Paper · 2013 · Current Advances in Agricultural Sciences(An International Journal)

Response of wheat (Triticum aestivum) to weed management practices and nitrogen levels

SM Patel; JC Patel; G. A. Patel; et al.

15
claims
28
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

A field experiment to evaluate response of wheat (Triticum aestivum) to weed management practices and nitrogen levels was conducted during winter seasons of 2007–08 and 2008–09 at Sardarkrushinagar, Gujarat. Sowing conditions did not affect growth and yield attributes, yields and dry weight of weeds in wheat. Significant variation in growth parameters, yield attributes, and grain and straw yields of wheat was recorded with nitrogen levels. Higher numbers of effective tillers per meter row length and spike length were recorded with the application of 150 kg N ha−1, which reflected in improvement in grain (42.03 q ha−1) and straw yields (63.66 q ha−1) of the crop. Weed free treatment and weedy check were recorded higher and lower grain and straw yields, respectively. All the herbicides recorded significantly lower dry weight of weeds at harvest over weedy check. Among the herbicides, metsulfuron-methyl (0.004 kg ha−1) + 2, 4-D (0.4 kg ha−1) and isoproturon (0.5 kg ha−1) + 2, 4-D (0.4 kg ha−1) were more effective in reducing dry weight of weeds. Maximum weed control efficiency (83.36%) was registered with isoproturon + 2, 4-D, followed by metsulfuron-methyl + 2, 4-D (82.96%). The treatments comprising 150 kg N ha−1 and application of isoproturon + 2, 4-D had higher net return ( 37558 and 41569 ha−1) and benefit: cost ratio (3.07and3.41), respectively, which is attribute to higher yields with these treatments, thus enhancing the net returns.

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 15

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sowing conditions did not affect wheat growth, yield traits, yields or weed dry weight.

Treatment
Sowing conditionse0
Outcome
growth and yield attributes, yields and dry weight of weedse0
Direction
did not affecte0

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

“Sowing conditions did not affect growth and yield attributes, yields and dry weight of weeds in wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 208–309 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen levels significantly varied wheat growth parameters, yield attributes and grain and straw yields.

Treatment
nitrogen levelse0
Outcome
growth parameters, yield attributes, and grain and straw yieldse0

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

“Significant variation in growth parameters, yield attributes, and grain and straw yields of wheat was recorded with nitrogen levels”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 311–442 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Applying 150 kg N ha−1 gave higher effective tiller numbers and spike length.

Treatment
150 kg N ha−1e0
Outcome
effective tillers per meter row length and spike lengthe0
Direction
Highere0

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

“Higher numbers of effective tillers per meter row length and spike length were recorded with the application of 150 kg N ha−1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 444–569 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Applying 150 kg N ha−1 improved grain yield to 42.03 q ha−1.

Treatment
150 kg N ha−1e0
Outcome
graine0
Direction
improvemente0
Value
42.03 q ha−1e0

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

“application of 150 kg N ha−1, which reflected in improvement in grain (42.03 q ha−1) and straw yields (63.66 q ha−1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 541–657 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Applying 150 kg N ha−1 improved straw yield to 63.66 q ha−1.

Treatment
150 kg N ha−1e0
Outcome
straw yieldse0
Direction
improvemente0
Value
63.66 q ha−1e0

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

“application of 150 kg N ha−1, which reflected in improvement in grain (42.03 q ha−1) and straw yields (63.66 q ha−1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 541–657 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weed-free wheat had higher grain and straw yields than the weedy check.

Treatment
Weed free treatmente0
Outcome
grain and straw yieldse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
weedy checke0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“Weed free treatment and weedy check were recorded higher and lower grain and straw yields, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 671–774 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

All herbicides significantly lowered weed dry weight at harvest relative to the weedy check.

Treatment
All the herbicidese0
Outcome
dry weight of weeds at harveste0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
weedy checke0

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

“All the herbicides recorded significantly lower dry weight of weeds at harvest over weedy check”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 776–871 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Metsulfuron-methyl plus 2, 4-D reduced weed dry weight effectively.

Treatment
metsulfuron-methyl (0.004 kg ha−1) + 2, 4-D (0.4 kg ha−1)e0
Outcome
dry weight of weedse0
Direction
reducinge0

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

“metsulfuron-methyl (0.004 kg ha−1) + 2, 4-D (0.4 kg ha−1) and isoproturon (0.5 kg ha−1) + 2, 4-D (0.4 kg ha−1) were more effective in reducing dry weight of weeds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 895–1057 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Isoproturon plus 2, 4-D reduced weed dry weight effectively.

Treatment
isoproturon (0.5 kg ha−1) + 2, 4-D (0.4 kg ha−1)e0
Outcome
dry weight of weedse0
Direction
reducinge0

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

“isoproturon (0.5 kg ha−1) + 2, 4-D (0.4 kg ha−1) were more effective in reducing dry weight of weeds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 957–1057 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Isoproturon plus 2, 4-D achieved maximum weed control efficiency of 83.36%.

Treatment
isoproturon + 2, 4-De0
Outcome
weed control efficiencye0
Direction
Maximume0
Value
83.36%e0

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

“Maximum weed control efficiency (83.36%) was registered with isoproturon + 2, 4-D”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1059–1140 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Metsulfuron-methyl plus 2, 4-D achieved 82.96% weed control efficiency.

Treatment
metsulfuron-methyl + 2, 4-De0
Outcome
weed control efficiencye1
Value
82.96%e0

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

“followed by metsulfuron-methyl + 2, 4-D (82.96%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1142–1190 · show in text ↑
e1

“weed control efficiency”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1067–1090 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 150 kg N ha−1 treatment had higher net return of 37558 ha−1.

Treatment
150 kg N ha−1e0
Outcome
net returne0
Direction
highere0
Value
37558e0

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 treatments comprising 150 kg N ha−1 and application of isoproturon + 2, 4-D had higher net return ( 37558 and 41569 ha−1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1192–1317 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Isoproturon plus 2, 4-D had higher net return of 41569 ha−1.

Treatment
isoproturon + 2, 4-De0
Outcome
net returne0
Direction
highere0
Value
41569 ha−1e0

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

“application of isoproturon + 2, 4-D had higher net return ( 37558 and 41569 ha−1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1236–1317 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 150 kg N ha−1 treatment had a benefit to cost ratio of 3.07.

Treatment
150 kg N ha−1e0
Outcome
benefit: cost ratioe0
Direction
highere0
Value
3.07e0

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

“150 kg N ha−1 and application of isoproturon + 2, 4-D had higher net return ( 37558 and 41569 ha−1) and benefit: cost ratio (3.07and3.41)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1218–1355 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Isoproturon plus 2, 4-D had a benefit to cost ratio of 3.41.

Treatment
isoproturon + 2, 4-De0
Outcome
benefit: cost ratioe0
Direction
highere0
Value
3.41e0

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

“application of isoproturon + 2, 4-D had higher net return ( 37558 and 41569 ha−1) and benefit: cost ratio (3.07and3.41)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1236–1355 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 12–17 · show in text ↑

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 →

metsulfuron methyl · weed · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

134 papers: 132 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

130 papers more in this group

See all 134 papers →

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

401 papers: 362 positive, 39 negative or no effect

361 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

397 papers more in this group

See all 401 papers →

herbicide · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

563 papers: 466 positive, 97 negative or no effect

465 papers in the same direction as this paper · 87 in the opposite direction · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

559 papers more in this group

See all 563 papers →

nitrogen · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

2,061 papers: 1,737 positive, 324 negative or no effect

1,736 papers in the same direction as this paper · 285 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

2,057 papers more in this group

See all 2,061 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.