Printer Friendly

Effect of tank mixed application of ammonium sulphate and carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl on weeds and yield of wheat.

Introduction

In addition to many other factors, the low yield of wheat is attributed to serious weed infestation. Losses due to weeds have been reported from 18 to 30% (Ashiq and Cheema, 2005). In Pakistan, major weeds of wheat that cause huge economic losses are broad leaf dock (Rumex dentatus L.), swine cress (Coronopus didymus L.), emex species (Emex spinosa L.), canary grass (Phalaris minor Retz.), wild oat (Avena fatua L.), fumitory (Fumaria indica L.), lamb's quarters (Chenopodium album L.), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.), blue pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis L), and bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon L.), (Tanveer and Ali, 2003).

Due to high competitive ability and high reproductive potential of weeds, it is imperative to check their infestation (Rehman et al., 2010). Weeds problem is getting from bad to worse in wheat sown under irrigated conditions. Cropping intensity is rapidly increasing and it is impossible to control weeds with traditional method such as Dab (suicidal germination) and hand weeding. Now a days chemical weed control is preferred because it is rapid, convenient, inexpensive and more effective (Naseer-ud-Din et al., 2011). Marwat et al. (2003) reported that chemical weed control decreased the weed infestation and increased the yield of wheat. Post-emergence herbicides are generally, absorbed through leaves. Leaf cuticle is composed of waxes and cutin that affect the herbicide absorption. The use of an adjuvant in combination with herbicide enhances the herbicide retention and leaf surface penetration through cuticle thereby, keeping the herbicide contact with plant tissues rather than edging up and rolling off and thus increases the phytotoxicity of herbicide (Zadorozhny, 2004). Adjuvants may also improve herbicide efficacy so that the concentration or total amount of herbicide required to achieve a given effect is reduced. Ammonium sulphate has many beneficial effects e.g., acts as a buffering agent, improves pesticide activity in hard water, increase efficacy of herbicide and enhances herbicide activity under stress conditions (Hatzios and Penner, 1985).

FMC X-100 herbicide is a combination of three active ingredients namely carfentrozone-ethyl, clodinafoppropargyl and metsulfuron-methyl. All these are applied as a foliar spray to control broadleaf, sedges and grass weeds and are absorbed through the leaves. Ammonium sulphate is a relatively inexpensive additive for herbicides. The objective of this study was to determine whether ammonium sulphate as an adjuvant can enhance herbicide effectiveness for weed control.

Materials and Methods

The present study was carried out at agronomy research area, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan, during winter 2011-12. The experiment was laid out in randomised complete block design (RCBD) having four replications with a net plot size of 6 x 1.2 m. The wheat cultivar "Sehar-2006" was grown in 20 cm apart rows with a single row hand drill using 150 kg/ha seed rate. Seedbed was prepared by pulverising the soil with cultivator followed by planking. The fertiliser NPK was applied @ 100, 95, 75 kg/ha, respectively. Half dose of N and full dose of P and K was applied at the time of seedbed preparation, while remaining half dose of N was applied at the time of first irrigation. Uniform agronomic practices except treatments under study were applied to all entries of the experiment. Treatments consisted of control (weedy check), carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl @ 500, 375 g/ha alone and with 1% and 2% ammonium sulphate solution. The volume of spray was calibrated by spraying ordinary water on non-experimental area in the field. The herbicide carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl and N[H.sub.2]S[0.sub.4] was applied as tank mixed postemergence spray after 1st irrigation (35 days after sowing) with hand operated knap sack sprayer fitted with flat fan nozzle. Weeds density was recorded by counting the number of weeds 14 and 28 days after spray (DAS) and at harvest from an area of 1 [m.sup.2] within the herbicide treated plots. Weeds were removed from ground surface and dried in an oven for 24 h at 70[degrees]C and dry weight was recorded. Data on spike bearing tillers, number of grains per spike, 1000-grain weight and grain yield were recorded by following standard procedure. Analysis of variance was carried out according to Fisher's analysis of variance technique (Steel et al., 1997) and least significance difference (LSD) test was used to compare the differences among treatments' means.

Results and Discussion

Total weeds density ([m.sup.-2]). The analysis of the data showed that carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl alone and with ammonium sulphate as an adjuvant showed significant effect on weeds (Table 1). Maximum number of weeds (162.75, 188.0 and 166.25 [m.sup.-2]) was found in weedy check at 14 and 28 DAS and crop harvesting, respectively, which was significantly, higher than all other treatments under study. The significantly, minimum number of weeds (11.00, 5.50 and 4.50 [m.sup.-2]) was found in carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl @ 500 g/ha with maximum weed control efficacy of 93.24 %, 97.03 % and 97.29 % at 14 and 28 DAS and harvesting, respectively. The minimum weed control was found with carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl @ 500 g/ha + 2 % NH2S04 showing 85.41 %, 88.96 % and 87.81 % weed control over weedy check at 14 and 28 DAS and harvesting, respectively. The weed count was decreased at final harvest and this decrease can be attributed to the mortality of the weeds after completing their life span. Maximum population in weedy check was due to uncontrolled growth of weeds. Minimum number of weeds in control treatments was due to effect of herbicide. These results are confirmed by those of Shehzad et al. (2012) and Kumar et al. (2011), who reported that herbicides significantly control the weeds of wheat against weedy check. The non-significant effect of the adjuvant with full dose of herbicide can be attributed to the fact that adjuvants may have no effect on efficacy of herbicides if not used at proper rate (Tu et al. 2001) and even the effects of the adjuvants vary with concentration (Pacanoski, 2010). The non-significant effects of adjuvant on weed control had also been reported by O' Sullivum and Bonw' (1997). However, the addition of adjuvant with reduced herbicide dose resulted in lower total weed density than use of herbicide alone at same dose. Nadeem et al. (2008) also reported increase in herbicide efficacy against weeds with the addition of urea as an adjuvant. The non-significant effect of ammonium sulphate as an adjuvant at higher doses and pronounced effect at lower doses are supported by the findings of Bradley et al. (2000).

Individual weed density. Analysis of the data showed that carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl alone and with ammonium sulphate significantly, reduced the P minor, C. album, C. didymus and C. arvensis population. The data given in Table 2 showed that maximum number of P minor, C. album, C. didymus and C. arvensis was recorded in weedy check plots at 14 and 28 DAS, respectively, which was significantly higher than all other treatments under study. The minimum number of P minor (5.75 and 1.25 [m.sup.-2]), C. album (0.25 and 0.50 [m.sup.-2]), C. didymus (0.50 and 0.50 [m.sup.-2]) and C. arvensis (0.25 and 1.00 [m.sup.-2]) was found in carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl @ 500 g/ha at 14 and 28 DAS, respectively. The respective values for percent weed control were 72.29 % and 96.35 %; 99.21 % and 97.96 %; 98.46 % and 98.64 %; and 95 % and 80.95 % over weedy check. Carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl @ 500 g/ha was statistically at par with all other weed control treatments in respect of P minor, C. album and C. didymus control. Maximum population in weedy check was due to uncontrolled growth of weeds. Minimum number of weeds in weed control treatments could be attributed to more weed mortality due to the blocking of the electron transport system resulting in destruction of the PS-II reaction centre, the already known mode of action of herbicide. These results are confirmed by those of Chhokar et al. (2006) and Khan et al. (2003), who reported that herbicides significantly control narrow and broad leaf weeds of wheat over untreated check.

The addition of adjuvant at both herbicides rates and adjuvant concentrations resulted in statistically similar density of all the weeds under study. Non-significant effect of ammonium sulphate on the efficacy of glyphosate had also been reported by Faircloth et al. (2004). The results are however contradictory to those reported by Nadeem et al. (2008), who reported significant decrease in weed density with the addition of urea as an adjuvant. The contradiction in results can be attributed to the differences in adjuvant and herbicide used.

Dry weed biomass (g/[m.sup.2]). Analysis of the data showed that there was a significant effect of carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl alone and with ammonium sulphate as an adjuvant on dry weight of weeds at harvest (Table 1). Maximum dry weight of weeds (86.40 g/[m.sup.2]) was found in weedy check. The minimum dry weight of weeds (4.95 g/[m.sup.2]) was found in carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl @500 g/ha. Maximum reduction in weeds biomass was due to the herbicide. The differences in weed biomass can be attributed to the differences in weed density due to various treatments. These results are in conformity with those of El-Metwally et al. (2010) and Arif et al. (2004), who reported that herbicide decreased the fresh and dry weight of weeds as compared to the weedy check. The addition of chemical additive ammonium sulphate did not influence the activity of herbicide compared with herbicide alone. The results appear to contradict the commonly accepted idea that adjuvants enhance herbicide efficacy by increasing its absorption (Zadorozhny, 2004) and can therefore, be used to reduce herbicide input in agricultural ecosystems (Pacanoski, 2010). Results of the present study suggest that ammonium sulphate as an adjuvant should not be relied upon to improve efficiency of carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl. Similar conclusions can also be drawn from O' Sullivum and Bonw (1997), who reported that addition of adjuvants have no significant effect on weed control in maize.

Yield components of wheat. The statistical analysis of the data showed that there was significant effect of carfentrazone-ethyl+clodinafop-propargyl+metsulfuron-methyl alone and with ammonium sulphate as an adjuvant on spike bearing tillers, number of grains per spike and 1000 grain weight (Table 3). Maximum values of these components (364.50 [m.sup.-2], 46.25, 46.94 g, respectively) were recorded in carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl @ 500 g/ha and was followed by the application of carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl @ 375 & 500 g/ha along with adjuvant. These results are confirmed by those of Khan et al. (2008) who observed that better weed control increased the nutrients availability to the crop which ultimately increased the spike bearing tillers of wheat. Nadeem et al. (2008) stated that number of grains per spike of wheat increased as a result of postemergence herbicide application. The increase in 1000 grain weight was possibly due to better growth and development of crop plants which resulted in more grain weight assimilation. These results are in conformity by those of Naseer-ud-Din et al. (2011) who observed significantly, higher 1000 grain weight with chemical weed control in wheat.

The addition of adjuvant had no effect on the control of individual weeds and non-significant effect can be attributed to the dose of the adjuvant with the herbicide. The adjuvants are more effective at lower concentration and higher concentration may result in no or even toxic effect (Tu et al., 2001). The results are supported by the findings of O' Sullivum and Bonw (1997), who reported that addition of adjuvants had no significant effect on yield components of maize.

Grain yield/ha). Grain yield is a function of interaction of various yield components such as number of fertile tillers per unit area, number of grains per spike and 1000 grain weight. The data given in Table 3 showed that carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl at various rates with ammonium sulphate as an adjuvant showed significant effect on grain yield. Maximum grain yield (4.82 t/ha) was recorded in carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl @500 g/ha, which was 37.71 % more than weedy check. The minimum grain yield (3.50 t/ha) was recorded in weedy check. Higher grain yield resulted from more number of spike bearing tillers, number of grains per spike and 1000 grain weight. These results are confirmed by El-Metwally et al. (2010) and Singh et al. (2006), who reported that application of postemergence herbicides increases the grain yield of wheat. The nonsignificant differences with the addition of ammonium sulphate as an adjuvant are supported by the findings of Faircloth et al. (2004). The results are however, in contrast with those of Nadeem et al. (2008) who reported significant increase in grain yield of maize with the use of urea as an adjuvant. The differences in results can be attributed to the different types of herbicides, adjuvants and crops used in the studies.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl @ 500 g/ha with no supplemental adjuvant performed best in reducing weeds density, biomass and increasing grain yield and yield components of wheat. Based on present findings it is recommended that ammonium sulphate should not be used as an adjuvant with carfentrazone-ethyl + clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron-methyl.

References

Arif, M., Awan, I.U., Khan, H.H.U. 2004. Weed management strategies in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research, 10: 11-16.

Ashiq, M., Cheema, Z.A. 2005. Effective Use of Herbicides, Weed Science Allelopathy Laboratory, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Bradley, P.R., Johnson W.G., Smeda R.J. 2000. Response of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) to atrazine, ammonium sulphate and glyphosate. Weed Technology, 14: 15-18.

Chhokar, R.S., Sharma, R.K., Chauhan, D.S., Mongia, A.D. 2006. Evaluation of herbicides against Phalaris minor in wheat in north-western Indian plains. Weed Research, 46: 40-49.

El-Metwally, I.M., Abd El-Salam, M.S., Tagour, R.M. H. 2010. Nitrogen fertilizer levels and some weed control treatments effects on barley and associated weeds. Agricultural and Biological Journal of North America, 1: 992-1000.

Faircloth, W.H., Monks, C.D., Patterson, M.G., Wentze, G.R., Delaney, D.P, Sanders, J.C. 2004. Cotton and weed response to glyphosate application with sulfur containing additives. Weed Technology, 18: 404-411.

Hatzios, K.K., Penner, D. 1985. Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in higher plants. Reviews of Weed Science, 1: 1-63.

Khan, IA., Hassan, G., Marwat, K.B., Daur, I. 2008. Efficacy of some pre and post emergence herbicides on yield and yield components of canola. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 40: 1943-1947.

Khan, M.H., Hassan, G., Khan, N., Khan, M.A. 2003. Efficacy of different herbicides for controlling broadleaf weeds in wheat. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 2: 254-256.

Kumar, S., Angiras, N.N., Rana, S.S. 2011. Bio-efficacy of clodinafop-propargyl + metsulfuron methyl against complex weed flora in wheat. Indian Journal of Weed Science, 43: 195-198.

Marwat, M.I., Ahmad, H.K., Marwat, K.B., Hassan, G. 2003. Integrated weed management in wheat-III tillers [M.sup.-2], productive tiller [M.sup.-2], spikelets spike, grain spike-1, 1000 grain weight and grain yield. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research, 9: 23-31.

Naseer-ud-Din, G.M., Shehzad, M.A., Nasrullah, H.M. 2011. Efficacy of various pre and post-emergence herbicides to control weeds in wheat. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 48: 185-190.

Nadeem, M.A., Ahmad, R., Khalid, M., Naveed, M., Tanveer, A., Ahmad, J.N. 2008. Growth and yield response of autumn planted maize (Zea mays L.) and its weeds to reduced doses of herbicide application in combination with urea. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 40: 667-676.

Pacanoski, Z. 2010. Role of adjuvants on herbicide behavior: a review of different experiences. Herbologia, 11: 67-79.

O' Sullivan, J., Bonw, W.J. 1997. Effects of timing and adjuvants on the efficacy of reduced herbicides rates for sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technology, 11: 486-489.

Rehman, A., Cheema, Z.A., Khaliq, A., Arshad, M., Mohsan, S. 2010. Application of sorghum, sunflower and rice water extract combinations helps in reducing herbicide dose for weed management in rice. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 12: 901-906.

Shehzad, M.A., Nadeem, M.A., Iqbal, M. 2012. Weed control and yield attributes against post-emergence herbicides application in wheat crop, Punjab, Pakistan. Global Advanced Research Journal of Agricultural Science, 1: 007-016.

Singh, R., Dhiman, S., Rana, N.S., Kumar, S., Singh, V.K., Singh, R.G. 2006. Efficacy of dicamba alone and in combination with isoproturon on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and associated weeds. Indian Journalof Agronomy, 51: 139-141.

Steel, R.G.D., Torrie, J.H., Dickey, D. 1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach, pp. 172-177, 3rd edition, McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc., New York, USA.

Tanveer, A., Ali, A. 2003. Weeds and Their Control, pp. 162, Higher Education Commission, Islamabad, Pakistan, Press Manager, H-9, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Tu, M., Hurd, C., Randall, J.M. 2001. The Nature Conservancy, Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas, 533 pp., Wild and Invasive Species Team, Centre for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health, University of Gorgia, USA.

Zadorozhny, V. 2004. Herbicide based strategies for maize to prevent development of resistance in weeds in Ukraine. In: Proceedings of 14th Australian Weed Conference, Weed Management: Balancing People, Planet, Profit, B. M. Sindel and S. B. Johnson (eds.), pp. 290-293, Wagga, Wagga, New South Wales Australia.

(received December 19, 2013; revised July 1, 2014; accepted August 27, 2014)

Asif Tanveer *, Adnan Khalid, Muhammad Tahir and Muhammad Ather Nadeem

Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faislabad, Pakistan

* Author for correspondence; E-mail: drasiftanveeruaf@hotmail.com
Table 1. Effect of herbicide dose and ammonium
sulphate as an adjuvant on total weed density ([m.sup.-2]) and
dry weight (g/[m.sup.2])

Treatments                                Total weed density

Herbicide            Adjuvant      14 DAS      28 DAS       At
Carfentrazone-       N[H.sub.2]S                            harvest
ethyl + clodina-     [O.sub.4]
fop-propargyl +      (%)
metsulfuron-
methyl
(g/ha)

Weedy check   --                   162.75 (a)  188.00 (a)   166.25 (a)

500                  --            11.00 (d)   5.50 (d)     4.50 (e)
                                   (93.24)     (97.07)      (97.29)

375                  --            23.00 (b)   17.00 (bc)   16.25 (c)
                                   (85.87)     (90.96)      (90.22)

500                  1             23.25 (b)   19.75 (b)    19.00 (bc)
                                   (85.71)     (89.49)      (88.57)

500                  2             23.75 (b)   20.75 (b)    20.25 (b)
                                   (85.41)     (88.96)      (87.81)

375                  1             17.50 (c)   12.25 (c)    12.25 (d)
                                   (89.25)     (93.48)      (92.63)

375                  2             23.50 (b)   19.00 (b)    18.25 (bc)
                                   (85.56)     (89.89)      (89.02)

LSD value                          4.007       6.193        3.365

Treatments

Herbicide            Adjuvant      Dry
Carfentrazone-       N[H.sub.2]S   weight
ethyl + clodina-     [O.sub.4]     (g/[m.sup.2])
fop-propargyl +      (%)
metsulfuron-
methyl
(g/ha)

Weedy check   --                   86.40 (a)

500                  --            4.95 (d)
                                   (94.27)

375                  --            13.80 (bc)
                                   (84.02)

500                  1             16.95 (b)
                                   (80.38)

500                  2             13.15 (bc)
                                   (84.78)

375                  1             11.85 (c)
                                   (86.28)

375                  2             15.15 (bc)
                                   (82.46)
LSD value                          4.925

Table 2. Effect of herbicide dose and ammonium sulphate as an
adjuvant on individual weed density ([m.sup.-2]) 14 and 28 DAS.

Treatments                             Individual weeds

Herbicide               Adjuvant        Phalaris minor
Carfentrazone-ethyl +   N[H.sub.2]
clodinafop-propargyl+   S[O.sub.4]
metsulfuron-methyl      (%)          14 DAS      28 DAS
(g/ha)

Weedy check             --           20.75 (a)   34.25 (a)

500                     --           5.75 (b)    1.25 (c)
                                     (72.29)     (96.35)

375                                  7.75 (b)    4.00 (b)
                        --           (62.65)     (88.32)

500                                  7.00 (b)    4.00 (b)
                        1            (66.26)     (88.32)

500                                  8.25 (b)    3.50 (bc)
                        2            (60.24)     (89.78)

375                                  6.00 (b)    3.75 (b)
                        1            (71.08)     (89.05)

375                                  7.00 (b)    4.50 (b)
                        2            (66.26)     (86.86)
LSD value                            2.705       2.407

Treatments                             Individual weeds

Herbicide               Adjuvant       Chenopodium album
Carfentrazone-ethyl +   N[H.sub.2]
clodinafop-propargyl+   S[O.sub.4]
metsulfuron-methyl      (%)          14 DAS      28 DAS
(g/ha)

Weedy check             --           31.25 (a)   24.50 (a)

500                     --           0.25 (b)    0.50 (b)
                                     (99.21)     (97.96)

375                                  1.50 (b)    1.50 (b)
                        --           (95.24)     (93.88)

500                                  1.50 (b)    1.50 (b)
                        1            (95.24)     (93.88)

500                                  1.75 (b)    2.00 (b)
                        2            (94.44)     (91.84)

375                                  0.50 (b)    0.75 (b)
                        1            (98.41)     (96.24)

375                                  1.75 (b)    1.00 (b)
                        2            (94.44)     (95.92)

LSD value                            1.976       2.247

Treatments                             Individual weeds

Herbicide               Adjuvant       Coronopus didymus
Carfentrazone-ethyl +   N[H.sub.2]
clodinafop-propargyl+   S[O.sub.4]
metsulfuron-methyl      (%)          14 DAS      28 DAS
(g/ha)

Weedy check             --           32.50 (a)   36.75 (a)

500                     --           0.50 (b)    0.50 (c)
                                     (98.46)     (98.64)

375                                  1.50 (b)    1.75 (bc)
                        --           (95.38)     (95.24)

500                                  2.00 (b)    1.75 (bc)
                        1            (93.85)     (95.24)

500                                  1.25 (b)    2.50 (b)
                        2            (96.16)     (93.16)

375                                  1.25 (b)    0.75 (c)
                        1            (96.16)     (97.96)

375                                  1.50 (b)    1.50 (bc)
                        2            (95.38)     (95.92)

LSD value                            2.885       1.615

Treatments                             Individual weeds

Herbicide               Adjuvant     Convolvulus arvensis
Carfentrazone-ethyl +   N[H.sub.2]
clodinafop-propargyl+   S[O.sub.4]
metsulfuron-methyl      (%)          14 DAS      28 DAS
(g/ha)

Weedy check             --           5.00 (a)    5.25 (a)

500                     --           0.25 (c)    1.00 (b)
                                     (95)        (80.95)

375                                  1.00 (bc)   2.00 (b)
                        --           (80)        (61.90)

500                                  1.50 (b)    1.50 (b)
                        1            (70)        (71.43)

500                                  1.25 (bc)   1.75 (b)
                        2            (75)        (68.29)

375                                  0.75 (bc)   2.00 (b)
                        1            (85)        (61.90)

375                                  1.25 (bc)   2.50 (b)
                        2            (75)        (52.38)

LSD value                            2.278       2.278

Table 3. Effect of herbicide and ammonium sulphate
as an adjuvant on yield and yield parameters of wheat

Treatments                                          Parameters

Herbicide          Adjuvant     Spike         No. of       1000-
Carfentrazone-     N[H.sub.2]   bearing       grains       grain
ethyl + clodina-   S[O.sub.4]   tillers       per          weight
fop-propargyl +    (%)          (m-2)         spike        (g)
metsulfuron-
methyl
(g/ha)

Weedy check        --           297.25 (d)    38.00 (d)    39.15 (d)

500                --           364.50 (a)    46.25 (a)    46.94 (a)
                   --           328.50 (bc)

375                                           41.50 (c)    41.87 (c)
                                              42.75 (bc)   42.71 (bc)

500                             321.50 (c)
                   1

500                             323.50 (c)    41.75 (c)    42.42 (c)
                   2
375                             342.25 (b)    44.00 (b)    44.04 (b)
                   1
375                             320.50 (c)    41.75 (c)    41.75 (c)
                   2
LSD value                       18.461        2.142        1.578

Treatments

Herbicide          Adjuvant     Grain
Carfentrazone-     N[H.sub.2]   yield
ethyl + clodina-   S[O.sub.4]   (t/ha)
fop-propargyl +    (%)
metsulfuron-
methyl
(g/ha)

Weedy check        --           3.50 (d)

500                --           4.82 (a)
                   --           (37.71)

375                             4.23 (bc)
                                (20.86)

500                             4.16 (bc)
                   1            (18.86)

500                             4.09 (bc)
                   2            (16.85)

375                             4.44 (b)
                   1            (26.85)

375                             4.06 (c)
                   2            (16)
LSD value                       0.356
COPYRIGHT 2014 Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Tanveer, Asif; Khalid, Adnan; Tahir, Muhammad; Nadeem, Muhammad Ather
Publication:Pakistan Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research Series B: Biological Sciences
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9PAKI
Date:Nov 1, 2014
Words:3840
Previous Article:Use of microalgae for the control of luminous vibriosis in tropical shrimp aquaculture.
Next Article:Enhanced amylase production by Fusarium solani in solid state fermentation.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters