Paper · 2022 · Міжвідомчий тематичний науковий збірник Меліорація і водне господарство

Weed development in sunflower and chickpea crops depending on micro-irrigation methods

A. P. Shatkovskyi; F. S. Melnychuk; M. S. Retman; et al.

8
claims
14
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-sa

Abstract

The article presents the results of experimental studies on the effect of micro-irrigation methods (drip irrigation with the surface laying of irrigation pipelines (IP) and subsoil drip irrigation with laying of IP at a depth of 30 cm) on the species and quantitative composition of weeds. The variant with a natural moisture supply (without irrigation) served as a reference area. Field research was conducted in the period 2020-2021 on the lands of the Brylivs’ke experimental field of the Institute of Water Problems and Land Reclamation of NAAS (Dry Steppe subzone) in sunflower and chickpea crops. Monitoring of the number and species composition of weeds was carried out by applying the recording framework by the method of the Institute of Plant Protection of NAAS during the third decade of May and the third decade of August. Based on the results of experimental research, it was proved that the irrigation methods (and hence the conditions of moisture supply) reliably influenced the degree of weed development in sunflower and chickpea crops. It was specified that the implementation of subsoil drip irrigation on average over the years of research reduced the degree of weed development in sunflower and chickpea crops by 1,65 and 1,55 times, respectively, compared to the typical surface laying of drip irrigation pipelines. Ultimately, that reduced the pesticide load on the field agro-ecosystem by reducing the number of herbicide treatments of crops by an average of 33-50 %. The species composition of weeds was not significantly affected by the method of irrigation. In addition, the researchers have shown that, regardless of the irrigation method, weed development in crops significantly reduced the productivity of the investigated crops: sunflower by 18,0-21,2 % and chickpea by 27,9-29,7 %. At the same time, in non-irrigated conditions, the degree of weed development had a greater impact on crop yield; thus, yield reduction in the reference variant without irrigation was 24,6 % for sunflower and 30,0 % for chickpeas.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. 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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Subsoil drip irrigation reduced weed development in sunflower crops 1,65 times relative to surface drip irrigation.

Taxon
sunflowerHelianthus annuuse0
Treatment
subsoil drip irrigatione0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
degree of weed development in sunflowere0
Direction
reducede0
Value
1,65e0
Comparator
the typical surface laying of drip irrigation pipelinese0

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

Helianthus annuus
Helianthus annuus · TaxonJon Sullivan · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the implementation of subsoil drip irrigation on average over the years of research reduced the degree of weed development in sunflower and chickpea crops by 1,65 and 1,55 times, respectively, compared to the typical surface laying of drip irrigation pipelines”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1076–1336 · show in text ↑
t0

“Weed development in sunflower and chickpea crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–48 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Subsoil drip irrigation reduced weed development in chickpea crops 1,55 times relative to surface drip irrigation.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
subsoil drip irrigatione0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
degree of weed developmente0
Direction
reducede0
Value
1,55 timese0
Comparator
the typical surface laying of drip irrigation pipelinese0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the implementation of subsoil drip irrigation on average over the years of research reduced the degree of weed development in sunflower and chickpea crops by 1,65 and 1,55 times, respectively, compared to the typical surface laying of drip irrigation pipelines”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1076–1336 · show in text ↑
t0

“Weed development in sunflower and chickpea crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–48 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reduced weed development lowered the number of herbicide treatments by 33-50 %.

Taxon
sunflower and chickpea cropsCicer arietinumHelianthus annuust0
Interactor
Weedt0weed
Outcome
number of herbicide treatments of cropse0
Direction
reducinge0
Value
33-50 %e0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Helianthus annuus
Helianthus annuus · TaxonJon Sullivan · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“that reduced the pesticide load on the field agro-ecosystem by reducing the number of herbicide treatments of crops by an average of 33-50 %”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1350–1490 · show in text ↑
t0

“Weed development in sunflower and chickpea crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–48 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Irrigation method did not significantly affect weed species composition.

Taxon
sunflower and chickpea cropsCicer arietinumHelianthus annuust0
Treatment
method of irrigatione0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Outcome
species composition of weedse0
Direction
not significantly affectede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Helianthus annuus
Helianthus annuus · TaxonJon Sullivan · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The species composition of weeds was not significantly affected by the method of irrigation.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1492–1584 · show in text ↑
t0

“sunflower and chickpea crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 20–48 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Weeds reduced sunflower productivity by 18,0-21,2 %.

Taxon
sunflowerHelianthus annuuse0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
productivity of the investigated cropse0
Direction
reducede0
Value
18,0-21,2 %e0

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

Helianthus annuus
Helianthus annuus · TaxonJon Sullivan · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“weed development in crops significantly reduced the productivity of the investigated crops: sunflower by 18,0-21,2 % and chickpea by 27,9-29,7 %”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1668–1812 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Weeds reduced chickpea productivity by 27,9-29,7 %.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
productivity of the investigated cropse0
Direction
reducede0
Value
27,9-29,7 %e0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“weed development in crops significantly reduced the productivity of the investigated crops: sunflower by 18,0-21,2 % and chickpea by 27,9-29,7 %”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1668–1812 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Without irrigation, weeds reduced sunflower yield by 24,6 %.

Taxon
sunflowerHelianthus annuuse0
Interactor
Weedt0weed
Outcome
yield reductione0
Direction
reductione0
Value
24,6 %e0
Setting
reference variant without irrigatione0

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

Helianthus annuus
Helianthus annuus · TaxonJon Sullivan · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“yield reduction in the reference variant without irrigation was 24,6 % for sunflower and 30,0 % for chickpeas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1934–2043 · show in text ↑
t0

“Weed development in sunflower and chickpea crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–48 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Without irrigation, weeds reduced chickpea yield by 30,0 %.

Taxon
chickpeasCicer arietinume0
Interactor
Weedt0weed
Outcome
yield reductione0
Direction
reductione0
Value
30,0 %e0
Setting
reference variant without irrigatione0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“yield reduction in the reference variant without irrigation was 24,6 % for sunflower and 30,0 % for chickpeas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1934–2043 · show in text ↑
t0

“Weed development in sunflower and chickpea crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–48 · show in text ↑

irrigation · weed · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
See all 3 papers →

tillage · weed · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 8 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

tillage · weed · Helianthus annuus (common sunflower)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 6 positive, 5 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

irrigation · weed · Helianthus annuus (common sunflower)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.