Paper · 2004 · Indian Journal of Weed Science

Response of Tomato to Napropamide during Rabi Season

A. D. Tumbare; S.S. Ilhe

3
claims
9
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The earlier study in tomato crop showed that napropamide treated plots had weed population less upto 35 to 40 days from transplanting. In order to keep the plot weed-free for longer period, one hand weeding is essential after napropamide herbicide treatment. Hence, the present investigation was conducted during rabi season of 2000-01. The soil of the experimental field was sandy clay loam in texture with pH 8.00. The values of the F. C., PWP and bulk density were 27.95%, 13.41% and 1.42 g cm-3 , respectively. The experiment was laid out in randomized block design replicated three times. The treatments consisted of 12 combinations of doses of napropamide and pendimethalin and one hand weeding at 45 days after transplanting (Table 1). The herbicides were applied as spray by Aspee Knapsac spray pump and immediately irrigation was applied for proper incorporation of herbicides in soil. The tomato variety Dhanshree was transplanted on November 17, 2000. The major weeds present in the experimental field were: Panicum isachmi (4 m-Z), Cyperus rotundus (6 m-Z), Cynodon dactylon (3 m-Z), Eragrotis major (2 m-Z), Euphorbia geniculata (2 m-Z), Euphorbia hirta (1 m-Z), Amaranthus viridis (2 m-Z) and Logusca moWs (3 m-Z). Maximum weed intensity was noticed with napropamide at 2.0 kg ha1 and it was on par with napropamide at 1.5 kg ha• One hand weeding at 45 days after transplanting over application of herbicide recorded significant reduction in weed intensity when compared with herbicide alone (Table 1). These results are in conformity with those reported by Caussanel et al. (1990). Significantly higher yield (58.70 t ha1) was obtained in hand weeded plots (3 weedings), the lowest yield (32.40 t ha1) in weedy. Herbicide

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Napropamide at 2.0 kg ha1 had maximum weed intensity and was comparable to 1.5 kg ha.

Treatment
napropamide at 2.0 kg ha1e0
Interactor
weedse1weede0
Outcome
weed intensitye0
Direction
Maximume0
Comparator
napropamide at 1.5 kg hae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Maximum weed intensity was noticed with napropamide at 2.0 kg ha1 and it was on par with napropamide at 1.5 kg ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1229–1342 · show in text ↑
e1

“The major weeds present in the experimental field were:”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 963–1018 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Hand weeding after herbicide significantly reduced weed intensity versus herbicide alone.

Treatment
One hand weeding at 45 days after transplanting over application of herbicidee0
Interactor
weedse1weede0
Outcome
weed intensitye0
Direction
reductione0
Comparator
herbicide alonee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“One hand weeding at 45 days after transplanting over application of herbicide recorded significant reduction in weed intensity when compared with herbicide alone”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1344–1505 · show in text ↑
e1

“The major weeds present in the experimental field were:”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 963–1018 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Three hand weedings yielded 58.70 t ha1, significantly above weedy plots at 32.40 t ha1.

Treatment
hand weeded plots (3 weedings)e0
Interactor
weedse1weede0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
58.70 t ha1e0
Qualifier
32.40 t ha1e0
Comparator
weedye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Significantly higher yield (58.70 t ha1) was obtained in hand weeded plots (3 weedings), the lowest yield (32.40 t ha1) in weedy”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1597–1725 · show in text ↑
e1

“The major weeds present in the experimental field were:”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 963–1018 · show in text ↑
t0

“Tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–18 · show in text ↑

napropamide · weed · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

herbicide · weed · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

30 papers: 23 positive, 7 negative or no effect

22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

26 papers more in this group

See all 30 papers →

transplanting · weed · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

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.