Paper · 2005 · Indian Journal of Weed Science

Studies on the Effect of Herbicides Under Different Tillage Practices in Wheat

Alok Sinha; R. P. Singh

11
claims
22
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The dominant weed flora under weedy check recorded at 60 DAS were Cyperus rotunelus. Phaloris minor, Rumex denticulata, Chenopodium album, Melilotus spp. and Anagallis arvensis, Zero tillage was dominated by sedge, whereas reduced and conventional by broad-leaved weeds, specially Rumex denticulata which suppressed all other weeds at late stages of crop growth. Isoproturon atlkg ha−1 (30 DAS) fb 2, 4-D 0.5 kg ha−1 (40 DAS) was more effective to minimize weed density and their dry weight under all the tillage treatments than glyphosate at 0.5 l fb isoproturon at 1.0 kg ha−1, sulfosulfuron at 25 g ha−1 and isoproturon at 1.0 kg ha−1. The minimum weed control efficacy was observed in alone application of sulfosulfuron and isoproturon. On an average, isoproturon fb 2, 4-D increased the grain yield by 42.3, 38.0 and 39.1% over weedy check in zero, reduced and conventional tillage, respectively.

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 11

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The dominant weed flora at 60 DAS comprised six named taxa.

Treatment
weedy checke0
Outcome
dominant weed florae0
Qualifier
60 DASe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The dominant weed flora under weedy check recorded at 60 DAS were Cyperus rotunelus. Phaloris minor, Rumex denticulata, Chenopodium album, Melilotus spp. and Anagallis arvensis”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–176 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–78 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Zero tillage was dominated by sedge weeds.

Treatment
Zero tillagee0
Interactor
sedgee0weed
Outcome
dominated by sedgee0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Zero tillage was dominated by sedge”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 178–213 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–78 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Reduced and conventional tillage were dominated by broad-leaved weeds.

Treatment
reduced and conventionale0
Interactor
broad-leaved weedse0weed
Outcome
broad-leaved weedse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“reduced and conventional by broad-leaved weeds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 223–269 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–78 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rumex denticulata suppressed other weeds late in crop growth.

Interactor
Rumex denticulatae0weed
Outcome
suppressed all other weedse0
Qualifier
late stages of crop growthe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Rumex denticulata which suppressed all other weeds at late stages of crop growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 281–361 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sequential isoproturon and 2,4-D minimized weed density more effectively than the alternative herbicides under all tillage treatments.

Treatment
Isoproturon atlkg ha−1 (30 DAS) fb 2, 4-D 0.5 kg ha−1 (40 DAS)e0
Outcome
weed densitye0
Direction
minimizee0
Comparator
glyphosate at 0.5 l fb isoproturon at 1.0 kg ha−1, sulfosulfuron at 25 g ha−1 and isoproturon at 1.0 kg ha−1e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Isoproturon atlkg ha−1 (30 DAS) fb 2, 4-D 0.5 kg ha−1 (40 DAS) was more effective to minimize weed density and their dry weight under all the tillage treatments than glyphosate at 0.5 l fb isoproturon at 1.0 kg ha−1, sulfosulfuron at 25 g ha−1 and isoproturon at 1.0 kg ha−1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 363–637 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sequential isoproturon and 2,4-D minimized weed dry weight more effectively than the alternative herbicides.

Treatment
Isoproturon atlkg ha−1 (30 DAS) fb 2, 4-D 0.5 kg ha−1 (40 DAS)e0
Outcome
their dry weighte0
Direction
minimizee0
Comparator
glyphosate at 0.5 l fb isoproturon at 1.0 kg ha−1, sulfosulfuron at 25 g ha−1 and isoproturon at 1.0 kg ha−1e0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Isoproturon atlkg ha−1 (30 DAS) fb 2, 4-D 0.5 kg ha−1 (40 DAS) was more effective to minimize weed density and their dry weight under all the tillage treatments than glyphosate at 0.5 l fb isoproturon at 1.0 kg ha−1, sulfosulfuron at 25 g ha−1 and isoproturon at 1.0 kg ha−1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 363–637 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulfosulfuron alone had minimum weed control efficacy.

Treatment
sulfosulfurone0
Outcome
weed control efficacye0
Direction
minimume0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The minimum weed control efficacy was observed in alone application of sulfosulfuron and isoproturon”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 639–739 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Isoproturon alone had minimum weed control efficacy.

Treatment
isoproturone0
Outcome
weed control efficacye0
Direction
minimume0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The minimum weed control efficacy was observed in alone application of sulfosulfuron and isoproturon”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 639–739 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sequential isoproturon and 2,4-D increased grain yield by 42.3% over weedy check in zero tillage.

Treatment
isoproturon fb 2, 4-De0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
42.3e0
Comparator
weedy checke0
Setting
zeroe0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“On an average, isoproturon fb 2, 4-D increased the grain yield by 42.3, 38.0 and 39.1% over weedy check in zero, reduced and conventional tillage, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 741–900 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sequential isoproturon and 2,4-D increased grain yield by 38.0% over weedy check in reduced tillage.

Treatment
isoproturon fb 2, 4-De0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
38.0e0
Comparator
weedy checke0
Setting
reducede0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“On an average, isoproturon fb 2, 4-D increased the grain yield by 42.3, 38.0 and 39.1% over weedy check in zero, reduced and conventional tillage, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 741–900 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sequential isoproturon and 2,4-D increased grain yield by 39.1% over weedy check in conventional tillage.

Treatment
isoproturon fb 2, 4-De0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
39.1%e0
Comparator
weedy checke0
Setting
conventional tillagee0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“On an average, isoproturon fb 2, 4-D increased the grain yield by 42.3, 38.0 and 39.1% over weedy check in zero, reduced and conventional tillage, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 741–900 · show in text ↑
t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 73–78 · show in text ↑

isoproturon · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

10 papers: 7 positive, 3 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

2,4-D · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

51 papers: 35 positive, 16 negative or no effect

34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

47 papers more in this group

See all 51 papers →

isoproturon · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

89 papers: 75 positive, 14 negative or no effect

74 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

85 papers more in this group

See all 89 papers →

2,4-D · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

116 papers: 78 positive, 38 negative or no effect

77 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

112 papers more in this group

See all 116 papers →

2,4-D · weed · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

66 papers: 64 positive, 2 negative or no effect

63 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

62 papers more in this group

See all 66 papers →

isoproturon · weed · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

74 papers: 72 positive, 2 negative or no effect

71 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

70 papers more in this group

See all 74 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.