Paper · 2014 · Legume Research - An International Journal

Effects of post emergence herbicides on weed control and yields of field pea and their residual effect on succeeding sorghum and mungbean crop.

Mainpal Singh; Satish Kumar; Rakesh Kumar; et al.

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
4
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during 2008–09 and 2009–10 to evaluate different post emergence herbicides applied against weeds in field pea and their residual effect on succeeding sorghum and mungbean crop. Pendimethalin herbicide applied 1.5 kg ha−1 as pre-emergence gave effective control against all the weeds whereas, among post emergence herbicides imazethapyr was found effective against broadleaf weeds and quizalofop-ethyl was effective only against grassy weeds. During both the years, application of imazethapyr 50 g ha−1 at 30 days after sowing gave effective control of weeds and resulted minimum density and dry biomass of weeds compared to all the post emergence herbicide treatments. During second year, residual effect of imazethapyr was observed only on sorghum crop.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pre-emergence pendimethalin controlled all weeds effectively.

Taxon
field peat0
Treatment
Pendimethalin herbicide applied 1.5 kg ha−1 as pre-emergencee0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Outcome
control against all the weedse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“Pendimethalin herbicide applied 1.5 kg ha−1 as pre-emergence gave effective control against all the weeds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 210–315 · show in text ↑
t0

“field pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–76 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Imazethapyr controlled broadleaf weeds effectively.

Taxon
field peat0
Treatment
imazethapyre0
Interactor
broadleaf weedse0weed
Outcome
effective against broadleaf weedse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“imazethapyr was found effective against broadleaf weeds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 357–412 · show in text ↑
t0

“field pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–76 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Quizalofop-ethyl controlled only grassy weeds effectively.

Taxon
field peat0
Treatment
quizalofop-ethyle0
Interactor
grassy weedse0weed
Outcome
effective only against grassy weedse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“quizalofop-ethyl was effective only against grassy weeds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 417–473 · show in text ↑
t0

“field pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–76 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Imazethapyr at 50 g ha−1 gave effective weed control in both years.

Taxon
field peat0
Treatment
imazethapyr 50 g ha−1 at 30 days after sowinge0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Outcome
control of weedse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“During both the years, application of imazethapyr 50 g ha−1 at 30 days after sowing gave effective control of weeds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 475–590 · show in text ↑
t0

“field pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–76 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Imazethapyr produced the minimum weed density and dry biomass among post-emergence treatments.

Taxon
field peat0
Treatment
imazethapyr 50 g ha−1 at 30 days after sowinge1
Interactor
weedse0weed
Outcome
density and dry biomass of weedse0
Direction
minimume0
Comparator
all the post emergence herbicide treatmentse0

Verbatim

e0

“resulted minimum density and dry biomass of weeds compared to all the post emergence herbicide treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 595–700 · show in text ↑
e1

“application of imazethapyr 50 g ha−1 at 30 days after sowing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 498–558 · show in text ↑
t0

“field pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–76 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Residual imazethapyr effects were seen only in sorghum in the second year.

Taxon
sorghumSorghume0
Treatment
imazethapyre0
Outcome
residual effecte0
Qualifier
During second yeare0

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

Sorghum
Sorghum · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Evelyn Simak · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“During second year, residual effect of imazethapyr was observed only on sorghum crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 702–786 · show in text ↑

Imazethapyr · weed · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

pendimethalin · weed · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree

9 papers: 9 positive, 0 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

herbicide · weed · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

40 papers: 35 positive, 5 negative or no effect

34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

36 papers more in this group

See all 40 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.