Paper · 2018 · Indian Journal of Agronomy

Weed control in greengram (Vigna radiata) and its residual effect on Indian mustard (Brassica juncea).

Sandeep Singh; R. S. Yadav; Amit Kumawat; et al.

7
claims
18
verbatim quotes
5
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during the rainy (kharif) season of 2013 and 2014 at Agricultural Research Station, Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Rajasthan to study the effect of pre-and post-emergence application of herbicides on greengram [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek] and their carry over effect on Indian mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. & Coss] during succeeding winter (rabi) seasons of 2013–14 and 2014–15. The experiment comprised 10 weed control treatments, viz. pendimethalin 1, 000 g/ha (pre-em), imazethapyr 50 g and 70 g/ha (early post-em), imazethapyr + pendimethalin (ready mix) 800, 900, and 1, 000 g/ha (pre-em), imazethapyr + imazamox 60 and 70 g/ha (early post-em), 2 hand-weedings at 20 and 40 days after sowing (DAS) and weedy check applied to greengram in randomized block design with 3 replications. Two handweedings at 20 and 40 DAS resulted in the lowest weed count of broad-leaf and grassy weeds and weed dry matter at 60 days after sowing. It also recorded significantly the highest number of branches/plant, pods/plant, seeds/pod and seed and straw yields over the other treatments. Among different herbicidal weed-control treatments, the highest weed-control efficiency was recorded with application of imazethapyr + pendimethalin (ready mix) 900 g/ha, and lowest weed index was recorded in imazethapyr + pendimethalin (ready mix) 800 g/ha. Application of herbicides did not cause any adverse effect on succeeding Indian mustard in both the years.

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

Two hand weedings gave the lowest broad-leaf and grassy weed counts at 60 days.

Treatment
Two handweedings at 20 and 40 DASe0
Interactor
broad-leaf and grassy weedse0weed
Outcome
weed count of broad-leaf and grassy weedse0
Direction
loweste0
Comparator
weedy checke2

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Two handweedings at 20 and 40 DAS resulted in the lowest weed count of broad-leaf and grassy weeds and weed dry matter at 60 days after sowing.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 861–1004 · show in text ↑
e1

“greengram [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 263–304 · show in text ↑
e2

“weedy check”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 780–791 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Two hand weedings gave the lowest weed dry matter at 60 days.

Treatment
Two handweedings at 20 and 40 DASe0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Outcome
weed dry mattere0
Direction
loweste0
Comparator
weedy checke2

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Two handweedings at 20 and 40 DAS resulted in the lowest weed count of broad-leaf and grassy weeds and weed dry matter at 60 days after sowing.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 861–1004 · show in text ↑
e1

“greengram [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 263–304 · show in text ↑
e2

“weedy check”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 780–791 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Two hand weedings gave significantly the highest branches, pods and seeds per pod.

Treatment
Two handweedings at 20 and 40 DASe1
Outcome
number of branches/plant, pods/plant, seeds/pode0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
other treatmentse0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“It also recorded significantly the highest number of branches/plant, pods/plant, seeds/pod and seed and straw yields over the other treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1005–1148 · show in text ↑
e1

“Two handweedings at 20 and 40 DAS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 861–894 · show in text ↑
e2

“greengram [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 263–304 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Two hand weedings gave significantly the highest seed and straw yields.

Treatment
Two handweedings at 20 and 40 DASe1
Outcome
seed and straw yieldse0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
other treatmentse0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“It also recorded significantly the highest number of branches/plant, pods/plant, seeds/pod and seed and straw yields over the other treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1005–1148 · show in text ↑
e1

“Two handweedings at 20 and 40 DAS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 861–894 · show in text ↑
e2

“greengram [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 263–304 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Imazethapyr plus pendimethalin at 900 g/ha gave the highest weed-control efficiency among herbicide treatments.

Treatment
imazethapyr + pendimethalin (ready mix) 900 g/hae0
Outcome
weed-control efficiencye0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
different herbicidal weed-control treatmentse0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Among different herbicidal weed-control treatments, the highest weed-control efficiency was recorded with application of imazethapyr + pendimethalin (ready mix) 900 g/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1149–1318 · show in text ↑
e1

“greengram [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 263–304 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Imazethapyr plus pendimethalin at 800 g/ha gave the lowest weed index among herbicide treatments.

Treatment
imazethapyr + pendimethalin (ready mix) 800 g/hae0
Outcome
weed indexe0
Direction
loweste0
Comparator
different herbicidal weed-control treatmentse0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Among different herbicidal weed-control treatments, the highest weed-control efficiency was recorded with application of imazethapyr + pendimethalin (ready mix) 900 g/ha, and lowest weed index was recorded in imazethapyr + pendimethalin (ready mix) 800 g/ha.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1149–1407 · show in text ↑
e1

“greengram [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 263–304 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Herbicides applied to greengram had no adverse carryover effect on succeeding Indian mustard in either year.

Taxon
Indian mustardBrassica junceae0
Treatment
Application of herbicidese0
Outcome
adverse effect on succeeding Indian mustarde0
Direction
did not causee0
Qualifier
both the yearse0
Comparator
weedy checke1

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

Brassica juncea
Brassica juncea · TaxonDalgial · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Application of herbicides did not cause any adverse effect on succeeding Indian mustard in both the years.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1408–1514 · show in text ↑
e1

“weedy check”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 780–791 · show in text ↑

Imazethapyr · weed · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results differ

50 papers: 49 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

46 papers more in this group

See all 50 papers →

pendimethalin · weed · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree

40 papers: 40 positive, 0 negative or no effect

39 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

36 papers more in this group

See all 40 papers →

herbicide · organism · Brassica juncea (Indian mustard)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 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.