Paper · 2013 · Universal Journal of Agricultural Research

Soil Microflora and Weed Management as Influenced by Atrazine 50 % WP in Sugarcane

Soumen Bera; Ratikanta Ghosh

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
28
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to know the effect of atrazine 50 % WP on the weeds, cane yield of sugarcane and its effect on soil microflora at ‘C’ Block Farm, BCKV, Kalyani, Nadia, West Bengal, India during 2010-11 to 2011-12. Higher dose of atrazine @ 4.0 kg ha-1 recorded better weed control efficiency (84.51, 81.74 and 78.94 %, respectively at 10, 35 and 60 DAA). All the treatments of weed control gave the significantly higher cane yield over the control. The data on cane yield revealed that highest cane yield was recorded where the Atrazine 50 % WP @ 4.0 kg ha-1 was applied as pre-emergence but it was at par in case of lower dose of atrazine 50 % WP @ 2.0 kg ha-1 followed by ametryn 80%WP@2.0kg a.i. ha-1.Weed management treatments recorded no significant variation on brix %, sugar % and CCS%. All the herbicide treatments recorded detrimental effect on soil microflora (total bacteria, actinomycetes and fungi) immediately after application but after their persistence period, their populations were recovered and sometimes exceeds than their initial count.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The high atrazine dose produced weed control efficiencies of 84.51%, 81.74%, and 78.94% at 10, 35, and 60 DAA.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Treatment
atrazine @ 4.0 kg ha-1e0
Outcome
weed control efficiencye0
Direction
bettere0
Value
84.51, 81.74 and 78.94 %e0

Not reportedOrgan / stageComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Higher dose of atrazine @ 4.0 kg ha-1 recorded better weed control efficiency (84.51, 81.74 and 78.94 %, respectively at 10, 35 and 60 DAA)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 226–365 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–82 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

All weed control treatments increased cane yield over control.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Treatment
treatments of weed controle0
Outcome
cane yielde0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“All the treatments of weed control gave the significantly higher cane yield over the control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 367–460 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–82 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pre-emergence atrazine at 4.0 kg ha-1 gave the highest cane yield.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Treatment
Atrazine 50 % WP @ 4.0 kg ha-1e0
Outcome
cane yielde0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“highest cane yield was recorded where the Atrazine 50 % WP @ 4.0 kg ha-1 was applied as pre-emergence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 498–599 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–82 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The highest cane yield was statistically on par with the lower atrazine dose.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Treatment
atrazine 50 % WP @ 2.0 kg ha-1e0
Outcome
cane yielde0
Direction
at pare0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“cane yield revealed that highest cane yield was recorded where the Atrazine 50 % WP @ 4.0 kg ha-1 was applied as pre-emergence but it was at par in case of lower dose of atrazine 50 % WP @ 2.0 kg ha-1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 473–673 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–82 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Weed management did not significantly change brix, sugar percentage or CCS.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Treatment
Weed management treatmentse0
Outcome
brix %, sugar % and CCS%e0
Direction
no significant variatione0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Weed management treatments recorded no significant variation on brix %, sugar % and CCS%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 716–805 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–82 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Herbicides initially reduced soil microbial populations.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Treatment
herbicide treatmentse0
Outcome
soil microflora (total bacteria, actinomycetes and fungi)e0
Direction
detrimental effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“All the herbicide treatments recorded detrimental effect on soil microflora (total bacteria, actinomycetes and fungi) immediately after application”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 806–953 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–82 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil microbial populations later recovered and sometimes exceeded their initial count.

Taxon
Sugarcanet0
Outcome
their populationse0
Direction
recoverede0
Comparator
their initial counte0

Verbatim

e0

“after their persistence period, their populations were recovered and sometimes exceeds than their initial count”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 958–1069 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–82 · show in text ↑

atrazine · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

17 papers: 16 positive, 1 negative or no effect

15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
    Atrazine followed by trash mulching raised cane yield versus the other herbicide applications.

    Herbicidal-cum-Integrated Approach of Weed Management in Spring Planted Sugarcane · 2001 · compared with pre- and post-emergence application of 2,4-D, diuron, pendimethalene each at 1.0 kg ha−1 and oxyfluorfen 0.3 kg ha−1

    Same direction

  3. positive

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 papers →

atrazine · weed · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree

17 papers: 17 positive, 0 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
    Atrazine followed by trash mulching lowered weed dry matter versus the other herbicide applications.

    Herbicidal-cum-Integrated Approach of Weed Management in Spring Planted Sugarcane · 2001 · compared with pre- and post-emergence application of 2,4-D, diuron, pendimethalene each at 1.0 kg ha−1 and oxyfluorfen 0.3 kg ha−1

    Same direction

  2. positive
  3. positive

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 papers →

herbicide · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results differ

51 papers: 37 positive, 14 negative or no effect

36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect

47 papers more in this group

See all 51 papers →

herbicide · quality: sugar starch · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 1 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    The integrated treatment increased sugar yield by 86.6% over the farmers method.

    Studies on integration of tillage and herbicides for weed control in sugarcane · 2002 · compared with farmers method of three disc harrowings and hand weeding twice at 30 and 60 DAP

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
  3. no effect

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.