EFFICACY OF POST-EMERGENCE HERBICIDE QUIZALOFOP ETHYL FOR CONTROLLING GRASSY WEEDS IN GROUNDNUT

Transcription

1 Indian J. Agric. Res.., 48 (6) , 2014 doi: / x AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE / EFFICACY OF POST-EMERGENCE HERBICIDE QUIZALOFOP ETHYL FOR CONTROLLING GRASSY WEEDS IN GROUNDNUT T.K. Samant* and K.N. Mishra 1 Krishi Vigyan Kendra (OUAT) Angul , Odisha, India Received: Accepted: ABSTRACT The post- emergence application of quizalofop kg ha -1 at with one hand weeding at 25 DAS was the most effective and economical for controlling the grassy weeds in groundnut with maximum pod yield and haulm yield of 22.6 q ha -1 and q ha -1, respectively. This treatment also minimized nitrogen, phosphorus and potash removal by weeds to a tune of 91.2, 84.1 and 89.7%, respectively over that of weedy check, resulting in better nutrient uptake by the crop. The maximum dry weed biomass at harvest was g m -2 in weedy check followed by quizalofop 0.75 kg ha -1 at 25 DAS. The weed control efficiency was highest (72.3 %) in application of quizalofop kg ha -1 with one hand weeding, which gave maximum benefit- cost ratio of 2.49 and net return of Rs ha -1 with additional income of Rs ha -1 over weedy check. Key words: Grassy weeds, Groundnut, Quizalofop ethyl, Weed control efficiency. INTRODUCTION Groundnut is the major oilseed crop of Odisha with a total coverage of 0.25 m hectare which is about 66.7 % of the total oilseed coverage area of the state. Area under groundnut crop in Angul district during kharif and rabi are 8030 and 2270 hectares respectively with an average productivity of q ha -1 (Anonymus, 2011). Groundnut is highly susceptible to weed infestation because of its slow growth in initial stages upto 40 days, short plant height and underground pod bearing habit. Weeds in groundnut comprise diverse plant species from grasses to broad leaved weeds and sedges and cause substantial yield losses (15-75%). Weeds also affect groundnut through the production of harmful allelochemicals. Herbicides were found to be selective in controlling many weeds in monocropping as well in cropping system(jat et al., 2011). Minimizing crop weed competition particularly at early stage of growth in groundnut which usually encounter with diverse weed flora, the yield could be improved by 20-30%. From the traditional method of hand weeding and hoeing, modernized methods of weed management is the need of the day through the introduction of herbicides to meet labour shortage to effect early weed control and reduce the cost of weeding (Annadurai et al., 2010). Hand weeding is time consuming, highly expensive and is not feasible during critical period of weed competition due to scarcity of labour. Herbicide application at right time and appropriate dose can effectively control the weeds for maximizing the yield. Therefore, an attempt has been made in this trial to evaluate the most effective and economic weed control method for controlling the grassy weeds in groundnut. MATERIALS AND METHODS A farmer s participatory field trial was conducted during rabi season of and with financial support from ATMA, Angul at khuntanali village of Chhendipada block in Angul district of Odisha to study the efficacy of post - emergence herbicide quizalofop ethyl for controlling grassy weeds in groundnut. The geographical location of the area has to E longitude and to N latitude and average elevation of 300 m above mean sea level. Climate of the region is fairly hot and humid *Corresponding author s tksamant_2003@yahoo.co.in, 1 Deptt. of Soil Sci., OUAT, Bhubaneswar, Odisha

2 monsoon and mild winter with average annual rainfall of mm. The mean maximum and mean minimum temperature vary from 39.6 C 0 in April to C in December and from C in June to C in January, respectively. The soil of the experimental site was slightly acidic in reaction (ph-6.1), sandy loam in texture with medium organic carbon content (0.61 %), low in nitrogen( kg ha -1 ) and phosphorus(10.2 kg ha -1 ) and medium in potash(217.2 kg ha -1 ) contents. The treatments comprised of different weed control methods viz T 1 : quizalofop kg ha -1 at, T 2 : quizalofop kg ha -1 at + one hand weeding at 25 DAS, T 3 : quizalofop kg ha -1 at, T 4 : quizalofop kg ha -1 at + one hand weeding at 25 DAS,T 5 : Farmers practice(one hand weeding at 25 DAS),T 6 : Weedy check and were replicated five ti mes in a randomi zed block design. Groundnut(variety-Smruti) was grown with recommended package of practices by each of the five farmers. They were supplied with inputs like seed, fertilizers and herbicides. The crops were sown during 1 st week of January and harvested during 4 th week of April. Observations on different growth and yield parameters were taken and economic analysis was done. Weed populations were observed at 15, 25, 35, 60 DAS and weed dry matter were recorded from one square meter quadrates at harvest. The weed control efficiency was worked out through following formula: WCE = [(DWC DWT) / DWC] 100 Where: DWC= Dry weight of weeds under control plot DWT = Dry weight of weeds under treated plot Final crop yields(pod & haulm) were recorded and the gross returns (Rs ha -1 ) were calculated on the basis of prevailing market price of the produce. The benefit: cost ratio for different weed control methods was calculated by dividing gross return by cost of cultivation. Available soil nutrients as well as nutrient content and their uptake by crop and weeds were determined following the standard procedures (Jackson, 1973). The data were statistically analyzed applying the techniques of analysis of variance and the significance of different sources of variations were tested by error mean square of Fisher Snedecor s F test at probability level 0.05 (Cochran and Cox, 1977). Vol. 48, No. 6, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Weed density: The floristic composition of the trial plot was dominated by monocot weeds i.e Digitaria sanguinalis, Cynodon dactylon and dicot weeds i.e Parthenium hysterophorus, Celosia argentea during both the years. At 60 DAS grasses and broadleaved weeds on an average constituted 46.3 and 53.7 per cent of total weed population, respectively. All the herbicidal treatments significantly reduced the grassy weeds population compared to those of farmers practice or weedy check during this period(table- 2). Before the application of quizalofop ethyl at, grassy weeds population was from 45.8 to 46.7 m -2 in various herbicide applied treatments. After the application of quizalofop ethyl, different treatments recorded the grassy weeds at 25 DAS(9.8 to 13.3 m -2 ), at 35 DAS (2.2 to 14.8 m -2 ) and at 60 DAS (6.3 to 15.7 m -2 ). Similar trends in weed density was also reported by Dixit et al., However, at 60 DAS quizalofop ethyl@ 1.0 kg ha -1 at with one hand weeding at 25 DAS recorded the minimum grassy weeds (5.4 m -2 ) followed by quizalofop ethyl@ 0.75 kg ha -1 at 15 DAS with one hand weeding at 25 DAS(Table- 1). This was due to application of herbicides which might have prevented the germination of susceptible weed species and also reduced the growth of germinated weeds by inhibiting the process of photosynthesis (Muzik, 1970).Weedy check recorded the maximum grassy weeds (56.8 m -2 ) at 60 DAS followed by farmers practices of one hand weeding at 25 DAS. Similar observations were recorded in groundnut by Mene et al. (2003). Dry weed biomass and weed control efficiency: The dry weed biomass at harvest in weedy check was maximum (250.3 g m -2 )which was significantly more than other treatments because of higher weed intensity and its dominance in utilizing the sunlight, nutrients, moisture etc. The lowest dry weed biomass (Table-1)was found in quizalofop@ 1.0 kg ha -1 at with one hand weeding at 25 DAS (69.4 g m -2 ), compared to farmers practice (89.2 g m -2 ). This may be due to effective control of weeds during early stages of crop growth by herbicides and in later stages removal of both intra and inter row weeds by hand weeding. This is in accordance with Patra and Nayak (2001). The weed control efficiency (WCE) at harvest varied from the maximum of 72.3 % with

3 490 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH TABLE 1: Effect of different treatments on weed density, dry weed biomass at harvest and weed control efficiency. (Pooled data over 2 years) Treatment Weed density m -2 Dry 25 DAS 35 DAS 60 DAS weed M D M D M D M D biomas s at harvest (g m -2 ) Weed control efficiency at harvest (%) T 1 : Quizalofop ethyl 1.0 kg ha -1 at T 2 : Quizalofop ethyl 1.0 kg ha -1 at DAS + one hand weeding at 25 DAS T 3 : Quizalofop ethyl 0.75 kg ha -1 at T 4 : Quizalofop ethyl 0.75 kg ha -1 at one hand weeding at 25 DAS T 5 : Farmers practice (one hand weeding at 25 DAS) T 6 : Weedy check (Control) SEm C.D at 5% C.V (%) M= Monocot, D= Dicot, DAS= Days after sowing TABLE 2: Effect of different treatments on weed composition m -2 at 60 DAS. (Pooled data over 2 years) Weed species T 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 T 5 T 6 Monocot Cynodon dactylon Digitaria sanguinalis Commelina benghalensis Echinochloa glabrescens Total monocot Dicot Parthenium hysterophous Phyllanthus niuri Xanthium strumarium Argimone mexicana Celosia argentea Total dicot Grand total quizalofop@ 1.0 kg ha -1 at with one hand weeding at 25 DAS to lowest of 57.8 % with quizalofop ethyl@ 0.75 kg ha -1 at. Farmers practice recorded the weed control efficiency of 64.4 % which was on par with rest of the treatments. This was i n agreement with Kalpana and Velayutham (2004). Pod yield and haulm yield: Maximum pod yield of 22.6 q ha -1 was obtained from application of quizalofop ethyl@ 1.0 kg ha -1 with one hand weeding at 25 DAS followed by quizalofop 0.75 kg ha -1 with one hand weeding at 25 DAS(21.74 q ha -1 ) which were higher than sole applications of quizalofop ethyl (Table 3). This is in conformity with Bhondave et al. (2009) who reported that combination of herbicide and weeding gave higher pod yield than the application of herbicide alone. Farmers practice of one hand weeding at 25 DAS produced pod yield q ha -1 which was on par with application of sole quizalofop kg ha -1, followed by quizalofop kg ha -1 (18.84 q ha -1 ). Weedy check recorded the lowest and on an average reduced pod yield by 58.9 per cent as compared to farmers practice due to increase in weed competition for growth resources like moisture, nutrients and light.

4 Vol. 48, No. 6, TABLE 3: Effect of different treatments on pod yield, haulm yield & total nutrient uptake by groundnut and weeds at harvest. (pooled data over 2 years) Treatment Pod yield Haulm Nutrient uptake (kg ha -1 ) (q ha -1 ) yield(q ha -1 ) Groundnut Weeds N P K N P K T 1 : Quizalofop kg ha -1 at T 2 : Quizalofop ethyl@ 1.0 kg ha -1 at one hand weeding at 25 DAS T 3 : Quizalofop kg ha -1 at T 4 : Quizalofop kg ha -1 at one hand weeding at 25 DAS T 5 :Farmers practice(one hand weeding at 25 DAS) T 6 : Weedy check( control) SEm C.D at 5% C.V (%) Similar results have also been reported by Kori et al.(2000). Haulm yield was also highest in quizalofop 1.0 kg ha -1 with one hand weeding (20.46 q ha -1 ) which was on par with quizalofop 0.75 kg ha -1 with one hand weeding(table 3). Least haulm yield was recorded in weedy check (9.25 q ha -1 ) may be due to vigorous growth of weeds and suppression of the growth of crop. Nutrient depletion by weeds: Weeds in weedy check treatment, on an average removed kg N, kg P and kg K ha -1 (Table 3). Postemergence application of quizalofop ha -1 with one hand weeding at 25 DAS curtailed removal of N,P and K by weeds to the tune of 91.2, and 89.7 %, respectively over that of weedy check which were even greater than those with farmers practice. Uptake of nutrients by weeds being a function of concentration of nutrients and total biomass of weeds, obviously, followed the pattern of weed control efficiency in different treatments. Nutrient uptake by groundnut: Weed control treatments significantly increased the uptake of nutrients by groundnut crop as compared to weedy check and uptake was maximum in the crop treated with quizalofop ethyl 1.0 kg ha -1 at with one hand weeding at 25 DAS (94.62 kg N, kg P and kg K ha -1 ) followed by farmers practice of one hand weeding at 25 DAS(Table 3). This might be owing to effective control leading to less crop weed competition as evidenced from the weed population, coupled with better growth of groundnut and differential weed control efficiency. In weedy check uptake of N, P & K by the crop was lowest and declined by 67.0, and kg ha -1, respectively from that of quizalofop kg ha -1 at with one hand weeding at 25 DAS. The results are in accordance with the findings of Yadav et al. (1986). No of pods plant -1, 100 seed weight and 100 pod weight: Application of quizalofop@ 1.0 kg ha -1 at with one hand weeding at 25 DAS produced the maximum no of pods plant -1, 100 seed weight and 100 pod weight 22.3, 36.50g and 82.4 g respectively (Fig 1) due to lesser weed population, lowest dry weed biomass and removal of weeds regularly at early and later stages by post -emergence herbicide and hand weeding (Bhondave et al., 2009). Lowest pods plant -1 (11.7), 100 seed weight(30.47 g) and 100 pod weight(72.4 g) were recorded in weedy check. Economics: Among the treatments, quizalofop kg ha -1 at with one hand weeding at 25 DAS recorded the maximum gross return (Rs ha -1 ) as compared to rest of the treatments and also it gave additional net return of Rs ha -1 as compared to unweeded control. Highest net return of Rs ha -1 was

5 492 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Treatment FIG 1: Effect of different treatments on no of pods plant -1, 100 seed weight(g), 100 pod weight (g). FIG 2: Effect of different treatment on economics. recorded in quizalofop kg ha -1 with one hand weeding due to more number of pods plant -1 resulting higher pod yield(fig-2). Weedy check recorded the lowest net returns (Rs ha -1 ). These results were in conformity with findings of Mene et al., (2003). Maximum B: C ratio (2.49) was found in quizalofop kg ha -1 at with one hand weeding at 25 DAS and minimum was in weedy check(1.51). Similar results have also been reported by Tewari et al. (1989). CONCLUSION It can be concluded from the above study that the post-emergence application of quizalofop kg ha -1 at with one hand weeding at 25 DAS is most effective and economical in controlling the grassy weeds in groundnut. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors are thankful to the Project Director, Agricultural Technology and Management Agency, Angul, Odisha for funding. REFERENCES Annadurai, K., Naveen, P., Singh, A. and Chinnusamy, C. ( 2010 ). Integrated weed management in groundnut based intercropping system-a Review. Agricultural Reviews.31: Anonymous ( 2011). Odisha Agriculture Statistics Directorate of Agriculture and Food production. Govt of Odisha. Bhondave, T. S., Pinjari, S. S. and Suryawanshi, J. S. (2009). Effect of integrated weed management on economics of kharif groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L). Inter. J.Agri. Sci. 5: Cochran, W.G. and Cox, G.M.(1977). Experimental Designs. Asia Publishing House, Kolkata, Pp and Dixit, J.P., Singh, H. and Bhadauria, S.K.S.(2012). Quizalofop ethyl: An effective post emergence herbicide to control grassy weeds of groundnut. Ann. Pl.Soil Res 14: Jackson, M.L.(1973).Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi. Jat, R.S., Meena, H.N., Singh, A.L., Surya Jaya, N. and Misra, J.B. (2011). Weed management in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L) in India-A Review. Agricultural Reviews.32: Kalpana, R. and Velayutham, A.( 2004). Effect of herbicides on weed control and yield of soybean, Indian. J. Weed. Sci. 36: Kori, R. N., Patil, S. L., Salakinkoppa, S. R and Hunshal, C. S.( 2000). Economics of integrated weed management in irrigated groundnut. J. Oilseeds Res., 17: Mene, M. J., Powar, M. S., Jadhav, M. G and Chavan, S. A.( 2003). Efficacy of different herbicides in kharif groundnut under konkan condition of Maharashtra. Indian J. Dry land Agric. Res. and Development., 18: Muzik, J. J. (1970). Chemical Use for Weed control-weed Biology and Control, Mc. Graw Hill Book Company, New York. Patra, A. K and Nayak, B. C.( 2001). Integrated weed management in rainy season groundnut. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 71: Tewari, K. K., Singh, K. K., Sharma, J. K and Tewari, V. S.( 1989). Crop weed competition in groundnut + pigeonpea inter cropping under rainfed condition. Indian J. Agron.34 : Yadav, S. K., Bhan, V. M and Kumar, A.( 1986). Studies on removal of nutrients by weeds and their control in groundnut. Indian. J. Agron., 31: