Paper · 2019 · Pesticide Research Journal

Imazethapyr and its Ready-mix Combinations for Weed Control in Pea under Palam Valley Conditions of Himachal Pradesh

SS Rana; Dinesh Badiyala; Neelam Sharma

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

Abstract

Field evaluation of imazethapyr and its ready-mix combinations with pendimethalin and imazamox for their effect on weeds and yield and economics of pea is reported. Twelve treatments viz., pendimethalin 750 g ha-1 as pre-emergence, imazethapyr at 60 and 70 g ha-1 as pre-emergence and at 70 and 80 g ha-1 as early postemergence; pendimethalin + imazethapyr at 800 and 900 g ha-1 as pre-emergence, imazethapyr + imazamox at 50, 60 and 70 g ha-1 as post-emergence, hand weeding twice and weedy check were tested during three consecutive winters of 2014–15 to 2016–17 at Palampur. Avena ludoviciana (31.3%), Phalaris minor (31.3%) and Lolium temulentum (25%) were the major weeds. Application of imazethapyr at 80 g ha-1 early post-emergence being at par with pre-emergence pendimethalin + imazethapyr at 800 or 900 g ha-1 controlled the weeds effectively and resulted in highest green pea yield, net returns due to weed control and marginal benefit-cost ratio (MBCR). Early post emergence application of imazethapyr 80 g ha-1 resulted in the highest weed control efficiency, weed management index, agronomic management index, and integrated weed management index, and the lowest weed index. Weeds reduced green pea yield by 80.2 per cent. With every g m-2 increase in weed weight, the green pea yield decreased by 75.1 kg ha-1. Based on the overall impact index, early post-emergence imazethapyr 70–80 g ha-1, pre-emergence imazethapyr 60–70 g ha-1 and pre-emergence ready-mix combination consisting of pendimethalin + imazethapyr at 800–900 g ha-1 may be used for weed control in pea under Palam Valley conditions of Himachal Pradesh.

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

Avena ludoviciana represented 31.3% of the major weeds.

Interactor
Avena ludovicianaAvena sterilis subsp. ludovicianae0weed
Outcome
Avena ludovicianae0
Value
31.3%e0

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Avena sterilis subsp. ludoviciana
Avena sterilis subsp. ludoviciana · InteractorMarie PORTAS · CC BY-SA 2.0 fr · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Avena ludoviciana (31.3%), Phalaris minor (31.3%) and Lolium temulentum (25%) were the major weeds.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 578–677 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–66 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phalaris minor represented 31.3% of the major weeds.

Interactor
Phalaris minorPhalaris minore0weed
Outcome
Phalaris minore0
Value
31.3%e0

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · 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

e0

“Avena ludoviciana (31.3%), Phalaris minor (31.3%) and Lolium temulentum (25%) were the major weeds.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 578–677 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–66 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lolium temulentum represented 25% of the major weeds.

Interactor
Lolium temulentumLolium temulentume0weed
Outcome
Lolium temulentume0
Value
25%e0

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Lolium temulentum
Lolium temulentum · InteractorH. Zell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Avena ludoviciana (31.3%), Phalaris minor (31.3%) and Lolium temulentum (25%) were the major weeds.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 578–677 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Early post-emergence imazethapyr at 80 g ha-1 controlled weeds effectively and gave the highest green pea yield and economic returns.

Treatment
imazethapyr at 80 g ha-1 early post-emergencee0
Outcome
green pea yield, net returns due to weed control and marginal benefit-cost ratio (MBCR)e0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
pre-emergence pendimethalin + imazethapyr at 800 or 900 g ha-1e0

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Application of imazethapyr at 80 g ha-1 early post-emergence being at par with pre-emergence pendimethalin + imazethapyr at 800 or 900 g ha-1 controlled the weeds effectively and resulted in highest green pea yield, net returns due to weed control and marginal benefit-cost ratio (MBCR).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 678–965 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Early post-emergence imazethapyr at 80 g ha-1 produced the highest weed control and management indices and lowest weed index.

Treatment
imazethapyr 80 g ha-1e0
Outcome
weed control efficiency, weed management index, agronomic management index, and integrated weed management indexe0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Early post emergence application of imazethapyr 80 g ha-1 resulted in the highest weed control efficiency, weed management index, agronomic management index, and integrated weed management index, and the lowest weed index.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 966–1188 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–66 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weeds reduced green pea yield by 80.2 per cent.

Interactor
Weedse0weed
Outcome
green pea yielde0
Direction
reducede0
Value
80.2 per cente0

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Weeds reduced green pea yield by 80.2 per cent.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1189–1236 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–66 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Each g m-2 increase in weed weight corresponded to 75.1 kg ha-1 less green pea yield.

Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
green pea yielde0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
75.1 kg ha-1e0
Qualifier
every g m-2 increase in weed weighte0

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“With every g m-2 increase in weed weight, the green pea yield decreased by 75.1 kg ha-1.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1237–1325 · show in text ↑
t0

“Pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–66 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend several imazethapyr treatments for weed control in pea in Palam Valley.

Outcome
weed controle0
Setting
Palam Valleye0

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“early post-emergence imazethapyr 70–80 g ha-1, pre-emergence imazethapyr 60–70 g ha-1 and pre-emergence ready-mix combination consisting of pendimethalin + imazethapyr at 800–900 g ha-1 may be used for weed control in pea under Palam Valley conditions of Himachal Pradesh.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1361–1633 · show in text ↑

Imazethapyr · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results differ

12 papers: 11 positive, 1 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

Imazethapyr · weed · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

herbicide · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results differ

62 papers: 45 positive, 17 negative or no effect

44 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

58 papers more in this group

See all 62 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.