Abstract
A field experiment was conducted during the 2012 and 2013 rainy season at the Kwara State University Teaching and Research Farm located in Malete. The aim was to determine the effect of different weed control methods on Weed infestation, growth and yield of soybeans (variety TGX 1448 – 2E). The experiment consisted of 8 treatments, namely, the application of metolachor at 1.5, 2.0 nd 2.5 kg a.i./ ha, pendimethalin at 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 kg a.i./ha, a tank mixture of metolachlor + diuron at 1.5 + 0.5, 2.0 + 1.0 and 2.5 + 1.5 kg a.i./ha, pendimethalin + diuron at 1.5 + 0.5, 2.0 + 1.0 and 2.5 + 1.5 kg a.i./ha, metolachor at 2.0 kg a.i. /ha plus I supplementary hoe weeding (SHW) at 6 WAS, pendimethalin at 2.0 kg a.i. /ha plus supplimentary hoe weeding (SHW) at 6WAS, metolachlor + diuron at 1.0 +0.5 kg a.i. /ha plus ISHW, pendimethalin + diuron at 1.5 +0.5 plus ISHW at 6WAS, weeding at 3 and 6 WAS and a weedy check. Results show that all the herbicide treatments significantly reduced weed infestation compared with the weedy check. However, metolachlor + diuron integrated with ISHW was more effective than the application of only herbicides in the control of weeds throughout the crop life. This weed control method also resulted in significantly better growth and higher yield. Therefore for better growth and higher yields, metolachlor + diuron integrated with ISHW at 6 WAS is recommend to formers in the Southern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
All herbicide treatments significantly reduced weed infestation compared with the weedy check.
Verbatim
e0“Results show that all the herbicide treatments significantly reduced weed infestation compared with the weedy check.”
Claim · model-written summary
Metolachlor plus diuron integrated with ISHW controlled weeds more effectively than herbicides alone throughout the crop life.
Verbatim
e0“However, metolachlor + diuron integrated with ISHW was more effective than the application of only herbicides in the control of weeds throughout the crop life.”
Claim · model-written summary
Metolachlor plus diuron integrated with ISHW produced significantly better soybean growth and higher yield.
- Taxon
- Soybeans
Glycine maxt0 - Treatment
- metolachlor + diuron integrated with ISHWe1
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- growth and higher yielde0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- application of only herbicidese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This weed control method also resulted in significantly better growth and higher yield.”
e1“metolachlor + diuron integrated with ISHW was more effective than the application of only herbicides”
t0“Soybeans”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend metolachlor plus diuron integrated with ISHW at 6 WAS for better soybean growth and yield in the Southern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria.
- Taxon
- SoybeansGlycine maxt0
- Outcome
- metolachlor + diuron integrated with ISHW at 6 WASe0
- Setting
- Southern Guinea Savanna of Nigeriae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Therefore for better growth and higher yields, metolachlor + diuron integrated with ISHW at 6 WAS is recommend to formers in the Southern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria.”
t0“Soybeans”
The same questions in other papers
metolachlor · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →diuron · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
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.