Paper · 2019 · International Journal of Chemical Studies

Herbicidal effect of imazethapyr and chlorimurin ethyl on yield parameters of green gram (Vigna radiata L.)

Srinivasa Rao Sultani; Sridhar Vindla; Sriram Ajmera; et al.

4
claims
5
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The experiment was conducted during kharif, 2015 and 2017 at Agricultural Research Station, Madhira farm, Professor Jayashankar Telangana Agricultural University, Hyderabad (Telangana). The experimental soil was low in available N, medium in P and High in K. The experiment was laid out as RBD with three replications comprising eleven treatments viz., pendimethalin 1.0 kg ha-1 as pre emergence (PE), imazethapyr 50 g ha-1 at 2-3 weed leaf stage (WLS), chlorimuron ethyl 3.5 g ha-1 (PE), imazethapyr 70 g ha-1 (PE) fb quizalofop ethyl 50 g ha-1 (2-3 WLS), imazethapyr 80 g ha-1 (PE) fb quizalofop ethyl 50 g ha-1 (2-3 WLS), chlorimuron ethyl 3.5 g ha-1 (PE) fb imazethapyr 70 g ha-1 (2-3 WLS), chlorimuron ethyl 3.5 g ha-1 (PE) fb imazethapyr 80 g ha-1 (2-3 WLS), chlorimuron ethyl 2.5 g ha-1 (PE) fb imazethapyr 70 g ha-1 (2-3 WLS), chlorimuron ethyl 2.5 g ha-1 (PE) fb imazethapyr 80 g ha-1 (2-3 WLS), hand weeding twice at 15 and 30 DAS and weedy check (untreated control). Weed control treatments resulted as increased in grain yield than weedy check. Hand weeding twice at 15 and 30 DAS, imazethapyr 70 g ha-1 (PE) fb quizalofop ethyl 50 g ha-1 (2-3 WLS) and chlorimuron ethyl 2.5 g ha-1 (PE) fb imazethapyr 70 g ha-1 (2-3 WLS) recorded better yields in greengram.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weed control treatments increased green gram grain yield over the weedy check.

Treatment
Weed control treatmentse0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
weedy checke0

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

“Weed control treatments resulted as increased in grain yield than weedy check”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 978–1055 · show in text ↑
t0

“Herbicidal effect of imazethapyr and chlorimurin ethyl on yield parameters of green gram (Vigna radiata L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–107 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Hand weeding twice at 15 and 30 DAS gave better green gram yields.

Treatment
Hand weeding twice at 15 and 30 DASe0
Outcome
yields in greengrame0
Direction
bettere0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Hand weeding twice at 15 and 30 DAS, imazethapyr 70 g ha-1 (PE) fb quizalofop ethyl 50 g ha-1 (2-3 WLS) and chlorimuron ethyl 2.5 g ha-1 (PE) fb imazethapyr 70 g ha-1 (2-3 WLS) recorded better yields in greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1057–1269 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Imazethapyr followed by quizalofop ethyl gave better green gram yields.

Treatment
imazethapyr 70 g ha-1 (PE) fb quizalofop ethyl 50 g ha-1 (2-3 WLS)e0
Outcome
yields in greengrame0
Direction
bettere0

Not reportedComparator

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

“imazethapyr 70 g ha-1 (PE) fb quizalofop ethyl 50 g ha-1 (2-3 WLS) and chlorimuron ethyl 2.5 g ha-1 (PE) fb imazethapyr 70 g ha-1 (2-3 WLS) recorded better yields in greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1094–1269 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chlorimuron ethyl followed by imazethapyr gave better green gram yields.

Treatment
chlorimuron ethyl 2.5 g ha-1 (PE) fb imazethapyr 70 g ha-1 (2-3 WLS)e0
Outcome
yields in greengrame0
Direction
bettere0

Not reportedComparator

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

“chlorimuron ethyl 2.5 g ha-1 (PE) fb imazethapyr 70 g ha-1 (2-3 WLS) recorded better yields in greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1165–1269 · show in text ↑

quizalofop-ethyl · yield · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

Imazethapyr · yield · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results

52 papers: 46 positive, 6 negative or no effect

45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

48 papers more in this group

See all 52 papers →

chlorimuron-ethyl · yield · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

herbicide · yield · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results

109 papers: 103 positive, 6 negative or no effect

102 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

105 papers more in this group

See all 109 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.