Abstract
The present study was undertaken to conduct performance evaluation of manually operated weeders. The six weeders selected for the study were one wheel multi pronged weeder, one wheel straight pronged weeder, one wheel curve pronged weeder, two wheel multi pronged weeder, two wheel straight pronged weeder, two wheel curve pronged weeder. Besides the six weeders the conventional hand weeding with local made kurpi was also considered as one of the methods of weeding. Women aged between 13 to 52 years were employed for this study. The Performance evaluation was done by taking into consideration the field capacity, plant damage percent, weeding index percent and human energy required to operate the weeder. There was highly significant mean difference in the field capacity of weeders (P=<.0001). The study revealed that the one wheel straight pronged weeder was superior to all the other weeders with reference to field capacity. Highly significant mean difference was found between one wheel straight pronged weeder and rest of the weeders. In case of plant damage mean difference among weeders was found significant. The mean plant damage percent was low in case of traditional hand weeding followed by one wheel straight pronged weeder and one wheel curve pronged weeder. There was no significant mean difference among weeders with reference to weeding index percent. The mean weeding index per cent was highest for conventional hand weeding, followed by two wheel straight pronged weeder, one wheel multi pronged weeder and one wheel straight pronged weeder. The difference in the mean energy spent by the subjects while performing conventional method of weeding against mean energy spent by the subjects when weeding was done with the rest of the weeders selected in the study was found significant. Other than that there was no significant mean difference in energy expenditure while using any other weeders was found. Mean energy expenditure was less in case of traditional hand weeding. Among the weeders mean energy expenditure was less in case of two wheel straight pronged weeder. There was a significant mean difference in the performance index of the weeders (P= <.0001). The mean difference in performance index between one wheel straight pronged weeder and all the other weeders together with traditional hand weeding was highly significant. The performance index score was maximum for one wheel straight pronged weeder and minimum for traditional hand weeding. Overall performance was high for one wheel straight pronged weeder followed by two wheel straight pronged weeder and straight pronged weeder.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Weeders differed significantly in field capacity.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“There was highly significant mean difference in the field capacity of weeders (P=<.0001)”
Claim · model-written summary
The one wheel straight pronged weeder had the best field capacity.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“the one wheel straight pronged weeder was superior to all the other weeders with reference to field capacity”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant damage differed significantly among weeders.
Not reportedComparatorValue
Verbatim
e0“In case of plant damage mean difference among weeders was found significant”
Claim · model-written summary
Traditional hand weeding had the lowest plant damage, followed by one wheel straight and curve pronged weeders.
Verbatim
e0“The mean plant damage percent was low in case of traditional hand weeding followed by one wheel straight pronged weeder and one wheel curve pronged weeder”
Claim · model-written summary
Weeding index did not differ significantly among weeders.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“There was no significant mean difference among weeders with reference to weeding index percent”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional hand weeding had the highest mean weeding index, followed by three named weeders.
- Outcome
- weeding index per cente0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- two wheel straight pronged weeder, one wheel multi pronged weeder and one wheel straight pronged weedere0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The mean weeding index per cent was highest for conventional hand weeding, followed by two wheel straight pronged weeder, one wheel multi pronged weeder and one wheel straight pronged weeder”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy use differed significantly between conventional weeding and the tested weeders.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The difference in the mean energy spent by the subjects while performing conventional method of weeding against mean energy spent by the subjects when weeding was done with the rest of the weeders selected in the study was found significant”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy expenditure did not differ significantly among the other weeders.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“there was no significant mean difference in energy expenditure while using any other weeders”
Claim · model-written summary
Traditional hand weeding had lower mean energy expenditure.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Mean energy expenditure was less in case of traditional hand weeding”
Claim · model-written summary
Two wheel straight pronged weeder had the lowest mean energy expenditure among weeders.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Among the weeders mean energy expenditure was less in case of two wheel straight pronged weeder”
Claim · model-written summary
Weeder performance index differed significantly.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“There was a significant mean difference in the performance index of the weeders (P= <.0001)”
Claim · model-written summary
One wheel straight pronged weeder had the maximum performance index and traditional hand weeding the minimum.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The performance index score was maximum for one wheel straight pronged weeder and minimum for traditional hand weeding”