Paper · 2019 · International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences

Effect of Planting Pattern and Weed Management Practices on Weeds and Yields of Field Pea and Baby Corn in Field Pea + Baby Corn Intercropping System

Moirangthem Thoithoi Devi; V. K. Singh

17
claims
21
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-sa

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during two consecutive seasons of rabi 2011-13 at Crop Research Centre of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar to find out the effect of planting pattern and weed management practices on weed growth and yields of field pea and baby corn in field pea (Pant P-13) + baby corn(Surya) intercropping system. The experiment was laid out in split plot design keeping four planting patterns as main plot and four weed management practices as sub plot with three replications. Paired planting of maize (30/60 cm) + field pea (2:2) and planting of maize + field pea (1:1) had lower total weed density and weed dry weight and higher weed control efficiency than sole planting of field pea or baby corn. Sole planting of field pea recorded significantly higher grain (2264 and 1434 kg ha-1) and straw yields(3263 and 2540 kg ha-1) during 2011-12 and 2012-2013than yield obtained as a component crop in paired planting of maize (30/60 cm) + field pea (2:2) and planting of maize + field pea (1:1).Baby corn yield was similar in sole, paired (2:2) and 1:1planting but significantly higher stover yield of baby corn(3576 kg ha-1and 3533 kg ha-1,during 2011-12 and 2012-2013 respectively)was obtained from sole crop than other planting methods during both the years. Both the intercropping systems had significantly higher field pea equivalent yield than sole crop of either field pea or baby corn. The lowest total weed density(66.5 and 67.3plants/m2,during 2011-12 and 2012-2013 respectively) and weed dry weight (99.4 and 99.7g m-2,during 2011-12 and 2012-2013 respectively) was recorded in hand weeding at 90 days after sowing which was followed by pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1, post-emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1 and weedy check. Significantly higher weed control efficiency was recorded from one hand weeding (56.07 and 56.52%)and pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1(55.37and 56.49%) during 2011-2012and 2012-2013 than post emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1(30.08 and 30.36% respectively). Hand weeding, pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1 and post-emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1 (30 days after sowing) improved all the growth and yield parameters of field pea and baby corn than weedy check. Hand weeding, pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1 and post-emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1 had significantly higher field pea equivalent yield than weedy check.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. 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 17

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Paired maize and field pea planting reduced total weed density and dry weight versus sole crops.

Taxon
field peae0
Treatment
Paired planting of maize (30/60 cm) + field pea (2:2) and planting of maize + field pea (1:1)e0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
total weed density and weed dry weighte0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
sole planting of field pea or baby corne0

Verbatim

e0

“Paired planting of maize (30/60 cm) + field pea (2:2) and planting of maize + field pea (1:1) had lower total weed density and weed dry weight and higher weed control efficiency than sole planting of field pea or baby corn.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 526–749 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Paired maize and field pea planting raised weed control efficiency versus sole crops.

Taxon
field peae0
Treatment
Paired planting of maize (30/60 cm) + field pea (2:2) and planting of maize + field pea (1:1)e0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed control efficiencye0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
sole planting of field pea or baby corne0

Verbatim

e0

“Paired planting of maize (30/60 cm) + field pea (2:2) and planting of maize + field pea (1:1) had lower total weed density and weed dry weight and higher weed control efficiency than sole planting of field pea or baby corn.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 526–749 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Sole field pea had significantly higher grain yield than field pea in either intercropping pattern.

Taxon
field peae0
Treatment
Sole planting of field peae0
Outcome
graine0
Direction
highere0
Value
2264 and 1434 kg ha-1e0
Comparator
paired planting of maize (30/60 cm) + field pea (2:2) and planting of maize + field pea (1:1)e0

Verbatim

e0

“Sole planting of field pea recorded significantly higher grain (2264 and 1434 kg ha-1) and straw yields(3263 and 2540 kg ha-1) during 2011-12 and 2012-2013than yield obtained as a component crop in paired planting of maize (30/60 cm) + field pea (2:2) and planting of maize + field pea (1:1).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 750–1042 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Sole field pea had significantly higher straw yield than field pea in either intercropping pattern.

Taxon
field peae0
Treatment
Sole planting of field peae0
Outcome
straw yieldse0
Direction
highere0
Value
3263 and 2540 kg ha-1e0
Comparator
paired planting of maize (30/60 cm) + field pea (2:2) and planting of maize + field pea (1:1)e0

Verbatim

e0

“Sole planting of field pea recorded significantly higher grain (2264 and 1434 kg ha-1) and straw yields(3263 and 2540 kg ha-1) during 2011-12 and 2012-2013than yield obtained as a component crop in paired planting of maize (30/60 cm) + field pea (2:2) and planting of maize + field pea (1:1).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 750–1042 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Baby corn yield was similar across sole and intercropped planting.

Taxon
Baby corne0
Treatment
paired (2:2) and 1:1plantinge0
Outcome
Baby corn yielde0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
solee0

Verbatim

e0

“Baby corn yield was similar in sole, paired (2:2) and 1:1planting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1042–1107 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Sole baby corn had higher stover yield than other planting methods.

Taxon
baby corne0
Treatment
sole crope0
Outcome
stover yield of baby corne0
Direction
highere0
Value
3576 kg ha-1and 3533 kg ha-1e0
Comparator
other planting methodse0

Verbatim

e0

“significantly higher stover yield of baby corn(3576 kg ha-1and 3533 kg ha-1,during 2011-12 and 2012-2013 respectively)was obtained from sole crop than other planting methods”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1112–1285 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Both intercropping systems had higher field pea equivalent yield than either sole crop.

Taxon
field peae0
Treatment
intercropping systemse0
Outcome
field pea equivalent yielde0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
sole crop of either field pea or baby corne0

Verbatim

e0

“Both the intercropping systems had significantly higher field pea equivalent yield than sole crop of either field pea or baby corn.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1309–1440 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Hand weeding at 90 days yielded the lowest total weed density.

Taxon
Field Peat0
Treatment
hand weeding at 90 days after sowinge0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
total weed densitye0
Direction
loweste0
Value
66.5 and 67.3plants/m2e0
Comparator
weedy checke0

Verbatim

e0

“The lowest total weed density(66.5 and 67.3plants/m2,during 2011-12 and 2012-2013 respectively) and weed dry weight (99.4 and 99.7g m-2,during 2011-12 and 2012-2013 respectively) was recorded in hand weeding at 90 days after sowing which was followed by pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1, post-emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1 and weedy check.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1441–1817 · show in text ↑
t0

“Yields of Field Pea and Baby Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Hand weeding at 90 days yielded the lowest weed dry weight.

Taxon
Field Peat0
Treatment
hand weeding at 90 days after sowinge0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed dry weighte0
Direction
loweste0
Value
99.4 and 99.7g m-2e0
Comparator
weedy checke0

Verbatim

e0

“The lowest total weed density(66.5 and 67.3plants/m2,during 2011-12 and 2012-2013 respectively) and weed dry weight (99.4 and 99.7g m-2,during 2011-12 and 2012-2013 respectively) was recorded in hand weeding at 90 days after sowing which was followed by pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1, post-emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1 and weedy check.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1441–1817 · show in text ↑
t0

“Yields of Field Pea and Baby Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Hand weeding raised weed control efficiency compared with imazethapyr.

Taxon
Field Peat0
Treatment
one hand weedinge0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed control efficiencye0
Direction
highere0
Value
56.07 and 56.52%e0
Comparator
post emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1e0

Verbatim

e0

“Significantly higher weed control efficiency was recorded from one hand weeding (56.07 and 56.52%)and pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1(55.37and 56.49%) during 2011-2012and 2012-2013 than post emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1(30.08 and 30.36% respectively).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1818–2108 · show in text ↑
t0

“Yields of Field Pea and Baby Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Pendimethalin raised weed control efficiency compared with imazethapyr.

Taxon
Field Peat0
Treatment
pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1e0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed control efficiencye0
Direction
highere0
Value
55.37and 56.49%e0
Comparator
post emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1e0

Verbatim

e0

“Significantly higher weed control efficiency was recorded from one hand weeding (56.07 and 56.52%)and pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1(55.37and 56.49%) during 2011-2012and 2012-2013 than post emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1(30.08 and 30.36% respectively).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1818–2108 · show in text ↑
t0

“Yields of Field Pea and Baby Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 70–103 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Hand weeding improved crop growth and yield parameters versus weedy check.

Taxon
field pea and baby corne0
Treatment
Hand weedinge0
Outcome
growth and yield parameterse0
Direction
improvede0
Comparator
weedy checke0

Verbatim

e0

“Hand weeding, pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1 and post-emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1 (30 days after sowing) improved all the growth and yield parameters of field pea and baby corn than weedy check.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2109–2344 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pendimethalin improved crop growth and yield parameters versus weedy check.

Taxon
field pea and baby corne0
Treatment
pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1e0
Outcome
growth and yield parameterse0
Direction
improvede0
Comparator
weedy checke0

Verbatim

e0

“Hand weeding, pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1 and post-emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1 (30 days after sowing) improved all the growth and yield parameters of field pea and baby corn than weedy check.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2109–2344 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Imazethapyr improved crop growth and yield parameters versus weedy check.

Taxon
field pea and baby corne0
Treatment
post-emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1 (30 days after sowing)e0
Outcome
growth and yield parameterse0
Direction
improvede0
Comparator
weedy checke0

Verbatim

e0

“Hand weeding, pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1 and post-emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1 (30 days after sowing) improved all the growth and yield parameters of field pea and baby corn than weedy check.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2109–2344 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Hand weeding increased field pea equivalent yield versus weedy check.

Taxon
field peae0
Treatment
Hand weedinge0
Outcome
field pea equivalent yielde0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
weedy checke0

Verbatim

e0

“Hand weeding, pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1 and post-emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1 had significantly higher field pea equivalent yield than weedy check.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2345–2537 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Pendimethalin increased field pea equivalent yield versus weedy check.

Taxon
field peae0
Treatment
pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1e0
Outcome
field pea equivalent yielde0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
weedy checke0

Verbatim

e0

“Hand weeding, pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1 and post-emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1 had significantly higher field pea equivalent yield than weedy check.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2345–2537 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Imazethapyr increased field pea equivalent yield versus weedy check.

Taxon
field peae0
Treatment
post-emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1e0
Outcome
field pea equivalent yielde0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
weedy checke0

Verbatim

e0

“Hand weeding, pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1 and post-emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1 had significantly higher field pea equivalent yield than weedy check.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2345–2537 · 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 · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

15 papers: 6 positive, 9 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

11 papers more in this group

See all 15 papers →

pendimethalin · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

54 papers: 52 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect

50 papers more in this group

See all 54 papers →

Zea mays · weed · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

pendimethalin · weed · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)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 →

pendimethalin · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree

15 papers: 15 positive, 0 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

11 papers more in this group

See all 15 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 →

herbicide · weed · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

40 papers: 35 positive, 5 negative or no effect

34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

36 papers more in this group

See all 40 papers →

8 of 11 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.