Mega business
  • Home
  • About ISWS
    • About Society
    • President's Message
    • Executive Board
    • Constitution
    • Weed Information
    • Other Important Links
    • Downloads
  • Publications
    • Indian Journal of Weed Science
    • IJWS MS online submission
    • Publications login
    • Conference Proceedings
    • Meeting Proceedings
    • ISWS Newsletters
    • Weed News
  • Membership
    • Join ISWS Online
    • Directory ISWS
    • Update ISWS Directory
  • Award
  • Contact Us
    • Contact Us
    • Directory ISWS
  • Member Login
Home IJWS
Submit Your Paper
Guide for Authors
Peer Review Policy
View Editorial Board
Abstracting/ Indexing
Current Issue
All Issue

All issues

Volume - 52(2020)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 51(2019)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 50(2018)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 49(2017)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 48(2016)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 47(2015)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 46(2014)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 45(2013)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 44(2012)
Issue-1
Issue-2
Issue-3
Issue-4
Volume - 43(2011)
Issue-1&2
Issue-3&4
Volume - 42(2010)
Issue-1&2
Issue-1&2 Supplymentary
Issue-3&4
Volume - 41(2009)
Issue-1&2
Issue-3&4
Issue-1&2 Supplymentary
Issue-3&4 Supplymentary
Volume - 40(2008)
Issue-1&2
Issue-3&4
Issue-1&2 Supplymentary
Issue-3&4 Supplymentary
Volume - 39(2007)
Issue-1&2
Volume - 38(2006)
Issue-1&2
Volume - 37(2005)
Issue-1&2
Issue-3&4
Volume - 36(2004)
Issue-1&2
Issue-3&4
Volume - 1(1969)
Issue-1&2
Issue-3&4

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
  • Author Instruction
  • Style of Invited paper
  • Style of Research Article
  • Style of Research note

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
  • Author Instruction
  • Style of Invited paper
  • Style of Research Article
  • Style of Research note

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.
Read More

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.

  • Style of Invited paper
  • Style of Research Article
  • Style of Research note

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


1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Volume- 48 | Issue-2 (Apr-Jun) | Year 2016

Herbicide-resistant weeds: Management strategies and upcoming technologies
Krishna N. Reddy and Prashant Jha
Review article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00029.0 | Volume: 48 Page No:108-111 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Herbicides have contributed to substantial increase in crop yields over the past seven decades. Over reliance on herbicides for weed control has led to rapid evolution of herbicide-resistant (HR) weeds. Increased awareness of herbicide resistance and adoption of diversified weed control tactics by farmers is critical to manage HR weeds. HR weed management must include both chemical and non-chemical methods as well as the best management practices to prevent evolution and spread of HR weeds. The severity of the HR weed problem has also renewed efforts to discover new technologies. One technology will be a new generation of crops with resistance to glyphosate, glufosinate and other existing herbicides (e.g. ALS inhibitors, 2,4-D, dicamba, HPPD inhibitors, and ACCase inhibitors). These stacked-trait crops will provide new options with existing herbicides, but will not be the total weed management solution because several weeds have already evolved resistance to these herbicides. Another technology in the early stages of development that has potential to combat HR weeds is the use of RNA interference (RNAi) technology. The use of RNAi involves the topical application of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) to interfere with the expression of herbicide resistance genes in weeds to reverse the resistance. RNAi is a revolutionary technology for resistant weed management, but is still years away from commercialization. While no new herbicides are on the horizon, in the near future, the HR management strategies must utilize an array of tools to disrupt HR weeds from evolving and spreading, with the ultimate goal of not allowing any weeds to survive and set seed.

Email

krishna.reddy@ars.usda.gov

Address

USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Crop Production Systems Research Unit, PO Box 350, Stoneville, Mississippi, USA
Herbicide resistance in cereal production systems of the US Great Plains: A review
Prashant Jha, Vipan Kumar and Charlemagne A. Lim
Review article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00030.7 | Volume: 48 Page No:112-116 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

The US Great Plains comprise the major cereal producing states in the country. In the US, wheat (winter and spring wheat) was grown in 45 million acres in 2014, with a total production of 55 M metric tons. Wheat after chemical fallow (W-F) dominates > 90% of the dryland cropping systems of the Northern Great Plains of the US, where soil moisture (< 300 mm of average annual precipitation) is often the limiting factor for continuous cropping. In the Central Great Plains of the US, wheat–corn/grain sorghum–fallow (W-C/G-F) is a common dryland rotation. An over-reliance on herbicides for weed control in these no-till cropping systems has resulted in weed shifts and escalated cases of resistance evolution in weed populations to single or multiple site-of-action herbicides. Early detection, increased awareness of socio-economic implications of herbicide-resistant weeds, and adoption of diversified weed control tactics would mitigate the further evolution of multiple herbicide-resistant weed biotypes in cereal production systems.

Email

pjha@montana.edu

Address

Montana State University–Bozeman, Southern Agricultural Research Center, Huntley, MT, USA 59037
Herbicide resistance in kochia: From single to multiple resistance
Phillip W. Stahlman
Review article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00031.9 | Volume: 48 Page No:117-121 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Herbicide resistance in weeds is evolving rapidly worldwide complicating weed management and threating agricultural sustainability and food security. Resistance has been reported to all known herbicide modes of action and no new mode of action has been marketed in the past 25 years. Though most reported cases of resistance involve a single herbicide site of action, multiple-site resistance is increasing.  As an example of the progression from single to multiple site resistance, this paper reviews the evolution and implications of herbicide resistance in kochia [Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad.), a common and economically important weed in the North American Great Plains.

Email

stahlman@ksu.edu

Address

Kansas State University, Western Kansas Agricultural Research Center, Hays, Kansas USA 67601
Modeling the evolution of herbicide resistance in weeds: Current knowledge and future directions
Muthukumar V. Bagavathiannan and Jason K. Norsworthy
Review article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00032.0 | Volume: 48 Page No:122-127 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Simulation models have been instrumental in understanding the evolutionary dynamics of herbicide resistance in weeds and making informed management decisions for preventing/delaying resistance. Continued improvements in model development and analysis will be critical to address the complex interactions involved in herbicide resistance evolution Here we review current knowledge on the development of herbicide resistance simulation models using published examples and also discuss future directions.

Email

muthu@tamu.edu

Address

Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA 77843
Herbicide resistance in weeds: Survey, characterization and mechanisms
V.K. Nandula
Review article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00033.2 | Volume: 48 Page No:128-131 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

This paper presents a systematic diagnostic approach towards the characterization of herbicide resistance in a given weed population with regards to profile (single, multiple, cross resistance), magnitude (fold level), mechanism, and related bio-physiological aspects. Diagnosing herbicide-resistant weeds can be achieved by crafting robust procedures for seed sampling, survey protocol and seed collection, seed processing and storage, germination, emergence and growth (sufficient number of representative plants), treatment conditions (i.e., discriminating dose, adjuvants, spray volume and parameters, water quality, and nutrient status), experimental design, appropriate controls including wild type/susceptible accessions, and biological parameters being measured. Understanding the processes and means by which weeds withstand labeled herbicide treatments is an important step, as well, towards devising effective herbicide resistance management strategies. Several physiological, biochemical, and molecular approaches for studying resistance mechanisms are available to researchers. The various omics approaches including genomics (DNA), transcriptomics (RNA), proteomics (proteins), and metabolomics (metabolites) will revolutionize herbicide resistance research.

Email

vijay.nandula@ars.usda.gov

Address

USDA Agricultural Research Service, Crop Production Systems Research Unit, Stoneville, Mississippi, USA
Genomic distribution of EPSPS copies conferring glyphosate resistance in Palmer amaranth and kochia
Mithila Jugulam and Andrew J. Dillon
Review article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00034.4 | Volume: 48 Page No:132-135 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Palmer amaranth and kochia are major problem weeds in many cropping systems in the United States. Wide acceptance of glyphosate tolerant crop technology has resulted in extensive use of glyphosate, consequently, a number of weeds including Palmer amaranth and kochia evolved resistance to glyphosate throughout the US. Within a span of 5-7 years the glyphosate resistance in these weeds has spread extensively, devastating several major crops. Understanding the mechanisms of herbicide resistance is valuable to determine the level of resistance as well as how the resistance spreads in the populations. Glyphosate resistance mechanisms in Palmer amaranth and kochia have been investigated extensively. Although resistance to glyphosate has evolved as a result of amplification of 5-enolpyruvylshikimtate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), the target site of glyphosate, but the distribution and configuration of amplified copies of EPSPS gene in the genomes of these two species is different. The EPSPS gene amplification may have possibly mediated by transposons in Palmer amaranth and whereas, likely to have resulted because of unequal recombination in kochia. These findings suggest that the EPSPS amplification can occur via different mechanisms in different weeds. Evolution of glyphosate resistance as a result of EPSPS gene amplification is a threat to long-term sustainability of glyphosate-resistant crop technology.

Email

mithila@ksu.edu

Address

Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
Weed management in cotton: The potential of GM crops
Dhanalakshmi Ramachandra, G. Ramamohan, Ashish Bhan and P.J. Suresh
Review article | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00035.6 | Volume: 48 Page No:136-143 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

In recent times, biotechnology has been widely used for crop improvement. Today, about 2 billion hectares of global area is planted with genetically modified (GM) crops. In India, the first GM crop to be introduced was Bt cotton. The current acreage planted with Bt cotton is 93% of the total cotton acreage. However, the average yield is lower than that of other countries suggesting an opportunity to increase yield further. One of the major factors affecting yield is weed competition which reduces yield by 50 to 85%. Effective weed control is achieved by Integrated Weed Management (IWM) which includes adoption of transgenic herbicide tolerant crops (HTCs). The major transgenic HTCs grown in the world are soybean, cotton, corn and canola and the yield increase due to effective weed management is significant. In cotton, glyphosate and glufosinate tolerant systems have been used successfully across the globe and are being tested at the moment in India. Over reliance on single MOA (mode of action) rather than a diversified IWM system with multiple, complementary herbicide MOAs can lead to emergence of herbicide tolerant weeds. Therefore, there is a need to use diversified management practices for sustainable weed control in cotton.

Email

dhanalakshmi.ramachandra@monsanto.com

Address

Monsanto Research Center, Vasant’s Business Park, NH-7, Bellary Road, Hebbal, Bangalore 560 092
Tillage effects on weed biomass and yield of direct-seeded rice
S. Mohapatra* and S.K. Tripathy
Full length articles | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00036.8 | Volume: 48 Page No:144-147 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Field experiments were conducted during the rainy seasons of 2011 and 2012 in Odisha, India to evaluate the efficiency of different tillage practices at beausaning on weed flora and yield of direct-seeded rice (Oryza sativa L.). Two passes of ploughing at 5 cm depth and 15 cm spacing with country plough at ‘beausaning’ showed the highest yield of grain (4.06 t/ha) and straw (4.66 t/ha), which was associated with higher weed control efficiency, effective tillers/hill, panicle length, number of filled grains/panicle, 1000-grain weight and with lower number of non-bearing tillers/hill and sterile spikelet/panicle. The lowest value of all parameters was found in 1  and 2 passes with tractor.  Two passes by power tiller was as good as 2 passes by country plough in controlling weeds and achieving higher yield. Though 1 and 2 passes with country plough and power-tiller showed statistically identical result, but the B:C ratio (2.25) was more in later treatment than the former (2.10).

Email

sanjukta_m@yahoo.co.in

Address

Regional Research & Technology Transfer Station, Odisha University of Agriculture & Technology, Chiplima, Odisha 768 025
Weed management and biofertilizer effects on productivity of transplanted rice
Sumana Ghosh, G.C. Malik and Mahua Banerjee
Full length articles | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00037.X | Volume: 48 Page No:148-151 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Field experiment was conducted to evaluate the performance of weed management and biofertilizer on productivity of transplanted rice variety ‘MTU-7029 (Swarna)’. Experiment was laid out in factorial randomized block design with 24 treatments, comprising of twelve weed management practices and two nutrient management practices viz. No biofertilizer and biofertilizer (Azotobacter + PSB), replicated thrice. All the herbicidal treatment resulted in significant reduction in total weed dry weight and weed population than weedy check. The higher grain and straw yield was recorded in the plot where pendimethalin 0.75 kg/ha fb bispyribac-sodium 50 g/ha was applied. In case of grain yield, it was statistically at par with application of pendimethalin 0.75 kg/ha fb bispyribac-sodium 25 g/ha and weed free check during both the years. The highest net returns and benefit-cost ratio was realized under the application of pendimethalin 0.75 kg/ha fb bispyribac-sodium 25 g/ha and also in biofertilizer applied plot.

Email

sumana.agro@gmail.com

Address

Institute of Agriculture, Visva Bharati, Sriniketan, West Bengal 731 236
Integrated weed management in aerobic rice
P. Saravanane*, S. Mala and V. Chellamuthu
Full length articles | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00038.1 | Volume: 48 Page No:152-154 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Field experiment was carried out to study the effect of integrated weed management in aerobic rice (Oryza sativa L.) for consecutive two Kharif seasons in 2011 and 2012 at Karaikal, Puducherry Union Territory with seven treatments in three replications. Grassy weeds dominated the weed flora, with Echinochloa colona as the major weed. Weed free condition maintained throughout the crop growth recorded significantly lower weed density, dry weight and higher weed control efficiency. Though the highest gross monetary returns ( 56,000/ha) and net returns ( 25,360/ha) was recorded in weed free condition, maximum B: C ratio (1.94) was recorded in pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1.0 kg/ha along with a hand weeding at 30 days after sowing (DAS). Uncontrolled weeds accounted for 86.3% yield loss in aerobic rice under coastal ecosystem of Puducherry UT, India.

Email

psaravanane@rediffmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru College of Agriculture & Research Institute, Karaikal, Puducherry 609 603
Herbicide combinations for control of complex weed flora in transplanted rice
M. Yakadri, M. Madhavi, T. Rampraksh and Leela Rani
Full length articles | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00039.3 | Volume: 48 Page No:155-157 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the bioefficacy of some potent low dose herbicides of sulfonylurea group in conjunction with other traditional recommended herbicides for control of broad spectrum of weeds in transplanted rice (Oryza sativa L) during the wet season of 2012 and 2013. Pretilachlor 750 g/ha as pre-emergence (PE) fb ethoxysulfuron 18.75 kg/ha as post-emergence  or pretilachlor 750 g/ha followed by metsulfuron-methyl + chlorimuron-ethyl 4 g/ha or pyrazosulfuron 20 g/ha (PE) followed by manual weeding were better options for efficient weed control, higher grain yield and B:C ratio in transplanted rice.

Email

weedhydap@yahoo.co.in

Address

Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Telangana 500 030
Long-term impact of crop establishment methods on weed dynamics, water use and productivity in rice-wheat cropping system
S.S.Punia, Sher Singh, Ashok Yadav, Dharam Bir Yadav and R.K.Malik
Full length articles | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00040.X | Volume: 48 Page No:158-163 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

An experiment consisting of five establishment techniques in rice-wheat cropping sequence with different combinations of conventional tillage (CT), zero-tillage (ZT) and minimum tillage (MT) viz. CT-CT, ZT-CT, CT-ZT, ZT-ZT and MT-ZT) was conducted during 2003-2007 at the farm of a farmer in Haryana on a larger plot size of 0.4 ha under each treatment. During first year, grain yield of wheat did not differ significantly among different treatments but during 2004-05 to 2007-08, grain yield of wheat in ZT method of planting was either higher or at par with conventional ploughed method of planting but CT transplanting of rice was significantly more than ZT transplanted treatments except during first year when rains were very good at transplanting time. Weed dynamics after 4 years revealed that in rice crop, weed density of Echinochloa colona, E. crusgalli, Leptochloa chinensis,Cyperus spp. and broad-leaf weeds such as Ammania baccifera and Eclipta alba was more when rice was transplanted under ZT or MT conditions but in wheat, weed density of grassy weed Phalaris minor was less under ZT-ZT or MT-ZT treatments. After 4 years of continuous ZT in both rice and wheat crops, weed flora changed in favour of broad-leaf weeds. Bulk density of soil did not vary after 5 years of ZT-ZT conditions. Soil temperature of root zone in wheat crop planted under ZT conditions was more (0.7-1.7 OC) in first week of February and less (2.1-.3.8 OC) in first week of April as compared to conventional CT-CT practice of rice and wheat crops resulting in more grain yield of wheat due to temperature moderation and also due to a bit addition of organic matter in ZT conditions. Grain yield of rice planted under ZT or MT conditions was less mostly due to more weed infestation and it also consumed 4.8-184% more water as compared to CT method of puddle transplanted rice.

Email

puniasatbir@gmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana 125 004
Efficacy of different clodinafop-propargyl formulations against littleseed canarygrass in wheat
Simerjeet Kaur, Tarundeep Kaur and M.S. Bhullar
Full length articles | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00041.1 | Volume: 48 Page No:164-167 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Field experiments were conducted in three successive seasons (Rabi 2010–11, 2011-12 and 2012–13) to evaluate the efficacy of clodinafop-propargyl formulations (wettable powder and emulsifiable concentrate) applied as post-emergence against Phalaris minor in wheat crop. All formulations of herbicide reduced the density of Phalaris minor over the weedy check however treated plots yielded below than the state average yield of wheat crop. These new clodinafop formulations/brands failed to provide effective control of resistant P. minor prevailing in wheat field during all years, and gave only 27-32% control of Phalaris minor over the weedy check. These new formulations also yielded similar to clodinafop-p-propargyl applied as standard check. Per cent control of Phalaris minor was found to be reduced from 60 to 40% over unsprayed check with delay in application time of clodinafop from 35 to 60 DAS.

Email

simer@pau.edu

Address

Department of Agronomy, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab 141 004
Weed management in maize under rainfed organic farming system
Anup Das, Manoj Kumar, G.I. Ramkrushna, D.P. Patel, Jayanta Layek, Naropongla, A.S. Panwar and S.V. Ngachan
Full length articles | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00042.3 | Volume: 48 Page No:168-172 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Field experiment was conducted under organic farming for three consecutive years during 2008-09 to 2010-11 to study the effect of different non-chemical weed management practices on productivity and weed infestation in maize in mid altitude (950 m MSL) of Meghalaya, India. Total eight treatment in three replication were evaluated on maize. Grain weight/cob of maize was maximum under mulching with fresh Eupatorium sp. biomass after earthing up at 30 days after sowing (DAS). The highest maize yield was recorded under mulching with fresh Eupatorium 10 t/ha, but it was statistically at par with two hand weeding (HW) at 20 and 40 DAS, weed free check and soybean green manure incorporation in situ + one HW. Two HW, soybean green manure incorporation + one HW and mechanical weeding (20 DAS) + one HW (after earthing up) were found to be effective in weed reduction in maize. Weed control efficiency was recorded maximum under two HW which was at par with mechanical weeding (20 DAS) + one HW. Available N, P, K and soil organic carbon concentration after 3-croppoing cycles were maximum under mulching with fresh Eupatorium 10 t/ha treatment followed by soybean green manuring + one HW (45 DAS) than those under other weed management practices. Thus, mulching with fresh Eupatorium (after earthing up) and soybean green manuring + one HW were the recommendable options for sustainable organic maize production under high rainfall hill ecosystem of North-East India.

Email

jayanta.icar@gmail.com

Address

ICAR-Research Complex for NEH Region, Umiam, Meghalaya 793 103
Weed management in blackgram under rainfed conditions
J.K. Balyan, R.S. Choudhary, B.S. Kumpawat and Roshan Choudhary
Full length articles | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00043.5 | Volume: 48 Page No:173-177 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Field study was conducted at Dryland Farming Research Station in Bhilwara, Rajasthan during Kharif seasons of 2010 and 2011 to study the weed control efficiency of different weed management practices including pre- and post-emergence herbicides in blackgram [Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper]. Among herbicidal weed control treatments, the lowest weed density and dry matter, and highest yield attributes, seed yield and economic return with B:C ratio was recorded with quizalofop-ethyl 50 g/ha 30 DAS and it was statistically at par with interculture at 15 DAS fb imazethapyr 100 g/ha 30 DAS, interculture at 15 DAS fb quizalofop-ethyl 50 g/ha 30 DAS, imazethapyr 100 g/ha 20 DAS and weed free. Whereas, highest weed control efficiency was recorded with alachlor 1.0 kg/ha PRE fb imazethapyr 100 g/ha 30 DAS. All herbicidal treatments reduced weed biomass and improved seed yield and yield attributing parameters as compared to weedy check. Weedy check registered the highest values of weed count and biomass and lowest seed yield and yield attributing characters. Rainfall was directly related to weed count and weed dry matter accumulation with the coefficient of 0.65 and 0.61, respectively.

Email

agroudr2013@gmail.com

Address

Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture & Technology, Udaipur, Rajasthan 313 001
Weed management in blackgram with pre-mix herbicides
V. Pratap Singh, Tej Pratap Singh, S.P. Singh, A. Kumar, Kavita Satyawali, Akshita Banga, Neema Bisht and R.P. Singh
Full length articles | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00044.7 | Volume: 48 Page No:178-181 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Pre-mix combination of imazethapyr + pendimethalin at 1000 g/ha had maximum weed kill efficiency over alone application of herbicides applied as pre- or post-emergence. Similarly, the maximum grain yield (1.38 t/ha) was achieved with pre-mix combination of imazethapyr + pendimethalin at 1000 g/ha plot followed by its lower dose applied at 900 g/ha and both doses were found significantly superior over other herbicidal treatments. Supremacy of this treatment was proved by increment of grain yield to the tune of 63.3% over the weedy check and only 3.7% lesser than the hand weeding (20 and 40 DAS). Pre-mix combination of imazethapyr + pendimethalin also proved to be effective in improving other parameters like plants/m2, pods/plant, seed/pod and 100 seed weight (g).

Email

vpratapsingh@rediffmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand 263145
Influence of different herbicides on growth, yield and economics of lentil
D.K. Chandrakar*, S.K. Nagre, D.M. Ransing and A.P. Singh
Full length articles | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00045.9 | Volume: 48 Page No:182-185 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

A field experiment was conducted during Rabi season of 2011-12 and 2012-13 at Raipur, Chhattisgarh to find most effective herbicides for weed management in lentil. Best result was found in hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS closely followed by pre-mix application of pendimethalin + imazethapyr 1.0 kg/ha as pre-emergence wherein lowest weed dry weight was recorded at 60 DAS with  maximum weed control efficiency, tallest plant, maximum branches/plant, highest plant dry matter accumulation, highest pods/plant, seeds/plant, test weight, maximum grain and stover yield, maximum net return and B:C ratio over all the treatments.

Email

dk_chandrakar@rediffmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, IGKV, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Tillage and nitrogen management effects on weed seedbank and yield of fingermillet
Vijaymahantesh, H.V. Nanjappa and B.K. Ramachandrappa
Full length articles | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00046.0 | Volume: 48 Page No:186-190 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Field and pot culture studies were conducted at Bengaluru to study the influence of three tillage practices, viz. conventional tillage (3 ploughings + 3 inter cultivations), reduced tillage (2 ploughings + 2 inter cultivations) and minimum tillage (1 ploughing + 1 inter cultivation) and three nitrogen management practices, viz. 100% N through Urea, 100% N through integrated supply (50% N through urea+ 25% N through FYM+ 25% N through Glyricidia) and 100% N through organic source (50% N through FYM+ 50% N through Glyricidia) on live weed seedbank and yield of fingermillet (Eleusine coracana L.) under rainfed pigeonpea-fingermillet system in Alfisols. The results showed that conventional tillage reduced the infestation of Borreria articularis, Cynodon dactylon and Cyperus rotundus compared to other tillage practices. However nitrogen management practices didn’t influence live weed seed bank significantly. Among tillage practices, conventional tillage recorded significantly higher fingermillet yield (3.03 t/ha) compared to other tillage practices and among nutrient management practices integrated supply of N recorded higher yield of 2.67 t/ha compared to other nutrient management practices. More live weed seeds were distributed in upper 10 cm soil depth in minimum tillage whereas in conventional tillage live weed seed distribution was more or less uniform in the soil profile studied.

Email

mahantesh7151@gmail.com

Address

AICRP Dry Land Agriculture, University of Agricultural Science, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560 065
Post-emergence herbicides for weed management in French bean
V.V. Goud and H.S. Dikey
Full length articles | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00047.2 | Volume: 48 Page No:191-194 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of imazthapyr and quizalofop-ethyl in different doses (50, 75 and 100 g/ha) with two interval (20-25 and 30-35 DAS), hand weeding twice (20 and 40 DAS) in comparison to unweeded control on yield and yield components of French bean during Rabi season of 2009 to 2011 under irrigated condition on Inceptisols. Among herbicides, application of imazethapyr at 100 g/ha at 20 DAS produced lowest weed index and highest weed efficiency and seed yield (1.24 t/ha). Imazethapyr at 100 g/ha at 20-25 DAS gave more economic profit (28869/ha) followed by imazethapyr at 100 g/ha at 30-35 DAS (27780/ha). None of the herbicides showed phytotoxicity to crop and was compatible with French bean. Imazethapyr and quizalofop-ethyl at lower concentration did not provide satisfactory weed control in rajmash field.

Email

vikasgoud08@yhaoo.com

Address

Pulses Research Unit, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Maharashtra 444 104
Management of complex weeds in sugarcane by ametryn + trifloxysulfuron
Rohitashav Singh*, Neelam, D.K. Singh, A.P. Singh, Sumit Chaturvedi, Ram Pal and Mahavir Singh
Full length articles | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00048.4 | Volume: 48 Page No:195-198 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Field experiment was conducted to evaluate the bio-efficacy of ametryn 73.15% + trifloxysulfuron 1.85% W.G for the management of grasses, sedge and broad-leaf weeds in sugarcane. The experiment consisted of nine treatments laid out in randomized block design with three replications. Cyperus rotundus, Ipomoea spp, Brachiaria reptans, Echinochloa colona, Digitaria sanguinalis and Dactyloctenium aegyptium were observed as major weeds. Among herbicide treatments, the lowest density of total weeds was observed with ametryn + trifloxysulfuron at 1500 g/ha though the differences were non-significant when compared with its lower dose i.e. 1250 g/ha at 15 and 45 days after application (DAA). Application of ametryn + trifloxysulfuron 1250 and 1500 g/ha recorded significantly lower weed dry weight over any other herbicidal treatment at 15 and 45 days. Highest weed control efficiency of total weeds at both 15 and 45 DAA were recorded with the application of ametryn + trifloxysulfuron 1500 g/ha which was closely followed by 1250 g/ha. The highest cane yields (9.04 t/ha and 10.51 t/ha) were recorded from weed free plot being at par with hand weeding thrice at 30, 60 and 90 DAP.

Email

singh.rohitash5@gmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand 263 145
Weed management in onion
Sanjay Kumar Singh, Radhey Shyam, Shanta Chaudhary and L.M. Yadav
Full length articles | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00049.6 | Volume: 48 Page No:199-201 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

The experiment involved nine treatments replicated thrice in randomized block design. Significantly lower density and dry matter of weeds were recorded with weed free followed by oxyflurofen 0.30 kg/ha before planting fb one hand weeding of 40-60 DATS after transplanting  and combined application of oxyflurofen at 0.30 kg/ha before planting + quizalofop-p-ethyl 0.05 kg/ha at 30 days after transplanting. The average bulb weight, plant height, marketable bulb and total bulb yield were also highest in weed free while it was at par to oxyflurofen at 0.30 kg/ha before planting fb one hand weeding of 40-60 days after transplanting and oxyflurofen at 0.30 kg/ha + quizalofop-p-ethyl 0.05 kg/ha at before planting and 30 days after transplanting. The maximum B: C ratio of 2.31 was obtained in combined spray of oxyflorfen and quizalofop-p-ethyl at before planting and 30 days after transplanting of crop.

Email

sanjay_singh2005@yahoo.com

Address

Tirhut College of Agriculture, Rajendra Agriculture University, Dholi, Muzafferpur, Bihar
Weed control in clusterbean through post-emergence herbicides
S.P. Singh, R.S. Yadav and Vikas Sharma
Full length articles | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00050.2 | Volume: 48 Page No:202-205 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

 Field experiment was conducted at Bikaner for two consecutive years during Kharif seasons of 2012 and 2013 to test the efficacy of different weed control measures against weeds in clusterbean Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub. The experiment consisting of seven treatments, viz. imazethapyr 40 g/ha, quizalofop-ethyl 37.5 g/ha, fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 50 g/ha, imazethapyr + imazamox 40 g/ha, pendimethalin 0.75 kg/ha as pre-emergence (PE), hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS and weedy check. Among herbicids, post-emergence application of imazethapyr + imazamox (ready mix) 40 g/ha applied at 3-4 leaf stage (around 20 DAS) recorded lowest weed density and dry weight of both grassy and broad-leaved weeds with maximum weed control efficiency (88.1%). Application of imazethapyr alone at 40 g/ha applied at 3-4 leaf stage (around 20 DAS) significantly reduced the density and dry weight of broad-leaved weeds but not effective significantly against grassy weeds. Yield attributes i.e pods/plant, seed and straw yields, net return and B: C ratio were also superior with imazethapyr + imazamox 40 g/ha applied at 3-4 leaf stage (around 20DAS).

Email

spbhakar2010@gmail.com

Address

Agricultural Research Station, SK Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Rajasthan 334 006
Exotic rust fungus to manage the invasive mile-a-minute weed in India: Pre-release evaluation and status of establishment in the field
Prakya Sreerama Kumar, Usha Dev, Carol A. Ellison, K.C. Puzari, K.V. Sankaran and Nidhi Joshi
Full length articles | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00051.4 | Volume: 48 Page No:206-214 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

The mile-a-minute weed, Mikania micrantha, is a highly problematic and widespread invasive weed in the moist forests of the Western Ghats and in the north-eastern states in India causing significant damage to natural forests as well as to plantation crops, including tea, coffee, bamboo, coconut and teak. The microcyclic rust fungus, Puccinia spegazzinii, was identified as a potential classical biological control agent to replace the unsustainable or even hazardous conventional control methods. Following a successful risk analysis under quarantine at CABI (UK), a pathotype of the fungus (IMI 393067) from Trinidad and Tobago was imported into India. Prior to its release in the open field, the rust was further evaluated under strict quarantine conditions to ascertain the susceptibility of M. micrantha populations from three regions in India where the weed is invasive, and to confirm the safety of economically important plant species and indigenous flora. Results of host-specificity screening of 90 plant species belonging to 32 families ensured that the Trinidadian pathotype of P. spegazzinii was highly host- specific and could not infect any of the test plant species, though it was highly pathogenic to most of the target weed populations from Assam, Kerala and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The rust was released in Assam and Kerala but failed to establish at the time.  However, due to the apparent success of this rust at controlling M. micrantha in the Pacific region, further releases in India are recommended.

Email

psreeramakumar@yahoo.co.in

Address

Division of Insect Ecology, ICAR-National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources, Bengaluru 560 024
Penoxsulam as post-emergence herbicide for weed control in transplanted rice
S. Sansa, K. Elizabeth Syriac and Sheeja K. Raj
Short communications | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00052.6 | Volume: 48 Page No:215-216 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Penoxsulam at 22.5 and 25.0 g/ha was found effective to control weeds in transplanted rice on the basis of vegetation analysis. However, based on economic analysis, penoxsulam at 22.5 g/ha could be adjudged as the best treatment for effective and economic weed management.

Email

elizabethsyriac59@gmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 695 522
Bispyribac-sodium influence on nutrient uptake by weeds and transplanted rice
R. Prashanth, K.N. Kalyana Murthy, V. Madhu Kumar, M. Murali and C.M. Sunil
Short communications | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00053.8 | Volume: 48 Page No:217-219 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Application of bispyribac-sodium 25 g/ha at 15 DAT recorded significantly lower total weed population  and higher grain (6.47 t/ha) and straw yield (7.66 t/ha) as compared to pretilachlort 750 g/ha at 5 DAT. The nutrient uptake by weeds for N,P and K was significantly higher with unweeded check (12.32, 2.78 and 20.28 kg/ha, respectively). Whereas the lowest uptake was noticed with bispyribac-sodium 35 g/ha at 15 DAT (1.02, 0.21 and 1.62 kg/ha, respectively). The nutrient uptake by rice for N, P, and K was significantly higher with bispyribac-sodium 25 g/ha at 15 DAT (122.66, 15.74 and 164.51 kg/ha, respectively) as compared to unweeded check (78.24, 9.99 and 105.58 kg/ha, respectively). Similar trend was observed with net returns and B:C ratio.

Email

sunilcmuasb@gmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560 065
Effect of tillage and herbicides on rhizospheric soil health in wheat
Raj Kumar, R.S. Singh, Jai dev and B.K. Verma
Short communications | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00054.X | Volume: 48 Page No:220-221 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Four tillage systems viz. (i) zero–zero tillage (ii) zero-conventional tillage (iii) conventional-zero tillage (iv) conventional–conventional tillage systems were evaluated on the survival and growth of free living nitrogen fixing bacteria, total phosphate solubilising bacteria, soil biomass carbon, soil respiration, per cent root colonization and enzymic activities in rhizospheric soil. Among weed control measures, comparative effects of hand weeding and recommended herbicides (isoproturon at 1.0 kg/ha + 2,4-D + 1 HW (45 DAS) were tested along with weedy check. The results revealed that tillage systems did not influence microbial soil health. The maximum growth of different micro organisms was observed in zero tillage system, whereas minimum was in conventional tillage system. There were no adverse effects of recommended herbicide use on soil microbial health. Application of isoproturon + 2,4-D had no adverse effect on rhizosphreric soil health of wheat crop.

Email

rkpnduat@gmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy, Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh 224 229
Integrated weed management in blackgram
N.B. Kavad, C.K. Patel, A.R. Patel and B.R. Thumber
Short communications | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00055.1 | Volume: 48 Page No:222-224 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Weed free treatment produced highest seed yield which was at par with pendimethalin 1.0 kg/ha as pre-emergence (PE) + hand weeding at 30 DAS and oxyfluorfen 0.18 kg/ha PE + hand weeding at 30 DAS. However, among the other treatments, pendimethalin 1.0 kg/ha as PE + hand weeding at 30 DAS was found superior in controlling weeds and increasing seed yield. 

Email

akshaypatel2712@gmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy N.M. College of Agriculture, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujarat 396 450
Weed control in fenugreek with pendimethalin and imazethapyr
Ravinder Kumar, Y.P. Malik and S.S. Punia
Short communications | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00056.3 | Volume: 48 Page No:225-227 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

Trifluralin as PPI, pendimethalin as pre-emergence and imazethapyr at 55 g/ha either applied as PPI or PRE provided excellent control of weeds up to 25 DAS. At 100 DAS and at harvest, post-emergence application of imazethapyr (55/ha) significantly reduced the weed population over other herbicidal treatments. Maximum dry matter accumulation by the crop, yield and yield attributes were recorded in weed free plots which was significantly higher over all herbicidal treatments. Maximum weed control efficiency (69%) was observed with post-emergence application of imazethapyr 55 g/ha.

Email

puniasatbir@gmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana 125 004
Weed management in zero-till sorghum
G.S. Sreeram, A.S. Rao, Ch. Pulla Rao and P. Prasuna Rani
Short communications | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00057.5 | Volume: 48 Page No:228-229 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

All the weed control treatments significantly reduced the density and dry weight of weeds compared to weedy check at 60 DAS (Table 1). Among the treatments, the lowest weed density, dry weight and highest weed control efficiency (WCE) of 65% was observed in the sequential treatment with pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 0.75 kg + paraquat 0.5 kg/ha fb post-emergence application of 2,4-D amine 0.58 kg/ha and was at par with other sequential treatments and hand weeding at 20 and 40 DAS, but significantly superior to pre-emergence application of herbicides. The lower weed growth in these treatments was mainly due to effective control of weeds in the early stage by pre emergence herbicides and at later stage by post emergence herbicides. Maximum weed growth was observed in unweeded check. In general, sequential treatments were found to be superior to one time application of herbicides. Similar observations reported in normal sown sorghum by Sharma et al. (2000).

Email

atlurisrao@gmail.com

Address

Department of Agronomy, Agricultural College, Bapatla, Andhra Pradesh 522 101
Leaching behaviour of metsulfuron–methyl
Shishir Tandon, Pooja Mehra and N.K. Sand
Short communications | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00058.7 | Volume: 48 Page No:230-232 |
Address & Email | Article preview | View PFD | Download

Abstract:

 Leaching potential of metsulfuron-methyl herbicide was evaluated under laboratory conditions in Mollisol soil of Pantnagar, Uttarakhand with simulated rainfall. Metsulfuron- methyl was applied at recommended dose (4 g/ha) on 60 cm long soil columns. After seven days of experiment, maximum concentration was observed in 30-35 cm column depth and some amount of herbicide leached out and was detected in leachates. Study indicated high mobility of metsulfuron-methyl under saturated moisture conditions which may pose significant ground water contamination. 

Email

shishir_tandon2000@yahoo.co.in

Address

Department of Chemistry, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand 263 145

CONTACT Us

123 Main Street, St. NW Ste, 1 Washington, DC,USA.
  • business@support.com
  • +56 (0) 012 345 6789

Links

  • About Us
  • Services
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms & condition

Latest Blog

Image

Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation

On 10 Feb, 2016
Image

Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation

On 10 Feb, 2016

NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Subscribe to Our Newsletter to get Important News, Amazing Offers & Inside Scoops:

© 2018 Garden HTML5 Template. All Rights Reserved.