Paper · 2005 · The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences

Weed dynamics and their management in sugarcane under different preceding crops and tillage systems

T. K. Srivastava; R. S. Chauhan; Hi Lal

8
claims
12
verbatim quotes
7
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during 1998-2002 to study the effect of preceding crops and tillage systems on population dynamics of weeds in sugarcane crop and its yield and quality in relation to weed management. The sugarcane crop faced intense competition with sedges (abundance index &gt4) at tillering stage (60 days after planting) irrespective of preceding crops, viz wheat (Triticum aestivum L. emend. Fiori & Paol.) or Indian mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czernj. & Cosson], and tillage systems, viz conventional or minimum. At the onset of grand growth (120 days after planting), the weed flora was influenced with the extent of rainfall, as grasses took over the field (abundance index &gt 4) from sedges in the second crop cycle that received good rainfall. Indian mustard as preceding crop caused significantly higher weed density in sugarcane (60.1 and 67.5/m² in 1999-2000 and 2000-01) compared with that after wheat (47.4 and 58.1/m²) at 60 days after planting. Effect of tillage systems on weed density and dry matter production in sugarcane crop was, however, inconsistent over the crop stages and seasons. Significantly higher cane yield owing to management of weeds through hoeing (64.1 and 84.7 tonnes/ha) as well as herbicides (58 and 70.4 tonnes/ha) was obtained over weedy check (49.9 and 33.9 tonnes/ha) that caused 22.1 and 59.9% loss in cane yield during the first and second crop cycles respectively.

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 8

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sedges strongly competed with sugarcane at tillering regardless of preceding crop or tillage.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Organ / stage
tillering stagee0
Interactor
sedgesCarexe0weed
Outcome
intense competition with sedgese0
Value
60 dayse0

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

Carex
Carex · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Christian Fischer · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The sugarcane crop faced intense competition with sedges (abundance index &gt4) at tillering stage (60 days after planting) irrespective of preceding crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 217–372 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

With good rainfall in the second crop cycle, grasses replaced sedges as dominant weeds in sugarcane.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Interactor
grassese0weed
Second interactor
sedgesCarexe0weed
Outcome
grasses took over the fielde0
Qualifier
second crop cycle that received good rainfalle0

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

Carex
Carex · Second interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Christian Fischer · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“grasses took over the field (abundance index &gt 4) from sedges in the second crop cycle that received good rainfall”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 655–771 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 38–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Indian mustard as preceding crop raised sugarcane weed density relative to wheat at 60 days.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Treatment
Indian mustard as preceding crope0
Outcome
weed densitye0
Direction
highere0
Value
60.1 and 67.5/m²e0
Qualifier
47.4 and 58.1/m²e0
Comparator
wheate0

Verbatim

e0

“Indian mustard as preceding crop caused significantly higher weed density in sugarcane (60.1 and 67.5/m² in 1999-2000 and 2000-01) compared with that after wheat (47.4 and 58.1/m²) at 60 days after planting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 773–979 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage effects on weed density in sugarcane were inconsistent across stages and seasons.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Treatment
tillage systemse0
Outcome
weed densitye0
Direction
inconsistente0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Effect of tillage systems on weed density and dry matter production in sugarcane crop was, however, inconsistent over the crop stages and seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 981–1126 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tillage effects on weed dry matter production in sugarcane were inconsistent across stages and seasons.

Taxon
sugarcanee0
Treatment
tillage systemse0
Outcome
dry matter productione0
Direction
inconsistente0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Effect of tillage systems on weed density and dry matter production in sugarcane crop was, however, inconsistent over the crop stages and seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 981–1126 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Hoeing significantly raised cane yield over the weedy check in both crop cycles.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
hoeinge0
Outcome
cane yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
64.1 and 84.7 tonnes/hae0
Qualifier
49.9 and 33.9 tonnes/hae0
Comparator
weedy checke0

Verbatim

e0

“Significantly higher cane yield owing to management of weeds through hoeing (64.1 and 84.7 tonnes/ha) as well as herbicides (58 and 70.4 tonnes/ha) was obtained over weedy check (49.9 and 33.9 tonnes/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1128–1331 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 38–47 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Herbicides significantly raised cane yield over the weedy check in both crop cycles.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Treatment
herbicidese0
Outcome
cane yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
58 and 70.4 tonnes/hae0
Qualifier
49.9 and 33.9 tonnes/hae0
Comparator
weedy checke0

Verbatim

e0

“Significantly higher cane yield owing to management of weeds through hoeing (64.1 and 84.7 tonnes/ha) as well as herbicides (58 and 70.4 tonnes/ha) was obtained over weedy check (49.9 and 33.9 tonnes/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1128–1331 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 38–47 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weeds caused sugarcane yield losses of 22.1 and 59.9% in the first and second crop cycles.

Taxon
sugarcanet0
Interactor
weedy checke0weed
Outcome
loss in cane yielde0
Value
22.1 and 59.9%e0

Verbatim

e0

“weedy check (49.9 and 33.9 tonnes/ha) that caused 22.1 and 59.9% loss in cane yield during the first and second crop cycles respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1294–1430 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugarcane”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 38–47 · show in text ↑

herbicide · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results differ

51 papers: 37 positive, 14 negative or no effect

36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect

47 papers more in this group

See all 51 papers →

rotation · weed · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)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.