ISWS, India

All issues

Indian Journal of Weed Science

Print ISSN: 0253-8050
Online ISSN: 0974-8164

NAAS rating: 5.17

Chief Editor

J.S. Mishra

Dr. J.S. Mishra
Principal Scientist, Division of Crop Research,
ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region,
Bihar Veterinary College, Patna - 800014 (Bihar)
Mobile - +91 9494240904
Email- editorisws@gmail, jsmishra31@gmail.com

Associate editors

Bhagirath S. Chauhan

Dr. Bhagirath Singh Chauhan
Queensland Alliance for Agricultureand Food Innovation
Level 2, Queensland Bioscience Precinct
The University of Queensland
St Lucia QLD 4069, Australia
Email: b.chauhan@uq.edu.au

A.N. Rao

Dr. A.N. Rao
Hydarabad, INDIA
Mobile Number: +91 9440372165
Email: adusumilli.narayanarao@gmail.com

CALL FOR RESEARCH PAPER

Indian Journal of Weed Science is inviting your articles, review article, Research article and Research note on all topics of weed science. IJWS welcomes quality work that focuses on research, development and review. We are looking forward for strict compliance to the modern age standards in all these fields. Authors across the globe are welcome to submit their research papers in the prestigious journal fulfilling the requisite criterion.

Indian Journal of Weed Science (IJWS) is inviting papers for the VOL-53, ISSUE-1 March-(2021)

Article submission guideline

Enter your login details for IJWS below. If you do not already have an account you will need to.. Register here
Author login

Paper Publication Process –

Manuscripts are received online in the editorial office with the certificate that MS has not been sent for consideration in any other journals for consideration.
Manuscripts are checked by office for its style and pattern and for plagiarism. If plagiarism is more than 20%, it is not considered and sent back to author for revision and re-submission.
If MS is found fit at Editorial office in context to plagiarism and style and pattern, it is sent to Chief Editor for further processing.
If chief Editor find the MS suitable for consideration, he shall suggest two name of referees as reviewers either from editorial board or from other institutions of concern discipline for reviewing the MS.
Editorial Office shall send the MS for double blind review to the reviewers suggested by Chief Editor.
Comments of double -blind reviewers will be sent to corresponding author without disclosing the identity of the reviewers to address the comments and re-submission of MS.
In case, one reviewer rejects while other accept the MS, it is sent to third reviewer suggested by Chief Editor.
Revised MS is again sent to reviewers to see whether their comments are addressed suitably.
On agreeing by the reviewers, the MS is again sent to Chief Editors with comments of reviewers and reply of author to take the final decision.
The final decision of Chief Editor is communicated to authors.

CALL FOR RESEARCH PAPER

Indian Journal of Weed Science is inviting your articles, review article, Research article and Research note on all topics of weed science. IJWS welcomes quality work that focuses on research, development and review. We are looking forward for strict compliance to the modern age standards in all these fields. Authors across the globe are welcome to submit their research papers in the prestigious journal fulfilling the requisite criterion.

Indian Journal of Weed Science (IJWS) is inviting papers for the VOL-51, ISSUE-4 December-(2019)

Article submission guideline

Enter your login details for IJWS below. If you do not already have an account you will need to.. Register here
Author login

Paper Publication Process –

Manuscripts are received online in the editorial office with the certificate that MS has not been sent for consideration in any other journals for consideration.
Manuscripts are checked by office for its style and pattern and for plagiarism. If plagiarism is more than 20%, it is not considered and sent back to author for revision and re-submission.
If MS is found fit at Editorial office in context to plagiarism and style and pattern, it is sent to Chief Editor for further processing.
If chief Editor find the MS suitable for consideration, he shall suggest two name of referees as reviewers either from editorial board or from other institutions of concern discipline for reviewing the MS.
Editorial Office shall send the MS for double blind review to the reviewers suggested by Chief Editor.
Comments of double -blind reviewers will be sent to corresponding author without disclosing the identity of the reviewers to address the comments and re-submission of MS.
In case, one reviewer rejects while other accept the MS, it is sent to third reviewer suggested by Chief Editor.
Revised MS is again sent to reviewers to see whether their comments are addressed suitably.
On agreeing by the reviewers, the MS is again sent to Chief Editors with comments of reviewers and reply of author to take the final decision.
The final decision of Chief Editor is communicated to authors.

Guidelines for Authors

Indian Journal of Weed Science is a quarterly journal publishing original research article, research notes, opinion articles and review articles (invited or with prior approval of the title reflecting substantial contributions of the author) covering all areas of weed science research. All contributions must be of a sufficient quality to extend our knowledge in weed science.

The papers submitted should not have been published or communicated elsewhere. Authors will be solely responsible for the factual accuracy of their contribution. Manuscript should not carry any material already published in the same or different forms.

Format

Full length article should be suitably divided into the following sub-sections; ABSTRACT, Key words, INTRODUCTION, MATERIALS AND METHODS, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION and REFERENCES. The heading, introduction need not be mentioned in the text.

Title

The title of article should be informative but concise and should not contain abbreviations. It should indicate the content of the article essential for key word indexing and information retrieval. It should be set in small and bold letters. A good title briefly identifies the subject, indicates the purpose of study and introduces key terms and concepts. Title should not be started with the waste words like 'a study of', 'effect of', 'influence of' , 'some observations on', 'a note of' etc. The title should indicate preferably English name or most popular common name of the crops or organisms studied, wherever relevant. Scientific name can be given in abstract and introduction. Authority for such a name should be given at first mention in the text. A short title should be given for running headlines and should cover the main theme of the article.

Author(s) name(s) and affiliations

The name(s) of the author(s) should be given in small letters with sentence case separated by 'comma' or by 'and'. Institute name where the research was carried out should be given in italics. If authors are of different institutes, these can be mentioned by allotting number like 1, 2 or 3 as superscript over the name of author. The affiliation of such author may be given below of the corresponding author email address. Sometimes authors retire and change frequently and wish to give their current address, this should be given as foot note. Email address of main author or corresponding author should be given at the bottom.

Abstract

The abstract should contain at least one sentence on each of the following: objective of investigation (hypothesis, purpose, collection, result and conclusions). Give complete scientific name for plants or other organisms and full name of any symbol or abbreviations used. There is a need to mention place, name and priod of study in abstract. Emphasis should be given to highlight the results and the conclusion of the study. It should not exceed a total length of 200-250 words. Abstract should not have the words like 'will be explained or will be discussed'.

Key words

(5 6) should be given at the end of the abstract and should be arranged alphabetically. Each key word should be started with capital letter and separated by comma ( , ) from other words.

Introduction

Introduction should be brief and to the point, cover the problem and should justify the work or the hypothesis on which it is based. In introduction, a detail review is not necessary. However, to orient readers, important references about previous concepts and research should be given. It should briefly state the currently available information and should identify the research gap that is expected to be abridged through this investigation. Give preference to recent references from standard research publication unless it is of historical importance or a landmark in that field.

Materials and Methods

This part should begin with information relating to period/season/year and place of study, climate or weather conditions, soil type etc. Treatment details along with techniques and experimental design, replications, plot size etc. should be clearly indicated. Use of symbols for treatments may be avoided and an abbreviation should be fully explained at its first mention. Crop variety, methodology for application and common cultivation practices should be mentioned. Known methods may be just indicated giving reference but new techniques developed and followed should be described in detail. Methods can be divided into suitable sub-headings, typed in bold at first level and in italics at second level, if necessary.

Results and Discussion

Results may be reported and discussed together to avoid duplication. Do not mention and recite the data in the text as such given in the table. Instead interpret it suitably by indicating in terms of per cent, absolute change or any other derivations. Relate results to the objectives with suitable interpretation of the references given in the introduction. If results differ from the previous study, suitable interpretation and justification should be given. Repeated use of statements like 'our results are in agreement’ or ‘similar results were reported’ 'should be avoided. At the end of results and discussion, conclusion of the study should be given in 2-3 sentences along with suggestion for further study, if any. All statistical comparisons among treatments may be made at P=0.05 level of probability.

Acknowledgement

The authors may place on record the help and cooperation or any financial help received from any source, person or organization for this study. This should be very brief.

References

Only relevant and recent references of standard work should be quoted. Preference should be given to quote references of journals over proceedings or reports. In general, not more than 15 references should be quoted in full paper and 5 in short communication. However, in review article, emphasis should be given to quote more references with each valid statement/findings in the text. There is no need to give references for standard procedures of soil and plant analysis, and for routine statistical analysis in practice, only the methodology may be indicated. As a thumb rule, all the references quoted in the text must appear at the end of the article and vice-verse. It has been decided to use full name of the journal after the year 2011 onwards. Therefore, references should include names of all authors, year, full title of the article quoted, full name of the journal in italics (no abbreviations), volume number (in Bold), issue number (in brackets) and pages. For books, monographs, theses etc. full title in italics, publisher or university name, volume no., if any, and relevant page range or total no. of pages should be given. The list of references should be arranged alphabetically on author's names and chronologically per author. Author name should be started with surname and initial letter with capital letter. There is no need to separate author's initials by full stop but it should be given in capital letters without gap. Each author name should be separated by comma (,) and last author name by ‘and’. A few examples of correct citation of references for Indian Journal of Weed Science are given below:

Singh Samunder, Punia SS, Yadav A and Hooda VS. 2011. Evaluation of carfentrazone-ethyl + metsulfuron-methyl against broadleaf weeds of wheat. Indian Journal of Weed Science 43(1&2): 12-22.

Neeser C and Varshney Jay G. 2001. Purple nutsedge; biology and principles for management without herbicides, Indian Journal of Pulses Research 14(1): 10-19.

Naseema A, Praveena R and Salim AM. 2004. Ecofriendly management of water hyacinth with a mycoherbicide and cashew nut shell liquid. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research 10(1&2): 93-100.

Arya DR, Kapoor RD and Dhirajpant. 2008. Herbicide tolerant crops: a boon to Indian agriculture, pp 23-31. In: Biennial Conference on Weed Management in Modern Agriculture: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities. (Eds. Sharma RS, Sushilkumar, Mishra JS, Barman KK and Sondhia Shobha), 27-28 February 2008, Patna. Indian Society of Weed Science, Jabalpur.

Anonymous. 2006. Long-term herbicide trial in transplanted lowland rice-rice cropping system, pp 62-68. In: Annual Progress Report, AICRP on Weed Control, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.

DWSR. 2010. Annual Report, 2010-11, pp 35-37. Directorate of Weed Science Research, Jabalpur.

Gopal B and Sharma KP. 1981. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) the most troublesome weeds of the world. Hindasia Publisher, New Delhi, 129 p.

Sushilkumar, Sondhia S and Vishwakarma K. 2003. Role of insects in suppression of problematic alligator weed (Altemanthera philoxeroides) and testing of herbicides for its integrated management. Final Report of ICAR Adhoc Project, 39 p.

For Web references: the full URL should be given and the date when the reference was last accessed. e.g. http://www.faostat.fao.org (accessed 21 May 2019)

Length

Full length manuscript should not exceed 4500 words including space required for figures, tables and list of references. Research note can be up to 2500 words, with not more than 2 figures or tables. One season/year data should invariably be presented as research notes only.

Units, abbreviations and nomenclature

For physical units, unit names and symbols, the SI system should be employed. Biological names should be given according to the latest international nomenclature. Upon its first use in the title, abstract and text, the common name of a weed should be followed by the scientific name (genus, species and authority) in parentheses. If no common name exists in English, the scientific name should be used only. At the first mention of an herbicide or other chemical substance, give its generic name only. Trade names should not be used. Biological and zoological names, gene designations and gene symbols should be italicized. Yield data should be reported in kg/ha or t/ha. All such letters such as viz., et al., in situ, ex situ, Rabi, Kharif, i.e., etc. should be italicized.

Tables and figures

Tables and figures should be concise and limited to the necessary minimum. We encourage the authors to set tables and figures at the appropriate places in the article but if it is not possible, the same may be given separately. The title should fully describe the contents of the table and explain any symbol or abbreviations used in it. The standard abbreviations of the units of different parameters should be indicated in parentheses. Vertical lines should not be given in the tables and horizontal lines should be used to separate parameters and end of the table.

Figures may be preferred in place of table. In no case the same data should be presented by both tables and figures. While presenting data through line graphs, vertical bars, cylinders, pie charts etc, the same should be preferred with black lines or bars having different clear symbols and shades. The graphs chosen with colours reproduce poorly and should not be given unless it became necessary.

Some useful tips

Avoid numerals and abbreviations at the beginning of a sentence. Don't use superscript for per hectare, ton or meter (kg ha^-1 or t ha^-1) instead use kg/ha or g/m², t/ha, mg/g, ml/l etc. Prefer to mention yield data in t/ha only. If it becomes necessary, give yield in kg/ha but not in quintal. Don't use lakh, crores or arabs in text, instead give such figures in million. Only standard abbreviations should be used and invariably be explained at first mention. Avoid use of self-made abbreviations like iso., buta., rizo., etc. Don't use first letter capital for names of plant protection chemicals but it should be used for trade names. Use of treatment symbols like T₁ T₂ T₃ etc. should be avoided. All weights and measurements must be in SI or metric units. Use % after double digit figures, not per cent, for example 10% not 10 per cent. In a series of range of measurement, mention the units only at the end, e.g. 3,4,5 kg/ha instead of 3 kg/ha, 4 kg/ha and 5 kg/ha. Nutrient doses as well as concentration in soil and plant should be given in elemental form only, i.e. P and K should not be given as P₂O₅ K₂O. A variety may be mentioned within single quotes in italic such as 'Pusa Basmai', 'Kufri Sinduri' etc. Statistical data should be given in LSD (P=0.05) instead CD (P=0.05).

Authors are requested to see the recent issue of the journal to prepare the manuscript as per the journal's format.

Manuscript submission

Manuscripts must conform to the journal style (see the latest issue). Correct language is the responsibility of the author. After having received a contribution, there will be a review process, before the Chief Editor makes the definitive decision upon the acceptance for publication. Referee's comments along with editors comments will be communicated to authors as scanned copy/soft copy through email. After revision, author should send back the copy of revised manuscripts to the Chief Editor, ISWS by e-mail only.

Editorial Board reserves the right to suitably modify, accept or reject the MS in view on the reviewer's advice.

We encourage submission of paper only by electronically via E-mail as one complete word document file. When preparing your file, please use only Times New Roman font for text (title 16, all heads 14 and text of 12 point, double spacing with 1.5" margin all the sides) and Symbol font for Greek letters to avoid inadvertent character substitutions.

All manuscripts should be submitted Online (http://www.isws.org.in/login_IJWS.aspx). For authors unable to submit their manuscript online

To see sample copy to prepare the manuscript, please Log on: http://www.isws.org.in/IJWSn/Journal.aspx

Peer Review Policy

All published articles in Indian Journal of Weed Science (IJWS) are subjected to rigorous peer review processes based on initial editor screening and anonymized refereeing by two referees. The ultimate purpose of peer review is to sustain the originality and quality of research work and filtration of poor quality and plagiarized articles. Peer review assures research quality.

Paper Publication Process –

Manuscripts are received online in the editorial office with the certificate that MS has not been sent for consideration in any other journals for consideration.
Manuscripts are checked by office for its style and pattern and for plagiarism. If plagiarism is more than 20%, it is not considered and sent back to author for revision and re-submission.
If MS is found fit at Editorial office in context to plagiarism and style and pattern, it is sent to Chief Editor for further processing.
If chief Editor find the MS suitable for consideration, he shall suggest two name of referees as reviewers either from editorial board or from other institutions of concern discipline for reviewing the MS.
Editorial Office shall send the MS for double blind review to the reviewers suggested by Chief Editor.
Comments of double -blind reviewers will be sent to corresponding author without disclosing the identity of the reviewers to address the comments and re-submission of MS.
In case, one reviewer rejects while other accept the MS, it is sent to third reviewer suggested by Chief Editor.
Revised MS is again sent to reviewers to see whether their comments are addressed suitably.
On agreeing by the reviewers, the MS is again sent to Chief Editors with comments of reviewers and reply of author to take the final decision.
The final decision of Chief Editor is communicated to authors.

Peer Review Policy

The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our reviewers therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the (Indian Journal of Weed Science) Journal of Management and Research and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

Initial manuscript evaluation

The Editors first evaluate all manuscripts. In some circumstances it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to experts for review.

Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed within 2 weeks of receipt.

Type of Peer Review

The (Indian Journal of Weed Science) employs double blind review, where the reviewer remains anonymous to the authors throughout the process.

How the reviewer is selected

Reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our reviewer database contains reviewer contact details together with their subject areas of interest, and this is constantly being updated.

Reviewer reports

Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

Is original
Is methodologically sound
Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
Correctly references previous relevant work

Reviewers are not expected to correct or copyedit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer review process. Reviewers are requested to refrain from giving their personal opinion in the "Reviewer blind comments to Author" section of their review on whether or not the paper should be published. Personal opinions can be expressed in the "Reviewer confidential comments to Editor" section.

How long does the peer review process take?

Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within 2-8 weeks. Should the reviewers' reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed a further expert opinion will be sought. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the Editors within 3 weeks and the Editors may request further advice from the reviewers at this time. The Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript.

Final report

A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the reviewers, and may include verbatim comments by the reviewers.
Chief Editor's Decision is final
Reviewers advise the Editors, who are responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

Special Issues / Conference Proceedings

Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organizers or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office.

Becoming a Reviewer for the (Indian Journal of Weed Science)

If you are not currently a reviewer for the (Indian Journal of Weed Science) but would like to be considered as a reviewer for this Journal, please contact the editorial office by e-mail at (editorisws@gmail.com), and provide your contact details. If your request is approved and you are added to the online reviewer database you will receive a confirmatory email, asking you to add details on your field of expertise, in the format of subject classifications.

Editorial Board

Editorial office:

Office Manager, Indian Society of Weed Science, ICAR-Directorate of Weed Research, Maharajpur, Jabalpur, India 482 004

Publisher Address:

Secretary, Indian Society of Weed Science, ICAR-Directorate of Weed Research, Maharajpur, Jabalpur, India 482 004

Principal Scientist
Division of Crop Research
ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region
Bihar Veterinary College, Patna - 800014 (Bihar)

Chief Editor J.S. Mishra 9494240904 jsmishra31@gmail.com

The University of Queensland
St Lucia QLD 4069, Australia

Associate Editor Bhagirath Singh Chauhan b.chauhan@uq.edu.au

Consultant,
ICRISAT,
International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics
Patancheru, Hyderabad

Associate Editor A.N. Rao 9440372165 adusumilli.narayanarao@gmail.com

Editors

Professor,
Department of Agronomy, CCSHAU,
Hisar-125 004 (Haryana)

Ashok Kumar Yadav 9416995523 aky444@gmail.com

Professor & Head,
Division of Agronomy
FoA, Main Campus,
Chatha, SKUAST-Jammu (J&K)

B.C. Sharma 9419152428 drbhagwati@gmail.com

Principal
Vanavarayar Institute of Agriculture
Affiliated to TNAU)
Manakkadavu, Pollachi-642103 (Tamil Nadu)

C. Chinnusamy 9443721575 chinnusamyc@gmail.com

Scientist,
ICAR - Directorate of Weed Research,
Jabalpur (Madhya Padesh)

Dibakar Ghosh 8989190213 dghoshagro@gmail.com

Principal Scientist
Department of Agronomy,
Assam Agricultural University
Jorhat - 785013 (Assam)

I.C. Barua 9435094326 iswar_barua@yahoo.co.in

Principal Scientist
PJTSAU, Hyderabad-30 (Telangana)

M. Madhavi 9491021999 molluru_m@yahoo.com

Assistant Agronomist
Directorate of Agriculture (Govt. of WB)
Kolkata 700001, West Bengal

Malay Kumar Bhowmick 9434239688 bhowmick_malay@rediffmail.com

Associate Professor
(Soil Science & Agrl. Chemistry)
Anbil Dharmalingam Agricultural College & Research Institute (TNAU),
Trichy (Tamil Nadu)

P. Janaki 9443936160 janakibalamurugan@rediffmail.com

Assistant Chemist (Residue),
Department of Agronomy,
Punjab Agricultural University
Ludhina-141 004 (Punjab)

Pervinder Kaur 9646105418 pervi_7@yahoo.co.in

Sr. Agronomist, Directorate of Extension Education
Punjab Agricultural University
Ludhiana – 141004 (Punjab)

Simerjeet Kaur 9814081108 simer@pau.edu

College of Horticulture,
Vellanikkara. Thrissur – 680 656, (Kerala)

T. Girija 9447004940 girijavijai@gmail.com

Principal Scientist,
Directorate of Maize Research,
Pusa Campus, New Delhi-110012

C.M. Parihar 9013172214 pariharcm@gmail.com

Indexing Indexing & Abstracting Services

Volume- 1 \| Issue-3&4 (Jul-Dec) \| Year 1969

Volume- 1 | Issue-3&4 (Jul-Dec) | Year 1969

The Evolution of Weed Control as a Science B. P. Upchurch Full length articles \| DOI: IJWS-1969-1-3&4-1 \| Volume: 1 Page No:77-82 \| Address & Email \| Article preview \| View PFD \| Download Abstract: Email Address Special lecture delivered to weed specialists at T. A, R. I.. New Delhi.
Mode of action of Simazine [2-Chloro-4, 6-bis (ethylamino) S-Triazine] in relation to Phyto-toxicity D. J. Chadnra Singh and J. C. Frazier Full length articles \| DOI: IJWS-1969-1-3&4-2 \| Volume: 1 Page No:83-94 \| Address & Email \| Article preview \| View PFD \| Download Abstract: Many investigations have been conducted on hormonal herbicides like 2, 4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid and similar compounds but relatively few studies have been made on 2-chloro 4, 6-bis (ethylamino)-S-triazine (simazine). The general processes of absorption, translocation, growth regulation, and mechanism of herbicidal action of a broad spectrum of herbicides have been reviewed recently (9, 10,22,25,30,33,37). Most of the investigations with sima. zine have dealt primarily with corn and have been largely concerned with symptomatology and toxicology. The chemistry, absorption, translocation, metabol-ism and toxicity of triazine herbicides have been summarised (17, 26). A few investigations have dealt wholly with the absorption and translocation aspects of. simazine (6, 11, 31). It was' estab lishad by Exer (12) and Moreland et at, (27) that simazine acts as a c;trong inhibitor of the Hlll reaction (Phototysis of water). A series of studies by Gysin and associates (16 & 17) have given Impetus to relating chemical structure to phytotoxicity. Email Address Plant Physiologist and Professor in Plant Physiology, Dept, of Biological Sciences. Kansas fitate University, Manhattan (Kans.) U. S. A
Weed Control in the Fodder Crops of Teosinte & Maize R. K. Panday, R. P. Singh and M. Singh Full length articles \| DOI: IJWS-1969-1-3&4-3 \| Volume: 1 Page No:95-102 \| Address & Email \| Article preview \| View PFD \| Download Abstract: A field exper irnent on the control of weeds in teosinte and maize fodders was conducted at the Central Farm of the Indian Grassland & Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi during 1967-68 and 1968-69. The treatments included preemergerce application of slrnaz in e (0.75 and 1.50 kg a.i./ha) alone and in combination with post-emergence application of amine salts of 2, 4-0 and MCPA and mechanical weeding, in addition to mechanical weeding alone, intercropoing with cowpeas and untreated control. The residual effect of treatments was studied on the mbi crops of potato and berseem. Treatment effects were observed on weeds and the fodder yields. Application of simazine @ 1.50 kg a i /ha in combination with mechanical weeding proved most effective in controlling weeds and increasing the yield of fodders. This treatment was also found suitable for the cultivation of potato or berseem crops during the rabi season. Email Address *Asstt. Agronomist (Weed Control), Agronomist (Weed Control), Indian Grassland & Fodder Research Institution, Jhansi, and Director, Central Potato Research Institution, Simla
Relative efficiency of Weedicides with and without hand weeding in Maize S. C. Chaurasia and N. N. Sharma Full length articles \| DOI: IJWS-1969-1-3&4-4 \| Volume: 1 Page No:103-109 \| Address & Email \| Article preview \| View PFD \| Download Abstract: Important findings from the investigation are, summarised below :- Yield attributes such as length and girth of cob, number of grains per cob and 1000-grain weight were significantly influenced by pre-emergence application of the full dose, irrespective of the weedicides. However, among the weedicides, Tafazine 50 W (Simazine) proved to be the best Maximum grain and stover yields were obtained with full dose pre-emergence application of Tafazine 50 W (Simazine). In almost all the characters two hand. weeding was superior to one hand weeding. Email Address Division of Agronomy, Bihar Agricultural College, S!lbour (Bhagalpur),
Comparative Efficiency of Afalon, Tafazine 50-W and 2,4-D in controlling weeds in Jowar (Andropogon sorghum Brot.) G. K. Patro and G. C. Tosh Full length articles \| DOI: IJWS-1969-1-3&4-5 \| Volume: 1 Page No:110-114 \| Address & Email \| Article preview \| View PFD \| Download Abstract: The investigation was carried out on jowar crop with the variety CSH-1 in the 'A' block of the Agronomy Research Farm. Bhubaneswar during the winter season of the year 1968-69 in a sandy loam soil of average fertil ity status with eight treatments and three replications in a randomised block design. Afalon [N-(3, 4-dichlorophenyl)-Nl-methoxy-Nl-methYI urea] @ 1.0 kg a e./ha, Tafazine 50 W [Simazine i e, 2-chloro 4, 6-bis-(ethyl amino)-s-triazine] @ 1.0 kg a.e /ha and Na salt of 2, 4-0 @ 1.68 kg a.e.jha were tried aione and in combination with one hoeing and earthing comprising of six herbicidal treatments. The other two treatments 'Cu Itivators' practice' (Two hoeings, two weedings and two earthings) and un-weeded control. All the herbicides were tried as pre-emergence sprays, immediately on the next day of sowing mixing in water @ 1124 litres/ha. The salient results obtained are given below: 1. Afalon and Tafazine SOW appeared to have no adverse effect on germination. Na salt of 2, 4·0 significantly reduced germination over all the rest of the treatments. 2. All the treatments Significantly reduced the weed population over un-weeded control. Afalon and Tafazine 50 W when supplemented with one hoeing and earthing recorded the minimum weed population count. 3. Maximum grain yield/ha was recorded with Afalon, whensuoolemented with one hoeing and earthing. Email Address Contribution from the weed research scheme, Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology, Bhubaneswar-J,
Auxin Mediated Nucleic Acid and Protein Synthesis in Simazine Treated Maize Plants O. S. Singh, B. K. Sinha and S. K. Madan Full length articles \| DOI: IJWS-1969-1-3&4-6 \| Volume: 1 Page No:115-118 \| Address & Email \| Article preview \| View PFD \| Download Abstract: Maize plants (var. Ganga Hybrid 1) were treated with 0, 0.5x19-soM, 0.5x 10-,1"M. 0.5x10_-10M concentrations of simazi ne. Treated plants exh ioited higher level-of chlorophyll auxin, DNA, RNA and protein and a decreased activity of proxidas. Impact of increased level of auxin in simazine treated plants on nucleic acid and protein synthesis has been discussed. Email Address Assisiant Professor of Botany. Assistant Professor of f'oils and Graduate student. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana
Chemical Weed Control in Cotton G. Hunsigi, B. H. Katarki and S. B. Hunnikeri Full length articles \| DOI: IJWS-1969-1-3&4-7 \| Volume: 1 Page No:119-122 \| Address & Email \| Article preview \| View PFD \| Download Abstract: The investigations were carried out at Dharwar and Gadag during 1968-69 to study the efficacy of herbicides applied either in the. crop rowan in the entire plot on seed cotton yield. Substituted-urea compounds like Diuron and Cotoron applied in the crop row at 0.625 Kg./ha controlled weeds effictively and produced more seed cotton yield. Weed index (W. I.) values were low in plot where diuron and cotoron were applied in the crop rows, suggessting that reduction in seed cotton yield due to weed competition is considerably less. Tire application of herbicides for cotton in the crop row seems to be better than in the entire plot. Email Address *Agronomist, Cotton Specialist and Research Assistant respectively University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwar.
Weed Control in Sugarcane by Pre-emergence Application of Some Weedicides and their Effect on Sugarcane Onkar Singh, H. S. Gill and C. N. Babu Full length articles \| DOI: IJWS-1969-1-3&4-8 \| Volume: 1 Page No:123-128 \| Address & Email \| Article preview \| View PFD \| Download Abstract: Experiments were conducted to studv the comparative efficacy of pre-emergence (to crop) spray of six weedicides viz: s~azin~, atra~ine, prometryne. ametryne. desmetryne and sodium 2. 4-0 each at 3..82 kg./ha for control of weeds in sugarcane and their effects on cane yield and juice quality. Maximum weed mortality was attained under simlzine '(73 6%) followed by atraz lne (69.8%,. There were indications of early disintegration in soil of prometryne, ametryne, and desmetryne. than simazine and atrazine. Germination percentage was not affected but the tillering capacity was favourably influenced by the weedicidal treatments. Height of cane was found to be significantly greater under all the weedicides except 2. 4-0. Hi hest cane yield of 420.2 q/ha. was obtainAd under simazine. followed by atrazine (410.4 q/ha). Difference between simazine and atrazine was not significant. The quality of cane juice i. e. Sucrose and purity percentage was not influenced C1ythe weedicidal treatments. Email Address Contribution from Sugarcane Physiology Section, Department of Plant Breeding, P. A. U. Ludhiana (Pb).
Weed Flora of Malpura A. S. Faroda Full length articles \| DOI: IJWS-1969-1-3&4-9 \| Volume: 1 Page No:129-140 \| Address & Email \| Article preview \| View PFD \| Download Abstract: Email Address "'Central She~p & Wool Research Institution, Avikanagar (Rajasthan).
Sensitivity of dwarf and desi wheats at different growth stages to the application of 2.4-D N. K. Behl and M. K. Moolani Full length articles \| DOI: IJWS-1969-1-3&4-10 \| Volume: 1 Page No:141-148 \| Address & Email \| Article preview \| View PFD \| Download Abstract: Experimental trials were laid out at the Agronomy Reserch Farm of Punjab Agricultural Univer sliy, Hissarfor two' years in the rabi season 9f 1~67-68and 1968-69 to study the response of 2, 4-0ichlorophenoxy acetic acide applied at " different crop stages to wheat (Kalyan-227 andC-306) ..The soil of the experimental area l s of sandy loam type and received about 118 and 36 mm of rainfall during the crop seoson for the year 1967-68 and 1968-69 respectively; Results of the exper lrnentclear lyIndtcate that" senstive stage of the wheat crop to the .aoplic atio n of 2.4-D is at seedling'stage (Spray 15 daysafter so..yin:g). At this stage, ths leaves of the pl ant s were oniontike in nature, Various abnormalities of the spikelets like numerous sterile spikes, curvature of the soikelets, erect spikes occured due to which the yield of the wheat crop was reduced si{J-Oificantely as compared to all other treatments. The best tlrne for spraying 2, 4-D appl ication was found from 30-45 days in ~alyan 227 and 45 days after sowing. In C·306 varieties of wheat. At earlier and Iaterstaqes, the weed mortalities' was found to be less as compared to optimum stages and thus had competition with wheat crop 'resulting in reduced crop yield. . Email Address Research Assistant (Agronomy) and Professor and Head. Department of Agronomy. Punjab Agricultural University, Hissar,
Herbicidal Control of Weeds in Potato O. N. Mehrotra, R. C. Garg and I. Singh Full length articles \| DOI: IJWS-1969-1-3&4-11 \| Volume: 1 Page No:149-156 \| Address & Email \| Article preview \| View PFD \| Download Abstract: An experiment was carried out at Kanour for two seasons, 1967-68 and 1968-69 to determine the comparative efflciency of some pre and post emergence her~icides sprayed in aqueous solution' b'y a knapsack sprayer, for the contra of weeds in potato var iety kufri shakti, Apal ic atlo n of Tok E-25 at the rate of 1.5 kg a. i./ha as pre-emergence treatment gave the highest tuber yield of potato (420.4 quintals/ha); this was followed by Stam F-34 (370.8) and Eotarn (330.4). Tok E-25, gave 39.1% higher tuber yield and when compared with control and other treatments the differences were significant. Weeds were controlled to the extent of 61.9% by Tok E-25. Eptarn as a pre-planting treatment, gave an overall 90.1% weed control and was found most effective in controlling Cyperus rotusulus, Stam F-34 showed only 42.8 percent control of the weeds.' Tok E-25 and Stam F-34 appeared promising and most economical herbicides for controlling weeds in potato. They not only gave signiflcantly higher yield, but also effectively controlled majority of the weeds. However, where Cyperus rotumdus is the problem, Eptam seems better. The highest income of Rs. 2936.00 per hectare was obtained with Tok E-25, followed by Starn F-34 (Rs. 2006.50) and Eptarn (Rs, 728.10) Email Address Contribution from U. P. Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Kanpur-2.

Abstract:

Email

Address

Special lecture delivered to weed specialists at T. A, R. I.. New Delhi.

Abstract:

Many investigations have been conducted on hormonal herbicides like 2, 4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid and similar compounds but relatively few studies have been made on 2-chloro 4, 6-bis (ethylamino)-S-triazine (simazine). The general processes of absorption, translocation, growth regulation, and mechanism of herbicidal action of a broad spectrum of herbicides have been reviewed recently (9, 10,22,25,30,33,37). Most of the investigations with sima. zine have dealt primarily with corn and have been largely concerned with symptomatology and toxicology. The chemistry, absorption, translocation, metabol-ism and toxicity of triazine herbicides have been summarised (17, 26). A few investigations have dealt wholly with the absorption and translocation aspects of. simazine (6, 11, 31). It was' estab lishad by Exer (12) and Moreland et at, (27) that simazine acts as a c;trong inhibitor of the Hlll reaction (Phototysis of water). A series of studies by Gysin and associates (16 & 17) have given Impetus to relating chemical structure to phytotoxicity.

Email

Address

Plant Physiologist and Professor in Plant Physiology, Dept, of Biological Sciences. Kansas fitate University, Manhattan (Kans.) U. S. A

Abstract:

A field exper irnent on the control of weeds in teosinte and maize fodders was conducted at the Central Farm of the Indian Grassland & Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi during 1967-68 and 1968-69. The treatments included preemergerce application of slrnaz in e (0.75 and 1.50 kg a.i./ha) alone and in combination with post-emergence application of amine salts of 2, 4-0 and MCPA and mechanical weeding, in addition to mechanical weeding alone, intercropoing with cowpeas and untreated control. The residual effect of treatments was studied on the mbi crops of potato and berseem. Treatment effects were observed on weeds and the fodder yields. Application of simazine @ 1.50 kg a i /ha in combination with mechanical weeding proved most effective in controlling weeds and increasing the yield of fodders. This treatment was also found suitable for the cultivation of potato or berseem crops during the rabi season.

Email

Address

*Asstt. Agronomist (Weed Control), Agronomist (Weed Control), Indian Grassland & Fodder Research Institution, Jhansi, and Director, Central Potato Research Institution, Simla

Abstract:

Important findings from the investigation are, summarised below :- Yield attributes such as length and girth of cob, number of grains per cob and 1000-grain weight were significantly influenced by pre-emergence application of the full dose, irrespective of the weedicides. However, among the weedicides, Tafazine 50 W (Simazine) proved to be the best Maximum grain and stover yields were obtained with full dose pre-emergence application of Tafazine 50 W (Simazine). In almost all the characters two hand. weeding was superior to one hand weeding.

Email

Address

Division of Agronomy, Bihar Agricultural College, S!lbour (Bhagalpur),

Abstract:

The investigation was carried out on jowar crop with the variety CSH-1 in the 'A' block of the Agronomy Research Farm. Bhubaneswar during the winter season of the year 1968-69 in a sandy loam soil of average fertil ity status with eight treatments and three replications in a randomised block design. Afalon [N-(3, 4-dichlorophenyl)-Nl-methoxy-Nl-methYI urea] @ 1.0 kg a e./ha, Tafazine 50 W [Simazine i e, 2-chloro 4, 6-bis-(ethyl amino)-s-triazine] @ 1.0 kg a.e /ha and Na salt of 2, 4-0 @ 1.68 kg a.e.jha were tried aione and in combination with one hoeing and earthing comprising of six herbicidal treatments. The other two treatments 'Cu Itivators' practice' (Two hoeings, two weedings and two earthings) and un-weeded control. All the herbicides were tried as pre-emergence sprays, immediately on the next day of sowing mixing in water @ 1124 litres/ha. The salient results obtained are given below:

1. Afalon and Tafazine SOW appeared to have no adverse effect on germination. Na salt of 2, 4·0 significantly reduced germination over all the rest of the treatments.

2. All the treatments Significantly reduced the weed population over un-weeded control. Afalon and Tafazine 50 W when supplemented with one hoeing and earthing recorded the minimum weed population count.

3. Maximum grain yield/ha was recorded with Afalon, whensuoolemented with one hoeing and earthing.

Email

Address

Contribution from the weed research scheme, Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology, Bhubaneswar-J,

Abstract:

Maize plants (var. Ganga Hybrid 1) were treated with 0, 0.5x19-soM, 0.5x 10-,1"M. 0.5x10_-10M concentrations of simazi ne. Treated plants exh ioited higher level-of chlorophyll auxin, DNA, RNA and protein and a decreased activity of proxidas. Impact of increased level of auxin in simazine treated plants on nucleic acid and protein synthesis has been discussed.

Email

Address

Assisiant Professor of Botany. Assistant Professor of f'oils and Graduate student. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana

Abstract:

The investigations were carried out at Dharwar and Gadag during 1968-69 to study the efficacy of herbicides applied either in the. crop rowan in the entire plot on seed cotton yield. Substituted-urea compounds like Diuron and Cotoron applied in the crop row at 0.625 Kg./ha controlled weeds effictively and produced more seed cotton yield. Weed index (W. I.) values were low in plot where diuron and cotoron were applied in the crop rows, suggessting that reduction in seed cotton yield due to weed competition is considerably less. Tire application of herbicides for cotton in the crop row seems to be better than in the entire plot.

Email

Address

*Agronomist, Cotton Specialist and Research Assistant respectively University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwar.

Abstract:

Experiments were conducted to studv the comparative efficacy of pre-emergence (to crop) spray of six weedicides viz: s~azin~, atra~ine, prometryne. ametryne. desmetryne and sodium 2. 4-0 each at 3..82 kg./ha for control of weeds in sugarcane and their effects on cane yield and juice quality. Maximum weed mortality was attained under simlzine '(73 6%) followed by atraz lne (69.8%,. There were indications of early disintegration in soil of prometryne, ametryne, and desmetryne. than simazine and atrazine. Germination percentage was not affected but the tillering capacity was favourably influenced by the weedicidal treatments. Height of cane was found to be significantly greater under all the weedicides except 2. 4-0. Hi hest cane yield of 420.2 q/ha. was obtainAd under simazine. followed by atrazine (410.4 q/ha). Difference between simazine and atrazine was not significant. The quality of cane juice i. e. Sucrose and purity percentage was not influenced C1ythe weedicidal treatments.

Email

Address

Contribution from Sugarcane Physiology Section, Department of Plant Breeding, P. A. U. Ludhiana (Pb).

Abstract:

Email

Address

"'Central She~p & Wool Research Institution, Avikanagar (Rajasthan).

Abstract:

Experimental trials were laid out at the Agronomy Reserch Farm of Punjab Agricultural Univer sliy, Hissarfor two' years in the rabi season 9f 1~67-68and 1968-69 to study the response of 2, 4-0ichlorophenoxy acetic acide applied at " different crop stages to wheat (Kalyan-227 andC-306) ..The soil of the experimental area l s of sandy loam type and received about 118 and 36 mm of rainfall during the crop seoson for the year 1967-68 and 1968-69 respectively; Results of the exper lrnentclear lyIndtcate that" senstive stage of the wheat crop to the .aoplic atio n of 2.4-D is at seedling'stage (Spray 15 daysafter so..yin:g). At this stage, ths leaves of the pl ant s were oniontike in nature, Various abnormalities of the spikelets like numerous sterile spikes, curvature of the soikelets, erect spikes occured due to which the yield of the wheat crop was reduced si{J-Oificantely as compared to all other treatments. The best tlrne for spraying 2, 4-D appl ication was found from 30-45 days in ~alyan 227 and 45 days after sowing. In C·306 varieties of wheat. At earlier and Iaterstaqes, the weed mortalities' was found to be less as compared to optimum stages and thus had competition with wheat crop 'resulting in reduced crop yield. .

Email

Address

Research Assistant (Agronomy) and Professor and Head. Department of Agronomy. Punjab Agricultural University, Hissar,

Abstract:

An experiment was carried out at Kanour for two seasons, 1967-68 and 1968-69 to determine the comparative efflciency of some pre and post emergence her~icides sprayed in aqueous solution' b'y a knapsack sprayer, for the contra of weeds in potato var iety kufri shakti, Apal ic atlo n of Tok E-25 at the rate of 1.5 kg a. i./ha as pre-emergence treatment gave the highest tuber yield of potato (420.4 quintals/ha); this was followed by Stam F-34 (370.8) and Eotarn (330.4). Tok E-25, gave 39.1% higher tuber yield and when compared with control and other treatments the differences were significant. Weeds were controlled to the extent of 61.9% by Tok E-25. Eptarn as a pre-planting treatment, gave an overall 90.1% weed control and was found most effective in controlling Cyperus rotusulus, Stam F-34 showed only 42.8 percent control of the weeds.' Tok E-25 and Stam F-34 appeared promising and most economical herbicides for controlling weeds in potato. They not only gave signiflcantly higher yield, but also effectively controlled majority of the weeds. However, where Cyperus rotumdus is the problem, Eptam seems better. The highest income of Rs. 2936.00 per hectare was obtained with Tok E-25, followed by Starn F-34 (Rs. 2006.50) and Eptarn (Rs, 728.10)

Email

Address

Contribution from U. P. Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Kanpur-2.

All issues

Indian Journal of Weed Science

Print ISSN: 0253-8050Online ISSN: 0974-8164 NAAS rating: 5.17

Chief Editor

Associate editors

CALL FOR RESEARCH PAPER

Indian Journal of Weed Science (IJWS) is inviting papers for the VOL-53, ISSUE-1 March-(2021)

Article submission guideline

Paper Publication Process –

CALL FOR RESEARCH PAPER

Indian Journal of Weed Science (IJWS) is inviting papers for the VOL-51, ISSUE-4 December-(2019)

Article submission guideline

Paper Publication Process –

Guidelines for Authors

Format

Title

Author(s) name(s) and affiliations

Abstract

Key words

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results and Discussion

Acknowledgement

References

Length

Units, abbreviations and nomenclature

Tables and figures

Some useful tips

Manuscript submission

Peer Review Policy

Paper Publication Process –

Peer Review Policy

Initial manuscript evaluation

Type of Peer Review

How the reviewer is selected

How long does the peer review process take?

Final report

Special Issues / Conference Proceedings

Becoming a Reviewer for the (Indian Journal of Weed Science)

Editorial Board

Editorial office:

Publisher Address:

Editors

Indexing Indexing & Abstracting Services

Volume- 1 | Issue-3&4 (Jul-Dec) | Year 1969

Abstract:

Email

Address

Abstract:

Email

Address

Abstract:

Email

Address

Abstract:

Email

Address

Abstract:

Email

Address

Abstract:

Email

Address

Abstract:

Email

Address

Abstract:

Email

Address

Abstract:

Email

Address

Abstract:

Email

Address

Abstract:

Email

Address

Print ISSN: 0253-8050
Online ISSN: 0974-8164

NAAS rating: 5.17