iv result & dis pravir
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
1/34
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The experiment was conducted during kharifseason (June to November) 2011,
to find out the suitable weed management practices for scented rice cultivation. The
experimental findings have been thoroughly discussed and interpreted in this chapter
through proper reasoning and reviews along with appropriate headings, tables and
figures.
4.1 Weather conditions
The weather data recorded during the experimental period are presented in
Appendix-I and depicted through Fig 3.1. The crop received 1193.7 mm rainfall during
entire growth period. The maximum temperature during crop period varied from 33.4
C in the first week of July to 28.3 C in the first week of September, while minimum
temperature ranged between 15.2 C in the fifth week of October to 25.8C in the fifth
week of July. Relative humidity throughout the crop season varied between 27 to 96
per cent. The average maximum relative humidity for different weeks varied from 88 to
94.25 percent, while, weekly average minimum relative humidity varied between 29 to
78.75 percent. The open pan evaporation mean values ranged from 3.42 to 4.34 mm
day1, whereas, average sunshine hours varied from 2 to 8.05 hours day-1. The average
wind velocity for different weeks varied from 0.85 to 11.00 km hr1.Thus all weather
ingredients were favourable during crop growth period.
No severe incidence of diseases and insects were observed during the crop
growth period. Thus, whatever variations observed in the various characters studies
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
2/34
within the investigation are attributed to different treatments exercised in this
experiment.
4.2 Pre-harvest observations on crop
4.2.1 Plant population (m-2)
Plant population of rice recorded during initial and harvest stages as affected
by weed control treatments have been presented in Table 4.1. Results showed that
significantly lowest plant population (viz. 25.00 and 24.33 at 20 DAT and harvest,
respectively) was observed in treatment T2 where space transplanting (20 cm x 20 cm)
was done. Treatment T8 resulted in significantly higher plant population (66.33 and
65.65 plants m-2 at 20 DAT and harvest respectively) mainly due to planting of rice
in closer row spacing (15 cm x 10 cm). On the other hand weed control treatments
did not caused much variations in plant population both at 20 DAT and at harvest
stages.
Table 4.1 Plant population of rice (m-2) as influenced by various weed
management treatments
Treatments Plant population (m-2)
20 DAT Harvest
T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) 49.67 48.00
T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45 DAT 25.00 24.33
T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT 49.00 48.33
T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT 50.00 49.00
T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT 49.00 48.67T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT 50.00 49.00
T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm) 15,30 and
45 DAT
50.00 48.67
T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) 66.33 65.65
SEm+ 0.35 0.30
CD 5 % 1.06 0.89
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
3/34
4.2.2 Plant height (cm)
Plant height is one of the important growth parameters of any crop plant as it
determines or modifies the yield contributing characters and finally shapes the grain
yield. The analyzed data presented in Table 4.2 revealed that, on an average, plant
height increased with the advancement of crop duration and its value ranged from
43.19 to 129.86 cm depending on crop stage and weed control method used. The
increment in plant height was most intensive between 20 and 40 DAT. Compared to
weedy check treatments. Plant height was significantly influenced by all weed control
methods between 40 DAT till harvest stage of crop growth.
At 20 DAT, none of the weed management methods influenced the plant height of rice
significantly. At 40 DAT, mechanical weeding through ambika paddy weeder had
produced significantly taller plants (96.28 cm), while the unweeded check plots
produced significantly shorter plants 83.81 cm. The same pattern was observed at 80
DAT and at harvest stages. With regards to manual weeding, rice plant attains
maximum plant height with two weeding, being significantly higher over that recorded
in other treatments except with mechanical weeding. The increment in plant height
resulting from ambika paddy weeder (T6) over weedy check treatment was 15% at
harvest. Use of mechanical weeder brought significant growth in plant height owing
due to the reason that mechanical weed control results in better soil aeration and
greater root and shoot development. Incorporation of weed with mechanical weeder
increased the root activity which stimulated the new cell division in roots by pruning
of some upper roots encouraged deeper root growth thereby increased the shoot:root
ratio (Uphoff, 2001). Vijayakumar et al.,(2006) also point out that mechanical
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
4/34
weeding could enhance plant height by better soil aeration and incorporation of weeds
as a green manure increased the organic carbon content of the soil.
Table 4.2: Plant height (cm) of rice at different growth stages as influenced by
various weed management treatments
Treatments Plant height (cm), DAT20 40 80 Harves
tT1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) 38.19 83.81 97.67 112.98
T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45
DAT39.24 94.67 121.52 125.92
T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT 38.32 85.21 116.56 120.44
T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT 39.34 86.54 120.63 124.86
T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45
DAT39.65 87.48 117.37 118.24
T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45
DAT38.25 96.28 125.32 129.7
T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm)
15,30 and 45 DAT39.60 84.56 116.30 119.98
T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) 39.87 88.42 113.91 117.84
SEm+ 0.28 1.08 1.17 1.04
CD (5%) NS 3.31 3.48 3.18
4.2.3 Number of tillers (m-2)
Tillering plays a vital role in determining rice grain yield since it is closely
related to number of panicle per unit ground area. Too few tillers result in too few
panicles, but excess tillers enhance high tiller mortality, small panicles, poor grain
filling, and consequent reduction in grain yield (Peng et al.,1994).
The mean value of the number of tillers (m-2) in the experiment for all treatment
(Table 4.3) indicated that increase in number of tillers per plant between 20 and 80
DAT was remarkable. The maximum tiller production reached at 80 DAT (496.67)
and gradually declined at later growth stages. The decrease in the number of tillers per
plant was attributed to the death of some of the last tillers as a result of their failure in
competition for light and nutrients (Fageria, et al.,1997b). Another explanation for this
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
5/34
effect is that during the panicle initiation stage of crop growth period, competition for
assimilates exists between developing panicles and young tillers. Eventually, growth
of many young tillers is suppressed, and they may senesce without producing seed
(Dofing and Karlsson, 1993). The number of tillers per square meter was significantly
influenced by weed control methods at all the dates of observation except at 20 DAT.
The lowest number of tillers (viz. 284.67, 410.33 and 358.67 m-2 at 40 DAT, 80 DAT
and at harvest respectively) was observed in no weeding (weedy check) which was
significantly inferior than those observed in other weed control treatments. At 40
DAT, the highest number of tillers (334.67 m
-2
) was produced with the use of cono-
weeder (T2) which stand on a par with weeding performed by Ambika paddy weeder
(331.67 m-2) and both of these treatments produced significantly higher number of
tillers than rest of the weed control treatments. Similar pattern of maximum tillering
was observed at 80 DAT and harvest stages. Next to mechanical weeding, two manual
weeding at 25 and 45 DAT produced significantly higher number of tillers during all
the stages of observations compared to other methods of weed control used.
Vijaykumar et al. (2006) also opined that mechanical weeding not only helped in
reducing the weed competition, but also improved root growth by increasing soil
aeration and root pruning which ultimately resulted in increased number of tillers per
plant (Shad, 1986). Results of this study showed that weed free condition was best for
tiller production. Weedy check treatment or ineffective methods of weed control failed
to produce more tillers due to severe weed infestation in the experimental plot.
Table 4.3: Total number of tillers (m-2 ) of rice at different growth stages
influenced by various weed management treatments
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
6/34
Treatments No. of tillers (m-2) at No. ofeffectivetillers m-2
20DAT
40DAT
80DAT
Harvest
T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) 187.0
0
284.6
7
410.3
3
358.6
7
346.67
T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20
cm) 25,45 DAT187.6
7334.6
7495.6
7489.6
7477.67
T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT 188.67
324.67
398.33
385.33
376.33
T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45DAT
187.67
322.00
484.67
481.67
471.33
T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10cm) 25,45 DAT
188.67
305.33
478.67
457.67
437.67
T6-Ambika paddyweeder(20x10 cm) 25,45
DAT
189.00
331.67
496.67
486.67
470.67
T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW
(20x10 cm) 15,30 and 45
DAT
187.67
310.00
454.33
439.33
423.67
T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10
cm)
189.00
290.00
412.33
388.33
367.33
SEm+ 0.59 2.03 1.43 2.23 1.66CD (5%) NS 6.13 4.32 6.77 5.04
4.2.4 Number of effective tillers (m-2)
Grain yield of cereals is highly dependent upon the number of effective tillers
produced by each plant (Nerson, 1980). According to the data presented in Table 4.6,
the average number of effective tillers per square meter across all treatment was
ranges from 346.67 to 477.33 depending on weed control method used. In general, the
number of effective tillers per square meter was significantly increased by all the weed
management practices used in this investigation compared to weedy check, however,
their efficacy varied depending upon their ability to control the composite population
of weeds. The treatment of weeding through cono-weeder produced significantly
maximum number of effective tillers (477.67 m-2) compared to any other methods of
weed control. Proper control of weeds reduced the weed density which facilitates the
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
7/34
crop plants to have sufficient space, light, nutrient and moisture, and thus the effective
tillers increased (Hasanuzzaman et al. 2009). Weedy check (T1) resulted in minimum
number of effective tillers (346.67 m-2), being significantly lower than all the weed
control treatments. This might be due to the fact that the higher competition of weeds
did not allow the rice plant to produce more number of effective (panicle bearing)
tillers in the unweeded treatment. Among the various weed control treatments, closer
row spacing gave minimum effective tillers due to inter plant competition for longer
period which inhibited the plants to produce tiller. Uprety (2005) stated that early
weeding enhances production of more primary tillers, which ultimately produces
larger panicles having more grains and higher yield.
4.2.5 Dry matter accumulation (g hill-1)
The dry matter production per unit area is the prerequisites for higher
production. The amount of dry matter production depends on the effectiveness of
photosynthesis of the crop which in turn depends on large and efficient assimilating
area for adequate supply of solar radiation and carbon dioxide and favorable
environmental condition.
Table 4.4: Dry matter accumulation (g hill-1) of rice at different growth stages
influenced by various weed management treatments
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
8/34
Treatments Dry matter accumulation (ghill-1)20DAT
40DAT
80DAT
Harvest
T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) 3.48 6.72 34.77 47.86T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45
DAT3.48 9.65 53.26 68.44
T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT 3.76 7.62 35.83 47.90T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT 3.64 9.58 45.62 61.63T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45
DAT
3.51 7.76 41.26 55.30
T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45
DAT
3.64 9.10 51.57 66.00
T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm)
15,30 and 45 DAT3.09 7.55 36.44 49.71
T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) 3.14 8.26 35.88 48.94SEm+ 0.23 0.26 0.47 0.45CD (5%) NS 0.81 1.43 1.37
The dry matter production (g hill-1) determined at 20, 40, 80 days after
transplanting and at harvest are presented in Table 4.4 and depicted through Fig.
Analysis of results indicated that all the weed management treatments caused
significant variations in DM production compared to weedy check, however their
efficacy varied depending upon their ability to suppress the weed growth. Normally
dry matter accumulation in rice plant increased upto 80 DAT and after that it declined
due to tiller mortality, but it was not true in our experimentation which might be due to
a wide gap existed in between 80 DAT and last observation recorded at harvest.
Although the variation was non-significant at an early growth stage (20 DAT),
however, distinct differences were visible among the weed control treatments in DMA
at 40 DAT and onwards until the end of season. Finally, the higher DM production of
9.65, 53.26 and 68.44 g hill-1 of rice at 40, 80 DAT and at harvest, respectively was
recorded through T2 treatment (mechanical weeding with cono-weeder), while the
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
9/34
lowest DM production was observed under weedy check (T1). Though the DM
production under manual weeding (T4) and weeding through ambika paddy weeder
(T6) remained on a par but both of these treatment achieved significantly higher dry
matter production compared to rest of weed management practices other than T2
treatments. The increase in DMA was owing to significant increase in plant height and
tiller production as well as reduction in density and dry weight of weeds which restrict
their ability to restrict their ability to compete with the crop for different growth
factors resulting into better expression of dry matter accumulation. Similar results
have been reported by Ali et al.(2008).
4.2.6 Crop growth rate (g day-1 hill-1)
The data on crop growth rate (CGR) at various stages of crop as influenced by
various weed management practices are presented in Table 4.5 and depicted in Fig.
4.2. Results indicated that irrespective of treatments effect, crop growth rate enhanced
sharply up to 80 DAT and thereafter it declined. Therefore, growth period in between
40 to 80 days after transplanting appeared to be critical for maximum growth and
development of rice crop.
Table 4.5: CGR (g day-1 hill-1) of rice at different growth stages influenced by
various weed management treatments
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
10/34
Treatments CGR (g day-1 hill-1)20-
40DAT
40-
80DAT
80-
Harvest
T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) 0.16 0.70 0.32
T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45DAT
0.31 1.1 0.38
T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT 0.19 0.70 0.30T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT 0.30 0.90 0.40T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45
DAT0.21 0.83 0.35
T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45
DAT0.27 1.0 0.36
T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm)
15,30 and 45 DAT0.22 0.72 0.33
T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) 0.25 0.69 0.32
SEm+ 0.03 0.02 0.03CD (5%) NS 0.07 NS
The crop growth rate from 20-40 DAT of rice did not varied significantly due
to weed control treatments. However, numerically lowest CGR was recorded in weedy
check (T1) treatment while weeding performed through ambika paddy weeder (T6)
resulted in highest CGR. At 40-80 DAT, all the weed control treatment contributed to
the superior CGR over the weedy check and treatment mechanical weeding through
cono-weeder (T2) gave the highest CGR (1.1 g day-1) which were statistically similar
to mechanical weeding done by ambika paddy weeder (T6) and both of these
mechanical weedings remained significantly superior over other treatments. Similar
trend of CGR at 80-harvest period was noticed but treatment effects could not reach to
the level of significance. Results indicated that heavy weed infestation in the weedy
check (no weeding treatment) might have hampered the normal growth and
development of rice plants and ultimately poor dry matter accumulation which in turn
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
11/34
reduced the CGR compared to all the weed control treatments. The results confirm the
findings of Ali et al., (2008)
4.3 Weed infestation studies
4.3.1 Weed density
The data on weed density at various stages of crop growth as influenced by
methods of weed control are presented in Table 4.6 and depicted in Fig... On an
average, the weed density varied from 7.51 to 23.11 m-2 depending upon the stage of
crop and weed control method. The weed density was significantly influenced by
weed control treatments during all the stages of observation. All the weed
management treatments brought down weed densities significantly as compared to that
in untreated check( 23.11 m-2). and later treatment recorded the highest weed
population (viz. 10.06, 15.87, 20.95 and 23.11 m-2 at 20, 40, 80 DAT and at harvest
respectively) compared to all methods of weed control. At 20 DAT, weed density did
not varied significantly due to methods of weed control followed, however higher
weed density (10.06 m-2) was recorded in weedy check plot (T1) and lower weed
density (7.51 m-2) from closed row spacing which might be due to maximum spaced
occupied by rice plants leaving minimum ground for growing weed plants. Since,
manual and mechanical weed treatments was accomplished at 25 DAT onwards, hence
variation in weed density due to these treatments remained non-significant. At 40
DAT, weed density was minimum (7.23 m-2) in hand weeded plot (T3) which was on
par with T4, T6 and T8 treatments. Since second hand and mechanical weeding was
performed at 45 DAT, hence their effect on weed suppression was not visualized at the
time of observation made at 40 DAT. At 80 DAT, mechanical weeding through
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
12/34
ambika paddy weeder resulted in least weed density of 6.99 m-2 which was on a par
with that recorded in treatment of cono-weeder and both of these treatment
significantly excelled over other methods of weed control. Similar trends of weed
density was noticed at harvest. Similar findings was also reported by Rekha et al.,
(2002) that weed density was lower in all treatments compared to the unweeded
control plot.
Table 4.6: Weed density (m-2) in rice field as influenced by different weed
management treatments
Treatments Density of weeds (m-2)20DAT
40DAT
80DAT
Harvest
T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) 10.06 15.87 20.95 23.11
T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45DAT
9.24 8.38 6.75 7.34
T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT 10.21 7.23 13.95 14.13
T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT 9.48 7.56 8.69 9.14
T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45
DAT
9.68 12.59 14.96 15.13
T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45
DAT
9.28 7.74 7.89 6.99
T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm)
15,30 and 45 DAT
8.23 13.44 13.22 12.77
T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) 7.51 11.61 12.64 13.46
SEm+ 0.10 0.19 0.24 0.24
CD (5%) NS 0.60 0.72 0.73
4.3.2 Weed dry weight (g m-2)
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
13/34
Data on weed dry weight (g m-2) recorded at different growth stages of rice
are presented in Table-4.7 and illustrated in Fig. Results revealed that considerable
differences in weed dry weight existed between 20 DAT to harvest stage of rice
depending upon the methods of weed control used. Among the different treatments,
weedy check (T1) resulted in highest weed dry weight (8.98, 14.34, 1945 and 24.36 g
m-2 at 20, 40, 80 DAT and harvest respectively) as compared to weed control
treatments. Singh and Kumar (1999) also expressed that maximum weed dry weight
was recorded in the unweeded control which was significantly higher compared to
other weed control treatments. During initial stage of crop growth, significantly
minimum weed dry weight (6.19 g m-2) was observed in the treatment of closer row
spacing (T8) which was on par with T5 and T7 treatments. Other mechanical and hand
weeding treatments did not cause significant variation in weed dry weight because
these treatments were applied 25 days after transplanting of rice.
Table 4.7: Weed dry weight (g m-2) at various stages of crop growth as influenced
by different weed management treatments
Treatments Weed dry weight (g)20DAT
40DAT
80DAT
Harvest
T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) 8.98 14.34 19.45 24.36
T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45DAT
7.98 4.87 7.16 8.35
T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT 8.90 5.29 8.81 12.14
T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT 8.40 5.62 7.34 10.95
T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45
DAT
6.59 9.77 10.68 14.11
T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45
DAT
7.86 5.01 7.628.33
T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm) 6.61 11.37 12.90 13.79
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
14/34
15,30 and 45 DAT
T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) 6.19 10.89 12.88 13.99
SEm+ 0.38 0.20 0.13 0.21
CD (5%) 1.01 0.62 0.42 0.64
At 40 DAT, the highest weed dry weight (14.34 g m-2) was recorded at unweeded
check treatment (T1) which was significantly greater over all weed control treatments.
Significantly lowest weed biomass (4.87 g m-2) was recorded in T2 (cono-weeder)
treatment but it was at par with the values obtained under manual weedings (T3 and
T4) and soil aerating weeding (T6) treatments. Similar trends of weeds dry weight
were displayed during later stages of crop growth. The minimum dry weed biomass in
mechanical or hand weeded plots was due to the reason that first and second flush of
weeds was suppressed critically and later the regenerated weeds could not compete
with the crop when the crop plants attained a reasonable height during 40 DAT to
harvest stages.
4.3.3 Weed control efficiency
Results indicated that weed control efficiency of different weed control
practices had decisive bearing on weed density and weed biomass leading to better
weed control efficiency, which was ultimately manifested in better grain yield. The
higher was the WCE, the lower was the weed density as well as weed biomass ( Table-
4.8 ). The ultimate impact was the higher yield (Table yield). At 20 DAT, the highest
weed control efficiency was achieved in the treatment of acetic acid (20%) because of
suppression of weed growth during initial stage of crop growth. Mechanical weeding
through cono-weeder resulted in maximum weed control efficiency of 66.04 and
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
15/34
63.18 % during 40 and 80 DAT respectively. However, at harvest stage of crop
growth, mechanical weeding by ambika paddy weeder numerically recorded
maximum WCE closely followed by weeding with cono-weeder. Hand weeding
treatments stand next to mechanical weeding in terms of increasing weed control
efficiency. Mechanical and manual weeding enhanced weed control efficiency due to
restricted weed growth, resulted in lower dry matter production of weeds which in turn
resulted in higher weed control efficiency.
Table 4.8: Weed control efficiency at various growth stages of rice as influenced
by methods of weed control.
Treatments WCE20 40 80 Harves
tT1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) - - - -
T2-Use of cono weeder (20x20 cm) 25,45
DAT
11.13
66.04 63.18 65.72
T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25 DAT 0.89 63.11 54.70 50.16
T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT 6.45 60.81 62.26 55.05T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10 cm) 25,45
DAT26.6
131.86 45.08 42.07
T6-Ambika paddy weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45
DAT
12.47
65.06 60.82 65.80
T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW (20x10 cm)
15,30 and 45 DAT
12.47
20.71 33.67 43.39
T8-Closer row spacing at (15x10 cm) 31.06
24.06 33.77 42.56
4.4 Post harvest observations
4.4.1 Panicle length (cm)
Having a direct bearing on vegetative growth, the reproductive growth is the
ultimate aim of farmers and scientists alike. The data on panicle length of rice as
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
16/34
influenced by various weed control treatments are presented in Table 4.9. Results
revealed that length of rice panicles varied significantly due to the influence of
treatments under study. The unweeded check treatment produced significantly lowest
length of panicle (27.74 cm) over that observed with mechanical and hand weeding
treatments but stand on par with remaining weed control treatments (T5,T7 and T8).
The lowest length of panicle might have resulted due to higher competition of weeds
with the crop plants failed to produce the normal growth of panicles. Similar
observation was also reported by other workers Attalla and Kholosy, 2002 and Ahmad
et al., 2008) where weed control treatments significantly enhanced the panicle length.
Greater weed infestation in unweeded check might had resulted in shortest panicle
length among the weed control treatments. The mechanical weeding through cono-
weeder significantly excelled all other treatments by producing lengthier panicles
(32.44 cm) over rest of the weed control treatments. Rice crop provided with two hand
weeding (T4) and weeding through ambika paddy weeder was found to be next
superior in terms of producing longer panicles.
Table 4.9: Yield-contributing characteristics of rice as influenced by various
weed management treatments
Treatments Panicle
length, cm
Test
weight, g
Total
spikelets
panicle-1
No. of
grains
panicle-1
Sterility
% age
T1-Weedy check(20x10cm)
27.74 27.70 105.30 77.00 36.75
T2-Use of cono weeder(20x20 cm) 25,45 DAT
32.44 30.85 152.67 135.60 12.58
T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25
DAT
29.53 27.96 126.67 104.34 21.40
T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 31.39 30.24 145.00 128.76 12.61
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
17/34
25,45 DAT
T5-Acetic acid (20%)
(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT
28.31 29.48 137.30 102.00 34.61
T6-Ambika paddy
weeder(20x10 cm)
25,45 DAT
30.96 30.08 144.30 126.68 13.91
T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW
(20x10 cm) 15,30 and45 DAT
28.72 28.07 132.00 98.60 33.87
T8-Closer row spacing at
(15x10 cm)
27.99 28.00 128.30 107.98 18.82
SEm+ 0.41 0.27 1.19 1.01 1.05
CD (5%) 1.27 NS 3.60 3.05 3.19
4.4.2 Total spikelets panicle-1
Data on total number of spikelets as influenced by various weed control
treatments are shown in Table 4.9. The weed control treatments significantly affected
the total number of spikelets per panicle. Unweeded control treatment (T1) resulted in
the lowest number of spikelets (105.30 panicle-1), being significantly inferior over all
weed control treatments. Comparing different weed control treatments, it can be
inferred that mechanical weeding through cono-weeder (T2) resulted in highest
number of spike lets (152.67 panicle-1), which was significantly different from other
weed control tactics used in this investigation. Hand weeding twice and mechanical
weeding through ambika paddy weeder came out to be next best treatments (with
145.00 and 144.3 spike lets panicle-1) after T2 treatment in terms of spike lets
production. In the treatments where weeds were controlled effectively, there total
number of spikelets panicle-1
recorded higher because weeds did not pose competition
with the rice plant for nutrients, water, light, etc. The result further indicated that
greater weed infestation in the unweeded control and ineffective weed control resulted
in the lower number of spikelets per panicle. Similar results were also reported by
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
18/34
Attalla and Kholosy (2002). In an another studies, Sultana (2000) found that there
were 40 % reduction of grains per panicle due to competition ofE.crussgalli and 28.7
% reduction due to competition ofE.colonum at a density of 200 weeds m-2.
4.4.3 Number of grains panicle-1
The number of grains panicle-1 as influenced by different by weed control
treatments are presented in Table 4.9. Results demonstrated that all weed control
treatments caused the increment of number of grains per panicle over weedy check
treatment. Thus, lowest number of grains (77.00 panicle-1) was observed in the
unweeded check (T1) which was significantly inferior to other treatments. Mechanical
weeding through cono-weeder maintained its superiority in terms of maximum
number of grains (135.60 grains panicle-1) which was proved to be significantly
superior over other treatments. Hand weeding twice and mechanical weeding through
ambika paddy weeder resulted in next higher number of grains (128.76 and 126.68
grains panicle-1) compared to other weed control methods. This might be due to higher
crop-weed competition in the weedy check and other treatment where weeds growth
was not suppressed effectively, as weeds shared with the crop for its nutrients, water,
light or other necessary growth factors and consequently reduced grains panicle -1.
These results are in accordance with the findings of Vijaykumar et al. (2006) who
reported that use of mechanical weeding resulted in higher nutrient availability
subsequently resulting in a better source to sink conversion which enhanced higher
number of grains per panicle.
4.3.4 Test weight (g)
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
19/34
The test weight is a stable varietal character because the grain size is rigidly
controlled by the size of the hull (Yoshida, 1981). Data on test weight of rice as
influenced by different weed control methods are presented in Table 4.9. Results
revealed that test weight of rice were not significantly influenced by weed control
treatments, althooough they numerically differed among themselves. These results
corroborated with the findings of Islam et al.(2003) and they reported that no
significant difference in 1,000 grain weight was found between weed free and weed
competition levels. The average test weight was 29.04g in the experiment as a whole,
ranging between27.70 to 30.85 g depending upon the weed control methods used.
Weedy check (T1) produced very light weight seeds (27.70 g) while mechanical
weeding through cono-weeder (T2) resulted in heavier test weight (30.85 g) but
differences between them was not significant. Similar line of results were also
reported by Ahmed et al.,(2008).
4.3.5 Sterility percentage
The data on sterility percentage (Table 10) showed that it varied significantly
due to the effect of weed control treatments. The average serility percentage observed
in the experiment as a whole was23.06 %, and ranged from12.58 to 36.75 %
depending upon the weed control treatment. The highest sterility percentage (36.5 %)
was observed in the unweeded check (T1) which was significantly higher than those of
other treatments. The lowest sterility (12.61 %) was observed in a treatment of two
hand weeding (T4), being at par with that found (12.58 %) in the treatment where
mechanical weeding was carried out by cono-weeder (T2) and both of these treatments
registered their statistical superiority over other treatments. Weed infestation perhaps,
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
20/34
the main reason for such variation of the sterility in different treatments. Weedy check
or the treatments where weed control was inadequate there sterility per cent was high
because weeds compete with the rice plant for nutrients, water, light and other growth
factors and consequently had adverse effect on the grain formation and caused the
higher sterility percentage. The results corroborate the findings of Ahmed et al.,
(2008).
4.3.6 Grain yield (q ha-1)
Grain production, which is the final product of growth and development, is
controlled by dry matter accumulation during ripening phase (De Datta, 1981). Data
pertaining to grain yield of rice as influenced by various weed control treatments are
presented in Table 4.11 and depicted in Fig.. Results indicated that grain yield of
rice showed marked variations due to weed control methods adopted in this
investigation. The rice grain yield in general was found to range from 26.39 to35.68
qha-1 depending upon methods of weed control followed. Weedy check (T1) resulted
significantly lowest grain yield (26.39 q ha-1) compared to all methods of weed control
due to increased crop-weed competition higher weed dry weight, lowest number of
effective tillers m-2 and test weight and this was somewhat similar with the observation
of Phogat et al.(1998). This indicates that heavy weed infestation has caused a
substantial reduction in the yield of rice.
Mechanical weeding through cono-weeder (T2) resulted in significantly
highest grain yield over that recorded with other treatments. This was closely followed
by mechanical weeding through ambika paddy weeder and two hand weeding which
gave 34.69 and 3.29 q grain yield ha-1, being significantly superior over other methods
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
21/34
of weed control except weeding done by cono-weeder. Two soil aerating
weeding(cono weeder) increased grain yield by 35.20% over unweeded check
treatment. Higher grain yield from mechanical weedings might be due to less weeds
competition, lower weed density ( 7.34 m-2), lower dry weight of weeds (8.35 g m-2)
and higher weed control efficiency(65.72%) resulted by better weed control under this
treatment. Vijaykumar et al.(2006) also reported that incorporation of weeds through
by mechanical weeder recorded the higher grain yield. However, Mukhopadhyay
(1983) stated that hand weeding is the most common method and two weedings are
sufficient to adequately control weeds in transplanted rice. Our findings have the
implication that if labour availability is a limiting factor, the mechanical weeding
could be another suitable alternative for efficient weed management in transplanted
scented rice.
4.3.7 Straw yield (q ha-1)
Analysis of the data presented in Table 4.11 showed that straw yield of rice
differed significantly due to application of weed control treatments. An average straw
yield of 69.61 q ha-1 was recorded across the experimental trials, ranging from 64.53
to 73.88 q ha-1 Straw yields all weed control treatments were significantly higher as
compared to that of untreated check (T1). Thus, lowest straw yield (64.53 q ha-1) was
observed in the unweeded check treatment because of severe weed infestation that
hampered the plant height and also its tillering capacity which in turn reduced the
straw yield. The mechanical weeding accomplished through cono-weeder (T2)
produced the highest straw yield (73.88 q ha-1) and it was identical with treatment T6
(71.27 q ha-1) and superior to all other weed control treatments. Other methods of
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
22/34
weed control proved significantly better than weedy check but they did not caused
significant variations among themselves in terms of straw production. The increase in
rice straw yield with efficient weed control treatment may be attributed to better crop
growth in the absence of weed-crop competition for any of the growth factor. Rice
plant without such competition recorded higher plant height, tillers m-2 and CGR over
weedy check because of the greater space captured by rice plants. Ahmed et al.,(2008)
also reported the highest straw yields ha-1 from weed free plot and the lowest from no
weeding plots.
4.3.8 Harvest index
Grain yield in cereals is related to biological yield and grain harvest index
(Donald and Hamblin, 1976). Data on harvest index of rice as influenced by different
weed control treatments are presented in Table 4.11. Results exhibited that harvest
index was significantly different among weed control methods. Weedy check (T1)
treatment resulted in significantly lowest harvest index (29.02) over all weed control
treatments which was statistically inferior to rest of the treatments. On the other hand
the highest harvest index (32.73) was observed in the treatment where mechanical
weeding was done through ambika paddy weeder (T6) which was statistically identical
to that produced by T2 (32.57) and T4 (32.23) treatments. All these three treatments
were found to be significantly superior over other weed control treatment. The HI
values recorded in other weed control treatments remained at par among themselves.
Heavy weed infestation in turn more weed-crop competition in unweeded check (T1)
and inadequate weed control treatments reduced the grain yield which ultimately
affected the harvest index. Similar observation also reported by Ahmed et al.,(2008)
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
23/34
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
24/34
through cono weeder. As regards to rice grains none of the parameters influenced
significantly due to weed control treatments. Thus, it could be concluded that grain
quality remained unaffected due to weed control treatments.
Table 4.11: Length and breadth of paddy and rice grains as influenced by various
weed management treatments
Treatments Paddy grains Rice grainsLength
Breadth
L/B Length
Breadth
L/B
T1-Weedy check(20x10 cm) 9.10 2.10 4.37 7.07 1.50 4.72T2-Use of cono weeder
(20x20 cm) 25,45 DAT 10.57 2.27 4.67 7.93 1.93 4.11
T3-1 H.W (20x10 cm) 25DAT 9.70 2.13 4.54 7.67 1.57 4.92
T4-2 H.W (20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT 10.33 2.23 4.63 7.87 1.90 4.15
T5-Acetic acid (20%)(20x10cm) 25,45 DAT 10.10 2.20 4.60 7.73 1.87 4.14
T6-Ambika paddy
weeder(20x10 cm) 25,45DAT 10.27 2.20 4.67 7.83 1.87 4.20
T7-Burn oil spray + 1 HW(20x10 cm) 15,30 and 45
DAT 10.07 2.20 4.58 7.73 1.67 4.65T8-Closer row spacing at
(15x10 cm) 9.97 2.17 4.61 7.70 1.60 4.82SEm+ 0.24 0.06 0.19 0.10 0.05 0.12CD (5%) NS NS NS NS NS NS
4.5 Economics of treatments
Farmers resources such as land, labour and capital are important
considerations in making the final choices of weed control method ( De Datta and
Barker, 1977). The economical analysis of various treatments under investigation
was worked out and presented in the Table 4.12 to evaluate the most beneficial
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
25/34
and economical treatment for the cultivation of scented rice. The details of fixed
cost and cost of various weed control treatments are given in Apendix-II and III,
respectively.
Table 4.12: Economics of various weed management treatments in rice
cultivation
Treatment Fixed
cost
Treatment
cost
Total cost
ofcultivation
(Rs ha-1)
Gross
return
(Rs ha-1)
Net
return
(Rs ha-1)
Benefit:
cost
ratio
Grain
yield
Straw
yield
T1-Weedycheck(20x10
cm)
21259.3 600 21859.3 29292.9 6453 13886.6 0.63
T2-Use of
cono weeder
(20x20 cm)
25,45 DAT
21259.3 4713.92 25973.22 39604.8 7388 21019.58 0.80
T3-1 H.W
(20x10 cm) 25 DAT
21259.3 3752.8 25012.1 34920.6 7011 16919.5 0.67
T4-2 H.W
(20x10 cm) 25,45 DAT
21259.3 6905.6 28164.9 36951.9 6997 15784 0.56
T5-Acetic acid
(20%)(20x10
cm) 25,45
DAT
21259.3 11715.28 32974.58 33788.4 6861 7674.82 0.23
T6-Ambika
paddyweeder(20x10
cm) 25,45
DAT
21259.3 3752.8 25012.1 38505.9 7127 20620.8 0.82
T7-Burn oil
spray + 1 HW(20x10 cm)
15,30 and 45
DAT
21259.3 15811.92 37071.22 33499.8 6989 3417.58 0.09
T8-Closer row
spacing at
(15x10 cm)
21259.3 799.95 22059.25 33288.9 6866 18095.65 0.82
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
26/34
4.5.1 Cost of cultivation
The data (Table 4.12 ) showed that, in general treatment T7-Burn oil spray + One
H.W. required higher cost of cultivation per hectare while unweeded check plot
required the lower cost of cultivation.
4.5.2 Gross return
Economic analysis (Table 4.12 ) revealed that average gross return was Rs
41943.15 per hectare and it ranging from to Rs 35745.9 to Rs 46992.8per hectare
depending up on weed control methods used. All weed control treatments came up
with higher gross return over weedy check. The higher gross return (Rs 46992.8/ha)
was found under treatment T2-Use of Cono-weeder and lowest (Rs 3574.9/ha) was
noted in unweeded check plot.
4.5.3 Net return
The analyzed data (Table 4.12 ) indicated that the average net return was
Rs14677.32/ha and it ranged from Rs 13886.6 to Rs21019.6/ha depending upon
methods of weed control. The higher net return (Rs21019.6/ha) was obtained with
treatment T2-Use of Cono-weeder followed by T6-Ambika paddy weeder, T8-Closer
row spacing treatments. Mechanical weeding through cono-weeder at 25 and 45 DAT
resulted less weed infestation in the rice field throughout the crop growth which gave
favourable condition for rice growth and finally produced higher grain and straw
yields, consequently resulted in more profit. All the weed control treatments tried in
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
27/34
this experiment were more profitable than the unweeded check plot. Similar results
were also reported by Ahmed et al.,(2008).
4.5.4 Benefit cost ratio
Benefit cost ratio(BCR) is the ratio of gross return to cost of cultivation which can
also be expressed as returns per rupee invested. The minimum benefit: cost ratio was
obtained under the control condition. This was due to the lowest grain yield obtained
in control condition (T1).
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
28/34
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
A field experiment entitled Studies on the effect of weed management
options on the growth, yield and economics of scented Rice (Oryza sativa L.)
was conducted at the Instructional Farm, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya,
Raipur during the rainy season of 2011. The experiment was laid out in
randomized complete block design with three replications, having 8 treatments
(T1-weedy check, T2-Cono-weeder, T3-One hand weeding, T4-Two hand
weeding, T5-20 % Acetic acid, T6- Ambika paddy weeder T7- Burn oil spray
+ One H.W and T8- Closer row spacing) The soil of the experimental site was
clay loam in texture, having 22.10 % sand, 23.20 % silt and 53.12 % clay,
respectively, with pH of 7.18 The soil was low in organic carbon content (0.66 %),
low in nitrogen (218.5), medium in available phosphorus (17) and high in
available potassium (335 kg/ha). The results of the experiment are summed up as
follows:
As compared to weedy check, plant height at various growth stages increased up to
harvest stage. Use of cono weeder for weed control brought significantly greater
growth in terms of plant height
1. Number of tillers and effective tillers m-2 were maximum under the T2-Use of
Cono-weeder .
2. Plant height increased with the advancement of crop age. The maximum increase
was recorded under the treatment T6-Ambika paddy weeder followed by T2-Use
of Cono-weeder.
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
29/34
3. The highest dry matter accumulation was observed in T2-Use of Cono-weeder
followed by T6-Ambika paddy weeder.
4. Panicle length was found the highest in T2-Use of Cono-weeder followed by T6-
Ambika paddy weeder .
5. Crop growth rate was found to be the maximum during 40-80DAT, thereafter it
deceased (during 80 DAT- at harvest).
6. The maximum test weight was observed with T2-Use of Cono-weeder followed by
followed by T4-Two H.W.
7. Weed control efficiency was maximum under T2-Use of Cono-weeder followed
by T6-Ambika paddy weeder followed by T4-Two H.W. and T3- One H.W.
8. The maximum grain and straw yield were observed under T2-Use of Cono-weeder
followed T6-Ambika paddy weeder followed by T4-Two H.W.
9. The maximum harvest index was recorded under T6-Ambika paddy weeder
followed by T2-Use of Cono-weeder followed by T4-Two H.W..
10. In the experimental field Comelina bengalensis, Echinochloa colona,
Alternanthera triandra, and cynotis axilaris were the dominant weed species in all
the stages of rice.
11. The infestation of weed species increased with the time in unweeded control
treatment. The weed density and dry matter of weeds deceased due to use of
different weed management practices. The lowest weed density and weed dry
matter at 40, 80 DAT and At harvest observed under the T2-Use of Cono-weeder
treatment and T6-Ambika paddy weeder and T4-Two H.W.
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
30/34
12. The highest net return (Rs. 21019.58ha-1) benefit: cost ratio (0.80) and gross
return (Rs. 46992.8ha-1) was noted the T2-Use of Cono-weeder treatment followed
by T6-Ambika paddy weeder. The lowest net return (Rs. 13886.6 ha-1) benefit:
cost ratio (0.63) and gross return (Rs.35745.9) were noted under unweeded
control (T1).
Conclusion
On the basis of result obtained, it can be inferred that T2-Use of Cono-weeder
treatment twice at 25 and 45 DAT found prominent effect on growth characters of rice
like plant height, dry matter and number of effective tillers etc.
Among yield and yield attributing characters, like number of total tillers,
effective tillers, number of grains panicle-1, test weight, grain and straw yield were
maximum with T2-Use of Cono-weeder treatment twice at 25 and 45 DAT
T2-Use of Cono-weeder treatment twice at 25 and 45 DAT prominent effect
than any others in term of weed density, dry matter of weeds , weed control
efficiency.Also its application proved best with respect to rice production (maximum
rice yield 35.68q ha-1). The maximum total cost of cultivation (Rs37071.22 ha-1) was
recorded under T7-Burn oil spray + One H.W.. Maximum gross return Rs. 46992.8 ha-
1was obtained T2-Use of Cono-weeder followed by T6-Ambika paddy weeder
Suggestions for further research work
1. This experiment should be carried out for few more seasons to draw concrete
conclusion for the recommendation to rice growers.
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
31/34
2. Large scale testing and need to be studied under different agro- ecological
situation.
3. Effect of different weed management practice of rice can also be tried for early
and medium duration rice variety.
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
32/34
Appendix-I : Weekly meteorological data during crop growth period (from 25 June, 2011 to November 18, 2011)
Week
No
Month Date Temp (oC) Rainfall
(mm)
Relative
humidity
(%)
Vapour
pressure
Wind
velocity
(Kmph)
Evaporation
(mm)
Sun
shine
(Hrs)
Max Min I II I II26 June 25-01 30.6 20.9 11.3 88 69 21.8 21.5 11 3.8 2
Average 30.6 20.9 11.3* 88 69 21.8 21.5 11 3.8 2
27
July
02-08 33.4 25.1 23.4 86 67 22 21.8 5.1 4.5 4.8
28 09-15 32.6 25.5 58 90 67 23.2 23.3 6 4.7 5.3
29 16-22 29.7 24.1 206 94 82 22.3 22.6 10.5 3.9 1.8
30 23-29 30.7 25.1 50.8 88 66 22.9 22.2 4.1 4.4 4.5
31 30-05 32.2 25.8 75 92 77 23.9 25 3.8 4.2 5.4
Average 31.72 25.12 413.2* 90 71.8 22.86 22.98 5.9 4.34 4.36
32
Aug
06-12 28.9 24.7 92.4 95 82 22.9 23.6 5.1 3 0.6
33 13-19 30.1 24.6 76.9 94 76 23 23.1 3.9 4.2 3.3
34 20-26 30.8 24.4 59.6 92 75 23.2 23.5 2.5 3.5 5
35 27-02 29.4 24.6 150.1 96 82 23.3 24.3 3.4 3 2.5Average 29.8 24.575 379* 94.25 78.75 23.1 23.625 3.725 3.425 2.85
36
Sep
03-09 28.3 24.4 226 95 90 22.6 23.6 7.4 3.2 1.6
37 10-16 30.1 2.4 67 95 80 23.1 24.2 4.2 2.8 2
38 17-23 31 24 69.2 94 74 22.7 22.3 2.9 3.8 5.2
39 24-30 31.2 22.8 2.4 89 52 21.5 17.6 4.6 4 5.8
Average 30.15 18.4 364.6* 93.25 74 22.475 21.925 4.775 3.45 3.65
40
Oct
01-07 32.4 21.8 0 90 43 19.6 15.5 2.2 4.4 8.8
41 08-14 32.4 24 24.8 92 57 21.8 19.7 1.7 3.9 7.2
42 15-21 32.6 20.8 0.8 90 37 17.8 13.2 1.7 4.3 9.1
43 22-28 31.8 17.7 0 92 35 15.5 11.8 1.3 4.4 4.7
44 29-04 30.8 15.2 0 91 27 13.5 8.5 1.4 4.2 9
Average 32 19.9 25.6* 91 39.8 17.64 13.74 1.66 4.24 7.7645
Nov
05-11 33.2 15.8 0 90 28 13.3 9 0.8 4 8.1
46 12-18 31.2 15.7 0 88 30 12.5 9.7 0.9 3.9 8
Average 32.2 15.75 0* 89 29 12.9 9.35 0.85 3.95 8.05
1193.7**
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
33/34
Appendix II : Fixed cost of cultivation of rice ha-1
S.
No.
Particulars Rice
Input Rate (Rs.) Total cost
(Rs ha-1)
A
.
Nursery
a. Land Preparation
(Ploughing, harrowing
and levelling)
1 Tractor (1 hrs) 400 400.00
b. Seed bed Preparation 4 Man days 157.64 630.56
c. FYM 500 kg 0.7 Rs kg-1 350.00
d. Seed treatment
PSB 600g. 1000 Rs kg-1
600
Azospirillum (AZO) 200g 1000 Rs kg-1
200
B. Transplanting
a. Ploughing (once) 1 Tractor (3 hrs) 400 1200.00
b. Puddling and leveling(once)
1 Tractor (3 hrs) 400 1200.00
c. Transplanting 15 man days 157.64 2364.60
d. Irrigation 4 irrigation,+ 2
man days
450+157.64 2115.28
e.Organic manureCow dung manure (CDM) 1307 700 ton-1 915
Compost crop residue (CCR) 1700 700 ton-1 1190
vermicompost (VC) 1041 2000 ton-1 2082
BGA 10 kg 10 kg-1 100
Rock phosphate (RP) 100kg 750 q-1 750
f. Harvesting 15 man days 157.64 2364.60
g.Threshing and winnowing 15 Man days 157.64 2364.60
C. Land revenue - 500.00 500.00A. Common cost 19326.64
B. Miscellaneous 10% of common cost 1932.664
Grand Total (A+B) 21259.3
-
7/31/2019 IV Result & Dis Pravir
34/34
Appendix III : Cost of different weed management treatments
Treatment Quantity
(lit. ha-1)
Rate
(Rslit-1)
No of
labourforspraying( ha-1)
Cost of
spraying(Rs.ha-1)
No of
labourforWeeding
Weeding
(Rs. ha-1)
Seed
Kg ha-1
Rate
Rs.kg-1
Total cost
(Rs. ha-1)
T1-Weedy
Check
- - - - 40 15 600
T2-Use of
Cono-
weeder
- - - 14+14 4413.9
2
20 15 4713.92
T3- One
H.W.
- - - 20 3152.8 40 15 3752.8
T4-Two
H.W.
- - - 20+20 6305.6 40 15 6905.6
T5-20 %
Acetic acid
240 45 2+2 630.56 - 40 15 11715.28
T6-Ambika
paddy
weeder
- - - 10+10 3152.8 40 15 3752.8
T7-Burn oil
spray +One H.W.
476.19 24 2+2 630.56 20 3152.8 40 15 15811.92
T8-Closer
row spacing
- - - - 53.33 15 799.95