Paper · 2017 · Indian Journal of Weed Science

Efficacy of imazethapyr applied alone and its mixture with other herbicides in green gram and their residual effect on mustard

Rajni Punia; S.S. Punia; Meenakshi Sangwan; et al.

13
claims
27
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

An experiment on evaluation of herbicides in greengram and their residual effect on succeeding mustard crop was conducted at Research farm of Department of Agronomy, CCSHAU, Hisar during Kharif 2013 and Rabi 2013–14. Weed flora of the experimental field was dominated by Echinocloa colona (78%), Cyperus rotundus (18%) and other weeds (4%) at 30 DAS. Pre-emergence application of ready mix (RM) imazethapyr + pendimethalin at 1000 g/ha provided good control (80%) of Echinocloa colona up to 30 DAS. At 60 DAS, imazethapyr + imazamox (RM) at 80 g/ha applied at 3–4 leaf stage provided maximum control of weeds, which was at par with two hoeings employed at 20 and 40 DAS. Post-emergence use of imazethapyr + imazamox (RM) at 60–80 g/ha exhibited 70–80% control of weeds with slight crop suppression which mitigated within 10–15 days after spray resulting maximum crop growth and seed yield. Early post-emergence application of imazethapyr at 50, 60 and 70 g/ha although caused mild injury to greengram in terms of yellowing of leaves and stunted crop growth up to 30, but it diminished within two weeks. Maximum seed yield (1078 kg/ha) of green gram was obtained with two hoeings at 20 and 40 DAS followed by imazethapyr + imazamox (RM) at 80 g/ha and imazethapyr at 70 g/ha applied at 3–4 leaf stage. All herbicides, irrespective of their dose and time of application, did not cause any injury to succeeding mustard crop due to high rainfall (594 mm) during crop growing season that resulted in to enhanced microbial degradation of herbicides.

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 13

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Echinocloa colona comprised 78% of the weed flora at 30 DAS.

Interactor
Echinocloa colonae0weed
Outcome
Echinocloa colonae0
Value
78%e0
Setting
Research farm of Department of Agronomy, CCSHAU, Hisare1

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Weed flora of the experimental field was dominated by Echinocloa colona (78%), Cyperus rotundus (18%) and other weeds (4%) at 30 DAS.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 217–350 · show in text ↑
t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–89 · show in text ↑
e1

“Research farm of Department of Agronomy, CCSHAU, Hisar”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 125–179 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cyperus rotundus comprised 18% of the weed flora at 30 DAS.

Interactor
Cyperus rotundusCyperus rotunduse0weed
Outcome
Cyperus rotunduse0
Value
18%e0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Cyperus rotundus
Cyperus rotundus · InteractorNo machine-readable author provided. Rickjpelleg assumed (based on copyright claims). · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Weed flora of the experimental field was dominated by Echinocloa colona (78%), Cyperus rotundus (18%) and other weeds (4%) at 30 DAS.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 217–350 · show in text ↑
t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–89 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Other weeds comprised 4% of the flora at 30 DAS.

Interactor
other weedse0weed
Outcome
other weedse0
Value
4%e0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Weed flora of the experimental field was dominated by Echinocloa colona (78%), Cyperus rotundus (18%) and other weeds (4%) at 30 DAS.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 217–350 · show in text ↑
t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–89 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pre-emergence imazethapyr plus pendimethalin at 1000 g/ha controlled 80% of Echinocloa colona through 30 DAS.

Treatment
imazethapyr + pendimethalin at 1000 g/hae0
Interactor
Echinocloa colonae0weed
Outcome
control (80%) of Echinocloa colonae0
Direction
good controle0
Value
80%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pre-emergence application of ready mix (RM) imazethapyr + pendimethalin at 1000 g/ha provided good control (80%) of Echinocloa colona up to 30 DAS.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 351–498 · show in text ↑
t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–89 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Imazethapyr plus imazamox at 80 g/ha gave maximum weed control at 60 DAS, comparable to two hoeings.

Treatment
imazethapyr + imazamox (RM) at 80 g/hae0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Outcome
control of weedse0
Direction
maximume0
Comparator
two hoeings employed at 20 and 40 DASe0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At 60 DAS, imazethapyr + imazamox (RM) at 80 g/ha applied at 3–4 leaf stage provided maximum control of weeds, which was at par with two hoeings employed at 20 and 40 DAS.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 499–670 · show in text ↑
t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–89 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Post-emergence imazethapyr plus imazamox at 60–80 g/ha controlled 70–80% of weeds.

Treatment
imazethapyr + imazamox (RM) at 60–80 g/hae0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Outcome
control of weedse0
Value
70–80%e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Post-emergence use of imazethapyr + imazamox (RM) at 60–80 g/ha exhibited 70–80% control of weeds”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 671–768 · show in text ↑
t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–89 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The post-emergence mixture caused slight crop suppression that resolved within 10–15 days.

Treatment
spraye0
Outcome
crop suppressione0
Direction
mitigatede0
Value
10–15 dayse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“with slight crop suppression which mitigated within 10–15 days after spray”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 769–843 · show in text ↑
t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–89 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The post-emergence mixture resulted in maximum crop growth and seed yield.

Outcome
crop growth and seed yielde0
Direction
maximume0

Not reportedTreatmentComparator

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“resulting maximum crop growth and seed yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 844–888 · show in text ↑
t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–89 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Early post-emergence imazethapyr at 50, 60 and 70 g/ha caused temporary leaf yellowing and stunted growth.

Treatment
imazethapyr at 50, 60 and 70 g/hae0
Outcome
yellowing of leaves and stunted crop growthe0
Direction
stuntede0
Qualifier
diminished within two weekse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Early post-emergence application of imazethapyr at 50, 60 and 70 g/ha although caused mild injury to greengram in terms of yellowing of leaves and stunted crop growth up to 30, but it diminished within two weeks.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 890–1102 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Two hoeings produced the maximum green gram seed yield of 1078 kg/ha.

Treatment
two hoeings at 20 and 40 DASe0
Outcome
seed yielde0
Direction
Maximume0
Value
1078 kg/hae0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Maximum seed yield (1078 kg/ha) of green gram was obtained with two hoeings at 20 and 40 DAS followed by imazethapyr + imazamox (RM) at 80 g/ha and imazethapyr at 70 g/ha applied at 3–4 leaf stage.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1103–1300 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The imazethapyr plus imazamox mixture at 80 g/ha followed hoeing in seed yield.

Treatment
imazethapyr + imazamox (RM) at 80 g/hae0
Outcome
seed yielde1
Direction
followede0
Comparator
two hoeings at 20 and 40 DASe0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“two hoeings at 20 and 40 DAS followed by imazethapyr + imazamox (RM) at 80 g/ha and imazethapyr at 70 g/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1167–1273 · show in text ↑
t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–89 · show in text ↑
e1

“Maximum seed yield (1078 kg/ha) of green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1103–1148 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Imazethapyr at 70 g/ha followed hoeing in seed yield.

Treatment
imazethapyr at 70 g/hae0
Outcome
seed yielde1
Direction
followede0
Comparator
two hoeings at 20 and 40 DASe0

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“two hoeings at 20 and 40 DAS followed by imazethapyr + imazamox (RM) at 80 g/ha and imazethapyr at 70 g/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1167–1273 · show in text ↑
t0

“green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–89 · show in text ↑
e1

“Maximum seed yield (1078 kg/ha) of green gram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1103–1148 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No tested herbicide injured the succeeding mustard crop.

Taxon
mustardt0
Treatment
All herbicidese0
Outcome
injury to succeeding mustard crope0
Direction
did not causee0
Value
594 mme0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“All herbicides, irrespective of their dose and time of application, did not cause any injury to succeeding mustard crop due to high rainfall (594 mm) during crop growing season that resulted in to enhanced microbial degradation of herbicides.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1301–1543 · show in text ↑
t0

“mustard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 119–126 · show in text ↑

Imazethapyr · weed · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results differ

50 papers: 49 positive, 1 negative or no effect

48 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

46 papers more in this group

See all 50 papers →

imazamox · weed · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree

9 papers: 9 positive, 0 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

application · control · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect

6 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 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.