Paper · 2007

Effect of weed management practices and fertility levels on growth and yield parameters in finger millet

O. Kumara; Trupti B. Naik; P. Palaiah

8
claims
19
verbatim quotes
17
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

A field experiment was carried out during kharif 2001 and 2002 at field unit of All India Co-ordinated Research Project on Weed control, University of Agricultural sciences, Hebbal, Bangalore, under irrigated conditions. The treatment consisted of four weed management practices and two fertility levels. The hand weeding twice resulted in higher grain (3450 kg ha-1), followed by butachlor and 2, 4-D Na salt 0.75 kg ha-1. The higher yield was reflected in terms of yield parameters such as ear length, 1000 grain weight, number of fingers per ear head, ear weight per plant and grain weight per plant. Unweeded control treatment caused significant reduction in these traits and consequently lowered the yield by 43 per cent owing to weed competition. Application of butachlor and 2, 4 - D Na salt 0.75 kg ha-I was resulted in higher net returns and benefit cost ratio as compared to hand weeding twice and unweeded control, owing to less cost. Integrated use of recommended NPK and FYM treatment recorded significantly higher grain (3086 kg ha-1) as compared to recommended NPK alone (2946 kg ha-1). This higher yield in integrated use of recommended NPK + FYM applied plot was reflected in terms of better yield parameter like ear length, ear weight per plant, 1000 grain weight, number of fingers / ear head and grain weight per plant and growth parameter like leaf area, total dry matter production and better distribution of dry matter to graim.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Twice hand weeding gave grain yield of 3450 kg ha-1.

Taxon
finger milletEleusine coracanat0
Treatment
hand weeding twicee0
Outcome
graine0
Direction
highere0
Value
3450 kg ha-1e0
Comparator
butachlor and 2, 4-D Na salt 0.75 kg ha-1e0

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“hand weeding twice resulted in higher grain (3450 kg ha-1), followed by butachlor and 2, 4-D Na salt 0.75 kg ha-1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 309–422 · show in text ↑
t0

“finger millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 91–104 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Hand weeding improved yield component traits.

Taxon
finger milletEleusine coracanat0
Treatment
hand weeding twicee1
Outcome
ear length, 1000 grain weight, number of fingers per ear heade0
Direction
highere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The higher yield was reflected in terms of yield parameters such as ear length, 1000 grain weight, number of fingers per ear head, ear weight per plant and grain weight per plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 424–602 · show in text ↑
t0

“finger millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 91–104 · show in text ↑
e1

“hand weeding twice resulted in higher grain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 309–352 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Unweeded plots had reduced yield components.

Taxon
finger milletEleusine coracanat0
Treatment
Unweeded control treatmente0
Outcome
these traitse0
Direction
reductione0

Not reportedComparator

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Unweeded control treatment caused significant reduction in these traits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 604–675 · show in text ↑
t0

“finger millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 91–104 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weed competition lowered grain yield by 43 per cent.

Taxon
finger milletEleusine coracanat0
Treatment
weed competitione0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
lowerede0
Value
43 per cente0

Not reportedComparator

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“lowered the yield by 43 per cent owing to weed competition”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 693–751 · show in text ↑
t0

“finger millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 91–104 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Butachlor plus 2, 4-D gave higher net returns and benefit cost ratio than hand weeding or unweeded control.

Taxon
finger milletEleusine coracanat0
Treatment
butachlor and 2, 4 - D Na salt 0.75 kg ha-Ie0
Outcome
net returns and benefit cost ratioe0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
hand weeding twice and unweeded controle0

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Application of butachlor and 2, 4 - D Na salt 0.75 kg ha-I was resulted in higher net returns and benefit cost ratio as compared to hand weeding twice and unweeded control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 753–924 · show in text ↑
t0

“finger millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 91–104 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Recommended NPK plus FYM increased grain yield to 3086 kg ha-1 versus 2946 kg ha-1 for NPK alone.

Taxon
finger milletEleusine coracanat0
Treatment
recommended NPK and FYMe0
Outcome
graine0
Direction
highere0
Value
3086 kg ha-1e0
Qualifier
2946 kg ha-1e0
Comparator
recommended NPK alonee0

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Integrated use of recommended NPK and FYM treatment recorded significantly higher grain (3086 kg ha-1) as compared to recommended NPK alone (2946 kg ha-1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 946–1100 · show in text ↑
t0

“finger millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 91–104 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NPK plus FYM improved ear and grain yield components.

Taxon
finger milletEleusine coracanat0
Treatment
NPK + FYMe1
Outcome
ear length, ear weight per plant, 1000 grain weighte0
Direction
bettere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“better yield parameter like ear length, ear weight per plant, 1000 grain weight, number of fingers / ear head and grain weight per plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1202–1338 · show in text ↑
t0

“finger millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 91–104 · show in text ↑
e1

“recommended NPK + FYM applied plot”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1141–1175 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NPK plus FYM improved leaf area, dry matter production and distribution.

Taxon
finger milletEleusine coracanat0
Treatment
NPK + FYMe1
Outcome
leaf area, total dry matter production and better distribution of dry mattere0
Direction
bettere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Eleusine coracana
Eleusine coracana · TaxonAgnieszka Kwiecień, Nova · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“growth parameter like leaf area, total dry matter production and better distribution of dry matter to graim”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1343–1450 · show in text ↑
t0

“finger millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 91–104 · show in text ↑
e1

“recommended NPK + FYM applied plot”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1141–1175 · show in text ↑

butachlor · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

2,4-D · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)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 →

herbicide · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results

44 papers: 43 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

40 papers more in this group

See all 44 papers →

fertilization · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results

174 papers: 171 positive, 3 negative or no effect

170 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

170 papers more in this group

See all 174 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.