Paper · 2017 · Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry

Effect of sowing methods, scheduling of irrigation based on IW/CPE ratio and chemical weed control on plant height, dry matter accumulation and yield of wheat

Bhagwat Singh Chouhan; MK Kaushik; V Napelia; et al.

10
claims
20
verbatim quotes
8
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

An experiment was conducted during two consecutive rabi seasons of 2013-14 and 2014-15 at Udaipur (Raj.). The experiment consisted of three IW/CPE ratios (0.8, 1.0 and 1.2), three sowing methods (line sowing, crisscross sowing and FIRB) and three weed control (weedy check, sulfosulfuron + metsulfuron (RM) and isoproturon + 2, 4-D (TM) at 35 DAS) measures, making twenty seven treatment combinations. These treatments were replicated thrice in split-plot design having IW/CPE ratios in main plots and sowing methods and weed control in sub-plots. IW/CPE ratio at 1.0 recorded significant increase in plant height, dry mater accumulation at 60, 90 and harvest and yield of wheat. Both these treatments increase grain yield by 10.60 and 12.68, straw yield by 8.23 and 11.34 and biological yield by 9.19 and 11.88 per cent, respectively over IW/CPE ratio at 08. Under the different sowing methods maximum plant height and dry matter accumulation at successive growth stages was recorded with criss cross method which ultimately increase the yield of wheat over line sowing but remained at par with FIRB system. Combination of herbicide [sulfosulfuron + metsulfuron (RM) and isoproturon + 2, 4-D (TM)] significantly increased plant height, dry matter accumulation and yield over weedy check. The magnitude of increase was 24.06 and 21.81 in grain, 22.73 and 21.76 in straw and 23.28 and 21.78 per cent in biological yield over weed chek.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

IW/CPE ratio 1.0 significantly increased wheat height, dry matter and yield.

Treatment
IW/CPE ratio at 1.0e0
Outcome
plant height, dry mater accumulation at 60, 90 and harvest and yield of wheate0
Direction
increasee0

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

“IW/CPE ratio at 1.0 recorded significant increase in plant height, dry mater accumulation at 60, 90 and harvest and yield of wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 548–678 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The two higher IW/CPE ratios increased grain yield by 10.60 and 12.68 percent versus 0.8, respectively.

Treatment
Both these treatmentse0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
10.60 and 12.68e0
Comparator
IW/CPE ratio at 08e0

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

“Both these treatments increase grain yield by 10.60 and 12.68, straw yield by 8.23 and 11.34 and biological yield by 9.19 and 11.88 per cent, respectively over IW/CPE ratio at 08”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 680–858 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 153–158 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The two higher IW/CPE ratios increased straw yield by 8.23 and 11.34 percent versus 0.8, respectively.

Treatment
Both these treatmentse0
Outcome
straw yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
8.23 and 11.34e0
Comparator
IW/CPE ratio at 08e0

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

“Both these treatments increase grain yield by 10.60 and 12.68, straw yield by 8.23 and 11.34 and biological yield by 9.19 and 11.88 per cent, respectively over IW/CPE ratio at 08”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 680–858 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 153–158 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The two higher IW/CPE ratios increased biological yield by 9.19 and 11.88 percent versus 0.8, respectively.

Treatment
Both these treatmentse0
Outcome
biological yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
9.19 and 11.88 per cente0
Comparator
IW/CPE ratio at 08e0

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

“Both these treatments increase grain yield by 10.60 and 12.68, straw yield by 8.23 and 11.34 and biological yield by 9.19 and 11.88 per cent, respectively over IW/CPE ratio at 08”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 680–858 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 153–158 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Crisscross sowing produced maximum height and dry matter and increased yield over line sowing, but was at par with FIRB.

Treatment
criss cross methode0
Outcome
plant height and dry matter accumulatione0
Direction
maximume0
Qualifier
remained at par with FIRB systeme0
Comparator
line sowinge0

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 plant height and dry matter accumulation at successive growth stages was recorded with criss cross method which ultimately increase the yield of wheat over line sowing but remained at par with FIRB system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 895–1107 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Crisscross sowing increased wheat yield over line sowing and was at par with FIRB.

Treatment
criss cross methode0
Outcome
yield of wheate0
Direction
increasee0
Qualifier
remained at par with FIRB systeme0
Comparator
line sowinge0

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

“criss cross method which ultimately increase the yield of wheat over line sowing but remained at par with FIRB system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 990–1107 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Herbicide combinations significantly increased plant height and dry matter over weedy check.

Treatment
sulfosulfuron + metsulfuron (RM) and isoproturon + 2, 4-D (TM)e0
Outcome
plant height, dry matter accumulatione0
Direction
increasede0
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

“Combination of herbicide [sulfosulfuron + metsulfuron (RM) and isoproturon + 2, 4-D (TM)] significantly increased plant height, dry matter accumulation and yield over weedy check”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1109–1287 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 153–158 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The RM and TM herbicides increased grain yield by 24.06 and 21.81 percent over weedy check.

Treatment
sulfosulfuron + metsulfuron (RM) and isoproturon + 2, 4-D (TM)e1
Outcome
graine0
Direction
increasee0
Value
24.06 and 21.81e0
Comparator
weed cheke0

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 magnitude of increase was 24.06 and 21.81 in grain, 22.73 and 21.76 in straw and 23.28 and 21.78 per cent in biological yield over weed chek”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1289–1433 · show in text ↑
e1

“Combination of herbicide [sulfosulfuron + metsulfuron (RM) and isoproturon + 2, 4-D (TM)] significantly increased plant height”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1109–1235 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 153–158 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The RM and TM herbicides increased straw yield by 22.73 and 21.76 percent over weedy check.

Treatment
sulfosulfuron + metsulfuron (RM) and isoproturon + 2, 4-D (TM)e1
Outcome
strawe0
Direction
increasee0
Value
22.73 and 21.76e0
Comparator
weed cheke0

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 magnitude of increase was 24.06 and 21.81 in grain, 22.73 and 21.76 in straw and 23.28 and 21.78 per cent in biological yield over weed chek”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1289–1433 · show in text ↑
e1

“Combination of herbicide [sulfosulfuron + metsulfuron (RM) and isoproturon + 2, 4-D (TM)] significantly increased plant height”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1109–1235 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 153–158 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The RM and TM herbicides increased biological yield by 23.28 and 21.78 percent over weedy check.

Treatment
sulfosulfuron + metsulfuron (RM) and isoproturon + 2, 4-D (TM)e1
Outcome
biological yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
23.28 and 21.78 per cente0
Comparator
weed cheke0

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 magnitude of increase was 24.06 and 21.81 in grain, 22.73 and 21.76 in straw and 23.28 and 21.78 per cent in biological yield over weed chek”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1289–1433 · show in text ↑
e1

“Combination of herbicide [sulfosulfuron + metsulfuron (RM) and isoproturon + 2, 4-D (TM)] significantly increased plant height”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1109–1235 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 153–158 · 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 →

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

155 papers: 143 positive, 12 negative or no effect

142 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

151 papers more in this group

See all 155 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.