Effect of sowing methods and weed management practices on wheat

1

2

A Seminar On

EFFECT OF SOWING METHODS AND WEED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON WHEAT CROP

Presented by:Rajesh Kumar

Id. No.- 2129Ph.D.(Agronomy)

Department of AgronomySardar Vallabhbhai Patel Uni. of Ag. & Tech.

Meerut-250110

3

Introduction Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is the second most important cereal crop of India

next to rice and accounts for 31.5% of the total food grain basket of the country. It covers an area of 29.64 m ha with total production of 92.46 mt and average

productivity of 31.20q/ha. The total area of wheat in the world is around 221.12 m ha with production of

697.8 mt. The normal world productivity is 31.55q ha-1. Wheat crop contributes substantially to the national food security by providing

more than 50 % of the calories to the people who mainly depend on it. In India, U.P having first rank in production(30.29,m.t) and area(9.73,m.ha) while

in productivity Haryana having first rank with 50.30q/ha and UP forth rank with 31.13 q/ha yield.

Sowing methods play an important role for getting higher yield. Weeds compete with wheat crop and reduce the yield ranging from 15-50%,

depending upon the density and type of weed flora.

Country wise area of wheat in the world (mha)

India

ChinaRussi

a

United Stat

es

Australi

a

Kazak

hstan

Canad

a

Pakist

an

Turkey

Iran

Ukraine

France

Argen

tina

Mor

occo

Others0

10

20

30

40

50

60

29.64

24.25 24

18.51

13.7 12.510.3

8.67 7.7 7 6.5 5.4 4.2 3.28

48.47

Are

a(m

ha)

Source: USDA 2013

Uttar Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh

Punjab Rajasthan Haryana Bihar Gujarat Others0

2

4

6

8

10

12

9.73

4.89

3.512.94

2.522.17

1.35

2.8

State wise area of wheat in India (mha)

Source: Directorate of Economics & Statistics 2012

Are

a (m

ha)

ChinaIn

dia

United st

ates

Russia

France

Canad

a

Australi

a

Pakist

an

German

y

Others0

50

100

150

200

250

121

92.46

57.52 5437.9

29 25.5 24 23.7

232.72

Prod

uctio

n(m

t)Country wise production of wheat in the world (mt)

Uttar Pradesh

Punjab

Haryana

Madhya Pradesh

Rajasthan

Bihar

Gujarat

Maharash

tra

Others0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

30.29

17.21

12.6810.58

9.32

4.79 4.1

1.313.62

State wise production of wheat in India (mt)


Prod

uctio

n (m

t)

German

y

United K

ingdom

Denmar

k

France

Egypt

China

Uzbek

istan

Hungary

India0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8075.2 73.4 72.9

70.2

62.9

49.947.9

42.1

31.2

Country wise productivity of wheat in the world(q/ha)

Source: USDA 2013

Prod

uctiv

ity(q

/ha)

Haryana

Punjab

Rajasthan

Uttar P

radesh

Gujarat

West

bengal

Uttara

khandBihar

Madhaya Pra

desh

Jharkhand

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

50.3 48.98

31.75 31.13 30.3528

23.69 22.06 21.6418.76

Top 10 State productivity of wheat in India (q/ha)


Prod

uctiv

ity(q

/ha)

10

BIHAR5% G.J

4%HARYANA

14%

M.P11%

M.H1%

PUNJAB18%

RA-JASTH

AN10%

U.P32%

U.K1%

W.B1%

OTHERS2%

% Share in production

State wise contribution to wheat area and production

BIHAR; 7.79G.J; 1.84

HARYANA; 8.56

M.P; 14.77

M.H; 3.52

PUNJAB; 12.66RA-JASTHAN

; 9.65

U.P; 33.8

U.K; 1.5 W.B; 1.45

Chart Title

% Share in Area

Source- FAO STAT2012

11Ministry of Agriculture, GOI; and FAS/New Delhi estimates for MY 2012/13

12

Factors responsible for yield losses in crops

Disease20%

Insects25%Weeds

35%

Other20%

Losses (%)

Methods of Weed Control/Management

Preventive: (use pure & clean seed, clean farm machinery, well decomposed FYM etc.) Mechanical and Manual: (hand hoeing, hand pulling, tillage, digging, sickleing and mulching etc.) Cultural/Ecological:(summer ploughing, time, method,

spacing of sowing and residues incorporation and crop rotation etc.) Biological: (parasites, predators like insect, mites and pathogens, biological agents etc.) Chemical: (use different type of chemicals) Biochemical: (allelopathy) Integrated Weed Management: (use two or more practices)

Source: T K Das, Weed Science 2008

Sowing Methods Sowing is the placing of a specific quantity of seeds in the soil

for germination and growth.

Methods are: Broadcasting Dibbling Drilling Sowing behind the country plough Zero-tillage FIRBS

Source: Dr. Rajendra Prasad ,Field Crops Production14

Effect of sowing method on weed, yield attribute and yield of wheat

Sowing method Weed dry matter at harvest (kg/ha)

Effective tillers/m2

Grain / ear

Test weight

(g)

Grain yield

(q/ha)

Straw yield

(g/ha)

Net returns (Rs/ha)

Normal line sowing

291.50 355.04 33.58 41.26 41.70 59.70 25765

Cross sowing 250.66 379.55 36.35 42.42 47.78 64.62 30289

Close sowing 264.42 374.99 35.18 41.91 44.54 61.85 27967

CD (P=0.05) 9.82 8.28 0.80 0.76 1.35 2.12 1101

Jat et al,2008

Effect of weed management practices on weed density, dry matter and WCE in wheat

Treatments PNW PBW DNW DBW WCE%

Weed control

Sulfosulfuron 1.0 ( 0.0) 3.6 ( 15.4) 0 274.1 76.4

Clodinafop 1.4 ( 2.5) 4.3 ( 24.3) 49.2 389.2 58.2

Sulfosulfuron +metsulfuron 1.0 ( 0.0) 1.0 ( 0.0) 0 0 100.0

Metsulfuron +iodosulfuron 1.9 ( 4.9) 2.6 ( 14.6) 99.5 234.1 68.2

Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl +metribuzin 1.0 ( 0.0) 1.0 ( 0.0) 0 0 100.0

Carfentrazone +sulfosulfuron 1.0 ( 0.0) 1.8 ( 7.3) 0 117.3 88.8

Unsprayed control 4.4 ( 18.8) 6.4 ( 42.0) 376.6 672.3 -

LSD (P=0.05) 0.9 2.1 132.0 273.0 -

Bhullar et al., 2012

Effect of weed management practices on weed density, dry matter and WCE

Treatments PNW PBW DNW DBW WCE%

Weed control

Pinoxaden 50 g/ha 1.26 (0.61 ) 1.23 ( 0.50) 201.6 169.6 51.0

Sulfosulfuron +metsulfuron 30 g/ha 1.00 (0.00 ) 1.00 ( 0.00) 0 0 100.0

Mesosulfuron +iodosulfuron 12 g/ha 1.09 (0.21 ) 1.00 ( 0.00) 127.6 0 89.2

Sulfosulfuron 1.06 (0.15 ) 1.00 ( 0.00) 117.8 0 93.9

Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl +metribuzin 275 g 1.05 (0.13 ) 1.00 ( 0.00) 116.6 0 94.7

Carfentrazone +sulfosulfuron 45 g/ha 1.02 (0.05) 1.00 ( 0.00) 108.1 0 97.5

Unsprayed control 1.40 (0.96 ) 1.33 ( 0.77) 334.9 219.0 -

LSD ( P=0.05) 0.08 0.03 23.4 25.0 -

Bhullar et al.,2012

Effect of herbicides on test weight ,grain yield and net returns of wheat

Treatments 1000-grain weight (g) Grain yield (t/ha) Net returns (x1000/ha)

Pendimethalin 750 g/ha 39.0 2.93 26.91

Carfentrazone 25 g/ha 37.5 2.67 24.24

Fenoxaprop 120 g/ha 37.1 2.60 23.34

2,4-D 750 g/ha 37.9 2.69 24.75

Metsulfuron-methyl 4 g/ha 40.0 3.16 31.35

Metribuzin 300 g/ha 39.4 3.15 30.90

Fenoxaprop +metribuzin 90+140g/ha 38.4 2.81 26.23

Weed free 41.2 3.36 30.84

2 HWs 39.1 3.01 29.13

Weedy check 36.6 2.54 22.78

LSD (P=0.05) 1.78 0.505 0.52

Paighan et al.,2013

Effect 0f seeding method and weed management on yield attributes of wheatTreatment Effective

tillers/m2Leaf-area index (60DAS)

Length of ear(cm)

Grains/ear

Seeding methodBroadcasting 321.33 3.06 8.54 34.46Unidirectional sowing 339.40 3.27 8.70 39.06Criss-cross sowing 351.93 3.50 8.80 41.46CD (P=0.05) 9.22 0.06 0.18 0.83Weed control methodWeedy check 310.44 3.12 7.30 29.22Hand-weeding (30 DAS) 356.44 3.41 9.21 42.28Isoproturon 750 g/ha 338.00 3.27 8.96 40.11Sulfosulfuron 33.3 g/ha 349.77 3.37 9.10 41.652,4-D 800 g/ha 332.78 3.22 8.83 37.98CD (P=0.05) 7.80 0.04 0.14 0.79 Pandey and kumar,2005

Effect of seeding method and weed management on weed dynamics of weed

Treatment Weeds/m2

(90 DAS)Weed dry weight (g/m2) 90 DAS

Seeding method Broadcasting 14.25 (220.49) 8.34 (74.10)Unidirectional sowing 13.60 (198.26) 7.82 (66.06)Criss-cross sowing 13.25 (186.21) 7.49 (61.25)CD (P=0.05) 0.94 0.82 Weed control methodWeedy check 20.74 (431.97) 12.28 (150.50)Hand-weeding (30 DAS) 13.32 (177.61) 6.23 (38.67)Isoproturon 750 g/ha 11.94 (142.72) 7.11 (50.39)Sulfosulfuron 33.3 g/ha 10.27 (105.70) 6.07 (36.62)2,4-D 800 g/ha 12.25 (150.09) 7.73 (59.50)CD (P=0.05) 1.12 0.51 Pandey and kumar,2005

Effect of seeding methods and weed management on grain and straw yields, harvest index and net returns in wheat

Treatment Grain yield (q/ha)

Straw yield (q/ha)

Harvest index (%)

Net return (Rs/ha)

Seeding method

Broadcasting 29.62 44.19 40.13 12594

Unidirectional sowing 33.19 48.26 40.74 15288

Criss-cross sowing 35.54 51.04 41.04 16915

CD (P=0.05) 2.38 4.25 0.61 1455

Weed-control method

Weedy check 26.90 41.44 39.36 11521

Hand-weeding (30 DAS) 36.11 51.65 41.15 16094

Isoproturon 750 g/ha 33.35 48.07 40.96 15926

Sulfosulfuron 33.3 g/ha 35.26 50.78 40.98 15872

2,4-D 800 g/ha 32.31 47.0 40.64 15248

CD (P=0.05) 2.02 2.51 0.38 1319

Pandey and Kumar,2005

Effect of sowing methods and weed management practices on growth of wheat

Treatment Plant height (cm)

No of shoots/m2 Dry matter accumulation

Sowing methodsLine sowing 74.3 372 877.7Cross sowing 77.5 376 882.5Broadcasting 65.9 343 818.8CD (P=0.05) 3.2 16.1 36.3Weed managementIsoproturon 1.0 kg/ha +2,4-D @ 500 g/ha 79.2 382 903.9Clodinafop 60 g/ha 64.3 360 822.6Metribuzin 200 g/ha 73.4 366 878.3Sulfosulfuron 25 g/ha 68.3 363 841.4Weedy check 61.7 327 806.3Weed free 85.9 401 905.3CD(P=0.05) 5.0 25.1 59.1 Chaudhary et al.,2013

Effect of sowing methods and weed management practices on yield attributes of wheat

Treatment No. of spike/m2 Spike length (cm)

No. of grains /spike

Sowing methods

Line sowing 312 9.1 37.2

Cross sowing 317 9.3 37.8

Broadcasting 294 8.7 34.9

CD (P=0.05) 11.4 0.4 1.64

Weed management

Isoproturon 1 kg/ha+2,4-D@500g/ha 332 9.4 39.8

Clodinafop 60 g/ha 292 8.7 32.3

Metribuzin 200 g/ha 312 9.1 38.0

Sulfosulfuron 25 g/ha 301 8.7 35.6

Weedy check 247 8.4 30.9

Weed free 364 9.6 40.3

CD (P=0.05) 21 0.6 2.4

Chaudhary et al.,2013

Effect of sowing methods and weed management practices on test weight and yield of wheat

Treatment Test weight (g)

Grain yield (t/ha)

Straw yield (t/ha)

Sowing methods

Line sowing 40.8 3.5 5.0

Cross sowing 41.0 3.8 5.5

Broadcasting 40.6 3.3 4.5

CD (P=0.05) NS 0.17 0.23

Weed management

Isoproturon 1 kg/ha+2,4-D 500 g/ha 41.2 3.9 5.6

Clodinafop 60 g/ha 40.6 3.6 4.5

Metribuzin 200 g/ha 41.0 3.8 5.3

Sulfosulfuron 25 g/ha 40.6 3.7 5.0

Weedy check 40.3 2.5 3.9

Weed-free 41.3 4.1 6.1

CD (P=0.05) NS 0.24 0.35

Chaudhary et al.,2013

Effect of sowing methods and weed management practices on economics of wheat

Treatment Cost of cultivation (x 1000/ha)

Net returns (1000/ha)

B:C ratio

Sowing methodsLine sowing 19.82 24.98 1.25Cross sowing 20.14 28.09 1.39Broadcasting 19.49 22.71 1.18CD (P=0.05) - - -Weed managementIsoproturon 1 kg+2,4-D 500 g/ha 19.91 29.15 1.47Clodinafop 60 g/ha 19.92 24.35 1.22Metribuzin 200 g/ha 19.54 27.78 1.42Sulfosulfuron 25 g/ha 19.84 25.13 1.27Weedy check 19.05 13.35 0.69Weed-free 20.64 31.80 1.58CD (P=0.05) - - - Chaudhary et al.,2013

Effect of sowing methods and weed management on weed dry weight, crop dry matter and weed crop competition index

Treatments Total weed dry weight (g/m2) at

60 DAS

Crop dry matter (g/m2)

at 120 DAS

Weed crop competition index (WI)

Wheat sowing methods

Zero tillage 2.3 (20.8) 371.1 12.5

Reduced tillage 2.6 (26.7) 363.8 16.8

Conventional tillage 3.0 (38.3) 342.1 21.2

LSD (P=0.05) 0.2 NS 1.2

Weed management practices

HW 35 and 55 DAS 0.1 (2.2) 402.4 0.0

Isoproturon 1.0 kg/ha 2.7 (15.8) 350.5 8.5

Clodinafop 60 g/ha fb MSM 4 g/ha 2.4 (10.6) 389.0 3.6

Weedy 4.4 (85.7) 293.9 55.1

LSD (0.05) 0.2 43.7 1.8

Shyam et al.,2009

Effect of sowing methods and weed management practices on yield contributing characters and yield of wheat

Treatments et Spikes (no./m2)

Spike length (cm)

Grains /spike

1000-grain weight (g)

Grain yield (kg/ha)

Wheat establishment methods

Zero tillage 154.6 8.5 39.2 41.0 4232

Reduced tillage 152.1 8.3 42.6 37.2 4100

Conventional tillage 141.3 7.7 47.0 34.3 3887

LSD (P=0.05) NS NS 2.5 4.1 258

Weed management practices

HW 35and 55 DAS 171.1 8.4 46.3 40.2 4900

Isoproturon 1.0 kg/ha 154.5 8.3 42.2 37.5 4482

Clodinafop 60 g/ha fb MSM 4g/ha 157.2 8.4 45.0 38.7 4721

Weedy 114.4 7.6 38.3 33.7 2189

LSD(P=0.05) 31.1 NS 3.7 3.13 255

Shyam et al.,2009

Effect of sowing methods and weed control on growth and grain yieldTreatments Plant height Effective tiller Panicle length Grain yieldSowing methodsStubbled 55.2 37.5 9.1 3.23Zero tillage 56.2 46.3 9.3 3.78

Bed planting 58.8 56.3 9.5 4.05Conventional tillage 54.6 48.5 9.4 3.47

LSD (P=0.05) NS NS 0.3 0.59Weed controlPinoxaden 50 g/ha 56.3 44.2 8.7 3.55

Sulfosulfuron +metsulfuron 30g/ha 57.3 48.8 9.8 3.94

Metsulfuron + iodosulfuron 12 g/ha 57.4 51.6 9.2 3.71

Sulfosulfuron 25 g/ha 58.1 48.0 9.8 3.86

Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl+metribuzin275 54.8 47.7 9.7 3.68Carfentrazone + sulfosulfuron 45g/ha 57.5 50.5 9.8 4.09

Unsprayed control 51.9 35.5 7.8 2.46

LSD (P0.05) 2.9 6.0 0.4 0.44

Bhullar et al.,2012

Effect of sowing methods and weed control on yield attributes, yield and weed control efficiency

Treatments No. of effective tillers/m2

Straw yield (kg/ha)

Grain yield (kg/ha)

WCE(%)

Sowing methods

FIRBS two rows /bed 320.1 6613 4257 66.3

FIRBS three rows/bed 377.8 7114 4564 68.0

Flat bed 312.4 6697 4271 65.0

CD at 5% 36.1 367 246

Weed control treatment

Weedy check 296.7 6143 3947 0

Weed- free 368.4 7363 4687 100

Metsulfuron 348.7 6976 4522 80.6

2,4-D 333.3 6768 4312 74.3

Triasulfuron 338.6 6860 4400 76.0

CD at 5% 26.7 379 255

Kumar et al.,2005

Effect of sowing methods and weed control on growth and grain yield of wheat

Treatments Plant height Effective tiller Panicle length Grain yieldSowing methodsConventional tillage 65.9 55.8 10.0 3.45Zero tillage 65.9 58.2 10.2 3.55Stubbled 59.4 44.4 9.8 2.43LSD (P=0.05) 3.1 4.0 0.3 0.37Weed controlSulfosulfuron 65.7 56.4 10.2 3.50Clodinafop 65.9 49.1 10.1 3.38Sulfosulfuron +metsulfuron 66.7 60.7 10.3 3.63Metsulfuron +iodosulfuron 63.2 59.4 9.8 3.41Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl +metribuzin 52.3 36.9 9.4 2.19Carfentrazone +sulfosulfuron 68.9 62.7 10.4 3.72Unsprayed control 63.3 44.3 9.9 2.17LSD (P=0.05) 4.7 5.1 0.5 0.54 Bhullar et al., 2012

Effect of different crop establishment methods and weed control practices on yield attribute and yield of wheat

Treatments Effective tiller Grains /ear Test weight(g) Grain yield(q/hCrop establishment methodsConventional tillage 278 42.4 42.1 40.6Zero-tillage 290 42.5 42.2 42.6Bed planting 295 43.1 42.5 42.9LSD(P=0.05) 12.6 NS NS 2.00Weed control

Clodinafop 60 g/ha 269.9 43.2 42.4 43.6Clodinafop 50 g/ha+0.3% S 289.8 42.9 42.3 42.8Clodinafop 60 g/ha +0.3% S 300.3 43.7 42.9 44.3Fenoxaprop 120 g/ha 288.9 42.7 42.2 42.6Fenoxaprop 100 g/ha +0.05% S 282.6 42.5 42.0 41.4Fenoxaprop 120 g/ha +0.05%S 294.0 43.0 42.5 43.3Weedy check 214.3 39.1 40.3 29.8Weed free 309.0 44.2 43.5 45.3LSD (P=0.05) 26.34 3.4 1.68 4.30 Kakkar et al.,2005

32

Weed control practices drastically reduce the density and dry weight of weed.

Two hand weeding was found better than herbicidal application.Criss-cross sowing with the application of Isoproturon 1.0 kg/ha

+2,4-D 500 g/ha. found best for weed control and grain yield.FIRB System three rows per bed found better for weed control

efficiency and grain yield. Low volume new ready-mix formulation, Carfentrazone

+Sulfosulfuron 45 g/ha., Metsulfuron + Sulfosulfuron 30 g/ha. found better for weed control and higher grain yield but Fenoxaprop-p-ethyl 275 g/ha. was better for weed control, while phytotoxic to wheat plant resulting reduction in grain yield.

CONCLUSION