Paper · 2002 · Indian Journal of Weed Science

Bio-etlicacy of Herbicidesin Zero-till Wheat in Rice-wheat Cropping System

Govindra Singh; Y. Singh; Vinay Singh; et al.

8
claims
15
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Bio-efficacy of isoproturon, clodinafop-propargyl and sulfosulfuron in zero-till wheat was evaluated in a field trial conducted during winter seasons of 1999–2000 and 2000–2001. Phalaris minor was the major weed constituting more than 88% of the total weed population. Isoproturon, clodinafop-propargyl and sulfosulfuron were highly effective against P. minor. Isoproturon at 2.0 kg ha−1 applied in two equal splits was toxic to wheat crop. Clodinafoppropargyl at 60 g ha−1 could not control non-grassy weeds but follow up application of 2, 4-D over clodinafop widened weed control efficiency and spectrum. Sulfosulfuron at 25 g ha−1 effectively controlled grassy as well as non-grassy weeds.

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 8

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phalaris minor constituted more than 88% of total weeds.

Interactor
Phalaris minorPhalaris minore0weed
Outcome
total weed populatione0
Value
more than 88%e0

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 ↗
Phalaris minor
Phalaris minor · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMatt Lavin from Bozeman, Montana, USA · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“Phalaris minor was the major weed constituting more than 88% of the total weed population”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 178–267 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Isoproturon was highly effective against P. minor.

Treatment
Isoproturone0
Interactor
P. minorPhalaris minore0weed
Outcome
effective against P. minore0
Direction
highly effectivee0

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 ↗
Phalaris minor
Phalaris minor · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMatt Lavin from Bozeman, Montana, USA · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“Isoproturon, clodinafop-propargyl and sulfosulfuron were highly effective against P. minor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 269–359 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Clodinafop-propargyl was highly effective against P. minor.

Treatment
clodinafop-propargyle0
Interactor
P. minorPhalaris minore0weed
Outcome
effective against P. minore0
Direction
highly effectivee0

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 ↗
Phalaris minor
Phalaris minor · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMatt Lavin from Bozeman, Montana, USA · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“Isoproturon, clodinafop-propargyl and sulfosulfuron were highly effective against P. minor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 269–359 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulfosulfuron was highly effective against P. minor.

Treatment
sulfosulfurone0
Interactor
P. minorPhalaris minore0weed
Outcome
effective against P. minore0
Direction
highly effectivee0

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 ↗
Phalaris minor
Phalaris minor · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryMatt Lavin from Bozeman, Montana, USA · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“Isoproturon, clodinafop-propargyl and sulfosulfuron were highly effective against P. minor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 269–359 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Split-applied isoproturon at 2.0 kg ha−1 was toxic to wheat.

Treatment
Isoproturon at 2.0 kg ha−1 applied in two equal splitse0
Outcome
toxic to wheat crope0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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 at 2.0 kg ha−1 applied in two equal splits was toxic to wheat crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 361–439 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Clodinafoppropargyl at 60 g ha−1 failed to control non-grassy weeds.

Treatment
Clodinafoppropargyl at 60 g ha−1e0
Interactor
non-grassy weedse0weed
Outcome
non-grassy weedse0
Direction
could not controle0

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

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“Clodinafoppropargyl at 60 g ha−1 could not control non-grassy weeds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 441–508 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Follow-up 2, 4-D after clodinafop widened weed control efficiency and spectrum.

Treatment
follow up application of 2, 4-D over clodinafope0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed control efficiency and spectrume0
Direction
widenede0

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

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“follow up application of 2, 4-D over clodinafop widened weed control efficiency and spectrum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 513–605 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulfosulfuron at 25 g ha−1 controlled grassy and non-grassy weeds effectively.

Treatment
Sulfosulfuron at 25 g ha−1e0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Outcome
grassy as well as non-grassy weedse0
Direction
effectively controllede0

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

t0

“Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–44 · show in text ↑
e0

“Sulfosulfuron at 25 g ha−1 effectively controlled grassy as well as non-grassy weeds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 607–691 · show in text ↑

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

4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative
See all 4 papers →

isoproturon · Phalaris minor · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

24 papers: 18 positive, 6 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

20 papers more in this group

See all 24 papers →

clodinafop-propargyl · weed · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

37 papers: 34 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

33 papers more in this group

See all 37 papers →

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

61 papers: 54 positive, 7 negative or no effect

53 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

57 papers more in this group

See all 61 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 →

clodinafop-propargyl · Phalaris minor · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.