Paper · 2002 · Indian Journal of Weed Science

Characterization of Isoproturon Resistant Phalaris minor Biotypes Exposed to Alternate Herbicides under Cropped and Uncropped Situations

L. S. Brar; U. S. Walia; Seema Jand

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
4
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at the Research Farm, Department of Agronomy, PAU, Ludhiana (Punjab) during 1998–99 and 1999–2000 to find out the efficacy of alternate herbicides to control isoproturon resistant biotypes of Phalaris minor collected from various districts of Punjab. Twenty-five biotypes were raised alone and alongwith wheat crop. Application of clodinafop 60 g ha−1, fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 100 g ha−1 and tralkoxydim 0.35 kg ha−1 during 1998–99 and clodinafop 60 g ha−1 and sulfosulfuron 25 g ha−1 during 1999–2000 season provided complete control of all biotypes of P. minor. However, application of isoproturon at double the recommended dose i. e. 1.88 kg ha-1 failed to kill P. minor. Of the 25 biotypes, one biotype was classified as sensitive and 17 as resistant types under alone P. minor growing conditions. When P. minor was grown with wheat during 1998–99, biotypes found to be sensitive, partially resistant and resistant were nine, nine and seven, respectively, while during 1999–2000, the number of biotypes under three categories was 7, 8 and 10, respectively. Dry matter production by P. minor was 2–3 times more while growing alone as compared to under cropped conditions.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

clodinafop 60 g ha−1 provided complete control of P. minor biotypes.

Treatment
clodinafop 60 g ha−1e1
Interactor
P. minorPhalaris minore1weed
Outcome
control of all biotypes of P. minore1
Direction
completee1

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Phalaris minor
Phalaris minor · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMatt Lavin from Bozeman, Montana, USA · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Twenty-five biotypes were raised alone and alongwith wheat crop.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 284–348 · show in text ↑
e1

“Application of clodinafop 60 g ha−1, fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 100 g ha−1 and tralkoxydim 0.35 kg ha−1 during 1998–99 and clodinafop 60 g ha−1 and sulfosulfuron 25 g ha−1 during 1999–2000 season provided complete control of all biotypes of P. minor.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 349–591 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 100 g ha−1 provided complete control of P. minor biotypes.

Treatment
fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 100 g ha−1e1
Interactor
P. minorPhalaris minore1weed
Outcome
control of all biotypes of P. minore1
Direction
completee1

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Phalaris minor
Phalaris minor · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMatt Lavin from Bozeman, Montana, USA · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Twenty-five biotypes were raised alone and alongwith wheat crop.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 284–348 · show in text ↑
e1

“Application of clodinafop 60 g ha−1, fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 100 g ha−1 and tralkoxydim 0.35 kg ha−1 during 1998–99 and clodinafop 60 g ha−1 and sulfosulfuron 25 g ha−1 during 1999–2000 season provided complete control of all biotypes of P. minor.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 349–591 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

tralkoxydim 0.35 kg ha−1 provided complete control of P. minor biotypes.

Treatment
tralkoxydim 0.35 kg ha−1e1
Interactor
P. minorPhalaris minore1weed
Outcome
control of all biotypes of P. minore1
Direction
completee1

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Phalaris minor
Phalaris minor · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMatt Lavin from Bozeman, Montana, USA · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Twenty-five biotypes were raised alone and alongwith wheat crop.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 284–348 · show in text ↑
e1

“Application of clodinafop 60 g ha−1, fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 100 g ha−1 and tralkoxydim 0.35 kg ha−1 during 1998–99 and clodinafop 60 g ha−1 and sulfosulfuron 25 g ha−1 during 1999–2000 season provided complete control of all biotypes of P. minor.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 349–591 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

sulfosulfuron 25 g ha−1 provided complete control of P. minor biotypes.

Treatment
sulfosulfuron 25 g ha−1e1
Interactor
P. minorPhalaris minore1weed
Outcome
control of all biotypes of P. minore1
Direction
completee1

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Phalaris minor
Phalaris minor · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMatt Lavin from Bozeman, Montana, USA · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Twenty-five biotypes were raised alone and alongwith wheat crop.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 284–348 · show in text ↑
e1

“Application of clodinafop 60 g ha−1, fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 100 g ha−1 and tralkoxydim 0.35 kg ha−1 during 1998–99 and clodinafop 60 g ha−1 and sulfosulfuron 25 g ha−1 during 1999–2000 season provided complete control of all biotypes of P. minor.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 349–591 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Double-dose isoproturon failed to kill P. minor.

Treatment
isoproturon at double the recommended dose i. e. 1.88 kg ha-1e1
Interactor
P. minorPhalaris minore1weed
Outcome
kill P. minore1
Direction
failede1

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Phalaris minor
Phalaris minor · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMatt Lavin from Bozeman, Montana, USA · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Twenty-five biotypes were raised alone and alongwith wheat crop.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 284–348 · show in text ↑
e1

“application of isoproturon at double the recommended dose i. e. 1.88 kg ha-1 failed to kill P. minor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 601–701 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

One of 25 biotypes was sensitive and 17 resistant when grown alone.

Interactor
P. minorPhalaris minore0weed
Outcome
one biotype was classified as sensitive and 17 as resistant typese0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Phalaris minor
Phalaris minor · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMatt Lavin from Bozeman, Montana, USA · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Of the 25 biotypes, one biotype was classified as sensitive and 17 as resistant types under alone P. minor growing conditions.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 703–829 · show in text ↑
e1

“Twenty-five biotypes were raised alone and alongwith wheat crop.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 284–348 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

P. minor produced 2–3 times more dry matter alone than with wheat.

Interactor
P. minorPhalaris minore0weed
Outcome
Dry matter production by P. minore0
Direction
moree0
Value
2–3 timese0
Comparator
under cropped conditionse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Phalaris minor
Phalaris minor · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMatt Lavin from Bozeman, Montana, USA · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Dry matter production by P. minor was 2–3 times more while growing alone as compared to under cropped conditions.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1089–1202 · show in text ↑
e1

“Twenty-five biotypes were raised alone and alongwith wheat crop.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 284–348 · show in text ↑

isoproturon · Phalaris minor · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

24 papers: 18 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

20 papers more in this group

See all 24 papers →

clodinafop · Phalaris minor · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

25 papers: 23 positive, 2 negative or no effect

22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. positive

21 papers more in this group

See all 25 papers →

tralkoxydim · Phalaris minor · Triticum aestivum (wheat)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.