Claim · model-written summary
T3 reduced weeding cost by 53.9% relative to hand weeding.
Not reportedTaxonMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingQualifier
Verbatim
e0“The weeding cost was reduced by 34.9, 53.9 and 49.65 per cent in T2, T3 and T4, respectively as compared to T1”
Title
Evaluation of Different Mechanical Weed Control Methods in Rice Field
D K Mohanty; J Bhuyan Journal of Krishi Vigyan 2020. doi:10.5958/2349-4433.2020.00024.0
Other claims from this paper (14)
- Method / resource T4 had the highest mechanical weeding efficiency of 88.62%.
- Method / resource T2 had the lowest mechanical weeding efficiency of 78.67%.
- Intervention effect T4 damaged 3.78% of plants versus 0.11% with hand weeding.
- Intervention effect T2 damaged 2.83% of plants versus 0.11% with hand weeding.
- Intervention effect T3 damaged 1.76% of plants versus 0.11% with hand weeding.
- Method / resource T4 had the highest field capacity at 0.064 ha/h.
- Method / resource T3 had field capacity of 0.017 ha/h.
- Method / resource T2 had field capacity of 0.012 ha/h.
- Intervention effect T2 reduced weeding cost by 34.9% relative to hand weeding.
- Intervention effect T4 reduced weeding cost by 49.65% relative to hand weeding.
- Intervention effect T4 produced the highest rice grain yield at 43.6 q/ha.
- Intervention effect T3 rice grain yield was 37.5q/ha.
- Intervention effect T2 rice grain yield was 36.75q/ha.
- Intervention effect Hand weeding rice grain yield was 34.04 q/ha.