatively in larger amount than crop, thereby depriving the crop of available
nutrients resulting in poor yields (Guneyli et al., 1969).
Pandey and Singh (1983) reported highest nitrogen depletion (9.6 kg/ha) with
unweed control and the lowest in hand weeded plot. Among the major nutrients, the removal
of nitrogen by weeds was the highest.
Weeds depleted 45.6, 11.3 and 45.6 kg per ha N, P2O5 and K2O respectively when
allowed to grow with the crop till the crop harvest, whereas the use of herbicides caused
increased nutrient uptake by wheat and decreased nutrient uptake by weed (Malik et al.,
1995b).
2.2.3 Effect of weed competition on growth and yield components

Reduction of crop yield has a direct correlation with weed competition when left
uncontrolled weeds can grow taller than crop plants and suppress the growth.
2.2.3.1 Groundnut
No advantage was observed informs of yield by weeding after eight weeks (Rethinam
et al., 1976). At Coimbatore, Kulandaivelu and Sankaran (1977) reported that weed
competition lowered the number of primary branches and growth of groundnut.
Rajsingh and Patel (1991) revealed that removal of weeds upto 60 days after sowing
resulted in the highest groundnut pod yields of 1.42 to 1.46 t per ha compared to un-weeded
control.
2.2.3.2 Wheat
Panwar et al. (1995) at Hissar observed reduction in grain yield of wheat from 4838 to
2832 and 5118 to 3024 kg per ha, when plots were kept weedy for whole season during
1991-92 and 1992-93, respectively.
Subhashkumar and Singh (1996) recorded, reduced yield to an extent of 51.2 per
cent due to the presence of un controlled weed plants in wheat crop. Singh et al. (1998)
reported that the minimum number of tillers and grain yield (3267 kg/ha) were recorded under
weedy check and they were significantly lower than other chemical and cultural treatments.
2.3 METHODS OF WEED CONTROL

Various methods are used to control weeds in groundnut and wheat have their own
merits and demerits. The final choice of any weed control method will depend largely on
effectiveness and economics of practice.
2.3.1 Cultural methods

2.3.1.1 Groundnut
Singh et al. (1997a) at Pantanagar reproted that two hand weeding plus hoeing gave
maximum pod yield (2472 kg/ha in 1993 and 2619 kg/ha in 1994) followed by halloxytop
methyl (0.75 kg /ha in 1993 and alachlor 3.0 kg/ha in 1994).
Sukhadia et al. (1998) at Junagadh reported that treatment inter cultivation and hand
weeding 20 and 40 days after sowing recorded lower dry weight of weeds, higher weed
control efficiency, lower weed persistence index and higher crop resistance index compare to
weed free treatment. This treatment also gave the highest pod yield (1066 kg/ha) and haulm
yield (2247 kg/ha) yield of spreading groundnut.
Kori et al. (2000) at Dharwad noticed that hand weeding at 70 DAS + IC at 30 and 45
DAS shown significantly higher pod yield (19.35 q/ha) over trifluralin @ 0.5 a.i per ha + IC at
30 DAS (14.96 q/ha).
Datta et al. (2001) observed that hand weeding twice (20 and 40 DAS) shown higher
pod yield (25.3 q/ha) compare to trifluralin @ 720 g per ha (23.8 q/ha).
Shenthilkumar (2004) at Madhurai reported that higher pod yield (2.18 t/ha) and
kernel yield (1.71 t/ha) were recorded by maintaining 3.3 lakh plants per ha.
2.3.1.2 Wheat
Aslam et al. (1989) emphasized the use of certified seeds, removal of source of
infestation use of well decomposed organic manure, clean cultivation, proper crop rotations,
proper maintenance of water channel and bunds as some of the preventive measures of
weed control.
Angiras and Sharma (1993) concluded that bi-directonal row orientation and 15 cm
row spacing at 120 kg per ha seed rate reduced the crop weed competition by reducing the
population and dry matter accumulation of weeds and increased the wheat grain yield.
Further, concluded that, interaction of bi-directional row orientation, 15 cm or 20 cm row
spacing and isoproturon application maximized the grain yield numerically.
The higher grain yield in closer row spacing (17.6%) and bi-directional sowing
(13.1%) than normal method of unidirectional sowing in straight line was due to the lower
population and dry weight of weeds and better crop canopy which resulted in more efficient
utilization of solar radiation and nutrients by the crop (Dhaliwal and Kler, 1995).
Hosmani (1995) reported that if irrigation is available, it is better to give pre-sowing
irrigation as pre-sowing irrigation will induced weed seeds to sprout before sowing, which can
be controlled through sowing operation. Further, opined that wherever inter cultivation is not
practiced it is better to go in for closer row spacing by which weeds could be smothered by
the crop itself. And two hand weeding operations at three weeks and six weeks after sowing
help to reduce weed competition.
Singh et al. (2003) at Jabalpur observed that one hand weeding at 20 DAS shown
higher grain yield (4705 kg/ha) compare to isoproturon alone (4557 kg/ha).
Mishra and Yaduraju (2005) opined that one hand weed at 30 days after sowing gave
grain yield (3933 kg/ha), which is at par with isoproturon (4103 kg/ha).
Mishra et al. (2005) noticed that hand weeding at 30 DAS gave grain yield of 4264 kg
per ha which is at par with isoproturon which given grain yield of 4425 kg per ha.
2.3.2 Chemical method

When labour is scare and expensive the use of herbicides holds good promise from
the point of less cost and efficient weed control from the sowing itself. Most weeds emerge
before or along with crop and those by necessiate the use of pre plant incorporation and pre-
emergence herbicides.
2.3.2.1 Groundnut
2.3.2.1.1 Pre-emergence herbicides
Kondap et al. (1989) found that application of pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg a.i per ha
showed equal performance in pod yield (16.51 q/ha) with hand weeding at 15 and 35 days
after sowing (18.4 q/ha) and was found better in controlling grassy weeds in groundnut.
Hiremath et al. (1997) found that pre-emergence application of pendimethalin @ 1.5
kg a.i per ha and oxyfluorfen @ 0.2 kg a.i per ha effectively checked both C3 and C4 weeds
there by exhibiting highest weed control efficiency and recorded lowest weed index thus
improving the pod yields in groundnut.
Singh et al. (1997a) reported that the pre-emergence application of alachlor @ 3.0 kg
per ha and haloxyfop methyl @ 0.75 kg per ha proved significantly superior to that of alachlor
@ 2.5 kg per ha pendimethalin @ 1.0 kg per ha and halloxyfop methyl @ 1.0 kg per ha
among herbicides in reducing the dry matter accumulation of weeds at all the stages of
growth and the same was observed for pod yield of groundnut.
Subramaniyan and Arulmozhi (1998a) reported that among the different pre-
emergence herbicides, application of metolachlor @ 1.0 kg a.i per ha significantly produced a
maximum dry pod yield (2280 kg/ha) over pendimethalin (2126 kg/ha) and oxadiazon (2087
kg/ha).
Ghosh (2000) reported that pre-emergence application of fluchloralin @ 0.72 kg per
ha recorded significantly higher pod yield (2125 kg/ha), pods per plant (15.0) and lowest weed
2
dry weight (17.5 g/m ) as compared to un-weeded control with 818 kg per ha, 7.5 and 165.4 g
2
per m respectively.
Murthy (1982) and Yadav et al. (1983) observed that pendimethalin was most
effective in checking most of the monocot as well as dicot weeds and those by improved the
yield components like number of pods per plant, shelling percentage and test weight.
2.3.2.2 Wheat
Hanf (1962) suggest that, 2,4-D in wheat should be sprayed between 4-7 leaf stages.
Spraying approximately six weeks after sowing i.e. at 4-5 leaf stages gave 15 per cent
increased yield as compared to control. Spraying at more that is eight weeks after sowing,
when plants are fully formed with main shoot resulted in four per cent increased yield.
Behl and Moolani (1969) reported that, the best time for application of 2,4-D was from
30-45 days in kalyan 227 and 47 days after sowing in C-306 varieties. Application at later
stages was found to be less effective as compare to optimum stages and thus had
competition with wheat crop for longer period resulting in reduced crop yield.
Maley (1969) viewed that the growth of any plant was governed by minute amount of
chemicals. The herbicides, when applied, destroyed the biochemistry of plant cells and
tissues 2,4-D and related compounds have effect on plant cell co-ordination and have a wide
spread cellular consequences.
Tiwari and Parihar (1993) reported that, the combination of isoproturon and 2,4-D
produced minimum weed dry matter as compared to herbicide applied alone, one hand
weeding and control treatments. Dwivedi et al. (1990), reported that isoproturon as pre-
emergent produced significantly higher grain yield than 2,4-D where 2,4-D + isoproturon
produced maximum grain yield of wheat. Highest weed control efficiency (58.8%) was also
recorded with the combined application of the two herbicides.
Dixit and Bhan (1997a) reported that isoproturon @ 1.0 kg per ha coupled with 2,4-D
@ 0.5 kg per ha gave the highest yield which was at par with isoproturon @ 1.5 kg per ha
alone.
Pandey and Singh (1994) observed that metsulfuron-methyl killed all the plants of
Cirsium arvense whereas terbutron methyl proved ineffective against it. Both these herbicides
paralysed the growth of grassy weeds for a month and gave good control of broad-leaf
weeds.
Dixit et al. (1998) reported that chlorsulfuron in combination with metsulfuron-methyl
and isoproturon brought down significant reduction in weed population and dry matter as
compared to weedy check in wheat.
2.3.3 Integrated weed control method

Integrated weed management in which all suitable technique including the use of
herbicides in a compatible manner to reduce weed population and maintain at lower than
economic injury level. The pre-emergence herbicides would suppress the weeds only for a
limited period. Due to dissipation of applied herbicides, the new flusher of weeds which
emerge at later stage are not controlled. To attain weed control at critical stage of crop
growth, integration of chemical and mechanical methods hold a great promise.
2.3.3.1 Groundnut
Gnanmurthy and Balasubramaniyan (1998) observed the highest pod yield of
groundnut (23.54 q/ha) with application of metalachlor + HW at 30 DAS which was 453 per
cent higher as compared to un-weeded control.
Malligawad et al. (2000) reported that herbicide application followed by inter
cultivation at 30 and 45 DAS. Hand weeding at 30 DAS resulted in 6.98 to 9.67 per cent
higher dry pod yield over herbicide application only and 3.94 to 6.01 per cent higher pod yield
over herbicide application in addition to inter cultivation.
Kori et al. (2000) reported that weed free check recorded highest pod yield (28.55
q/ha) and was on par with trifluralin @ 1.5 kg per ha + IC at 30 and 45 DAS (23.63 q/ha)
whereas significantly lowest pod yield of 9.91 q per ha was recorded in un-weeded control.
Patra and Nayak (2001) at Bhubaneshwar reported that integrated weed
management involving pre-emergent application of alachlor @ 2 kg a.i per ha at 1 day after
sowing, followed by post-emergent application of fluchloralin @ 1 kg a.i per ha 1 day after
interculture recorded higher weed control efficiency (87.9%).
Manickam et al. (2001) noticed that the pre-emergence application of metolachlor @
1.0 kg per ha + 1 HW on 30 DAS significantly improved the pod equivalent and the land
equivalent ratio.
Senthilkumar et al. (2004) at madhurai reported that higher pod yield (2.18 t/ha) and
kernel yield (1.71 t/ha) were recorded by maintaining 3.3 lakh plants per ha. Fluchloralin @ 1
kg per ha followed by 1 HW at 40 DAS recorded significantly higher pod yield (2.44 t/ha) and
kernel yield (1.13 t/ha).
2.4 RESIDUAL EFFECT OF HERBICIDES ON SUCCEEDING

CROPS
Residual toxicity on herbicide is the potential of herbicide residue to cause injury, total
mortality or reduction in growth and yield of succeeding crop grown on previously treated
herbicide plot. Chandra Singh and Subha Rao (1971) observed that, the concentration of
herbicides in the soil usually tended to be inversely proportional to the time of application.
Application of alachlor to control weeds in soybean did not have any residual effect on the
succeeding crop like lentil, wheat, linseed, bhendi and bengalgram (Gautham and Mani, 1975
and Anon., 1994).
Abernathy and Keeling (1979) observed no significant injury or yield reduction in
either sorghum or wheat grown on trifluralin, flucloron, pendimethalin, dinitramine or batralin
treated plots.
Shelke (1987) pointed out that in groundnut – sorghum sequence, application of
oxadiozon, fluchloralin and metolachlor to groundnut did not indicate herbicide residue
problems on sorghum experiments conducted at Bangalore indicated that in maize-groundnut
or fingermillet-groundnut crop sequence no herbicide residual toxicity (Anon., 1989).
Kulshreshta and Yaduraju (1987) reported that half-life values for pendimethalin was
between 58-63 days and 98 per cent of fluchloraline applied to sorghum + legume inter
cropping system was lost from soil after 32 days after treatment.
Abd-El_Rauof et al. (1985) reported that residual effect of alachlor applied to soybean
crop grown proceeding crop showed in significant effects on succeeding crops such as wheat
and faba bean.
Pendimethalin could not be detected in black and red soils of sunflower and
groundnut trials after harvest of crops (after 90 to 120 days). In another experimentaly, results
revealed that pendimethalin applied to preceding crop (wheat) did not leave any adverse level
of their residues in succeeding crop (Anon., 1994). Gautham et al. (1994) revealed that bout
50 per cent of pendimethalin residue dissipated within 7 days after application in groundnut
applied at 1.0 and 2.0 kg a.i per ha and on 45th day about 98 per cent of residue has been
eliminated in both doses.
Sukhadia et al. (2000) reported that fluchloralin 0.9 kg per ha pre-emergence + hand
weeding (HW) and inter cultivation at 25, 45 and 60 days after sowing in groundnut and
pendimethalin 1.0 kg per ha pre-emergence + HW at 30 days after sowing in wheat was most
effective against weeds and provided highest net returns. Herbicides applied in groundnut
crop did not leave any phytotoxic effect on the succeeding wheat crop.
These studies suggest that there was no build up of herbicide in soil when applied at
recommended rates. In general, even under different crop sequence where herbicide was one
of the major inputs residual effect of herbicide on succeeding crops was not noticed.
2.5 ECONOMICS
2.5.1 Groundnut
Kathmale et al. (1997) recorded the highest net returns due to application of butachlor
+ one HW + one IC (Rs. 6556/ha) and it was closely followed by thyobencarb + one HW +
one IC (Rs. 6513/ha) and the lowest was recorded in unweeded control (Rs. 2269/ha).
Malligawad et al. (2000) recorded the highest net returns of Rs. 25,303 per ha from
pendimethalin @ 1 kg a.i per ha + IC at 30 and 45 DAS, one hand weeding at 30 DAS and
BC ratio of 2.52 over un weeded check of Rs. 7525 per ha and 1.57 respectively. Similar
result was obtained by Mahadkhar et al. (1993).
Patra and Nayak (2001) coated that highest cost benefit ratio was found with pre-
emergence application of fluchloralin @ 1 kg a.i per ha or pendimethalin @ 1 kg a.i per ha or
pendimethalin @ 1 kg a.i per ha or alachlor @ 2 kg a.i per ha, followed by post-emergent
application of fluchloralin @ 1.0 kg a.i per ha at 1 day after interculture (1.77) was found
promising.
Sukhadia et al. (2000) reported that highest net returns (Rs. 14,539/ha) was accured
under fluchloralin (0.9 kg/ha) + 3 HW and 3 IC (25, 45, 60 DAS) followed by fluchloralin 0.9 kg
per ha + 2 HW and 2 IC (Rs. 12,442/ha). Further, opined that groundnut-wheat crop
sequence, fluchloraline 0.9 kg per ha pre-emergence +3 HW in intra-row space and 3 IC in
inter-row space (25, 45 and 60 DAS) in kharif Groundnut and pendimethalin 1.0 kg per ha + 1
HW at 30 DAS in wheat are beneficial under south Saurashtra conditions.
III. MATERIAL AND METHODS
A field experiment was conducted during kharif and rabi seasons of 2005-06 to study
the effect of weed management practices on groundnut-wheat cropping system. The details
of material used and techniques adopted are presented in this chapter.
3.1 EXPERIMENTAL SITE

The experiment was conducted on vertisol, in plot No. 32 of ‘B’ block at Main
Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
3.2 SOIL AND ITS CHARACTERISTICS

The soil of the experimental site was black soil and clay loam in texture. Composite
soil sample to a depth of 0 to 30 cm was collected from the experimental site before sowing
and analysed for physical and chemical properties. The results of analysis are furnished in
Table 1.
3.3 CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

The Main Agricultural Research Station, Dharwad is situated in Northern Transitional
Zone (zone 8) of the state. This zone receives the rainfall from both South-West and North-
East mansoons which is well distributed from June to March with lower coefficient of variation.
The mean montly meteorological data on rainfall, temperature and relative humidity during the
period of experimentation (kharif and rabi 2005-06) and average data for the past 55 years
(1950-2004) are presented in Table 2 and depicted in Fig. 1. During the period of
th th th
experimentation (27 June, 2005 to 14 October 2005 for Groundnut and 10 November
th
2005 to 13 March, 2006 for Wheat) a rainfall of 827.7 mm was received with 66 rainy days
and the mean monthly maximum temperature ranged from 27.100C (August) to 37.000C
0 0
(May). While, the minimum temperature ranged from 12.9 C (January 2005) to 21.5 C (May
and June 2006). The mean relative humidity was highest in September 2005 (85%) and
lowest in February 2006 (39%).
3.4 PREVIOUS CROP IN EXPERIMENTAL PLOT

The wheat was grown during rabi season of 2004 with uniform cultural practices in
the experimental area.
3.5 EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS

3.5.1 Treatments
The experiment comprised of 7 treatments, the details of which are given below.
Groundnut (kharif)
T1 : Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme +2IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS
T2 : Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme +2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS (Rifit
30 EC)
T3 : Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + HW at 45 DAS
T4 : Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS
T5 : Weed free check
T6 : Weedy check
T7 : Farmers practices 3 IC at 20, 30 and 45 DAS +1 HW at 40 DAS
Wheat (rabi)
T1 : 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS
T2 : Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS
T3 : Metsulfuron-methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS
T4 : Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS
T6 : Weedy check
T7 : Farmers practice (2 HW at 20 DAS and 40 DAS)
Note : IC : Inter cultivation, HW – Hand weeding
3.5.2 Design and layout

The experiment was laidout in a randamised complete block design with three
replications. The plan of layout shown in Figure 2.
3.5.3 Plot size

Gross plot size : 5.0 m x 3.0 m
Net plot size : 4.4 m x 1.8 m
3.5.4 Spacing
Groundnut : 30 cm x 10 cm
Wheat : 30 cm drill sowing
3.6 CULTURAL OPERATIONS

The cultural operations carried out in the course of investigation are furnished below.
3.6.1 Land preparation

Land was ploughed with tractor after the harvest of previous crop and harrowed twice
to crush clods. Stubbles and weeds were removed from the experimental area and the soil
was brought to a fine tilth before sowing.
3.6.2 Fertilizer application

In groundnut, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were applied at the rate of 25 kg
N, 50 kg P2O5 and 25 kg K2O per ha in the form of urea, Diammonium phosphate and muriate
of potash respectively. The entire quantity of fertilizer applied at the time of sowing in the
furrows opened 5 cm away from the seed line and later furrows were covered with soil. In
wheat recommended dose of fertilizer 100 kg N, 75 kg P2O5 and 50 kg K2O per ha were
applied. Recommended dose of phosphorus and potassium were applied at the time of
sowing, remaining 50 per cent of nitrogen was given as top dressing at 30 days after sowing
(DAS). The nutrients were applied in the form of urea, DAP and MOP.
3.6.3 Seeds and sowing

For groundnut bold and healthy certified seeds of cultivar JL-24 was selected for
sowing. Groundnut seeds were treated with rhizobium at 375 g per ha before sowing and
sown 30 cm apart row spacing. In wheat, seeds of cultivar DWR-162 were obtained from All
India Coordinated Wheat Improvement Project, Main Agricultural Research Station, Dharwad.
Seeds were sown 30 cm apart row spacing with seed drill and covered with soil.
Table 1. Physical and chemical properties of the soil of experimental field
Particulars Values obtained Method employed
I Physical properties
1. Textural composition
a. Coarse sand (%) 9.20
b. Fine sand (%) 16.30 Hydrometer method (Piper,
1966)
c. Silt (%) 11.50
d. Clay (%) 62.90
e. Soil texture Clay loam
2
f. Bulk density (mg/m ) 1.30 Core sampler method (Dasthane, 1967)
II. Chemical properties
Value Rating
1. Available nitrogen (kg 209 Low Alkaline Permanganate method
ha-1) (Subbaiah and Asija, 1956)
2. Available phosphorus (P2O5) 30 Med. Olsen’s method (Jackson,
-1
(kg ha ) 1967)
3. Available potassium (K2O) kg 338 Med. Flame photometer method (Jackson,
ha-1) 1967)
4. Organic carbon (%) 0.52 Med. Walkely and Black wet oxidation method
(Jackson, 1967)
5. Soil pH (1:2.5 soil : water) 7.6 Neutral Potentiometric method (Piper, 1966)
Table 2. Monthly meteorological data for the experimental year (2005-06) and the mean of past 55 years (1950-2004) of Main
Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad
Temperature (0C)
Rainfall (mm) Relative humidity (RH)
Mean maximum Mean minimum
Months
Mean of 55 Mean of 55 Mean of 55 Mean of 55
2005-06 2005-06 2005-06 2005-06
years years years years
April – 2005 75 (5)* 49.35 36.3 37.36 21.3 19.86 53 76

May 29.4 (3) 79.52 37.0 33.72 21.5 21.40 55 66
June 151.0 (10) 110.6 30.9 28.88 21.4 21.50 76 81
July 290.2 (19) 150.9 27.4 29.13 21.5 21.02 83 87
August 138.8 (15) 96.86 27.1 27.00 20.4 20.30 81 86
September 194.5 (14) 103.88 27.5 28.56 20.3 19.92 85 82
October 89.4 (9) 129.4 29.6 30.08 19.1 18.42 70 76
November 38.0 (1) 32.22 29.4 30.18 14.9 15.86 51 68
December 0 5.35 28.9 29.38 13.1 12.52 53 63
January-2006 0 0.17 29.9 29.63 12.9 14.68 52 63
February 0 1.14 32.4 32.53 14.8 16.37 39 51
March 5.2 (1) 0.14 34.1 36.48 18.1 19.57 45 56
Total 1011.5 (77) 807.69
* Figures shown in parenthesis indicates number of rainy days

Rainfall Min. Max. RH
160 100
140 90
80
120
70
100 60
80 Months 50
60 40
30
40
20
20 10
0 0
Ap Ma Ju Ju Au Se Oc No De Ja Fe Ma
ri l y ne ly gu p te to b ve ce nu bru rch
st mb er mb mb a ry ary
er er er
Fig. 1a : Monthly meteorological data for the experimental year (2005-06) of Main Agricultural Research Station, University
of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad
Fig. 1a : Monthly meteorological data for the experimental year (2005-06) of Main
0
Temperature C
160 Rainfall Min. Max. RH 100
90
140
80
120
70
100 60
80 50
60 40
30
40
20
20
10
0 0
Ap Ma Ju Ju Au Se Oc No De Ja Fe Ma
ril y ne ly gu pt e to ve ce n-0 br u rch
– st m be mb mb 6 ar y
20 be r er er
05 r
Months
Fig. 1b : Monthly meteorological data for the mean of past 55 years (1950-2004) of Main Agricultural Research Station,
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad
Fig. 1b : Monthly meteorological data for the mean of past 55 years (1950-2004) of Main
ELGEND
T1 : Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme + 21C at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS
T2 : Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + HW at 45 DAS
T3 : Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + HW at 45 DAS
T4 : Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS
T6 : Weedy check
T7 : Farmers practices (3 IC at 20, 30 and 45 DAS + 1 HW at 40 DAS)
Wheat (Rabi)
T1 : 2, 4-D (NA) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS
T3 : Metsulfuron-methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS
T6 : Weedy check
T7 : Farmers practice (2 HW at 20 DAS and 40 DAS)
Note : IC : Inter Cultivation, HW – Hand Weeding

Fig. 2: Plan of layout of the experimental plot
Table 3. Qualitative description of treatments on weeds and crop in the visual phyto toxicity ratings (0-10)
Effect Rating Weed Crop
None 0 No control No injury, normal
Slight 1 Very poor control Slight stunting, injury or discolouration
2 Poor control Some stand loss, stunting or discolouration
3 Poor to deficient control Injury more pronounced but not persistent
Moderate 4 Deficient control Moderate injury, recovery possible
5 Deficient to moderate control Injury more persistent, recovery doubtful
6 Moderate control Near severe injury no recovery possible
Severe 7 Satisfactory control Severe injury stand loss
8 Good control Almost destroyed a few plants surviving
9 Good to excellent control Very few plants alive
Complete 10 Complete control Complete destruction
1
3.6.4 Herbicide application
3.6.4.1 Pre-emergence application
In groundnut Alachlor, Pretilachlor, Pendimethalin and Butachlor were applied as pre-
emergence spray to the soil surface as per treatment on the next day of sowing.
3.6.4.2 Post-emergence application
In wheat crop 2,4-D (NA), Triasulfuron, Metsulfuron-methyl and Isoproturon were
applied at 20 DAS. In both the crops herbicides were applied using high volume sprayer and
sufficient quantity of moisture was maintained in the soil at the time of application.
3.6.5 After care

Inter cultivation and hand weeding were carried out as per treatment details. Two
plant protection sprays were given to groundnut with Carbendizime @ 0.5 g per litre,
Mancozeb @ 2.5 g per litre and chloro guard @ 1.5 ml per litre.
3.6.6 Irrigation
Irrigation was given to wheat crop before sowing to obtain uniform and good
germination. Then subsequent irrigations were given at an interval of 15-20 days as to
maintain adequate soil moisture in root zone. In all, the crop received six irrigations.
3.6.7 Harvesting
Harvesting of groundnut was done by uprooting the plants from each plot separately.
The pods were separated from plants. The soil adhering to the mature pods was removed
and developed pods were completely dried under shade and weight of the pods of each plot
taken in kg per plot and computed to quintal per ha.
Wheat crop was harvested at physiological maturity from each respective plots. The
harvested crop was kept for sun drying. Weight of total dry matter from each plot was then
recorded. The produce was cleaned after threshing and the weight of the grain from each plot
was recorded in kg per ha.
3.7 DETAILS OF COLLECTION OF EXPERIMENTAL DATA

Following are the observations recorded along with the techniques followed.
3.7.1 Observations on weeds

3.7.1.1 Weed population
The total number of weeds present was recorded at 20, 40 and 60 days after sowing.
Monocot, dicot and sedges present within a randomly selected 0.5 m x 0.5 m quadrant in
each net plot area were counted separately, number of weeds per m2 expressed and
subjected to statistical analysis.
3.7.1.2 Dry weight of weeds
Weed dry weight was recorded at 20, 40 and 60 days after sowing weeds in 0.5m x
0.5m quadrant in each net plot area were cut close to ground level and were dried at 700C to
a constant weight. Based on this data, dry weight of weeds per m2 was worked out and
2
expressed in g per m and subjected to statistical analysis.
3.7.1.3 Weed weight (kg/ha)
All the weeds present in net plot area of each treatment were cut close to the ground
level at the time of harvesting the crop and dried in the sun and weight was recorded. The
weed weight per plot was used for calculating the weed weight per ha.
3.7.1.4 Weed index
Weed index is defined as the reduction in yield due to the presence of weeds in
comparison to weed free plot. Weed index was calculated by using the formula given by Gill
and Vijayakumar (1969).
Where,
x = Pod yield in weed free plot
y = Pod yield in treated plot
3.7.1.5 Weed control efficiency (%)
The weed control efficiency was calculated by the following formula and expressed in
percentage
3.7.1.6 Crop toxicity rating
Visual rating of crop toxicity on wheat crop were made on 10 and 20 DAS to know the
extent of toxicity caused by different herbicides on crop as given by Rao (1986).
3.8 OBSERVATIONS ON GROUNDNUT

3.8.1 Growth components
Five plants were tagged at random in the net plot area for recording various growth
components at 30, 60 and 90 days after sowing and at harvest.
3.8.1.1 Plant height (cm)
The plant height was measured from the base of the plant to the tip of the main shoot
from the tagged plants and mean of plant height was worked out and expressed in
centimeters.
3.8.1.2 Number of green leaves per plant
The total number of fully opened leaves per plant were counted from the tagged
plants and their mean was taken as the number of leaves per plant.
3.8.1.3 Number of primary branches
The total number of primary branches arising from the main stem was counted from
the tagged plants and the mean was taken as the number of primary branches per plant.
3.8.1.4 Leaf area
The leaf area per plant was worked out by disc method on dry weight basis as per the
procedure outlined by Vivekanandan et al.. (1972)
Where,
2
LA = Leaf area (dm ) per plant
Wa = Oven dry weight of all leaves (including disc weight)
Wd = Oven dry weight of 20 disc in g
2
A = Area of the 20 discs (dm )
3.8.1.5 Leaf area index (LAI)
Leaf area index was worked out by dividing the leaf area per plant by land area
occupied by that plant and is defined as assimilatory surface (Sestak et al., 1971).
LAI = A/P
Where,
2
A = Leaf area m
P = Land area or spacing (dm2)
3.8.1.6 Dry matter accumulation
For this purpose, plants were selected randomly at different growth stages and they
were uprooted and plant parts were separated into stem, leaves and pods. These samples
were dried at 700C in hot air oven to a constant weight. The dried samples were weighed and
the dry weight of the different plant parts were expressed in g per plant.
3.8.2 Yield components

The following yield components were recorded from the five randomly selected plants
from net plot.
3.8.2.1 Number of pods per plant
Fully developed pods were separated from tagged plants and were counted and the
average was taken as the number of pods per plant.
3.8.2.2 Pod weight per plant
The weight of the pods per plant was recorded by weighing. These pods were air
dried before weighing and the average was taken as the pod weight per plant.
3.8.2.3 weight of 100 pods and 100 kernels
100 pods were taken from the net plot produce of each plot and their weight was
recorded. The same sample was used for recording 100 kernel weight.
3.8.2.4 Pod yield (q/ha)
Pods from the net plot area were cleaned and pod weight was recorded on the basis
of pod yield kg per plot and the pod yield quintal per hectare was calculated.
3.8.2.5 Shelling percentage
From each net plot produce, 100 g of cleaned pods were weighed and the kernels
obtained after shelling were also weighed. The shelling percentage was worked out by the
following formula.
3.8.2.6 Sound matured kernels (%)
Kernel samples obtained from shelled 100 g dry pods from each treatment were
taken and well developed kernels were sorted and sound matured kernels (%) were worked
out.
3.8.2.7 Oil content (%)
The estimation of oil content was done on dry seed weight basis by using Nuclear
magnetic Resonance Spectrometer.
3.9 OBSERVATIONS ON WHEAT CROP

3.9.1 Growth components
3.9.1.1 Plant height
Mean height of the five plants selected randomly and tagged in the net plot was
recorded as the height of the plant in centimetre at different growth stages of wheat. The
height was measured from the ground surface to the base of the fully opened leaf before
heading and to the tip of ear head of the main shoot after heading.
3.9.1.2 Productive tillers per plant
The number of ear bearing tillers were counted from five plants in net plot at
physiological maturity. The average was used as the productive tillers per plant.
3.9.1.3 Leaf area per metre row length
The length of the fully opened leaf lamina was measured from the base to the tip.
Leaf breadth was taken at the widened part of lamina. The product of leaf length and breadth
2
was multiplied by a factor (0.65) and was expressed as leaf area in dm per m row length
(Gomez and Gomez, 1984).
Leaf area index in the leaf area per unit area of land surface leaf area index was
calculated using the formula given by Sestak et al. (1971).
3.9.1.5 Ear length
Ear length was measured from the base to the tip of ear mean of 10 ears was
recorded as ear length in centimetre.
3.9.1.6 Dry matter production and accumulation
The fresh plant samples were collected to determine the total dry matter production
and its partitioning in to leaf, stem at 30 DAS, while in to stem, leaf and ear at 60 DAS, 90
DAS and at harvest. Plant samples were collected from one meter row length at each time.
0
After sampling, the plant parts were separated into different parts and oven dried at 70 C to a
constant weight to determine total dry matter. The data were expressed in g per metre row
length.
3.9.2 Yield components

3.9.2.1 Number of grains per spicklets
The total number of grains in the 10 ear heads used for working out the number of
spicklets per ear were counted and the mean number of grains per spicklets was worked out
by dividing the total grains with spickelet number.
3.9.2.2 Grain weight per ear
The total weight of grains obtained from each 10 ear selected at randomly from the
net plot was recorded and the mean was expressed in grams.
3.9.2.3 1000 grain weight
One thousand seeds were counted from the net plot seed yield and their weight was
recorded as 1000 grain weight in grams.
3.9.2.4 Grain yield in kg per hectare
Grain yield in kg per hectare was worked out based on the grain yield of net plot.
3.9.2.5 Straw yield in kg per hectare
The yield of above ground total dry matter (biological yield) per net plot was recorded
after sun drying and before threshing. Straw yield per net plot was computed by subtracting
the grain yield of net plot from the net plot biological yield. Straw yield worked out by using the
net plot yield.
3.9.2.6 Harvest index (%)
Harvest index was calculated using the formula given by Donald (1962).
Economic yield (seed yield)
HI = ---------------------------------------- x 100
Biological yield (seed yield + straw yield)
Grain yield (kg/ha) was divided by total dry matter yield (kg/ha) to get harvest index.
3.10 ECONOMICS ANALYSIS

The prices in rupees of the inputs that were prevailing at the time of their use were
considered for working out the cost of cultivation.
Net returns per ha was calculated by deducting the cost of cultivation per ha from
gross income per ha. Benefit cost ratio was worked out as follows.
3.11 TRANSFORMATION
Data on the weed count and weed dry weight showed high degree variation. A linear
relationship between the means and variance was observed and hence the data on weed
½
count was subjected to (x + 1) transformation, while the data on weed dry weight was
subjected to log (x+2) transformation to make analysis of variance valid as suggested by
Bartlett (1947) and Blackman and Roberts (1950a,b).
3.12 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Fisher’s method of analysis of variance was applied for the analysis and interpretation
of data as given by Gomez and Gomez (1984). The level of significance used in ‘F’ and ‘t’ test
was P=0.05, critical difference was calculated whenever ‘F’ test was significant.
IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The results of the field experiment conducted to study the weed management
practices in groundnut-wheat cropping system during the kharif and rabi seasons of 2005-06
are presented in this chapter.
4.1 OBSERVATIONS DURING KHARIF (GROUNDNUT)

4.1.1 Influence of weed control treatments on weeds
4.1.1.1 Weed flora
The important monocot weeds observed during kharif in the experimental site were
Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers, Panicum spp., Digitaria marginata Link., Dactyloctenium
aegyptium Link., Erogrostis gangetica Steud. While, common dicot weeds observed were
Euphorbia hirta L., Tribulus terrestris L., Phyllanthus niruri L., Commelina bengalensis L.,
Logasca mollis car, Tridax procumbense L., Amaranthus viridis L., Parthenium hysterophorus
L., Mimosa pudica L., Digetaria arvensis L., Portulaca oleraceae L., Conyza ambigua L.,
Cynotis cucullata L. and Leucus aspera Link. The common sedge observed was Cyperus
rotundus L.
4.1.1.2 Weed population (m-2)
The weed population observations recorded on weeds belong to monocots, dicots,
sedges and total weeds at different stages of crop growth are presented in the Tables 4, 5, 6
and 7, respectively.
4.1.1.3 Monocot weed count (m-2)
-2
The data on monocots (m ) at different crop growth stages are presented in Table 4.
-2
The number of monocots (m ) differed significantly due to weed control treatments at all the
growth stages.
At all the stages, significantly lower number of monocot weeds were recorded in
-2
weed free check (T5). At 20 DAS, T2 recorded on par result (1.41 m ) with weed free check.
-2
Weedy check recorded significantly higher number of monocot weeds (5.37 m ) over all other
treatments. At 40 DAS, all the weed control treatments recorded significantly lower number of
monocot weeds than weedy check (8.85 m-2). Treatments T4, T1 and T2 (2.23, 2.48 and 2.48
-2
m , respectively) recorded lowest number of monocot weeds but shown on par results each
-2
other. At 60 DAS, the lower number of monocot weeds were recorded in T4 (1.82 m ) which
-2
is on par with T2 (2.23 m ). Whereas, weedy check recorded significantly higher number of
monocot weeds (6.50 m-2) over all other treatments.
-2
4.1.1.2.2 Dicot weed count (m )
-2
The data pertaining to the number of dicot weeds (m ) at different stages of crop
growth are presented in Table 5.
The number of dicot weeds at different stages of crop growth differed significantly due to
weed control treatments. Weed free check recorded significantly lowest dicot weeds at all the
-2
stages except at 60 DAS. At 20 DAS T4 and T1 (2.23 and 2.48 m respectively) recorded
significantly lowest number of dicot weeds over weedy check (6.82 m-2) but resulted on par
with each other. At 40 DAS, all the other weed control treatments recorded significantly lower
-2 -2
weed population (2.74 to 5.50 m ) than weedy check (8.99 m ). At 60 DAS, significantly
-2
lower number of dicot weeds were recorded in weed free check (1.00 m ) but was on par with
-2
T4 and T1 (1.82 and 1.82 m respectively). Weedy check recorded significantly higher number
of dicot weeds (7.27 m-2) than all other treatments.
-2
Table 4. Effect of weed control treatments on monocot weed count (m ) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
Days after sowing

Treatments
20 DAS 40 DAS 60 DAS
T1 : Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS 2.06 (3.33)* 2.48 (5.33) 2.48 (5.33)
T2 : Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS 1 HW at 45 DAS 1.82 (2.66) 2.48 (5.33) 2.23 (4.00)
T3 : Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS 2.23 (4.00) 3.00 (8.00) 2.74 (6.66)
T4 : Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS 1.41 (1.33) 2.23 (4.00) 1.82 (2.66)
T5 : Weed free check 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00)
T6 : Weedy check 5.37 (28.00) 8.85 (77.33) 6.50 (37.33)
T7 : Farmers practice (3 IC at 20, 30 and 45 DAS + 1 HW at 40 DAS) 2.74 (6.66) 3.40 (10.66) 3.40 (10.66)
S.Em+ 0.19 0.11 0.14
CD at 5% 0.61 0.36 0.44
Original monocot weed count (x) data were transformed into (x + 1) ½ * Figures in parenthesis indicate original values
PE – Pre-Emergent HW – Hand Weeding
IC – Inter Cultivation DAS – Days After Sowing
Table 5. Effect of weed control treatments on dicot weed count (m-2) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
Days after sowing

Treatments
T5 : Weed free check 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00)
T6 : Weedy check 6.82 (46.66) 8.99 (80.00) 7.27 (52.00)
S.Em+ 0.13 0.18 0.26
CD at 5% 0.41 0.56 0.82
Original dicot weed count (x) data were transformed into (x + 1) ½ * Figures in parenthesis indicate original values
4.1.1.2.3 Sedge weed count (m-2)
The data pertaining to number of sedges at different stages of crop growth are
presented in Table 6.
The sedges at different stages of crop growth differed significantly due to weed
control treatments. At all the stages weed free check recorded significantly lower number of
sedges than all other treatments. At 20 DAS, T4 recorded significantly lower number of
-2
sedges (2.23 m ) compared to T3 and T7 (3.40 and 3.94 respectively) but resulted on par with
T1 and T2 (2.48 and 2.74 cm, respectively). Whereas, weedy check (T6) recorded significantly
higher (7.17 m-2) number of sedge over all other treatments. At 40 DAS, significantly higher
-2
number of sedges count was recorded in weedy check (6.86 m ) over rest of the treatments
-2
followed by T7 (4.10 m ). Treatment T4 recorded significantly lower number of sedges (1.82
m-2) over weedy check but was on par with T2 (2.48 m-2). At 60 DAS weed free check
recorded significantly lowest number of sedges followed by T4 (1.82 m-2). Weedy check
-2
recorded significantly higher number of sedges (8.77 m ) over other weed control treatments.
-2
4.1.1.2.4 Total weed count (m )
The data pertaining to total number of weeds (m-2) at different stages of crop growth
are given in Table 7 and depicted in Fig. 3.
The total number of weeds differed significantly among the treatments at all the
stages of crop growth. Weed free check recorded significantly lower number of total weeds at
all the stages over all the treatments. At 20 DAS T4 recorded significantly lower number of
total weeds (3.20 m-2) over weedy check (11.22 m-2) but resulted on par with T1 and T2 (3.77
-2
and 4.10 m , respectively). Whereas, weedy check recorded significantly higher number of
total weeds. At 40 DAS, significantly higher number of total weeds were recorded in weedy
check (14.31 m-2) over all other treatments. Among herbicide treatments, T3 recorded
-2
significantly higher total number of weeds compared to T4 and T2 (3.77 and 4.42 m
respectively), which were recorded lowest total number of weeds. At 60 DAS, same trend was
followed, however significantly lower total number of weeds recorded in weed free check over
all other treatments.
4.1.1.3 Dry weight of weeds (g m-2)
-2
The data pertaining to total dry weight of weeds (g m ) recorded at various growth
stages are presented in Table 8 and depicted in Fig. 4.
The dry weight of weeds at all the crop growth stages differed significantly due to
weed control treatments. At all the stages, weed free check recorded significantly lower dry
weight of weeds over all the treatments. At 20 DAS, significantly lower dry weight of weeds
-2 -2
was recorded in T4 (0.97 g m ) but was on par with T2 and T1 (1.12 and 1.14 g m
respectively). Treatments T3 and T7 recorded next significantly highest dry weight of weeds
-2
(1.37 and 1.65 g m respectively). Whereas, weedy check recorded significantly higher dry
-2
weight of weeds (2.08 g m ) over all other treatments. The same trend was followed in 40
and 60 DAS. Whereas, significantly lower dry weight of weeds recorded in T4 (1.13 and 1.12
g m-2 at 40 and 60 DAS respectively). Weedy check recorded significantly higher dry weight
of weeds (2.42 and 2.66 g m-2 at 40 and 60 DAS, respectively) over all other treatments.
-1
4.1.1.4 Weed weight (kg ha )
The data on weed weight recorded at harvest is presented in Table 9. and depicted in
Fig. 4.
-1
Weedy check recorded significantly higher weed weight (2113 kg ha ) over all other
treatments. Rest of the treatments were on par with each other. However, lowest weed weight
recorded in weed free check (115.5 kg ha-1) followed by T4 (133.3 kg ha-1).
Table 6. Effect of weed control treatments on sedge weed count (m-2) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
Days after sowing

Treatments
T5 : Weed free check 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00)
T6 : Weedy check 7.17 (50.66) 6.86 (46.66) 8.77 (76.00)
S.Em+ 0.17 0.26 0.23
CD at 5% 0.54 0.83 0.72
Original sedge weed count (x) data were transformed into (x + 1) ½ * Figures in parenthesis indicate original values
Table 7. Effect of weed control treatments on total weed count (m-2) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
Days after sowing

Treatments
T5 : Weed free check 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00)
T6 : Weedy check 11.22 (125.33) 14.31 (204.00) 12.89 (165.33)
S.Em+ 0.33 0.43 0.29
CD at 5% 1.02 1.34 0.90
Original total weed count (x) data were transformed into (x + 1) ½ * Figures in parenthesis indicate original values
16.00
14.00 LEGEND
T1 : Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC + 1 HW

12.00
Total weed count (m-2)
at 45 DAS
T2 : Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC
at 30 and 40 DAS 1 HW at 45 DAS
10.00
T3 : Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC
at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS
8.00 T4 : Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at
30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS
6.00
T6 : Weedy check
T7 : Farmers practice (3 IC at 20, 30 and
4.00 45 DAS + 1 HW at 40 DAS)
2.00
0.00
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments
-2
Fig. 3 : Effect of weed control teatments on total weed count (m ) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
Fig. 3 : Effect of weed control teatments on total weed count (m-2) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
Table 8. Effect of weed control treatments on dry weight of weed (m-2) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
Days after sowing

Treatments
T5 : Weed free check 0.30 (0.00) 0.30 (0.00) 0.30 (0.00)
T6 : Weedy check 2.08 (124.40) 2.42 (269.33) 2.66 (470.53)
T7 : Farmers practice (3 IC at 20, 30 and 45 DAS + 1 HW at 40 DAS) 1.65 (43.33) 1.98 96.80 2.18 (152.80)
S.Em+ 0.65 0.06 0.04
CD at 5% 0.20 0.19 0.14
Original dry weight of weeds (x) data were transformed into Log (x+2) * Figures in parenthesis indicate original values
3.00
LEGEND
2.50
Dry weight of weed (m )
-2
at 45 DAS
2.00 at 30 and 40 DAS 1 HW at 45 DAS
at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS
1.50 T4 : Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at
T5 : Weed f ree check
1.00 T6 : Weedy check
45 DAS + 1 HW at 40 DAS)
0.50
0.00
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments
Fig. 4 : Effect of weed control teatments on dry weight of weed (m-2) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
Fig. 4 : Effect of weed control teatments on dry weight of weed (m-2) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
The data on the weed control efficiency was presented in Table 9 and depicted in Fig.
4.
The significantly higher weed control efficiency was recorded in weed free check
(94.50%) over all other treatments except T4 (93.67%) which was recorded on par result.
Treatments T7, T2, T1 and T3 (92.02, 92.02, 90.92 and 90.48% respectively) recorded
significantly higher weed control efficiency over weedy check but resulted on par with each
other.
4.1.1.6 Weed index
The data pertaining to weed index is presented in Table 9 and depicted in Fig 4.
The results indicate that, the treatments differ significantly with each other. Weedy
check recorded significantly higher weed index (38.55%) over rest of the treatments. T4
recorded significantly lower weed index followed by T2 (2.63), T1 (6.84) and weed free check
(9.86).
4.1.2 Influence of weed control treatments on growth components

The data pertaining to plant height at different stages of crop growth are presented in
Table 10.
The plant height differed significantly among the treatments at all the stages of crop
growth. At 30 DAS, T4 recorded significantly higher plant height (10.13 cm) but was on par
with weed free check, T1, T2 and T3 (10.00, 9.80, 9.70 and 9.43 cm respectively). Weedy
check recorded significantly lower plant height (7.76 cm) than all other treatments.
At 60 DAS, T4 recorded significantly higher plant height (28.33 cm) but was on par with weed
free check (27.57 cm). While, T2 and T1 (26.20 and 26.10 cm respectively) were significantly
lower with weed free check and on par with each other. Significantly lower plant height was
recorded in weedy check (20.70 cm) over all the treatments. At 90 DAS, significantly higher
plant height was recorded in T4 (42.23 cm) but was on par with the treatments T2 and weed
free check (41.17 and 40.70 cm, respectively). Whereas, weedy check recorded significantly
lower plant height (31.87 cm) over all other treatments.
At harvest, T4 recorded significantly highest plant height (44.00 cm) over all other treatments,
followed by T2, T1 and T5 (42.40, 41.90 and 41.63 cm respectively). Weedy check recorded
significantly lower plant height (32.63 cm) over all the treatments.
4.1.2.2 Number of primary branches per plant
The data pertaining to number of primary branches per plant at different stages of
crop growth are presented in Table 11.
The results indicate that, number of primary branches per plant did not differ
significantly at 30 DAS. At 60 DAS, weedy check recorded significantly lower number of
primary branches per plant (4.00) over all other treatments. T4 recorded significantly higher
number (4.90) of primary branches, but was on par with T1, T5 and T2 (4.73, 4.66 and 4.60
respectively). At 90 DAS, same trend was followed. At harvest, significantly higher number
(6.06) of primary branches per plant was recorded in T4 but was on par with all other
treatments except T7 and T6, which recorded significantly lowest (5.00 and 4.40 respectively)
number of primary branches compared to T4.
Table 9. Effect of weed control treatments on weed weight (kg ha-1) at harvest, weed control efficiency (%) and weed index in groundnut
Weed weight (kg Weed control

Treatments Weed index
ha-1) efficiency (%)
T1 : Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS 187.30 90.92 3.31
T2 : Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS 1 HW at 45 DAS 167.30 92.02 7.99
T3 : Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS 200.43 90.48 5.78
T4 : Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS 133.33 93.67 10.94
T5 : Weed free check 115.53 94.50 0.00
T6 : Weedy check 2113.30 0.00 38.55
T7 : Farmers practice (3 IC at 20, 30 and 45 DAS + 1 HW at 40 DAS) 167.33 92.02 10.34
S.Em+ 26.67 0.49 0.55
CD at 5% 82.20 1.53 1.70
PE – Pre-Emergent HW – Hand Weeding IC – Inter Cultivation

Weed control efficiency (%) Weed index
100
Weed control efficiency (%) and weed
90
80
LEGEND
70
60 at 45 DAS
index

50 at 30 and 40 DAS 1 HW at 45 DAS
40 at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS
T4 : Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at
30
20 T5 : Weed free check
T6 : Weedy check
10 T7 : Farmers practice (3 IC at 20, 30 and
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments
Fig. 5 : Effect of we ed control treatments on weed control efficiency (%) and weed index in groundnut
Fig. 5 : Effect of weed control treatments on weed control efficiency (%) and weed index in groundnut
Table 10. Effect of weed control treatments on plant height (cm) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
Days after sowing

Treatments
30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS At harvest
T1 : Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45

9.80 26.10 40.37 41.90
DAS
T2 : Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS 1 HW at
9.70 26.20 41.17 42.40
45 DAS
T3 : Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW
9.43 24.63 37.33 38.97
at 45 DAS
T4 : Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at
10.13 28.33 42.23 44.00
45 DAS
T5 : Weed free check 10.00 27.57 40.70 41.63
T6 : Weedy check 7.76 20.70 31.87 32.63
T7 : Farmers practice (3 IC at 20, 30 and 45 DAS + 1 HW at 40 DAS) 8.80 23.20 36.43 37.67
S.Em+ 0.23 0.30 0.55 0.51
CD at 5% 0.71 0.94 1.72 1.58
PE – Pre-Emergent HW – Hand Weeding IC – Inter Cultivation DAS – Days After Sowing

4.1.2.3 Number of leaves per plant
The data on number of leaves per plant at different stages of crop growth are
The results indicate that, the treatments differed significantly at all the growth stages.
At 30 DAS, T4 recorded (32.53) significantly higher number of leaves, but was on par with T2
and T1 (30.33 and 29.80 respectively). While, weedy check recorded significantly lower
number of leaves (22.53). At 60 DAS, weedy check recorded significantly lower number of
leaves (35.86) than rest of the treatments. Among other treatments, T4 recorded (50.63)
significantly higher number of leaves, but was on par with T1, T2 and T5 (48.20, 48.00 and
47.80 respectively). At 90 DAS, T4 recorded significantly higher number of leaves (38.20) but
was on par with weed free check, T2 and T1 (37.57, 37.53 and 30.60 respectively). However,
weedy check recorded significantly lower number of leaves (28.43) than all other treatments.
At harvest, number of leaves were significantly higher in T4 (23.06) but was on par with T2
(22.63). Whereas, significantly lower number of leaves were recorded in weedy check
(17.43).
4.1.2.4 Leaf area (dm2 plant-1)
Data regarding leaf area dm2 per plant recorded at different crop growth stages are
At 30 DAS, the leaf area did not differed significantly. At 60 DAS, higher leaf area
(12.72 dm-2) was recorded in T4 and it was significantly superior over rest of the treatments
except T1, T5 and T2 (12.34, 11.90 and 11.84 dm-2 respectively). Significantly lower leaf area
-2
was recorded in weedy check (5.18 dm ) over all other treatments. At 90 DAS same trend
-2
was followed. At harvest, leaf area was significantly higher in T4 (5.06 dm ) and was on par
-2
with T2, T1 and T5 (4.72, 4.67 and 4.65 dm , respectively). Weedy check recorded
significantly lower leaf area (2.52 dm-2) over all the treatments.
4.1.2.5 Lea area index (LAI)
Data on leaf area index (LAI) at different stages of crop growth are presented in Table
14.
Leaf area index differed significantly at all the stages except at 30 DAS. At 60 DAS,
leaf area index recorded significantly higher in T4 (4.23) but was on par with T1, T5 and T2
(4.11, 3.96 and 3.94 respectively). While, weedy check recorded significantly lower leaf area
index (1.72) over all other treatments. The same trend was followed in 90 DAS. At harvest, T4
recorded significantly higher leaf area index (1.68) but was on par with T2, T1 and weed free
check (1.57, 1.55 and 1.55 respectively). Significantly, lower leaf area index was recorded in
weedy check (0.84) over all the treatments.
4.1.2.6 Dry matter production and its accumulation
4.1.2.6.1 Total dry matter production (g plant-1)
The data on dry matter production at different stages of crop growth are presented in
Table 15 and depicted in Fig. 5.
The results indicate that the dry matter production differed significantly at all the
-1
stages of crop growth. At 30 DAS, weedy check recorded (2.57 g plant ) significantly lower
-1
dry matter production than all other treatments. Among other treatments T4 (3.92 g plant )
was recorded significantly higher dry matter production but was on par with weed free check
and T2 (3.84 and 3.63 g plant-1 respectively). At 60 DAS, significantly highest dry matter
production was recorded in T4 (20.13 g, plant-1) but was on par with T2, T5 and T1 (19.61,
-1
19.54 and 19.18 g plant respectively). Among herbicidal treatments, T3 recorded (17.03 g
-1
plant ) significantly lowest dry matter production. Weedy check recorded significantly lowest
dry matter production (12.36 g plant-1) over all the treatments. The same trend was followed
in 90 DAS and at harvest. At harvest, weedy check recorded significantly lowest dry matter
-1
production (16.61 g plant ) over all the treatments. Dry matter production was recorded
-1
significantly higher in T4 (24.72 g plant ) but was on par with T2, T5 and T1 (23.92, 23.63 and
-1
23.59 g plant respectively).
Table 11. Effect of weed control treatments on number of primary branches per plant at different crop growth stages in groundnut
Days after sowing

Treatments

3.93 4.73 5.80 5.86
DAS
3.73 4.60 5.50 5.60
45 DAS
3.86 4.53 5.26 5.33
at 45 DAS
4.06 4.90 6.00 6.06
45 DAS
T5 : Weed free check 4.06 4.66 5.63 5.83
T6 : Weedy check 3.46 4.00 4.23 4.40
S.Em+ 0.15 0.10 0.21 0.22
CD at 5% NS 0.32 0.66 0.67
NS – Non significant
Table 12. Effect of weed control treatments on number of leaves per plant at different crop growth stages in groundnut
Days after sowing

Treatments

29.80 48.20 36.60 21.10
DAS
30.33 48.00 37.53 22.63
45 DAS
24.73 44.40 34.40 19.26
at 45 DAS
32.53 50.63 38.20 23.06
45 DAS
T5 : Weed free check 29.20 47.80 37.57 21.00
T6 : Weedy check 22.53 35.86 28.43 17.43
S.Em+ 0.97 1.03 1.01 0.43
CD at 5% 2.99 3.19 3.12 1.35

Table 13. Effect of weed control treatments on leaf area (dm-2) per plant at different crop growth stages in groundnut
Days after sowing

Treatments

2.94 12.34 9.29 5.06
DAS
2.69 11.84 9.15 4.72
45 DAS
2.45 9.05 7.14 4.08
at 45 DAS
2.89 12.72 9.88 4.67
45 DAS
T5 : Weed free check 3.26 11.90 8.93 4.65
T6 : Weedy check 2.15 5.18 3.14 2.52
S.Em+ 0.30 0.74 0.37 0.14
CD at 5% NS 2.28 1.14 0.44
NS- Non significant

Table 14. Effect of weed control treatments on leaf area index per plant at different crop growth stages in groundnut
Days after sowing

Treatments

0.98 4.11 3.09 1.55
DAS
0.89 3.94 3.05 1.57
45 DAS
0.81 3.03 2.46 1.36
at 45 DAS
0.96 4.23 3.29 1.68
45 DAS
T5 : Weed free check 1.08 3.96 2.97 1.55
T6 : Weedy check 0.71 1.72 1.13 0.84
S.Em+ 0.07 0.18 0.14 0.05
CD at 5% NS 0.58 0.43 0.17
NS- Non significant

Table 15. Effect of weed control treatments on total dry matter production (g plant-1) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
Days after sowing

Treatments

3.49 19.18 21.56 23.59
DAS
3.63 19.61 22.18 23.92
45 DAS
3.22 17.03 18.81 21.56
at 45 DAS
3.92 20.13 23.65 24.72
45 DAS
T5 : Weed free check 3.84 19.54 21.83 23.63
T6 : Weedy check 2.57 12.36 12.41 16.61
S.Em+ 0.10 0.42 0.64 0.60
CD at 5% 0.31 1.31 1.97 1.84

27
LEGEND

Total dry matter production (g/plant)
22
at 45 DAS
at 30 and 40 DAS 1 HW at 45 DAS
12 T6 : Weedy check
2
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments
Fig. 6 : Effect of weed control treatments on total dry matter production at different crop growth
stages in Groundnut
Fig. 6 : Effect of weed control treatments on total dry matter production at different crop growth stages in Groundnut
4.1.2.6.1.1 Dry matter accumulation in leaves (g plant–1)
The data pertaining to dry matter accumulation in leaves at different stages of crop
At 30 DAS, dry matter accumulation in leaves did not differ significantly among the
different weed control treatments. At 60 DAS, the dry matter accumulated in leaves in
-1
treatment T4 was significantly higher (7.33 g plant ) than other treatments except weed free
-1
check, T2 and T1 (7.16, 7.04 and 6.80 g plant , respectively). Significantly lower dry matter
accumulation recorded in T7 and weedy check (4.46 and 3.26 g plant-1). At 90 DAS, weedy
check recorded significantly lower dry matter accumulation in leaves (2.10 g plant-1) over all
-
the treatments. Where T4 recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation (5.67 g plant
1 -1
) but was on par with T2, T5 and T1 (5.43, 5.36 and 5.10 g plant respectively). Similar trend
was followed at harvest, however weedy check recorded significantly lower dry matter
accumulation in leaves (1.75 g plant-1) than all other treatments.
-1
4.1.2.6.1.2 Dry matter accumulation in stem (g plant )
The data pertaining to dry matter accumulation in stem at different stages of crop
At 30 DAS, significantly higher dry matter accumulation in stem was recorded in T4
(2.15 g plant-1) but was on par with T2 and T5 (2.03 and 1.96 g plant-1 respectively). Weedy
check recorded significantly lower dry matter accumulation in stem (1.26 g plant-1) over all the
treatments. At 60 DAS, T4 recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation in stem
-1 -1
(7.30 g plant ) but was on par with T2, T1 and weed free check (7.16, 7.03 and 7.02 g plant
respectively). Significantly lower dry matter accumulation was recorded in weedy check (5.53
g plant-1) over all the treatments. At 90 DAS, dry matter accumulation in stem was
significantly lower in weedy check (4.20 g plant-1) over all the treatments. T4 recorded
-1
significantly higher (7.95 g plant ) dry matter accumulation in stem but was on par with T2
-1
(7.60 g plant ). At harvest dry matter accumulation in stem was recorded significantly higher
in T4 (8.54 g plant-1) but was on par with T2, T1 and weed free check (8.38, 8.30 and 8.28 g
-1
plant respectively). However, weedy check recorded significantly lower dry matter
-1
accumulation in stem (6.00 g plant ) over all other treatments.
-1
4.1.2.6.1.3 Dry matter accumulation in pods (g plant )
The data pertaining to dry matter accumulation in pods are presented in Table 18.
The results indicated that the treatments differed significantly with respect to dry
matter accumulation in pods due to weed control treatments at 60, 90 DAS and at harvest.
At 60 DAS, the dry matter accumulation in pods was significantly lower in weedy
check (3.56 g plant-1) than all other treatments. Among other treatments T4 recorded
significantly higher (5.53 g plant-1) dry matter accumulation in pods but was on par with T2,
-1
weed free check and T1 (5.40, 5.36 and 5.34 g plant respectively). At 90 DAS and harvest
same trend was followed. At harvest dry matter accumulation in pod was recorded
significantly higher in T4 (13.13 g plant-1) but was on par with T2, T1 weed free check (12.73,
12.50 and 12.46 g plant-1 respectively). Among herbicide treatments, T3 recorded lowest dry
-1
matter accumulation in pods (11.36 g plant ). Dry matter accumulation in pods recorded
-1
significantly lower in weedy check (8.86 g plant ) over all other treatments.
4.1.3 Influence of weed control treatments on yield and yield components

The observations on yield components namely number of pods per plant, 100 pod
weight and 100 kernel weight are presented in Table 19.
-1
Table 16. Effect of weed control treatments on dry matter accumulation in leaves (g plant ) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
Days after sowing

Treatments

1.57 6.80 5.10 2.79
DAS
1.60 7.04 5.43 2.80
45 DAS
1.40 5.43 4.42 2.43
at 45 DAS
1.76 7.33 5.67 3.05
45 DAS
T5 : Weed free check 1.87 7.16 5.36 2.88
T6 : Weedy check 1.31 3.26 2.10 1.75
S.Em+ 0.15 0.43 0.19 0.11
CD at 5% NS 1.34 0.60 0.34
NS- Non significant

Table 17. Effect of weed control treatments on dry matter accumulation in stem (g plant-1) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
Days after sowing

Treatments

1.91 7.03 7.06 8.30
DAS
2.03 7.16 7.60 8.38
45 DAS
1.82 6.26 6.26 7.76
at 45 DAS
2.15 7.30 7.95 8.54
45 DAS
T5 : Weed free check 1.96 7.02 7.12 8.28
T6 : Weedy check 1.26 5.53 4.20 6.00
S.Em+ 0.07 0.18 0.25 0.16
CD at 5% 0.21 0.58 0.79 0.51

Table 18. Effect of weed control treatments on dry matter accumulation in pods (g plant-1) at different crop growth stages in groundnut
Days after sowing

Treatments
60 DAS 90 DAS At harvest
T5 : Weed free check 5.36 9.33 12.46
T6 : Weedy check 3.56 6.11 8.86
S.Em+ 0.10 0.24 0.33
CD at 5% 0.31 0.76 1.02

Table 19. Effect of weed control treatments on number of pods per plant, 100 pod weight (g) and 100 kernel weight (g) at different crop
growth stages in groundnut
Number of pods 100 pod weight 100 kernel

Treatments
per plant (g) weight (g)
T5 : Weed free check 12.90 127.26 46.41
T6 : Weedy check 8.36 108.41 39.14
S.Em+ 0.62 1.95 0.57
CD at 5% 1.93 6.01 1.76

4.1.3.1 Number of pods per plant
Number of pods per plant of groundnut differed significantly due to weed control
treatments.
Significantly higher number of pods per plant was recorded in T4 (14.60) but was on
par with T2, T1 and T5 (13.63, 12.93 and 12.90 respectively), T3 recorded significantly lower
number of pods per plant (10.86) among herbicides but was on par with T7 (10.53). Weedy
check recorded significantly lower number of pods per plant (8.36) over all other treatments.
4.1.3.2 100 pod weight (g)
The variation in 100 pods weight of groundnut due to different weed control treatment
was significant. T4 recorded significantly higher 100 pod weight (131.9 g) and was on par with
T2, weed free check and T1 (127.4, 127.3 and 126.4 g respectively). Significantly lower 100
pod weight was recorded in weedy check (108.4 g).
4.1.3.3 100 kernel weight (g)
The data on 100 kernel weight differed significantly among the weed control
treatments. However, weedy check recorded significantly lower (39.14 g) 100 kernel weight
over all the treatments. 100 kernel weight recorded significantly higher in treatment T4 (46.84
g) but was on par with the treatments weed free check and T2 (46.41 and 45.93, respectively).
4.1.3.4 Shelling (%)
The data on shelling percentage recorded under different treatments are presented in
Table 20.
Weedy check recorded significantly lowest shelling percentage (70.03%) than all
other treatments. Significantly higher shelling percentage was recorded in T4 (77.25%), which
was on par with T2, T5 and T1 (76.18, 75.99 and 75.56% respectively). Among herbicide
treatments T3 recorded lower shelling percentage (73.04%) but was on par with T7 (72.65%).
4.1.3.5 Sound matured kernels (%)
The data on sound matured kernels (%) recorded under various treatments are
Weedy check recorded significantly lowest (79.17%) sound matured kernel
percentage over all other weed control treatments. However, significantly higher sound
matured kernel percentage was recorded in T4 (90.31%) but was on par with T2, T1 and weed
free check (88.61, 87.83 and 87.69% respectively).
4.1.3.6 Pod yield (q ha-1)
The data on pod yield of groundnut as influenced by different weed control treatments
are presented in Table 21 and depicted in Fig. 6. The pod yield of groundnut differed
significantly due to different weed control treatments.
T4 recorded significantly highest pod yield (23.53 q ha-1) but was on par with
treatments T2, T1 and weed free check (22.87, 21.87 and 21.20 q ha-1 respectively). Among
-1
herbicide treatments T3 (19.93 q ha ) recorded lower pod yield. Significantly lower pod yield
-1
was recorded in weedy check (13.00 q ha ) over all other weed control treatments.
4.1.3.7 Haulm yield (q ha-1)
The data on the haulm yield of groundnut as influenced by different weed control
treatments are presented in Table 21 and depicted in Fig. 6.
-1
Treatment T4 recorded significantly higher haulm yield (30.97 q ha ) but was on par
with all other treatments except weedy check (20.57 q ha-1) weedy check recorded
significantly lower haulm yield than all other weed control treatments.
Table 20. Effect of weed control treatments on shelling percentage and sound matured kernels in groundnut
Sound matured
Treatments Shelling (%)
kernels
T1 : Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS 75.56 87.83
T2 : Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS 1 HW at 45 DAS 76.18 88.61
T3 : Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS 73.04 85.03
T4 : Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS 77.25 90.31
T5 : Weed free check 75.99 87.69
T6 : Weedy check 70.03 79.17
T7 : Farmers practice (3 IC at 20, 30 and 45 DAS + 1 HW at 40 DAS) 72.65 84.52
S.Em+ 0.70 0.93
CD at 5% 2.17 2.88

Table 21. Effect of weed control treatments on pod yield (q ha-1), haulm yield (q ha-1) and oil content (%) in groundnut
Pod yield (q Haulm yield (q

Treatments Oil content (%)
ha-1) ha-1)
T5 : Weed free check 21.20 28.91 48.10
T6 : Weedy check 13.00 20.57 48.76
S.Em+ 1.04 1.14 0.24
CD at 5% 3.22 3.53 NS

Pod yield Haulm yield
35.00
LEGEND
30.00 T1 : Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at

Pod yield and Haulm yield (q/ha)

T2 : Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2
IC at 30 and 40 DAS 1 HW at 45 DAS
25.00 T3 : Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg per ha PE +
2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS
20.00 T5 : Weed free check
T6 : Weedy check
T7 : Farmers practice (3 IC at 20, 30 and 45
DAS + 1 HW at 40 DAS)
15.00
10.00
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments
Fig. 7 : Effect of weed control treatments on pod yield and haulm yield in groundnut
Fig. 7 : Effect of weed control treatments on pod yield and haulm yield in groundnut
4.1.3.8 Oil content (%)
The data on oil content as influenced by various treatments are presented in Table
21. The data revealed that there was no significant difference in oil content due to various
treatments. However, highest oil content was recorded in T1 (48.93%).
4.2 OBSERVATIONS DURING RABI (WHEAT)

4.2.1 Influence of weed control treatments on weeds
4.2.1.1 Weed flora
The prominant monocot weeds observed in experimental site include Cynodon
dactylon pers, Echinochloa colonum (L.) Link., Dinebra retroflexa (vanl.) penz. Among dicots
includes Alterananthera sessilis (L.) DC., Amaranthus spp., Bidens pilosa L., Cassia cericea
L., Convolvulus arvensis L., Lactuca runcinata D. C., Parthenium hysterophorus L.,
Phyllanthus niruri L. and Portulaca oleracea (L.). The common sedge observed was Cyperus
ratundus L.
4.2.1.2 Crop toxicity ratings
The observations of phytotoxicity on 0-100 scale were made at 10 and 20 DAS. The
pre-emergent herbicides sprayed on groundnut crop has not shown any crop phytotoxicity on
succeeding wheat crop.
4.2.1.3 Weed population (m-2)
Observations recorded on monocot, dicot, sedge and total weed population at
different stages of crop growth are presented in Table 22, 23, 24 and 25 respectively.
-2
4.2.1.3.1 Monocot weed count (m )
Monocot weed count differed significantly due to different weed control treatments at
all the stages of crop growth. Weedy check (T6) recorded markedly higher monocot weed
count at all the stages of crop growth. Weed free check (T5) accounted for markedly lower
monocot weeds at all the stages since no weeds were allowed to grow. At 20 DAS, weedy
check recorded higher monocot weed count (6.39 m-2) but resulted on par with rest of the
-2
treatments except T1 and weed free check (5.96 and 1.00 m respectively) which recorded
lower monocot weed count. At 40 DAS, T2 recorded significantly lower monocot weed count
(2.48 m-2) but was on par with T4 and T1 (3.14 and 3.20 m-2 respectively). Whereas, weedy
check recorded significantly higher (8.83 m-2) number of monocot weed count over all the
-2
treatments. At 60 DAS, T2 recorded significantly lower (1.82 m ) monocot weed count which
-2
is closely followed by T4 (2.33 m ). Whereas, significantly higher monocot weed count was
-2
recorded in weedy check (7.88 m ) over all other weed control treatments.
4.2.1.3.2 Dicot weed count (m-2)
-2
The data pertaining to number of dicot weed count (m ) at different stages of crop
In all the stages significantly lower dicot weed count was recorded in weed free
check. At 20 DAS, higher dicot weed count was recorded in weedy check (6.70 m-2) but was
on par with rest of the treatments except weed free check. At 40 DAS, T2 recorded
-2 -2
significantly lower dicot weed count (3.00 m ) but was on par with T4 (3.40 m ). Whereas,
-2
weedy check recorded significantly higher (7.27 m ) dicot weed count over all the treatments.
At 60 DAS, significantly lower dicot weed count was recorded in T2 (2.23 m-2) over all the
-2
treatments. Significantly higher dicot weed count was recorded in weedy check (7.80 m )
over rest of the treatments.
4.2.1.3.3 Sedge weed count (m-2)
The data pertaining to the sedge weed count (m-2) at different growth stages is
Weedy check recorded significantly higher sedge weed count (m-2) at all the stages
except at 20 DAS. Whereas, weed free check recorded significantly lower sedge weed count
-2 -2
(m ). At 40 DAS, weedy check recorded significantly higher sedge weed count (5.62 m )
-2
over all the treatments. T2 recorded significantly lower sedge weed count (1.82 m ) but was
on par with T4 and T1 (2.07 and 2.23 m-2 respectively). At 60 DAS, T2 recorded significantly
-2
lower sedge weed count (1.41 m ) but was on par with weed free check. Whereas, weedy
-2
check (T6) recorded significantly higher sedge weed count (6.70 m ) over all the treatments.
4.2.1.3.4 Total weed count (m-2)
Data pertaining to total weed count (m-2 respectively) at different stages of crop
growth is presented in Table 25 and depicted in Fig. 7.
-2
The total weed count (m ) at all the stages recorded significantly lower in weed free
check. At 20 DAS, T2 recorded significantly lower total weed count (9.06 m-2) but was on par
with rest of the treatments except weedy check, which recorded higher (9.62 m-2) total weed
-2
count. At 40 DAS, significantly lower total weed count was recorded in T2 (4.12 m ), rest of
-2
the treatments T4, T1 and T3 (4.98, 5.10 and 5.61 m ) resulted on par with each other.
Whereas, weedy check recorded significantly higher (12.68 m-2) total weed count over all the
treatments. At 60 DAS, T2 recorded significantly lower total weed count (2.94 m-2) but was on
par with weed free check. Significantly higher total weed count was recorded in weedy check
-2
(12.86 m ) over all the treatments.
4.2.1.4 Dry weight of weeds (g m-2)
The data pertaining to dry weight of weeds recorded at different growth stages of crop
is presented in Table 26.
At all the stages weedy check recorded significantly higher dry weight of weeds
except at 20 DAS. Weed free check recorded significantly lower dry weight of weeds (g m-2)
at all the stages. At 40 DAS, T2 recorded significantly lower dry weight of weeds (1.01 g m-2).
-2
Whereas, T4, T1 and T3 (1.08, 1.12, 1.14 g m respectively) resulted on par with each other
but significantly differ with T2. Weedy check recorded significantly higher dry weight of weeds
(1.68 g m-2) over all the treatments. At 60 DAS, significantly lower dry weight of weeds was
recorded in T2 (1.12 g m-2) as compared to other treatments. Whereas, weedy check recorded
-2
significantly higher (1.84 g m ) dry weight of weeds over all other treatments.
-1
4.2.1.5 Weed weight (kg ha )
The data on weed weight recorded at harvest is presented in Table 27.
Weed weight differs significantly among the treatments. However, significantly higher
-1
weed weight was recorded in weedy check (1430 kg ha ) over other treatments. Significantly
-1
lower weed weight recorded in T2 (164 kg ha ) but was on par with T4 and T1 (197 and 222 kg
ha-1 respectively). Among herbicide treatments T3 (247 kg ha-1) recorded higher weed weight.
The data on weed control efficiency was presented in Table 27 and depicted in Fig. 8.
Weed control efficiency differed significantly due to various weed control treatments.
Significantly higher weed control efficiency was recorded in weed free check followed by T2
(88.40%), T4 (86.01%) and T1 (84.32%). However, significantly lower weed control efficiency
was recorded in weedy check.
4.2.1.7 Weed index
The data pertaining to weed index is presented in Table 27 and depicted in Fig. 8.
Among different weed control treatments weed free check recorded significantly lower
weed index followed by T2 (5.66). Other herbicide treatments T4, T1 and T3 (13.29, 15.70 and
18.14 respectively) resulted on par with each other. However, significantly higher weed index
was recorded in weedy check (44.22) over other weed control treatments.
-2
Table 22. Effect of weed control treatments on monocot weed count (m ) at different crop growth stages in wheat
Days after sowing

Treatments
T1 : 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS 5.96 (34.66)* 3.20 (9.33) 2.48 (5.33)
T2 : Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS 6.18 (37.33) 2.48 (5.33) 1.82 (2.66)
T3 : Metsulfuron methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS 6.29 (38.66) 3.60 (12.00) 2.74 (6.66)
T4 : Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS 6.39 (40.00) 3.14 (9.33) 2.33 (5.33)
T5 : Weed free check 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00)
T6 : Weedy check 6.394 (40.00) 8.83 (77.33) 7.88 (61.33)
T7 : Farmers practice (2 IC at 20 and 40 DAS) 6.143 (37.33) 4.10 (16.00) 3.20 (9.33)
S.Em+ 0.11 0.27 0.17
CD at 5% 0.35 0.84 0.53
Original monocot weed count (x) data were transformed into (x + 1) ½ * Figures in parenthesis indicate original values
Table 23. Effect of weed control treatments on dicot weed count (m-2) at different crop growth stages in wheat
Days after sowing

Treatments
T1 : 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS 6.40 (40.00) 3.57 (12.00) 2.74 (6.66)
T5 : Weed free check 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00)
T6 : Weedy check 6.70 (44.00) 7.27 (52.00) 7.80 (60.00)
S.Em+ 0.17 0.13 0.15
CD at 5% 0.52 0.40 0.46
Original dicot weed count (x) data were transformed into (x + 1) ½ * Figures in parenthesis indicate original values
Table 24. Effect of weed control treatments on sedge weed count (m-2) at different crop growth stages in wheat
Days after sowing

Treatments
T5 : Weed free check 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00)
T6 : Weedy check 3.00 (8.00) 5.62 (30.66) 6.70 (44.00)
S.Em+ 0.15 0.14 0.15
CD at 5% 0.48 0.43 0.48
Original edge weed count (x) data were transformed into (x + 1) ½ * Figures in parenthesis indicate original values
Table 25. Effect of weed control treatments on total weed count (m-2) at different crop growth stages in wheat
Days after sowing

Treatments
T5 : Weed free check 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00) 1.00 (0.00)
T6 : Weedy check 9.62 (92.00) 12.68 (160.00) 12.86 (165.33)
S.Em+ 013 0.22 0.64
CD at 5% 0.42 0.67 1.98
Original total weed count (x) data were transformed into (x + 1) ½ * Figures in parenthesis indicate original values
14.00
12.00
LEGEND
Total weed count (m )
-2
10.00
8.00 T3 : Metsulfuron methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS
6.00 T6 : Weedy check
T7 : Farmers practice (2 IC at 20 and 40 DAS)
4.00
2.00
0.00
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments
-2
Fig. 8 : Effect of weed control teatments on total weed count (m ) at different crop growth stages in wheat
Fig. 8 : Effect of weed control teatments on total weed count (m-2) at different crop growth stages in wheat
Table 26. Effect of weed control treatments on dry weight (g m-2) at different crop growth stages in wheat
Days after sowing

Treatments
T5 : Weed free check 0.30 (0.00) 0.30 (0.00) 0.30 (0.00)
T6 : Weedy check 1.42 (25.03) 1.68 (47.36) 1.84 (68.63)
S.Em+ 0.25 0.01 0.03
CD at 5% 0.07 0.05 0.09
Original dry weight of weeds (x) data were transformed into (log (x +2) * Figures in parenthesis indicate original values
2
1.8
Dry weight of weeds (g m )
-2
1.6 LEGEND
1.4 T1 : 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS

1.2 T3 : Metsulfuron methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS
1 T6 : Weedy check
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatme nts
-2
Fig. 9 : Effect of weed control teatments on dry weight of weeds (g m ) at different crop growth stages in wheat
Fig. 9 : Effect of weed control teatments on dry weight of weeds (g m-2) at different crop growth stages in wheat
Table 27. Effect of weed control treatments on weed weight (kg ha-1), weed control efficiency (%) and weed index in wheat
Weed weight (kg Weed control

Treatments Weed index
ha-1) efficiency (%)
T1 : 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS 223 84.32 15.70
T2 : Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS 164 88.40 5.66
T3 : Metsulfuron methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS 248 82.44 18.14
T4 : Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS 185 86.01 13.29
T5 : Weed free check 000 100.00 0.00
T6 : Weedy check 143 0.00 44.22
T7 : Farmers practice (2 IC at 20 and 40 DAS) 315 77.64 23.66
S.Em+ 022 0.67 1.68
CD at 5% 069 2.07 5.19

Weed control efficiency (%) Weed index
100.00
LEGEND
80.00 T1 : 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS
T3 : Metsulfuron methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS
60.00 T4 : Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS
T6 : Weedy check
40.00
20.00
0.00
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments
Fig. 10 : Effect of weed control teatments on weed control efficiency (%) and weed index in wheat
Fig. 10 : Effect of weed control teatments on weed control efficiency (%) and weed index in wheat
4.2.2 Influence of weed control treatments on growth components
The data recorded on plant height at different crop growth stages are presented in
Table 28.
Plant height was significantly influenced by different weed control treatments in all the
stages of crop growth except at 30 DAS. Weed free check recorded significantly higher (29.66
cm) plant height over weedy check (23.30 cm). At 60 DAS, weed free check recorded
significantly higher plant height (56.00 cm) but was on par with T7 and T2 (54.26 and 54.06 cm
respectively). Whereas, weedy check recorded significantly lower plant height (49.33 cm)
over weed free check. At 90 DAS, weed free check recorded significantly higher
plant height (82.73 cm) but was on par with T2 (80.20 cm). Among herbicide treatments T3
recorded lower plant height (75.86 cm). Significantly lower plant height was recorded in
weedy check (68.73 cm) over all the treatments. At harvest, same trend was followed,
whereas weedy check recorded significantly lower plant height (70.86 cm) over rest of the
treatments.
4.2.2.2 Number of productive tillers per plant
The data pertaining to number of productive tillers per plant at different crop stages is
Number of productive tillers per plant differed significantly among the treatments. At
60 DAS, weedy check recorded significantly lower number of productive tillers per plant
(1.33). Whereas, weed free check recorded significantly higher number of productive tillers
per plant (3.26) but was on par with T2 (2.90). At harvest, weed free check recorded
significantly higher number of productive tillers per plant (9.13) but was on par with T2 (8.76).
Among herbicide treatments, T1 recorded lower number of productive tillers (7.00) per plant.
Significantly lower number of reproductive tillers per plant was recorded in weedy check
(6.06) over other treatments.
-2
4.2.2.3 Leaf area (dm ) per meter row length
The data pertaining to leaf area per metre row length at different stages of crop
Differences in leaf area due to various weed control treatments were significant at all
the stages except at 30 DAS, which recorded no significant variation among the treatments.
At 60 DAS, leaf area per meter row length was recorded significantly higher in weed free
check (62.38 dm-1) but was on par with T2 (61.34 dm-2). Whereas, weedy check recorded
-2
significantly lower leaf area (47.50 dm ) over all the weed control treatments. At 90 DAS,
-2
weedy check recorded significantly lower leaf area (38.26 dm ) per meter row length over all
the treatments. Significantly higher leaf area recorded in weed free check (53.47 dm-2) but
was on par with T2 (52.34 dm-2). Other herbicide treatments T4, T3 and T1 (50.05, 48.72 and
48.56 respectively) resulted on par with each other.
The data on LAI at different growth stages of the crop are presented in Table 31.
At 30 DAS, there was no significant difference among the treatments. At 60 DAS, leaf
area index differ significantly among the treatments. Whereas, weed free check recorded
significantly higher leaf area index (2.07) but was on par with T2 and T4 (2.04 and 2.01
respectively). While, weedy check recorded significantly lower leaf area index (1.58) over
other treatments. At 90 DAS, weed free check recorded significantly higher leaf area index
(1.77) but was on par with T2 (1.74) rest of the herbicide treatments T4, T3 and T1 (1.66, 1.62
and 1.61 respectively) resulted on par with each other. Significantly lower leaf area index was
recorded in weedy check (1.27) over other treatments.
Table 28. Effect of weed control treatments on plant height (cm) at different crop growth stages in wheat
Days after sowing

Treatments
T1 : 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS 25.50 51.53 77.20 79.30
T2 : Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS 28.63 54.06 80.20 81.83
T3 : Metsulfuron methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS 27.63 50.43 75.86 78.16
T4 : Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS 28.16 51.36 79.06 80.43
T5 : Weed free check 29.66 56.00 82.73 84.30
T6 : Weedy check 23.30 49.33 68.93 70.86
T7 : Farmers practice (2 IC at 20 and 40 DAS) 25.30 54.26 72.80 74.50
S.Em+ 1.79 0.71 0.92 0.83
CD at 5% NS 2.19 2.83 2.57
IC – Inter Cultivation DAS – Days after sowing

Table 29. Effect of weed control treatments on productive tillers per plant at different crop growth stages in wheat
Days after sowing

Treatments
60 DAS At harvest
T1 : 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS 2.40 7.00
T2 : Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS 2.90 8.76
T3 : Metsulfuron methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS 1.80 7.16
T4 : Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS 2.53 7.96
T6 : Weedy check 1.33 6.06
T7 : Farmers practice (2 IC at 20 and 40 DAS) 2.06 6.60
S.Em+ 0.13 0.15
CD at 5% 0.41 0.49

Table 30. Effect of weed control treatments on leaf area (dm-2) at different crop growth stages in wheat
Days after sowing

Treatments
T1 : 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS 35.51 57.95 48.56
T2 : Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS 36.60 61.34 52.34
T3 : Metsulfuron methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS 35.74 56.28 48.72
T4 : Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS 36.85 60.49 50.05
T5 : Weed free check 38.88 62.38 53.47
T6 : Weedy check 31.41 47.50 38.26
T7 : Farmers practice (2 IC at 20 and 40 DAS) 35.37 56.15 45.89
S.Em+ 1.50 0.43 0.64
CD at 5% NS 1.33 1.99
NS – Non significant IC – Inter Cultivation DAS – Days After Sowing

Table 31. Effect of weed control treatments on leaf area index per row length at different crop growth stages in wheat
Days after sowing

Treatments
T5 : Weed free check 1.29 2.07 1.77
T6 : Weedy check 1.01 1.58 1.27
S.Em+ 0.05 0.02 0.02
CD at 5% NS 0.07 0.07
NS – Non significant IC – Inter Cultivation DAS – Days After Sowing

4.2.2.5 Dry matter production and its accumulation
-1
4.2.2.5.1 Total dry matter production (g m row length)
The data pertaining to total dry matter production is presented in Table 32 and
depicted in Fig. 9.
Significant differences among the treatments were found with respect to total dry
matter production at all the growth stages except at 30 DAS. At 60 DAS significantly higher
total dry matter production was recorded in weed free check (110.6 g m-1 row length) but was
on par with T2 (107.1 g m-1 row length). Whereas, weedy check recorded significantly lower
total dry matter production (66.43 g m-1 row length) over other treatments. At 90 DAS same
trend was followed. At harvest weed free check recorded significantly higher total dry matter
-1 -1
production (232.3 g m row length) followed by T2 (221.3 g m row length). Among herbicide
treatments T3 recorded lower total dry matter production (197.7 g m-1 row length). Significantly
lower total dry matter production was recorded in weedy check (164.8 g m-1 row length) over
other weed control treatments.
-1
4.2.2.5.1.1 Dry matter accumulation in leaves (g m row length)
The data pertaining to dry matter accumulation in leaves are presented in Table 33.
Differences in dry matter accumulation in leaves was due to various weed control
treatments were significant at all the stages of crop growth except at 30 DAS. At 60 DAS
significantly superior results in dry matter accumulation in leaves was recorded in weed free
check (46.83 g m-1 row length) but was on par with T2 (45.13 g m-1 row length). Weedy check
recorded significantly lower dry matter accumulation in leaves (25.93 g m-1 row length) over
other treatments. At 90 DAS, weed free check recorded significantly higher dry matter
accumulation in leaves (43.30 g m-1 row length) but was on par with T2 (41.86 g m-1 row
length). While, weedy check recorded significantly lower dry matter accumulation in leaves
(22.73 g m-1 row length) over other treatments. At harvest, same trend was followed.
-1
However, weedy check recorded significantly lower dry matter accumulation (19.10 g m row
length) compared to all other treatments.
4.2.2.5.1.2 Dry matter accumulation in stem (g m-1 row length)
The data pertaining to dry matter accumulation in stem at different stages of crop
At 30 DAS, there was no significant difference among the various treatments. At 60
DAS, weed free check recorded significantly higher (50.83 g m-1 row length) dry matter
accumulation in stem but was on par with T2 (49.16 g m-1 row length). Whereas, weedy check
-1
recorded significantly lower (32.66 g m row length) dry matter accumulation in stem over
other treatments. At 90 DAS, significantly lower dry matter accumulation in stem was
recorded in weedy check (69.56 g m-1 row length) followed by T7 (78.26 g m-1 row length).
Whereas, weed free check recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation in stem
-1 -1
(88.53 g m row length) but was on par with T2 (86.90 g m row length). At harvest, weed
-1
free check recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation (86.46 g m row length) but
was on par with T2 (84.83 g m row length). Among herbicide treatments T3 (78.03 g m-1 row
-1
length) recorded lower dry matter accumulation in stem. Significantly lower dry mater
-1
accumulation in stem was recorded in weedy check (67.53 g m row length) over other
treatments.
4.2.2.5.1.3 Dry matter accumulation in ear hear (g m-1 row length)
The data pertaining to dry matter accumulation in ear head at different crop growth
stages are presented in Table 35.
Table 32. Effect of weed control treatments on total dry matter production (gm-1 row length) at different crop growth stages in wheat
Days after sowing

Treatments
T5 : Weed free check 50.80 110.56 214.16 232.33
T6 : Weedy check 42.33 66.43 162.90 164.83
S.Em+ 1.56 1.22 1.88 3.54
CD at 5% NS 3.76 5.81 10.93

240
Total dry matter production (g m )
-1
220
LEGEND
200
180
160 T3 : Metsulfuron methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS
T6 : Weedy check
120 T7 : Farmers practice (2 IC at 20 and 40 DAS)
100
80
60
40
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Tre atments
Fig. 11 : Effect of weed control teatments on total dry matter production (g m-1 row length) at
Fig. 11 : Effect of weed control teatments on total dry matter production (g m-1 row length) at different crop growth stages in wheat
Table 33. Effect of weed control treatments on dry matter accumulation in leaves (gm-1 row length) at different crop growth stages in wheat
Days after sowing

Treatments
T5 : Weed free check 29.06 46.83 43.30 38.03
T6 : Weedy check 24.06 25.93 22.73 19.10
S.Em+ 1.06 0.61 0.61 0.76
CD at 5% NS 1.89 1.89 2.34

Table 34. Effect of weed control treatments on dry matter accumulation in stem (gm-1 row length) at different crop growth stages in wheat
Days after sowing

Treatments
T5 : Weed free check 21.73 50.83 88.53 86.46
T6 : Weedy check 18.30 32.66 69.56 67.53
S.Em+ 0.64 0.62 0.74 1.06
CD at 5% NS 1.91 2.30 3.28

Table 35. Effect of weed control treatments on dry matter accumulation in ear head (gm-2 row length) at different crop
Treatments
60 DAS 90 DAS At harvest
T5 : Weed free check 12.93 82.33 107.83
T6 : Weedy check 7.83 70.60 78.20
S.Em+ 0.50 0.88 2.71
CD at 5% 1.56 2.72 8.38

At 60 DAS, weed free check recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation in
-1
ear head (12.93 g m row length) but was on par with T3, T2, T4 and T1 (12.80, 12.80, 11.70
-1
and 11.60 g m row length respectively). Whereas, weedy check recorded significantly lower
dry matter accumulation in ear head (7.83 g m-1 row length) over other treatments. At 90 DAS
significantly lower dry matter accumulation in ear head was recorded weedy check (70.60 g
-1
m row length) over other treatments. Whereas, significantly higher dry matter accumulation
in ear head was recorded in weed free check (82.33 g m-1 row length) but was on par with T2
(79.86 g m-1 row length). At harvest, significantly higher dry matter accumulation in ear head
was recorded in weed free check (107.8 g m-1 row length) but was on par with T2 (100.3 g m-1
row length) where weedy check recorded significantly lower dry matter accumulation in ear
-1 -1
head (78.20 g row g ) over other weed control treatments.
4.2.2.6 Ear length (cm)
The data pertaining to ear length at different growth stages of crop was presented in
Table 36.
Ear length significantly differ among different weed control treatments. At 60 DAS,
weed free check recorded significantly higher ear length (8.70 cm) but was on par with T2
(8.30 cm). Significantly lower ear length was recorded in weedy check (6.83 cm) over all other
treatments. At harvest, significantly higher ear length was recorded in weed free check (10.36
cm) but was on par with T2 (9.90 cm), among herbicide treatments T3 (8.94 cm) recorded
lower ear length. Weedy check recorded significantly lower (8.40 cm) ear length followed by
T7 (8.60 cm).
4.2.3 Influence of weed control treatments on yield and yield components

The data pertaining to number of grains per spickelet, grain weight (g) per ear and
1000 grain weight are presented in Table 37.
4.2.3.1 Number of grains per spicklet
The data recorded on number of grains per spicklet differed significantly among
treatments. Weed free check recorded significantly higher number of grains per spicklet (2.70)
but was on par with T2 (2.64) rest of the treatments recorded on par with each other, whereas
weedy check recorded significantly lower number of grains per spicklet (2.15) over other
treatments.
4.2.3.2 Grain weight per ear (g)
The data pertaining to grain weight (g) per ear are presented in Table 37.
All the weed control treatments recorded significantly higher grains per ear over
weedy check (1.35 g). Whereas, weed free check recorded significantly higher grain weight
per ear (2.04 g) but was on par with T2 (2.02 g). Rest of the treatments resulted on par with
each other.
4.2.3.3 1000 grain weight (g)
The data pertaining to 1000 grain weight are presented in Table 37.
Among the weed control treatments, weedy check recorded significantly lower 1000
grain weight (36.26 g), followed by T7 (38.26 g). significantly higher 1000 grain weight was
recorded in weed free check (42.10 g) but was on par with T2 (41.33 g).
-1 -1
4.2.3.4 Grain yield (kg ha ), straw yield (kg ha ) and harvest index
-1 -1
The data on grain yield (kg ha ), straw yield (kg ha ) and harvest index are
presented in Table 38 and depicted in Fig. 10.
4.2.3.4.1 Grain yield (kg ha-1)
The data on grain yield of wheat as influenced by different weed control treatments
were differed significantly. Weed free check recorded significantly higher grain yield (3182 kg
ha-1) but was on par with T2 (3029 kg ha-1). Treatments T4 and T1 (2733 and 2648 kg ha-1
respectively) resulted on par with T2. Among herbicide treatments, T3 recorded lower grain
-1
yield (2566 kg ha ). Whereas, weedy check recorded significantly lower grain yield (1766 kg
-1
ha ) over other weed control treatments.
4.2.3.4.2 Straw yield (kg ha-1)
The data pertaining to straw yield are presented in Table 38 and depicted in Fig. 10.
The data on straw yield differed significantly due to different weed control treatments.
-1
Among all the treatments, T2 recorded significantly higher straw yield (5259 kg ha ) but was
-1
on par with weed free check, T4 and T1 (5205, 5050 and 5042 kg ha respectively). Among
herbicide treatments T3 recorded lower (4956 kg ha-1) straw yield. Whereas, weedy check
-1
recorded significantly lower straw yield (3756 kg ha ) over other weed control treatments.
4.2.3.4.3 Harvest index
The data pertaining to harvest index was presented in Table 38.
Harvest index differs significantly among various weed control treatments, weed free
check recorded significantly higher harvest index (0.37) but was on par with T2 and T4 (0.36
and 0.35 respectively) where as weedy check recorded significantly lower harvest index
(0.32) over other weed control treatments.
4.2.4 Economics of different weed control treatments

The economics of different weed control treatments of Groundnut and Wheat are
presented in Table 39 and 40 and depicted in Fig. 11 and 12 respectively.
In groundnut, the maximum gross income was recorded in T4 (Rs. 36,843 ha-1)
followed by T2 (Rs. 35, 841 ha-1), T1 (Rs. 34,294 ha-1 and T5 (Rs. 33,245 ha-1). Weedy check
-1
recorded significantly lowest gross income (Rs. 20,533 ha ).
-1
The cost of cultivation was maximum in weed free check (Rs. 18,218 ha ) was
followed by T3 (Rs. 17,038 ha-1). Maximum net returns was recorded in treatment T4 (Rs.
20,150 ha-1) followed by T2 (Rs. 18,833 ha-1) and T1 (Rs. 17,526 ha-1). Among herbicide
-1
treatments, T3 recorded lowest net returns (Rs. 14,262 ha ). However, weedy check recorded
-1
lower net returns (Rs. 6,015 ha ) over all the treatments.
Benefit cost ratio was significantly higher in treatment T4 (1.20) but was on par with T2
(1.10) and T1 (1.04). The lowest B:C ratio was recorded in weedy check (0.41).
-1
In wheat, higher gross income was recorded in weed free check (Rs. 28,058 ha )
-1 -1
followed by T2 (26858 ha ) and T4 (Rs. 24,391 ha ). Whereas, weedy check recorded
significantly lower gross income (Rs. 16,009 ha-1) over all the treatments. Cost of cultivation
was maximum in weed free check (Rs. 13912 ha-1) followed by T7 (Rs. 11,212 ha-1). Weedy
check recorded lowest cost of cultivation (Rs. 10,412 ha-) over all the treatments. Net income
-1
was recorded higher in treatment T2 (Rs. 15,996 ha ) followed by weed free check (Rs.
14,146 ha ) lowest net income was recorded in weedy check (5597 ha-1) over all the
-1
treatments. Maximum B:C ratio was recorded in T2 (1.47) followed by T4 (1.26) and T1 (1.22).
However, weedy check recorded lowest B:C ratio (0.53) over all the weed control treatments.
Table 36. Effect of weed control treatments on ear length (cm) at different crop growth stages in wheat
Days after sowing

Treatments
60 DAS At harvest
T1 : 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS 7.73 9.16
T2 : Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS 8.30 9.90
T3 : Metsulfuron methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS 7.26 8.93
T4 : Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS 7.93 9.36
T6 : Weedy check 6.83 8.40
T7 : Farmers practice (2 IC at 20 and 40 DAS) 7.60 8.60
S.Em+ 0.13 0.16
CD at 5% 0.42 0.52

Table 37. Effect of weed control treatments on yield attributing characters of 1000 grain weight (g), grain weight per ear and number of
grains per spikcklet in wheat
Grain weight per Number of grains

Treatments 1000 grain weight (g)
ear (g) per spikelet
T5 : Weed free check 42.10 2.04 2.70
T6 : Weedy check 36.26 1.35 2.15
S.Em+ 0.51 0.04 0.04
CD at 5% 1.59 0.14 0.14

Table 38. Effect of weed control treatments on grain yield (kg ha-1), straw yield (kg ha-1) and harvest index (%) in wheat
Grain yield (kg ha- Straw yield (kg ha-

Treatments HI (%)
1) 1)
T1 : 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS 2648 5042 0.34
T2 : Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS 3028 5259 0.36
T3 : Metsulfuron methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS 2566 4956 0.34
T4 : Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS 2733 5050 0.35
T5 : Weed free check 3182 5205 0.37
T6 : Weedy check 1766 3756 0.32
T7 : Farmers practice (2 IC at 20 and 40 DAS) 2459 4767 0.34
S.Em+ 139.18 78.93 0.008
CD at 5% 428.99 243.28 0.02

Grain yield (kg ha-1) Straw yield (kg ha-1)
6000
5500
5000 LEGEND
4500 T1 : 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS

T2 : Triasulf uron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS
4000 T3 : Metsulf uron methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS
T5 : Weed f ree check
3500 T6 : Weedy check
3000
2500
2000
1500
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments
Fig. 12 : Effect of weed control teatments on grain yield (kg ha-1 ) and straw yield (kg ha-1 ) in wheat
Fig. 12 : Effect of weed control teatments on grain yield (kg ha-1) and straw yield (kg ha-1) in wheat
Table 39. Economics of weed control treatments in groundnut
Gross income (Rs. Cost of cultivation Net income

Treatments B:C ratio
/ha) (Rs./ha) (Rs./ha)

34294 16768 17526 1.04
DAS
35841 17008 18833 1.10
45 DAS
31300 17038 14262 0.83
at 45 DAS
36843 16693 20150 1.20
45 DAS
T5 : Weed free check 33245 18218 15027 0.82
T6 : Weedy check 20533 14518 6015 0.41
T7 : Farmers practice (3 IC at 20, 30 and 45 DAS + 1 HW at 40 DAS) 29891 15118 14773 0.97
S.Em+ 1592 - 1593 0.07
CD at 5% 4907 - 4911 0.21

Gross income Cost of cultivation Net income
37500
35000 LEGEND
32500 T1 : Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC + 1 HW

at 45 DAS
30000
27500 at 30 and 40 DAS 1 HW at 45 DAS

22500 T4 : Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at
20000 T5 : Weed f ree check
T6 : Weedy check
17500
15000 45 DAS + 1 HW at 40 DAS)
12500
10000
7500
5000
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments
Fig. 13 : Economics of weed control treatments in groundnut
Fig. 13 : Economics of weed control treatments in groundnut

Table 40. Economics of weed control treatments in wheat
Gross income (Rs. Cost of cultivation Net income

Treatments B:C ratio
/ha) (Rs./ha) (Rs./ha)
T1 : 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS 23708 10652 13056 1.22
T2 : Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS 26858 10862 15996 1.47
T3 : Metsulfuron methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS 23009 10787 12222 1.13
T4 : Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS 24391 10772 13619 1.26
T5 : Weed free check 28058 13912 14146 1.01
T6 : Weedy check 16009 10412 5597 0.53
T7 : Farmers practice (2 IC at 20 and 40 DAS) 22061 11212 10849 0.96
S.Em+ 1104 - 819 0.07
CD at 5% 2403 - 2525 0.24

Gross income Cost of cultivation Net income
30000
27500 LEGEND
25000 T1 : 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS

22500 T3 : Metsulfuron methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS

T6 : Weedy check
17500 T7 : Farmers practice (2 IC at 20 and 40 DAS)
15000
12500
10000
7500
5000
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments
Fig. 14 : Economics of weed control treatments in wheat
Fig. 14 : Economics of weed control treatments in wheat

V. DISCUSSION
The results of the field experiment conducted during kharif and rabi seasons of 2005-
06 to study the effect of weed management practices in groundnut-wheat cropping system
are discussed in this chapter.
5.1 WEATHER CONDITIONS DURING GROWING SEASON

Crop growth is mainly dependent on environmental factors. Fluctuations in weather
conditions influence growth, development and yielding potential of crop, more so in sequence
cropping system. During the year 2005, the total rainfall of 1011.1 mm was received which
th
was 203.4 mm more than the average of 55 years. During the period of experimentation (27
th th th
June 2005 to 14 October 2005 for Groundnut and 10 November 2005 to 13 March 2006
for Wheat) a rainfall of 827.7 mm was received with 66 rainy day and the mean monthly
maximum temperature ranged from 27.100C (August) to 37.000C (May). While, the minimum
0 0
temperature ranged from 12.9 C (January 2005) to 21.5 C (May and June 2006). The mean
relative humidity was highest in September 2005 (85%) and lowest in February 2006 (39%).
5.2 INFLUENCE OF WEED CONTROL TREATMENTS ON

GROUNDNUT
5.2.1 Effect on weed growth
5.2.1.1 Weed flora
The important monocot weeds observed during kharif in the experiment site were
Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers, Panicum spp., Digitaria marginata Link., Dactyloctenium
aegyptium Link., Erogrostis gangetica steud. While, common dicot weeds observed were
Euphorbia, hirta L., Tribulus terrestris L., Phyllanthus niruri L., Commelina benghalensis L.,
Lagasca mollis car, Tridax procumbense L., Amaranthus viridis L., Parthenium hysterophorus
L., Mimosa pudica L., Digetaria arvensis L., Portulaca oleraceae L., Conyza ambigua L.,
Cynotis cucullata L. and Leucus aspera Link. The common sedge observed was Cyperus
rotundus L. Five important monocot, 14 dicots and one sedge weed species were observed in
experimental field. Usually dicot weeds grow taller than groundnut crop. This is because of
black cotton soils and similar observations were recorded in groundnut plot by Mane et al.
(2003).
5.2.1.2 Weed count
All the weed control treatments had significantly lower weed population than weedy
check at different stages of crop growth. At 20, 40 and 60 DAS, all the treatments which
received the application of herbicides with cultural practices recorded lower, weed population
than weedy check. This is due to application of herbicides which might have prevented the
germination of susceptible weed spp. and also reduced the growth of germinated weeds by
inhibiting the process of photosynthesis (Muzik, 1970). At all the stages weed free check (T5)
recorded significantly lower weed population than other treatments followed by Butachlor @
1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW (T4). This is in conformity with the results of
Rafey and Prasad (1995), which inturn resulted in higher pod yield of groundnut.
5.2.1.3 Weed dry weight
At all the stages of crop growth (20, 40 and 60 DAS) weed free check recorded
significantly lower weed dry weight when compared to all other treatments, which was mainly
due to lower weed population. The treatments comprising the application of herbicides in
combination with 2 IC + 1 HW remained on par with each other except Pendimethalin @ 1.5
kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW. This may be due to effective control of weeds
during early stages of crop growth by herbicides and in later stages removal of both intra and
inter row weeds by IC and HW. Similarly, Mahadkar et al. (1993) reported that butachlor in
combination with cultural practices recorded reduced dry weight of weeds as compared to
weedy check treatment.
5.2.1.4 Weed control efficiency and weed index
Significantly higher weed control efficiency was recorded in weed free check
(94.50%) followed by Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW (T4)
(93.67%). The higher weed control efficiency under these treatments was reflected through to
lower dry weight of weeds. Mahale (1992) obtained lower dry weight of weeds in butachlor in
combination with cultural practices, which was on par with weed free check. Weedy check
recorded significantly lower weed control efficiency over all other treatments. This is due to
higher number of weeds.
Weed index is indirectly related to the reduction in yield due to weed population and
weed dry weight. The higher weed index was recorded in weedy check (38.55%) and was
significantly reduced in all other weed control treatments. The lower weed indices were
recorded in treatments which received application of herbicides in combination with cultural
practices. Patel et al. (1997) and Avilkumar et al. (1998) reported similar results of reduced
pod yield due to higher weed indices. This reduction in yield is attributed to higher density of
moncots, dicots and sedges. Thus, creating competition with the crop reflected through
significantly lower number of pods, pod weight and test weight.
5.2.2 Effect on yield and yield components

Maximum pod yield was obtained in Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2
-1 -1
IC + 1 HW (23.53 q ha ) which was on par with the weed free check (21.20 q ha ). Other
herbicide treatments in combination with 2 IC and 1 HW shown on par results with Butachlor
@ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW, except Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg per ha in
-1
combination with 2 IC + 1 HW (19.93 q ha ). Mahale (1992) and Mahadkar (1993) reported
similar results, where butachlor in combination with cultural practices recorded higher pod
yield which is due to lower number of weeds. This was due to increased number of pods per
plant, 100 kernel weight and pod weight per plant. The increase in pod yield in above
treatments was due to the fact that these treatments resulted in beneficial effect on final yield.
Patra and Naik (2001) also reported increased pod number per plant due to weed control
treatments. The differential contribution of yield components towards pod yield was obtained
with different treatments. Effective control of weeds by herbicides and removal of later
emerged weeds by cultural methods might have resulted in better availability of soil moisture
and nutrients as evidenced by the beneficial effect on crop growth. The higher pod yield in
treatments Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW, Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg
per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW and Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC
+ 1 HW over weed free check might be due to suppression of weed seed germination and
seedling development at early stages due to pre-emergent herbicides. Exceptional weeds
emerged were removed through subsequent cultural practices hence treatments get weed
free condition where in weed free check, weeds were removed as and when they emerged
from soil. Weedy check gave reduced yields due to presence of weeds and resulted in
increased weed competition for growth resources, especially for moisture, nutrients and light.
Similar yield reduction due to presence of weeds have been reported by Vijaykumar (1992),
Itnal et al. (1992), Hiremath et al. (1997) and Kori (2000).
Weight of pods per plant at harvest was highest in Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in
combination with 2 IC + 1 HW (13.13 g) which was on par with the treatments Pretilachlor @
1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW, Alachlor at 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme +2 IC at 30
and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS and weed free check (12.73, 12.50 and 12.46 g plant-1
respectively). The pod weight per plant was the main contributory factor for yield. The lowest
pod weight per plant was recorded in weedy check (8.86 g). Thus, the yield was higher in
those treatments where the weight of pods is high. Ghosh (2000) reported that increase in
pod yield of groundnut was mainly associated with increase in the weight of pods per plant,
which intern was due to higher number of pods per plant. The weight of pods was higher as a
consequence of well developed kernels and was evidenced by the higher sound matured
kernels and shelling percentage.
Plate 1: General view of experimental site (Groundnut)
Plate 2: Effect of Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45

DAS
Plate 3: Effect of Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW

at 45 DASI
Plate 4: Effect of Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1

HW at 45 DAS
Plate 5: Effect of Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha per ha per-eme + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1
HW at 45 DAS
Plate 6: Weed free check
Plate 7: Weedy check
Plate 8: Farmers practices (3 IC at 20, 30 and 45 DAS + 1 HW at 40 DAS)

In weedy check, the number of pods per plant were less (8.36). Thus, resulted in
lowest pod weight per plant and reduced yield. Weed free check, Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha
in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW, Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1
HW and Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW recorded higher pod
weight per plant which was due to higher test weight of 127.3, 131.9, 127.4 and 126.4 g,
respectively. Weedy check recorded lowest test weight (108.4 g), this can be attributed to the
lower percentage sound matured kernels
As for as oil content in Groundnut crop is concerned, there is no significant difference
among all the weed control treatments. The results are in conformity with the results of Sing
et al. (1997a), which resulted in no significant difference among the different weed control
treatments.
There was significant difference in the shelling percentage due to weed control
treatments. The highest shelling percentage was recorded in Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in
combination with 2 IC + 1 HW (77.25%) but was on par with Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in
combination with 2 IC + 1 HW, weed free check and Alachlor at 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme in
combination with 2 IC + 1 HW (76.18, 75.99 and 75.56% respectively). Lowest shelling
percentage was observed in weedy check (70.03%), which was significantly lower than all
other treatments. This may be attributed to poor development of kernels. Higher shelling
percentage in all the treatments except weedy check was due to better development of
kernels. These findings are in conformity with the results obtained by Ghosh (2000) and
Subramaniyan and Arulmozhi (1998b).
5.2.3 Effect on crop growth and yield parameters

The grain yield is an end product, which obviously depends upon the dry matter
production at different stages of crop growth and its partitioning into reproductive parts. At all
the stages Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW recorded highest dry
matter production, but it was on par with the treatments Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in
combination with 2 IC + 1 HW, weed free check and Alachlor at 1.5 kg per ha in combination
with 2 IC + 1 HW at. The dry matter produced by groundnut in weedy check at all the stages
were significantly lower than all other treatments. The increase in the dry matter of groundnut
was attributed to the decreased weed population and lesser dry weight of weeds thus resulted
in decreased competition by weeds to moisture, light and nutrients. The effect of which can be
traced back to increased dry matter accumulation in stem, leaves and pods. Pannu et al.
(1989) and Murthy et al. (1992) have reported significant reduction in the dry matter
accumulation and lower pod yield in groundnut under weedy check.
The dry matter production and its accumulation in reproductive parts depends upon
the photosynthetic ability of the plant at various stages of the crop growth and can be
analysed through leaf area and dry matter accumulation in leaves, which in turn influence the
photosynthetic ability, performance and yield of the crop. Weedy check reduced the dry
matter accumulation in leaves of groundnut at all the stages of crop growth. The dry matter
accumulation in leaves of groundnut under weedy check (T6) was significantly lower than
weed free check (T5). This was due to lower number of leaves and leaf area which are
important indices of plant, that determine the photosynthetic ability, growth and dry matter
production. At all the stages. Among different weed control treatments Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per
ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW, weed free check, Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in
combination with 2 IC + 1 HW and Alachlor at 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW
treatments were recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation in leaves than weedy
check, except at 30 DAS. Leaf area is an important attribute greatly influenced by water and
nutrient supply. Under weedy check increased weed population and dry weight of weeds set
competition for soil moisture and nutrient as well as environmental resources.
Significant differences among the treatments in the number of leaves per plant was
noticed at all the growth stages where all the weed control treatments recorded significantly
higher number of leaves per plant over weedy check. This may be due to the effective control
of broad spectrum weeds due to herbicide treatment in combination with cultural practices. At
all the growth stage, weed free check and Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC
+ 1 HW recorded higher number of leaves per plant. Kulandailvelu and Sankaran (1977) also
reported higher number of leaves per plant in weed control treatments.
Application of herbicides in combination with 2 IC and HW registered significantly
higher plant growth over weedy check. This may be because of the use of pre-emergence
herbicides in the initial stages followed by 2 IC and 1 HW at later stages resulted in extended
weed free period and better crop growth. Weedy check recorded significantly lower plant
height than all other treatments at all the growth stages. This might be attributed to the strong
competition by weeds with the crop for nutrients, moisture and space.
5.3 EFFECT OF WEED CONTROL TREATMENTS ON WHEAT

5.3.1 Effect on weed growth
5.3.1.1 Weed flora
The prominant monocot weeds observed in experimental site include Cynadon
dactylon pers., Echinocloa colonum (L.) Link., Dinebra retroflexa (Bahl) Penz., etc. and
important dicots include Alternanthera sessilis (L.) DC., Amaranthus spp., Bidens pilosa L.,
Cassia cericea L., Convolvulus arvensis L., Lactuca runcinata DC., Parthenium hysterophorus
l., Phyllanthus niruri L. and Portulaca oleracea etc. The common sedge observed was
Cyperus rotundus L.
5.3.1.2 Crop phyto toxicity rating
The pre-emergent herbicides sprayed in kharif groundnut crops did not shown any
phytotoxicity on wheat crop. Results are in conformity with Gautham and Mani (1975),
Sukhadia et al. (2000). Gautham et al. (1994) recorded no effect of herbicides on germination
count, dry matter accumulation, shoot and root length of succeeding crops.
5.3.1.3 Weed count
At all the stages of crop growth monocots, dicots and sedge weed population was
significantly higher in weedy check as compared to rest of the treatments except at 20 DAS
where all the treatments recorded on par results. Whereas, weed free check recorded
significantly lower weed population in all the stages of crop growth followed by Triasulfuron @
15 g per ha at 20 DAS (T2) which recorded lower weed population but on par with weed free
check at 60 DAS. While, Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS, 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at
20 DAS and Metsulfuron-methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS recorded on par with each other.
These results are in line with the findings of Singh (2004) recorded control of dominant weeds
by application of Triasulfuron @ 15, 20 g per ha.
5.3.1.4 Weed dry weight
There was significant difference in weed dry weight at all the stages of crop growth
except 20 DAS where treatments recorded on par results. While, weed free check recorded
significantly lower dry weight of weeds. The reduction in dry weight of weeds was the
consequence of reduction in total weed population and suppression of weed growth. At all the
growth stages of crop, lowest weed dry weight was observed with weed free check as a
consequence of frequent hand weeding. Among herbicide treatments Triasulfuron @ 15 g per
ha at 20 DAS and Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS recorded lowest dry weight of weeds.
Reduced dry weight of weeds in these treatments were mainly due to the lower weed
population per unit area and suppression of weed growth as a result of effective control of
weeds by the herbicides. These findings are in conformity with the results of Tiwari and
Parihar (1993), Dixit and Bhan (1997b) and Ashok Yadav et al. (2004).
5.3.1.5 Weed control efficiency and weed index
Weed control efficiency is an important parameter to decide the effectiveness of
herbicides in weed management. The crop yield is directly proportional to the weed control
efficiency. Highest weed control efficiency was obtained with weed free check followed by
Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS (88.40%) and Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS
(86.01%). Lower efficiency was recorded in Metsulfuron-methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS and
Farmers practice (2 HW at 20 and 40 DAS) (82.44% and 77.64% respectively) treatments
might be due to lower efficacy of competition between crop and weeds at critical periods of
crop growth. The significantly lowest weed control efficiency was recorded in weedy check
compared to all other treatment. The higher weed control efficiency in treatments was mainly
due to lower total weed population and weed dry weight recorded in these treatments. These
results corroborate with the findings of Petunova (1995) and Dwivedi (2004).
Weed index is indirectly related to the reduction in yield due to weed population and
weed dry weight. The highest weed index was recorded in weedy check (44.22%) and lowest
was recorded in weed free check followed by Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS (5.66%)
and treatments Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS, 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS
and Metsulfuron-methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS (13.29, 15.70 and 18.14, respectively)
recorded on par result with each other. The yield reduction in weedy check was in conformity
with the results of Subhashkumar and Singh (1996).
5.3.2 Effect on yield and yield components

In the present study, significant differences in yield and yield components were
observed as a consequence of weed control treatments. The grain yield was significantly
-1
higher with weed free check (3182 kg ha ), which was on par with Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha
-1
at 20 DAS (3029 kg ha ), which was due to the fact that, these treatments registered higher
yield attributes. The effectiveness of Triasulfuron herbicide in controlling weeds in wheat was
also reported by Sing et al. (2004) and Ashok Yadhav (2004). While, treatments Isoproturon
@ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS, 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS, Metsulfuron-methyl @
4 g per ha at 20 DAS and Farmers practice (2 HW at 20 and 40 DAS) were recorded on par
results. Isoproturon recorded on par result with Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS. These
results were in conformity with Verma (1985). No or little competition of weeds right from early
stages of crop growth in these treatments might have lead to higher yield and yield attributing
characters. Similarly, Pandey and Singh (1994) recorded higher grain yield in wheat by
keeping the plots free of weeds and by applying different herbicides. Weedy check recorded
significantly lower grain yield compared to all other weed control treatments, this is attributed
to higher weed population and dry weight of weed.
The enhancement of grain yield with the application of herbicides could be attributed
to the fact that, the crop was kept free of competition by the weeds at early stages of crop
growth resulting the crop to use land and climatic resources more efficiently. Weed
competition with the crop at early stages of crop growth has an appreciable effect on overall
growth of the crop.
The yield components such as number of grains per spicklet, grain weight per ear
and thousand grain weight were significantly influenced by different weed control treatments.
Significantly higher number of grains per spicklet recorded in weed free check followed by
Triasulfuron @ 1.5 g per ha at 20 DAS @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS. Treatments Isoproturon @
1 kg per ha at 20 DAS, 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS, Metsulfuron-methyl @ 4 g per
ha at 20 DAS and Farmers practice (2 HW at 20 and 40 DAS) recorded on par with each
other. While, grain weight per ear recorded significantly higher in weed free check followed by
Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS. Other treatments Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20
DAS, 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS, Metsulfuron-methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS and
Farmers practice (2 HW at 20 and 40 DAS) recorded on par results with each other and
thousand grain weight recorded significantly higher with weed free check while Triasulfuron
@ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS recorded on par with Weed free check. In these treatments, yield
components attributed to better growth of the crop in the absence of weed competition and
efficient partitioning of dry matter into reproductive parts. In weedy check all yield components
were significantly low. These results were in conformity with the findings of Tiwari et al.
(1984), Panwar et al. (1995), Singh et al. (1998) and Singh et al. (2003).
Plate 9: General view of experimental site (wheat)
Plate 10: Effect of 2, 4-D (NA) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS
Plate 11: Effect of Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS
Plate 12: Effect of Metsulfuron-methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS

Plate 13: Effect of Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS
Plate 14: Weed free check
Plate 15: Weedy check
Plate 16: Farmers practice (2 HW at 20 and 40 DAS)

5.3.3 Effect on growth and growth components
The pre-requisite for getting higher yield in any crop is higher total dry matter
production and its distribution to the various plant parts. The total dry matter production of
wheat differed significantly due to weed control treatments. Significantly lower total dry matter
accumulation was recorded in weedy check in 60, 90 DAS and at harvest. These lower dry
matter accumulation may be attributed to severe weed competition with the crop for the
growth factors, which might have restricted the development of crop. Maximum total dry
matter production was observed in weed free check. Where weeds were not allowed to grow
and compete with the crop resulting in higher total biomass. Among the herbicide treatments
Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS recorded significantly higher total dry matter over rest
of the treatments, except at 30 DAS and was on par with weed free check except at harvest.
The distribution of dry matter in leaves, stem and reproductive parts (ears) indicate greater
biological efficiency of the plant.
Higher dry matter accumulation in leaves, which are photosynthetically active was
responsible for the over all development of the crop. Among herbicide treatments,
Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation in
leaves over weedy check at all the stages except at 30 DAS, weed free check recorded
significantly higher dry matter accumulation in leaves but recorded on par with Triasulfuron @
15 g per ha at 20 DAS. The dry matter accumulation in stem was significantly lower in weedy
check at all the growth stages except at 30 DAS, weed free check recorded significantly
higher dry matter accumulation in stem which was on par with Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at
20 DAS at all the stages of crop growth. These variations can be ascribed to efficient control
and good suppression of weeds resulting in no or less competition of weeds with the crop.
With regard to dry matter accumulation in ears, weedy check recorded significantly lower ear
dry weight. Whereas, weed free check recorded significantly higher ear dry weight at all the
crop growth stages. Among herbicide treatments, Triasulfuron recorded on par results with
weed free check. This is attributed to good suppression of weed growth leading to low
competition for light, space and nutrients by which crop could utilize both biotic and abiotic
resources efficiently, leading to higher ear dry weight. These results are in conformity with the
findings of Sweet et al. (1974), Coble and Ritter (1978) and Davier and Gardiner (1985).
Leaf area index (LAI) decides photosynthetic efficiency of the crop. Significantly
higher leaf area index was observed in weed free check over weedy check. All the herbicides
applied treatments recorded significantly higher leaf area index over weedy check. However,
treatment Triasulfuron recorded on par results with weed free check at all the stages of crop
growth. All other herbicides recorded on par results with each other except at 60 DAS. These
higher leaf area indices are attributed to better crop growth in the absence of competition from
weeds. Sweet et al. (1974) also reported that weed suppression as the most often related to
high LAI, plant height, leaf size and seed yield of crop plants.
5.3.4 Economics
In Groundnut, among all the weed control treatments, Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in
combination with 2 IC + 1 HW recorded highest net income followed by Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg
per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW and Alachlor at 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC
+ 1 HW which was due to maximum pod yield (Mahale et al., 1992) reported additional net
profit in butachlor integrated with cultural practices. Among herbicide treatments higher net
returns and B:C ratio was recorded in Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1
HW and Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW compared to
Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW is due to higher pod yield and
subsequently lower cost of cultivation (Mane et al., 2003). Whereas, weed free check
recorded lower net returns and B:C ratio it is quite important to note that keeping the land free
of weeds throughout the crop growth period is practically impossible by the farmers, since
involves huge cost on labour. Tewari et al. (1989) reported that the additional amount of
income obtained under weed free check appeared to be immaterial when compared to cost of
weeding incurred to maintain weed free condition beyond eight weeks after sowing. The
availability of working forces in villages has been reduced considerably and availability of
required labour force at particular stage of crop growth is also difficult. The lowest B:C ratio
was recorded in weedy check is due to lower yield levels.
In wheat, the gross returns, net returns and B:C ratio differed due to different weed
control treatments. Among weed control treatments, weed free check recorded higher gross
returns followed by Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS. This is due to higher net returns
was recorded in Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS, Weed free check and
Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS is due to higher grain yield and straw yield. The lower
net returns in weed free check compared to Triasulfuron at 15 g per ha and was mainly due to
higher cost of cultivation in weed free check. Tiwari and Parihar (1993) and Kushwaha and
Singh (2000). Tiwari et al. (1989) reported that, the additional amount of income obtained
under weed free check appeared to be immaterial when compared to cost of weeding
incurred it maintain weed free condition beyond eight weeks after sowing. Higher B:C ratio
was recorded in treatments Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS and Isoproturon @ 1 kg per
ha at 20 DAS is due to higher yield levels and lower cost of cultivation compared to weed free
check. Kushwaha and Singh (2000). Weedy check recorded lowest B:C ratio over all other
weed control treatments.
PRACTICAL UTILITY OF RESULTS

Based on the investigation carried out on weed management practices in Groundnut-
Wheat cropping system, the practical application of the results are indicated below.
Effective control of weeds and increased pod yield in groundnut can be obtained with
the application of pre-emergent herbicide butachlor or alachlor or pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per
ha integrated with 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS and 1 HW at 45 DAS.
In wheat crop effective control of weeds and higher grain yield can be obtained by
application of triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS or isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS.
FUTURE LINE OF WORK

The aspects which needs further investigations are
The information on sequential application of pre and post-emergent herbicides and its
affects on soil properties need to be generated.
Use of mixture of herbicides to achieve better control of broad spectrum of weeds in
this sequence cropping system to be studied.
VI. SUMMARY
A field experiment was conducted at Main Agricultural Research Station, Dharwad
during kharif and rabi seasons of 20005-06 to study the effect of “Integrated weed
management in Groundnut-Wheat cropping system”. In each season experiment consists 3
replications and 7 treatments. In Groundnut (kharif), Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30
and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS, Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1
HW at 45 DAS, Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45
DAS, Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS, Weed free
check, Weedy check and Farmer’s practice. In wheat crop (rabi) 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at
20 DAS, Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS, Metsulfuron methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS,
Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS, Weed free check, Weedy check and Farmer’s practice.
Some of the important findings of the investigation are summarized in this chapter.
The predominant weed observed in experimental site include, Cyodon dactylon (L.)
Pers., Penicum spp., Digitaria marginata Link., Dactyloctenium aegyptium Link., Erogrostis
gangetica steud, Echinocloa colonum L., Dinebra retroflexa (Bahl) Penz., etc., among the
monocots and among dicots, Euphorbia hirta L., Tribulus terrestris L., Phyllanthus niruri L.,
Commelina benghalensis L., Parthenium hysterophorus L., Alternanthera sessilis L., Cassia
cericea etc. and Cyperus rotundus L. as sedge weed.
In Groundnut crop (Kharif) season. All the weed control treatments differed
significantly for total weed population at different stages of crop growth. At all the stages weed
free check recorded significantly least total weed count followed by Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha
in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW, Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW
and Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW. At 60 DAS, Butachlor @
1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW, Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination
with 2 IC + 1 HW and Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW (2.94, 3.60
and 3.74) recorded lowest total number weed count but were next to weed free check.
Whereas, weedy check recorded significantly highest total weed count over all the treatments
-2
at all the stages. Weed dry weight m also followed the same trend of the weed population at
all the stages.
All the weed control treatments recorded significantly lower weed weight over weedy
check at harvest Weed free check recorded significantly higher weed control efficiency
(94.50%) but was on par with Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW
(93.67%). Weedy check recorded significantly lower weed control efficiency over all the
treatments. Weed index values were lower in weed control treatments. Significantly higher
weed index was recorded in weedy check (38.55) over all the treatments.
The groundnut pod yield differed significantly due to weed control treatments.
Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW recorded highest pod yield (23.53
q ha-1) but was on par with weed free check (21.20 q ha-1). Other herbicide treatments shown
on par with Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW except Pendimethalin
-1
@ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW (19.93 q ha ). Significantly lowest pod yield
-1
was recorded weedy check (13.00 q ha ) over all the treatments.
Significant differences were also observed in yield of groundnut such as number of
pods per pant, 100 pod weight (g), 100 kernel weight (g). All these parameters were
significantly higher in Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW but was on
par with Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW, Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per
ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW and weed free check. Shelling per cent and sound
matured kernel per cent were recorded significantly higher in Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in
combination with 2 IC + 1 HW (77.25% and 90.31% respectively) but was on par with
Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW, weed free check and Alachlor
@ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW. Among all the treatments, weedy check
recorded significantly lowest results with all the yield parameters.
A significant difference in the growth parameters was also recorded due to weed
control treatments. At all the crop growth stages, the plant height, number of primary
branches, number of leaves per plant, leaf area and leaf area index were significantly higher
in Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW except at 30 DAS followed by
Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW, Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in
combination with 2 IC + 1 HW and weed free check. Weedy check recorded the significantly
lowest values in all the growth parameters.
At all the stages of crop growth dry matter production and its distribution in different
parts varied significantly due to weed control treatments except at 30 DAS. The highest dry
matter production was observed in T4 but was on par with the treatments Pretilachlor @ 1.5
kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW, T5 and Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination
with 2 IC + 1 HW. The lowest dry matter production was recorded in weedy check. The dry
matter distribution in leaves, stem and reproductive parts followed similar trend as that of dry
matter production.
The herbicides sprayed as pre-emergent in kharif season did not exhibit any phyto
toxic effect on succeeding wheat crop.
Among the herbicide treatments, all weed control treatments recorded significantly
lowest total weed count compared to weedy check at all the stages except at 20 DAS. At 60
DAS, weed free check recorded significantly lowest total weed count but was on par with
Triasulfuron @ 1.5 g per ha at 20 DAS (2.94). Weed dry weight m-2 recorded significantly
lowest in weed free check at all the stages followed by Triasulfuron @ 1.5 g per ha at 20 DAS
except at 20 DAS.
Weed weight (kg ha-1) recorded significantly higher in weedy check (1,430 kg ha-1)
over all the treatments. Whereas, Triasulfuron @ 1.5 g per ha at 20 DAS recorded
-1
significantly lowest weed weight (164 kg ha ) but was on par with Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha
at 20 DAS and 2,4-D (Na) 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS. Weed free check recorded significantly
higher weed control efficiency, followed by Triasulfuron @ 1.5 g per ha at 20 DAS (88.40%).
Weed index values were lower in treatments, which received herbicide treatments. The
maximum weed index was recorded in weedy check (44.22). Weed free check recorded
lowest weed index followed by Triasulfuron @ 1.5 g per ha at 20 DAS (5.66) and 2,4-D (Na)
@ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS (13.29).
The wheat grain yield differed significantly due to weed control treatments. Weed free
-1
check recorded significantly highest grain yield (3182 kg ha ) but was on par with
-1
Triasulfuron @ 1.5 g per ha at 20 DAS (3029 kg ha ). Next best results were recorded in
treatments Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS (2733 kg ha-1) and 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha
at 20 DAS (2648 kg ha-1). Whereas, weedy check recorded significantly lowest grain yield
-1
(1766 kg ha ). Over all the weed control treatments, the same trend was followed in straw
yield.
Significant differences were also observed in yield parameters of wheat such as ear
length, grain weight per ear (g), number of grains per spicklet, 1000 grain weight (g). All these
parameters were recorded significantly higher in weed free check (T5) but was on par with
Triasulfuron @ 1.5 g per ha at 20 DAS (T2), followed by treatments Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha
at 20 DAS, 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS and Metsufuron-methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20
DAS. All these parameters recorded significantly lower in weedy check over all the weed
control treatments.
A significant difference in growth parameters was also recorded due to weed control
treatments. At all the crop growth stages, the plant height, productive tillers per plant, leaf
area (dm-2) per meter row length, leaf area index were significantly higher in weed free check
except at 30 DAS followed by Triasulfuron @ 1.5 g per ha at 20 DAS Weedy check recorded
significantly lowest values in all the parameters.
Dry matter accumulation in the crop and its partitioning into leaves, stem and ear
head differed significantly due to different weed control treatments. At all the stages except at
30 DAS. The highest dry matter production was recorded in weed free check. Among
herbicide treatments, Triasulfuron @ 1.5 g per ha at 20 DAS recorded highest dry matter
production followed by Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS and 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at
20 DAS. The significantly lowest dry matter production was recorded in weedy check over all
the weed control treatments.
In groundnut, the maximum net income of Rs. 20,150 per ha was obtained with
Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW followed by Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg
per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW of Rs. 18,833 per ha, Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha in
combination with 2 IC + 1 HW of Rs. 17,526 per ha and weed free check recorded R. 15,027
per ha due to higher cost of cultivation. Among herbicide treatments, Pendimethalin
@ 1.5 kg per ha in combination with 2 IC + 1 HW recorded lowest net returns of Rs. 14, 262
per ha. Whereas, weedy check recorded lower net return (Rs. 6,015 per ha) and B:C ratio
(0.41) over all the weed control treatments.
In wheat the maximum net return of Rs. 15,996 per ha was obtained with Triasulfuron
@ 1.5 g per ha at 20 DAS followed by weed free check and Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20
-1 -1
DAS (Rs. 14,146 ha and Rs. 13,619 ha respectively). B:C ratio was recorded highest in
Triasulfuron @ 1.5 g per ha at 20 DAS (1.47) followed by Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20
DAS (1.26) weed free check recorded 1.01, which is due to higher cost of cultivation. Lower
B:C ratio was recorded in weedy check (0.53) over all the weed control treatments.
VII. REFERENCES
ABD-EL-RAUOF, M. S., SHABAN-SH, A., EL-HATTAB, A. H. AND BATAL, M. A., 1985,
Soyabean varietal tolerance to herbicides and their residual effect on succeeding
crops. Egyptian Journal of Agronomy, 10(1-2) : 105-123.
ABERNATHY, J. R. AND KEELING, J. W., 1979, Efficiency and rotational crop response to
levels of Dinitroaniline herbicide application. Weed Science, 27 : 312-317.
ACMIE (Agriculture Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy), March 2006 p. 148.
AGASIMANI, C. A., BABALAD, H. B. AND HOSMANI, M. M., 1992, Mechanical and
Herbicidal weed control in groundnut. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 24(1 and 2) :
54-58.
ANGIRAS, N. N. AND SHARMA, V., 1993, Effect of cultural manipulations and weed control
methods on crop-weed competition in wheat. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 23(3
and 4) : 6-10.
ANONYMOUS, 1989, Annual Report (1998-89), All India Coordinated Research Programme
on Weed Control, Bangalore.
ANONYMOUS, 1994, Degradation pattern of pendimethalin in black and red soils. Project
Coordinators Report, NRCWS, Maharajpur, Abhartal, Jabalpur, pp. 78-79.
ANONYMOUS, 1998, Bulletin on Weed Research in Gujarat, Department of Agronomy,
Gujarat Agricultural University, Junagadh.
ASHOK YADHAV, MALIK, R. K., PAHWA, S. K. AND BELLINDAR, R. R., 2004, Evaluation of
Triasulfuron alone and as tank mixture with clodina fop, Fenoxaprop, sulfosulfuron or
Tralkoxydim against complex weed flora in wheat.
ASLAM, M., MIRZA, M. S., GHAFAR, A., CHATNA, M. R. AND KHAN, A. R., 1989, Weed
management in oilseed crops. Progressive Farming, 92 : 12-16.
ATTARDE, D. R., SURYA WAANSHI, R. T. AND WADILE, S. C., 2001, Integrated weed
management in kharif groundnut under assured rainfed conditions. Journal of
Maharashtra Agricultural Universities, 26(2) : 161-163.
AVILKUMAR, K., REDDY, M. D. AND KRISHNA, A., 1998, Integrated management in rabi
sunflower. Journal of Oilseeds Research, 15(1) : 109-114.
BARTLETT, M. S., 1947, The use for transformations. Biometrika, 3 : 1-2.
BEHL, N. K. AND MOOLANI, M. K., 1969, Sensitivity of dwarf and desi wheats at different
stages to the application of 2,4-D. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 1 : 141-148.
BHAN, V. M. AND SINGH, V. P., 1993, Integrated weed management (IWM) an approach.
Proceedings of the International Symposium, Indian Society of Weed Science,
Hissar, November 18-20, 1 : 289-297.
BLACKMAN, G. E. AND ROBERTS, H. A., 1950a, Studies on selective weed control II. The
control of annual weeds in winter wheat. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Comb, 40
: 62-69.
BLACKMAN, G. E. AND ROBERTS, H. A., 1950b, Studies on selective weed control II. The
control of annual weeds in spring cereals. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Camb.,
40 : 70-81.
CHANDRASINGH, D. J. AND SUBBA RAO, I. V., 1971, Studies on residual persistence of
herbicides in red soils. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 3 : 112-120.
CHAUHAN, D. S., SINGH, G., SHARMA, R. AND NAGARAJAN, 1997, Weed management in
wheat crop. Wheat Extension Bulletin-2, Directorate of Wheat Research, Karnal
(Haryana).
COBLE, H. D. AND RITTER, R. L., 1978, Penzylvania smart weed (Polygonum
(Penzylvanicum) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Science, 26 : 556-
559.
DASTANE, N. G., 1967, A Practical Manual for Water Use Research, Navabharat Prakashan
Publication (India). pp. 5-6.
DATTA, J. K., GARAI, A. K. AND ROY, A., 2001, Bioefficacy of Trifluralin on weeds in
groundnut at Burdwan District, West Bengal. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 33(1
and 2) : 38-40.
DAVIER, R. J. AND GARDINER, J. B. M., 1985, The effect of weed competition on broad
leaved trees establishment. Research Information Note, Forestry Commission, No.
98, p. 4.
DEVAKUMAR, M. AND GAJENDRA GIRI, 1999, Effect of weed control and gypsum
application on uptake of N, P, Ca and S by groundnut and weeds. Indian Journal of
Agronomy, 44(2) : 400-403.
DEVIDAYAL, NAIK, P. K., DONGRE, B. N. AND REDDY, P. S., 1994, Effect of row pattern
and weed control methods and yield and economics of rainfed groundnut. Indian
Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 61(7) : 490-492.
DHALIWAL, G. S. AND KLER, D. S., 1995, Principles of Agricultural Ecology, Himalaya
Publishing House, Mumbai.
DIXIT, A. AND BHAN, V. M., 1997a, Weed control efficacy of isoproturon applied at different
concentrations and its combination with 2,4-D in wheat. Indian Journal of Weed
Science, 29(1 and 2) : 11-14.
DIXIT, A. AND BHAN, V. M., 1997b, Evaluation of sulfosufuron against Phalaris minor in
wheat. Annual Report (1996-97), National Research Centre for Weed Science,
Jabalpur (MP), p. 26.
DIXIT, A., SINGH, V. P. AND BHAN, V. M., 1998, Studies on the efficacy of chlor sulfuron
along with metsulfuron and isoproturon against Phalaris minor in wheat. Annual
Report (1997-98), National Research Centre for Weed Science, Jabalpur (MP), pp.
24-25.
DONALD, C. M., 1962, In search of yield. Journal of Institute of Agricultural Sciences,
Bangalore.
DWIVEDI, R. K., 2004, Effect of nitrogen levels and weed management in wheat. Advances in
Plant Sciences, 17(1) : 231-233.
DWIVEDI, R. K., BAJPAI, R. P., CHOUDHARY, S. K. AND MISHRA, R. K., 1996, Integrated
weed control in wheat in northern region of Chattisgarh. Indian Journal of Weed
Science, 28 (3&4) : 189-190.
GANAMURTHY, P. AND BALASUBRAMANIYAN, P., 1998, Weed management practices
and their influence on weed growth and yield of groundnut. Indian Journal of
Agronomy, 43(1) : 122-125.
GAUTHAM, K. C. AND MANI, V. S., 1975, A note on comparative efficiency selectivity and
residual toxicity of some soil applied herbicides in soybean. Indian Journal of Weed
Science, 7 : 72-74.
GAUTHAM, K., PANDIT AND CHOWDHURY, A., 1994, Studies on the residue and
persistence of pendimethalin (stomp 30 IC) in/on groundnut. Pestology, 18(4) : 19-
22.
GHOSH, D. C., 2000, Weed management in rainfed groundnut. Indian Journal of Agronomy,
43(1) 122-125.
GILL, G. S. AND VIJAYAKUMAR, 1969, Weed Index – A new method for reporting weed
control trials. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 14(1) 96-98.
GOGOI, A. K., KALIKA, H., PATHAK, A. K. AND DEKA, J., 1993, Critical period of crop-weed
competition in rainfed wheat. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 25(3 and 4) : 90-91.
GOMEZ, K. A. AND GOMEZ, A. A., 1984, Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research,
nd
2 Edition, A Wiley Inter Science Publication, New York (USA).
GUNEYLI, E., BURNISIDE, O. C. AND NORDQUIST, P. T., 1969, Influence of seedling
characteristics on weed competitive ability of sorghum hybrids and inbread lines.
Crop Science, 9 : 713-716.
HANF, M., 1962, Only correct growth regulator application guarantees complete success.
Weed Abstract, 2(1) : 5.
HIREMATH, S. M., SHIVRAJ, SAJJAN, A. S., KAMATAR, M. V. AND CHETTI, M. B., 1997,
Effect of herbicides on weed control efficiency in diverse groundnut genotypes.
World Weeds, 4 : 163-168.
HOSMANI, M. M., 1995, Weed management in field crops. In Integrated Weed Management
in field crops, pp. 113-145.
ITNAL, C. J., LINGARAJU, B. S. AND BASAVARAJ, P. K., 1992, Weed management in
groundnut and sunflower inter cropping. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 24 : 75-77.
JACKSON, M. L., 1967, Soil Chemical Analysis, Prentice Hall, India, Private Limited, New
Delhi, p. 498.
KATHMALE, D. K., PATIL, R. C. AND MALIK, B. B., 1997, Integrated weed management in
kharif groundnut. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities, 22(1) : 75-76.
KODAP, S. M., RANI, U. U., REDDY, B. B., SWAMY, K. R., RAO, A. R. AND REDDY, G. V.,
1989, Effectiveness of herbicides and cultural methods for the control of weeds in
Spanish and Virginia habit groups of groundnut. Journal of Oilseeds Research, 6 :
128-132.
KORI, R. N., PATIL, S. L, SALAKINKOPPA, S. R. AND HUNSHAL, C. S., 2000, Economics of
integrated weed management in irrigated groundnut. Journal of Oilseeds Research,
17 : 61-65.
KULANDAIVELU, R. AND SANKARAN, S., 1977, Efficiency of herbicides for weed control in
irrigated groundnut. Proceedings of Indian Society of Weed Science, Hyderabad, pp.
202-203.
KULASHRESHTA, G. AND YADURAJU, N. T., 1987, Persistance of pendimethalin in soil
following pre-emergence application to wheat. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 32 : 271-
274.
KUSHWAHA, B. L. AND SINGH, P. K., 2000, Comparative efficacy and economics of
mechanical and chemical weed control in wheat. Annals of Plant Protection Science,
8(1) : 71-75.
MAHADKAR, U. V., RAMTEKE, J. R. AND KHANVILKAR, S. A., 1993, Effect of herbicide and
cultural practices on weeds and rainy season groundnut. Proceedings of an Indian
Society of Weed Science, International Symposium, Hisar 18-20 November, 1993,
3 : 128-130.
MAHALE, S. S., 1992, Integrated weed control measures on weed growth, yield and yield
attributes in rainfed groundnut. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 65(1) : 42-45.
MALEY, S. R., 1969, Weedicides-killing some without damaging others. Agricultural Digest, 1
: 37-40.
MALIK, R. S., YADAV, S. K. AND MALIK, R. K., 1995a, Nutrient uptake by wheat and
associated weeds as influenced by herbicides. Indian Journal of Weed Science,
27(1 and 2) : 63-66.
MALIK, R. S., YADAV, S. K., MALIK, R. K. AND PANWAR, R. S., 1995b, Effect of herbicides
and fertilizer levels on weed control and nutrient uptake by wheat and associated
weeds. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 27(3 and 4) : 164-166.
MALLIGWAD, L. H., KANNUR, V. S. AND GIRIRAJ, K., 2000, Integrated weed control in
kharif groundnut. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 13(2) : 288-294.
MANICKAM, G., GNANAMURTHY, P., DURAI, R. AND IMAYAVARAMBAN, V., 2001,
Production ptential and economics returns of different integrated weed management
practices on groundnut based cropping system. Crop Research, 21 (1) : 49-52.
MENE, M. J., POWAR, M. S., JADHAV, M. G. AND CHAVAN, S. A., 2003, Efficacy of
different herbicides in kharif groundnut under konkan condition of Maharashtra.
Indian Journal of Dry land Agricultural Research and Development, 18(1) : 84-88.
MISHRA, J. S. AND YADURAJU, N. T., 2005, Bio-efficacy of sulf sulfuron against weeds in
wheat in vertisols. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 37(1 and 2) : 23-25.
MISHRA, J. S., SINGH, V. P. AND YADURAJU, N. T., 2005, Effect of tillage of weed control
methods on weeds and wheat in vertisols. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 37(1 and
2) : 96-97.
MURTHY, B. G., AGASIMANI, C. A. AND BABALAD, H. B., 1992, Studies on weed
management in bunch groundnut. Journal of Oilseeds Research, 9 (2) : 322-325.
MURTHY, Y. V. N., 1982, Studies on weed control efficiency of certain herbicides on
groundnut under different phosphorus levels. M.Sc. (Agri) Thesis, Andra Pradesh
Agricultural University, Hyderabad.
MUZIK, J. J., 1970, Chemical use for weed control-weed biology and control, Mc. Graw Hill
Book Company, New York.
NIMJE, P. M., 1992, Effect of weed control and nitrogen on weed growth and yield of
groundnut. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 37(3) : 484-488.
PANDEY, J. AND SINGH, R. P., 1994, Effect of sulphonyl urea herbicides on weed control in
wheat. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 39(4) : 565-568.
PANDEY, J. AND SINGH, U. P., 1983, Nutrients removal by wheat as affected by metoxuron
application. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 15 : 29-37.
PANNU, P. K., MALIK, D. S., MALIK, R. K. AND SINGH, K. P., 1989, Effect of crop geometry,
irrigation and weed control on the growth and nitrogen uptake by weed and
groundnut. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 34 :8-13.
PANWAR, R. S., PUNIA, S. S., MIDHA, L. K., RATHEE, S. S. AND MALIK, R. K., 1998,
Response of wheat and associated weeds to clopyralid in combination with other
herbicides. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 43(2) : 302-306.
PANWAR, R. S., RATHEE, S. S., MALIK, R. S. AND MALIK, R. K., 1995, Effect of
tralkoxydim with other herbicides on the weed control in wheat. Indian Journal of
Weed Science, 27(1 and 2) : 67-70.
PATEL, S. L., AGARWAL, S. K. AND CHANDRAKAR, P. K., 1997, Weed management
studies in rabi /summer groundnut grown after rice. Journal of Oilseeds Research,
14(1) : 55-58.
PATRA, A. K. AND NAIK, B. C., 2001, Integrated weed management in rainy season
groundnut. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 71:378-380.
PETUNOVA, A. A., 1995, Controlling weeds resistant to 2,4-D in Russian Coereal Crops.
Resistant pest management, 7(2) : 23.
PIPER, C. S., 1966, Soil and Plant Analysis, Academic Press, Newyork, pp.47-77.
PRAKASA RAO, C. G. AND ARUNEE KUMAR, K., 1996, Weed flora of groundnut fields in
Anantapur, Andra Prades. World Weeds, 8 : 29-32.
RAFEY, A. AND PRASAD, K., 1995, Influence of weed control measures on weed growth,
yield and yield attributes in rainfed groundnut. Indian Journal of Agricultural
Sciences, 65(1) : 42-45.
RAJSINGH AND PATEL, C. S. 1991, Weed control in groundnut under high rainfall conditions
of Meghalaya. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 36 : 160-164.
RAO, A. S. AND AGARWAL, J. P., 1986, Seed production, root : shoot ratio, stomata number
and nutrient uptake by different crop and weed species. Indian Journal of Weed
Science, 16 : 250-254.
RETHINAM, P., SELVARANGARAJU, G., SANKARAN, N., SANKARAN, S. AND
MORACHAN, Y. B., 1976, Studies in crop weed competition and chemical weed
control in groundnut. Madras Agricultural Journal, 63 : 454-457.
SELVAMANI, S. AND SANKARAN, S., 1989, A comparative study of different herbicides for
weed control in irrigated groundnut. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 21 (1 and 2) :
37-40.
SENTHIL KUMAR, N., NATARAJAN, S., VEERAMANI, A. AND SENTILKUMAR, P., 2004,
Integrated weed management in groundnut under varying plant densities. Indian
Journal for Weed Science, 36(1 and 2) : 144-145.
SESTAK, Z., CASTSKY, J. AND JARVIS, F. G., 1971, Plant photosynthetic manual of
methods, edited by JNUK, N. V. Publishers, the Hogue : pp. 343-381.
SHELKE, D. K., 1987, Weed control cropping systems-A- review. Journal of Maharashtra
Agricultural Universities, 12 : 164-168.
SINGH, A. K., MAHAPATRA, B. S. AND SHARMA, G. L., 1997a, Chemical weed control in
spring groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Indian Journal of Weed Science, 29(1 and
2) : 34-38.
SINGH, S., SINGH, A. N. AND BHAN, V. M., 1997b, Efficacy of sulfonyl urea herbicides for
weed control in wheat. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 29(3 and 4) : 163-166.
SINGH, V. K. AND BAJPAI, R. P., 1991, Studies on manual weed control in rainfed
groundnut. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 36(1) : 127-129.
SINGH, V. P., MISHRA, J. S., DIXIT, A. AND YADURAJU, N. T., 2003, Residual effect of
different durations of soil solarization and weed control measures on weed growth
and productivity of wheat in soybean-wheat system. Indian Journal of Weed
Science, 35(3 and 4) : 221-224.
SINGH, V. P., SINGH, G. AND SINGH, M., 2004, Effect of triasulfuron (Logran 20 WG) on
non-grassy weeds and wheat yield. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 36( 3 and 4) :
262-264.
SINGH, V., SINGH, S. AND MALIK, R. K., 1998, Performance of new herbicides against
Phalaris minor in wheat. Indian journal of Weed Science, 30(3 and 4) : 121-123.
SUBBAIAH, B. V. AND ASIJA, G. L., 1956, A raid procedure for the estimation of available
nitrogen in soils. Current Science, 25 : 259-260.
SUBHASHKUMAR AND SINGH, G., 1996, Effect of tank mixture of isoproturon and
tralkorydim on the control of wild oat in wheat. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 28:
1-3.
SUBRAMANIYAN, K. AND ARULMOZHI, N., 1998a, Integrated weed management in rainfed
groundnut. World Weeds, 5 : 105-108.
SUBRAMANIYAN, K. AND ARULMOZHI, N., 1998b, Study on the management of sedges
and broad leaf weeds in groundnut. World Weeds, 5 : 165-170.
SUKHADIA, N. M., RAMANI, B. B., ASODARIA, K. B. AND MODHWADIA, M. M., 1998,
Comparative efficacy of pre and post-emergence herbicide application in spreading
groundnut. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 30 (3 and 4) : 163-167.
SUKHADIA, N. M., RAMANI, B. B., MODHWADIA, M. M. AND ASODORIA, K. B., 2000,
Integrated weed management in groundnut-wheat crop sequence. Indian Journal of
Agronomy, 45(2) : 253-256.
SURESH, B. V. AND NANJAPPA, H. V., 1994, Critical stages of crop weed competition in
groundnut under kharif rainfed condition. Crop Research, 7(1) : 153-155.
SWEET, R. D. YIP, C. P. AND SIECYKA, J. B., 1974, Can crop control weeds, into letter,
Oregon State University, USA, No. 20, p. 3.
TEWARI, K. K., SINGH, K. K., SHARMA, J. K. AND TEWARI, V. S., 1989, Crop weed
competition in groundnut + pigeonpea inter cropping under rainfed condition. Indian
Journal of Agronomy, 34 : 167-171.
TIWARI, J. P., BISEN, C. R. AND GANGRADE, K. M., 1984, Correlation of weed parameters
with growth and yield of wheat. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 16(4) : 276-280.
TIWARI, R. B. AND PARIHAR, S. S., 1993, Weed management studies in wheat. Indian
Journal of Weed Science, 25(3 and 4) : 88-90.
TIWARI, R. B. AND PARIHAR, S. S., 1997, Weed management in wheat (Triticum aestivum).
Indian Journal of Weed Science, 42(4) : 726-728.
VERMA, K. L., 1985, Influence of isoproturon on weed management in wheat under low and
optimumn fertility and irrigation. Annual Conference of Indian Society of Weed
Science, 34.
VIJAYKUMAR, B., 1992, Chemical weed control in groundnut. Indian Journal of Weed
Science, 24 : 72-74.
VIVEKANDAN, A. S., GUNASENA, H. P. M. AND SIVANANYAGAM, T., 1972, Statistical
evaluation of accuracy of three techniques used in estimation of leaf area of crop
plants. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 42 : 847-860.
YADAV, S. K., BHAN, V. M. AND KUMAR, A., 1986, Studies on removal of nutrients by
weeds and their control in groundnut. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 31(2) : 177-181.
YADAV, S. K., SINGH, S. P. AND BHAN, V. M., 1983, Performance of herbicides for weed
control in groundnut. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 15 : 58-61.
APPENDIX - I
Prices of in puts and out puts
Sl. No. Particulars Price (Rs.)

1. Inputs
Seeds
a. Groundnut (Kernels) 40 per kg
b. Wheat 15 per kg
2. Fertilizers
a. Urea 4.6 per kg
b. DAP 9.0 per kg
c. MOP 4.6 per kg
3. Labour wages
a. Men 50 per day
b. Women 35 per day
c. Tractor 250 per hr.
d. Bullock pair with man 200 per hr.
4. Herbicides
a. Alachlor 250 per kg
b. Pretilachlor 410 per kg
c. Pendimethalin 430 per kg
d. Butachlor 200 per kg
e. 2,4-D (Na) 240 per kg
f. Triasulfuron 300 per 10 g*
g. Metsulfuron-methyl 600 per 10 g*
h . Isoproturon 360 per kg
5. Plant protection 800 per ha
Out put
1. Groundnut pod 1,500 per q
2. Wheat grain 800 per q
3. Haulm 50 per q
4. Straw 50 per q
* Approximate rates
STUDIES ON EFFICIENCY OF HERBICIDES IN
GROUNDNUT (Arachis hypogaea L.) – WHEAT
(Triticum aestivum L.) CROPPING SYSTEM
SOMASHEKHAR S. MUTNAL 2006 Dr. C. A. AGASIMANI

MAJOR ADVISOR
ABSTRACT
A field experiment was conducted at Main Agricultural Research Station, University of
Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad during kharif and rabi seasons of 2005-06 to study the
efficiency of herbicides in groundnut- wheat cropping system. There were 7 treatment
combinations in each crop and experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design
with three replications.
In kharif groundnut weed control treatments differed significantly. The treatment
butachlor @ 1.5 kg/ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS in kharif groundnut
and in rabi wheat triasulfuron @ 15 g/ha at 20 DAS recorded significantly lower weed
population and weed dry weight next only to weed free check.
In groundnut application of butachlor @ 1.5 kg /ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1
HW at 45 DAS resulted in highest pod yield (2353 kg /ha) and was on par with pretilachlor @
1.5 kg /ha PE + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS, alachlor @ 1.5 kg /ha PE + 2 IC at
30 and 40 DAS + 1 HW at 45 DAS and weed free check. The higher pod yield over weed
free check is due to suppressing weed seed germination and seedling development at early
stages due to the effect of pre-emergent herbicides. In wheat application of triasulfuron @ 15
g /ha at 20 DAS resulted higher grain yield (3028 kg /ha) but was on par with weed free check
(3182 kg /ha). In groundnut maximum net income of Rs.20150 /ha and benefit cost ratio of
1:1.20 was obtained with butachlor, whereas in case of wheat triasulfuron recorded maximum
net return of Rs. 15996/ha and benefit cost ratio of 1:1.47.

Weed Control in Groundnut

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Weed Control in Groundnut

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

STUDIES ON EFFICIENCY OF HERBICIDES IN

GROUNDNT (Arachis hypogaea L.) – WHEAT

Thesis submitted to the

MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURE)

DHARWAD (C.A. AGASIMANI)

Chapter No. Titles

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

III. MATERIAL AND METHODS

IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

10 Effect of weed control treatments on plant height (cm) at different crop

11 Effect of weed control treatments on number of primary branches per

1a Monthly meteorological data for the experimental year (2005-06) of

1b Monthly meteorological data for the past 55 years (1950-2004) of Main

2 Plan of layout of the experimental plot

3 Effect of weed control treatments on total weed count (m-2) at different

4 Effect of weed control treatments on dry weight of weed (m-2) at

5 Effect of weed control treatments on weed control efficiency (%) and

6 Effect of weed control treatments on total dry matter production at

7 Effect of weed control treatments on pod yield and haulm yield in

8 Effect of weed control treatments on total weed count (m-2) at different

9 Effect of weed control treatments on dry weight of weeds (g m-2) at

10 Effect of weed control treatments on weed control efficiency (%) and

11 Effect of weed control treatments on total dry matter production (g m-1

13 Economics of weed control treatments in groundnut

14 Economics of weed control treatments in wheat

Plate No. Titles

1 General view of experimental site (Groundnut)

2 Effect of Alachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme +2IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1

3 Effect of Pretilachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme +2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1

4 Effect of Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS

5 Effect of Butachlor @ 1.5 kg per ha pre-eme + 2 IC at 30 and 40 DAS + 1

6 Weed free check

8 Farmers practices 3 IC at 20, 30 and 45 DAS +1 HW at 40 DAS

9 General view of experimental site (Wheat)

10 Effect of 2,4-D (Na) @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS

11 Effect of Triasulfuron @ 15 g per ha at 20 DAS

12 Effect of Metsulfuron-methyl @ 4 g per ha at 20 DAS

13 Effect of Isoproturon @ 1 kg per ha at 20 DAS

14 Weed free check

16 Farmers practice (2 HW at 20 DAS and 40 DAS)

Appendix No. Titles

1 Prices of in puts and out puts

2.1 WEED FLORA

2.1.2 Weed flora in wheat

2.2 CROP WEED COMPETITION

2.2.1 Critical period of crop weed competition

2.2.2 Competition for nutrients

2.2.3 Effect of weed competition on growth and yield components

2.3 METHODS OF WEED CONTROL

2.3.1 Cultural methods

2.3.2 Chemical method

2.3.3 Integrated weed control method

2.4 RESIDUAL EFFECT OF HERBICIDES ON SUCCEEDING

3.1 EXPERIMENTAL SITE

3.2 SOIL AND ITS CHARACTERISTICS

3.3 CLIMATIC CONDITIONS

3.4 PREVIOUS CROP IN EXPERIMENTAL PLOT

3.5 EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS

3.5.2 Design and layout

3.5.3 Plot size

3.6 CULTURAL OPERATIONS

3.6.1 Land preparation

3.6.2 Fertilizer application

3.6.3 Seeds and sowing