Claim · model-written summary
Energy expenditure did not differ significantly among the other weeders.
Not reportedTaxonMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingDirectionValueQualifier
Verbatim
e0“there was no significant mean difference in energy expenditure while using any other weeders”
Title
Performance Evaluation of Manually Operated Weeders Developed in ANGRAU
K. Sandhya Devi T. Neeraja; V. Prasuna International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 2021. doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2021.1008.074
Other claims from this paper (11)
- Method / resource Weeders differed significantly in field capacity.
- Method / resource The one wheel straight pronged weeder had the best field capacity.
- Method / resource Plant damage differed significantly among weeders.
- Method / resource Traditional hand weeding had the lowest plant damage, followed by one wheel straight and curve pronged weeders.
- Method / resource Weeding index did not differ significantly among weeders.
- Method / resource Conventional hand weeding had the highest mean weeding index, followed by three named weeders.
- Method / resource Energy use differed significantly between conventional weeding and the tested weeders.
- Method / resource Traditional hand weeding had lower mean energy expenditure.
- Method / resource Two wheel straight pronged weeder had the lowest mean energy expenditure among weeders.
- Method / resource Weeder performance index differed significantly.
- Method / resource One wheel straight pronged weeder had the maximum performance index and traditional hand weeding the minimum.