Printer Friendly

Growth behavior, nodulation and Rhizobium population, as affected by combined application of herbicide and insecticide in soybean (Glycine max L.).

Soybean is one of the most important leguminous oil seed crops of great economic value, occupying an important position in the world trade as it is important in the soil by fixing atmospheric nitrogen through Rhizobium bacteria that lives in their root nodules (Stewart 2009). In Chhattisgarh, soybean occupies 0.147 million ha with production of 0.134 million tone and average productivity of 915 kg [ha.sup.-1] (www.sopa.org/REK2014.pdf, 2014). It grows well during the kharif or monsoon, season (July-October) in the dry-land areas of peninsular India. In kharif season due to continuous rains there will be high weed infestation and high weed competition is one of the most of important causes of yield loss in soybean and is estimated to be 22-77% [Kuruchania et al., 2001]. The costly and unavailability of labours coupled with unfavourable weather conditions offer an opportunity for the chemical weed control. (Amaregonda et al, 2013). Soybean is very much susceptible to insect attack from seedling to mature stage. All parts of the plant including plant leaves, stems and pods are subjected to attack by different species of insect in India. Both the constraints drastically reduces the growth of the soybean results in lower crop yield. The Rhizobium inoculants are commonly applied to seeds of legume crops to ensure effective nitrogen fixation by Rhizobium, thereby making the one essential nutrients available to the crop. The use of pesticides has become an integral and economically essential part of agriculture. There are reports which suggest that herbicides when applied indiscriminately have variable effects on legume Rhizobium symbiosis (Khan et al., 2004). Herbicides may have negative effects on growth of rhizobia. Considering the above facts we tried to control the weed and pests in a single spray and to evaluate the effect on growth behavior, nodulation and Rhizobium count in soybean.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of herbicide and insecticide combination on growth, nodulation and Rhizobium population in soybean at Instructional cum Research Farm, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.) during khari/2013. The experiment was laid out in Randomized Block Design (RBD) with four replication and twelve treatments which included rynaxypyre 20 EC @100 ml [ha.sup.-1], indoxacarb 14.5 EC @ 300 ml [ha.sup.-1], quinolphos 25 EC @1.5 l [ha.sup.-1], imazathapyr 10 SL @1.0 l [ha.sup.-1], quizalophop ethyl 5 EC @ 1.0 l [ha.sup.-1] as alone and with combination of herbicide and insecticide and Untreated Check. All the treatments were applied at 20 DAS (Day after sowing) as a tank mix at time of spraying. Soybean variety JS335 was sown with spacing of 30 X 7 cm and seed rate of 65 kg [ha.sup.-1] was used. Seed was treated by Rhizobium culture @10 g [kg.sup.-1] seed at the time of sowing. The study on Leaf area index observed at 30, 60 and 90 DAS. The leaf area existing on unit area was proposed by Watson (1952) as an appropriate measure of crop growth. This measures is known as leaf area index. It is dimensionless ratio and calculated by following formula

Leaf area index (LAI) = Total leaf area of [plant.sup.-1] ([cm.sup.2])/Total ground area of [plant.sup.-1] ([cm.sup.2])

Crop growth rate was calculated from the dry weight taken at different time intervals. It denotes overall growth rate of the crop plant and it is measured after fix period of the time, irrespective of the previous growth rate. The value was calculated by using the following formula suggested by Leopold and Kridermann (1975)

Crop growth rate (CGR) (g [plant.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]) = [W.sub.2] - [W.sub.1] (Difference in oven dry biomass at the time interval)/[t.sub.2] - [t.sub.1] (Time interval in days)

The relative growth rate indicates the increase in dry weight per unit of original dry weight over any specific time interval. The values were computed by using the following formula suggested by Leopold and Kridemann (1975)

Relative growth rate (RGR) (g g [plant.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]) = ln [W.sub.2] - ln [W.sub.1]/[t.sub.2] - [t.sub.1]

Where, ln = Logarithm at base (natural log)

The number of nodules were recorded from three randomly selected plants in each plot. The uprooting of sample were preformed with the help of core cutting equipment along with the soil up to effective root zone. The roots of the plant were washed in sieve with running water and effective root nodules were separated and counted. The counted nodules were dried at 60[degrees]C for 48 hours in hot air oven thereafter dry weight of nodules was recorded by an electronic digital balance and average dry weight of nodule [plant.sup.-1] was worked out. Analysis of rhizobium population was done by serial dilution plating method (Subba Rao 1988). The sampling of soil was done from 5-10 cm depth at, 50 DAS. Yield and yield attributes were recorded at harvest. The economics of soybean crop production pertaining to each of the treatment has been worked out in terms of cost of cultivation. Gross return (Rs. [ha.sup.-1]) was obtained by converting the harvest into monetary terms at the prevailing market rate during the course of studies for every treatment. Net return (Rs. [ha.sup.-1]) was obtained by deducting cost of cultivation from gross return.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effect on growth behavior

Leaf area index

Leaf area index (LAI) is the important physiological parameter for growth and yield. LAI of soybean showed increasing trend upto 60 DAS at higher pace and there after increased at slower pace (Fig. 1). Maximum LAI was recorded under the treatment Rynaxypyre 20 EC @100 ml [ha.sup.-1] + Quizalophop ethyl 5 EC @ 1.0 l [ha.sup.-1], followed by Imazathapyr 10 SL @1.0 l [ha.sup.-1] and Rynaxypyre 20 EC @100 ml [ha.sup.-1] + Imazathapyr 10 SL @1.0 l [ha.sup.-1]. Minimum LAI was recorded under the treatment of Indoxacarb 14.5 EC @ 300 ml [ha.sup.-1]. Increased leaf area might have enhanced the photosynthesis due to which plant dry matter accumulation was higher under these treatments. There was lower weed competition in terms of dry matter of weeds, higher number of branches, leaves and suitable environment might led to higher value of leaf area, which allowed soybean to absorb required amount of nutrient, water and sunlight for expanding the leaf to the plant potential. Similar trends were also recorded by (Amaregonda et al., 2013).

Crop growth rate

Crop growth rate showed increasing trend upto 60 DAS and declined thereafter till harvest depicted in Fig. 2. During 0-30 DAS, comparatively similar crop growth rate value were recorded under all the treatments. After 30 DAS, maximum crop growth rate was recorded under Imazathapyr 10 SL @1.0 l [ha.sup.-1] followed by Quizalophop ethyl 5 EC @ 1.0 l [ha.sup.-1]. Minimum crop growth rate was observed under non herbicidal treatments during entire growth period in soybean. Declined crop growth rate was caused by senescence of leaves probably owing to competition from weeds for solar radiation and also due to density of weeds higher in these periods. (Jakhar and Sharma, 2015) also reported that weed free plots recorded higher value of CGR.

Relative growth rate

Relative growth rate (RGR) increased at higher pace from sowing to 90 DAS thereafter increased at slower pace (Fig. 3). The rate of RGR was recorded differently under different period of time. During 0-30 DAS, numerically maximum RGR was observed under treatment Indoxacarb 14.5 EC @ 300 ml [ha.sup.-1] + Imazathapyr 10 SL @1.0 l [ha.sup.-1] but During 30-60 DAS, maximum RGR was observed under treatment Quizalophop ethyl 5 EC @ 1.01 [ha.sup.-1]. Rynaxypyre 20 EC @100 ml [ha.sup.-1] recorded highest RGR during 60-90 DAS and Untreated Check recorded highest from 90 DAS to at harvest. Relative growth rate of soybean in above treatments was higher because of comparatively less crop-weed and pest competition. The increased sink size, stored the photosynthates very effectively and ultimately transformed in the shape of more dry matter accumulation which resulted in higher relative growth rate.

EFFECT ON NODULATION

The applied herbicides did not show adverse effects on the number and dry weight of root nodules reported earlier by (Jha et al, 2014) and depicted in (Table 1). At 40 DAS, significantly maximum number of root nodules and dry weight of nodule was observed under treatment of Rynaxypyre 20 EC @100 ml [ha.sup.-1] + Quizalophop ethyl 5 EC @ 1.0 l [ha.sup.-1], however at 60 DAS, Quizalophop ethyl 5 EC @ 1.0 l [ha.sup.-1] recorded highest root nodule which was at par with all herbicidal treatments but Quinolphos 25 EC @1.5 l [ha.sup.-1] + Quizalophop ethyl 5 EC @ 1.0 l [ha.sup.-1] recorded highest dry weight of nodule. Increased number of root nodules and dry weight may be due to the favorable microclimate after suppression of weeds near the root zone and greater infection of Rhizobium in the growing roots of soybean crop. Higher nodulation fixed the atmospheric nitrogen which ultimately supported in higher crop growth of soybean. (Jha et al, 2014) and (Kandaki et al, 2015) reported that weed free treatments enhances nodule number and nodule dry weight.

Effect on Rhizobium population (x [10.sup.6] [g.sup.-1] soil)

It is reported that application of pesticides both in crop and soil is known to affect microbial activity. (Shankar et al. 2012). Significantly maximum rhizobial population was observed under treatment Untreated Check (Table 1), which was at par with treatment Indoxacarb 14.5 EC @ 300 ml [ha.sup.-1] + Quizalophop ethyl 5 EC @ 1.0 l [ha.sup.-1]. The highest Rhizobial population observed under Untreated Check might be due to the provision of food in the form of organic matter by crop as well as weeds and by secretion of organic acids, beneficial for rhizobium bacteria. Similar findings were also reported by Gupta et al. (2013).

Effects on yield and economics

All herbicidal treatment significantly increased the yield and yield component like seed yield, straw yield, harvest index, net income and B:C ratio in soybean (Table 2). The significantly highest seed yield, straw yield, net income and B:C ratio was recorded under Imazathapyr 10 SL @1.0 l [ha.sup.-1] which was comparable with all herbicidal treatments. However Indoxacarb 14.5 EC @ 300 ml [ha.sup.-1] + Quizalophop ethyl 5 EC recorded highest harvest index. The higher seed yield under this treatment were might be due to better efficacy of herbicide at initial stage of crop growth providing weed free environment to the crop. Similar results was also reported by Venkatesha et al. (2008), Goud et al. (2013) and Sangeetha et al. (2013).

REFERENCES

(1.) Amaregonda, A., Jadhav, J., Chetti, M. B. and Nawalagatti. Effect of weedicides on physiological parameters, growth, yield and yield component of soybean (Glycine max. L) and weed growth. J. of Agri. and Allied Sci. 2013; 4(2): 12-15.

(2.) Goud, V.V. Murade, N.B., Khakre, M.S. and Patil, A.N. Efficacy of imazethapyr and quizalofop-ethyl herbicides on growth and yield of chickpea. The bioscan 2013; 8(3): 1015-1018.

(3.) Gupta, A., Lakpale, R., Tandon, A. and Pandagare, T., Effect of weed management on weed control, nodulation and soil rhizobium in soybean. J. of Agri. Iss. 2013; 18(1&2): 108-110.

(4.) Jakhar, R.R. and Sharma, R. Growth and yield attributes as influenced by integrated weed management in soybean [Gy cine max (L.) Merrill]. Ann. of Bio. 2015; 31(2):190-194.

(5.) Jha, B. K., Chandra, R. and Singh, R., Influence of post emergence herbicides on weeds, nodulation and yield of soybean and soil properties. Leg. Res. 2014; 37:45-54.

(6.) Kandaki,, M. S., Potdar, M. P. and Nirmalanath, J., Influence of post emergence herbicide Cycloxydim 20% EC on soil enzymatic activity, nodulation, growth and yield in soybean. Bioch. and Cell. Arch. 2015; 15(2):557-560.

(7.) Khan, M.S., Zaidi, A., Aamil, M., Influence of herbicides on chickpea--Mesorhizobium symbiosis. Agronomie 2004; 24:123-127.

(8.) Kuruchania, S.P., Rathi, G.S., Bhalla, S. and Mathew, R., Bio efficacy of post emergence herbicides for weed control in soybean. Indian J. Weed Sci. 2001; 33(1&2): 34-37.

(9.) Leopold, C.A. and Kridemann, E.P, Plant growth and development. Tata Mc-Graw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi, 1975.

(10.) Sangeetha, C., Chinnusamy, C. and Prabhakaran, N. K., Early post-emergence herbicide for weed control in soybean. Indian J. Weed Sci. 2013; 45: 142-142.

(11.) Stewart, S.D., F.R. Musser and A.L. Catchot, Soybean losses for Mussissippi and Tennessee. Midsouth. J.r., 2009; 2: 42-46.

(12.) Subba Rao, N.S., Biological nitrogen fixation. Oxfored and I.B.H. Pub. Co., New Delhi, 1988.

(13.) Venkatesha, M.M., Babalad, R.B., Patil, V.C., Patil, B.N. and Hebsur, N.S., Bio-efficacy and phytotoxicity evaluation of imazethapyr in soybean. Indian J. Weed Sci. 2008; 40: 214-216.

(14.) Watson, D.J., Physiological aspects of crop yield. Adv. in Agron. 1952; 4: 1001-1045.

(15.) www.sopa.org/REK2014.pdf. 2014. The soybean processors association of India. Indore, India.

Dujeshwer Kurrey [1], Rajendra Lakpale [1] and Rahul Singh Rajput [2]

[1] Department of Agronomy, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya., Raipur--492 012, India.

[2] Department of Plant Pathology, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya., Raipur--492 012, India.

http://dx.doi.org/10.22207/JPAM.10.4.59

(Received: 13 June 2016; accepted: 19 September 2016)

* To whom all correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: dkurrey73@gmail.com

Caption: Fig. 1. Leaf area index as affected by combined use of herbicide and insecticide

Caption: Fig. 2. Crop growth rate (g [plant.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]) of soybean as affected by combined use of herbicide and insecticide

Caption: Fig. 3. Relative growth rate (g [g.sup.-1] [plant.sup.-1] [day.sup.-1]) of soybean as affected combined use of herbicide and insecticide
Table 1. Effect of herbicide and insecticide on nodulation
and Rhizobium population in soybean

                                 Number of nodule
                                 [plant.sup.-1]

Treatments                       40 DAS   60 DAS

[T.sub.1]-Rynaxypyre              30.3     55.4
20 EC @ 100 ml/ha

[T.sub.2]-Indoxacarb 14.5         29.4     54.3
EC @ 300 ml/ha

[T.sub.3]-Quinolphos 25 EC        27.9     61.3
@ 1.5 l/ha

[T.sub.4]-Imazathapyr             35.4     69.3
10 SL @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.6]- Quizalophop ethyl      29.0     74.2
5 EC @1.5 l/ha

[T.sub.6]- Rynaxypyre 20 EC @     28.9     56.1
100 ml/ha + Imazathapyr 10
SL @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.7]- Rynaxypyre 20 EC @     40.0     71.2
100 ml/l + Quizalophop ethyl
5 EC @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.8]- Indoxacarb 14.5 EC     28.1     70.1
@ 300 ml/ha + Imazathapyr
10 SL @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.9]- Indoxacarb 14.5 EC     25.4     72.4
@ 300 ml/ha+ Quizalophop
ethyl 5 EC @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.10]- Quinolphos 25 EC      32.4     66.0
@ 1.5 l/ha + Imazathapyr
10 SL 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.11]- Quinolphos 25         30.1     65.7
EC @ 1.5 l/ha + Quizalophop
ethyl 5 EC @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.12]-Untreated check        29.0     62.1

SEm ([+ or -])                    1.4      3.5

CD (P=0.05)                       4.1      10.0

                                  Dry weight of           Rhizobium
                                 nodule population      (x [10.sup.6]
                                 (mg [plant.sup.-1])   [g.sup.-1] soil)

Treatments                        40 DAS     60 DAS         50 DAS

[T.sub.1]-Rynaxypyre               150        520            43.9
20 EC @ 100 ml/ha

[T.sub.2]- Indoxacarb 14.5         190        510            45.4
EC @ 300 ml/ha

[T.sub.3]- Quinolphos 25 EC        180        510            51.1
@ 1.5 l/ha

[T.sub.4]- Imazathapyr             160        640            52.8
10 SL @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.6]- Quizalophop ethyl       160        560            33.5
5 EC @1.5 l/ha

[T.sub.6]- Rynaxypyre 20 EC @      150        480            39.3
100 ml/ha + Imazathapyr 10
SL @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.7]- Rynaxypyre 20 EC @      200        560            45.8
100 ml/l + Quizalophop ethyl
5 EC @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.8]- Indoxacarb 14.5 EC      140        580            50.9
@ 300 ml/ha + Imazathapyr
10 SL @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.9]- Indoxacarb 14.5 EC      160        560            58.2
@ 300 ml/ha+ Quizalophop
ethyl 5 EC @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.10]- Quinolphos 25 EC       160        570            50.8
@ 1.5 l/ha + Imazathapyr
10 SL 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.11]- Quinolphos 25          170        760            48.1
EC @ 1.5 l/ha + Quizalophop
ethyl 5 EC @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.12]-Untreated check         170        580            62.1

SEm ([+ or -])                     10.0       50.0           2.1

CD (P=0.05)                         NS       140.0           6.1

Table 2. Effect of herbicide and insecticide on yield
and economics in soybean

                                  Seed yield    Stover    Harvest
                                   (kg/ha)      yield      index
Treatment                                      (kg [ha.     (%)
                                               sup.-1])

[T.sub.1]- Rynaxypyre 20 EC          1550        2171      41.67
@ 100 ml/ha

[T.sub.2]- Indoxacarb 14.5 EC        1513        2031      42.70
@ 300 ml/ha

[T.sub.3]- Quinolphos 25 EC          1548        2213      41.20
@ 1.5 l/ha

[T.sub.4]- Imazathapyr 10 SL         2323        2943      43.84
@ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.6]- Quizalophop ethyl         2201        2684      45.09
5 EC @1.5 l/ha

[T.sub.6]- Rynaxypyre 20 EC          2205        2756      44.28
@ 100 ml/ha + Imazathapyr
10 SL @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.7]- Rynaxypyre 20 EC @        2247        2835      44.24
100 ml/l + Quizalophop ethyl
5 EC @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.8]- Indoxacarb 14.5 EC        2049        2612      43.77
@ 300 ml/ha + Imazathapyr
10 SL @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.9]- Indoxacarb 14.5 EC        2030        2484      47.11
@ 300 ml/ha+ Quizalophop ethyl
5 EC @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.10]- Quinolphos 25 EC         2254        2887      43.94
@ 1.5 l/ha + Imazathapyr 10
SL 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.11]- Quinolphos 25 EC @       2255        2845      44.29
1.5 l/ha + Quizalophop ethyl
5 EC @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.12]- Untreated check          1521        1978      43.50

SEm ([+ or -])                       138         145       1.39

CD (P=0.05)                          381         416        NS

                                  Net income    B:C
                                  ((1) /ha)    ratio
Treatment

[T.sub.1]- Rynaxypyre 20 EC         36828      1.88
@ 100 ml/ha

[T.sub.2]- Indoxacarb 14.5 EC       35785      1.86
@ 300 ml/ha

[T.sub.3]- Quinolphos 25 EC         37540      1.99
@ 1.5 l/ha

[T.sub.4]- Imazathapyr 10 SL        63655      3.09
@ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.5]- Quizalophop ethyl        60026      3.05
5 EC @1.5 l/ha

[T.sub.6]- Rynaxypyre 20 EC         57938      2.63
@ 100 ml/ha + Imazathapyr
10 SL @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.7]- Rynaxypyre 20 EC @       60387      2.86
100 ml/l + Quizalophop ethyl
5 EC @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.8]- Indoxacarb 14.5 EC       52726      2.44
@ 300 ml/ha + Imazathapyr
10 SL @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.9]- Indoxacarb 14.5 EC       52833      2.55
@ 300 ml/ha+ Quizalophop ethyl
5 EC @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.10]- Quinolphos 25 EC        60524      2.85
@ 1.5 l/ha + Imazathapyr 10
SL 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.11]- Quinolphos 25 EC @      61417      3.02
1.5 l/ha + Quizalophop ethyl
5 EC @ 1.0 l/ha

[T.sub.12]- Untreated check         37270      2.08

SEm ([+ or -])                        --        --

CD (P=0.05)                           --        --
COPYRIGHT 2016 Oriental Scientific Publishing Company
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Kurrey, Dujeshwer; Lakpale, Rajendra; Rajput, Rahul Singh
Publication:Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology
Article Type:Report
Date:Dec 1, 2016
Words:3296
Previous Article:Effect of mulch and irrigation levels on yield and quality of barley (Hardeum vulgare L.).
Next Article:Selection indices for yield components in mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek) during summer season.
Topics:

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